Lords Chamber
Friday 13th June 2025
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 22 hours, 7 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:06
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading Reading of Reading of Statutory Reading of Statutory Instruments
**** Possible New Speaker ****
(Amendment) Bill the. I beg to move this bill be now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move this bill be now read a third time. Clerk the question is this building read a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
question is this building read a third time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. I beg to move this bill do not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
pass. The question is this bill do now
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading Reading of Reading of Statutory Reading of Statutory Instruments
**** Possible New Speaker ****
(Amendment) Bill the. I beg to move this bill be now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move this bill be now read a third time. Clerk the question is this building read a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
question is this building read a third time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. I beg to move this bill do not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
pass. The question is this bill do now
10:07
Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Finn (Conservative)
pass.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it is a pleasure to read to Lord Thomas's Bill, third read to Lord Thomas's Bill, third reading, were not going to the reading, were not going to the concerns of this bill, we made clear at committee stage, but how would Cindy like to say we do have issues about the way this bill seeks to about the way this bill seeks to grant different power to the House of Lords which arguably greater than the powers afforded to the elected house, but having put those concerns on the record, we did not seek to amend the bill at report stage and amend the bill at report stage and do not seek to delay the progress of the noble Lord's bill but we cannot support it.
I would like to close by thanking the noble Baroness, the minister, for her work on this bill and to thank especially, the noble and to thank especially, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas for his engagement with me throughout the passage of the bill where he graciously took the bill where he graciously took time to discuss the details before committee stage. committee stage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it is a pleasure to read to Lord Thomas's Bill, third read to Lord Thomas's Bill, third reading, were not going to the reading, were not going to the concerns of this bill, we made clear at committee stage, but how would Cindy like to say we do have issues about the way this bill seeks to about the way this bill seeks to grant different power to the House of Lords which arguably greater than the powers afforded to the elected house, but having put those concerns on the record, we did not seek to amend the bill at report stage and amend the bill at report stage and do not seek to delay the progress of the noble Lord's bill but we cannot support it.
I would like to close by thanking the noble Baroness, the minister, for her work on this bill and to thank especially, the noble and to thank especially, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas for his engagement with me throughout the passage of the bill where he graciously took the bill where he graciously took time to discuss the details before committee stage. committee stage.
10:08
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
My Lords, I wish to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for bringing forward this bill, it has been an excellent opportunity to highlight the importance of second reading obligation, this government places great importance on Parliament having the information it needs to scrutinise. In the introduction of the delegated, to enhanced training offer for civil servants at all levels, the government is taking steps to demonstrate how seriously it takes secondary legislation. I would also like to thank the clerks and advisers of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, as well as the second legislation scrutiny committee, for their diligent work in scrutinising the secondary legislation and that this government raised before Parliament.
I would also like to remind the House, my husband is a member of the JCSI. My Lords, I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the National archives, which is a valuable resource for all members of your Lordships house as well as the general public. And for their work in administering the correction slip process which this bill would see placed on the statutory footing. The government, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, disagrees this is necessary service for the correction of substantial errors.
The government remains of the view that there has always been a need to strike the balance between providing the government with the flexibility it needs to deliver for the country, whilst ensuring the information it provides is clear and explained why legislation is necessary.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to the noble Lady. Would you take this opportunity to reassert the principal that reassert the principal that secondary legislation should never seek to move away from the intention
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of primary legislation? The noble Lord makes an excellent point, and as the Attorney-General point, and as the Attorney-General has made clear in several speeches, that's absolutely the intention and objective of this government's objective of this government's legislative program. I do not wish to repeat the reasons why the to repeat the reasons why the government cannot support the bill, the government will continue our efforts to improve secondary efforts to improve secondary legislation laid before Parliament, including documents that accompany them, but we do not agree that further legislation is the way.
I am further legislation is the way. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in all stages of this participated in all stages of this private members bill, and for the opportunity to deliver the importance of secondary legislation. As ever, your Lordships house's ability to scrutinise is second to none.
I would also like to remind the House, my husband is a member of the JCSI. My Lords, I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the National archives, which is a valuable resource for all members of your Lordships house as well as the general public. And for their work in administering the correction slip process which this bill would see placed on the statutory footing. The government, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, disagrees this is necessary service for the correction of substantial errors.
The government remains of the view that there has always been a need to strike the balance between providing the government with the flexibility it needs to deliver for the country, whilst ensuring the information it provides is clear and explained why legislation is necessary.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to the noble Lady. Would you take this opportunity to reassert the principal that reassert the principal that secondary legislation should never seek to move away from the intention
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of primary legislation? The noble Lord makes an excellent point, and as the Attorney-General point, and as the Attorney-General has made clear in several speeches, that's absolutely the intention and objective of this government's objective of this government's legislative program. I do not wish to repeat the reasons why the to repeat the reasons why the government cannot support the bill, the government will continue our efforts to improve secondary efforts to improve secondary legislation laid before Parliament, including documents that accompany them, but we do not agree that further legislation is the way.
I am further legislation is the way. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in all stages of this participated in all stages of this private members bill, and for the opportunity to deliver the importance of secondary legislation. As ever, your Lordships house's ability to scrutinise is second to none.
10:10
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)
I am most grateful to the Minister and those who have spoken. And the kind words that have been
**** Possible New Speaker ****
said. I beg to move. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The content have it. My Lords, we now come to a motion for debate, Communications and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
said. I beg to move. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The content have it. My Lords, we now come to a motion for debate, Communications and
10:10
10:10
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
My Lords, this is the Communications and Digital Committee's final report from my time as a Chair. So, not only do I thank the committee staff and my fellow committee members for all their work and contributions to this inquiry, I extend my sincere thanks to all colleagues, for whom I have worked over the last three years, for everything they have done, so that collectively we have been able to produce some high quality work that has had impact. Likewise, I'm hugely grateful to the witnesses, who appeared before us and submitted written evidence to all our inquiries, and this is particularly relevant to this report, on scaling AI and creative tech.
Because we drew so much on the work we do in proceeding inquiries, especially those on large language models, the creative industries, and digital creative industries, and digital market. Now, our debate today comes at the end of London Tech Week, where so many of the UK's fantastic tech founders have spoken or been in attendance. We have so much tech and entrepreneurial talents to celebrate in this country, and from the off, I want to really emphasise how proud I am of the innovators and risktakers who set up on their own, to establish a business and go on to thrive and achieve great success, even if they have had to experience more than one failure along the way.
Because if there is one message that landed powerfully with me during this inquiry, it's that we do not say or do enough as political leaders to celebrate and support our risktakers and wealth generators. They do not just generate wealth for themselves, they help our economy grow, create jobs, provide products and services that are valued by consumers, and other businesses alike. Now, I cannot speak for Oxford bionics, who was just this week acquired by US rival, and I do offer my sincere congratulations of the founders for their success and all they have achieved, but I am genuinely sorry by their loss to the UK as a British business, even if under new ownership, they continue to operate here.
Because, as I should come on to explain, what we have seen this week is another example of a worrying trend. Our report describes the UK as an incubated economy. A great place to begin, but other countries too often are who gets the cash in. If we are serious about growth and retaining our position as a global leader in the tech sector, the situation has got to change. Our inquiry on scaling up looked at the causes of this problem, and what steps the government must take to support innovative technology companies to grow into thriving British businesses.
Thriving British businesses who want to stay here in the UK. We focus on AI and creative tech, because these are two areas in which the UK has strong foundations and significant potential. Many of our findings apply to innovative tech scale ups more broadly. My Lords, this failure to scale is not a static problem, it's a dynamic and damaging cycle. When our most promising firms exit early or scale overseas, we do not just lose their immediate economic value, we also hamper the formation of the kind of ecosystem that drives sustainable innovation.
In the United States, successful founders reinvest their capital and experience into the next generation of start-ups. This creates a powerful flywheel of talent, mentorship, and capital. In the UK, existing gaps in funding, expertise and confidence will only expertise and confidence will only widen if we do not retain our champion entrepreneurial talent. This is playing out already forced London, I am sad to report, is no longer Europe's leading technology hubs, according to the latest eco- tech index.
In a survey, it was found 43% were actively considering leaving Britain. We are also struggling to hold onto the few British tech companies that have scales domestically this week's unicorn isn't the only one galloping overseas. Alpha wave, Wise, and Deliveroo have relocated to the US this year. Unless we act decisively, we will continue to and wrote what is needed for global competitiveness. And as much as the noble Baroness, the Minister, will not welcome my danger, the day one writes and measures in the employment rights bill will only deter further UK tech firms from scaling and staying here.
My Lords, we receive the government's response to our report in April, while it was supportive of our findings, it was thin, pointing to a series of policy announcements due in the spring. My Lords, it's now summer. And while the government has shed light on some issues through its announcements this week, we are still in the dark and several others. Let me address each of these in turn, and I do have several questions for the Minister. I'm going to start with funding.
The UK's lack of scalable capital is the most important barrier that needs to be tackled. The Council for Science and Technology has highlighted improvements in early-stage investments, like seed funding, and started investment, but they have stressed that UK companies have been A task. The default a to billion- dollar Between the UK and silicon valley of funding rounds. A lack of domestic institutional investment is part of the problem. Just 10% of Britain's venture capital comes from pension funds.
In the US, it is more than 70%. And Canadian pension funds invest 15 times what UK pension funds invest in private and VC. The government acknowledged this funding gap for scallops and 22 pension gap for scallops and 22 pension reform such as the new mansion house accord. That is welcome in principle, however the pushback from pension-fund against a mandatory invest in assets suggests they may not be a bullet. Personally, I'm very nervous about mandating but I also know we cannot afford to wait years for pension reforms to trickle through.
We must actively crowding capital now. Can I ask the Minister when will the government initiatives result in tangible improvements and capital access for our most innovative firms and how is the government make sure that voluntary commitments translate into real action from institutional investors. The committee heard another source of confusion for businesses looking to scale is the plethora of disconnected programs and government grants that are available. This has arisen over many years, it is not a new problem. It's one I've described in the past as a kind of bowl of spaghetti drowned in alphabet soup.
In our report, we recommended the government evaluate the impact and join out of initiatives administered by UKRI and the dish businessman in particular. I was therefore pleased to hear the new chair of innovate UK acknowledge that the current system is a hindrance rather than an enabler and I welcome his ambition to bring greater focus to the agency because it is really needed. I was relieved to discover since our report that the British Business Bank had retired its various sub racks, a step in the right direction towards simplifying the schemes that were previously offered.
The Chancellor 's decision this week to increase the BBB's financing capacity does make the need for a clear strategy and a more coherent offer full-scale ups even more important. Can the Minister provide an update on UKRI's review of its portfolio of funding and support to SMEs which was due this spring? And can she offer examples of how the Memorandum of Understanding between UKRI and the BBB is creating a clear pathway of support for scallops. The government, staffs that its new business growth service will ensure a joined up coherent approach to the government 's suite of business support programmes which would be welcome.
But I have concerns that this will instead become yet another thread in an already tangled web that is before we take into the account the new sovereign AI unit announced this week. Can the Minister clarify how the business growth service will streamline the journey and can she reassure me that the partnership between the BBB and the sovereign AI unit will truly put posters on our emerging AI champions? Our evidence was clear about this strategic importance of AI in driving innovation and growth across multiple sectors.
The AI opportunities Action Plan which the government published in January was a good start. It set out ambitious proposals that match the scale of AI's transformative potential which have now been backed up by funding for delivery. Of course a plan is only the start, the government must be laser focused on removing obstacles to growth for home-grown AI companies. For example, access AI companies. For example, access to, -- access to compute was unable. We had the decision to counsel investment in the Edinburgh supercomputer left the entrepreneurial community deeply unimpressed.
It was therefore good to hear this week that this will now receive £750 million of government funding. The government's hokey cookie on this has been damaging and has meant we have lost valuable time. The government promised in its Action Plan to expand public compute infrastructure 20 fold by 2030 with a long-term strategy published by the spring. But that strategy has yet to materialise so could the Minister confirm whether it will be published before the summer recess? One regulation, our report also emphasised that effective and agile regulation is crucial if we are to support innovation.
However, we had widespread concern about confusion in the current regulatory landscape, particularly in relation to AI. We need proportionate oversight that gives confidence without stifling innovation or creating new barriers to entry. It is home-grown AI companies, not Big Tech incumbents, that will drive the innovation needed to realise that UK's AI potential. Open markets and open competition are essential to ensure they have a fighting chance which is why successful implementation of the digital markets petition and consumers act is vital.
We welcome the creation of the Regulatory Innovation Office, which has been nicknamed Rio, but we emphasise the importance of clarifying its remit and interrelationship with other related bodies. Unfortunately, these concerns have not yet been addressed. The extent of its powers over other gators remains unclear. Now, I am pleased that the government was wise enough to point when noble friend Lord Willetts, the chair of Rio, and I'm delighted that my noble friend is speaking into a's debate but nonetheless, as the person accountable for the Parliament can the Minister of I detailed how she expects Rio will drive behavioural change to boost innovation across sectors.
I will now turn to the create tech sector were two UK strengths, creativity and technology innovation, meet. Those not familiar with create tech, this is gaming but it's also things like visual effects and that sort of thing. The think tank estimates that create tech companies could generate up to £18 billion in additional gross value added over the next decade with the right support. We found that the wider issues of funding and coordination are particularly acute for create tech firms.
The creative sector has suffered from poor investor understanding and a lack of specialised investment vehicles. In addition, various schemes administered across DCMS and UKRI have paused and restarted leading to confusion. And that is not a new problem, it has been a period of time. It's worth noting that while the government touts the creative industries as one of its eight key sectors, they were not mentioned once in the Chancellor's Spending Review speech on Wednesday. Now, I might add, I would never criticise ministers promised indeed for meeting tech founders.
I think that's good. It's when ministers don't pay regard to other important sectors that troubles are called. In its response to us, the government promised that all would be revealed in and Industrial Strategy sector plan for the creative industries and told us that UKRI would develop a new to hoodie for the creative sector. So could I ask when either of these will be published. I can't not mention the issue of IIAC and copyright. And unfortunately, despite admirable efforts by many noble Lords, and I'm pleased to see Lady Kidron will be speaking shortly, progress remains elusive.
Now that Parliament has dispatched the Data (Use and Access) Bill, focused terms to the commitment to host industry roundtables, clearly this must be successful. But when they were announced, they did elicit a sense of deja vu and I do worry that the government's mishandling this, which will have made the phosphate of gauche Asians even further but harder. Our enquiry made clear as did every enquiry where the committee examined the issue of copywriting in AI world in the last three years, innovation and creativity go hand-in-hand, not Odo.
The one thing all parties can agree is that resolution of this issue is urgent. In conclusion, the government's tone on many of the issues covered in our report is encouraging but warm words do not scale companies and time is not on our side. The government consults and reorganises the global market races ahead. Other countries are acting boldly and we must do the same. We are doing a disservice to our strong start-up ecosystem and are brightest AI and greater companies if we do not support them to achieve their full potential and become world leaders on a global stage.
Michael do we have the talent. GPX, a group that brings together Brits into Lagan Valley, are calling the British talent that dominates so much of the Big Tech based over there, as power Brits. Well, we need those power Brits to want to be here in the UK. The committee's message was clear. We have many of the ingredients needed to make the UK a home full-scale success stories. What we lack is action and if we don't act soon, will be left only to dream of unicorns, nevermind bemoaned the ones at Galloway.
I look forward to ones at Galloway. I look forward to the contribution of all noble Lords in this debate, there are some industrial speakers who will follow me. I wish the main speakers -- The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
AI uses astronomical amounts of electricity and we have some of the electricity and we have some of the highest electricity prices in the developed world. Does she think that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
developed world. Does she think that Christie prices are going to inhibit the growth of IR in this country? He is right, the cost of energy
**** Possible New Speaker ****
He is right, the cost of energy in the UK is very much a deterrent to a lot of the inward investment. to a lot of the inward investment. It's not deterring them completely but I was talking to somebody only but I was talking to somebody only yesterday who was very senior figure and at Amazon and he was drawing comparisons between us and France. When I said earlier we are no longer When I said earlier we are no longer the leading, leading tech hub according to 1 of these analysts, according to 1 of these analysts, the country that is really championing at our heels is France.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question still is that this motion be agreed to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
motion be agreed to. I hope we will receive Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I hope we will receive Lord Hamilton here for the windup because there is a wicked old habit in the House of Commons of intervening very House of Commons of intervening very early in the debate on which we have not put your name, and securing not put your name, and securing Hansard but then you can be on the train home. My thanks are to train home. My thanks are to Baroness Stowell for not only her introduction today but for the chairmanship of the committee of which I have been proud to be a which I have been proud to be a member.
It is the third such report member. It is the third such report that the committee has brought about under her stewardship and it's good advice, a good example of how the Select Committee can carry out programmes of work which are of essential help in working through a piece of legislation. I'm very pleased to see Baroness Kidron in her place and I look forward to her speech. Last week, although week coming to an end, was a bit bruising.
I have never been a fan of ping-pong. I think it's not the best way of getting resolution and much better, we thought about it 20 years ago that we must not rush things in the Lords and we should adopt the idea that they have in the American Congress, where they get stuck on piece of legislation, they appoint a Joint Committee with the task to Joint Committee with the task to bring forward a solution. I also share Baroness Stowell 's good luck to Lord Evans and Lord Massey.
My only caveat is that Lord Evans uses a Yorkshire designation for its title, when he was indeed born in Lancashire. Such apostasy is not good. But I think Baroness Stowell has given us a good start by looking forward and not brooding over the past. I'm afraid I have reached the stage in my career where I do go of the past. It's about 60 years since I first came to be interviewed for a job in the Fabian Society, and I worked in and around this place ever worked in and around this place ever And what struck me preparing for And what struck me preparing for this debate as I was much inspired in my late teens, early 20s, by two speeches.
The first is John F. Kennedy, his inaugural speech, in which he announced that we shall pay any price, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to ensure the survival and success of liberty. The second was Harold Wilson on 1 October, 1963. When he called for a new Britain forged in the white heat of technology revolution. I call attention today to draw comparison between the upbeat optimism of a period when a US president had one of the best instincts of an out looking and generous spirited country.
In the 1960s, we were still living in a post-war settlement, but the very title of the report we are debating today, less talk, more action, suggests it is very far from the vision and sense of urgency in Wilson's white heat of technology speech. The whole thrust of the report and Baroness Stowell's dissection of it today is to urge the government on clear objectives and urgent decisions. The challenge and urgent decisions. The challenge is clear, the changes now brought out our as great and fundamental as that brought about by the first Industrial Revolution, 400 years
Because we drew so much on the work we do in proceeding inquiries, especially those on large language models, the creative industries, and digital creative industries, and digital market. Now, our debate today comes at the end of London Tech Week, where so many of the UK's fantastic tech founders have spoken or been in attendance. We have so much tech and entrepreneurial talents to celebrate in this country, and from the off, I want to really emphasise how proud I am of the innovators and risktakers who set up on their own, to establish a business and go on to thrive and achieve great success, even if they have had to experience more than one failure along the way.
Because if there is one message that landed powerfully with me during this inquiry, it's that we do not say or do enough as political leaders to celebrate and support our risktakers and wealth generators. They do not just generate wealth for themselves, they help our economy grow, create jobs, provide products and services that are valued by consumers, and other businesses alike. Now, I cannot speak for Oxford bionics, who was just this week acquired by US rival, and I do offer my sincere congratulations of the founders for their success and all they have achieved, but I am genuinely sorry by their loss to the UK as a British business, even if under new ownership, they continue to operate here.
Because, as I should come on to explain, what we have seen this week is another example of a worrying trend. Our report describes the UK as an incubated economy. A great place to begin, but other countries too often are who gets the cash in. If we are serious about growth and retaining our position as a global leader in the tech sector, the situation has got to change. Our inquiry on scaling up looked at the causes of this problem, and what steps the government must take to support innovative technology companies to grow into thriving British businesses.
Thriving British businesses who want to stay here in the UK. We focus on AI and creative tech, because these are two areas in which the UK has strong foundations and significant potential. Many of our findings apply to innovative tech scale ups more broadly. My Lords, this failure to scale is not a static problem, it's a dynamic and damaging cycle. When our most promising firms exit early or scale overseas, we do not just lose their immediate economic value, we also hamper the formation of the kind of ecosystem that drives sustainable innovation.
In the United States, successful founders reinvest their capital and experience into the next generation of start-ups. This creates a powerful flywheel of talent, mentorship, and capital. In the UK, existing gaps in funding, expertise and confidence will only expertise and confidence will only widen if we do not retain our champion entrepreneurial talent. This is playing out already forced London, I am sad to report, is no longer Europe's leading technology hubs, according to the latest eco- tech index.
In a survey, it was found 43% were actively considering leaving Britain. We are also struggling to hold onto the few British tech companies that have scales domestically this week's unicorn isn't the only one galloping overseas. Alpha wave, Wise, and Deliveroo have relocated to the US this year. Unless we act decisively, we will continue to and wrote what is needed for global competitiveness. And as much as the noble Baroness, the Minister, will not welcome my danger, the day one writes and measures in the employment rights bill will only deter further UK tech firms from scaling and staying here.
My Lords, we receive the government's response to our report in April, while it was supportive of our findings, it was thin, pointing to a series of policy announcements due in the spring. My Lords, it's now summer. And while the government has shed light on some issues through its announcements this week, we are still in the dark and several others. Let me address each of these in turn, and I do have several questions for the Minister. I'm going to start with funding.
The UK's lack of scalable capital is the most important barrier that needs to be tackled. The Council for Science and Technology has highlighted improvements in early-stage investments, like seed funding, and started investment, but they have stressed that UK companies have been A task. The default a to billion- dollar Between the UK and silicon valley of funding rounds. A lack of domestic institutional investment is part of the problem. Just 10% of Britain's venture capital comes from pension funds.
In the US, it is more than 70%. And Canadian pension funds invest 15 times what UK pension funds invest in private and VC. The government acknowledged this funding gap for scallops and 22 pension gap for scallops and 22 pension reform such as the new mansion house accord. That is welcome in principle, however the pushback from pension-fund against a mandatory invest in assets suggests they may not be a bullet. Personally, I'm very nervous about mandating but I also know we cannot afford to wait years for pension reforms to trickle through.
We must actively crowding capital now. Can I ask the Minister when will the government initiatives result in tangible improvements and capital access for our most innovative firms and how is the government make sure that voluntary commitments translate into real action from institutional investors. The committee heard another source of confusion for businesses looking to scale is the plethora of disconnected programs and government grants that are available. This has arisen over many years, it is not a new problem. It's one I've described in the past as a kind of bowl of spaghetti drowned in alphabet soup.
In our report, we recommended the government evaluate the impact and join out of initiatives administered by UKRI and the dish businessman in particular. I was therefore pleased to hear the new chair of innovate UK acknowledge that the current system is a hindrance rather than an enabler and I welcome his ambition to bring greater focus to the agency because it is really needed. I was relieved to discover since our report that the British Business Bank had retired its various sub racks, a step in the right direction towards simplifying the schemes that were previously offered.
The Chancellor 's decision this week to increase the BBB's financing capacity does make the need for a clear strategy and a more coherent offer full-scale ups even more important. Can the Minister provide an update on UKRI's review of its portfolio of funding and support to SMEs which was due this spring? And can she offer examples of how the Memorandum of Understanding between UKRI and the BBB is creating a clear pathway of support for scallops. The government, staffs that its new business growth service will ensure a joined up coherent approach to the government 's suite of business support programmes which would be welcome.
But I have concerns that this will instead become yet another thread in an already tangled web that is before we take into the account the new sovereign AI unit announced this week. Can the Minister clarify how the business growth service will streamline the journey and can she reassure me that the partnership between the BBB and the sovereign AI unit will truly put posters on our emerging AI champions? Our evidence was clear about this strategic importance of AI in driving innovation and growth across multiple sectors.
The AI opportunities Action Plan which the government published in January was a good start. It set out ambitious proposals that match the scale of AI's transformative potential which have now been backed up by funding for delivery. Of course a plan is only the start, the government must be laser focused on removing obstacles to growth for home-grown AI companies. For example, access AI companies. For example, access to, -- access to compute was unable. We had the decision to counsel investment in the Edinburgh supercomputer left the entrepreneurial community deeply unimpressed.
It was therefore good to hear this week that this will now receive £750 million of government funding. The government's hokey cookie on this has been damaging and has meant we have lost valuable time. The government promised in its Action Plan to expand public compute infrastructure 20 fold by 2030 with a long-term strategy published by the spring. But that strategy has yet to materialise so could the Minister confirm whether it will be published before the summer recess? One regulation, our report also emphasised that effective and agile regulation is crucial if we are to support innovation.
However, we had widespread concern about confusion in the current regulatory landscape, particularly in relation to AI. We need proportionate oversight that gives confidence without stifling innovation or creating new barriers to entry. It is home-grown AI companies, not Big Tech incumbents, that will drive the innovation needed to realise that UK's AI potential. Open markets and open competition are essential to ensure they have a fighting chance which is why successful implementation of the digital markets petition and consumers act is vital.
We welcome the creation of the Regulatory Innovation Office, which has been nicknamed Rio, but we emphasise the importance of clarifying its remit and interrelationship with other related bodies. Unfortunately, these concerns have not yet been addressed. The extent of its powers over other gators remains unclear. Now, I am pleased that the government was wise enough to point when noble friend Lord Willetts, the chair of Rio, and I'm delighted that my noble friend is speaking into a's debate but nonetheless, as the person accountable for the Parliament can the Minister of I detailed how she expects Rio will drive behavioural change to boost innovation across sectors.
I will now turn to the create tech sector were two UK strengths, creativity and technology innovation, meet. Those not familiar with create tech, this is gaming but it's also things like visual effects and that sort of thing. The think tank estimates that create tech companies could generate up to £18 billion in additional gross value added over the next decade with the right support. We found that the wider issues of funding and coordination are particularly acute for create tech firms.
The creative sector has suffered from poor investor understanding and a lack of specialised investment vehicles. In addition, various schemes administered across DCMS and UKRI have paused and restarted leading to confusion. And that is not a new problem, it has been a period of time. It's worth noting that while the government touts the creative industries as one of its eight key sectors, they were not mentioned once in the Chancellor's Spending Review speech on Wednesday. Now, I might add, I would never criticise ministers promised indeed for meeting tech founders.
I think that's good. It's when ministers don't pay regard to other important sectors that troubles are called. In its response to us, the government promised that all would be revealed in and Industrial Strategy sector plan for the creative industries and told us that UKRI would develop a new to hoodie for the creative sector. So could I ask when either of these will be published. I can't not mention the issue of IIAC and copyright. And unfortunately, despite admirable efforts by many noble Lords, and I'm pleased to see Lady Kidron will be speaking shortly, progress remains elusive.
Now that Parliament has dispatched the Data (Use and Access) Bill, focused terms to the commitment to host industry roundtables, clearly this must be successful. But when they were announced, they did elicit a sense of deja vu and I do worry that the government's mishandling this, which will have made the phosphate of gauche Asians even further but harder. Our enquiry made clear as did every enquiry where the committee examined the issue of copywriting in AI world in the last three years, innovation and creativity go hand-in-hand, not Odo.
The one thing all parties can agree is that resolution of this issue is urgent. In conclusion, the government's tone on many of the issues covered in our report is encouraging but warm words do not scale companies and time is not on our side. The government consults and reorganises the global market races ahead. Other countries are acting boldly and we must do the same. We are doing a disservice to our strong start-up ecosystem and are brightest AI and greater companies if we do not support them to achieve their full potential and become world leaders on a global stage.
Michael do we have the talent. GPX, a group that brings together Brits into Lagan Valley, are calling the British talent that dominates so much of the Big Tech based over there, as power Brits. Well, we need those power Brits to want to be here in the UK. The committee's message was clear. We have many of the ingredients needed to make the UK a home full-scale success stories. What we lack is action and if we don't act soon, will be left only to dream of unicorns, nevermind bemoaned the ones at Galloway.
I look forward to ones at Galloway. I look forward to the contribution of all noble Lords in this debate, there are some industrial speakers who will follow me. I wish the main speakers -- The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
AI uses astronomical amounts of electricity and we have some of the electricity and we have some of the highest electricity prices in the developed world. Does she think that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
developed world. Does she think that Christie prices are going to inhibit the growth of IR in this country? He is right, the cost of energy
**** Possible New Speaker ****
He is right, the cost of energy in the UK is very much a deterrent to a lot of the inward investment. to a lot of the inward investment. It's not deterring them completely but I was talking to somebody only but I was talking to somebody only yesterday who was very senior figure and at Amazon and he was drawing comparisons between us and France. When I said earlier we are no longer When I said earlier we are no longer the leading, leading tech hub according to 1 of these analysts, according to 1 of these analysts, the country that is really championing at our heels is France.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question still is that this motion be agreed to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
motion be agreed to. I hope we will receive Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I hope we will receive Lord Hamilton here for the windup because there is a wicked old habit in the House of Commons of intervening very House of Commons of intervening very early in the debate on which we have not put your name, and securing not put your name, and securing Hansard but then you can be on the train home. My thanks are to train home. My thanks are to Baroness Stowell for not only her introduction today but for the chairmanship of the committee of which I have been proud to be a which I have been proud to be a member.
It is the third such report member. It is the third such report that the committee has brought about under her stewardship and it's good advice, a good example of how the Select Committee can carry out programmes of work which are of essential help in working through a piece of legislation. I'm very pleased to see Baroness Kidron in her place and I look forward to her speech. Last week, although week coming to an end, was a bit bruising.
I have never been a fan of ping-pong. I think it's not the best way of getting resolution and much better, we thought about it 20 years ago that we must not rush things in the Lords and we should adopt the idea that they have in the American Congress, where they get stuck on piece of legislation, they appoint a Joint Committee with the task to Joint Committee with the task to bring forward a solution. I also share Baroness Stowell 's good luck to Lord Evans and Lord Massey.
My only caveat is that Lord Evans uses a Yorkshire designation for its title, when he was indeed born in Lancashire. Such apostasy is not good. But I think Baroness Stowell has given us a good start by looking forward and not brooding over the past. I'm afraid I have reached the stage in my career where I do go of the past. It's about 60 years since I first came to be interviewed for a job in the Fabian Society, and I worked in and around this place ever worked in and around this place ever And what struck me preparing for And what struck me preparing for this debate as I was much inspired in my late teens, early 20s, by two speeches.
The first is John F. Kennedy, his inaugural speech, in which he announced that we shall pay any price, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to ensure the survival and success of liberty. The second was Harold Wilson on 1 October, 1963. When he called for a new Britain forged in the white heat of technology revolution. I call attention today to draw comparison between the upbeat optimism of a period when a US president had one of the best instincts of an out looking and generous spirited country.
In the 1960s, we were still living in a post-war settlement, but the very title of the report we are debating today, less talk, more action, suggests it is very far from the vision and sense of urgency in Wilson's white heat of technology speech. The whole thrust of the report and Baroness Stowell's dissection of it today is to urge the government on clear objectives and urgent decisions. The challenge and urgent decisions. The challenge is clear, the changes now brought out our as great and fundamental as that brought about by the first Industrial Revolution, 400 years
10:34
Lord McNally (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord McNally (Liberal Democrat)
ago. Yet there is a worrying one sightedness about the government's sightedness about the government's AI strategy. As the government navigates a path between the tech navigates a path between the tech firm's freedom to explain technology, regardless of any harm inflicted on the creative sector, and creatives who fear for their and creatives who fear for their livelihoods, if the fruit of their hard labour is freely available for commercial exploitation. Those fears commercial exploitation. Those fears are well-founded as Baroness Stowell are well-founded as Baroness Stowell has reminded us.
In the case of has reminded us. In the case of creative industries, AI presents a real dilemma, which needs a considered and rational response from government to a difficult from government to a difficult question. How do we protect the intellectual property rights of intellectual property rights of creators, while encouraging the responsible innovation and investment in the development of AI? In this House, during the passage of the Data Bill, we try very hard to offer a constructive and workable solution, but the government has repeatedly emerged and ping-pong, as I said, is not the most efficient way of making progress on complex legislation.
It doesn't help of course that the government has, during the course of the debate, increasingly given the impression that its main objection, objective, with this bill is not to convince the House of Commons or the House of Lords put in a house altogether, the White House. In fact, the government's approach to ping-pong brought to mind the great Tommy Cooper, in pulling various rabbits out of the legislative hat. None of which remotely resembled a rabbit that could reassure the creative sector. Nevertheless, one of these rabbits may yet have some life in it.
If the government demonstrated genuine determination to arrive at a solution in the interest of the creative industries, as well as tech companies. I refer to the proposed parliamentary working group. One of the most constructive periods in a long parliamentary career was my time on the committee, leading up to the 2003 Communications Act and the creation of that. That was also under a Labour government, but that government showed its willingness to listen, to a knowledgeable cross- party committee, making constructive explanations, with independent share, the committee must not be a figleaf which the government destroys through its own proposals, to the opposition, with creative industries.
As I expect, this is not just about the creative industries. This morning, my full title is Lord McNally of Blackpool, and I received a very persuasive brief from the mayor's office in Blackpool, on the bid for an AI Growth Zone. So, as well as the specifics of AI, in terms of culture and creative industries, there is indeed a real possibility of AI been used for growth. And as Baroness Stowell's warned us, it is an opportunity that if we do not take, we will pay for at our peril.
We need a mandatory regulatory intervention which satisfies both rights holders, I believe the Select Committee has played important part in forming this report and this report sets well with its predecessors. My Lords, AI is not a sector but a technology, it must find its place in across government vision that can drive innovation across all areas of the government's growth sectors.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We are here to discuss a really important issue today. And I am delighted that the noble Lady,
In the case of has reminded us. In the case of creative industries, AI presents a real dilemma, which needs a considered and rational response from government to a difficult from government to a difficult question. How do we protect the intellectual property rights of intellectual property rights of creators, while encouraging the responsible innovation and investment in the development of AI? In this House, during the passage of the Data Bill, we try very hard to offer a constructive and workable solution, but the government has repeatedly emerged and ping-pong, as I said, is not the most efficient way of making progress on complex legislation.
It doesn't help of course that the government has, during the course of the debate, increasingly given the impression that its main objection, objective, with this bill is not to convince the House of Commons or the House of Lords put in a house altogether, the White House. In fact, the government's approach to ping-pong brought to mind the great Tommy Cooper, in pulling various rabbits out of the legislative hat. None of which remotely resembled a rabbit that could reassure the creative sector. Nevertheless, one of these rabbits may yet have some life in it.
If the government demonstrated genuine determination to arrive at a solution in the interest of the creative industries, as well as tech companies. I refer to the proposed parliamentary working group. One of the most constructive periods in a long parliamentary career was my time on the committee, leading up to the 2003 Communications Act and the creation of that. That was also under a Labour government, but that government showed its willingness to listen, to a knowledgeable cross- party committee, making constructive explanations, with independent share, the committee must not be a figleaf which the government destroys through its own proposals, to the opposition, with creative industries.
As I expect, this is not just about the creative industries. This morning, my full title is Lord McNally of Blackpool, and I received a very persuasive brief from the mayor's office in Blackpool, on the bid for an AI Growth Zone. So, as well as the specifics of AI, in terms of culture and creative industries, there is indeed a real possibility of AI been used for growth. And as Baroness Stowell's warned us, it is an opportunity that if we do not take, we will pay for at our peril.
We need a mandatory regulatory intervention which satisfies both rights holders, I believe the Select Committee has played important part in forming this report and this report sets well with its predecessors. My Lords, AI is not a sector but a technology, it must find its place in across government vision that can drive innovation across all areas of the government's growth sectors.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We are here to discuss a really important issue today. And I am delighted that the noble Lady,
10:38
Baroness Wheatcroft (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Wheatcroft (Crossbench)
Baroness Stowell, was able to secure the debate as a member of the committee that worked on the report, I am indebted to her, for her tireless efforts as Chair of that committee. Not just to do all the behind-the-scenes work but to pull together such a disparate group of together such a disparate group of people, with often disparate views, to pull something together that I hope will be seen as worthwhile. I would also like to thank the staff who did so well and made a positive contribution to our ethics.
My Lords, if the country is to stand a chance of securing the growth it seeks, then the sector we are discussing today will be a crucial engine to get us there. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was absolutely right to say, and I quote, " We want nothing less than to make the UK the technology centre of Europe. This is the path we need to take to create new jobs, new growth, new prosperity in every corner of our country." And no one would argue with that.
But it was not Rachel Reeves, those were the words of George Osborne in 2014, writing forward to the report that became the scale of institute. 10 years later, the ambition remains intact. But so do many of the problems that UK companies spotted there, which prevented them from fulfilling their potential in scaling up many those obstacles apply to all sectors, there are some however that particularly affect AI and the creative tech industries. Writing 10 years after George Osborne Lord O'Neill of Gatley refer to the valley of death that continue to light in weight for too many of the countries which successfully start in the UK.
At my Lords, we are still in a country with which to start a business. Our rate of entrepreneurship is second to none but those companies come to an early and far too often. From an early end. Lord O'Neill was penning the forward to the latest report from the scale of institute. While that report is positive of the achievements of the last 10 years, it acknowledges many of the issues addressed in 2014 remain problematic now. The UK is an innovative developer in AI, as well as the creative tech sectors, indeed, we are a leader in creative tech in many ways, but as our report stressed, unless we can provide, and quickly, the environment necessary to enable them to scale up, and with many other businesses, they will leave.
As Baroness Stowell wrote, and now said, we are in danger of becoming an incubator company Not country, for other economies who will happily take our talent and help them scale up. We took evidence from a wide base and include a really exciting and enthusiastic entrepreneurs, they were by no means unanimously critical in the environment they found themselves in. And ask, when greedy, the loudest, echoing that of a decade earlier, was the one locally, Baroness Stowell, referred to.
The spaghetti of different grants and apparent health that would be on if they can access it but some of them told us that actually, they had to pay consultants to help them find a way through the morass of stuff that was on offer. And by the time they had done the sums, it was actually just easier and more cost-effective to manage without. My Lords, that doesn't sound like much progress on 10 years earlier. We are issue with the British Business Bank is on the case.
I am not a cynic, I like to believe it is. But I think, like most of us, we'd like to see the evidence, so I'm going to withhold my judgement until I can see the roadmap that will enable an ambitious AI company, or creative tech company, to no just where it should go to -- To know just where it should go to access one step, the help it needs to become a growing business, and indeed, the unicorns, that as we have heard, are escaping the country, and we cannot afford to lose them.
To help on that journey, think specialist hubs are the answer, we have heard about this in the past. I hope the noble Lady, the Minister, will be able to tell us a bit more about how these hubs are taking shape. Because, at their best, they should be the answer, not just providing information, mental ships, the sort of mutually supportive ecology that we need, but also, the compute it is required. It may not be on the scale we have heard in the past, because some of the AI companies are capable of being very efficient in the use of AION a look at what is going on in China now, the compute required is a fraction of what we used to think was essential.
Nevertheless, putting things together in specialist hubs around the country will not only spread the gains, but spread the spread the gains, but spread the pain. I hope we will be able to hear more about that. We are waiting for the latest incarnation of the government's industrial strategy. And as ever, more detail would be much appreciated. Just as much as the noble Lady, the minister, could give us today. Specifically, AI does need to be issuers that the government will not go backwards and forwards, as it did on the Edinburgh scheme.
And without going too much into territory which has caused such pain, noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to in such detail, the issue of copyright does hangover the AI sector. And if specialist AI companies are to thrive, they need to know exactly what environment they're working and what they are going to be using. Uncertainty is a deterrent for investment, so it is with uncertainty, that there are exact proposals on pension funds, do share the qualms with the noble Lady, Baroness Stowell, about dictating where pension funds should invest my money but the idea of putting funds together to give them more clout, and therefore spread the risk, means they should be capable of investing a little more in UK companies and more risk-taking ventures.
Creative tech has different issues, however, there needs to be a broader understanding of just what a large industry this is. And how highly the UK is regarded in it internationally. A deeper appreciation of the value of special effects in theatre and movies for instance. Would have a very special effect when investment in the sector, where we are still a leader. The difficulty in keeping talent is a common refrain amongst tech companies, higher salaries, heart of the draw. But not everything.
In appreciation of the value of wealth creation needs to be filtered through from an early age in this country. This is money education week, I would like to think that one of the spin-offs will be an understanding that wealth creation spreads amongst the population, it doesn't just create people who are going to spend an people who are going to spend an Another reason why enabling companies to scale up is so crucial is to spread the wealth. Making employee share schemes generous and deep is another way that can help to do that and I would like to hear more from government about how they propose to make everyone a shareholder or at least an investor in the company in which they work.
It's long been a discussed admission in this country but it does change attitudes. And so my Lords, I hope we will hear something positive from the noble Lady the Minister today. But I am not downhearted. I think we do have the talent will stop we just effectively. effectively.
My Lords, if the country is to stand a chance of securing the growth it seeks, then the sector we are discussing today will be a crucial engine to get us there. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was absolutely right to say, and I quote, " We want nothing less than to make the UK the technology centre of Europe. This is the path we need to take to create new jobs, new growth, new prosperity in every corner of our country." And no one would argue with that.
But it was not Rachel Reeves, those were the words of George Osborne in 2014, writing forward to the report that became the scale of institute. 10 years later, the ambition remains intact. But so do many of the problems that UK companies spotted there, which prevented them from fulfilling their potential in scaling up many those obstacles apply to all sectors, there are some however that particularly affect AI and the creative tech industries. Writing 10 years after George Osborne Lord O'Neill of Gatley refer to the valley of death that continue to light in weight for too many of the countries which successfully start in the UK.
At my Lords, we are still in a country with which to start a business. Our rate of entrepreneurship is second to none but those companies come to an early and far too often. From an early end. Lord O'Neill was penning the forward to the latest report from the scale of institute. While that report is positive of the achievements of the last 10 years, it acknowledges many of the issues addressed in 2014 remain problematic now. The UK is an innovative developer in AI, as well as the creative tech sectors, indeed, we are a leader in creative tech in many ways, but as our report stressed, unless we can provide, and quickly, the environment necessary to enable them to scale up, and with many other businesses, they will leave.
As Baroness Stowell wrote, and now said, we are in danger of becoming an incubator company Not country, for other economies who will happily take our talent and help them scale up. We took evidence from a wide base and include a really exciting and enthusiastic entrepreneurs, they were by no means unanimously critical in the environment they found themselves in. And ask, when greedy, the loudest, echoing that of a decade earlier, was the one locally, Baroness Stowell, referred to.
The spaghetti of different grants and apparent health that would be on if they can access it but some of them told us that actually, they had to pay consultants to help them find a way through the morass of stuff that was on offer. And by the time they had done the sums, it was actually just easier and more cost-effective to manage without. My Lords, that doesn't sound like much progress on 10 years earlier. We are issue with the British Business Bank is on the case.
I am not a cynic, I like to believe it is. But I think, like most of us, we'd like to see the evidence, so I'm going to withhold my judgement until I can see the roadmap that will enable an ambitious AI company, or creative tech company, to no just where it should go to -- To know just where it should go to access one step, the help it needs to become a growing business, and indeed, the unicorns, that as we have heard, are escaping the country, and we cannot afford to lose them.
To help on that journey, think specialist hubs are the answer, we have heard about this in the past. I hope the noble Lady, the Minister, will be able to tell us a bit more about how these hubs are taking shape. Because, at their best, they should be the answer, not just providing information, mental ships, the sort of mutually supportive ecology that we need, but also, the compute it is required. It may not be on the scale we have heard in the past, because some of the AI companies are capable of being very efficient in the use of AION a look at what is going on in China now, the compute required is a fraction of what we used to think was essential.
Nevertheless, putting things together in specialist hubs around the country will not only spread the gains, but spread the spread the gains, but spread the pain. I hope we will be able to hear more about that. We are waiting for the latest incarnation of the government's industrial strategy. And as ever, more detail would be much appreciated. Just as much as the noble Lady, the minister, could give us today. Specifically, AI does need to be issuers that the government will not go backwards and forwards, as it did on the Edinburgh scheme.
And without going too much into territory which has caused such pain, noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to in such detail, the issue of copyright does hangover the AI sector. And if specialist AI companies are to thrive, they need to know exactly what environment they're working and what they are going to be using. Uncertainty is a deterrent for investment, so it is with uncertainty, that there are exact proposals on pension funds, do share the qualms with the noble Lady, Baroness Stowell, about dictating where pension funds should invest my money but the idea of putting funds together to give them more clout, and therefore spread the risk, means they should be capable of investing a little more in UK companies and more risk-taking ventures.
Creative tech has different issues, however, there needs to be a broader understanding of just what a large industry this is. And how highly the UK is regarded in it internationally. A deeper appreciation of the value of special effects in theatre and movies for instance. Would have a very special effect when investment in the sector, where we are still a leader. The difficulty in keeping talent is a common refrain amongst tech companies, higher salaries, heart of the draw. But not everything.
In appreciation of the value of wealth creation needs to be filtered through from an early age in this country. This is money education week, I would like to think that one of the spin-offs will be an understanding that wealth creation spreads amongst the population, it doesn't just create people who are going to spend an people who are going to spend an Another reason why enabling companies to scale up is so crucial is to spread the wealth. Making employee share schemes generous and deep is another way that can help to do that and I would like to hear more from government about how they propose to make everyone a shareholder or at least an investor in the company in which they work.
It's long been a discussed admission in this country but it does change attitudes. And so my Lords, I hope we will hear something positive from the noble Lady the Minister today. But I am not downhearted. I think we do have the talent will stop we just effectively. effectively.
10:47
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Conservative)
It is an honour and privilege to be making my maiden speech in this House on this important issue affecting our country. And indeed the growth trend of the government. I would like to begin extending my thanks to Black Rod, the clerk of the Parliaments and the doorkeepers who have eased my entry into this House with a combination of helpfulness, forgiveness and great professionalism. I want to thank my two supporters, my noble friend Lord Harrington, who was at university with me and has been a great friend ever since, and my noble friend Lord Parker with whom I've enjoyed two decades of happy collaboration at CFI.
As a Hampstead born lad, I voice remembered that my grandparents fled Edessa and found refuge in this great country. I met my Venetian wife 15 years of age at school here in London, and we have been happily married for over 40 years and have three wonderful children, Lucy, Edward and Eloise. I arrived in this House as a lifelong Conservative having started my political journey in the summer of 1978. As a research assistant to Peter Walker, later Lord Walker., Who many in this House will remember.
Some 44 years later and had the privilege of serving as the Chief Executive of the Conservative Party under the leadership of Rishi Sunak and Kemi Badenoch. I'm honoured now to become parliamentarian amongst you and look forward to working my contribution and to serve the vital work of this and to serve the vital work of this House. In parallel to my political interest I have been involved in the financial services sector for over four decades, working for management and capital markets.
I worked at a large global financial institution for 20 years, but subsequently founded a smaller financial term, so unusually perhaps I have led businesses at both ends of the scale in terms of the size of the companies. Max pierces as a business owner and entrepreneur has to admit to recognise the importance of smaller companies and I'm keenly aware of the challenges that they face. I declare my interest as a director and shareholder in financial services is as stated in the register.
The current debate on how to scale and I and other creative British technology firms is indeed critical to the future of this country, as other noble Lords have said. And as the study says. If we do not play to win, we risk becoming also-rans which could damage our long-term growth prospects. The committee under the chairmanship of Baroness Stowell has done an excellent job in collating all the evidence and articulating the clear set of recommendations. Given my current role as chairman of Given my current role as chairman of a small capitalisation asset manager, and capital markets firm specialising in aim, the junior market of the London Stock Exchange, I would like to focus on two of the recommendations, namely exhilarating financial reforms and championing entrepreneurial success, as Baroness Stowell mentioned as well.
Tech firms in the UK are experiencing real difficulties in accessing capital from our public markets. The first issue, I'm afraid to say, is one of increasing regulation that has been set out industry since the crisis of 2008. The FCA, like the rest of the civil service, has grown extensively since then. And its rulebook now extends to over 10,000 pages. Since 2022, the number of employees have expanded by over 30%, 3,800 5,000, a growth rate which greatly exceeds the growth of the industry truncate.
Leaving aside the huge cost of regulation, the role of the regulator while well-intentioned has had a suffocating effect on industry. Particularly on smaller companies stop to smaller companies that constitute the engine for AI and creative tax. An example of suffocation would be the story of the decline of equity research, over the last decade. One of the many legitimate complaints of the tech sector is that there are now few analysts covering small cap companies. As the evidence shows, for companies under £500 million, there are four analysts covering a single company in the US but only one in the UK.
This lack of research has a direct bearing on private and institutional demand for these equities. And is the result of an EU role brought in in 2014, some of you may recall it. This was designed to protect retail clients and to provide transparency for institutions. It has instead rendered much equity research and economics -- rule. this leaves the private sector less informed public, is underlined on the Internet, on an independent research, so the irony here is that the intention was to protect private investors, from research that they might not understand, but in practice, the result is a joke of research and result is a joke of research and consequently -- is a careful -- is a "we need to build our risk culture in the UK.
Since the financial crisis UK markets have become known for their focus on managing downside risks. Often for good reason. But taking the appropriate amount of informed and rewarded risk is an inherent part of well-functioning and liquid capital markets". Somehow we need to introduce, reintroduce this culture into our country. One of the side-effects of this risk averse culture of course, as a country, we fail to eat our own cookie. All US pension funds invest 40% of their assets in domestic equities, the combo both figure for the UK is only 4%.
-- The comparable figure. The argument that the UK constitutes only 3% of the world index simply does not wash. Australia for example invests 24% of its pension assets in its domestic markets. Yet it represents only one point% of the world index. So in order to restore the vibrancy of our markets and other vital step must be to actually invest in our own companies. Both listed and unlisted, and the government has been across this, following on from the mansion house compact introduced by Jeremy Hunt, the government has followed up with the mansion house caught and I welcome the announcement of the British investment of £2.5 billion a year in start-ups and scale up.
This is indeed welcome news and will potentially get the full rolling again. Although clearly a huge gap still remains. -- Get the ball rolling. Another way of stability domestic demand for UK equities is to use the tax system to create incentives for investors and founders to deploy capital and stay the course in the medium to long term. The government raises funds from private investors very successfully in the guild market. One of the reasons for this is that gilts and other sterling corporate bonds are exempt from Capital Gains Tax.
This has been highly affected and leaves UK investors to prefer sterling bonds over other countries and other currencies. Why don't we do the same with AIM stocks? My suggestion would be to introduce this after holding period which could be saved for five years. This would incentivise entrepreneurs and investors to take immediate review and look to scale up in the UK. If the cost of this is too great, then tapering should be considered, where the rate of CGT will full sin --.
This would echo the Capital Gains Tax regime introduced in 1998 by the Labour government where after holding period of only two years, capital gain fell to 10%. Indeed this was the incentive that partly led me to leave my well-paid corporate job to found my boutique in 2004. The other measure that has been mentioned as Stamp Duty at 0.5%, charged on UK shares. It costs 0.5% to ride to Telecom but not when you buy Deutsche Telekom.
Does this make sense when you want to promote UK equity ownership? It is time to act decisively and boldly if we are to arrest our relative decline. The opportunity is substantial and we are getting on the front foot but I urge the government to focus on countering risk aversion among regulators and pension funds and to create incentives for entrepreneurs to start businesses that can be scaled and become significant in the UK.
As a Hampstead born lad, I voice remembered that my grandparents fled Edessa and found refuge in this great country. I met my Venetian wife 15 years of age at school here in London, and we have been happily married for over 40 years and have three wonderful children, Lucy, Edward and Eloise. I arrived in this House as a lifelong Conservative having started my political journey in the summer of 1978. As a research assistant to Peter Walker, later Lord Walker., Who many in this House will remember.
Some 44 years later and had the privilege of serving as the Chief Executive of the Conservative Party under the leadership of Rishi Sunak and Kemi Badenoch. I'm honoured now to become parliamentarian amongst you and look forward to working my contribution and to serve the vital work of this and to serve the vital work of this House. In parallel to my political interest I have been involved in the financial services sector for over four decades, working for management and capital markets.
I worked at a large global financial institution for 20 years, but subsequently founded a smaller financial term, so unusually perhaps I have led businesses at both ends of the scale in terms of the size of the companies. Max pierces as a business owner and entrepreneur has to admit to recognise the importance of smaller companies and I'm keenly aware of the challenges that they face. I declare my interest as a director and shareholder in financial services is as stated in the register.
The current debate on how to scale and I and other creative British technology firms is indeed critical to the future of this country, as other noble Lords have said. And as the study says. If we do not play to win, we risk becoming also-rans which could damage our long-term growth prospects. The committee under the chairmanship of Baroness Stowell has done an excellent job in collating all the evidence and articulating the clear set of recommendations. Given my current role as chairman of Given my current role as chairman of a small capitalisation asset manager, and capital markets firm specialising in aim, the junior market of the London Stock Exchange, I would like to focus on two of the recommendations, namely exhilarating financial reforms and championing entrepreneurial success, as Baroness Stowell mentioned as well.
Tech firms in the UK are experiencing real difficulties in accessing capital from our public markets. The first issue, I'm afraid to say, is one of increasing regulation that has been set out industry since the crisis of 2008. The FCA, like the rest of the civil service, has grown extensively since then. And its rulebook now extends to over 10,000 pages. Since 2022, the number of employees have expanded by over 30%, 3,800 5,000, a growth rate which greatly exceeds the growth of the industry truncate.
Leaving aside the huge cost of regulation, the role of the regulator while well-intentioned has had a suffocating effect on industry. Particularly on smaller companies stop to smaller companies that constitute the engine for AI and creative tax. An example of suffocation would be the story of the decline of equity research, over the last decade. One of the many legitimate complaints of the tech sector is that there are now few analysts covering small cap companies. As the evidence shows, for companies under £500 million, there are four analysts covering a single company in the US but only one in the UK.
This lack of research has a direct bearing on private and institutional demand for these equities. And is the result of an EU role brought in in 2014, some of you may recall it. This was designed to protect retail clients and to provide transparency for institutions. It has instead rendered much equity research and economics -- rule. this leaves the private sector less informed public, is underlined on the Internet, on an independent research, so the irony here is that the intention was to protect private investors, from research that they might not understand, but in practice, the result is a joke of research and result is a joke of research and consequently -- is a careful -- is a "we need to build our risk culture in the UK.
Since the financial crisis UK markets have become known for their focus on managing downside risks. Often for good reason. But taking the appropriate amount of informed and rewarded risk is an inherent part of well-functioning and liquid capital markets". Somehow we need to introduce, reintroduce this culture into our country. One of the side-effects of this risk averse culture of course, as a country, we fail to eat our own cookie. All US pension funds invest 40% of their assets in domestic equities, the combo both figure for the UK is only 4%.
-- The comparable figure. The argument that the UK constitutes only 3% of the world index simply does not wash. Australia for example invests 24% of its pension assets in its domestic markets. Yet it represents only one point% of the world index. So in order to restore the vibrancy of our markets and other vital step must be to actually invest in our own companies. Both listed and unlisted, and the government has been across this, following on from the mansion house compact introduced by Jeremy Hunt, the government has followed up with the mansion house caught and I welcome the announcement of the British investment of £2.5 billion a year in start-ups and scale up.
This is indeed welcome news and will potentially get the full rolling again. Although clearly a huge gap still remains. -- Get the ball rolling. Another way of stability domestic demand for UK equities is to use the tax system to create incentives for investors and founders to deploy capital and stay the course in the medium to long term. The government raises funds from private investors very successfully in the guild market. One of the reasons for this is that gilts and other sterling corporate bonds are exempt from Capital Gains Tax.
This has been highly affected and leaves UK investors to prefer sterling bonds over other countries and other currencies. Why don't we do the same with AIM stocks? My suggestion would be to introduce this after holding period which could be saved for five years. This would incentivise entrepreneurs and investors to take immediate review and look to scale up in the UK. If the cost of this is too great, then tapering should be considered, where the rate of CGT will full sin --.
This would echo the Capital Gains Tax regime introduced in 1998 by the Labour government where after holding period of only two years, capital gain fell to 10%. Indeed this was the incentive that partly led me to leave my well-paid corporate job to found my boutique in 2004. The other measure that has been mentioned as Stamp Duty at 0.5%, charged on UK shares. It costs 0.5% to ride to Telecom but not when you buy Deutsche Telekom.
Does this make sense when you want to promote UK equity ownership? It is time to act decisively and boldly if we are to arrest our relative decline. The opportunity is substantial and we are getting on the front foot but I urge the government to focus on countering risk aversion among regulators and pension funds and to create incentives for entrepreneurs to start businesses that can be scaled and become significant in the UK.
10:57
Lord Willetts (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Willetts (Conservative)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Massey on an excellent maiden speech. The maiden speech in this House is an opportunity to introduce oneself to many peers. Though I have to say, looking around, I think several of us have known Lord Massey for almost 50 years. I remember he was involved in University politics, as I was. He, of course, was much better at it than I was. The stars were Lord Massey and my noble friend Lord Moylan. After that, we worked together as Parliamentary researchers.
He was researching with great skill for Peter Walker. And I was researching for Nigel Lawson. A reminder of the wide-ranging political opinions which the Conservative party embraces at its best. After that, he made his career in the city. Joining as a trainee and becoming the CEO of a major city company. And all of us in this House look forward to the benefits of his expertise and understanding of Financial Services Act we have heard it already this morning. I should also congratulate Baroness Stowell on an excellent introduction to a very important report and I should declare my interest as the chair of Geneina peak, a company My AI -- GEN IP.
This report today that we are considering is in many ways one report in a trilogy. It follows on from excellent report by the Science and Technology Committee on synthetic biology, engineering biology, and it will be followed by a further report from the Science and Technology Committee, specifically on the scale up challenge. And I think those three reports together are likely to contain a single very important shed message, the scallop challenge facing the UK -- scale up challenge. It is right we are good at those early-stage start-ups but not so good at finding companies as they grow.
That is the challenge. The analysis in the report is striking. Some features, if I may, I would like to draw attention to. First I think we sometimes have a soft spot for SMEs and small businesses as a group. what the report focuses on is not the SMEs which for perfectly legitimate reasons are stable and operating at a certain scale with no great bands to grow. It's the gazelles, rapidly growing companies that really matter. And those can be counted in the low tens of thousands.
In other words, this is a manageable challenge. We are not talking about 5 million SMEs, we are talking about 10,000, 20,000 perhaps, high performing, high growth companies. It should not be beyond us to construct policies that physically support that crucial physically support that crucial There are also very trenchant observations about the city and financial services, and we have already heard from my noble friend, Lord Massey, some observations on that. I thought, having worked on trying to get investment into technology start-ups in different ways, the best way were summarised for me, by someone who said if you are trying to raise money for your technology company, if you are raising money in London, take your chief finance officer, if you are raising money in New York, take your chief technology officer.
The Americans wanted to understand the technology, and that is what excited them. For the Brit, it was all too often, a matter of what your cash flow forecasts in three years, invented figures, when you are at the cutting-edge of new technologies. That is where the culture change is needed, if I may say so, I think it's a very significant challenge. Because my personal view is early specialisation in our education system is one reason for this. There are lots of people taking powerful commercial investment decisions in the city of London who stopped studying sciences at the age of 16.
They are less comfortable with these sorts of decisions that American investors, who have often come in the course of a far longer American higher education, in the Western world, we have the youngest graduates, have also studied sciences and finance, that equips them for these decisions far better than we are. The fundamental challenge is how we can grow the start-ups to scale up and beyond. Here of course, the VC community functions very differently in the US and the UK for some of the VC community and the US is a mechanism for putting more money into these companies, so they grow to be very substantial.
All too often, the VC community in the UK is putting insufficient -- Putting in sufficient money with a sale price, when they are sold to a US far larger company, as one American investor said to me, the great advantage of the British system as you grow the world's best corporate feel. -- Reveal. They turn it into beef, but we grow veal. A terrible missed opportunity. The worst to missed opportunities were Celexa and deep mind. Celexa was the world's leading genetic secretive technology company, sold.
Deep mind was the world's leader in machine learning, sold to Google. It is easy to sort of just stand back and criticise the investors. If you ask them why they sold deep mind to Google, they would say in order to carryout the function, he needed about $1 billion a year of computing capacity. There was no way the UK, either through public, through the public sector or private sector, was going to have the resources deliver that amount of compute power, though the report is absolutely right on the importance of investing in more powerful computing, and it sounds as if, from the public spending statement earlier this week, that is at last happening.
But I concluded from stories like Celexa and deep Mind, the minimal, most modest reasonable objective of public policy, should be to support these companies sufficiently effectively for a sufficiently long time for that even if they are eventually sold to the Americans, their roots in the UK were sufficiently deep, that it was a rational decision from an American corporate owner, not to shift all the activities to the West Coast, but keep them functioning in the UK. And it is at least good news that we still have a world-class centre of genetic sequencing in Cambridge and Deep Mind of course, is key to the knowledge Quarter in King's Cross.
That is the minimum we should aim for. That in itself requires public support for these companies, going on for far longer than we have often been able to maintain it. We sometimes think somehow America has a better risk culture than we do. Often, if you look behind the Jefferson only in rhetoric, you find in the US, a hat Hamilton state, where federal agencies and state support funds their technology start-ups, for far longer, far closer to commercialisation, then we purists in the UK, who stopped the public support, too soon.
As Chair, should briefly comment on the report section on Rio, of course, I have been chairing the regulatory intervention office for months, -- Regulatory innovation office, the idea is quite simply to tackle obstacles that stand in the way of the successful development of new technologies and innovation. Our task is to tackle those obstacles. We have been set some priority areas, these are not perfectly fixed, we can move on and add new priorities, but at the moment, we have two we have 24 priority areas Engineering biology as it is called.
An AI. We are not trying to cover all of a icon we are particularly focusing on AI in medicine. And healthcare. And we are trying to make progress. Often, you find, that because these are general-purpose technologies, there is no single regulator involved. Indeed, when you are dealing with a general-purpose technology, it's quite a sensible approach to say regulator will focus on a particular use, rather than having a single big data for all the different ways that technology might be applied.
Then it is important we bring the different regulators together to provide health help for start-ups, with a roadmap to find the way through. And speed things up the process of regulatory clearance not being sequential, but being simultaneous, whenever possible. simultaneous, whenever possible. Providing information about who does what, perhaps have a lead regulator. There are lots of practical things we can do, to help start-ups through this complicated regulatory environment. While we are talking about complexity, perhaps I can finally, very briefly, comment on the concern about the complexity of the system.
And the noble Baroness Wheatcroft has already refer to that. I fully realise there are so many different instruments and programs involved. There is behind it a kind of logic. And I pay tribute to the science minister, noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who was trying to bring this out and make a system out of it. The upstream funding, there's a small amount of money, for a whole range of research, including curiosity driven research, Innovative UK is the next stage, sorry I am describing the sequentially but it is a useful framework.
Innovate U.K.'s the next stage, providing grants for practical applied innovation, consider market. Then you would hope the British Business Bank would step in, and we need closer relationships between Innovative UK and the British Business Bank command after that, the National Wealth Fund. Those should be a seamless route of support, from the earliest age, right through to full stage companies, and I believe Lord Vallance is trying to achieve that. I am sure his work will be informed by the excellent report.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I would like to add my
He was researching with great skill for Peter Walker. And I was researching for Nigel Lawson. A reminder of the wide-ranging political opinions which the Conservative party embraces at its best. After that, he made his career in the city. Joining as a trainee and becoming the CEO of a major city company. And all of us in this House look forward to the benefits of his expertise and understanding of Financial Services Act we have heard it already this morning. I should also congratulate Baroness Stowell on an excellent introduction to a very important report and I should declare my interest as the chair of Geneina peak, a company My AI -- GEN IP.
This report today that we are considering is in many ways one report in a trilogy. It follows on from excellent report by the Science and Technology Committee on synthetic biology, engineering biology, and it will be followed by a further report from the Science and Technology Committee, specifically on the scale up challenge. And I think those three reports together are likely to contain a single very important shed message, the scallop challenge facing the UK -- scale up challenge. It is right we are good at those early-stage start-ups but not so good at finding companies as they grow.
That is the challenge. The analysis in the report is striking. Some features, if I may, I would like to draw attention to. First I think we sometimes have a soft spot for SMEs and small businesses as a group. what the report focuses on is not the SMEs which for perfectly legitimate reasons are stable and operating at a certain scale with no great bands to grow. It's the gazelles, rapidly growing companies that really matter. And those can be counted in the low tens of thousands.
In other words, this is a manageable challenge. We are not talking about 5 million SMEs, we are talking about 10,000, 20,000 perhaps, high performing, high growth companies. It should not be beyond us to construct policies that physically support that crucial physically support that crucial There are also very trenchant observations about the city and financial services, and we have already heard from my noble friend, Lord Massey, some observations on that. I thought, having worked on trying to get investment into technology start-ups in different ways, the best way were summarised for me, by someone who said if you are trying to raise money for your technology company, if you are raising money in London, take your chief finance officer, if you are raising money in New York, take your chief technology officer.
The Americans wanted to understand the technology, and that is what excited them. For the Brit, it was all too often, a matter of what your cash flow forecasts in three years, invented figures, when you are at the cutting-edge of new technologies. That is where the culture change is needed, if I may say so, I think it's a very significant challenge. Because my personal view is early specialisation in our education system is one reason for this. There are lots of people taking powerful commercial investment decisions in the city of London who stopped studying sciences at the age of 16.
They are less comfortable with these sorts of decisions that American investors, who have often come in the course of a far longer American higher education, in the Western world, we have the youngest graduates, have also studied sciences and finance, that equips them for these decisions far better than we are. The fundamental challenge is how we can grow the start-ups to scale up and beyond. Here of course, the VC community functions very differently in the US and the UK for some of the VC community and the US is a mechanism for putting more money into these companies, so they grow to be very substantial.
All too often, the VC community in the UK is putting insufficient -- Putting in sufficient money with a sale price, when they are sold to a US far larger company, as one American investor said to me, the great advantage of the British system as you grow the world's best corporate feel. -- Reveal. They turn it into beef, but we grow veal. A terrible missed opportunity. The worst to missed opportunities were Celexa and deep mind. Celexa was the world's leading genetic secretive technology company, sold.
Deep mind was the world's leader in machine learning, sold to Google. It is easy to sort of just stand back and criticise the investors. If you ask them why they sold deep mind to Google, they would say in order to carryout the function, he needed about $1 billion a year of computing capacity. There was no way the UK, either through public, through the public sector or private sector, was going to have the resources deliver that amount of compute power, though the report is absolutely right on the importance of investing in more powerful computing, and it sounds as if, from the public spending statement earlier this week, that is at last happening.
But I concluded from stories like Celexa and deep Mind, the minimal, most modest reasonable objective of public policy, should be to support these companies sufficiently effectively for a sufficiently long time for that even if they are eventually sold to the Americans, their roots in the UK were sufficiently deep, that it was a rational decision from an American corporate owner, not to shift all the activities to the West Coast, but keep them functioning in the UK. And it is at least good news that we still have a world-class centre of genetic sequencing in Cambridge and Deep Mind of course, is key to the knowledge Quarter in King's Cross.
That is the minimum we should aim for. That in itself requires public support for these companies, going on for far longer than we have often been able to maintain it. We sometimes think somehow America has a better risk culture than we do. Often, if you look behind the Jefferson only in rhetoric, you find in the US, a hat Hamilton state, where federal agencies and state support funds their technology start-ups, for far longer, far closer to commercialisation, then we purists in the UK, who stopped the public support, too soon.
As Chair, should briefly comment on the report section on Rio, of course, I have been chairing the regulatory intervention office for months, -- Regulatory innovation office, the idea is quite simply to tackle obstacles that stand in the way of the successful development of new technologies and innovation. Our task is to tackle those obstacles. We have been set some priority areas, these are not perfectly fixed, we can move on and add new priorities, but at the moment, we have two we have 24 priority areas Engineering biology as it is called.
An AI. We are not trying to cover all of a icon we are particularly focusing on AI in medicine. And healthcare. And we are trying to make progress. Often, you find, that because these are general-purpose technologies, there is no single regulator involved. Indeed, when you are dealing with a general-purpose technology, it's quite a sensible approach to say regulator will focus on a particular use, rather than having a single big data for all the different ways that technology might be applied.
Then it is important we bring the different regulators together to provide health help for start-ups, with a roadmap to find the way through. And speed things up the process of regulatory clearance not being sequential, but being simultaneous, whenever possible. simultaneous, whenever possible. Providing information about who does what, perhaps have a lead regulator. There are lots of practical things we can do, to help start-ups through this complicated regulatory environment. While we are talking about complexity, perhaps I can finally, very briefly, comment on the concern about the complexity of the system.
And the noble Baroness Wheatcroft has already refer to that. I fully realise there are so many different instruments and programs involved. There is behind it a kind of logic. And I pay tribute to the science minister, noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who was trying to bring this out and make a system out of it. The upstream funding, there's a small amount of money, for a whole range of research, including curiosity driven research, Innovative UK is the next stage, sorry I am describing the sequentially but it is a useful framework.
Innovate U.K.'s the next stage, providing grants for practical applied innovation, consider market. Then you would hope the British Business Bank would step in, and we need closer relationships between Innovative UK and the British Business Bank command after that, the National Wealth Fund. Those should be a seamless route of support, from the earliest age, right through to full stage companies, and I believe Lord Vallance is trying to achieve that. I am sure his work will be informed by the excellent report.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I would like to add my
11:09
Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I would like to add my welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Massey, and to say that I look forward to hearing from the noble forward to hearing from the noble Lord Evans. And I thank the committee for its really very valuable report and indeed, the noble Lady, Lady Stowell, and her colleagues, for the determination not to split the interests of the creatives, the creative text, and AI communities, but to try and see them as a unified whole and I particularly appreciate that.
And I also felt it was hugely important, and that they were right, to highlight the serious risks of the UK becoming an incubator only, for foreign economies. And most importantly, I think, the committee's assertion that AI is not acceptable technology is so -- AI is not a sector, it is technology, is so profound and overlooked, its impact on specific demands is usually different. And I think by failing to consider it by domain, we are actually failing to create opportunity over the home-grown AI companies, to dominate in specialist areas.
And perhaps, failing to consider its impact overall, over the whole of society. So I really did appreciate that. My remarks are in fact going to be about data, and indeed, the committee did recognise, the report does recognise, data will be central to the AI revolution. It highlights the need for training and the view for more is not only more. But given that my views on the data owned by the creative industries are so liberally distributed across Hansard I want to talk about two of the datasets this morning.
And make the case that it is not just cash and computer but also valuing data that will support the committee's objective of ensuring the tech This week I received a message from someone privy to discussions about the plans for the National Data Library and I must say, this is a project that enjoys a great deal of support for members of his Lordships house. At which the noble Lady, the Minister, German committee on the data uses an access bill suggested -- During the committee on the data use and access bill, suggested having datasets as data assets redundant, I want to be absolutely clear, I believe the Minister at the time was hopeful.
Issues of privacy, democratic values, were all integral, therefore all integral to our concept of a sovereign data asset would be covered by a National Data Library scheme. I.e., same idea, different name. But my Lords, I correspond and who himself works in tech and is a serial entrepreneur, explained committee that the tech companies are heavily lobbying government to share NHS patient data in that context, on the promise of streamlining NHS bureaucracy. Now, sharing the entire UK population's NHS data, is an enormous decision.
And it has privacy applications, it has cost implications, but possibly the key point for today's debate is that it has profound implications and who, how, and on what basis, and importantly, what jurisdiction the benefits accrue, from innovations in commercial products and services, that may never have been created without that help, without the help of that dataset. This is a serious issue, even if patient records were shared with the UK company, but even more so, if it's to be shared with the company headquartered overseas.
My Lords, this bears similarities to the arguments we have had for so many weeks, the concern the government is being primed to share something of deep personal importance to its citizens, something in this case that was paid for by the public purse, and in the other case, belongs to the private owners. With the corresponding economic concern, that British people may see little gain or indeed may have to meet the cost of accessing the fruits of their own data. And my correspondent worried out loud that the government was going to be hoodwinked out of a true national resource.
My Lords, a similar debate is going on, around the UK CCTV footage, also of enormous interest to AI companies, this drove amongst the largest in the world has many applications, one of which is the ability to model simulations on the management of large groups of people. Undoubtedly of interest to the UK police, but equally, once created as a product owned by a private offshore company, what is to stop it being sold to regimes across the globe? And how conflicts play out, whether Los Angeles, Gaza, Congo, if those in charge have infinite scenarios for which to kettle processes, arrest them, or indeed, worse.
Is that what we want to do with our precious data? And if yes, are the terms of engagement, or is it like the copyright debate, going to have no regulation, no powers, no upholding UK values and laws. More broadly, CCTV footage as some of the most valuable in the world, because it shows people's movement at scale. That is what is needed to train the model, if we think about as being what Yu Jie data is for Google, it is almost incalculably -- What YouTube data is for Google, it is almost incalculable.
I was fascinated by the contribution from the noble Lord Willetts, and I just wonder if whether our data, as well as our funding might be used to keep companies in the UK for some time longer. My Lords, last week, the Prime Minister confirmed the government has accepted all 50 of the recommendations in the AI Opportunities Action Plan. From copyright law, the data library and security issues, even the sovereign AI, discussions appear to be dominated by overseas interest in private.
I hear constant cry from UK AI companies that they struggle to be heard, and I recall that long before the consultation on copyright was published, when I asked for a meeting with the Minister responsible for data, the noble Lady, the Minister, the laws minister, said he has nothing to tell you yet. So, this is my second point. Rather than the excruciating process of missteps and ping-pong which has not served people, parliament, or government well, if the government had heard from a broader group of voices, where parliamentarians had seen the draft consultation, they could have raised questions at a time that might have How we share data has profound obligations for our economy, security and national identity.
Even our political independence. We have just passed the Data Bill during which many of these issues were raised by noble Lords across the House but the government refused to consider them. So now we have a Data Bill that looks over its shoulder rather than to the future and the oft promised AI bill which has been pushed away by another year. I do ask the noble Lord the Minister, in true Ernest, does she understand why parliamentarians are frustrated? We want to discuss and health, we want to discuss AI and education.
We want to discuss AI insecurity and so on. And could she find a way for those in government to be more open to accepting the expertise across both houses? My Lords, we need our data policy to benefit UK, people and businesses. We need transparency for government about the deals it's making because they all shape our economy, democracy and national identity. All the governments moves to... So the UKI I community can thrive are extremely welcome but on the issue of data, we must have a bigger vision for showing the value
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of our data to overseas. My Lords, it's a great pleasure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it's a great pleasure to be able to deliver my maiden speech this morning and it is a speech this morning and it is a particular pleasure and privilege to follow immediately after Baroness Kidron's contribution. I have sat here for recent weeks and watched her make her points repeatedly and her make her points repeatedly and it loses none of its strength for the repetition. I do hope that the government are listening and that we will see some movement from them.
I
Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I would like to add my welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Massey, and to say that I look forward to hearing from the noble forward to hearing from the noble Lord Evans. And I thank the committee for its really very valuable report and indeed, the noble Lady, Lady Stowell, and her colleagues, for the determination not to split the interests of the creatives, the creative text, and AI communities, but to try and see them as a unified whole and I particularly appreciate that.
And I also felt it was hugely important, and that they were right, to highlight the serious risks of the UK becoming an incubator only, for foreign economies. And most importantly, I think, the committee's assertion that AI is not acceptable technology is so -- AI is not a sector, it is technology, is so profound and overlooked, its impact on specific demands is usually different. And I think by failing to consider it by domain, we are actually failing to create opportunity over the home-grown AI companies, to dominate in specialist areas.
And perhaps, failing to consider its impact overall, over the whole of society. So I really did appreciate that. My remarks are in fact going to be about data, and indeed, the committee did recognise, the report does recognise, data will be central to the AI revolution. It highlights the need for training and the view for more is not only more. But given that my views on the data owned by the creative industries are so liberally distributed across Hansard I want to talk about two of the datasets this morning.
And make the case that it is not just cash and computer but also valuing data that will support the committee's objective of ensuring the tech This week I received a message from someone privy to discussions about the plans for the National Data Library and I must say, this is a project that enjoys a great deal of support for members of his Lordships house. At which the noble Lady, the Minister, German committee on the data uses an access bill suggested -- During the committee on the data use and access bill, suggested having datasets as data assets redundant, I want to be absolutely clear, I believe the Minister at the time was hopeful.
Issues of privacy, democratic values, were all integral, therefore all integral to our concept of a sovereign data asset would be covered by a National Data Library scheme. I.e., same idea, different name. But my Lords, I correspond and who himself works in tech and is a serial entrepreneur, explained committee that the tech companies are heavily lobbying government to share NHS patient data in that context, on the promise of streamlining NHS bureaucracy. Now, sharing the entire UK population's NHS data, is an enormous decision.
And it has privacy applications, it has cost implications, but possibly the key point for today's debate is that it has profound implications and who, how, and on what basis, and importantly, what jurisdiction the benefits accrue, from innovations in commercial products and services, that may never have been created without that help, without the help of that dataset. This is a serious issue, even if patient records were shared with the UK company, but even more so, if it's to be shared with the company headquartered overseas.
My Lords, this bears similarities to the arguments we have had for so many weeks, the concern the government is being primed to share something of deep personal importance to its citizens, something in this case that was paid for by the public purse, and in the other case, belongs to the private owners. With the corresponding economic concern, that British people may see little gain or indeed may have to meet the cost of accessing the fruits of their own data. And my correspondent worried out loud that the government was going to be hoodwinked out of a true national resource.
My Lords, a similar debate is going on, around the UK CCTV footage, also of enormous interest to AI companies, this drove amongst the largest in the world has many applications, one of which is the ability to model simulations on the management of large groups of people. Undoubtedly of interest to the UK police, but equally, once created as a product owned by a private offshore company, what is to stop it being sold to regimes across the globe? And how conflicts play out, whether Los Angeles, Gaza, Congo, if those in charge have infinite scenarios for which to kettle processes, arrest them, or indeed, worse.
Is that what we want to do with our precious data? And if yes, are the terms of engagement, or is it like the copyright debate, going to have no regulation, no powers, no upholding UK values and laws. More broadly, CCTV footage as some of the most valuable in the world, because it shows people's movement at scale. That is what is needed to train the model, if we think about as being what Yu Jie data is for Google, it is almost incalculably -- What YouTube data is for Google, it is almost incalculable.
I was fascinated by the contribution from the noble Lord Willetts, and I just wonder if whether our data, as well as our funding might be used to keep companies in the UK for some time longer. My Lords, last week, the Prime Minister confirmed the government has accepted all 50 of the recommendations in the AI Opportunities Action Plan. From copyright law, the data library and security issues, even the sovereign AI, discussions appear to be dominated by overseas interest in private.
I hear constant cry from UK AI companies that they struggle to be heard, and I recall that long before the consultation on copyright was published, when I asked for a meeting with the Minister responsible for data, the noble Lady, the Minister, the laws minister, said he has nothing to tell you yet. So, this is my second point. Rather than the excruciating process of missteps and ping-pong which has not served people, parliament, or government well, if the government had heard from a broader group of voices, where parliamentarians had seen the draft consultation, they could have raised questions at a time that might have How we share data has profound obligations for our economy, security and national identity.
Even our political independence. We have just passed the Data Bill during which many of these issues were raised by noble Lords across the House but the government refused to consider them. So now we have a Data Bill that looks over its shoulder rather than to the future and the oft promised AI bill which has been pushed away by another year. I do ask the noble Lord the Minister, in true Ernest, does she understand why parliamentarians are frustrated? We want to discuss and health, we want to discuss AI and education.
We want to discuss AI insecurity and so on. And could she find a way for those in government to be more open to accepting the expertise across both houses? My Lords, we need our data policy to benefit UK, people and businesses. We need transparency for government about the deals it's making because they all shape our economy, democracy and national identity. All the governments moves to... So the UKI I community can thrive are extremely welcome but on the issue of data, we must have a bigger vision for showing the value
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of our data to overseas. My Lords, it's a great pleasure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it's a great pleasure to be able to deliver my maiden speech this morning and it is a speech this morning and it is a particular pleasure and privilege to follow immediately after Baroness Kidron's contribution. I have sat here for recent weeks and watched her make her points repeatedly and her make her points repeatedly and it loses none of its strength for the repetition. I do hope that the government are listening and that we will see some movement from them.
I
11:19
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Conservative)
will see some movement from them. I would like to congratulate Lord Massey on delivering his maiden speech, there's a great deal of knowledge and detail there and I'm sure that he will make a good contribution to the House in future. I hope that I will. As it's my maiden speech, I would also like to thank Black Rod, the clerk of the Parliament. Got a King of Arms and the health staff who helped me through my introduction ceremony back in February.
It is an experience I will remember for the rest of my life. My guests loved it and I can tell you my Lords, when you were in, nobly can see you shamble. I would like to congratulate my noble friend Baroness Stowell of Beeston for bringing this report before the House today. We have known each other for over a decade and the report is presented with all of the care and detail and the attention to detail that I would have expected from the noble Baroness.
I continue to be grateful to the doorkeepers and to the security staff here. I don't think they passes without me consulting them with some question -- I don't think a day passes. And they deal with it courteously and knowledgeably all of the time. They go out of their way to provide help. I have made my business to wander the House opening doors to find out what's behind them. And on one occasion couple of months ago I encountered a security guard in the committee corridor upstairs, and instead of admonishing me for what I was doing, he offered me a quiz about the House and the location of various things here.
I'm disappointed to say I scored 1/5. But it is one more than I would have scored back in January. And I do hope that if I had that quiz I would do considerably better. Two piers, two new friends gave up their time to introduce me and although they are here I thank them now. My noble friend Baroness Jenkin of Kennington has made a remarkable contribution to improving the representation of women in parliament. I met her in 2005 when she founded the organisation women to win which was dedicated to bringing more conservative women into Parliament.
Have given her some help with it over the years and I'm very proud to have played a modest part in her great success. I first met my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough even before that back in 1990 when we were both contesting the London collections for different London councils. It was a tough year, 1990, but I'm pleased to say we both won our seats. And we have been exchanging notes and advice ever since so it was a pleasure for me to introduce me back in for Bray.
It wasn't my first campaigning debut, have to admit. Back in 1981, I contested an election for the council of my sixth form college. It was a relatively easy introduction, as there were six places on the council and there were only seven of us standing for election. However, I contrives to come seventh. It was the only person to leave the count with nothing at the end of the process. The guy who won in addition to having 100 votes more than any of us also had a campaign slogan.
It was, vote for trips and he will kiss your lips. He understood the old saw that campaign in poetry and govern in prose. He also understood that sometimes you make election promises without having any intention of keeping them at all. I would also like to thank the noble Viscount Younger my mentor. Any errors I make are my fault and not his. He's been very helpful for the last three months. And I would like to thank my whip, of course.
Baroness Stedman- Scott who have been hugely helpful. I hope I have been her full-back. I would like to thank the LibDem peer, the noble Lord McNally, for outing my origins during the speech earlier my origins during the speech earlier on. I was born in Rochdale, yes in Lancashire, in fact in a suburb of Rochdale called Balderstone. It has been suggested that, by health people, that perhaps I take the title Lord Balderstone which would at least make me memorable I suppose.
However, I have chosen to take Yasmin because it is town where I grew up and went to school and didn't get to be a member of the six form council. If it does help Lord McNally feel better about it, Guisborough is not necessarily in Yorkshire. It has been over the years in Teesside and county years in Teesside and county Cleveland. But I could see the boundary of Yorkshire from my window, a bit like Sarah Palin and I hope that is enough to qualify me.
My mother was a teacher. She inspired so many people when she was in that job and made a great difference. My father worked hard for local government. He was working in the environment department and in housing. For a while he was the abattoir inspector. Fortunately we didn't have 10 children to work with that day, it might have been character building. In 19 seven I arrived in London to work. I worked for the Royal Mail firm for 10 years but not feel like enough for me and in fact when I was in my car and I heard a politician on the radio speaking to a conference of people and I think it was the noble Lord Heseltine.
I thought, I could do that. Which was possibly a bit precocious at the age of 24. But I volunteered for political service and served three terms at Waltham Forest Council. Where had the pleasure of working with the noble Baroness Brown of Stratford who I see here. We were on opposite sides, occasionally we had differences of opinion. I have differences of opinions with quite a lot of people at that time. And one of the people I argued with was the council's solicitor, and he said to me one day, you know, I think you would make a very good lawyer.
So on the basis of this entirely unsupported statement with no evidence, I left my job and went back to full-time education. And I was called to the bar as a member of the Middle Temple in November Middle Temple in November 1997. Something else happened in 1997 that was groundbreaking, the Blair government arrived and created the Greater London Authority. Some of your Lordships mirror member that the government London act was the largest piece of to go through here since the government of India.
-- -- Legislation. Over the years, it has been a cornucopia of talent for Westminster to drop in and I always see former members of the assembly, I note today, not members of the assembly but members of our administration at City Hall, Lords Ranger and Mylan. And indeed, Baroness Wheatcroft, he made some contributions to other deliberations as well. I'm supposed to say something about the report that is before us today. I would just like to point out that the growth of new technology is a key driver for the success of London and the wider UK.
That is why it's vital we respond the challenges and opportunities in ways that maximises the benefits that we can reap. Artificial intelligence, as the report correctly says, is a technology, not a sector. And it has the capacity to affect every aspect of our lives and it has real potential of revolutionising the delivery of public services but regulation needs to have nice the risks and the opportunities, too. We love as lawmakers to design detail into regulation but I have certainly, speaking to people like Association and smaller providers of IT services, we try to avoid regulating for products and try to regulate outcomes instead.
I recall from my time at City Hall when we had a debate, when Hooper arrived in London and we found ourselves in the High Court trying to argue that the taximeter mobilephone where the same things -- when Uber arrived. The way things we are moving now we can get outflanked and that is the problem we face throughout government in so many different ways. It has been a wonderful journey to get off the train at King's Cross in 19 seven, 40 years later to find myself standing here delivering this speech.
Yet there's nothing unusual in that journey. I promise you that every day, today, yesterday, tomorrow, people will be getting off the train at London stations and of the planes at Heathrow and they come to our city with small suitcases and big ideas. And we want to continue to encourage that. They come here because London is a city of opportunities. It's a city of Reims. And technology is going to be at the core of the city 's success in future.
We have a responsibility to promote technology and to build the economy for London because a prosperous London will support a prosperous Britain. I commend the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
committee report to the House. My Lords, I would like to
It is an experience I will remember for the rest of my life. My guests loved it and I can tell you my Lords, when you were in, nobly can see you shamble. I would like to congratulate my noble friend Baroness Stowell of Beeston for bringing this report before the House today. We have known each other for over a decade and the report is presented with all of the care and detail and the attention to detail that I would have expected from the noble Baroness.
I continue to be grateful to the doorkeepers and to the security staff here. I don't think they passes without me consulting them with some question -- I don't think a day passes. And they deal with it courteously and knowledgeably all of the time. They go out of their way to provide help. I have made my business to wander the House opening doors to find out what's behind them. And on one occasion couple of months ago I encountered a security guard in the committee corridor upstairs, and instead of admonishing me for what I was doing, he offered me a quiz about the House and the location of various things here.
I'm disappointed to say I scored 1/5. But it is one more than I would have scored back in January. And I do hope that if I had that quiz I would do considerably better. Two piers, two new friends gave up their time to introduce me and although they are here I thank them now. My noble friend Baroness Jenkin of Kennington has made a remarkable contribution to improving the representation of women in parliament. I met her in 2005 when she founded the organisation women to win which was dedicated to bringing more conservative women into Parliament.
Have given her some help with it over the years and I'm very proud to have played a modest part in her great success. I first met my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough even before that back in 1990 when we were both contesting the London collections for different London councils. It was a tough year, 1990, but I'm pleased to say we both won our seats. And we have been exchanging notes and advice ever since so it was a pleasure for me to introduce me back in for Bray.
It wasn't my first campaigning debut, have to admit. Back in 1981, I contested an election for the council of my sixth form college. It was a relatively easy introduction, as there were six places on the council and there were only seven of us standing for election. However, I contrives to come seventh. It was the only person to leave the count with nothing at the end of the process. The guy who won in addition to having 100 votes more than any of us also had a campaign slogan.
It was, vote for trips and he will kiss your lips. He understood the old saw that campaign in poetry and govern in prose. He also understood that sometimes you make election promises without having any intention of keeping them at all. I would also like to thank the noble Viscount Younger my mentor. Any errors I make are my fault and not his. He's been very helpful for the last three months. And I would like to thank my whip, of course.
Baroness Stedman- Scott who have been hugely helpful. I hope I have been her full-back. I would like to thank the LibDem peer, the noble Lord McNally, for outing my origins during the speech earlier my origins during the speech earlier on. I was born in Rochdale, yes in Lancashire, in fact in a suburb of Rochdale called Balderstone. It has been suggested that, by health people, that perhaps I take the title Lord Balderstone which would at least make me memorable I suppose.
However, I have chosen to take Yasmin because it is town where I grew up and went to school and didn't get to be a member of the six form council. If it does help Lord McNally feel better about it, Guisborough is not necessarily in Yorkshire. It has been over the years in Teesside and county years in Teesside and county Cleveland. But I could see the boundary of Yorkshire from my window, a bit like Sarah Palin and I hope that is enough to qualify me.
My mother was a teacher. She inspired so many people when she was in that job and made a great difference. My father worked hard for local government. He was working in the environment department and in housing. For a while he was the abattoir inspector. Fortunately we didn't have 10 children to work with that day, it might have been character building. In 19 seven I arrived in London to work. I worked for the Royal Mail firm for 10 years but not feel like enough for me and in fact when I was in my car and I heard a politician on the radio speaking to a conference of people and I think it was the noble Lord Heseltine.
I thought, I could do that. Which was possibly a bit precocious at the age of 24. But I volunteered for political service and served three terms at Waltham Forest Council. Where had the pleasure of working with the noble Baroness Brown of Stratford who I see here. We were on opposite sides, occasionally we had differences of opinion. I have differences of opinions with quite a lot of people at that time. And one of the people I argued with was the council's solicitor, and he said to me one day, you know, I think you would make a very good lawyer.
So on the basis of this entirely unsupported statement with no evidence, I left my job and went back to full-time education. And I was called to the bar as a member of the Middle Temple in November Middle Temple in November 1997. Something else happened in 1997 that was groundbreaking, the Blair government arrived and created the Greater London Authority. Some of your Lordships mirror member that the government London act was the largest piece of to go through here since the government of India.
-- -- Legislation. Over the years, it has been a cornucopia of talent for Westminster to drop in and I always see former members of the assembly, I note today, not members of the assembly but members of our administration at City Hall, Lords Ranger and Mylan. And indeed, Baroness Wheatcroft, he made some contributions to other deliberations as well. I'm supposed to say something about the report that is before us today. I would just like to point out that the growth of new technology is a key driver for the success of London and the wider UK.
That is why it's vital we respond the challenges and opportunities in ways that maximises the benefits that we can reap. Artificial intelligence, as the report correctly says, is a technology, not a sector. And it has the capacity to affect every aspect of our lives and it has real potential of revolutionising the delivery of public services but regulation needs to have nice the risks and the opportunities, too. We love as lawmakers to design detail into regulation but I have certainly, speaking to people like Association and smaller providers of IT services, we try to avoid regulating for products and try to regulate outcomes instead.
I recall from my time at City Hall when we had a debate, when Hooper arrived in London and we found ourselves in the High Court trying to argue that the taximeter mobilephone where the same things -- when Uber arrived. The way things we are moving now we can get outflanked and that is the problem we face throughout government in so many different ways. It has been a wonderful journey to get off the train at King's Cross in 19 seven, 40 years later to find myself standing here delivering this speech.
Yet there's nothing unusual in that journey. I promise you that every day, today, yesterday, tomorrow, people will be getting off the train at London stations and of the planes at Heathrow and they come to our city with small suitcases and big ideas. And we want to continue to encourage that. They come here because London is a city of opportunities. It's a city of Reims. And technology is going to be at the core of the city 's success in future.
We have a responsibility to promote technology and to build the economy for London because a prosperous London will support a prosperous Britain. I commend the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
committee report to the House. My Lords, I would like to
11:30
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I would like to congratulate Lord Massey on his congratulate Lord Massey on his maiden speech, very well researched, I'm sure he will make a huge condition to this House with his knowledge and detail. And also welcoming congratulating the noble Lord Evans of Guisborough. Lord Malley Did out you in terms of your place of birth but after your speech, that London should have been the designation, if not a ring and Redbridge. Because I have no Lord Evans for the best part of the last 20 years and has he mentioned, a number of us have taken out the wellborn path from City Hall, or maybe a certain golden generation of politicians across parties and administrators from City Hall and he is welcome to have taken that path.
I do remember my time there. Because it was intense, head of transport brief, environmental grief and then the digital brief. And your briefs Boss -- plenty of briefs from my former boss. When it came to looking for good guidance, for a bit of political compassion, cameraderie, you did look to assemble members on your side. You looked for some your side. You looked for some There were various kinds on the assembly and we would sit around the mayor's table and go, who could we talk to? Who can we get some sage guidance from? Who can we say will give us that calm, measured, even some warmth, in terms of giving us a sense of direction.
Which we are all quite inexperienced, we are all quite new to the role. And Lord Evans name would invariably be at the top or near the top of that list. And he provided me personally, I have to say this with much guidance, much time, and much patience, and I look forward to him being in this House and providing that and much more, through his emotionally intelligent approach, they have -- As he has done throughout his career. I would like to acknowledge again the excellent work on the Communications and Digital Committee, which I am aware was chaired by my noble friend, are great I wasn't part of a committee during her tenure, but creating this report on ARM technologies together.
I registered my interest, with my roles in the technology sector, specifically in UK AI businesses, and I've spent the best part of the last 25 years working in the technology industry and consider myself to be still in the industry. And I am a vice-chair of the APPG for AI, and an angel investor in tech businesses. My Lords, we cannot help but be aware of the pace of development in a world that is awaiting the endless possibilities of AI and I will speak today through not just the creative technology sector, because of the report recognises, the challenge of evolving our numerous innovative and successful scallops to full-blown global businesses, is consistent across many industries.
Many of us recognise that we are, in the UK, we in the UK have many of the essential ingredients for scale up success. I am acutely aware of this because it was the emergence of the start-up scene in London in the late 2000's, that led me to persuade the then mayor to establish the first digital office for London. And working with the then government, we set about emerging creativity in east London, with policies and intervention to attract talent, and attract investment.
The risktakers, the under banners, the investors, felt the city was on their side, wanting them to succeed and stay in London, and the UK, to drive growth opportunities in economic growth. The result, my Lords, Tech city, the ecosystem became known for significantly transforming London's economy and global stick standing -- Tech standing. It had grown from 85 start-ups in 2010, to approximately 200 firms. And around 5,000 companies were located in the wider area, contributing to economic growth, and high-value jobs by four years after that.
Since 2010, London-based tech companies have raised $5.2 billion in VC funding. By 2021, London's tech ecosystem was valued at $142.7 billion with 76,660 digital technology firms, employing 590,000 people, representing 14% of the UK's total tech firms. Tech city helped position London as the digital capital of Europe, more than one third of Europe's tech giants, based in the city, contributing over £56 billion to the economy. But Tech city also fostered a vibrant start- up scene, producing 23 unicorns, tech companies valued at over $1 billion or more, by 2019.
And with a combined value of $132 billion. Communities initiatives, like digital Shoreditch, Silicon roundabout meet ups, along with events, like, as we have seen this week, London tech week, still growing, creating a collaborative ecosystem for networking and innovation. At the UK government's £15.5 billion funding package, from the technology strategy Board, the UK digital services index, launched in 2013, supported innovative businesses, and benchmark digital sector performance. But these policies were then and this is now. The successful foundations from the last decade need to be built upon as we enter the AIAS, because now, we are in a global economic race.
-- AIA. Not just utilise AI technology in all its forms, but to actually own the innovations, hosted businesses, and associate support ecosystems of businesses and jobs, that will reshape the economy, and the jobs environment. But the risk we take by being uncompetitive in this race, as the report states, the UK becomes an incubator economy for other nations. As foreign companies and investors acquiring Hoover of our emerging talents. -- Acquire and hoover up our emerging talents. Where does this leave us? Apart from beginning to, we would become an AI receiver economy.
Yes, we would utilise more innovative services, we were still in bed? We would still embed platforms across our industries and public sector, which would enable trans women change and efficiencies. But we're getting a fraction of the value from the -- We would enable transformative change and efficiencies, taking the lion share of the investments, tax receipts, in effect, we would receive the services, they will get the revenue. Not all bad, you may say, we may be able to live with that.
But it is like saying we would be happy to have nearly all of our future energy supplies to come from other nations. Let's mall over the geopolitical risks we have seen materialise in recent years and the impact on our energy prices. In the age of AI, the larger language models and datasets that feed those models, the AI services that are developed and utilise the datasets, would have huge influence and power over nations and their people. Even our culture and traditions. If cultural artefacts, the U.K.'s museums, are not available online to non-UK companies and LLM's, will that history, that literature, that culture, still exist in a future digital world, where the answer to your property is provided by an American base model that doesn't know and doesn't know or have access or prioritise its response based on sovereign accuracy? My Lords, yes this debate is about how we can encourage more scale up to succeed, but it is also about the future of our economy and much more.
It is about the future sovereignty of businesses, LLMs, datasets, the online world that will influence and fundamentally create our future society. This is an issue of our sovereignty, and in case you may feel I'm over dramatising the scale of the issue, let me share some numbers that demonstrate the global AI market. According to research by Silicon Valley Bank, the UK remains a dominant AI hub in Europe, securing nearly $6 billion in AI funding last year, more than France and Germany combined. However, France is rapidly catching up, with Mr OAI emerging as the leading provider, getting nearly $1 billion within one year of its founding.
Germany's AI sector remains tied to a just real roots where advanced automation is transforming it automotive and manufacturing industries. Further good news for us is that, since September, the UK AI landscape has experienced robust expansion. There has been broader enterprise adoption, the daily influx of approximately £200 million of private investments. Economic output, 34%, and 29% of jobs among AI firms. That might sound impressive, but I'm supportive of the government's approach and initiatives, taken to push and support the sector.
Letters gaze across the pond. --. Let us gaze across the pond. In 2025, five and a billion-dollar AI infrastructure initiative, in partnership with Oracle, OpenAI, Softbank, Microsoft, to name a few. Aiming to create thousands of jobs, and reinforce the US's determination to maintain its leadership in the AI race. Today, according to pitch book, UK-based AI companies have attracted nearly $100 billion in funding. More than the rest of the world combined. The US has advantage in AI, with a combination of world beating private sector companies, chipmakers, high scalars, cloud providers, dataset providers, combined come all of these companies provide the infrastructure that enables AI training and deployment at scale.
The race to lead in AI has become a defining part of global business competition. So, my Lords, are we really in this race? Are we doing enough with our action plan, our growth zones, to really compete? Will we be able to keep the scale up that will give us a chance to have a real stake in the global AI fuel economy? We can, but we must be bolder, more ambitious and how we attract and lock the critical element that drives growth, private-sector investment, yes, the government must do its bit, as the report suggests, to remove barriers from necessary infrastructure resources, and must maintain its proportionate approach to AI regulation but none of this will work without the investors, the risktakers, the VCs, capital markets, the time is now.
I appreciate the government have responded to the report, by stating that for some, technology and creative companies, accessing the " Capital required to scale a business" Can be a challenge. My Lords, this is the challenge. I welcome the report, and I welcome what the government has done so far, but now I strongly suggest it is time for the government to get creative with a laserlike focus on do all it can to unlock domestic growth capital, increase the incentives for investment in the UK.
Make our investment landscape and policies more competitive, so strategies like the Delaware flip, whereby UK businesses restructure and relocate, to meet the requirements of an attractive investment proposition, put forward by funding partner in the US, not the best options for British entrepreneurs, we need to build a competitive sovereign...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would be grateful if the noble Lord could bring his contributions
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to a conclusion. And build a competitive and sovereign base British made, British
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I would like to congratulate Lord Massey on his congratulate Lord Massey on his maiden speech, very well researched, I'm sure he will make a huge condition to this House with his knowledge and detail. And also welcoming congratulating the noble Lord Evans of Guisborough. Lord Malley Did out you in terms of your place of birth but after your speech, that London should have been the designation, if not a ring and Redbridge. Because I have no Lord Evans for the best part of the last 20 years and has he mentioned, a number of us have taken out the wellborn path from City Hall, or maybe a certain golden generation of politicians across parties and administrators from City Hall and he is welcome to have taken that path.
I do remember my time there. Because it was intense, head of transport brief, environmental grief and then the digital brief. And your briefs Boss -- plenty of briefs from my former boss. When it came to looking for good guidance, for a bit of political compassion, cameraderie, you did look to assemble members on your side. You looked for some your side. You looked for some There were various kinds on the assembly and we would sit around the mayor's table and go, who could we talk to? Who can we get some sage guidance from? Who can we say will give us that calm, measured, even some warmth, in terms of giving us a sense of direction.
Which we are all quite inexperienced, we are all quite new to the role. And Lord Evans name would invariably be at the top or near the top of that list. And he provided me personally, I have to say this with much guidance, much time, and much patience, and I look forward to him being in this House and providing that and much more, through his emotionally intelligent approach, they have -- As he has done throughout his career. I would like to acknowledge again the excellent work on the Communications and Digital Committee, which I am aware was chaired by my noble friend, are great I wasn't part of a committee during her tenure, but creating this report on ARM technologies together.
I registered my interest, with my roles in the technology sector, specifically in UK AI businesses, and I've spent the best part of the last 25 years working in the technology industry and consider myself to be still in the industry. And I am a vice-chair of the APPG for AI, and an angel investor in tech businesses. My Lords, we cannot help but be aware of the pace of development in a world that is awaiting the endless possibilities of AI and I will speak today through not just the creative technology sector, because of the report recognises, the challenge of evolving our numerous innovative and successful scallops to full-blown global businesses, is consistent across many industries.
Many of us recognise that we are, in the UK, we in the UK have many of the essential ingredients for scale up success. I am acutely aware of this because it was the emergence of the start-up scene in London in the late 2000's, that led me to persuade the then mayor to establish the first digital office for London. And working with the then government, we set about emerging creativity in east London, with policies and intervention to attract talent, and attract investment.
The risktakers, the under banners, the investors, felt the city was on their side, wanting them to succeed and stay in London, and the UK, to drive growth opportunities in economic growth. The result, my Lords, Tech city, the ecosystem became known for significantly transforming London's economy and global stick standing -- Tech standing. It had grown from 85 start-ups in 2010, to approximately 200 firms. And around 5,000 companies were located in the wider area, contributing to economic growth, and high-value jobs by four years after that.
Since 2010, London-based tech companies have raised $5.2 billion in VC funding. By 2021, London's tech ecosystem was valued at $142.7 billion with 76,660 digital technology firms, employing 590,000 people, representing 14% of the UK's total tech firms. Tech city helped position London as the digital capital of Europe, more than one third of Europe's tech giants, based in the city, contributing over £56 billion to the economy. But Tech city also fostered a vibrant start- up scene, producing 23 unicorns, tech companies valued at over $1 billion or more, by 2019.
And with a combined value of $132 billion. Communities initiatives, like digital Shoreditch, Silicon roundabout meet ups, along with events, like, as we have seen this week, London tech week, still growing, creating a collaborative ecosystem for networking and innovation. At the UK government's £15.5 billion funding package, from the technology strategy Board, the UK digital services index, launched in 2013, supported innovative businesses, and benchmark digital sector performance. But these policies were then and this is now. The successful foundations from the last decade need to be built upon as we enter the AIAS, because now, we are in a global economic race.
-- AIA. Not just utilise AI technology in all its forms, but to actually own the innovations, hosted businesses, and associate support ecosystems of businesses and jobs, that will reshape the economy, and the jobs environment. But the risk we take by being uncompetitive in this race, as the report states, the UK becomes an incubator economy for other nations. As foreign companies and investors acquiring Hoover of our emerging talents. -- Acquire and hoover up our emerging talents. Where does this leave us? Apart from beginning to, we would become an AI receiver economy.
Yes, we would utilise more innovative services, we were still in bed? We would still embed platforms across our industries and public sector, which would enable trans women change and efficiencies. But we're getting a fraction of the value from the -- We would enable transformative change and efficiencies, taking the lion share of the investments, tax receipts, in effect, we would receive the services, they will get the revenue. Not all bad, you may say, we may be able to live with that.
But it is like saying we would be happy to have nearly all of our future energy supplies to come from other nations. Let's mall over the geopolitical risks we have seen materialise in recent years and the impact on our energy prices. In the age of AI, the larger language models and datasets that feed those models, the AI services that are developed and utilise the datasets, would have huge influence and power over nations and their people. Even our culture and traditions. If cultural artefacts, the U.K.'s museums, are not available online to non-UK companies and LLM's, will that history, that literature, that culture, still exist in a future digital world, where the answer to your property is provided by an American base model that doesn't know and doesn't know or have access or prioritise its response based on sovereign accuracy? My Lords, yes this debate is about how we can encourage more scale up to succeed, but it is also about the future of our economy and much more.
It is about the future sovereignty of businesses, LLMs, datasets, the online world that will influence and fundamentally create our future society. This is an issue of our sovereignty, and in case you may feel I'm over dramatising the scale of the issue, let me share some numbers that demonstrate the global AI market. According to research by Silicon Valley Bank, the UK remains a dominant AI hub in Europe, securing nearly $6 billion in AI funding last year, more than France and Germany combined. However, France is rapidly catching up, with Mr OAI emerging as the leading provider, getting nearly $1 billion within one year of its founding.
Germany's AI sector remains tied to a just real roots where advanced automation is transforming it automotive and manufacturing industries. Further good news for us is that, since September, the UK AI landscape has experienced robust expansion. There has been broader enterprise adoption, the daily influx of approximately £200 million of private investments. Economic output, 34%, and 29% of jobs among AI firms. That might sound impressive, but I'm supportive of the government's approach and initiatives, taken to push and support the sector.
Letters gaze across the pond. --. Let us gaze across the pond. In 2025, five and a billion-dollar AI infrastructure initiative, in partnership with Oracle, OpenAI, Softbank, Microsoft, to name a few. Aiming to create thousands of jobs, and reinforce the US's determination to maintain its leadership in the AI race. Today, according to pitch book, UK-based AI companies have attracted nearly $100 billion in funding. More than the rest of the world combined. The US has advantage in AI, with a combination of world beating private sector companies, chipmakers, high scalars, cloud providers, dataset providers, combined come all of these companies provide the infrastructure that enables AI training and deployment at scale.
The race to lead in AI has become a defining part of global business competition. So, my Lords, are we really in this race? Are we doing enough with our action plan, our growth zones, to really compete? Will we be able to keep the scale up that will give us a chance to have a real stake in the global AI fuel economy? We can, but we must be bolder, more ambitious and how we attract and lock the critical element that drives growth, private-sector investment, yes, the government must do its bit, as the report suggests, to remove barriers from necessary infrastructure resources, and must maintain its proportionate approach to AI regulation but none of this will work without the investors, the risktakers, the VCs, capital markets, the time is now.
I appreciate the government have responded to the report, by stating that for some, technology and creative companies, accessing the " Capital required to scale a business" Can be a challenge. My Lords, this is the challenge. I welcome the report, and I welcome what the government has done so far, but now I strongly suggest it is time for the government to get creative with a laserlike focus on do all it can to unlock domestic growth capital, increase the incentives for investment in the UK.
Make our investment landscape and policies more competitive, so strategies like the Delaware flip, whereby UK businesses restructure and relocate, to meet the requirements of an attractive investment proposition, put forward by funding partner in the US, not the best options for British entrepreneurs, we need to build a competitive sovereign...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would be grateful if the noble Lord could bring his contributions
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to a conclusion. And build a competitive and sovereign base British made, British
11:43
Lord Tarassenko (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Tarassenko (Crossbench)
owned, AI economy for the future.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I draw the House's attention to my registered interest as the founder, and director of a as the founder, and director of a University of Oxford spin out that uses AI for healthcare applications, and we will be looking for scalable and we will be looking for scalable capital in the future. I congratulate the noble Lady, Baroness Stowell, and her excellent report which identifies the key report which identifies the key issues with clinical provision and also put forward some possible solutions.
I also comprise a noble Lords, Lord Massey, Lord Evans, on their excellent yet contrasting their excellent yet contrasting maiden speeches. I entirely agree maiden speeches. I entirely agree with the sentence on the very first page of the report. It is homegrown page of the report. It is homegrown AI companies, not big tech input, that will drive innovation needed to that will drive innovation needed to realise the UK AI potential. I want to focus on the following question, do we now have the right conditions for the UK to develop its own sovereign AI capability? Which I will define for the purposes of this debate as having at least two homegrown AI companies, each worth £100 billion.
Deep Mind has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, if Deep Mind, reckoned to be worth $100 billion today, had not been sold to Google for somewhere between 400,000,006 and 50 million between 2014, -- Between 400 million-500 million, if it had not been sold to Softbank in 2015, sovereign AI capability would exist today. So, the question can be reframed as follows. How can we today have successful UK I companies scale up, rather than be acquired by internationally owned companies, such as Google and Softbank.
All the evidence in the report points to the fact that there is no problem with the early stages of the pipeline. Nearly 2/3 of Europe's unicorns are headquartered in the UK. As the report informs us, the UK has produced nearly 20 AI unicorns to date, including four in 2023-24 alone. Just this week, however, as Baroness Stowell mentioned, three new unicorns have been sold to US investors and companies, including Oxford University's quantum university spin out. Three more, to add to the list of those companies, which will not scale up as UK companies.
As the report highlights, without significant scale up, capital from domestic sources, the UK risks being just a UK incubator economy for other nations. At the start of the scale of journey, B and C, the British Business Bank should be able to invest, and we heard from the Chancellor's this week, the funding capacity to rise by two thirds, to 2.5 billion per year, this is welcome news, but like others, and indeed the report, it has been highlighted that companies find it difficult to keep track of the bank's 21 different programs and the restructuring cannot come soon At the other end of the scale, raising £100 million or more cannot be done without institutional capital.
UK pension funds managed more than £3 trillion yet invest barely 1% of this in growing domestic companies. They typically domestic companies. They typically allocate 15 to 5% growth equity and Canadian models between 10 and 20%. Given this evidence, I cannot see why the government's proposed reserve power to enable them to force venture funds to increase investment in UK funds should be seen as controversial. Finance is not the only issue was the impact the ability of UKAR companies to grow.
Talent, regulation, data and computers always matter. I will speak briefly about talent and focus on data and compute. I go for expanding the global Visa to attract highly skilled IIAC researchers to our shores but I do worry that by the decreasing pool of home postgraduate talent. Further evidence emerged this week. UK students account for 43% of the 25,000 enrolments of full-time postgrad research degrees at British universities this academic year compared to 51% in 2017 /18.
The Action Plan called the government to identify at least five high-impact public datasets which can be made available to AI researchers and innovators. However, the government committed only to explore how to take for this recommendation, as part of decent's work to develop National Data Library. We have heard nothing about the National library apart from Baroness Kidron's intervention earlier but from the government for the past few months. Although the announcement of £600 million funding for the health data research shows in April was very welcome, delivering on the aims of that investment, a single secure entry point to access allocated analysed patient data, will not be a trivial matter.
The stakeholder map drawn by health data research UK shows 40 stakeholders on the map. And it says it's a non-exclusive attempt at throwing this map. Nevertheless, build upon the existing guidelines for sharing patient data in secondary care and in primary care, a minimum viable product should be deliverable within a matter of months, not years. But I would like to ask the noble Lord the Minister whether she intends to discuss with her DHSC colleagues giving preferential access to the sovereign data asset to UK companies with high rates charged to any international competitiveness.
Turning to sovereign compute, recent news is positive, investment into data centres, investment to Edinburgh and an expansion of the capacity by 2030. Baroness Stowell's report recommended that UKAR scallops should be granted access to these facilities -- UK AI. Will the noble Lady the Minister confirm that this indeed the government intention to do so? However there is a key lesson that is the demonstration, they have devastated the power of distillation stop training high performers in language models is possible with just one or two GPU's.
Several data centres in China lie empty now. We do not have to copy the data centre and hardware computer frenzy generated by US Big Tech companies. They are only part of the compute solution. I chose my definition of sovereign AI arbitrarily, based on where we would beat today if they were still UK cuddly. Today the UKAR ecosystem is thriving, even at the unicorn level. For example, we are world leaders in the use of machine learning, navigate the complexities of British streets, not the straight and perpendicular roads of US cities, navigated by Weimer and others.
We are leading a low-cost hardware for machine learning and in the AI- generated video for enterprise use. If we implement the right measures on scale up finance, enable privileged access to sovereign data, delivered the promised sovereign compute on time and on budget, I believe that at least two UK AI companies will reach £100 billion valuation within the next five years. In our relationship with the Big Tech companies from the US, we will only ever be AI takers. If we want to be AI makers, the development of the sovereign AI capability should be the UK's top priority.
priority. priority.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I draw the House's attention to my registered interest as the founder, and director of a as the founder, and director of a University of Oxford spin out that uses AI for healthcare applications, and we will be looking for scalable and we will be looking for scalable capital in the future. I congratulate the noble Lady, Baroness Stowell, and her excellent report which identifies the key report which identifies the key issues with clinical provision and also put forward some possible solutions.
I also comprise a noble Lords, Lord Massey, Lord Evans, on their excellent yet contrasting their excellent yet contrasting maiden speeches. I entirely agree maiden speeches. I entirely agree with the sentence on the very first page of the report. It is homegrown page of the report. It is homegrown AI companies, not big tech input, that will drive innovation needed to that will drive innovation needed to realise the UK AI potential. I want to focus on the following question, do we now have the right conditions for the UK to develop its own sovereign AI capability? Which I will define for the purposes of this debate as having at least two homegrown AI companies, each worth £100 billion.
Deep Mind has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, if Deep Mind, reckoned to be worth $100 billion today, had not been sold to Google for somewhere between 400,000,006 and 50 million between 2014, -- Between 400 million-500 million, if it had not been sold to Softbank in 2015, sovereign AI capability would exist today. So, the question can be reframed as follows. How can we today have successful UK I companies scale up, rather than be acquired by internationally owned companies, such as Google and Softbank.
All the evidence in the report points to the fact that there is no problem with the early stages of the pipeline. Nearly 2/3 of Europe's unicorns are headquartered in the UK. As the report informs us, the UK has produced nearly 20 AI unicorns to date, including four in 2023-24 alone. Just this week, however, as Baroness Stowell mentioned, three new unicorns have been sold to US investors and companies, including Oxford University's quantum university spin out. Three more, to add to the list of those companies, which will not scale up as UK companies.
As the report highlights, without significant scale up, capital from domestic sources, the UK risks being just a UK incubator economy for other nations. At the start of the scale of journey, B and C, the British Business Bank should be able to invest, and we heard from the Chancellor's this week, the funding capacity to rise by two thirds, to 2.5 billion per year, this is welcome news, but like others, and indeed the report, it has been highlighted that companies find it difficult to keep track of the bank's 21 different programs and the restructuring cannot come soon At the other end of the scale, raising £100 million or more cannot be done without institutional capital.
UK pension funds managed more than £3 trillion yet invest barely 1% of this in growing domestic companies. They typically domestic companies. They typically allocate 15 to 5% growth equity and Canadian models between 10 and 20%. Given this evidence, I cannot see why the government's proposed reserve power to enable them to force venture funds to increase investment in UK funds should be seen as controversial. Finance is not the only issue was the impact the ability of UKAR companies to grow.
Talent, regulation, data and computers always matter. I will speak briefly about talent and focus on data and compute. I go for expanding the global Visa to attract highly skilled IIAC researchers to our shores but I do worry that by the decreasing pool of home postgraduate talent. Further evidence emerged this week. UK students account for 43% of the 25,000 enrolments of full-time postgrad research degrees at British universities this academic year compared to 51% in 2017 /18.
The Action Plan called the government to identify at least five high-impact public datasets which can be made available to AI researchers and innovators. However, the government committed only to explore how to take for this recommendation, as part of decent's work to develop National Data Library. We have heard nothing about the National library apart from Baroness Kidron's intervention earlier but from the government for the past few months. Although the announcement of £600 million funding for the health data research shows in April was very welcome, delivering on the aims of that investment, a single secure entry point to access allocated analysed patient data, will not be a trivial matter.
The stakeholder map drawn by health data research UK shows 40 stakeholders on the map. And it says it's a non-exclusive attempt at throwing this map. Nevertheless, build upon the existing guidelines for sharing patient data in secondary care and in primary care, a minimum viable product should be deliverable within a matter of months, not years. But I would like to ask the noble Lord the Minister whether she intends to discuss with her DHSC colleagues giving preferential access to the sovereign data asset to UK companies with high rates charged to any international competitiveness.
Turning to sovereign compute, recent news is positive, investment into data centres, investment to Edinburgh and an expansion of the capacity by 2030. Baroness Stowell's report recommended that UKAR scallops should be granted access to these facilities -- UK AI. Will the noble Lady the Minister confirm that this indeed the government intention to do so? However there is a key lesson that is the demonstration, they have devastated the power of distillation stop training high performers in language models is possible with just one or two GPU's.
Several data centres in China lie empty now. We do not have to copy the data centre and hardware computer frenzy generated by US Big Tech companies. They are only part of the compute solution. I chose my definition of sovereign AI arbitrarily, based on where we would beat today if they were still UK cuddly. Today the UKAR ecosystem is thriving, even at the unicorn level. For example, we are world leaders in the use of machine learning, navigate the complexities of British streets, not the straight and perpendicular roads of US cities, navigated by Weimer and others.
We are leading a low-cost hardware for machine learning and in the AI- generated video for enterprise use. If we implement the right measures on scale up finance, enable privileged access to sovereign data, delivered the promised sovereign compute on time and on budget, I believe that at least two UK AI companies will reach £100 billion valuation within the next five years. In our relationship with the Big Tech companies from the US, we will only ever be AI takers. If we want to be AI makers, the development of the sovereign AI capability should be the UK's top priority.
priority. priority.
11:52
Baroness Fall (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Fall (Conservative)
I echo others in welcoming Lord Massey and Lord Evans to the House and congratulate them both on their excellent maiden speeches and I would like to declare my interest as a Senior Advisor. We meet today at the end of a week which although was tech week was really all about the Spending Review. But at least we get to revert to discussion of tax collapse at the end and I want to congratulate Baroness Stowell and all the members of her committee on this very good report.
Against a tough fiscal outlook at home and uncertainty abroad, I know that this group doesn't need to be persuaded group doesn't need to be persuaded that the question is not a niche issue but called the economic prospects of our country, for jobs, for prosperity and the very growth which seems to elude us. We are not alone in facing tricky economic headwinds, the geopolitical and geoeconomic context which business operates is highly challenging and changeable. The only certainty uncertainty. The worst possible investment environment. Just take President Trump's tariff policy as one example.
From its inception to its so-called liberation day, we have seen a range of global tariffs first imposed and then partially suspended, a virtual boycott on China followed by a reprieve, sexual tariffs bobbing up and down, we cling to our 10% as if it's a life raft. Their strategy remains unclear even to those in the White House. Visit a global trade punishment or a vehicle to drive domestic policy? Is it to pay for tax reductions or protecting industrial policy? Whatever the aim, the result is chaos.
The only resistance for now, and business have to seek intensive supply chains, form new global relationships and alliances. The fundamental dynamic for us is that we see growth against an uncertain global outlook in an age of growing economic nationalism. The question for us as nations turn inward as we need to focus on what is our competitive advantage. We are not a competitive advantage. We are not a nation rich in raw materials. We are a nation of entrepreneurs and innovators, in other words, we live by our wits, not buyout well.
Look at our record on start-ups and others have mentioned this as well. London is the second best place for start-ups, and as your report points out the UK has emerged as one of the top three places in the world to invest in innovation. It is to our wits we must concentrate our attention, nattering out unique talents, not allowing them to. Or worse get picked on by foreign investors, many have mentioned this already. Yet more often than not that is exactly what happened, as you say so powerfully in your report, we are in danger of being an incubator nation, or as Baroness Stowell says, bolting unicorns.
From this week alone the acquisition of Oxford bionics by US quantum computing group and deal for chip designer alpha wave are examples of missed opportunities for the UK. Another example is that of reaction engines, this brilliant start-up which emerged from some of the best tech engineers in the country, focused on revolutionary aerospace engines. It was a thriving business will three decades until it was forced to go last year through a simple liquidity problem. We seem unable to leverage our home-grown creations into formidable businesses put simply we find it hard to scale up.
1% of UK companies have reached scale up status since 2012. This is a point that comes through loud and clear in the very good paper published this week by the Tony Blair Institute, start-up to scale up. This paper examines forensic detail the weaknesses across a cycle of start-up journey and seeks solutions and I do recommend it to my noble Lords. What can we do about it? First, talent. Attracting and growing talent is key. 's America is pushing away foreign talent and we should make the most of this opportunity to attract talent to the UK, looking at immigration policies and the Global Talent visa.
But at the same time, we must work hard to continue fostering talent at home. Second, universities really matter. Just look at the start-up coming out of our great universities, like Oxford science Enterprises. We should focus on making sure this excellent research can be commercialised and we should take a closer look at our spin out system including IP rights. Third, risk. We need to change our attitude toward risk. Some others have mentioned this. Both as a society, the way we view entrepreneurs and the inevitable early failures, and on a national level we should be and assumedly focused on backing national winners, taking on more risk with our investments and giving them higher rewards.
On public money forth, in the case of reaction engines we see how money was needed at a critical moment which could have paid dividends. The good news for our present Chancellor is this is less about... But more about when we spend the money more wisely and at what time in the cycle. First, the government has ready a significant progress inward rising UK public markets with reforms outlined in Lord Hill's review but there's more to do and more to implement in that review.
Sixth, driving change across silos in Whitehall is notoriously difficult as many in this House know and requires political will and powerful engine like the Cabinet Office or Treasury or even Number 10 team to drive it. Finally, don't be afraid to think big. This is a point that it comes through loud and clearly in this report. In response to the times in which we live, you must consider the importance of generating a global winning tech company, just one of these technical rack tech companies would be a game changer not only for encouraging investment in other start-ups but for our national prosperity and ultimately for the production of our nation's power.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to start by welcoming Lord Massey and Lord Evans
Against a tough fiscal outlook at home and uncertainty abroad, I know that this group doesn't need to be persuaded group doesn't need to be persuaded that the question is not a niche issue but called the economic prospects of our country, for jobs, for prosperity and the very growth which seems to elude us. We are not alone in facing tricky economic headwinds, the geopolitical and geoeconomic context which business operates is highly challenging and changeable. The only certainty uncertainty. The worst possible investment environment. Just take President Trump's tariff policy as one example.
From its inception to its so-called liberation day, we have seen a range of global tariffs first imposed and then partially suspended, a virtual boycott on China followed by a reprieve, sexual tariffs bobbing up and down, we cling to our 10% as if it's a life raft. Their strategy remains unclear even to those in the White House. Visit a global trade punishment or a vehicle to drive domestic policy? Is it to pay for tax reductions or protecting industrial policy? Whatever the aim, the result is chaos.
The only resistance for now, and business have to seek intensive supply chains, form new global relationships and alliances. The fundamental dynamic for us is that we see growth against an uncertain global outlook in an age of growing economic nationalism. The question for us as nations turn inward as we need to focus on what is our competitive advantage. We are not a competitive advantage. We are not a nation rich in raw materials. We are a nation of entrepreneurs and innovators, in other words, we live by our wits, not buyout well.
Look at our record on start-ups and others have mentioned this as well. London is the second best place for start-ups, and as your report points out the UK has emerged as one of the top three places in the world to invest in innovation. It is to our wits we must concentrate our attention, nattering out unique talents, not allowing them to. Or worse get picked on by foreign investors, many have mentioned this already. Yet more often than not that is exactly what happened, as you say so powerfully in your report, we are in danger of being an incubator nation, or as Baroness Stowell says, bolting unicorns.
From this week alone the acquisition of Oxford bionics by US quantum computing group and deal for chip designer alpha wave are examples of missed opportunities for the UK. Another example is that of reaction engines, this brilliant start-up which emerged from some of the best tech engineers in the country, focused on revolutionary aerospace engines. It was a thriving business will three decades until it was forced to go last year through a simple liquidity problem. We seem unable to leverage our home-grown creations into formidable businesses put simply we find it hard to scale up.
1% of UK companies have reached scale up status since 2012. This is a point that comes through loud and clear in the very good paper published this week by the Tony Blair Institute, start-up to scale up. This paper examines forensic detail the weaknesses across a cycle of start-up journey and seeks solutions and I do recommend it to my noble Lords. What can we do about it? First, talent. Attracting and growing talent is key. 's America is pushing away foreign talent and we should make the most of this opportunity to attract talent to the UK, looking at immigration policies and the Global Talent visa.
But at the same time, we must work hard to continue fostering talent at home. Second, universities really matter. Just look at the start-up coming out of our great universities, like Oxford science Enterprises. We should focus on making sure this excellent research can be commercialised and we should take a closer look at our spin out system including IP rights. Third, risk. We need to change our attitude toward risk. Some others have mentioned this. Both as a society, the way we view entrepreneurs and the inevitable early failures, and on a national level we should be and assumedly focused on backing national winners, taking on more risk with our investments and giving them higher rewards.
On public money forth, in the case of reaction engines we see how money was needed at a critical moment which could have paid dividends. The good news for our present Chancellor is this is less about... But more about when we spend the money more wisely and at what time in the cycle. First, the government has ready a significant progress inward rising UK public markets with reforms outlined in Lord Hill's review but there's more to do and more to implement in that review.
Sixth, driving change across silos in Whitehall is notoriously difficult as many in this House know and requires political will and powerful engine like the Cabinet Office or Treasury or even Number 10 team to drive it. Finally, don't be afraid to think big. This is a point that it comes through loud and clearly in this report. In response to the times in which we live, you must consider the importance of generating a global winning tech company, just one of these technical rack tech companies would be a game changer not only for encouraging investment in other start-ups but for our national prosperity and ultimately for the production of our nation's power.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to start by welcoming Lord Massey and Lord Evans
11:58
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (Crossbench)
welcoming Lord Massey and Lord Evans to this chamber and congratulating them on their maiden speech. And also by congratulating Baroness Stowell on her masterful chairmanship of the committee and raising the profile of these vital issues at a vital time. In her incredibly, pensive introduction, she mentioned it had been London tech week as others have done and I feel this has chased me around the panels and views I have done through the course of the week. In fact, this issue has chased me over the last 30 years of working in the tech sector and building my own businesses.
And I am grateful to the opportunity to contribute now to what is such an important topic on the back of such an important piece of work by the committee. I agree with this risk that we are falling to the likelihood of becoming an incubator economy. I think the risk is worse because it's broader and deeper than that to me. I not scaling our AI and tech businesses, we are not only not building the sector of the future, but we are also pointing to a failure for those businesses impacting the other sectors of our economy and the wider economy in which they operate.
And that's something I would like to dwell on for just a moment. We have had two decades of becoming a nation of start-ups stop when I think back to the 90s, we would go to an entrepreneurial meet up and be the only entrepreneurs in the road. People would move away from me at parties when I said I was going to start my own business, thinking I was bonkers. Another culture has really fundamentally shifted. As we know young people have one or two businesses alongside the jobs in many cases.
It's a necessity of these iconic times and also a sense of excitement and vibrancy. Many companies hit the ceiling and it is not just a problem for them, it is a problem for the wider it's vital to recognise that these challenges are not just confined to the tech sector. The struggle to scale is a persistent threat that runs through the entire economy. Icy this in the chambers of, but also the multiple Despite record numbers of entrepreneurs, only 2% of UK firms reach more than one million in turnover over three years.
Just 2%. The scaler rate amongst businesses has slowed dramatically over the last decade. With a proportion of firms expanding their workforce falling by 40% tween 2012 and 2022. This obviously has profound implications for employment and the wider economy. It does not just reflect barriers faced by individual companies, it also reflects the wider business environment is not adopt innovation and technology at the pace required. We did a report at the British Chambers of Commerce on the digital revolution stop while the pace of change is accelerating as everyone in this chamber knows, especially that in the high...
Sectors, the pace of change outside the high-growth sector is struggling to keep up. Poor digital in the structure, patchy broadband, lack of digital skills means too many businesses are missing out on productivity gains and competitive edge. When tech and AI scale ups fail to thrive, it is a warning not only about them, but a warning about our whole economy falling behind. Not just in tech but in manufacturing, services and beyond. The committee's recommendations are impressively comprehensive. Consolidate government support, unlock capital, foster culture, champions ambition and risk-taking and I wholeheartedly agree.
I would like to just double click, to use terrible tech speak, on three levers that I think demand even more attention. They are government procurement, international expansion and business culture. First, government procurement. Public government procurement. Public procurement is a £400 billion... A tenth of our economy. Then your Procurement Act is a real opportunity to open up contracts to scallops and SMEs by cutting redtape, mandating prompt payment and letting local authorities 's contract for local suppliers.
I have seen this first hand from businesses I have been involved in, most recently as a member of the board of multi-verse. Government contracts are a hell of bureaucracy and difficulty and just cannot give... Be given priority when you're also trying to scale your business across multiple other planes. I welcome deeply this new piece of legislation. But I would appreciate an update from the Minister on how the implementation is going and what redress will be for companies if they feel as though the act is not working in their favour.
We must make sure we set ambitious targets to include UK scale ups in procurement dissipation, so we are really driving UK innovation and British jobs. Just yesterday, at a London tech week event, as I was thinking about what remarks I was going to make, as if by magic a UK entrepreneur with a medical technology business to appear in front of me to berate me for 10 minutes, quite rightly, about how the recent procurement process in the NHS had led to a US company being procured, I do not know the details of this, so I'm not naming the company but it is indicative I think...
A US company have been procured at a vastly more increased cost because they are already a supplier within the system. Despite our British company being a star success, unable to compete. This really is a missed opportunity and unacceptable from so many angles. Second, international expansion. Scale ups are more likely than any other SME to explore, innovate and grow quickly when they do. But as the British Chambers has taught me, only 10% of British businesses export and it is only 60% of our members, that is an interesting fact in itself.
We need to encourage more businesses to scale through innovation in trade and through trade itself and through expansion into other markets. We cannot ignore the elephant in this room, which is Brexit. While businesses recognise the improvement in relations with the EU, we have taken ourselves out of the capacity to work in a digital single market and that has had a fundamental impact on our technology's ability to scale. I remember, as a young whippersnapper going into the French company that we were building in last-minute.com and being met with pretty much derision, as the French entrepreneurs .how can it possibly be that these two whippersnappers are coming in to take over our company,...
But it is so important we encourage companies to scale through Europe and together with the complexity of bureaucracy that we are creating in front of them. We can expand in our own market of course but really to become truly global we need to expand way beyond our own shores and to make that as easy and as attractive as possible. Finally, culture. And this is one I really do feel I have lived over the last two decades. It is not mentioned in this report but I hope members of the committee will find it interesting, the Bank of England did research to show that 77% of British businesses would rather not grow than take on new financing to expand.
77%. What a missed opportunity. While this report quite rightly goes harder on the capital sources and unlocking more from Mansion House Accord and many of the other contributions we have heard today, we still have an issue in our culture of how we grow and expand. And it comes from multiple reasons I will not have time to pick them all now but it is so vital that we celebrate the successes that we have. We do not denigrate them. But success does not just have them in creating more money for the individual, it can mean creating more prosperity communities and for us all.
And for the wider society which businesses operate. When I am travelling about for British Chambers, I need businesses all the time that are pushing back into the community, building relationships with charities or often delivering things where services cannot. This is fundamental if we want to make sure that we have not just a prosperous economy but a prosperous society. We must celebrate this and not denigrate it and not view it with scepticism. Just to end, I find myself fortunately in hospital frequently, as noble Lords might know, I had the most story hip surgery....
He could not resist telling me he was trying to raise money for his robotic as well. He had to go to Florida to raise 100 billion he needed, which he needed, into meetings here, 20 meetings had
**** Possible New Speaker ****
led to just £100,000 commitment. It is a pleasure to take part in
And I am grateful to the opportunity to contribute now to what is such an important topic on the back of such an important piece of work by the committee. I agree with this risk that we are falling to the likelihood of becoming an incubator economy. I think the risk is worse because it's broader and deeper than that to me. I not scaling our AI and tech businesses, we are not only not building the sector of the future, but we are also pointing to a failure for those businesses impacting the other sectors of our economy and the wider economy in which they operate.
And that's something I would like to dwell on for just a moment. We have had two decades of becoming a nation of start-ups stop when I think back to the 90s, we would go to an entrepreneurial meet up and be the only entrepreneurs in the road. People would move away from me at parties when I said I was going to start my own business, thinking I was bonkers. Another culture has really fundamentally shifted. As we know young people have one or two businesses alongside the jobs in many cases.
It's a necessity of these iconic times and also a sense of excitement and vibrancy. Many companies hit the ceiling and it is not just a problem for them, it is a problem for the wider it's vital to recognise that these challenges are not just confined to the tech sector. The struggle to scale is a persistent threat that runs through the entire economy. Icy this in the chambers of, but also the multiple Despite record numbers of entrepreneurs, only 2% of UK firms reach more than one million in turnover over three years.
Just 2%. The scaler rate amongst businesses has slowed dramatically over the last decade. With a proportion of firms expanding their workforce falling by 40% tween 2012 and 2022. This obviously has profound implications for employment and the wider economy. It does not just reflect barriers faced by individual companies, it also reflects the wider business environment is not adopt innovation and technology at the pace required. We did a report at the British Chambers of Commerce on the digital revolution stop while the pace of change is accelerating as everyone in this chamber knows, especially that in the high...
Sectors, the pace of change outside the high-growth sector is struggling to keep up. Poor digital in the structure, patchy broadband, lack of digital skills means too many businesses are missing out on productivity gains and competitive edge. When tech and AI scale ups fail to thrive, it is a warning not only about them, but a warning about our whole economy falling behind. Not just in tech but in manufacturing, services and beyond. The committee's recommendations are impressively comprehensive. Consolidate government support, unlock capital, foster culture, champions ambition and risk-taking and I wholeheartedly agree.
I would like to just double click, to use terrible tech speak, on three levers that I think demand even more attention. They are government procurement, international expansion and business culture. First, government procurement. Public government procurement. Public procurement is a £400 billion... A tenth of our economy. Then your Procurement Act is a real opportunity to open up contracts to scallops and SMEs by cutting redtape, mandating prompt payment and letting local authorities 's contract for local suppliers.
I have seen this first hand from businesses I have been involved in, most recently as a member of the board of multi-verse. Government contracts are a hell of bureaucracy and difficulty and just cannot give... Be given priority when you're also trying to scale your business across multiple other planes. I welcome deeply this new piece of legislation. But I would appreciate an update from the Minister on how the implementation is going and what redress will be for companies if they feel as though the act is not working in their favour.
We must make sure we set ambitious targets to include UK scale ups in procurement dissipation, so we are really driving UK innovation and British jobs. Just yesterday, at a London tech week event, as I was thinking about what remarks I was going to make, as if by magic a UK entrepreneur with a medical technology business to appear in front of me to berate me for 10 minutes, quite rightly, about how the recent procurement process in the NHS had led to a US company being procured, I do not know the details of this, so I'm not naming the company but it is indicative I think...
A US company have been procured at a vastly more increased cost because they are already a supplier within the system. Despite our British company being a star success, unable to compete. This really is a missed opportunity and unacceptable from so many angles. Second, international expansion. Scale ups are more likely than any other SME to explore, innovate and grow quickly when they do. But as the British Chambers has taught me, only 10% of British businesses export and it is only 60% of our members, that is an interesting fact in itself.
We need to encourage more businesses to scale through innovation in trade and through trade itself and through expansion into other markets. We cannot ignore the elephant in this room, which is Brexit. While businesses recognise the improvement in relations with the EU, we have taken ourselves out of the capacity to work in a digital single market and that has had a fundamental impact on our technology's ability to scale. I remember, as a young whippersnapper going into the French company that we were building in last-minute.com and being met with pretty much derision, as the French entrepreneurs .how can it possibly be that these two whippersnappers are coming in to take over our company,...
But it is so important we encourage companies to scale through Europe and together with the complexity of bureaucracy that we are creating in front of them. We can expand in our own market of course but really to become truly global we need to expand way beyond our own shores and to make that as easy and as attractive as possible. Finally, culture. And this is one I really do feel I have lived over the last two decades. It is not mentioned in this report but I hope members of the committee will find it interesting, the Bank of England did research to show that 77% of British businesses would rather not grow than take on new financing to expand.
77%. What a missed opportunity. While this report quite rightly goes harder on the capital sources and unlocking more from Mansion House Accord and many of the other contributions we have heard today, we still have an issue in our culture of how we grow and expand. And it comes from multiple reasons I will not have time to pick them all now but it is so vital that we celebrate the successes that we have. We do not denigrate them. But success does not just have them in creating more money for the individual, it can mean creating more prosperity communities and for us all.
And for the wider society which businesses operate. When I am travelling about for British Chambers, I need businesses all the time that are pushing back into the community, building relationships with charities or often delivering things where services cannot. This is fundamental if we want to make sure that we have not just a prosperous economy but a prosperous society. We must celebrate this and not denigrate it and not view it with scepticism. Just to end, I find myself fortunately in hospital frequently, as noble Lords might know, I had the most story hip surgery....
He could not resist telling me he was trying to raise money for his robotic as well. He had to go to Florida to raise 100 billion he needed, which he needed, into meetings here, 20 meetings had
**** Possible New Speaker ****
led to just £100,000 commitment. It is a pleasure to take part in
12:08
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I declare my technology interest, as set out in the register. It is also a pleasure to register. It is also a pleasure to follow my friend, Lady Lane-Fox, who has done as much as anybody in this country over the past two decades for all of the technology industries, in her work both as an entrepreneur and as a visionary for what technologies can do, not least to make public good. Can I also congratulate my noble friend Baroness Stowell for her excellent report and indeed, all members of report and indeed, all members of the committee.
I can also comment positively of the approach she took when doing this report, not just to have this as an isolated moment in time but to have it as a series of reports, each building on one another during our time chairing the commune occasions a digital Select Committee. Finally, in initial thank you, I'm grateful to our two maiden speakers who gave us excellent perspective and not least a number of excellent ideas, not just for this current minister but for all HMT Ministers to consider, not least for my noble friend Lord Massey, all excellent suggestions that will really make a difference.
My comments on the Select Committee report could be quite short. I agree with pretty much everything and all of the ramekin editions -- recommendations. It goes to the heart of the issue that we have discussed here certainly in all my time over the past 12 years and previous to that. We have a stunning start-up scene in the UK. Fabulous universities, great spin outs, a very good seed funding model. But it all gets tricky when you get to the scale ups.
This report highlights the issues, puts the recommendations and gives the Minister, they hope, much to think on. -- I hope. As my noble friend Lord Willetts put it, when it comes to Silicon Valley, nobody should be beguiled to believe this is a great success of the free market. It's birth very much from state intervention. Intervention in the right way, intervention to enable and to empower the crowding in of private capital. I cannot improve on his perfect construction. Hamiltonian, not Jeffersonian.
This debate, as so many that we have had on artificial intelligence and indeed other technologies, goes to the heart of an issue, that government and indeed wider society often struggles because it can be seen as a part of or it can be seen as sector specific. As has been noted in this debate, AI is a technology. I go beyond that, it is a series, it is a set, it is a constellation of technologies. Some yet to be brought into being.
And I gently suggest that part of the problems with the current narrative and part of the problems potentially with the government's approach, is that AI is not seen as this constellation of technologies. AI is almost seen somewhat reductive Lee almost seen somewhat reductive Lee as just gen AI. And very important, that is but one part of this constellation and I would suggest, and time will tell, I do not believe that gen AI will either be the most interesting element of AI nor the one most likely to deliver anything which we would recognise as a return on investment.
How much does it cost to do an AI model? 500 billion? 5 million? Neither? Somewhere in between? The answer is complex but by getting to grips with smart funding in the UKAR ecosystem and context gives us the best chance of solving this scale up challenge. I would suggest three elements that me may want to consider into -- that we may want to consider an overarching approach to solving this issue. Firstly, to consider principles rather than prescription. I believe we give ourselves the best opportunity if we take a principled based, outcomes focus, input understood approach to everything we do in this space.
To those principles, trust and transparency in technologies are nothing without that, inclusion and innovation, interoperability, both with the technologies and indeed the regulatory frameworks around the world. Accountability, accessibility and assurance. Good principles, I would suggest, ball approaches, certainly good to principles as we approach AI. I would suggest to the Minister perhaps the government will consider putting such principles on a statutory basis and largely set out in 2023 White Paper, I believe giving them statutory effect would only be positive in this mission which we all need to focus so clearly on.
Second, I believe we need a right -sized, agile, adaptive and flexible AI authority. Do not think BMR thick do it all AI regulator but think of some think maybe it could be just a development of the role of Rio, so ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Willetts. Maybe it could be a coming together of Rio and the DRCF, maybe it could be a new entity in total. But why I believe we need that is because although it is right to take a domain specific approach because that is where the domain expertise lies, how do we assure those three core elements that any of us need when we come across AI or indeed anything? Clarity, certainty, consistency.
Without a guiding mind or agile regulator, how can we have that clarity, certainty and consistency of application? So whether we come across AI in health, education, defence, how can we be assured that we will be having a similar experience? I believe that AI Authority could be that champion of the principles, the custodian and also a sector of experts. Giving efficient and effective solution to the current situation of various regulators competing for a scarce talent pool. How does the nation benefit if Ofgem, for example, gains a particular data scientist and say, Ofcom does not? We do not benefit as a nation, our AI ecosystem does not benefit.
Thirdly, I believe we need to thoroughly and finally smash the Kotter me that recurs with tedious inevitability that you can either have remediation or regulation and never the twin shall meet. All of history, not the least recent history, tells me that the right size regulation is enabling and empowering innovation. Take the regulatory sandbox in for an tech. The measure of success will replicate in just under 100 nations around the world, a UK creation by UK regulator. Great to see the announcement this week by that selfsame regulators the FCA in combination bringing forth the supercharged AI sandbox.
We know how to do this, and yet we are not doing enough of it. We all know bad regulation. That in no sense means that regulation in itself is bad. Right size regulation, good for investor, for innovator, for citizen, for creative, good for consumer, good for our country. consumer, good for our country. Right size regulation can be a path through constructed in an agile way pass through to the future and the future technologies. However the may be and in whatever form they come into being.
The Government rightly talked of gross and it is these sectors deploying these technologies that are most likely to bring this growth to bear, so I asked the Minister how are we to move from being an incubator colony, and incubator country when it comes to these technologies to putting the right support, having the right skills, putting the right funding and expertise in place. Yes, at start-up. Certainly at scale up. And at the right level to shoot at nothing short of the unicorn for K of the UK economy, not just because of the economic benefit that will flow from this but the sense of the role modelling of having those in our country can do and how that brings forward all levels of the developmental permit.
We know how to do this. We can do it at pace. And we must because in short when it comes to it, we are talking our data, our decisions, and if we get this right together, human lead AI this right together, human lead AI enabled AI empowered futures.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I declare my technology interest, as set out in the register. It is also a pleasure to register. It is also a pleasure to follow my friend, Lady Lane-Fox, who has done as much as anybody in this country over the past two decades for all of the technology industries, in her work both as an entrepreneur and as a visionary for what technologies can do, not least to make public good. Can I also congratulate my noble friend Baroness Stowell for her excellent report and indeed, all members of report and indeed, all members of the committee.
I can also comment positively of the approach she took when doing this report, not just to have this as an isolated moment in time but to have it as a series of reports, each building on one another during our time chairing the commune occasions a digital Select Committee. Finally, in initial thank you, I'm grateful to our two maiden speakers who gave us excellent perspective and not least a number of excellent ideas, not just for this current minister but for all HMT Ministers to consider, not least for my noble friend Lord Massey, all excellent suggestions that will really make a difference.
My comments on the Select Committee report could be quite short. I agree with pretty much everything and all of the ramekin editions -- recommendations. It goes to the heart of the issue that we have discussed here certainly in all my time over the past 12 years and previous to that. We have a stunning start-up scene in the UK. Fabulous universities, great spin outs, a very good seed funding model. But it all gets tricky when you get to the scale ups.
This report highlights the issues, puts the recommendations and gives the Minister, they hope, much to think on. -- I hope. As my noble friend Lord Willetts put it, when it comes to Silicon Valley, nobody should be beguiled to believe this is a great success of the free market. It's birth very much from state intervention. Intervention in the right way, intervention to enable and to empower the crowding in of private capital. I cannot improve on his perfect construction. Hamiltonian, not Jeffersonian.
This debate, as so many that we have had on artificial intelligence and indeed other technologies, goes to the heart of an issue, that government and indeed wider society often struggles because it can be seen as a part of or it can be seen as sector specific. As has been noted in this debate, AI is a technology. I go beyond that, it is a series, it is a set, it is a constellation of technologies. Some yet to be brought into being.
And I gently suggest that part of the problems with the current narrative and part of the problems potentially with the government's approach, is that AI is not seen as this constellation of technologies. AI is almost seen somewhat reductive Lee almost seen somewhat reductive Lee as just gen AI. And very important, that is but one part of this constellation and I would suggest, and time will tell, I do not believe that gen AI will either be the most interesting element of AI nor the one most likely to deliver anything which we would recognise as a return on investment.
How much does it cost to do an AI model? 500 billion? 5 million? Neither? Somewhere in between? The answer is complex but by getting to grips with smart funding in the UKAR ecosystem and context gives us the best chance of solving this scale up challenge. I would suggest three elements that me may want to consider into -- that we may want to consider an overarching approach to solving this issue. Firstly, to consider principles rather than prescription. I believe we give ourselves the best opportunity if we take a principled based, outcomes focus, input understood approach to everything we do in this space.
To those principles, trust and transparency in technologies are nothing without that, inclusion and innovation, interoperability, both with the technologies and indeed the regulatory frameworks around the world. Accountability, accessibility and assurance. Good principles, I would suggest, ball approaches, certainly good to principles as we approach AI. I would suggest to the Minister perhaps the government will consider putting such principles on a statutory basis and largely set out in 2023 White Paper, I believe giving them statutory effect would only be positive in this mission which we all need to focus so clearly on.
Second, I believe we need a right -sized, agile, adaptive and flexible AI authority. Do not think BMR thick do it all AI regulator but think of some think maybe it could be just a development of the role of Rio, so ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Willetts. Maybe it could be a coming together of Rio and the DRCF, maybe it could be a new entity in total. But why I believe we need that is because although it is right to take a domain specific approach because that is where the domain expertise lies, how do we assure those three core elements that any of us need when we come across AI or indeed anything? Clarity, certainty, consistency.
Without a guiding mind or agile regulator, how can we have that clarity, certainty and consistency of application? So whether we come across AI in health, education, defence, how can we be assured that we will be having a similar experience? I believe that AI Authority could be that champion of the principles, the custodian and also a sector of experts. Giving efficient and effective solution to the current situation of various regulators competing for a scarce talent pool. How does the nation benefit if Ofgem, for example, gains a particular data scientist and say, Ofcom does not? We do not benefit as a nation, our AI ecosystem does not benefit.
Thirdly, I believe we need to thoroughly and finally smash the Kotter me that recurs with tedious inevitability that you can either have remediation or regulation and never the twin shall meet. All of history, not the least recent history, tells me that the right size regulation is enabling and empowering innovation. Take the regulatory sandbox in for an tech. The measure of success will replicate in just under 100 nations around the world, a UK creation by UK regulator. Great to see the announcement this week by that selfsame regulators the FCA in combination bringing forth the supercharged AI sandbox.
We know how to do this, and yet we are not doing enough of it. We all know bad regulation. That in no sense means that regulation in itself is bad. Right size regulation, good for investor, for innovator, for citizen, for creative, good for consumer, good for our country. consumer, good for our country. Right size regulation can be a path through constructed in an agile way pass through to the future and the future technologies. However the may be and in whatever form they come into being.
The Government rightly talked of gross and it is these sectors deploying these technologies that are most likely to bring this growth to bear, so I asked the Minister how are we to move from being an incubator colony, and incubator country when it comes to these technologies to putting the right support, having the right skills, putting the right funding and expertise in place. Yes, at start-up. Certainly at scale up. And at the right level to shoot at nothing short of the unicorn for K of the UK economy, not just because of the economic benefit that will flow from this but the sense of the role modelling of having those in our country can do and how that brings forward all levels of the developmental permit.
We know how to do this. We can do it at pace. And we must because in short when it comes to it, we are talking our data, our decisions, and if we get this right together, human lead AI this right together, human lead AI enabled AI empowered futures.
12:19
The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
-
-
The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
My Lords, this made me think about what on earth I could add to this comprehensive report and I think that we were consistently reminded that the creative industry sector is almost entirely made up of SMEs which are higher proportion are micro-businesses. As I spent most of my life working in SMEs and technology surveys I was always involved in IT, trying to produce solutions for practical applications of things and to develop solutions quite quickly and it is this application of technology that most interests me.
I agree that the Noble Lord homes as he said just a moment ago that the most useful applications of AI are not just nice shareholder reports and business presentations or applications for jobs but for managing real world complex situations the way you can apply huge amounts of data you have got to be able to get out of it what needs to be done and you could use this for managing difficult things. The other thing, of course, it can be used for is analysing huge for him is of research and also trying to make that links between where the LLM stuff will help considerably.
I did a lot of work with IOD in terms of things if you years back, looking at the British standard because the use from that came from when you combine information from different sources and different senses around it and that has grown into an interesting digital twin just now where you can mirror the real world out there in the computer system and then you can use it to analyse what would happen if and what is happening right now and how you might respond to it, and so on the connected pieces catapult which has been mentioned because I think what is very important is that we do need to continue to support these because this is a source of innovation where other people are putting in lots of ideas and out of those have come some very useful things and the great thing about this is they have been consistent, they are still there.
One of the big problems I have noticed is that these, there is always a plethora of grants, they are there for one year or two and then they disappear and there is no consistency, so you cannot plan for it and things collapse as a result and the creative industries trust is just an example of that, I think it has been knocked on the head. So, what is the point of that? We always seem to at Government level ditch things just when they are showing success, and I do think that is something that needs to be changed.
I think sometimes people have unrealistic expectations of what will come and how quickly and that is one of the big problems that Governments change, priorities change, and that is a problem with it. I have also been very interested in causal AI because I do realise we have got large line models just chasing word chains and putting them together. That has no idea what it is looking at, there is no action in Artificial Intelligence, it is just a very large neural network of transistors and it does not work the way that our brains work, it has no sense of history, it has no background, unless you have trained it, and whose learning are we going to train it on? I know that most of us think that we are always right, each of us, and that is always the trouble because we do not agree with how someone else thinks and that is part of being human and the limitations in AI, sorry, I going slightly off on a tangent but I think it is something that people need to be aware of and the point about causal AI is a lot of this information is coming from the big ones, like Gemini and ChatGPT and all of that and may be withdrawn from anywhere, you just do not know what is looked at and there is a certain loss of things on the internet, there is you might come up with things in the report if you are relying on it that would completely mislead you, so you need to be able to distinguish that and I have been involved with the company that has been used and curated databases to try and extract data, but that you can have causal AI to try to prove if things change as well you have a good database, stuff that went into it 10 or 15 years ago, the world has changed.
So, there are a lot of issues in there for you to start thinking about when it comes to these things. Other things that I was thinking, encouraging people to stay here and to grow. Tax, why do we drive all of our very successful people offshore with very high tax rates. Right at the moment to buy is doing very good business, quite a lot since things were echoed and people want to spend their money when they make it and that keep the economy going because it keeps all sorts of other things going, it keeps expensive restaurants going, people that make expensive goods, people that cater for all sorts of things like that.
It also mix the police more interesting to live in, so when you go around London it is full of entertainment, so there are all sorts of benefits to keeping your people successful and not driving them away, this is apart from the fact that I get furious when I see our great successes swallowed up by a large American corporation offshore. Sorry about this. It has gone to sleep. Typical. Another thing I was thinking about is suggesting we can get the pension funds to invest all this money, a certain amount of money, yes, that is important, but are the pension funds the best people to decide what is a good investment or a bad investment? Their job is actually to try to make sure that if pensions are still overtaxed again you have got some money to retire on and their job is to make sure money is there for you when you retire and I am not sure that the right people to judge, but I am sure someone will think of a good way out of this they have to be very careful about this.
And another point from the Noble Lord think he made a very good point about regulation stipend investment and research, that can happen a lot, and another thing that could stifle this approach is awesome academics really do not feel that commercial applications of their knowledge and learning is the right thing for academics to be involved in, and they would not cooperate because there might be a commercial outcome from it. And I think that attitude is changing, I bet it is still alive in some places, so those are some attitudes to be overcome.
Another thing that we hit at one point being funded by the Welsh Government program et cetera we needed a foreign-language speaker actually in the early days before it was called AI and MLM's. And we needed a good foreign-language speaker and could we get a work permit for them? We eventually got permission to employ eventually got permission to employ one person, and student from the University with an ongoing work permit. And we eventually got permission to employ one person, but we were not given permission for a reason.
That was going to be another application for more money and these are bureaucratic things that killed SMEs and we just do not have the time and the energy or the knowledge to get around them, so we need to start thinking about that. And I think that the noble Baroness Lady Kidron made a comment on datasharing Kidron made a comment on datasharing being essential, but there are huge dangers as I have just been saying about where this comes from and also because it has been used to do all sorts of things it could be hugely dangerous to our national security.
Because you never know even the best of people they have got something to hide and if that comes up you are opening people up to may be a bit of blackmail or pressure or whatever, so that's why we have been very cautious about Government datasharing in the past, and it is difficult, it is impossible to do this properly. I think it is a brilliant report.
I agree that the Noble Lord homes as he said just a moment ago that the most useful applications of AI are not just nice shareholder reports and business presentations or applications for jobs but for managing real world complex situations the way you can apply huge amounts of data you have got to be able to get out of it what needs to be done and you could use this for managing difficult things. The other thing, of course, it can be used for is analysing huge for him is of research and also trying to make that links between where the LLM stuff will help considerably.
I did a lot of work with IOD in terms of things if you years back, looking at the British standard because the use from that came from when you combine information from different sources and different senses around it and that has grown into an interesting digital twin just now where you can mirror the real world out there in the computer system and then you can use it to analyse what would happen if and what is happening right now and how you might respond to it, and so on the connected pieces catapult which has been mentioned because I think what is very important is that we do need to continue to support these because this is a source of innovation where other people are putting in lots of ideas and out of those have come some very useful things and the great thing about this is they have been consistent, they are still there.
One of the big problems I have noticed is that these, there is always a plethora of grants, they are there for one year or two and then they disappear and there is no consistency, so you cannot plan for it and things collapse as a result and the creative industries trust is just an example of that, I think it has been knocked on the head. So, what is the point of that? We always seem to at Government level ditch things just when they are showing success, and I do think that is something that needs to be changed.
I think sometimes people have unrealistic expectations of what will come and how quickly and that is one of the big problems that Governments change, priorities change, and that is a problem with it. I have also been very interested in causal AI because I do realise we have got large line models just chasing word chains and putting them together. That has no idea what it is looking at, there is no action in Artificial Intelligence, it is just a very large neural network of transistors and it does not work the way that our brains work, it has no sense of history, it has no background, unless you have trained it, and whose learning are we going to train it on? I know that most of us think that we are always right, each of us, and that is always the trouble because we do not agree with how someone else thinks and that is part of being human and the limitations in AI, sorry, I going slightly off on a tangent but I think it is something that people need to be aware of and the point about causal AI is a lot of this information is coming from the big ones, like Gemini and ChatGPT and all of that and may be withdrawn from anywhere, you just do not know what is looked at and there is a certain loss of things on the internet, there is you might come up with things in the report if you are relying on it that would completely mislead you, so you need to be able to distinguish that and I have been involved with the company that has been used and curated databases to try and extract data, but that you can have causal AI to try to prove if things change as well you have a good database, stuff that went into it 10 or 15 years ago, the world has changed.
So, there are a lot of issues in there for you to start thinking about when it comes to these things. Other things that I was thinking, encouraging people to stay here and to grow. Tax, why do we drive all of our very successful people offshore with very high tax rates. Right at the moment to buy is doing very good business, quite a lot since things were echoed and people want to spend their money when they make it and that keep the economy going because it keeps all sorts of other things going, it keeps expensive restaurants going, people that make expensive goods, people that cater for all sorts of things like that.
It also mix the police more interesting to live in, so when you go around London it is full of entertainment, so there are all sorts of benefits to keeping your people successful and not driving them away, this is apart from the fact that I get furious when I see our great successes swallowed up by a large American corporation offshore. Sorry about this. It has gone to sleep. Typical. Another thing I was thinking about is suggesting we can get the pension funds to invest all this money, a certain amount of money, yes, that is important, but are the pension funds the best people to decide what is a good investment or a bad investment? Their job is actually to try to make sure that if pensions are still overtaxed again you have got some money to retire on and their job is to make sure money is there for you when you retire and I am not sure that the right people to judge, but I am sure someone will think of a good way out of this they have to be very careful about this.
And another point from the Noble Lord think he made a very good point about regulation stipend investment and research, that can happen a lot, and another thing that could stifle this approach is awesome academics really do not feel that commercial applications of their knowledge and learning is the right thing for academics to be involved in, and they would not cooperate because there might be a commercial outcome from it. And I think that attitude is changing, I bet it is still alive in some places, so those are some attitudes to be overcome.
Another thing that we hit at one point being funded by the Welsh Government program et cetera we needed a foreign-language speaker actually in the early days before it was called AI and MLM's. And we needed a good foreign-language speaker and could we get a work permit for them? We eventually got permission to employ eventually got permission to employ one person, and student from the University with an ongoing work permit. And we eventually got permission to employ one person, but we were not given permission for a reason.
That was going to be another application for more money and these are bureaucratic things that killed SMEs and we just do not have the time and the energy or the knowledge to get around them, so we need to start thinking about that. And I think that the noble Baroness Lady Kidron made a comment on datasharing Kidron made a comment on datasharing being essential, but there are huge dangers as I have just been saying about where this comes from and also because it has been used to do all sorts of things it could be hugely dangerous to our national security.
Because you never know even the best of people they have got something to hide and if that comes up you are opening people up to may be a bit of blackmail or pressure or whatever, so that's why we have been very cautious about Government datasharing in the past, and it is difficult, it is impossible to do this properly. I think it is a brilliant report.
12:28
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
My Lords, I am grateful to make a short contribution and can I congratulate the Noble Lady Baroness Stowell and her mum and members of the committee and staff are producing such an excellent report and I thought her opening remarks will encapsulated the issue that we face. Can I also congratulate the two maiden speakers, they were of contrasting kinds, but they will make great contributions to the House in the future and I'm sure they both feel much better for having made them, and I think that this is in some ways a well timed debate, but with the Comprehensive Spending Review on Wednesday I think it would have been more helpful to have had it in the context of the industrial strategy that we are expecting, but that will come soon.
And I thought that the report main thrust conclusions have targeted something absolutely fundamental to the UK economy and there have been so many excellent speeches in today's debate that I will recommend to those a copy of heads like because I think it is something you should keep to hand and I came to make one particular point for this debate. And that was to connect it with others that are going on on and in the same way elsewhere in the House and I find that the Noble Lord at that moment Willard is not in his place but the point that I came here to make and that is part of the trouble of speaking at the end and I should add that we worked together on the foundation for science and to and the declaration of interest I declare mine for the parliamentary, but the point I want to make is that there are other debates going on that are directly onto this.
If you take the House of Commons Select Committee, and the report on engineering biology there is an amazingly exciting area which might, in the future, for example, enable us to grow sustainable aircraft you will and so on. And we will build leaders in what was called synthetic biology a decade ago and now we are losing our lead. And when we produced a report earlier this year our subtitle was due not fail to scale which is very much in line with one of the things that we have in today's debate.
We have a special space committee at the minute that is looking at the space economy which is going to be extremely important to the UK in the future and many ways in which it is vital to the operation of the UK economy. Some of the things that have already been talked about in the future, for example, growing antibodies because of microgravity would mean there are such cure poor quality of better use There are companies in the future that may develop along these lines, we would make a terrible mistake if we don't support and scale up those companies.
And of course, the opportunities that emerge are now opportunities that emerge are now being looked at by the Science and Technology Committee, which is my final example. We are at the moment looking at what it is that prevents this country from being able not just wonderful start-up and the incubators and all the things we have heard about quite rightly today, what is it that prevents us from being able to take it further forward? That is going to be the subject of the debate we will have when will publish a report.
Where taking some fascinating evidence from venture capitalists and high- ranking scientists. Only yesterday from DARPA and of course we need to understand what it is that leads companies like Oxford ionic to take the decision they have and be lost to some extent to this country. Government 's Mansion House reforms are going to be a very important, I was interested in what the noble Lord Massey said about rebuilding our risk culture. In conclusion, I just want to say that I hope that when we do come to discuss the current Select Committee report science and technology, Member of the Senedd today will come along for the Senedd today will come along for that today might come along for that as well.
No matter what subtitle you pick, more topless action, don't fail to scale, this is an issue that fail to scale, this is an issue that I think is central to the future of the UK economy.
And I thought that the report main thrust conclusions have targeted something absolutely fundamental to the UK economy and there have been so many excellent speeches in today's debate that I will recommend to those a copy of heads like because I think it is something you should keep to hand and I came to make one particular point for this debate. And that was to connect it with others that are going on on and in the same way elsewhere in the House and I find that the Noble Lord at that moment Willard is not in his place but the point that I came here to make and that is part of the trouble of speaking at the end and I should add that we worked together on the foundation for science and to and the declaration of interest I declare mine for the parliamentary, but the point I want to make is that there are other debates going on that are directly onto this.
If you take the House of Commons Select Committee, and the report on engineering biology there is an amazingly exciting area which might, in the future, for example, enable us to grow sustainable aircraft you will and so on. And we will build leaders in what was called synthetic biology a decade ago and now we are losing our lead. And when we produced a report earlier this year our subtitle was due not fail to scale which is very much in line with one of the things that we have in today's debate.
We have a special space committee at the minute that is looking at the space economy which is going to be extremely important to the UK in the future and many ways in which it is vital to the operation of the UK economy. Some of the things that have already been talked about in the future, for example, growing antibodies because of microgravity would mean there are such cure poor quality of better use There are companies in the future that may develop along these lines, we would make a terrible mistake if we don't support and scale up those companies.
And of course, the opportunities that emerge are now opportunities that emerge are now being looked at by the Science and Technology Committee, which is my final example. We are at the moment looking at what it is that prevents this country from being able not just wonderful start-up and the incubators and all the things we have heard about quite rightly today, what is it that prevents us from being able to take it further forward? That is going to be the subject of the debate we will have when will publish a report.
Where taking some fascinating evidence from venture capitalists and high- ranking scientists. Only yesterday from DARPA and of course we need to understand what it is that leads companies like Oxford ionic to take the decision they have and be lost to some extent to this country. Government 's Mansion House reforms are going to be a very important, I was interested in what the noble Lord Massey said about rebuilding our risk culture. In conclusion, I just want to say that I hope that when we do come to discuss the current Select Committee report science and technology, Member of the Senedd today will come along for the Senedd today will come along for that today might come along for that as well.
No matter what subtitle you pick, more topless action, don't fail to scale, this is an issue that fail to scale, this is an issue that I think is central to the future of the UK economy.
12:32
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble viscount Lord Stansted, not only for his enthusiasm but also his concision to pack all that in its four minutes, quite an achievement. I declare my interest as an adviser to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation and as founder and coach of the all-party group are artificial intelligence. I want to start by not only congratulating the Communications and Digital Committee for the report that the noble Baroness stole all her really excellent introduction today.
-- Baroness Stowell. And all the service she has given as chair of the Select Committee. She hit all the points. And I thought that what the noble Baroness Kidron said about her listening nature of the report to, the fact that it was both AI and creative tech I think is really powerful. And has enabled us to have a really excellent debate today. And I agree, this should be required reading. We have covered a huge amount of ground today and I want to thank our two maiden speakers as well.
I am really pleased they chose to add their expertise to today's proceedings. I thought it was... You know, sometimes you find there are Maiden speeches in debates and you wonder why on earth they have been chosen as the vehicle for a Maiden speech. I do not think any of us are in any doubt that the two noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Massey, have made a very, very interesting contribution to today's proceedings. So, thank you. And I may also say at the very beginning that has been a great privilege to be speaking on the same ventures as my noble friend, Lord McNally, today.
To hear the wisdom of Lord McNally on these occasions is a great pleasure for me personally, I must say. The phrase incubator economy really has stuck. And I think that phrase has helped us... Helped us guide ourselves through this debate today and made the contributions that much sharper and more relevant. Great at hatching ideas but watching them fly away too much or elsewhere. -- To mature elsewhere. We only have to illustrate this as noble Lords had done today with a number of examples.
When are chose to list in New York rather than London we lost what would now be Britain's fifth biggest company. When companies like wise very recently followed the same path, the pattern becomes clear. This was epitomised by a city AM headline on Tuesday, ouch, three tech firms to the UK in a single day. Many noble Lords have mentioned our ways, inspectors and Oxford ionic's at the beginning of London tech week two. What an appalling time to have that news.
And of course the noble Lord Willetts reminded us that this is long- standing in terms of DeepMind and selector as well. And the consequences of this failure was significant. Decrease global competitiveness, weaker economic prospects and a potential brain drain of talent, as the noble Baroness reminded us at the very beginning of the debate and the noble Baroness Lady Fox emphasised as well. -- Baroness Lane-Fox. The Government are putting a great deal of faith into AI, the AI Opportunities Action Plan and industrial strategy for a growth driving sectors.
But at the same time, we must breakdown a number of barriers which are holding us back. First of all as we have heard across the House, we have a significant funding gap later stage rounds compared to the US. That is called the Valium death, I thought very graphically, by the noble Baroness Wheatcroft. And as we have heard, UK pension and manage over £3 trillion pension and manage over £3 trillion of assets and invest barely a fraction of that in growing domestic companies.
And we do have initiatives like the long-term investment of technology and science program, the British Business Bank has supported many UK unicorns. UKRI IIs, a public-private seed fund has a proven track record but the size of the funding gap remains immense. And the noble Lord Willis I think rightly mentioned this, there is a recognised lack of technology expertise amongst institutional investors. And probably, as the noble Lord plural -- Lord Errol mentioned, amongst pension funds as well.
As the noble Lord Ranger says, we are in a global technology race. 62% of UKAR firms identify skills votes to -- UKAR firms identify skills gaps. Our Visa system is slow, laborious and costly. SMEs often cannot match tech salaries, while the scale up visas exist, industry leaders say it is not yet fast or cheap enough to meet the needs of rapidly growing businesses, especially in highly competitive fields like AI. And then we have infrastructure. Withdrawal, as we had the committee say, of £1.3 billion for AI infrastructure, billion for AI infrastructure, including the Edinburgh supercomputer, at the outset by this government, sent exactly the wrong signal.
As one witness to the committee project, we have some really big gaps in infrastructure, computing and power. And then of course we had the whole issue of regulation procurement. And the noble Baroness Lane-Fox mention the procurement rules that prevent government procurement rules... Government procurement rules that stop smaller companies competing for government contracts, despite government procurement potential driver of innovation. The committee had the Competition and Markets Authority is alleged to be harsh on internal rollouts, where one British company proposes acquiring another British company.
What needs to happen now, and I thought again the noble Lord Willetts phrase a manageable challenge was very useful. I also rather liked the Lord Holmes Hamiltonian versus Jeff Estonia approach. -- Jeff Sony. The National Wealth Fund commitment is a start we need these resources deployed quickly and strategically. The government is taking action, it seems, to unlock £75 billion through the Mansion House Accord and introduce pension-fund reforms. But these will take several years to have meaningful impact.
The recent Tony Blair Institute report, and I note the Government listens to the Tony Blair Institute, which is also mentioned I think by the noble Baroness full, recommends giving the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund clear, parenterally mandates to deliver on the Government's industrial strategy. Specifically they say the British Business Bank should focus on crowding in capital for the scale up phase, series B to C, with its maximum investment Rate to -- maximum investment Rate to -- investment cap rate...
It should act as a more capital intensive direct investor, with a minimum investment of 25 million more late stage series D plus strategic assets. I wonder whether the noble Baroness will be able to comment on progress being made in terms of defining the roles of those two institutions. I thought the noble Lord Massey is discussion about Capital Gains Tax in terms of game stocks was a very interesting suggestion. On talent, the AI opportunities plan also specifies investment in talent and recommends the government explore how to address wider barriers like the cost and complexity of visas, which create obstacles for start-ups and deter overseas talent from relocating to the UK.
We need a fast track these are system or scale up now, -- for scale apps now. I do accept the concerns of the noble terracing about there is a falling number of UK entrants to these courses. On infrastructure, I do welcome the commitment in the Spending Review, the £2 billion commitment in the Spending Review. And the government's promise to immediately double the AI research capacity and launch AI growth service data centres. The compute strategy promised for spring 2025 is already overdue and must deliver accessible resources to our universities, start-ups, scale ups as soon as possible.
But I do also accept the reservations of the noble Lord Tarassenko, we do not want to find ourselves investing in infrastructure where we can actually deliver what we need to deliver without the extent of that infrastructure, as deep seek demonstrated. AI growth zones are being launched to accelerate datacentre construction and infrastructure with formal selection processes opening, we understand, this spring. But we need to tackle the environmental issues around them too. As the noble Lord Hamilton, who is in his place I noticed...
I think he was absolutely right to raise that particular issue. In order to scale up, start-ups need to overcome the diffusion problem which refers to the challenge of achieving widespread adoption and market penetration for their innovations. This is impacted by lack of access to digital platforms, which have quasi monopoly positions, Google and Apple are now under investigation, I'm glad to say, by the CMA. The outcome will be the acid test for whether the new digital markets regime result in access remedies which allow our start-ups to scale more easily.
On regulation, the Regulatory Innovation Office, and is very welcome new chair, Lord Willetts, is promising in terms of its mission to reduce red tape and help companies bring new products to market faster. But it must have teeth. Given that the AI Opportunities Action Plan aims to accelerate the adoption of safe, trustworthy AI across the economy, clarity, certainty and consistency of AI regulation for business going forward is crucial. Government have kicked a future AI Bill into longer, if not wholly long grass.
It talks of a sector led outcomes-based approach to AI regulation. But many of us have seen no detail of any proposals and many of us believe minimalist approach being adopted is simply inadequate in the face of AI risks and the need for public trust. I entirely agree with the noble Lord Holmes, that good regulation, outcome-based regulation, is not the enemy of innovation. In fact it can be the creator of interoperability and the driver of innovation. We have discussed constantly, for what seems like several months, a significant issue for creatives.
The use of copyright content for training AI models. I do not intend to say too much about this, but the noble Baroness is only too well aware of the arguments being made. Given the Government's recent failure to deliver clarity to the creative industries, the consultation on AI and copyright and the associated economic impact assessment and the technology report and, I may say, the working parties, must provide clarity quickly. Our creative industries must have the transparency they need to ensure they can thrive alongside the tech industries without being its victim.
And where is the creative industry sector plan, promised... Again, everything seems to be promised for late spring, I think we have a traffic jam somewhere in Whitehall. This will identify growth barriers, we understand, and outline commitments government and industry to overcome them. I have little time left, the National Data Library, I shared the reservations but also the promise associated with that, which both the noble Lord Harris SENCO -- Lord Tarassenko and Baroness Kidron express. It could be a good sovereign asset vehicle, if it takes the right shape.
In conclusion, the the right shape. In conclusion, the committee's report is AI creative -- 'AI and creative technology scaleups: less talk, more action'. It is not just a good title, it is an urgent instruction. The question is, are the Government ready to match ambition with action? I very much look forward to the Ministers replied that as the noble Lord Holmes said, she has been given much
-- Baroness Stowell. And all the service she has given as chair of the Select Committee. She hit all the points. And I thought that what the noble Baroness Kidron said about her listening nature of the report to, the fact that it was both AI and creative tech I think is really powerful. And has enabled us to have a really excellent debate today. And I agree, this should be required reading. We have covered a huge amount of ground today and I want to thank our two maiden speakers as well.
I am really pleased they chose to add their expertise to today's proceedings. I thought it was... You know, sometimes you find there are Maiden speeches in debates and you wonder why on earth they have been chosen as the vehicle for a Maiden speech. I do not think any of us are in any doubt that the two noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Massey, have made a very, very interesting contribution to today's proceedings. So, thank you. And I may also say at the very beginning that has been a great privilege to be speaking on the same ventures as my noble friend, Lord McNally, today.
To hear the wisdom of Lord McNally on these occasions is a great pleasure for me personally, I must say. The phrase incubator economy really has stuck. And I think that phrase has helped us... Helped us guide ourselves through this debate today and made the contributions that much sharper and more relevant. Great at hatching ideas but watching them fly away too much or elsewhere. -- To mature elsewhere. We only have to illustrate this as noble Lords had done today with a number of examples.
When are chose to list in New York rather than London we lost what would now be Britain's fifth biggest company. When companies like wise very recently followed the same path, the pattern becomes clear. This was epitomised by a city AM headline on Tuesday, ouch, three tech firms to the UK in a single day. Many noble Lords have mentioned our ways, inspectors and Oxford ionic's at the beginning of London tech week two. What an appalling time to have that news.
And of course the noble Lord Willetts reminded us that this is long- standing in terms of DeepMind and selector as well. And the consequences of this failure was significant. Decrease global competitiveness, weaker economic prospects and a potential brain drain of talent, as the noble Baroness reminded us at the very beginning of the debate and the noble Baroness Lady Fox emphasised as well. -- Baroness Lane-Fox. The Government are putting a great deal of faith into AI, the AI Opportunities Action Plan and industrial strategy for a growth driving sectors.
But at the same time, we must breakdown a number of barriers which are holding us back. First of all as we have heard across the House, we have a significant funding gap later stage rounds compared to the US. That is called the Valium death, I thought very graphically, by the noble Baroness Wheatcroft. And as we have heard, UK pension and manage over £3 trillion pension and manage over £3 trillion of assets and invest barely a fraction of that in growing domestic companies.
And we do have initiatives like the long-term investment of technology and science program, the British Business Bank has supported many UK unicorns. UKRI IIs, a public-private seed fund has a proven track record but the size of the funding gap remains immense. And the noble Lord Willis I think rightly mentioned this, there is a recognised lack of technology expertise amongst institutional investors. And probably, as the noble Lord plural -- Lord Errol mentioned, amongst pension funds as well.
As the noble Lord Ranger says, we are in a global technology race. 62% of UKAR firms identify skills votes to -- UKAR firms identify skills gaps. Our Visa system is slow, laborious and costly. SMEs often cannot match tech salaries, while the scale up visas exist, industry leaders say it is not yet fast or cheap enough to meet the needs of rapidly growing businesses, especially in highly competitive fields like AI. And then we have infrastructure. Withdrawal, as we had the committee say, of £1.3 billion for AI infrastructure, billion for AI infrastructure, including the Edinburgh supercomputer, at the outset by this government, sent exactly the wrong signal.
As one witness to the committee project, we have some really big gaps in infrastructure, computing and power. And then of course we had the whole issue of regulation procurement. And the noble Baroness Lane-Fox mention the procurement rules that prevent government procurement rules... Government procurement rules that stop smaller companies competing for government contracts, despite government procurement potential driver of innovation. The committee had the Competition and Markets Authority is alleged to be harsh on internal rollouts, where one British company proposes acquiring another British company.
What needs to happen now, and I thought again the noble Lord Willetts phrase a manageable challenge was very useful. I also rather liked the Lord Holmes Hamiltonian versus Jeff Estonia approach. -- Jeff Sony. The National Wealth Fund commitment is a start we need these resources deployed quickly and strategically. The government is taking action, it seems, to unlock £75 billion through the Mansion House Accord and introduce pension-fund reforms. But these will take several years to have meaningful impact.
The recent Tony Blair Institute report, and I note the Government listens to the Tony Blair Institute, which is also mentioned I think by the noble Baroness full, recommends giving the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund clear, parenterally mandates to deliver on the Government's industrial strategy. Specifically they say the British Business Bank should focus on crowding in capital for the scale up phase, series B to C, with its maximum investment Rate to -- maximum investment Rate to -- investment cap rate...
It should act as a more capital intensive direct investor, with a minimum investment of 25 million more late stage series D plus strategic assets. I wonder whether the noble Baroness will be able to comment on progress being made in terms of defining the roles of those two institutions. I thought the noble Lord Massey is discussion about Capital Gains Tax in terms of game stocks was a very interesting suggestion. On talent, the AI opportunities plan also specifies investment in talent and recommends the government explore how to address wider barriers like the cost and complexity of visas, which create obstacles for start-ups and deter overseas talent from relocating to the UK.
We need a fast track these are system or scale up now, -- for scale apps now. I do accept the concerns of the noble terracing about there is a falling number of UK entrants to these courses. On infrastructure, I do welcome the commitment in the Spending Review, the £2 billion commitment in the Spending Review. And the government's promise to immediately double the AI research capacity and launch AI growth service data centres. The compute strategy promised for spring 2025 is already overdue and must deliver accessible resources to our universities, start-ups, scale ups as soon as possible.
But I do also accept the reservations of the noble Lord Tarassenko, we do not want to find ourselves investing in infrastructure where we can actually deliver what we need to deliver without the extent of that infrastructure, as deep seek demonstrated. AI growth zones are being launched to accelerate datacentre construction and infrastructure with formal selection processes opening, we understand, this spring. But we need to tackle the environmental issues around them too. As the noble Lord Hamilton, who is in his place I noticed...
I think he was absolutely right to raise that particular issue. In order to scale up, start-ups need to overcome the diffusion problem which refers to the challenge of achieving widespread adoption and market penetration for their innovations. This is impacted by lack of access to digital platforms, which have quasi monopoly positions, Google and Apple are now under investigation, I'm glad to say, by the CMA. The outcome will be the acid test for whether the new digital markets regime result in access remedies which allow our start-ups to scale more easily.
On regulation, the Regulatory Innovation Office, and is very welcome new chair, Lord Willetts, is promising in terms of its mission to reduce red tape and help companies bring new products to market faster. But it must have teeth. Given that the AI Opportunities Action Plan aims to accelerate the adoption of safe, trustworthy AI across the economy, clarity, certainty and consistency of AI regulation for business going forward is crucial. Government have kicked a future AI Bill into longer, if not wholly long grass.
It talks of a sector led outcomes-based approach to AI regulation. But many of us have seen no detail of any proposals and many of us believe minimalist approach being adopted is simply inadequate in the face of AI risks and the need for public trust. I entirely agree with the noble Lord Holmes, that good regulation, outcome-based regulation, is not the enemy of innovation. In fact it can be the creator of interoperability and the driver of innovation. We have discussed constantly, for what seems like several months, a significant issue for creatives.
The use of copyright content for training AI models. I do not intend to say too much about this, but the noble Baroness is only too well aware of the arguments being made. Given the Government's recent failure to deliver clarity to the creative industries, the consultation on AI and copyright and the associated economic impact assessment and the technology report and, I may say, the working parties, must provide clarity quickly. Our creative industries must have the transparency they need to ensure they can thrive alongside the tech industries without being its victim.
And where is the creative industry sector plan, promised... Again, everything seems to be promised for late spring, I think we have a traffic jam somewhere in Whitehall. This will identify growth barriers, we understand, and outline commitments government and industry to overcome them. I have little time left, the National Data Library, I shared the reservations but also the promise associated with that, which both the noble Lord Harris SENCO -- Lord Tarassenko and Baroness Kidron express. It could be a good sovereign asset vehicle, if it takes the right shape.
In conclusion, the the right shape. In conclusion, the committee's report is AI creative -- 'AI and creative technology scaleups: less talk, more action'. It is not just a good title, it is an urgent instruction. The question is, are the Government ready to match ambition with action? I very much look forward to the Ministers replied that as the noble Lord Holmes said, she has been given much
12:46
Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
-
-
Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
I declare my interests in the technology ventures as set out in the register. I must start by thanking my Noble Friend for securing and leading this important and timely debate and I felt genuinely sad to be reminded that she will no longer be chairing this very important and effective committee. Let me also congratulate warmly my new and friends Lord Evans for both of their maiden speeches, I thought they were both interesting, well argued, and holy well constructed for this debate being uniformly outstanding.
The Noble Lord McNally quoted the white heat of progress and rightly so, but I feel that AI is putting. White heat into the shade. And whatever we are going to do be it as organisations or as parliamentarians or as Government we are going to have to do it fast and considerably faster than we are doing it now and I think that raises the important question of how we can both accelerate our pace and our agility for coping with very fast-moving new technology.
I agree, needless to say with my honourable friend Baroness Stowell that UK has the potential to be the powerhouse for growth for AI and tech companies. And that is why it is so essential for the Government to consider the recommendations made by this report. There is no doubt that the UK has a deservedly strong reputation with start-ups and I proud the UK continues to lead in Europe for having the greatest number. I share other noble Lords concerns of course about the competitors, particularly France, catching up with us, and we must be on our metal.
We must be acutely aware of the well argued, well- founded concerns expressed by the committee that the UK is, indeed, at risk of becoming and incubated economy. The UK unicorn, Manzo, is a proud example of this. Manzo was born in London, raised in London, and recent announcements indicate that Manzo may choose to list the US rather than the UK stock market. It is a sad reflection. They do not feel confident to support these skill ups and we must recognise the UK is at grave risk of losing out to other nations.
Across the sector we continue to see this as has been highlighted the Oxford Saint Enterprises and I would echo the points raised by my noble Lords. I would argue that without urgent action it is the US that would benefit from the ones we are building in the UK, the CEO of video games describes the UK as, and I quote, one of the worst places in the G-7 for scaling games businesses. And the CEO has reported that the UK is, again, a terrible place to scale a business.
So, my Lords, it is vital that we restore London's capital market and remove the unnecessary barriers to growth. The recommendations put forward address some of the key challenges raised by industry. First, streamlining innovation funds to provide clear, more comprehensive pathways of support for companies along their growth journey and remove some of the complexity that was referred to earlier. Second, accelerate financial reforms to ensure they keep up with the whiter than white rate of technological development.
Third, champion entrepreneurial success to celebrate and recognise the national contribution and achievement of successful British entrepreneurs and the wise words of Baroness Lane-Fox really resonated on this. Fourth, the industrial strategy itself must provide a coherent cross set division for how tech skill ups will be supported to drive economic growth. First, the Government must commit to AI delivery by removing obstacles to growth and supporting AI's potential in Government strategies. The AI opportunities to the action plan is clearly very important step, but a first step on that journey.
And, finally, the Government should review its R&D tax credit schemes to ensure include more support for the creative industries which receive limited investment compared to other key growth sectors. As the noble Lords across the House are aware, when my party was in Government we took steps to examine and try to grapple with these problems to address barriers to scaling up through the 2014 report, 2017 patient capital review, and the 2021 review of the U.K.'s fin tech sector.
Scaling up start-ups and creating an environment in which enterprises can flourish was, of course, the priority from the previous Government, as it is, no doubt, for this one. This was demonstrated through a range of business support programs and Government backed financial support to encourage those start-ups to grow. And I think I list these things not because I am claiming they were successful, obviously if they have been as successful as we wanted we would not be having this debate today, but there is an important step here we must be constantly learning from these programs what went well, what do we need to build on, and how can we adapt as we go forward in the future? In Government, we took a view that AI regulation should be principal's outcome raised due to the fast-moving technology and I was pleased to hear my Noble Friend Lord Holmes on this point and also I am pleased that the Government has retained this view and supportive of the approach they have taken in this respect towards AI.
I also welcome the fact that the Government is keen to continue fostering innovation, scaling businesses, and supporting emerging technologies. Building, indeed, on the foundation of the Government and rebels and the government's express view on pensions reforms can channel investment into the industries, the Government has also committed to ensuring British business bank will effectively support companies to scale up in the industrial strategy and I thank also my Noble Friend for his helpful account of how the various Andaman's have ended up in the British Business Bank and might fit together.
Now, in this chamber we have heard a great deal recently about AI copyright. Let me just make one point, here. Which is that we need to move faster towards a trusting marketplace for copyright licensing for AI. The perception and whatever one's views of it, just the perception that AI lab scan, with impunity, steal private property, steal private property, poisons people's willingness to trust our tech centre, and, therefore, limits growth. The government's plan timeline to address this, as I have said many times in this debate, is far too slow and it needs to become more agile and move more quickly.
I close with if you questions for the Minister. As has been pointed out, there have been plenty of quite different points raised if the Minister prefers to refer to some of these in writing, she is very welcome to do so. First, the Government have rightly recognised the pivotal role of creating technology sector. And the challenges they face. However, there has been no commitment thus far to the current definition of R&D tax reliefs to include more in the creative sector.
What plans does the Government have to change this? Second, before the election, the Labour Party manifesto pledge to create an AI regulation a commitment that was repeatedly in the Maiden speech. However, I read in the Guardian this bill will not be introduced until the next session, so can the noble Baroness to so can the noble Baroness to minister confirm that the bill has indeed been delayed? And, if so, what were the factors behind that decision? Has the scope broadened under the bill or otherwise changed? Does she share my concerns about the continued uncertainty this creates? Not just uncertainty for the tech sector, but for everyone who is a stakeholder in this tech sector which, in practice, means everyone.
But third and finally, does the Noble Lady the Minister agree that crypto, or digital assets and tokenisation have very serious potential to remove market frictions and cut transaction costs. If so, how can we encourage their use? Particularly to help skill ups. We have seen in recent days the United States with very significant moves in this area. Does the Government make of those moves? And how do we plan to respond?
The Noble Lord McNally quoted the white heat of progress and rightly so, but I feel that AI is putting. White heat into the shade. And whatever we are going to do be it as organisations or as parliamentarians or as Government we are going to have to do it fast and considerably faster than we are doing it now and I think that raises the important question of how we can both accelerate our pace and our agility for coping with very fast-moving new technology.
I agree, needless to say with my honourable friend Baroness Stowell that UK has the potential to be the powerhouse for growth for AI and tech companies. And that is why it is so essential for the Government to consider the recommendations made by this report. There is no doubt that the UK has a deservedly strong reputation with start-ups and I proud the UK continues to lead in Europe for having the greatest number. I share other noble Lords concerns of course about the competitors, particularly France, catching up with us, and we must be on our metal.
We must be acutely aware of the well argued, well- founded concerns expressed by the committee that the UK is, indeed, at risk of becoming and incubated economy. The UK unicorn, Manzo, is a proud example of this. Manzo was born in London, raised in London, and recent announcements indicate that Manzo may choose to list the US rather than the UK stock market. It is a sad reflection. They do not feel confident to support these skill ups and we must recognise the UK is at grave risk of losing out to other nations.
Across the sector we continue to see this as has been highlighted the Oxford Saint Enterprises and I would echo the points raised by my noble Lords. I would argue that without urgent action it is the US that would benefit from the ones we are building in the UK, the CEO of video games describes the UK as, and I quote, one of the worst places in the G-7 for scaling games businesses. And the CEO has reported that the UK is, again, a terrible place to scale a business.
So, my Lords, it is vital that we restore London's capital market and remove the unnecessary barriers to growth. The recommendations put forward address some of the key challenges raised by industry. First, streamlining innovation funds to provide clear, more comprehensive pathways of support for companies along their growth journey and remove some of the complexity that was referred to earlier. Second, accelerate financial reforms to ensure they keep up with the whiter than white rate of technological development.
Third, champion entrepreneurial success to celebrate and recognise the national contribution and achievement of successful British entrepreneurs and the wise words of Baroness Lane-Fox really resonated on this. Fourth, the industrial strategy itself must provide a coherent cross set division for how tech skill ups will be supported to drive economic growth. First, the Government must commit to AI delivery by removing obstacles to growth and supporting AI's potential in Government strategies. The AI opportunities to the action plan is clearly very important step, but a first step on that journey.
And, finally, the Government should review its R&D tax credit schemes to ensure include more support for the creative industries which receive limited investment compared to other key growth sectors. As the noble Lords across the House are aware, when my party was in Government we took steps to examine and try to grapple with these problems to address barriers to scaling up through the 2014 report, 2017 patient capital review, and the 2021 review of the U.K.'s fin tech sector.
Scaling up start-ups and creating an environment in which enterprises can flourish was, of course, the priority from the previous Government, as it is, no doubt, for this one. This was demonstrated through a range of business support programs and Government backed financial support to encourage those start-ups to grow. And I think I list these things not because I am claiming they were successful, obviously if they have been as successful as we wanted we would not be having this debate today, but there is an important step here we must be constantly learning from these programs what went well, what do we need to build on, and how can we adapt as we go forward in the future? In Government, we took a view that AI regulation should be principal's outcome raised due to the fast-moving technology and I was pleased to hear my Noble Friend Lord Holmes on this point and also I am pleased that the Government has retained this view and supportive of the approach they have taken in this respect towards AI.
I also welcome the fact that the Government is keen to continue fostering innovation, scaling businesses, and supporting emerging technologies. Building, indeed, on the foundation of the Government and rebels and the government's express view on pensions reforms can channel investment into the industries, the Government has also committed to ensuring British business bank will effectively support companies to scale up in the industrial strategy and I thank also my Noble Friend for his helpful account of how the various Andaman's have ended up in the British Business Bank and might fit together.
Now, in this chamber we have heard a great deal recently about AI copyright. Let me just make one point, here. Which is that we need to move faster towards a trusting marketplace for copyright licensing for AI. The perception and whatever one's views of it, just the perception that AI lab scan, with impunity, steal private property, steal private property, poisons people's willingness to trust our tech centre, and, therefore, limits growth. The government's plan timeline to address this, as I have said many times in this debate, is far too slow and it needs to become more agile and move more quickly.
I close with if you questions for the Minister. As has been pointed out, there have been plenty of quite different points raised if the Minister prefers to refer to some of these in writing, she is very welcome to do so. First, the Government have rightly recognised the pivotal role of creating technology sector. And the challenges they face. However, there has been no commitment thus far to the current definition of R&D tax reliefs to include more in the creative sector.
What plans does the Government have to change this? Second, before the election, the Labour Party manifesto pledge to create an AI regulation a commitment that was repeatedly in the Maiden speech. However, I read in the Guardian this bill will not be introduced until the next session, so can the noble Baroness to so can the noble Baroness to minister confirm that the bill has indeed been delayed? And, if so, what were the factors behind that decision? Has the scope broadened under the bill or otherwise changed? Does she share my concerns about the continued uncertainty this creates? Not just uncertainty for the tech sector, but for everyone who is a stakeholder in this tech sector which, in practice, means everyone.
But third and finally, does the Noble Lady the Minister agree that crypto, or digital assets and tokenisation have very serious potential to remove market frictions and cut transaction costs. If so, how can we encourage their use? Particularly to help skill ups. We have seen in recent days the United States with very significant moves in this area. Does the Government make of those moves? And how do we plan to respond?
12:56
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
My Lords, can I thank the communications committee for its very thoughtful and timely report and I would like to pay particular thanks to the Noble Lady Baroness Fall her contribution and very effective contribution as The Chair of the Committee, as well as being historically delivering this voluble inquiry and can I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion with such insight and urgency, and, as your interventions have shown we are grappling with some very complex issues, but before I begin I would like to take a moment to thank the Noble Lord Evans of aspera and the Noble Lord Massey of Hampstead for their engaging maiden speeches.
It is a pleasure to welcome both of them to the House Lord Evans brings with him it was the excitement this time as a barrister in many years of public service with his experience in public leadership and financial services at a value will voice to our discussions and we are fortunate to have both contributing to our work. The title of this report, less talk more action, is a challenge that we take seriously. The Government shares the committees ambitions to unlock the full potential of the U.K.'s AI and creative technology skill ups.
We do understand that there are challenges in scaling these businesses and are determined to ensure that these scale and stay in the UK. But before I turn to responding to the many questions and interventions, I want to reckon is the strength and the importance of the UK technology and creative sectors at the current time. The UK tech sector is an incredible UK success story, and I agree with the Noble Lady baroness that we do not do enough to separate the innovators and the risktakers in the tech sector.
I have to say that despite her quote the UK continues to pose the largest tech ecosystem in Europe and ranks among the top five globally driven by talent, strong R&D, and innovative regulation. It remains Europe's top destination for tech investment with the tech sector, valued between £1.2 trillion in 2024. And at the noble Baroness homes quite rightly pointed out we have a wonderful university research centre with four out of the top 10 universities in the global index, and this is a fantastic basis on which we can grow, but we know that starting strong is not good enough and to many of our promising companies struggle to scale.
Too often, as we heard, they grow elsewhere. And I agree with the Noble Lady baroness and others that urge and action is needed to appoint the value. I also agree with Noble Lord Willis that we need ways to make the skill ups in the UK so compelling that it makes no sense for them to leave and we want them to stay and we have to find ways to do that. And I also agree with the Noble Lady baroness Lady Fox that we need to address the cultural issues that are holding back some of that ambition and expansion and I agree as well with the Noble Lord that we need to find better ways of championing entrepreneurs and holding them as role models.
My Lords, we are, indeed, focused on building an environment where high- growth firms can start scaling in the UK. And the Noble Lord bullet, I pay tribute to my Noble Friend who has a huge project ongoing to streamline funding throughout the start of the skill of funding stream, tackling, as we have heard, the Government grants, many of which we absolutely understand that need for long-term certainty for British businesses. And I have to say that this work is already beginning to pay off, as of January 2025 we have 185 companies across the tech sector that have reached unicorn status.
That have either been founded or headquartered in the UK. More than friends, generate, and Sweden put friends, generate, and Sweden put We want to see more success stories and scale in this manner. But as both the Prime Minister and DSIT Secretary of State McClair, the government is going to have to keep this momentum going. -- Have made clear. We are already taking steps. This week we have announced a new £86 billion R&D settlement to fund everything from new drug treatments and longer lasting batteries to new AI breakthrough to generate billions for the UK economy and drive our Plan for Change.
We have also announced tech first, a comprehensive talent initiative, which will give young people across the UK unprecedented access to tech skills and careers. Boosting our domestic supply of top tech talent. And our local innovation partnership fund will be investing up to £500 million to help our economic growth spread throughout every region and nation in the UK. Yesterday I chaired a roundtable of regional state representatives who are driving forward that local enterprise and they very much welcome a new funding announcements we have made.
I would like to thank the noble Lady Baroness Kidron for her contribution about the value of data. I can assure her that the points you made throughout the Data Bill about their data being a sovereign data asset have been taken on board and they were very well made. I assure her and the noble Lord Terra SENCO -- Lord Tarassenko, that those principles of it being a sarin dent -- sovereign data were underpinned the data library. The NHS only allows access to health data when it benefits health and care and we never sell data.
Our creative industries are a national treasure, contributing 124 billion treasure, contributing 124 billion in GVA and supporting 2.4 million jobs. More than that, they are the windows to which the UK present itself and our values to the world. I can assure Baroness Stowell and other noble Lords that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have hosted a number of events with the creative sector at Number Ten and number 11 Downing Street, to celebrate their success. In 2025, DCMS funded research rounded...
Found 30,000 30,800 creative businesses using emergency -- emerging technologies and supported 350,000 jobs. They are also a source of innovation and where the sectors come together, they produce great things. Createch, the fusion of creativity and technology, is a major growth opportunity. With the right support, createch's scare labs right support, createch's scare labs could generate -- scale ups could generate £18 billion in additional GVA and 160,000 jobs over the next decade. We are committed to removing the barriers these businesses face from access to finance to regulatory complexity and our upcoming creative industry sector plan, which is indeed due shortly, will set out how we will do just that.
At this week's spending review, the creative industries received a transformational boost for the creative industries. The settlement announced for DCMS include increased funding, demonstrating the Government's commitment to fuelling the creative industries. It will help drive regional growth and innovation and develop creative places, ensuring the UK's creative industries remain renowned throughout the world. The opportunity was particularly clear to me this week as I attended London tech week. I saw the University of arts London bring future play from their computing Institute to the heart of London tech week, demonstrating just how engaging the creative technology can be for users.
As well as many fantastic speakers representing createch companies appearing on panels throughout the week, such as Anna Burke of animated technologies and Daniel of Synthesia. We want to ensure that the creative and technology sectors continue to thrive, we want to leveraged the strength of the UK in both sectors to ensure that as both grow, they continue to strengthen each other. I also want to recognise the strength of our AI sector, it generates 14.2 billion in revenue last year, employs over 64,000 people and is home to more than 3,700 companies, up 17% from the year before.
The Prime Minister launched the AI Opportunities Action Plan in January and it sets out 15 far-reaching actions needed to drive up the element and deployment of AI. The government will take forward all of these recommendations. And in response to the noble Lady Baroness Stowell and the noble Lord Tarassenko, I'm pleased to say that just this week, we have announced an extra £1 billion of funding to scale up our computer power up to a factor of 20. This will include making Scotland the home to the UK's most powerful supercomputer, with up to £750 million for that project.
We will also train 7.5 million workers in AI by 2030, through partnering with 11 major companies. But the Government is not unaware of the complexities that arise out of AI. And I agree with the noble Lord Holmes that the challenge is to ensure our AI deployment is human led and human focused. In particular, we recognise the importance of getting the regulatory framework right, especially around copyright and intellectual property. As noble Lords no, we held a detailed consultation on future copyright reform, receiving over 11,000 responses.
No decision has yet been taken on the final policy. We recognise this is a complex and rapidly developing area and will continue to welcome all views and evidence to help shape our thinking. We will act but we will act in the round and on the basis of a careful analysis. Transparency and other areas raised during debates are of course crucial that they must be developed as part of a balanced package to avoid making the UK uncompetitive in AI development. I agree with the noble Lady Baroness Stowell, it is unfortunate that the arguments have become a divisive thing between the creative and tech sectors when in fact they should hand-in-hand.
We want to ensure that these exciting createch companies are able to continue to innovate and scale, whilst also supporting our world leading creative industries. A sector that the government has continued to support as one of the eight priority strands of our industrial strategy. The show government's ambition for balance in this space we are convening working groups that include representatives of all relevant sectors, including both the creative and AI sectors. I can assure the noble Lord McNally we will of course also be working with Parliamentary colleagues to help shape that report.
I hope that reiterate our commitment to developing policy that is effective, meaningful, proportional and practical in all sectors. Our commitment to supporting our text as is evident in our industrial strategy. Invest 2035, which is a 10 year plan to support high-growth sectors and create a pro this environment, will be published this month. The industrial strategy will deliver the certainty and stability businesses need to invest and will create a pro-business environment and support high potential clusters across the country.
The industrial strategy will channel support to the eight growth driving sectors, those in which the UK excels today, and will propel us forward tomorrow. Two of the sectors are led by DSIT, the digital and technology and lifestyle sectors and another, the creative industries, is led by DCMS. The digital and technology sector plan will build on the UK strengths in the six technologies with the greatest potential for growth, including AI, as well as advanced connectivity, cyber security, engineering biology, semiconductors and quantum.
The plan will give every part of the country a stake in the technologies that are fundamentally reshaping our world and which are critical to our national security and growing our economy and improving the lives of citizens across the UK. We will also consider the overlap and interdependencies across the growth driving sector. Similarly, for the creative industries, our sector plan will set up policies and interventions that will boost creative industries throughout the country. Recognising that they are an economic and cultural success story.
The sector plan will set out how the government will work in partnership with industry to support access to finance, skills and education, innovation and exports. The government has engaged with various colours throughout the production of their industrial strategy, including new industry mission groups, to develop those solution. -- Various stakeholders. solution. -- Various stakeholders. As we know and as we have heard, ensuring access to finance is absolutely central to our ambitions. The UK has the world's third largest venture capital market, between 2021 and 2023, raising £72 billion.
But we know there is more to do, particularly in unlocking domestic institutional capital. That is why we launched the Mansion House reforms, with the potential to unlock 50 billion more high-growth businesses. The Mansion House compact and the investment compact, now with over 100 signatories and £100 billion of assets under management, are already shifting the Dell. We have also launched the landmark pension investment review and introduce the Pension Schemes Bill, aim to increase investment in productive assets. -- Shifting the dial.
This confirms our intention to change the pensions landscape, with the government reserve power to ensure providers significantly diversify investments. Today in 0.5% of the UK's defined contribution pensions are invested in equity. In Australia that figure is closer to five to 6%. We must close that gap and we have plans to do so. We are also reforming the British Business Bank, marking a major step change in financing companies to start and scale in the UK and increasing its total financial capacity to £25.6 billion.
This expansion will take Jewish business banks investments Toro -- British Business Bank investment to 2.5 billion each year. We are also introducing the growth bank and partnership and have modelled the infrastructure bank into the National Wealth Fund, 7.3 billion in new funding to crown in private investment. For the creative industries, the Government has to date offered substantial support with a DCMS Secretary of State announcing 40 million of funding for the creative industries in January. Supporting British start-up near game studios, using an film exports and creative businesses outside of London % -- video game studios.
We have also announced their British Business Bank will increase support for the creative industries to help realise their full potential growth. I will soon to publish creative industries centre plan, will set out our approach to improve access to finance for creative this and develop business investment readiness and priority. We are proud to work... We are proud of the work of innovative UK, which now supports over 450,000 innovators. Every pound invested in business innovation returns over £3.60 indirect effects and over 6 pounds in total economic return.
Throughout programs with Innovate UK's business growth we support over 10,000 SMEs last year, helping them raise investment and to create over 2,600 jobs. Under the new executive chair of innovative UK... Innovate uk and the new UK IRC CEO, we will really focus Innovate UK's objectives. Our partnership program has supported 360 SMEs, with 144 million in grants and 393 million in aligned investment, unlocking over 1.2 billion in total. Over 3,000 creative businesses apply for Innovate UK's creative catalyst program since 2021.
And we are also supporting late stage R&D through innovative loan... Innovation loans, with 229 million committed to 250 companies. I also agree with the noble Lord range and Lord Clement- Jones that skills is a particular challenge. We currently have around 100,000 vacancies in the digital sector in the UK which cannot be filled. -- Lord Ranger. We are acutely aware of this and will be addressing this do a reform program from Skills England. To support innovation we must also modernise regulation. That is why we established the Regulatory Innovation Office in October in October 2024.
I am very grateful to all the work that the noble Lord Willetts is doing in chairing that committee and tackling barriers to growth. RIO is already delivering results, from enabling beyond a visual line of sight during operations to launching the second year of the AIA loft healthcare to accelerating regulatory sandboxes for engineering, biology and space. The RIO help position Britain is the best place to innovate by ensuring safety, speeding up of regulatory decisions and providing clear direction. We have also commenced the digital markets regime, giving new powers to the Competition and Markets Authority, to tackle the Markets Authority, to tackle the CMA is now investigating Google and positions in the search and mobile ecosystems.
These steps are vital to ensure the competition in open markets. The Noble Lady Baroness Lane-Fox rightly mentioned the challenge of an the opportunities of procurement, as she says, we are taking action on this. Also brought a progress report and I will write to her for an update on that information. This Government is not just talking, we are acting, we are unlocking capital, reform regulation, supporting innovation and our creative and digital industries, but as we close another fantastic London tech week, there is more to do.
We recognise that. And we welcome the committee scrutiny and share its sense of urgency. If you have not answered all the points that have been raised, I will, of course, right. And we are working with Parliament and academia to ensure that the UK is not just a great place to start a business but the best place in the world to scale one. That is our ambition and we look forward to working with you to deliver that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I think this has been an excellent debate, and if I may start by thanking the noble Baroness
It is a pleasure to welcome both of them to the House Lord Evans brings with him it was the excitement this time as a barrister in many years of public service with his experience in public leadership and financial services at a value will voice to our discussions and we are fortunate to have both contributing to our work. The title of this report, less talk more action, is a challenge that we take seriously. The Government shares the committees ambitions to unlock the full potential of the U.K.'s AI and creative technology skill ups.
We do understand that there are challenges in scaling these businesses and are determined to ensure that these scale and stay in the UK. But before I turn to responding to the many questions and interventions, I want to reckon is the strength and the importance of the UK technology and creative sectors at the current time. The UK tech sector is an incredible UK success story, and I agree with the Noble Lady baroness that we do not do enough to separate the innovators and the risktakers in the tech sector.
I have to say that despite her quote the UK continues to pose the largest tech ecosystem in Europe and ranks among the top five globally driven by talent, strong R&D, and innovative regulation. It remains Europe's top destination for tech investment with the tech sector, valued between £1.2 trillion in 2024. And at the noble Baroness homes quite rightly pointed out we have a wonderful university research centre with four out of the top 10 universities in the global index, and this is a fantastic basis on which we can grow, but we know that starting strong is not good enough and to many of our promising companies struggle to scale.
Too often, as we heard, they grow elsewhere. And I agree with the Noble Lady baroness and others that urge and action is needed to appoint the value. I also agree with Noble Lord Willis that we need ways to make the skill ups in the UK so compelling that it makes no sense for them to leave and we want them to stay and we have to find ways to do that. And I also agree with the Noble Lady baroness Lady Fox that we need to address the cultural issues that are holding back some of that ambition and expansion and I agree as well with the Noble Lord that we need to find better ways of championing entrepreneurs and holding them as role models.
My Lords, we are, indeed, focused on building an environment where high- growth firms can start scaling in the UK. And the Noble Lord bullet, I pay tribute to my Noble Friend who has a huge project ongoing to streamline funding throughout the start of the skill of funding stream, tackling, as we have heard, the Government grants, many of which we absolutely understand that need for long-term certainty for British businesses. And I have to say that this work is already beginning to pay off, as of January 2025 we have 185 companies across the tech sector that have reached unicorn status.
That have either been founded or headquartered in the UK. More than friends, generate, and Sweden put friends, generate, and Sweden put We want to see more success stories and scale in this manner. But as both the Prime Minister and DSIT Secretary of State McClair, the government is going to have to keep this momentum going. -- Have made clear. We are already taking steps. This week we have announced a new £86 billion R&D settlement to fund everything from new drug treatments and longer lasting batteries to new AI breakthrough to generate billions for the UK economy and drive our Plan for Change.
We have also announced tech first, a comprehensive talent initiative, which will give young people across the UK unprecedented access to tech skills and careers. Boosting our domestic supply of top tech talent. And our local innovation partnership fund will be investing up to £500 million to help our economic growth spread throughout every region and nation in the UK. Yesterday I chaired a roundtable of regional state representatives who are driving forward that local enterprise and they very much welcome a new funding announcements we have made.
I would like to thank the noble Lady Baroness Kidron for her contribution about the value of data. I can assure her that the points you made throughout the Data Bill about their data being a sovereign data asset have been taken on board and they were very well made. I assure her and the noble Lord Terra SENCO -- Lord Tarassenko, that those principles of it being a sarin dent -- sovereign data were underpinned the data library. The NHS only allows access to health data when it benefits health and care and we never sell data.
Our creative industries are a national treasure, contributing 124 billion treasure, contributing 124 billion in GVA and supporting 2.4 million jobs. More than that, they are the windows to which the UK present itself and our values to the world. I can assure Baroness Stowell and other noble Lords that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have hosted a number of events with the creative sector at Number Ten and number 11 Downing Street, to celebrate their success. In 2025, DCMS funded research rounded...
Found 30,000 30,800 creative businesses using emergency -- emerging technologies and supported 350,000 jobs. They are also a source of innovation and where the sectors come together, they produce great things. Createch, the fusion of creativity and technology, is a major growth opportunity. With the right support, createch's scare labs right support, createch's scare labs could generate -- scale ups could generate £18 billion in additional GVA and 160,000 jobs over the next decade. We are committed to removing the barriers these businesses face from access to finance to regulatory complexity and our upcoming creative industry sector plan, which is indeed due shortly, will set out how we will do just that.
At this week's spending review, the creative industries received a transformational boost for the creative industries. The settlement announced for DCMS include increased funding, demonstrating the Government's commitment to fuelling the creative industries. It will help drive regional growth and innovation and develop creative places, ensuring the UK's creative industries remain renowned throughout the world. The opportunity was particularly clear to me this week as I attended London tech week. I saw the University of arts London bring future play from their computing Institute to the heart of London tech week, demonstrating just how engaging the creative technology can be for users.
As well as many fantastic speakers representing createch companies appearing on panels throughout the week, such as Anna Burke of animated technologies and Daniel of Synthesia. We want to ensure that the creative and technology sectors continue to thrive, we want to leveraged the strength of the UK in both sectors to ensure that as both grow, they continue to strengthen each other. I also want to recognise the strength of our AI sector, it generates 14.2 billion in revenue last year, employs over 64,000 people and is home to more than 3,700 companies, up 17% from the year before.
The Prime Minister launched the AI Opportunities Action Plan in January and it sets out 15 far-reaching actions needed to drive up the element and deployment of AI. The government will take forward all of these recommendations. And in response to the noble Lady Baroness Stowell and the noble Lord Tarassenko, I'm pleased to say that just this week, we have announced an extra £1 billion of funding to scale up our computer power up to a factor of 20. This will include making Scotland the home to the UK's most powerful supercomputer, with up to £750 million for that project.
We will also train 7.5 million workers in AI by 2030, through partnering with 11 major companies. But the Government is not unaware of the complexities that arise out of AI. And I agree with the noble Lord Holmes that the challenge is to ensure our AI deployment is human led and human focused. In particular, we recognise the importance of getting the regulatory framework right, especially around copyright and intellectual property. As noble Lords no, we held a detailed consultation on future copyright reform, receiving over 11,000 responses.
No decision has yet been taken on the final policy. We recognise this is a complex and rapidly developing area and will continue to welcome all views and evidence to help shape our thinking. We will act but we will act in the round and on the basis of a careful analysis. Transparency and other areas raised during debates are of course crucial that they must be developed as part of a balanced package to avoid making the UK uncompetitive in AI development. I agree with the noble Lady Baroness Stowell, it is unfortunate that the arguments have become a divisive thing between the creative and tech sectors when in fact they should hand-in-hand.
We want to ensure that these exciting createch companies are able to continue to innovate and scale, whilst also supporting our world leading creative industries. A sector that the government has continued to support as one of the eight priority strands of our industrial strategy. The show government's ambition for balance in this space we are convening working groups that include representatives of all relevant sectors, including both the creative and AI sectors. I can assure the noble Lord McNally we will of course also be working with Parliamentary colleagues to help shape that report.
I hope that reiterate our commitment to developing policy that is effective, meaningful, proportional and practical in all sectors. Our commitment to supporting our text as is evident in our industrial strategy. Invest 2035, which is a 10 year plan to support high-growth sectors and create a pro this environment, will be published this month. The industrial strategy will deliver the certainty and stability businesses need to invest and will create a pro-business environment and support high potential clusters across the country.
The industrial strategy will channel support to the eight growth driving sectors, those in which the UK excels today, and will propel us forward tomorrow. Two of the sectors are led by DSIT, the digital and technology and lifestyle sectors and another, the creative industries, is led by DCMS. The digital and technology sector plan will build on the UK strengths in the six technologies with the greatest potential for growth, including AI, as well as advanced connectivity, cyber security, engineering biology, semiconductors and quantum.
The plan will give every part of the country a stake in the technologies that are fundamentally reshaping our world and which are critical to our national security and growing our economy and improving the lives of citizens across the UK. We will also consider the overlap and interdependencies across the growth driving sector. Similarly, for the creative industries, our sector plan will set up policies and interventions that will boost creative industries throughout the country. Recognising that they are an economic and cultural success story.
The sector plan will set out how the government will work in partnership with industry to support access to finance, skills and education, innovation and exports. The government has engaged with various colours throughout the production of their industrial strategy, including new industry mission groups, to develop those solution. -- Various stakeholders. solution. -- Various stakeholders. As we know and as we have heard, ensuring access to finance is absolutely central to our ambitions. The UK has the world's third largest venture capital market, between 2021 and 2023, raising £72 billion.
But we know there is more to do, particularly in unlocking domestic institutional capital. That is why we launched the Mansion House reforms, with the potential to unlock 50 billion more high-growth businesses. The Mansion House compact and the investment compact, now with over 100 signatories and £100 billion of assets under management, are already shifting the Dell. We have also launched the landmark pension investment review and introduce the Pension Schemes Bill, aim to increase investment in productive assets. -- Shifting the dial.
This confirms our intention to change the pensions landscape, with the government reserve power to ensure providers significantly diversify investments. Today in 0.5% of the UK's defined contribution pensions are invested in equity. In Australia that figure is closer to five to 6%. We must close that gap and we have plans to do so. We are also reforming the British Business Bank, marking a major step change in financing companies to start and scale in the UK and increasing its total financial capacity to £25.6 billion.
This expansion will take Jewish business banks investments Toro -- British Business Bank investment to 2.5 billion each year. We are also introducing the growth bank and partnership and have modelled the infrastructure bank into the National Wealth Fund, 7.3 billion in new funding to crown in private investment. For the creative industries, the Government has to date offered substantial support with a DCMS Secretary of State announcing 40 million of funding for the creative industries in January. Supporting British start-up near game studios, using an film exports and creative businesses outside of London % -- video game studios.
We have also announced their British Business Bank will increase support for the creative industries to help realise their full potential growth. I will soon to publish creative industries centre plan, will set out our approach to improve access to finance for creative this and develop business investment readiness and priority. We are proud to work... We are proud of the work of innovative UK, which now supports over 450,000 innovators. Every pound invested in business innovation returns over £3.60 indirect effects and over 6 pounds in total economic return.
Throughout programs with Innovate UK's business growth we support over 10,000 SMEs last year, helping them raise investment and to create over 2,600 jobs. Under the new executive chair of innovative UK... Innovate uk and the new UK IRC CEO, we will really focus Innovate UK's objectives. Our partnership program has supported 360 SMEs, with 144 million in grants and 393 million in aligned investment, unlocking over 1.2 billion in total. Over 3,000 creative businesses apply for Innovate UK's creative catalyst program since 2021.
And we are also supporting late stage R&D through innovative loan... Innovation loans, with 229 million committed to 250 companies. I also agree with the noble Lord range and Lord Clement- Jones that skills is a particular challenge. We currently have around 100,000 vacancies in the digital sector in the UK which cannot be filled. -- Lord Ranger. We are acutely aware of this and will be addressing this do a reform program from Skills England. To support innovation we must also modernise regulation. That is why we established the Regulatory Innovation Office in October in October 2024.
I am very grateful to all the work that the noble Lord Willetts is doing in chairing that committee and tackling barriers to growth. RIO is already delivering results, from enabling beyond a visual line of sight during operations to launching the second year of the AIA loft healthcare to accelerating regulatory sandboxes for engineering, biology and space. The RIO help position Britain is the best place to innovate by ensuring safety, speeding up of regulatory decisions and providing clear direction. We have also commenced the digital markets regime, giving new powers to the Competition and Markets Authority, to tackle the Markets Authority, to tackle the CMA is now investigating Google and positions in the search and mobile ecosystems.
These steps are vital to ensure the competition in open markets. The Noble Lady Baroness Lane-Fox rightly mentioned the challenge of an the opportunities of procurement, as she says, we are taking action on this. Also brought a progress report and I will write to her for an update on that information. This Government is not just talking, we are acting, we are unlocking capital, reform regulation, supporting innovation and our creative and digital industries, but as we close another fantastic London tech week, there is more to do.
We recognise that. And we welcome the committee scrutiny and share its sense of urgency. If you have not answered all the points that have been raised, I will, of course, right. And we are working with Parliament and academia to ensure that the UK is not just a great place to start a business but the best place in the world to scale one. That is our ambition and we look forward to working with you to deliver that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I think this has been an excellent debate, and if I may start by thanking the noble Baroness
13:17
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
start by thanking the noble Baroness the Minister for her very comprehensive response. And I know this debate comes at the end of yet another busy week for her, both handling the Data Bill, the employment rights Bill, that you just referred to as the tech week also. She has talked about a lot of activity coming from Government and I hope she is able to covered enough time in her schedule over the next few months to actually make sure that the activities lead to the outcomes and the results that are so much needed in this area, because I think I know what it is like to think it is all happening because we have said it is happening and there is an awful lot of concentrated supervision, as it were.
Can I thank all noble Lords who have contributed? I think it has been really helpful for me. It has been fascinating. Other topics covered, I did not get to cover we have also talked about skills and also the importance of data and procurement and I think this is particularly important for us to emphasise because not only does this help more often in terms of the success of these companies than grants, it is also an important aspect of the adoption of this new technology, so I do think that is an area where more focus is to ensure that companies can get the access to contracts that they deserve.
I congratulate my Noble Friend Lord Massey and Lord Evans on their maiden speeches today and both played important roles in the Conservative party and have demonstrated today there are strong credentials as contributors to this House. And my Noble Friend was modest in his mention of that work and he pays in helping women who are novice politicians in their preparation for the daunting task of facing their meetings, and gave an impressive set of recommendations to unlock investment capital and I thought his analysis of the barriers of risk-taking was very powerful.
He referenced the FCA is a problem in this area, even though he is not in And went this is very much about that and another Lord Clement-Jones referred to the trio of the Select Committee reports on the skill ups and my Noble Friend referred to the Tony Blair Institute on the topic of skill ups. All of this shows that this challenge of scaling up in AI and creative tech and indeed the tech sector more broadly is not going away and we have enough understanding now of the obstacles and how to deal with them.
And as my Noble Friend said, if we focus on the companies that have the potential to scale rapidly, the challenge should be manageable. And even if it is one we have grappled with now more than 10 years there is just too much at stake for us not to succeed, so to finish I know it is a bit of a cliche, but it has been a privilege to share the committee. I would like to thank you for the very kind words about my today but I would also like to thank again colleagues who I have worked with and particularly the committee staff.
There really are superb on the committee with the current team and their predecessors. I wish my esteem success at the noble Baroness Lady Keeley a great success and I sure that the committee will thrive under her chairmanship and, finally, I just want to thank all the people I have met on the tech, media, creative and telecoms sectors over the last three years. And I am full of admiration for them and all they do to advance their businesses and contribute to the economy and to our society and I wish them continued
**** Possible New Speaker ****
success. I begged him. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. My Lords, we will allow a moment for the House to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Has Has to Has to be Has to be in Has to be in committee Has to be in committee on Has to be in committee on the environmental targets public
Can I thank all noble Lords who have contributed? I think it has been really helpful for me. It has been fascinating. Other topics covered, I did not get to cover we have also talked about skills and also the importance of data and procurement and I think this is particularly important for us to emphasise because not only does this help more often in terms of the success of these companies than grants, it is also an important aspect of the adoption of this new technology, so I do think that is an area where more focus is to ensure that companies can get the access to contracts that they deserve.
I congratulate my Noble Friend Lord Massey and Lord Evans on their maiden speeches today and both played important roles in the Conservative party and have demonstrated today there are strong credentials as contributors to this House. And my Noble Friend was modest in his mention of that work and he pays in helping women who are novice politicians in their preparation for the daunting task of facing their meetings, and gave an impressive set of recommendations to unlock investment capital and I thought his analysis of the barriers of risk-taking was very powerful.
He referenced the FCA is a problem in this area, even though he is not in And went this is very much about that and another Lord Clement-Jones referred to the trio of the Select Committee reports on the skill ups and my Noble Friend referred to the Tony Blair Institute on the topic of skill ups. All of this shows that this challenge of scaling up in AI and creative tech and indeed the tech sector more broadly is not going away and we have enough understanding now of the obstacles and how to deal with them.
And as my Noble Friend said, if we focus on the companies that have the potential to scale rapidly, the challenge should be manageable. And even if it is one we have grappled with now more than 10 years there is just too much at stake for us not to succeed, so to finish I know it is a bit of a cliche, but it has been a privilege to share the committee. I would like to thank you for the very kind words about my today but I would also like to thank again colleagues who I have worked with and particularly the committee staff.
There really are superb on the committee with the current team and their predecessors. I wish my esteem success at the noble Baroness Lady Keeley a great success and I sure that the committee will thrive under her chairmanship and, finally, I just want to thank all the people I have met on the tech, media, creative and telecoms sectors over the last three years. And I am full of admiration for them and all they do to advance their businesses and contribute to the economy and to our society and I wish them continued
**** Possible New Speaker ****
success. I begged him. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. My Lords, we will allow a moment for the House to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Has Has to Has to be Has to be in Has to be in committee Has to be in committee on Has to be in committee on the environmental targets public
13:24
Legislation: Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill - committee stage
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
environmental targets public My Lords, I picked it moved up
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the House to now resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The question is that the House do not resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. As many as are of upon the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, in My Lords, in clause My Lords, in clause 1,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, in clause 1, amendment one, Lord Hamilton of Epsom.
Legislation: Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill - committee stage
**** Possible New Speaker ****
environmental targets public My Lords, I picked it moved up
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the House to now resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The question is that the House do not resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. As many as are of upon the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, in My Lords, in clause My Lords, in clause 1,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, in clause 1, amendment one, Lord Hamilton of Epsom.
13:25
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
one, Lord Hamilton of Epsom. My Lords, I would like to start by thanking the Noble Lord Clement Jones and pointing out that I am actually here because I intervened on my Noble Friend, sorry, Lady Stowell. And I made the point with her that we all support the introduction of AI, but of course AI is going to be tremendously consumptive of electricity and electricity prices are actually very high in this country. And I attribute that much to our targets that we have actually set far- reaching net zero which I think we should be ignoring.
And that we should ignore the targets that I think are too short and that is the reason for my amendment today. The reason for my amendment today. The Noble Lord McNally suggested that my intervention was motivated by a tradition in the other house of intervening very early on and then catching the next train to the country, so I am grateful to the Noble Lord for pointing out that I am still here. Lords, things have changed tremendously since I first put down this amendment and, initially, the reaction he was rather hoping that I might withdraw my amendment and the bill would go through.
Without any debates. And I do not think that should happen. I think that the whole world of energy is now changing quite substantially and we have got to be very, very wary of setting what, in my opinion, are extremely arbitrary targets for actually reaching net zero which have been damaging to our economy and extraordinarily by energy prices. Since I put on the amendment we have had the report from the Tony Blair Institute which is interesting because I think one of the main things that he pointed out is that there is absolutely no way we are going to reach these global targets for the simple reason there are a very large number of developing countries that are actually producing their own energy and they want to produce that as cheaply as they possibly can.
And fossil fuels for the indefinite future. And that begs the question here whether it is sensible for us to produce less than 1% of the submissions to set ourselves the net zero target when, at the end of the day, other countries are still using, I mean China, for instance, is producing 60% of its electricity with coal- fired power stations, so they are not only using probably the most efficient fossil fuels for producing electricity but also massively the atmosphere in which the Chinese people have to live.
And we, at the same time, have stopped producing any form of electricity through call. We have no more coal burning fire stations and the great theory when it started was that somehow we were going to be leaders in the world, we were going to set an example and that others would follow, while quite clearly the Chinese are not following our example, they are merely taking advantage of the fact that the manufacturer's in China are much cheaper than we are here and the drain of the manufacturing industry continues from those countries and that is driven, amongst other things, by the fact that our electricity prices are so much higher than the rest of the world.
And if we have any ambition by the Government having the ambition to re-industrialise this country, I have to say to them it is not going to happen if our electricity prices are so much higher than everyone else in the world, and this is one of the problems that we are living with today. We are not competitive and many other countries are taking advantage of us in this way. I know that Noble Lord has had Association with the power station, and I must say I have enormous reservations about a so-called green power station which is supposed to be fulfilling all the requirements of net zero, actually polluting the atmosphere through every conceivable stage of feeding fuel into the power station.
It is supposed to be dealing with wooden pallets coming from northern America. Quite a suggestion that quite a lot of trees have been cut down as well to produce these wooden pallets. When the wooden pallets are eventually burned, there must be almost as contaminating as a coal-fired power station, if not at the end of the day I do not think that we should be contributing to CO2 emissions through generating power. Even if it is under the auspices of somehow is under the auspices of somehow Because I do not think that makes any sense at all.
This is very interesting, looking at the whole issue of carbon capture, which the Blair Institute was very keen on, carbon capture and storage. One of the effluents coming out of the north-east was going to be from the Drax power station. So there we are, spending an absolute fortune on carbon capture, to actually take the effluent out of the Drax power station, which is supposed to be a green power station, obviously choosing renewable sources. I think we have got to look very carefully at renewable sources.
We know very well when it comes to putting up wind turbines or solar panels, there is a lot of CO2 which is used in manufacturing these things. But at the end of the day, once they are operating, the CO2 effluents that seems to be much less at that point and therefore, it is much more justifiable. But I think when it comes to using stuff that just because we can grow it again is a reason for actually burning it and contaminating the atmosphere, it seems to me to be absolute madness.
And I just do not see how we can go on doing that. I would like the government actually announced that it is going to close down the Drax power station in time and replace it with a much cleaner form of generating electricity. Because I think we have to tackle CO2 at every conceivable level. And there are conceivable level. And there are very encouraging signs happening now. Which funnily enough, was not mentioned in the Blair report. But the use of battery storage has grown, I think, quite significantly in the last few years.
And a friend of mine, who are used to consult within the other place, who I talk to the other day, he said he has now got a number of containers occupying 4 1/2 acres of his land in Wiltshire. And that is just taken up with buying in electricity when it is very cheap and then pressing a button when there is peak demand and the price is very high and letting it out again. So this removes the peaks and troughs of electricity supply, which is always very useful.
And means you need much less in terms of standby facilities. There are advances being made but the targets we have set ourselves are damaging the economy of this country. Our chances of re- industrialising are absolutely minimal as long as we go on having the highest electricity prices in the G7. And I think we have got to really look at all this and actually start taking a much more sensible approach to CO2 emissions. We need approach to CO2 emissions.
We need to continue on, to electrify whatever possible. But if we are paying the highest possible electric prices in the developed world, I think we have a very serious problem ahead of us.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out from 2008
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to the end of line 11. My Lords, can I festival
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
one, Lord Hamilton of Epsom. My Lords, I would like to start by thanking the Noble Lord Clement Jones and pointing out that I am actually here because I intervened on my Noble Friend, sorry, Lady Stowell. And I made the point with her that we all support the introduction of AI, but of course AI is going to be tremendously consumptive of electricity and electricity prices are actually very high in this country. And I attribute that much to our targets that we have actually set far- reaching net zero which I think we should be ignoring.
And that we should ignore the targets that I think are too short and that is the reason for my amendment today. The reason for my amendment today. The Noble Lord McNally suggested that my intervention was motivated by a tradition in the other house of intervening very early on and then catching the next train to the country, so I am grateful to the Noble Lord for pointing out that I am still here. Lords, things have changed tremendously since I first put down this amendment and, initially, the reaction he was rather hoping that I might withdraw my amendment and the bill would go through.
Without any debates. And I do not think that should happen. I think that the whole world of energy is now changing quite substantially and we have got to be very, very wary of setting what, in my opinion, are extremely arbitrary targets for actually reaching net zero which have been damaging to our economy and extraordinarily by energy prices. Since I put on the amendment we have had the report from the Tony Blair Institute which is interesting because I think one of the main things that he pointed out is that there is absolutely no way we are going to reach these global targets for the simple reason there are a very large number of developing countries that are actually producing their own energy and they want to produce that as cheaply as they possibly can.
And fossil fuels for the indefinite future. And that begs the question here whether it is sensible for us to produce less than 1% of the submissions to set ourselves the net zero target when, at the end of the day, other countries are still using, I mean China, for instance, is producing 60% of its electricity with coal- fired power stations, so they are not only using probably the most efficient fossil fuels for producing electricity but also massively the atmosphere in which the Chinese people have to live.
And we, at the same time, have stopped producing any form of electricity through call. We have no more coal burning fire stations and the great theory when it started was that somehow we were going to be leaders in the world, we were going to set an example and that others would follow, while quite clearly the Chinese are not following our example, they are merely taking advantage of the fact that the manufacturer's in China are much cheaper than we are here and the drain of the manufacturing industry continues from those countries and that is driven, amongst other things, by the fact that our electricity prices are so much higher than the rest of the world.
And if we have any ambition by the Government having the ambition to re-industrialise this country, I have to say to them it is not going to happen if our electricity prices are so much higher than everyone else in the world, and this is one of the problems that we are living with today. We are not competitive and many other countries are taking advantage of us in this way. I know that Noble Lord has had Association with the power station, and I must say I have enormous reservations about a so-called green power station which is supposed to be fulfilling all the requirements of net zero, actually polluting the atmosphere through every conceivable stage of feeding fuel into the power station.
It is supposed to be dealing with wooden pallets coming from northern America. Quite a suggestion that quite a lot of trees have been cut down as well to produce these wooden pallets. When the wooden pallets are eventually burned, there must be almost as contaminating as a coal-fired power station, if not at the end of the day I do not think that we should be contributing to CO2 emissions through generating power. Even if it is under the auspices of somehow is under the auspices of somehow Because I do not think that makes any sense at all.
This is very interesting, looking at the whole issue of carbon capture, which the Blair Institute was very keen on, carbon capture and storage. One of the effluents coming out of the north-east was going to be from the Drax power station. So there we are, spending an absolute fortune on carbon capture, to actually take the effluent out of the Drax power station, which is supposed to be a green power station, obviously choosing renewable sources. I think we have got to look very carefully at renewable sources.
We know very well when it comes to putting up wind turbines or solar panels, there is a lot of CO2 which is used in manufacturing these things. But at the end of the day, once they are operating, the CO2 effluents that seems to be much less at that point and therefore, it is much more justifiable. But I think when it comes to using stuff that just because we can grow it again is a reason for actually burning it and contaminating the atmosphere, it seems to me to be absolute madness.
And I just do not see how we can go on doing that. I would like the government actually announced that it is going to close down the Drax power station in time and replace it with a much cleaner form of generating electricity. Because I think we have to tackle CO2 at every conceivable level. And there are conceivable level. And there are very encouraging signs happening now. Which funnily enough, was not mentioned in the Blair report. But the use of battery storage has grown, I think, quite significantly in the last few years.
And a friend of mine, who are used to consult within the other place, who I talk to the other day, he said he has now got a number of containers occupying 4 1/2 acres of his land in Wiltshire. And that is just taken up with buying in electricity when it is very cheap and then pressing a button when there is peak demand and the price is very high and letting it out again. So this removes the peaks and troughs of electricity supply, which is always very useful.
And means you need much less in terms of standby facilities. There are advances being made but the targets we have set ourselves are damaging the economy of this country. Our chances of re- industrialising are absolutely minimal as long as we go on having the highest electricity prices in the G7. And I think we have got to really look at all this and actually start taking a much more sensible approach to CO2 emissions. We need approach to CO2 emissions.
We need to continue on, to electrify whatever possible. But if we are paying the highest possible electric prices in the developed world, I think we have a very serious problem ahead of us.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out from 2008
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to the end of line 11. My Lords, can I festival
13:34
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, can I festival apologise I was unable to be present for the second reading of this for the second reading of this valuable bill. -- Can I first of all. I was rather confused by the noble Lords Amendment because it seems to leave out the very targets that he is against intact in the Bill. In fact, the amendment appears to focus on something that is equally important, however, that is that it will remove the requirement from the list of public bodies to contribute from the delivery of the program for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act to Lake.
The Government has a statutory responsibility to deliver the adaptation program and the adaptation committee, the Climate Change Committee, in its successive assessment has reviewed whether we as a nation are doing what is required to make sure that nationally, including infrastructure, we are more resilient to climate -related floods and droughts and intense weather events and he raves, increase storming this and all the things we are increasingly seeing -- heatwaves and increased Storm Eunice. We are seeing floods and rocketing insurance costs, we are seeing the government having to pay out £60 million in recovery payments to farmers for the excessive rainfall in summer 2024, having a huge impact on their livelihoods.
Farmers of course also suffer from not having enough water on occasions and that again hits their bottom line in terms of irrigation cost or loss of crops. And there are more frequent and extreme heatwaves that cause excessive deaths, politically and elderly people. The 2020s while -- the 2022 heatwaves, according to the Office of National Statistics, heat -related deaths relating to five events alone were up. They are steadily rising and all of the impacts that we have just heard our serious for people and for the economy.
So if the noble Lord Hamilton bills we are moving too fast because our electricity prices are high, what I would say is that we are rapidly approaching the point where the very real downstream costs of not doing enough to combat climate change are going to start hurting the economy if they have not already done so. The adaptation committee has been absolutely clear we are not making enough progress. Let me quote their progress report on the third National Adaptation Programme, was very blunt.
The UK's preparation for climate change are inadequate, the government has yet to change the UK's approach to tackling climate risks and the Government must, among other actions, improve coordination across government and public release, integrate adaptation into all relevant policies, strategies and plans and implement monitoring, evaluation and learning across all sectors. I would say that this clause, 11C, is fundamental to that, to ensure that assets and critical public services are resilient to climate impacts now, avoiding the costs of coping with emergency events and costly retrofitting.
We must not lose this adaptation clause from the Bill. I cannot recall off the top of my head what the exact figure is that has been calculated for the costs of taking the action on the climate targets. But if my memory serves me well, it was less than 1% of GDP last. -- GDP lost. Unless then the impact of the average term in office of Liz Truss. -- And less than the impact. Can I Opportunity to stress the importance of this Bill, there are environmental targets the government urgently needs to meet.
A range of public bodies need to act in support of the government if the Government is to have any hope of meeting the targets. We have got previous experience in this House in the matter of laying such requirements on various public bodies. If you will recall, during the debate on the GB Energy bill and also the Crown Estate Bill, the noble Lady Baroness Hayter... Baroness hayman, attended to get a similar obligation about environmental and climate change targets laid on those two bodies to help achieve that government statutory commitment.
All of that took up some considerable time of the House and of Ministers outside the chamber stop and though we did not get agreement at that point to amend the Bill, we did get valuable assurances on the Dispatch Box that these bodies would be expected to meet sustainable development objectives and by analogy, climate and environment objectives as outlined in the two pieces of legislation that ladies requirements on them. -- Ladies requirements. We can carry on theoretically trying to insert these obligations into public bodies one by one, a suitable legislation comes past that would provide opportunities.
During the 2000, I suppose, for about a decade in this place, I propose a sustainable development duty for every relevant public body as an opportune bill came Google Lordships' House. And I actually won the day on several public bodies, who still have their sustainable development duties. -- Came through your Lordships' House. But I can tell you won thing, the Ministers came to hate me, and it would be much more efficient to get government to recognise it will need all the help they can get to deliver the targets and adopt Lord Krebs approach of a single bill doing all relevant public bodies in a block.
Could the noble Lord the Minister delight us by telling us that he is seriously considering this? Or at the least could you tell us how much prudence has been -- progress has been made since Baroness Hayman's, the other Baroness Hayman's, the Ministers, second reading commitment, that the imminent revision of the public improvement plan provides the best vehicle to consider the principles that this Bill is promoting and their practical implementation. We are due to get the environment improvement plan revision before the summer, I hope.
Late spring is the technical term, I think. So can the Minister confirm that the environment improvement program revision will include specific measures to align public bodies actions delivery of a statutory climate change and environment targets, including the adaptation program, in spite of the noble Lord Hamilton's wish to have the adaptation program removed?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, can I festival apologise I was unable to be present for the second reading of this for the second reading of this valuable bill. -- Can I first of all. I was rather confused by the noble Lords Amendment because it seems to leave out the very targets that he is against intact in the Bill. In fact, the amendment appears to focus on something that is equally important, however, that is that it will remove the requirement from the list of public bodies to contribute from the delivery of the program for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act to Lake.
The Government has a statutory responsibility to deliver the adaptation program and the adaptation committee, the Climate Change Committee, in its successive assessment has reviewed whether we as a nation are doing what is required to make sure that nationally, including infrastructure, we are more resilient to climate -related floods and droughts and intense weather events and he raves, increase storming this and all the things we are increasingly seeing -- heatwaves and increased Storm Eunice. We are seeing floods and rocketing insurance costs, we are seeing the government having to pay out £60 million in recovery payments to farmers for the excessive rainfall in summer 2024, having a huge impact on their livelihoods.
Farmers of course also suffer from not having enough water on occasions and that again hits their bottom line in terms of irrigation cost or loss of crops. And there are more frequent and extreme heatwaves that cause excessive deaths, politically and elderly people. The 2020s while -- the 2022 heatwaves, according to the Office of National Statistics, heat -related deaths relating to five events alone were up. They are steadily rising and all of the impacts that we have just heard our serious for people and for the economy.
So if the noble Lord Hamilton bills we are moving too fast because our electricity prices are high, what I would say is that we are rapidly approaching the point where the very real downstream costs of not doing enough to combat climate change are going to start hurting the economy if they have not already done so. The adaptation committee has been absolutely clear we are not making enough progress. Let me quote their progress report on the third National Adaptation Programme, was very blunt.
The UK's preparation for climate change are inadequate, the government has yet to change the UK's approach to tackling climate risks and the Government must, among other actions, improve coordination across government and public release, integrate adaptation into all relevant policies, strategies and plans and implement monitoring, evaluation and learning across all sectors. I would say that this clause, 11C, is fundamental to that, to ensure that assets and critical public services are resilient to climate impacts now, avoiding the costs of coping with emergency events and costly retrofitting.
We must not lose this adaptation clause from the Bill. I cannot recall off the top of my head what the exact figure is that has been calculated for the costs of taking the action on the climate targets. But if my memory serves me well, it was less than 1% of GDP last. -- GDP lost. Unless then the impact of the average term in office of Liz Truss. -- And less than the impact. Can I Opportunity to stress the importance of this Bill, there are environmental targets the government urgently needs to meet.
A range of public bodies need to act in support of the government if the Government is to have any hope of meeting the targets. We have got previous experience in this House in the matter of laying such requirements on various public bodies. If you will recall, during the debate on the GB Energy bill and also the Crown Estate Bill, the noble Lady Baroness Hayter... Baroness hayman, attended to get a similar obligation about environmental and climate change targets laid on those two bodies to help achieve that government statutory commitment.
All of that took up some considerable time of the House and of Ministers outside the chamber stop and though we did not get agreement at that point to amend the Bill, we did get valuable assurances on the Dispatch Box that these bodies would be expected to meet sustainable development objectives and by analogy, climate and environment objectives as outlined in the two pieces of legislation that ladies requirements on them. -- Ladies requirements. We can carry on theoretically trying to insert these obligations into public bodies one by one, a suitable legislation comes past that would provide opportunities.
During the 2000, I suppose, for about a decade in this place, I propose a sustainable development duty for every relevant public body as an opportune bill came Google Lordships' House. And I actually won the day on several public bodies, who still have their sustainable development duties. -- Came through your Lordships' House. But I can tell you won thing, the Ministers came to hate me, and it would be much more efficient to get government to recognise it will need all the help they can get to deliver the targets and adopt Lord Krebs approach of a single bill doing all relevant public bodies in a block.
Could the noble Lord the Minister delight us by telling us that he is seriously considering this? Or at the least could you tell us how much prudence has been -- progress has been made since Baroness Hayman's, the other Baroness Hayman's, the Ministers, second reading commitment, that the imminent revision of the public improvement plan provides the best vehicle to consider the principles that this Bill is promoting and their practical implementation. We are due to get the environment improvement plan revision before the summer, I hope.
Late spring is the technical term, I think. So can the Minister confirm that the environment improvement program revision will include specific measures to align public bodies actions delivery of a statutory climate change and environment targets, including the adaptation program, in spite of the noble Lord Hamilton's wish to have the adaptation program removed?
13:41
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
I was... I want to express my concern about this amendment and I completely understand where my noble friend is going on his wider concerns about how some of the policies to achieve a variety of this has been concerning him. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about particular adaptation for climate change. While it was criticised by the subcommittee and the committee of climate change, I was absolutely -- actually responsible for publishing this.
While there may be disagreement about how far it will go and the connectivity, it was still important to make sure that we got it in place. So that... How can I put it, government departments knew what they should be doing and we have made that commitment to do so. I think in particular it is the element of clause 1, subsection 2, which is the concern in terms of environmental recovery objective as a principal objective for the public bodies. What I would say to my noble friend, is that if all these bodies by and large, not solely DEFRA that they are either Ministers or they are bodies accountable actually to Parliament or to or to Ministers or the electorate more widely when we get into local governance, by the way I realise I should have put an amendment here to consider mayoral authorities and mayors to get into that.
But I think it is vital that actually we should recognise there is already in law this enhanced biodiversity duty of all the public authorities. I am also conscious, I think it was in a different meeting, the noble Lady Baroness Parminter pointed out to me that apparently the Environment Bill as it went to this House, the Government at the time resisted making the local nature into directly into this. I must admit, I was not a minister DEFRA the time. So I was not aware of that detail.
I genuinely believe that the Local Nature Recovery Strategies are critical to making sure we do achieve these targets. Which is why I am broadly in support of this Bill. One of the things I think is fair to say and I have tabled a fresh Parliamentary Question or question for written answers, sorry, bearing in mind what had been said in an answer by the Minister, Mary Creagh, to somebody in the House of Commons, is that they had expected all the Local Nature Recovery Strategies to have been published by the end of the first half of June.
That was in response to a... That was an answer, I think last November. That clearly has not happened. But I consider that there is also supposed to be incentives given towards that. So I have tabled a question for written answer, to see what the progress on that has been. What I will say to my noble friend, I know that he adores not just our countryside, our country. But there will be... The country will be very different if we are not protecting our natural environment.
And it is absolutely vital that, thinking of the targets letter a and B are there, for too long nature has actually been the Cinderella to thinking about climate change. The climate adaptation element is a key element where that starts to come together in real action and not just be we are pleading with you to look after nature. Because it can be more difficult to explain why it matters about a that in Colombia, why that biodiversity, still keeping that species alive is going.
If it starts to come together I think in particular when we think about adaptation. I am conscious that it is important that we continue to do whatever we can to honour our obligations. It was a Conservative Government that got that negotiation for the biodiversity, Global Biodiversity Framework. I think it is personally vital that we make sure that every sinew of government is working towards achieving that, not just because we actually led the way in the negotiations and it took a lot of courage and paid a lot of tribute at the time to our brilliant civil servants, who are leading the day-to-day negotiations and working with Ministers...
But it matters because we matter. Nature matters and that is why I would encourage my noble friend to consider whether or not he wants to press this again and report. Because if you did, I'm afraid I would find myself in a afraid I would find myself in a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think this bill is an incredibly important bill that needs
While there may be disagreement about how far it will go and the connectivity, it was still important to make sure that we got it in place. So that... How can I put it, government departments knew what they should be doing and we have made that commitment to do so. I think in particular it is the element of clause 1, subsection 2, which is the concern in terms of environmental recovery objective as a principal objective for the public bodies. What I would say to my noble friend, is that if all these bodies by and large, not solely DEFRA that they are either Ministers or they are bodies accountable actually to Parliament or to or to Ministers or the electorate more widely when we get into local governance, by the way I realise I should have put an amendment here to consider mayoral authorities and mayors to get into that.
But I think it is vital that actually we should recognise there is already in law this enhanced biodiversity duty of all the public authorities. I am also conscious, I think it was in a different meeting, the noble Lady Baroness Parminter pointed out to me that apparently the Environment Bill as it went to this House, the Government at the time resisted making the local nature into directly into this. I must admit, I was not a minister DEFRA the time. So I was not aware of that detail.
I genuinely believe that the Local Nature Recovery Strategies are critical to making sure we do achieve these targets. Which is why I am broadly in support of this Bill. One of the things I think is fair to say and I have tabled a fresh Parliamentary Question or question for written answers, sorry, bearing in mind what had been said in an answer by the Minister, Mary Creagh, to somebody in the House of Commons, is that they had expected all the Local Nature Recovery Strategies to have been published by the end of the first half of June.
That was in response to a... That was an answer, I think last November. That clearly has not happened. But I consider that there is also supposed to be incentives given towards that. So I have tabled a question for written answer, to see what the progress on that has been. What I will say to my noble friend, I know that he adores not just our countryside, our country. But there will be... The country will be very different if we are not protecting our natural environment.
And it is absolutely vital that, thinking of the targets letter a and B are there, for too long nature has actually been the Cinderella to thinking about climate change. The climate adaptation element is a key element where that starts to come together in real action and not just be we are pleading with you to look after nature. Because it can be more difficult to explain why it matters about a that in Colombia, why that biodiversity, still keeping that species alive is going.
If it starts to come together I think in particular when we think about adaptation. I am conscious that it is important that we continue to do whatever we can to honour our obligations. It was a Conservative Government that got that negotiation for the biodiversity, Global Biodiversity Framework. I think it is personally vital that we make sure that every sinew of government is working towards achieving that, not just because we actually led the way in the negotiations and it took a lot of courage and paid a lot of tribute at the time to our brilliant civil servants, who are leading the day-to-day negotiations and working with Ministers...
But it matters because we matter. Nature matters and that is why I would encourage my noble friend to consider whether or not he wants to press this again and report. Because if you did, I'm afraid I would find myself in a afraid I would find myself in a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think this bill is an incredibly important bill that needs
13:46
Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
incredibly important bill that needs to stand in its entirety and there are two points I want to make. The first is that local authorities are critical if we are going to get TechNet zero. It is they that are responsible for third emissions, sectors that are either directly influenced or shaved by decisions by local authorities and we cannot get to net zero without them, and what this does is it says it is fine to have national targets to achieve zero, but unless you have the means, it is not going to happen, and therefore we need local authorities to be using them, their planning and their transport functions and their functions in the housing space to deliver net zero policy on the ground, and equally to follow-up from the noble Baroness, the point is that the natural environment is incredibly dependent on local authorities and they are a critical tool for local authorities to shape and support nature going forward.
Their development processes were displaced and we cannot get to nature recovery, as we now have Government asking for without them. So that is why this bill needs to go ahead in its entirety and if I can pick up on the point Lady Young made that we are already seeing every opportunity in this chamber and in The Other Place, people are finding vehicles to give these duties on public authorities, public bodies, rather, to take forward. She mentioned some, there are others in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which is just finishing in Commons.
There was an attempt by my Noble Friend in order to insert it into that bill, a clause that local authorities in taking forward their planning and development functions to take account and she rightly says because this House and the other house knows the authorities and public bodies the vehicle to deliver the nature and climate goals that we want, that we are going to keep ending up with every bill being bog down to attempts unless the Government takes this incredibly well measured and timely bill and I salute him in doing so that he has introduced.
I hope the Minister will be supportive of this bill, but like Baroness Young, can I add one question to the Minister? She raised the issue around the fact that the Minister talked about the vehicle for taking this forward. That deals with the nature aspect. I want to address the issue of the climate goals, and if this Government are not going to, as I say, take this timely bill forward, if the Government has committed in December 2 introduced the public commission strategy, this yeah would set out how businesses and supergroups and individuals work and could be brought together by the Government, showing them how we can all, as a nation, move towards a just and fair transition to net zero.
Now, critical to that is the role of local authorities in their respected functions between housing, development and transport, to help businesses and help those individuals get there, so I would say to the Minister can he assure the House today that when the public participation strategy comes out for the end of this year, as I hope it will, that it will make crystal- clear the role of local authorities and public bodies helping businesses
**** Possible New Speaker ****
zero. I was not actually planning to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I was not actually planning to speak on this debate, but I have heard so much in the local heard so much in the local authorities that I declare as the counsellor and ex-leader of the council and Chair of the LGA and I find in those roles that local authorities were constantly emasculated by regulation, redtape, emasculated by regulation, redtape, and targets. And asked to do more and targets. And asked to do more than they could possibly achieve and than they could possibly achieve and the end of Aussie Council to deliver one target that we could not another and another target that we could never and another target who were being asked to do too much.
I do not know of a council that I have come across that does not want better by
Their development processes were displaced and we cannot get to nature recovery, as we now have Government asking for without them. So that is why this bill needs to go ahead in its entirety and if I can pick up on the point Lady Young made that we are already seeing every opportunity in this chamber and in The Other Place, people are finding vehicles to give these duties on public authorities, public bodies, rather, to take forward. She mentioned some, there are others in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which is just finishing in Commons.
There was an attempt by my Noble Friend in order to insert it into that bill, a clause that local authorities in taking forward their planning and development functions to take account and she rightly says because this House and the other house knows the authorities and public bodies the vehicle to deliver the nature and climate goals that we want, that we are going to keep ending up with every bill being bog down to attempts unless the Government takes this incredibly well measured and timely bill and I salute him in doing so that he has introduced.
I hope the Minister will be supportive of this bill, but like Baroness Young, can I add one question to the Minister? She raised the issue around the fact that the Minister talked about the vehicle for taking this forward. That deals with the nature aspect. I want to address the issue of the climate goals, and if this Government are not going to, as I say, take this timely bill forward, if the Government has committed in December 2 introduced the public commission strategy, this yeah would set out how businesses and supergroups and individuals work and could be brought together by the Government, showing them how we can all, as a nation, move towards a just and fair transition to net zero.
Now, critical to that is the role of local authorities in their respected functions between housing, development and transport, to help businesses and help those individuals get there, so I would say to the Minister can he assure the House today that when the public participation strategy comes out for the end of this year, as I hope it will, that it will make crystal- clear the role of local authorities and public bodies helping businesses
**** Possible New Speaker ****
zero. I was not actually planning to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I was not actually planning to speak on this debate, but I have heard so much in the local heard so much in the local authorities that I declare as the counsellor and ex-leader of the council and Chair of the LGA and I find in those roles that local authorities were constantly emasculated by regulation, redtape, emasculated by regulation, redtape, and targets. And asked to do more and targets. And asked to do more than they could possibly achieve and than they could possibly achieve and the end of Aussie Council to deliver one target that we could not another and another target that we could never and another target who were being asked to do too much.
I do not know of a council that I have come across that does not want better by
13:50
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
across that does not want better by diversity, that does not want to address the issues of climate change, that does not care about net zero. The more redtape and targets that we do of councils the harder we make it to do their jobs and whether that is caring for vulnerable children or vulnerable adults or hitting net zero or climate change, so I really would ask the noble Lords to think does this actually make the job of councils easier for local authorities in delivering things that I think we all want? Or does it add another layer of bureaucracy? And I cannot answer that for you, but I just know having operated underneath all of that tech I have found that regulations, redtape, and targets, making my life more difficult to achieve targets.
Every counsel I know once to achieve
**** Possible New Speaker ****
them anyway. I rise to speak in support of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak in support of this bill that I took in second reading and the amendment by Lord Hamilton of Epsom because it removes Hamilton of Epsom because it removes crucial elements of the bill and our
Every counsel I know once to achieve
**** Possible New Speaker ****
them anyway. I rise to speak in support of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak in support of this bill that I took in second reading and the amendment by Lord Hamilton of Epsom because it removes Hamilton of Epsom because it removes crucial elements of the bill and our
13:52
Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
crucial elements of the bill and our environmental recovery objectives. The truth is that despite the fact that we have really good environmental legislation, the Government is largely off track to meet its legal obligations, particularly around the nation as we have heard from Baroness Coffey. The office of requirement and protection is largely off track to meet its nature goes, the Climate Change Committee has stated UK is not on track to meet its 2013 emissions targets and we have recently had the subcommittee Climate Change Committee released the report were not a single delivery plant was rated as good.
And this is an alarming situation and this bill will really help to resolve some of those problems. The trouble is at second reading when he said that Government has all the levers but they are not actually attached to anything, and I kind of look at it as the Government being general campaign and they failed to tell the truth on the military strategy. The Government needs to be joint and interconnected and these targets and ambitions need to go down to the bodies that are underground that are taking these decisions on a daily basis to help make sure that Government policies joined up from top to bottom and is united in its purpose of what it seeks to achieve.
And that is what this bill seeks to do, and as others have said we have sought to put amendment into the current status bill, we have got changes to the special water measures bills, and it wastes a lot of parliamentary time having to do this and I put amendment to the infrastructure built to put a duty on the commission as well. And the Government needs to do these things. I want to turn to Lord Hamilton's amendment because I also was a bit confused about it and there was a kind of disconnect between the wording of the speech that you give a rounded, the amendment put down removes the requirement for public bodies to deliver the adoption program.
And just yesterday, just last evening we had a debate in the Grand Committees on the impact of wildfires and it is ever going, and if we do not adopt we will face increased costs and damages and we need to prepare for the reality of climate change is here and it is going to be disastrous for people and for our economy. And we need to do something about this and the other part is to look at the nature community duty.
We have heard of Climate Change Committee biodiversity loss, interconnected and interdependent. And the Government public bodies own 6% of the land in the UK. Why would we not seek to improve our biodiversity by making use of the public bodies in the land which is under these bodies control. Councils, as we have heard, have an important role and in Scotland councils do have a new duty to climate and where they have that they are making improvements and they want to have greater abilities to do these things.
I will reject the amendment because this ripped the heart out of the bill, I do want to address some of the points that I don't think it is a good idea to talk about our climate target as being arbitrary. They are set by scientists, they are reviewed by the Climate Change Committee, there are real targets. I agree with him about the cost of energy bills. More must be done to bring down the cost of energy, absolutely. But we need to remember that it is the cost of gaps that sets the electricity price, 98% of the time in the UK poster and I know the Government is looking at the energy market reform report that needs to be done on that.
And in fact this is one of the very few parts of the UK economy that is showing real growth. Have to say I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not able to support this bill. My Lords, please allow me to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, please allow me to thank the Noble Lord Graham for his commitment to environmental issues and, as a result, bringing forward the private matters bill. The noble Lords expertise and dedication have Lords expertise and dedication have long contributed to the strength of long contributed to the strength of debate in your Lordships house and we thank him for his continued we thank him for his continued leadership on this front. Please let me turn to amendment one in the name
And this is an alarming situation and this bill will really help to resolve some of those problems. The trouble is at second reading when he said that Government has all the levers but they are not actually attached to anything, and I kind of look at it as the Government being general campaign and they failed to tell the truth on the military strategy. The Government needs to be joint and interconnected and these targets and ambitions need to go down to the bodies that are underground that are taking these decisions on a daily basis to help make sure that Government policies joined up from top to bottom and is united in its purpose of what it seeks to achieve.
And that is what this bill seeks to do, and as others have said we have sought to put amendment into the current status bill, we have got changes to the special water measures bills, and it wastes a lot of parliamentary time having to do this and I put amendment to the infrastructure built to put a duty on the commission as well. And the Government needs to do these things. I want to turn to Lord Hamilton's amendment because I also was a bit confused about it and there was a kind of disconnect between the wording of the speech that you give a rounded, the amendment put down removes the requirement for public bodies to deliver the adoption program.
And just yesterday, just last evening we had a debate in the Grand Committees on the impact of wildfires and it is ever going, and if we do not adopt we will face increased costs and damages and we need to prepare for the reality of climate change is here and it is going to be disastrous for people and for our economy. And we need to do something about this and the other part is to look at the nature community duty.
We have heard of Climate Change Committee biodiversity loss, interconnected and interdependent. And the Government public bodies own 6% of the land in the UK. Why would we not seek to improve our biodiversity by making use of the public bodies in the land which is under these bodies control. Councils, as we have heard, have an important role and in Scotland councils do have a new duty to climate and where they have that they are making improvements and they want to have greater abilities to do these things.
I will reject the amendment because this ripped the heart out of the bill, I do want to address some of the points that I don't think it is a good idea to talk about our climate target as being arbitrary. They are set by scientists, they are reviewed by the Climate Change Committee, there are real targets. I agree with him about the cost of energy bills. More must be done to bring down the cost of energy, absolutely. But we need to remember that it is the cost of gaps that sets the electricity price, 98% of the time in the UK poster and I know the Government is looking at the energy market reform report that needs to be done on that.
And in fact this is one of the very few parts of the UK economy that is showing real growth. Have to say I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not able to support this bill. My Lords, please allow me to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, please allow me to thank the Noble Lord Graham for his commitment to environmental issues and, as a result, bringing forward the private matters bill. The noble Lords expertise and dedication have Lords expertise and dedication have long contributed to the strength of long contributed to the strength of debate in your Lordships house and we thank him for his continued we thank him for his continued leadership on this front. Please let me turn to amendment one in the name
13:57
13:58
13:58
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
their part in meeting our ambitious environmental, we do need to offer some words of caution, particularly around the issue of global reach. I around the issue of global reach. I around the issue of global reach. I am sure that all noble Lords agree that our most cherished landscapes are national, areas of outstanding natural beauty, now called National natural beauty, now called National landscapes, must do everything they can to aid in the recovery of can to aid in the recovery of wildlife and biodiversity.
That wildlife and biodiversity. That ambition is shared across your Lordships house, and, indeed, across the country as a whole. Recognising the country as a whole. Recognising this, DEFRA has already put in place this, DEFRA has already put in place the farming and protected landscapes program. This grant scheme allows farmers to receive support where they actively contribute to climate resilience, nature recovery, and the protection of the character and cultural heritage of our landscapes. This is a targeted and thoughtful policy.
It encourages both practical and local delivery. And we would therefore caution against layering on additional statutory duties that might potentially cut across these already established aims. Public bodies listed on the face of the bill are not environmental regulators. Nor are they designed to be. Asking them for example to assist in meeting targets for particular matter or broader air- quality may stretch them beyond both their remit and, indeed, their expertise. Turning to local authorities, please allow me to remind your Lordships house of the substantial steps already taken through the environment act 2021 which amended the national environmental and rural communities act 2006 to create duty, not just to conserve but to enhance biodiversity.
Public authorities must now actively consider what action they can properly take consistent with the proper exercise of their functions to further that aim. This is a significant evolution in environmental governance. The key question we believe, is, should we be adding yet more duties on these authorities? We must consider not just what is desirable, but what is feasible. Many public bodies, particularly the small and local authorities, lack the resources or the technical know-how to contribute meaningfully to the targets set out under this bill.
There is a risk that we distract those authorities from their essential services and dilutes the impact of the environmental work already under way, which was so eloquently illustrated by the Noble Lord Jamieson in his intervention. To take one example, great British nuclear, which I will speak to further in group 2, Great British Nuclear was established to help deliver nuclear energy projects in It's objectives are clear and technical. Of course, it goes without saying that they must adhere to the rules and regulations already set before them for environmental safety.
But expecting them or other bodies to contribute these environmental targets risks undermining their principal duties and weakening delivery across the board. My Lords, in conclusion, His Majesty's official opposition believes that we must be careful not to impose obligations that exceed the remit and capability of the bodies in question. Our shared commitment to environmental and must be matched by pragmatism and clarity of purpose. We must look to build on the frameworks we already have in place and strengthen them where necessary, but avoid burdening public bodies in ways that may hinder, rather than help, our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his Private members Bill and Frank all the noble Lords who and Frank all the noble Lords who took part in -- And thank all the noble Lords who took part in the first amendment, I look forward to first amendment, I look forward to the remarks shortly. The noble Lord rightly highlights, through his bill and indeed his contribution so far and indeed his contribution so far and the passage of it, through your noble Lord ships house, that intertwined issues of environmental decline and climate change, on which this House must continue to engage.
As my noble friend, Baroness Hayman,
That wildlife and biodiversity. That ambition is shared across your Lordships house, and, indeed, across the country as a whole. Recognising the country as a whole. Recognising this, DEFRA has already put in place this, DEFRA has already put in place the farming and protected landscapes program. This grant scheme allows farmers to receive support where they actively contribute to climate resilience, nature recovery, and the protection of the character and cultural heritage of our landscapes. This is a targeted and thoughtful policy.
It encourages both practical and local delivery. And we would therefore caution against layering on additional statutory duties that might potentially cut across these already established aims. Public bodies listed on the face of the bill are not environmental regulators. Nor are they designed to be. Asking them for example to assist in meeting targets for particular matter or broader air- quality may stretch them beyond both their remit and, indeed, their expertise. Turning to local authorities, please allow me to remind your Lordships house of the substantial steps already taken through the environment act 2021 which amended the national environmental and rural communities act 2006 to create duty, not just to conserve but to enhance biodiversity.
Public authorities must now actively consider what action they can properly take consistent with the proper exercise of their functions to further that aim. This is a significant evolution in environmental governance. The key question we believe, is, should we be adding yet more duties on these authorities? We must consider not just what is desirable, but what is feasible. Many public bodies, particularly the small and local authorities, lack the resources or the technical know-how to contribute meaningfully to the targets set out under this bill.
There is a risk that we distract those authorities from their essential services and dilutes the impact of the environmental work already under way, which was so eloquently illustrated by the Noble Lord Jamieson in his intervention. To take one example, great British nuclear, which I will speak to further in group 2, Great British Nuclear was established to help deliver nuclear energy projects in It's objectives are clear and technical. Of course, it goes without saying that they must adhere to the rules and regulations already set before them for environmental safety.
But expecting them or other bodies to contribute these environmental targets risks undermining their principal duties and weakening delivery across the board. My Lords, in conclusion, His Majesty's official opposition believes that we must be careful not to impose obligations that exceed the remit and capability of the bodies in question. Our shared commitment to environmental and must be matched by pragmatism and clarity of purpose. We must look to build on the frameworks we already have in place and strengthen them where necessary, but avoid burdening public bodies in ways that may hinder, rather than help, our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his Private members Bill and Frank all the noble Lords who and Frank all the noble Lords who took part in -- And thank all the noble Lords who took part in the first amendment, I look forward to first amendment, I look forward to the remarks shortly. The noble Lord rightly highlights, through his bill and indeed his contribution so far and indeed his contribution so far and the passage of it, through your noble Lord ships house, that intertwined issues of environmental decline and climate change, on which this House must continue to engage.
As my noble friend, Baroness Hayman,
14:02
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Lord Katz (Labour)
has noted before, the intention of the bill, is to drive and strengthen public authority action towards meeting national environmental and climate targets and objectives, is important. For this, the government is in no doubt, encouraging nature's recovery is a key priority fundamentals of the government's approach to economic growth. However, at risk of repeating my noble friend, the minister post my comment at the second reading debate, there are already measures in place seeking to realise this builds ambition. For example, we expect the natural environment and rural communities act biodiversity duty, strengthened through the environment act, will ensure public authorities may conservation enhancing with biodiversity a core part of the delivering of their part of the delivering of their functions.
It will set the strategic priorities for nature recovery in an area and identify the best locations for land management actions to deliver those priorities. These are progressing well and we expect most, if not all, to be published this year or shortly after, covering the length and breadth of England. One climate adaptations, England's third national education program, summarises the collective actions the government is taking to address risks and opportunities for climate change and ensure adaptation is incorporated into government programs. Recently, through the water special measures act, this government introduced the requirement of Ofwat to have the requirement for the need to reach targets, in 2021, and the climate act 2008, when carrying out their functions, and we intend to strengthen the processes of protecting landscapes, our most iconic and inspiring places, to give them a clear mandate to recover nature and to widen the public's access to nature.
I wish to assure noble Lords this government is firmly committed to working collaboratively to improve the national environment. Indeed, as we national environment. Indeed, as we have already heard from other noble Lord ships contributions, this afternoon, the Secretary of State for environment, wasted no time in announcing a rapid review of the statutory Environmental Improvement Plan. And we will publish a revised EIP this year, this revised plan will focus on cleaning our waterways, reducing waste across the economy, planting billions more trees, improving equality, and halting the decline of species by 2030, and to answer the question posed by my noble friend, Baroness Young, on her point, there are indeed already measures in place to realise the bill's ambitions through this collection of actions.
Further, my Lords, or Net Zero, the government will deliver an updated plan that sets out the policy package to the end of carbon budget to six at the end of 2027 in all sectors by October 2025, this will outline the policies and proposals needed to deliver carbon budgets for-six, and our nationally determined contribution statistics on a path within zero. Turning now, my Lords, to the right honourable Lord Hamilton's amendments that he has just moved. Which effectively proposes the removal of climate adaptation from the remit of this bill.
Although, I would note and I would indeed agree with my noble friend, Baroness Young, a noble Lord, Lord Russell, noble Lord, Lord Hamilton's speech seemed more focus on Net Zero targets and climate adaptation, which is the focus of his amendment. Climate adaptation is essential for supporting our national environment and biodiversity. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs's bill recognises. As well as protecting our communities and economy. Climate change is now an inevitable part of our present and future, posing many challenges with severe impact on our lives, health, and prosperity.
It is therefore essential we continue to adapt to Climate Change Committee only for the environment's sake, but to reduce its significant economic growth impacts. As my noble friend, Baroness Hayman, and the Minister made clear in the second reading debate, the government is fully committed to addressing Net Zero in the role climate change plays, as summarised in EIP three. I will briefly address the points, however, Lord Hamilton did make in his speech around Net Zero. The British people, I would say, my Lords, deserve lower costs, clean secure power, we are all in agreement with that.
At the good jobs that will come along with that, and certainly, it is the Labour government, all governments you could argue, are wrong in terms of the threats we face in terms of security. The economic case, the national security case and environmental case, arrow pointing the same direction which is a clean green energy mission that will protect the country from exposure to unstable international markets and give greater security and stability for both family and national finances, in terms of energy costs.
We will achieve this through delivering clean power, by 2030. And accelerating to Net Zero. Our mission will bring energy security, protect bill payer's and create jobs for future generations. They speak briefly to the noble Lord who spoke with passion and knowledge around the importance of engaging every level of society, local authorities, businesses, individuals, other stakeholder groups in our mission to both tackle climate adaptation, and also pursue Net Zero, we are indeed working, both DEFRA and day Nairs are working in public dissipation strategy, the local Baroness May some well-deserved comments about the importance of engaging all levels of society and I will take that back to colleagues in both departments.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for bringing this bill to the House and enabling this debate, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I look forward to hearing his comments. My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register, in particular, the work of the noble particular, the work of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has already Lord, Lord Hamilton, has already mentioned I Chair the parliamentary group on the sustainability. I would group on the sustainability. I would also like to thank Lady Hayman for meeting with me to discuss the bill, and to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, and to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for discussing with me as well, just a couple of days ago.
And I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It was contributions to this debate. It was heartening to hear support for the bill from all sides of the House, bill from all sides of the House, although some voices of scepticism. although some voices of scepticism. I think it is important to recognise that the environment and climate are not partisan issues. They are things that affect future generations. We that affect future generations. We are concerned about it for the future of our children, grandchildren, and future
It will set the strategic priorities for nature recovery in an area and identify the best locations for land management actions to deliver those priorities. These are progressing well and we expect most, if not all, to be published this year or shortly after, covering the length and breadth of England. One climate adaptations, England's third national education program, summarises the collective actions the government is taking to address risks and opportunities for climate change and ensure adaptation is incorporated into government programs. Recently, through the water special measures act, this government introduced the requirement of Ofwat to have the requirement for the need to reach targets, in 2021, and the climate act 2008, when carrying out their functions, and we intend to strengthen the processes of protecting landscapes, our most iconic and inspiring places, to give them a clear mandate to recover nature and to widen the public's access to nature.
I wish to assure noble Lords this government is firmly committed to working collaboratively to improve the national environment. Indeed, as we national environment. Indeed, as we have already heard from other noble Lord ships contributions, this afternoon, the Secretary of State for environment, wasted no time in announcing a rapid review of the statutory Environmental Improvement Plan. And we will publish a revised EIP this year, this revised plan will focus on cleaning our waterways, reducing waste across the economy, planting billions more trees, improving equality, and halting the decline of species by 2030, and to answer the question posed by my noble friend, Baroness Young, on her point, there are indeed already measures in place to realise the bill's ambitions through this collection of actions.
Further, my Lords, or Net Zero, the government will deliver an updated plan that sets out the policy package to the end of carbon budget to six at the end of 2027 in all sectors by October 2025, this will outline the policies and proposals needed to deliver carbon budgets for-six, and our nationally determined contribution statistics on a path within zero. Turning now, my Lords, to the right honourable Lord Hamilton's amendments that he has just moved. Which effectively proposes the removal of climate adaptation from the remit of this bill.
Although, I would note and I would indeed agree with my noble friend, Baroness Young, a noble Lord, Lord Russell, noble Lord, Lord Hamilton's speech seemed more focus on Net Zero targets and climate adaptation, which is the focus of his amendment. Climate adaptation is essential for supporting our national environment and biodiversity. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs's bill recognises. As well as protecting our communities and economy. Climate change is now an inevitable part of our present and future, posing many challenges with severe impact on our lives, health, and prosperity.
It is therefore essential we continue to adapt to Climate Change Committee only for the environment's sake, but to reduce its significant economic growth impacts. As my noble friend, Baroness Hayman, and the Minister made clear in the second reading debate, the government is fully committed to addressing Net Zero in the role climate change plays, as summarised in EIP three. I will briefly address the points, however, Lord Hamilton did make in his speech around Net Zero. The British people, I would say, my Lords, deserve lower costs, clean secure power, we are all in agreement with that.
At the good jobs that will come along with that, and certainly, it is the Labour government, all governments you could argue, are wrong in terms of the threats we face in terms of security. The economic case, the national security case and environmental case, arrow pointing the same direction which is a clean green energy mission that will protect the country from exposure to unstable international markets and give greater security and stability for both family and national finances, in terms of energy costs.
We will achieve this through delivering clean power, by 2030. And accelerating to Net Zero. Our mission will bring energy security, protect bill payer's and create jobs for future generations. They speak briefly to the noble Lord who spoke with passion and knowledge around the importance of engaging every level of society, local authorities, businesses, individuals, other stakeholder groups in our mission to both tackle climate adaptation, and also pursue Net Zero, we are indeed working, both DEFRA and day Nairs are working in public dissipation strategy, the local Baroness May some well-deserved comments about the importance of engaging all levels of society and I will take that back to colleagues in both departments.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for bringing this bill to the House and enabling this debate, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I look forward to hearing his comments. My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register, in particular, the work of the noble particular, the work of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has already Lord, Lord Hamilton, has already mentioned I Chair the parliamentary group on the sustainability. I would group on the sustainability. I would also like to thank Lady Hayman for meeting with me to discuss the bill, and to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, and to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for discussing with me as well, just a couple of days ago.
And I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It was contributions to this debate. It was heartening to hear support for the bill from all sides of the House, bill from all sides of the House, although some voices of scepticism. although some voices of scepticism. I think it is important to recognise that the environment and climate are not partisan issues. They are things that affect future generations. We that affect future generations. We are concerned about it for the future of our children, grandchildren, and future
14:10
Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
generations in general. I would also generations in general. I would also like to thank the noble Earl about his kind words to me personally. his kind words to me personally. Milos, when I read amendment one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, its purpose wasn't clear Hamilton, its purpose wasn't clear to me. As others, including the to me. As others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the noble Baroness, lady coffee, the noble Earl, Earl Russell, a noble Lord the Minister have said, it Lord the Minister have said, it removes the adaptation element of the environmental recovery objective, by deleting line 7 and objective, by deleting line 7 and eight of clause 1, but it also removes the environment and recovery removes the environment and recovery objective itself, by deleting lines 9-11.
And as others have pointed out, without this objective, the rest of the bill makes no sense, seeing as the rest of the bill is about how local authorities achieve the objective. I was therefore tempted to conclude that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, intended as a wrecking amendment. However, I now understand that the amendment is based on scepticism about achieving the targets and the environment act, and particularly, the Net Zero target of the climate change act. In other words, the amendment is not directed at my bill, but at these two acts of Parliament.
Now, I could go on to rebut in detail the argument about Net Zero that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton made. It of course, because I believe the amendment is actually out of scope, I prefer not to engage in the detail of that and suggest a noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, objects to the Net Zero target passed by, as has been said, by the previous Conservative government, it would be more appropriate to try and change that bill, that act, rather than to change this particular bill.
It is therefore perhaps just worth restating what this bill is about. And some of these points have already been made. It introduces an objective for the many public authorities, regulators, land managers, infrastructure advisers, , and so on, to contribute to the specific targets in the environment act and the climate change act. These public authorities, as the noble Earl, Earl Russell, has said, the bodies that make the daily decisions that affect the state of our environment, our resilience to climate change, and our greenhouse gas footprint.
In fact, the truth is that without the contributions of these public authorities, there is no hope of meeting the targets. A point that is indeed being made by a number of noble Lords this afternoon. I just want to briefly alluded to local authorities, since they have been mentioned by the noble Lady, a noble Lord, among others. It is worth noting that, despite what has been said, the LGA on Wednesday this week published its position on my bill, in which they said they are, in principle, in favour of a statutory climate duty.
So, there you have it. The LGA representing local authorities supports the retention of this bill. Now, the noble Lord, the minister, has said the government is not going to accept the bill, although it agrees with the principles in it. However, I would point out the government has recently said that it will, and I quote, " Clarify how the Environmental Improvement Plan will be delivered, including the role of departmental governing bodies, departmental NGOs, farm owners, land managers, and the public." Milos, this bill should be a godsend, it provides the clarity the government is seeking on how to deliver the environmental improvement plan.
Furthermore, my Lords, to recent reports, commissioned by DEFRA, also point in the same direction as my bill. The interim report on the water sector includes, " The sector needs a clearer and more consistent long-term direction, one that aligns environmental ambition, the provision of water supply, and wastewater removal and the expectation of customers. We believe the legislative framework in the sector must be revisited." Which is what this bill is in part of doing. He goes on to mention resilience and adaptation.
The other review, states, " The regulatory system is now inefficient and difficult for customers to navigate, it needs to work on a fundamentally different way to become assistant focus on delivering positive outcomes for nature and the environment, and TBN aid, not an impediment, to sustainable growth. -- TBN aid." There you have it, the government own plan for the environmental and plan, they all point in the same direction as my bill. Make the regulatory regime simpler, clearer, and more effective.
At the same time, ensure public authorities are helping to deliver the specific legally binding targets for nature and climate. The noble Lord, the minister, and indeed, other noble Lords, during the debate have referred to a number of existing initiatives. For example the biodiversity duty that the noble Baroness, Baroness Coffey, referred to. The recovery strategy that a number of noble Lords have referred to. Devolution framework, which has been implicit, although not specifically refer to. Anne Tse protected landscape, targets and protected landscape, targets and outcomes framework, referred to, among others, by the noble Earl, oh Effingham.
These initiatives are without a doubt important. But they could be enhanced by specific guidance, and timelines by meeting the targets of these two acts. The biodiversity duty for instance has rather weak guidance, here it is. Consider what you can do to conserve nature and enhance biodiversity. Agri-policies and specific objectives based on your consideration. And to deliver your policies and achieve your objectives. There is no link to the Environment Act or the Climate Change Act, so we can strengthen the guidance for those duties.
So, my notes, to summarise, free asks for the government in the future would be...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I understand what he says on that, recognising this recovering every single bit of government. Where there was stronger guidance was actually attached to the production of the local nature production of the local nature recovery strategies and that was We We agreed We agreed to We agreed to withdraw We agreed to withdraw it.
And as others have pointed out, without this objective, the rest of the bill makes no sense, seeing as the rest of the bill is about how local authorities achieve the objective. I was therefore tempted to conclude that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, intended as a wrecking amendment. However, I now understand that the amendment is based on scepticism about achieving the targets and the environment act, and particularly, the Net Zero target of the climate change act. In other words, the amendment is not directed at my bill, but at these two acts of Parliament.
Now, I could go on to rebut in detail the argument about Net Zero that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton made. It of course, because I believe the amendment is actually out of scope, I prefer not to engage in the detail of that and suggest a noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, objects to the Net Zero target passed by, as has been said, by the previous Conservative government, it would be more appropriate to try and change that bill, that act, rather than to change this particular bill.
It is therefore perhaps just worth restating what this bill is about. And some of these points have already been made. It introduces an objective for the many public authorities, regulators, land managers, infrastructure advisers, , and so on, to contribute to the specific targets in the environment act and the climate change act. These public authorities, as the noble Earl, Earl Russell, has said, the bodies that make the daily decisions that affect the state of our environment, our resilience to climate change, and our greenhouse gas footprint.
In fact, the truth is that without the contributions of these public authorities, there is no hope of meeting the targets. A point that is indeed being made by a number of noble Lords this afternoon. I just want to briefly alluded to local authorities, since they have been mentioned by the noble Lady, a noble Lord, among others. It is worth noting that, despite what has been said, the LGA on Wednesday this week published its position on my bill, in which they said they are, in principle, in favour of a statutory climate duty.
So, there you have it. The LGA representing local authorities supports the retention of this bill. Now, the noble Lord, the minister, has said the government is not going to accept the bill, although it agrees with the principles in it. However, I would point out the government has recently said that it will, and I quote, " Clarify how the Environmental Improvement Plan will be delivered, including the role of departmental governing bodies, departmental NGOs, farm owners, land managers, and the public." Milos, this bill should be a godsend, it provides the clarity the government is seeking on how to deliver the environmental improvement plan.
Furthermore, my Lords, to recent reports, commissioned by DEFRA, also point in the same direction as my bill. The interim report on the water sector includes, " The sector needs a clearer and more consistent long-term direction, one that aligns environmental ambition, the provision of water supply, and wastewater removal and the expectation of customers. We believe the legislative framework in the sector must be revisited." Which is what this bill is in part of doing. He goes on to mention resilience and adaptation.
The other review, states, " The regulatory system is now inefficient and difficult for customers to navigate, it needs to work on a fundamentally different way to become assistant focus on delivering positive outcomes for nature and the environment, and TBN aid, not an impediment, to sustainable growth. -- TBN aid." There you have it, the government own plan for the environmental and plan, they all point in the same direction as my bill. Make the regulatory regime simpler, clearer, and more effective.
At the same time, ensure public authorities are helping to deliver the specific legally binding targets for nature and climate. The noble Lord, the minister, and indeed, other noble Lords, during the debate have referred to a number of existing initiatives. For example the biodiversity duty that the noble Baroness, Baroness Coffey, referred to. The recovery strategy that a number of noble Lords have referred to. Devolution framework, which has been implicit, although not specifically refer to. Anne Tse protected landscape, targets and protected landscape, targets and outcomes framework, referred to, among others, by the noble Earl, oh Effingham.
These initiatives are without a doubt important. But they could be enhanced by specific guidance, and timelines by meeting the targets of these two acts. The biodiversity duty for instance has rather weak guidance, here it is. Consider what you can do to conserve nature and enhance biodiversity. Agri-policies and specific objectives based on your consideration. And to deliver your policies and achieve your objectives. There is no link to the Environment Act or the Climate Change Act, so we can strengthen the guidance for those duties.
So, my notes, to summarise, free asks for the government in the future would be...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I understand what he says on that, recognising this recovering every single bit of government. Where there was stronger guidance was actually attached to the production of the local nature production of the local nature recovery strategies and that was We We agreed We agreed to We agreed to withdraw We agreed to withdraw it.
14:17
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)
We started this debate by saying my real concern about green initiatives, there one of the reasons our electricity prices are some of the highest in the G7. And make this country very uncompetitive, particularly when it comes to the manufacturing industry which continues to lead from this country, to other countries in the world, and the chances of restoring the manufacturing sector seem to me to be in effect, as long as we have these high prices. And notice during the debate, a lot of people go on about the duties of all the listed To adapt to green initiatives.
On the other hand nobody talks about the cost of doing that. That's really my concern that was across the board the green initiatives that we have under the net zero legislation are actually leading to customers paying more for services that they give and I'm surprised that Local Government Association says that they approve of the bill because it will mean the community charge in their area will be paying more money to actually announce all of the stuff. I think we had an interesting debate and then more than happy to withdraw my amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This amendment is withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. The question is that because one stamp at of the bill. As many are of that opinion bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
it. I think it may be helpful to inform your Lordships house we will be finishing or business today on be finishing or business today on today's Order Paper. Members may want to consider the length of their contributions, may helpful to your
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lordships house. Can I just clarify that has not been agreed by the normal channels and the convention as we finish at 3
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and the convention as we finish at 3 o'clock. We've only had two very late sittings this week if not three. I did this put it in the teams chat, I did try and talk to the chat, I did try and talk to the noble Lords about it this afternoon. I'm happy to continue such conversations but I think by having this as we continue also eating into time here that may be helpful given that noble Lords are here and waiting for their business to comments that we commence with the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
business. Clause 2, Amendment two, Viscount Trenchard.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Trenchard. I rise to move amendment to in my name and declare my interests as a member of the advisory board of penultimate para UK Ltd and as a consultant to Japan bank for consultant to Japan bank for international cooperation. First I wish to congratulate Lord Krebs on obtaining a Committee stage debatable his bill. I recognise his debatable his bill. I recognise his consistent efforts in raising environmental and climate issues in environmental and climate issues in this House.
I may not always wholly agree with him and sometimes question whether his approach is question whether his approach is proportionate. I regret that both the last government and this government obsessive determination government obsessive determination to eliminate fossil fuels in particular gas to quickly has ensured that the cost of providing electricity to industrial users is now the highest in the world. For example household electricity in the UK is 32% more expensive than in France and 169% more expensive than in the artist states.
As for industrial electricity, UK prices are 2.5 times as much as the equivalent in both France and the US. Comparisons with France are important because French electricity is generated 70% or more from nuclear. UK grid depends for around 15% of its supply on imports, much from France. I did not speak at second reading on 18 October but the contribution by my noble friend and Catherine in that debate is relevant to my amendment. My noble friend said take Great British Nuclear, which was created in 2023, not 100 years ago.
It has as its object to
On the other hand nobody talks about the cost of doing that. That's really my concern that was across the board the green initiatives that we have under the net zero legislation are actually leading to customers paying more for services that they give and I'm surprised that Local Government Association says that they approve of the bill because it will mean the community charge in their area will be paying more money to actually announce all of the stuff. I think we had an interesting debate and then more than happy to withdraw my amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This amendment is withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. The question is that because one stamp at of the bill. As many are of that opinion bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
it. I think it may be helpful to inform your Lordships house we will be finishing or business today on be finishing or business today on today's Order Paper. Members may want to consider the length of their contributions, may helpful to your
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lordships house. Can I just clarify that has not been agreed by the normal channels and the convention as we finish at 3
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and the convention as we finish at 3 o'clock. We've only had two very late sittings this week if not three. I did this put it in the teams chat, I did try and talk to the chat, I did try and talk to the noble Lords about it this afternoon. I'm happy to continue such conversations but I think by having this as we continue also eating into time here that may be helpful given that noble Lords are here and waiting for their business to comments that we commence with the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
business. Clause 2, Amendment two, Viscount Trenchard.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Trenchard. I rise to move amendment to in my name and declare my interests as a member of the advisory board of penultimate para UK Ltd and as a consultant to Japan bank for consultant to Japan bank for international cooperation. First I wish to congratulate Lord Krebs on obtaining a Committee stage debatable his bill. I recognise his debatable his bill. I recognise his consistent efforts in raising environmental and climate issues in environmental and climate issues in this House.
I may not always wholly agree with him and sometimes question whether his approach is question whether his approach is proportionate. I regret that both the last government and this government obsessive determination government obsessive determination to eliminate fossil fuels in particular gas to quickly has ensured that the cost of providing electricity to industrial users is now the highest in the world. For example household electricity in the UK is 32% more expensive than in France and 169% more expensive than in the artist states.
As for industrial electricity, UK prices are 2.5 times as much as the equivalent in both France and the US. Comparisons with France are important because French electricity is generated 70% or more from nuclear. UK grid depends for around 15% of its supply on imports, much from France. I did not speak at second reading on 18 October but the contribution by my noble friend and Catherine in that debate is relevant to my amendment. My noble friend said take Great British Nuclear, which was created in 2023, not 100 years ago.
It has as its object to
14:22
Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
facilitate the design construction commissioning and operation of commissioning and operation of nuclear generation project for the purpose of furthering any policies published by His Majesty's Government. I do not think you can Government. I do not think you can make a better contribution to net make a better contribution to net zero than that. My amendment number 26 My amendment number 262 exempt Great British Nuclear. Weirdly and misleadingly renamed on Tuesday as misleadingly renamed on Tuesday as great British energy nuclear GBE N from the duty to adhere from the environmental targets laid out in the bill.
I have argued before that the bill. I have argued before that the bill. I have argued before that to establish GBE as a separate publicly owned company from what is now GBE N was a mistake. And that it would have been much more sensible to have integrated GBE N into E GBE at the time of GBE's establishment. I say the renaming is misleading because gives the impression that GBE N is being brought under GBE's umbrella. Perhaps the Minister can tell you Lordships what corporate or structural changes have taken place in either company as a result of the renaming.
Noble Lords will remember that when we debated the GBE Bell, many of S lamented the fact that GBE has been given £8 billion to invest in energy projects principally wind and solar, whereas GBN doesn't have any committed funding to invest in nuclear projects. I do not move this amendment out of disregard for the environment, but from a desire to see our environmental goals achieved through pragmatic, economically responsible policy. The bill before us sets ambitious and admirable goals, but in its current form it risks entangling Great British Energy nuclear, a vital strategic body, in layers of environmental regulation that could unintentionally undermine our path to both net zero and energy independence.
Nuclear and is not merely an option, it is an economic and environmental necessity for this country. Yet as many noble Lords will appreciate, the economics of nuclear of finely balanced. The upfront capital costs at present extraordinarily high. Each new Costs billions of pounds. We acknowledge that investors, both domestic and international, will certainly scrutinise every risk and additional burden before making a decision to invest. I welcome the government's decision to invest in Sizewell C, as such a huge project are always going to need public sector support.
To subject Great British Energy nuclear to further regulatory obligations under this bill, beyond what it already faces from the office for nuclear regulation, the Environment Agency and planning authorities would be to risk unnecessary cost inflation. It would create bureaucratic drag and worse, it would signal to markets that the UK remains a difficult environment for major infrastructure investment. Let us be clear, nuclear is not on A-level playing field with other low carbon technologies. Wind and solar have enjoyed significant subsidy support over the past decade, three Contracts for Difference, feed in tariffs and other mechanisms.
Nuclear by contrast is expected to finance itself under far more stringent conditions. Under simultaneously capable of delivering baseload power that intermittent renewables cannot. Why is the consumer required to subsidise only intermittent energy sources, but not nuclear projects? The result of that is that UK develop new nuclear schemes suffer a massive disadvantage compared with UK renewable schemes, but also compared with nuclear schemes developed overseas which, fortified with massive set -- subsidies from foreign governments, particularly the US, coming over here and driving out UK originated nuclear schemes which cannot compete financially.
Furthermore nuclear is already held to the highest environmental and safety standards. From construction to decommissioning the nuclear industry is subject to extensive regulation, scrutinised by multiple agencies and underpinned by rigorous science. It is misleading to suggest that this sector operates without accountability. To the contrary, it is perhaps the most tightly governed of all. I don't say this out of a lack of concern for the environment, but because we must think strategically. Nuclear she's after all one of the cleanest forms of energy over the long-term.
Its carbon footprint is negligible and it plays a critical role in achieving a stable, low carbon grid. The government has rightly committed to ramping up nuclear capacity, both through small modular reactors and new gigawatt scale stations. But these ambitions must be matched by policy consistency. If Great British Nuclear is to fulfil its remit it must not be hobbled by duplicate environmental targets that add cost without adding value. Furthermore, I would remind the House that GBN is not a typical public body.
It is a strategic delivery vehicle. Its success is not measured in reports or audits but in gigawatts connected to the grid. I propose therefore that we either exempt British nuclear entirely, or that we create a more tailored framework, recognising the unique challenges and contributions of nuclear infrastructure. Our duty is to make Britain cleaner, safer and more secure. We must avoid binding the hands of the very institutions we have created to do precisely that. I urge the House to support this measured, targeted amendment, and to ensure that economic realism and environmental ambition go hand-in-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
hand. I beg to move. Amendment proposed. Close to,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed. Close to, page 2, line 6, leave out paragraph N stop
**** Possible New Speaker ****
N stop Arose very briefly, I think the Viscount Trenchard for bringing his amendment which seeks to remove amendment which seeks to remove Great British Nuclear from the face of this bill. I wore my noble Lords of this bill. I wore my noble Lords that Lord Krebs's bill seeks to install environmental recovery install environmental recovery application and adaption for public application and adaption for public bodies to help meet our targets bodies to help meet our targets under the environment and jacks.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove Great British Nuclear and
I have argued before that the bill. I have argued before that the bill. I have argued before that to establish GBE as a separate publicly owned company from what is now GBE N was a mistake. And that it would have been much more sensible to have integrated GBE N into E GBE at the time of GBE's establishment. I say the renaming is misleading because gives the impression that GBE N is being brought under GBE's umbrella. Perhaps the Minister can tell you Lordships what corporate or structural changes have taken place in either company as a result of the renaming.
Noble Lords will remember that when we debated the GBE Bell, many of S lamented the fact that GBE has been given £8 billion to invest in energy projects principally wind and solar, whereas GBN doesn't have any committed funding to invest in nuclear projects. I do not move this amendment out of disregard for the environment, but from a desire to see our environmental goals achieved through pragmatic, economically responsible policy. The bill before us sets ambitious and admirable goals, but in its current form it risks entangling Great British Energy nuclear, a vital strategic body, in layers of environmental regulation that could unintentionally undermine our path to both net zero and energy independence.
Nuclear and is not merely an option, it is an economic and environmental necessity for this country. Yet as many noble Lords will appreciate, the economics of nuclear of finely balanced. The upfront capital costs at present extraordinarily high. Each new Costs billions of pounds. We acknowledge that investors, both domestic and international, will certainly scrutinise every risk and additional burden before making a decision to invest. I welcome the government's decision to invest in Sizewell C, as such a huge project are always going to need public sector support.
To subject Great British Energy nuclear to further regulatory obligations under this bill, beyond what it already faces from the office for nuclear regulation, the Environment Agency and planning authorities would be to risk unnecessary cost inflation. It would create bureaucratic drag and worse, it would signal to markets that the UK remains a difficult environment for major infrastructure investment. Let us be clear, nuclear is not on A-level playing field with other low carbon technologies. Wind and solar have enjoyed significant subsidy support over the past decade, three Contracts for Difference, feed in tariffs and other mechanisms.
Nuclear by contrast is expected to finance itself under far more stringent conditions. Under simultaneously capable of delivering baseload power that intermittent renewables cannot. Why is the consumer required to subsidise only intermittent energy sources, but not nuclear projects? The result of that is that UK develop new nuclear schemes suffer a massive disadvantage compared with UK renewable schemes, but also compared with nuclear schemes developed overseas which, fortified with massive set -- subsidies from foreign governments, particularly the US, coming over here and driving out UK originated nuclear schemes which cannot compete financially.
Furthermore nuclear is already held to the highest environmental and safety standards. From construction to decommissioning the nuclear industry is subject to extensive regulation, scrutinised by multiple agencies and underpinned by rigorous science. It is misleading to suggest that this sector operates without accountability. To the contrary, it is perhaps the most tightly governed of all. I don't say this out of a lack of concern for the environment, but because we must think strategically. Nuclear she's after all one of the cleanest forms of energy over the long-term.
Its carbon footprint is negligible and it plays a critical role in achieving a stable, low carbon grid. The government has rightly committed to ramping up nuclear capacity, both through small modular reactors and new gigawatt scale stations. But these ambitions must be matched by policy consistency. If Great British Nuclear is to fulfil its remit it must not be hobbled by duplicate environmental targets that add cost without adding value. Furthermore, I would remind the House that GBN is not a typical public body.
It is a strategic delivery vehicle. Its success is not measured in reports or audits but in gigawatts connected to the grid. I propose therefore that we either exempt British nuclear entirely, or that we create a more tailored framework, recognising the unique challenges and contributions of nuclear infrastructure. Our duty is to make Britain cleaner, safer and more secure. We must avoid binding the hands of the very institutions we have created to do precisely that. I urge the House to support this measured, targeted amendment, and to ensure that economic realism and environmental ambition go hand-in-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
hand. I beg to move. Amendment proposed. Close to,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed. Close to, page 2, line 6, leave out paragraph N stop
**** Possible New Speaker ****
N stop Arose very briefly, I think the Viscount Trenchard for bringing his amendment which seeks to remove amendment which seeks to remove Great British Nuclear from the face of this bill. I wore my noble Lords of this bill. I wore my noble Lords that Lord Krebs's bill seeks to install environmental recovery install environmental recovery application and adaption for public application and adaption for public bodies to help meet our targets bodies to help meet our targets under the environment and jacks.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove Great British Nuclear and
14:29
Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
remove Great British Nuclear and make an exception for that particular body which doesn't apply to any of the other 29 listed public bodies that are named in the bill. For the noble Lords argument to be successful and argument needs to be put forward that Great British Nuclear is in a particular situation that is separate to all of the other bodies named in the bill, such that it has a specific cast-iron case to be removed from the provisions in the Private Members' bills before us today.
I don't feel I have heard that argument so in short, I don't support this amendment. In fact rather the opposite, actually I will remind noble Lords that it was only just the other week that the Public Accounts Committee published a report on Sellafield and talked about the intolerable risk their. There is £136 billion cost and a projected timeframe of 100 years for dealing with the nuclear waste legacy in this country. This government has no long-term geological store for nuclear waste and is unlikely to have one before the 2050s at the earliest.
That is in sharp contrast with the announcement for a nuclear renaissance. I do suggest this government and I will leave this to another day that is the government wish to invest in nuclear we also need to invest in our ability to deal with, reprocess and store all Also, I will leave this for another day but I was also disappointed with the removal of £2.5 billion from the overall £8.3 billion budget for Great British Energy, that was a bit of a surprise.
It wasn't something that was publicly known or discussed through all the stages and the long conversations we had on that bill. But I will return to that on a separate day.
I don't feel I have heard that argument so in short, I don't support this amendment. In fact rather the opposite, actually I will remind noble Lords that it was only just the other week that the Public Accounts Committee published a report on Sellafield and talked about the intolerable risk their. There is £136 billion cost and a projected timeframe of 100 years for dealing with the nuclear waste legacy in this country. This government has no long-term geological store for nuclear waste and is unlikely to have one before the 2050s at the earliest.
That is in sharp contrast with the announcement for a nuclear renaissance. I do suggest this government and I will leave this to another day that is the government wish to invest in nuclear we also need to invest in our ability to deal with, reprocess and store all Also, I will leave this for another day but I was also disappointed with the removal of £2.5 billion from the overall £8.3 billion budget for Great British Energy, that was a bit of a surprise.
It wasn't something that was publicly known or discussed through all the stages and the long conversations we had on that bill. But I will return to that on a separate day.
14:32
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment to come in the name of the noble viscount, Lord Trenchard, which seeks to remove Great British Nuclear, now named Great British Energy Nokia, from the scope of this bill. In adding this amendment, the noble viscount is recognising the noble viscount is recognising the unique role of nuclear energy in our national strategy, and cautions against implementing duplicative regulatory burdens that could hinder the progress of a key part of the nations energy structure going forward.
Nuclear power is already one of the most tightly regulated industries in the UK. Subject to the most stringent environmental and safety standards. The great British framework ensures the alignment with our goals, without the need for additional oversight. Imposing further targets through this bill may simply add another layer of unnecessary obligations. Delaying projects that are critical to our energy security and His Majesty's government's Net Zero ambitions. My Lords, we must confront the reality that nuclear energy is different from other forms of power generation.
The upfront costs are substantial. The lead times along. -- Are along. The investors needs to be and clarity, not shifting regulatory sands that might deter investment. If we are serious about expanding nuclear capacity, as His Majesty's government say they are, we really must avoid measures that might make those projects even more challenging to deliver. We do not believe that this amendment weakens our commitment to the environment. To the contrary, it recognises that nuclear energy is already a low carbon reliable baseload power source.
One will be indispensable as we transition away from fossil fuels. By exempting Great British Nuclear from the face of the bill we believe we are not rolling back environmental safeguards, we are in fact ensuring that nuclear can fulfil a vital role to society without the risk of being impacted by well-intentioned but ultimately intentionally unnecessary additional regulation. We would urge your Lordships house to carefully consider the amendment in the name of the noble viscount, Lord Trenchard. A laser focus on Trenchard.
A laser focus on delivering clean, secure, and affordable energy, which is already highly regulated by experts, will pay dividends for future generations of this country.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, the Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for the Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for bringing this amendment to this stage of the committee. In his comments, he made some specific comments, he made some specific points about the new formation of Great British Energy Nuclear, I'm afraid some of the detail the noble afraid some of the detail the noble Lord ask for in terms of the corporate structure of that body is corporate structure of that body is a little beyond me, so I will have to take that away and perhaps I can write to him with more detail.
Nuclear power is already one of the most tightly regulated industries in the UK. Subject to the most stringent environmental and safety standards. The great British framework ensures the alignment with our goals, without the need for additional oversight. Imposing further targets through this bill may simply add another layer of unnecessary obligations. Delaying projects that are critical to our energy security and His Majesty's government's Net Zero ambitions. My Lords, we must confront the reality that nuclear energy is different from other forms of power generation.
The upfront costs are substantial. The lead times along. -- Are along. The investors needs to be and clarity, not shifting regulatory sands that might deter investment. If we are serious about expanding nuclear capacity, as His Majesty's government say they are, we really must avoid measures that might make those projects even more challenging to deliver. We do not believe that this amendment weakens our commitment to the environment. To the contrary, it recognises that nuclear energy is already a low carbon reliable baseload power source.
One will be indispensable as we transition away from fossil fuels. By exempting Great British Nuclear from the face of the bill we believe we are not rolling back environmental safeguards, we are in fact ensuring that nuclear can fulfil a vital role to society without the risk of being impacted by well-intentioned but ultimately intentionally unnecessary additional regulation. We would urge your Lordships house to carefully consider the amendment in the name of the noble viscount, Lord Trenchard. A laser focus on Trenchard.
A laser focus on delivering clean, secure, and affordable energy, which is already highly regulated by experts, will pay dividends for future generations of this country.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, the Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for the Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for bringing this amendment to this stage of the committee. In his comments, he made some specific comments, he made some specific points about the new formation of Great British Energy Nuclear, I'm afraid some of the detail the noble afraid some of the detail the noble Lord ask for in terms of the corporate structure of that body is corporate structure of that body is a little beyond me, so I will have to take that away and perhaps I can write to him with more detail.
14:35
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Lord Katz (Labour)
However, let me reassure the noble Lord, Great British Energy Nuclear as it is now called will continue to drive forward the nuclear small module program, as part of this government's commitment to Net Zero emissions to make Britain a clean energy superpower. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Earl Russell, in relation to the actual amendment and is contributing to the bill. I have already spoken to the bill. I have already spoken Comments on the previous amendment, around the government's commitment to making the UK a clean energy superpower.
And I would say, my Lords, in terms of the spending review this week, not just around the SMR program, but also Sizewell C, this is the biggest rollout for a generation. We see nuclear for part of that and she superpower. But in the sake of brevity, I believe my comments at that.
And I would say, my Lords, in terms of the spending review this week, not just around the SMR program, but also Sizewell C, this is the biggest rollout for a generation. We see nuclear for part of that and she superpower. But in the sake of brevity, I believe my comments at that.
14:36
Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
My Lords, I thank the noble viscount, Viscount Trenchard, for bringing forward this amendment and for all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. At second reading, I pointed out there are two classic objections to the proposals. On the one hand, they are necessary. On the other hand, they are to -- They are unnecessary, on the other hand, they are burdensome. Both cannot be true at the same time, but it seems to me in the debate we have just had, the point was made that the nuclear industry, of which I am in full support, is tightly regulated, therefore this additional layer of regulation is unnecessary.
On the other hand, we heard this additional layer will be too burdensome, and impose duties on the nuclear industry that will discourage investment. Now, it simply cannot be true for supper they are doing it anyway, it cannot be burdensome. If they're not doing it anyway, maybe they do need a bit of extra burden. But in truth, when we look at what the government's website says about GB EM, it says it will deliver the government's long-term nuclear energy program, supported UK's energy security and contribute to our Net Zero targets.
So tick the box, job done. It is already computing to Net Zero. One of the computing to Net Zero. One of the other, contributing to Net Zero. One of the other tasks it will have, alongside the competition to build up to three SMR's, is to choose along, along with Rolls-Royce, the sites where the SMRs are going to be sites where the SMRs are going to be built. Of those sites will have environmental implications. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that when those choices are made, the choice should reflect the targets in the environment act.
If they were clearly going to be detrimental to the target of reversing the decline of species diversity by 2030, then it would be reasonable for GBN and Rolls-Royce to be asked to think Rolls-Royce to be asked to think again. Although I have heard an argument for removing GB EN from the list of public authorities, I am not convinced by the argument, but I will take it away and think about it further. But in the meantime, I very much hope the noble viscount,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Viscount Trenchard, will withdraw his amendment. I'm grateful to noble Lords who
On the other hand, we heard this additional layer will be too burdensome, and impose duties on the nuclear industry that will discourage investment. Now, it simply cannot be true for supper they are doing it anyway, it cannot be burdensome. If they're not doing it anyway, maybe they do need a bit of extra burden. But in truth, when we look at what the government's website says about GB EM, it says it will deliver the government's long-term nuclear energy program, supported UK's energy security and contribute to our Net Zero targets.
So tick the box, job done. It is already computing to Net Zero. One of the computing to Net Zero. One of the other, contributing to Net Zero. One of the other tasks it will have, alongside the competition to build up to three SMR's, is to choose along, along with Rolls-Royce, the sites where the SMRs are going to be sites where the SMRs are going to be built. Of those sites will have environmental implications. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that when those choices are made, the choice should reflect the targets in the environment act.
If they were clearly going to be detrimental to the target of reversing the decline of species diversity by 2030, then it would be reasonable for GBN and Rolls-Royce to be asked to think Rolls-Royce to be asked to think again. Although I have heard an argument for removing GB EN from the list of public authorities, I am not convinced by the argument, but I will take it away and think about it further. But in the meantime, I very much hope the noble viscount,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Viscount Trenchard, will withdraw his amendment. I'm grateful to noble Lords who
14:39
Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this. And the careful attention given to my amendment. Let me conclude by amendment. Let me conclude by returning to the core principle that underpins this amendment. We simply cannot deliver cheap, reliable and secure energy future, without nuclear power generation. It is therefore essential that we increase Britain's nuclear capacity. Unlike the intermittent technologies so generously backed by the Secretary of State, nuclear provides what no other low carbon technology currently can. Reliable baseload power.
It offers inertia to stabilise our grateful consistency to underpin our economy, and long- term energy security. That does not depend on the weather or foreign imports. It does all this while requiring substantially less new grid infrastructure. Then widely dispersed solar and wind installations. The more nuclear we have, the less we need to erect ugly pylons in our beautiful countryside. And yet, my Lords, we are not on track. As things stand, Britain will not have Small Modular Reactors connected to the grid, until the 2030s.
It is not a criticism of the technology, but a reflection of government hesitation. Hesitation that stands in stark contrast to the headlong rush to achieve Clean Power 2030. Relying almost entirely on intermittent renewables, and simultaneously dismantling our domestic oil and gas capacity in the North Sea. We also need to explore the urgent need to accelerate the commercial development of some so- called AMR technologies, some of which are proving inherently safe. Such as the Japanese high- temperature gas cooled reactor technology, whose prototype was developed in Dorset in 1965, as their Dragon reactor.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I regret the reduction in the funds, which had been committed to GBE. It makes it all the more likely that Great British Energy will have any funding available for nuclear projects. I thank my noble friend, Lord Effingham, for his strong support, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for agreeing to write to me about changes to the corporate structure in both GBE and GBE N. It is true that projects are tricky regulated from a safety point of view, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who said it couldn't be true both that said it couldn't be true both that nuclear was overregulated and that, say, it should be easy to comply with these additional regulations, and that it was unregulated and therefore to increase the regulation would make it less likely, to make the UK seem less attractive destination for investment.
I think destination for investment. I think both are true. From a safety point of view, projects and nuclear power stations are extremely strictly regulated. The environmental regulations really are a different type of regulation. An environmental and planning regulations are an additional burden, which GBE N is not, at present, expecting to have to comply with Edward represented additional burden -- And would represent an additional burden to projects. My gratitude to the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord, the minister, and two other noble Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Clause two,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment three, Lord Evans. My Lords, I rise to move amendment three, standing in my amendment three, standing in my name. This amendment seeks to at the name. This amendment seeks to at the Canal and River trust to the list of public authorities which are subject to the provisions of this bill, which in turn would make them which in turn would make them subject to the provisions of the Environment Act 2021. Landmark legislative achievement. Our canal legislative achievement. Our canal
Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this. And the careful attention given to my amendment. Let me conclude by amendment. Let me conclude by returning to the core principle that underpins this amendment. We simply cannot deliver cheap, reliable and secure energy future, without nuclear power generation. It is therefore essential that we increase Britain's nuclear capacity. Unlike the intermittent technologies so generously backed by the Secretary of State, nuclear provides what no other low carbon technology currently can. Reliable baseload power.
It offers inertia to stabilise our grateful consistency to underpin our economy, and long- term energy security. That does not depend on the weather or foreign imports. It does all this while requiring substantially less new grid infrastructure. Then widely dispersed solar and wind installations. The more nuclear we have, the less we need to erect ugly pylons in our beautiful countryside. And yet, my Lords, we are not on track. As things stand, Britain will not have Small Modular Reactors connected to the grid, until the 2030s.
It is not a criticism of the technology, but a reflection of government hesitation. Hesitation that stands in stark contrast to the headlong rush to achieve Clean Power 2030. Relying almost entirely on intermittent renewables, and simultaneously dismantling our domestic oil and gas capacity in the North Sea. We also need to explore the urgent need to accelerate the commercial development of some so- called AMR technologies, some of which are proving inherently safe. Such as the Japanese high- temperature gas cooled reactor technology, whose prototype was developed in Dorset in 1965, as their Dragon reactor.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I regret the reduction in the funds, which had been committed to GBE. It makes it all the more likely that Great British Energy will have any funding available for nuclear projects. I thank my noble friend, Lord Effingham, for his strong support, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for agreeing to write to me about changes to the corporate structure in both GBE and GBE N. It is true that projects are tricky regulated from a safety point of view, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who said it couldn't be true both that said it couldn't be true both that nuclear was overregulated and that, say, it should be easy to comply with these additional regulations, and that it was unregulated and therefore to increase the regulation would make it less likely, to make the UK seem less attractive destination for investment.
I think destination for investment. I think both are true. From a safety point of view, projects and nuclear power stations are extremely strictly regulated. The environmental regulations really are a different type of regulation. An environmental and planning regulations are an additional burden, which GBE N is not, at present, expecting to have to comply with Edward represented additional burden -- And would represent an additional burden to projects. My gratitude to the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord, the minister, and two other noble Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Clause two,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment three, Lord Evans. My Lords, I rise to move amendment three, standing in my amendment three, standing in my name. This amendment seeks to at the name. This amendment seeks to at the Canal and River trust to the list of public authorities which are subject to the provisions of this bill, which in turn would make them which in turn would make them subject to the provisions of the Environment Act 2021. Landmark legislative achievement. Our canal legislative achievement. Our canal
14:44
Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)
legislative achievement. Our canal Of Britain, are too often strewn with litter, fly-tip waste, and the detritus of neglect. My mentor would place additional duties on the Canal and River Trust, sending a message to the trust that those who use canals regularly demand cleaner canals. When Britain largely de- industrialised, and other modes of freight transportation became preferable, we were left with? Over the -- We were left with a question mark over the future of canals. If you look at the West Coast railway line, it follows the link of the Trenton Mersey Canal, as it weaves its way through from the north-west, down to London.
And you can see those former industrial logistics communities of the past. But today, millions of people want to use our canals as pleasant green space. They are a space for leisure and exercise. Many people live in our canals, and they have become an important space for wildlife in city centres. Sadly though, my Lords, the state of many of these routes, particularly in urban areas, have deteriorated to an intolerable point, because of the increasing quantities of litter on our towpaths.
This is a creeping pattern Degradation, one whose harms are civic as much as they are environmental. It was reported in the Islington Tribune on 23 May this year that local campaigners there had founded the Cleaner Canals Campaign, bringing renewed attention to this issue, underscoring the impact of litter on residents and wildlife alike. The campaign speaks for many, feels the trust decision to remove garbage bins from the urban towpaths two years ago was fundamentally wrong. One of the campaigns leading voices, Oliver Mosley, expressed this plainly, commenting in the article, he said, despite receiving £50 million of taxpayers money annually, the Canal and River Trust have decided to remove bins from our canals in Islington, resulting in appalling levels of waste which are an eyesore levels of waste which are an eyesore We all have a responsibility to do the right thing and ultimately those who litter are responsible, but as Lord Krebs bill shows, it is also right that our public authorities should work to protect our environment.
Lord Krebs who has brought this bill forward is a noted and respected ornithologist. I hope you will agree with me that the vast piles of discarded waste including plastics pose a serious threat to the many waterbirds who make their homes on our urban canals. Whether it be a cormorant or acute, our wildlife as well as people who use our canals deserve better. The central issue is remarkably simple. Along miles of urban canals to pass in England there are now no public bins at all.
There were bins on our urban to parts until two years ago, their removal was an active choice by the canal and river trust. The written answer published on 11 April, 2024, Lady Hayman of Ullock confirmed under sections 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 the canal and river trust has a duty to keep the land they are responsible for clear of litter and refuge. -- Refuse. The evidence gathered by the cleaner Kamahl is -- canals campaigners shows the trust is failing in that duty.
Many corporations and urban areas volunteer their workforce time, this is worth many many millions of pounds. They do volunteer for litter pick in urban areas and I do believe the rivers and canals trust has missed a real opportunity to engage on such free labour and help and on such free labour and help and support. I have tabled this amendment to probe whether an additional duty on the canal and river trust might spur them into action. The trust occupies an unusual space.
It is a charity yes. But it is also the steward of a vast national asset. It receives significant taxpayer funding and this is bound by statutory duties. Additional statutory duty under this bill may not be the silver bullet the cleaner canal campaigners are looking for, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction. It might send an important message to the canal and river trust leadership that this is a serious issue that does need to be resolved. Those who oppose my amendments may argue that the canal and river trust is already struggling financially and cannot support an additional statutory support an additional statutory duty.
I do not dispute that the canal and river trust faces serious financial pressures. We can all appreciate the complex demands of managing a vast and ageing managing a vast and ageing infrastructure. But there is an important context to the trust's financial challenges. The canal and river trust was formed in 2012 to take over the previous statutory responsibilities of state-controlled waterways with responsibility for 2,000 miles of canals in England. As an MP I remember in 2012 welcoming the creation of the trust by had an office in my constituency.
Cheshire has a large amount of canals running around it, the Cheshire Ring, the River Weaver, I worked with the trust to repair a bridge over the Sutton Weaver bridge, through Cheshire we have several lattice black-and-white iconic bridges. They Year's boat traffic to travel under road bridges. But they were built in the 1920s in the days of steam engines. Working with the trusts we managed to get funding from the local authority and they built a new bridge which successfully captured in keeping on time and with budget.
I am not knocking the canal river trust because they do a great job in so many ways. But on this issue they are failing. When the canal and river trust were given responsibility for our canals they committed to and I quote, reducing dependence on government grant, yet more than a decade on the trust still receives 50 million annually from the taxpayer and is still unable to stand on its own two feet. The trust is taxpayer funded, it should deliver for taxpayers. At this point I would know that while the annual central government funding for the canal and river trust is £50 million currently, the trust's own estimates suggest they have saved just £250,000 annually for removing bins from to pass on the London and south-east region.
That is just 0.5% of the annual sum they received from the taxpayer. In some areas volunteers have stepped in and probably, hosting litter in and probably, hosting litter Manatees. -- Amenities. I applaud them but they should not feel compelled to shoulder alone the responsibilities that ultimately fall on the canal and river trust under their statutory obligations. The government has a role here as well, the trust is not wholly disconnected from the government, as I have said it is a recipient of public funds and subject to statutory duties.
I therefore urge ministers and Defra in particular to reflect on the terms of the trust obligations to examine whether some form of minimum amenity provision should be incorporated into future grant arrangements. I invite them to consider whether expanded statutory duties might now be appropriate not to inappropriately burden the trust, but to ensure it delivers the basic services which the public expect. Finally I would address the point that has come up in correspondence between the cleaner canal campaign and the canal and river trust.
That these problems are somehow the fault of the public. That if people did not letter, bins would not be needed. Personal responsibility is fundamental to functioning society, but the taxpayer-funded canal river trust has responsibilities as well. We need the trust to meet the public halfway. I hope Lord Krebs will take this amendment in the constructive spirit it is meant and accept my amendments. I also hope the noble Lord the Minister will accept this amendment. I also hope the Minister will listen carefully to the concerns I have highlighted today and take away for consideration.
I'm not content to see our canals become no-go zones of neglect in urban areas, I hope noble Lords across
**** Possible New Speaker ****
your Lordships house will agree. Amendment proposed, clause 2, page 2, line 23, at the end insert
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the canal and river trust. I would like to rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Evans amendment and it's not inconsistent amendment and it's not inconsistent with my previous amendment seeking to exempt a particular public body to exempt a particular public body from the list affected by Lord Krebs this bill. At the same time this bill. At the same time supporting my noble friend desire to include another public body. I do include another public body.
I do think that conditions of the two public bodies are inherently public bodies are inherently different. I do think Great British Nuclear is in hugely different and uniquely difficult position whereas uniquely difficult position whereas I myself agree entirely with my noble friend, this is very regrettable that the canal and river trust has removed bins because our tow paths in our river communities and our waterways are an essential part of our community and the fact that you can't, think of a family out for a walk up a canal with three or four children eating bags of crisps and ice cream.
Where can they crisps and ice cream. Where can they put all the letter? It's not realistic to expect all of them to carry it all home in huge bags. I think the removal of the list bins think the removal of the list bins by the canal and river trust is hugely regrettable. For that and the other reasons put forward by my other reasons put forward by my noble friend I support his amendment.
And you can see those former industrial logistics communities of the past. But today, millions of people want to use our canals as pleasant green space. They are a space for leisure and exercise. Many people live in our canals, and they have become an important space for wildlife in city centres. Sadly though, my Lords, the state of many of these routes, particularly in urban areas, have deteriorated to an intolerable point, because of the increasing quantities of litter on our towpaths.
This is a creeping pattern Degradation, one whose harms are civic as much as they are environmental. It was reported in the Islington Tribune on 23 May this year that local campaigners there had founded the Cleaner Canals Campaign, bringing renewed attention to this issue, underscoring the impact of litter on residents and wildlife alike. The campaign speaks for many, feels the trust decision to remove garbage bins from the urban towpaths two years ago was fundamentally wrong. One of the campaigns leading voices, Oliver Mosley, expressed this plainly, commenting in the article, he said, despite receiving £50 million of taxpayers money annually, the Canal and River Trust have decided to remove bins from our canals in Islington, resulting in appalling levels of waste which are an eyesore levels of waste which are an eyesore We all have a responsibility to do the right thing and ultimately those who litter are responsible, but as Lord Krebs bill shows, it is also right that our public authorities should work to protect our environment.
Lord Krebs who has brought this bill forward is a noted and respected ornithologist. I hope you will agree with me that the vast piles of discarded waste including plastics pose a serious threat to the many waterbirds who make their homes on our urban canals. Whether it be a cormorant or acute, our wildlife as well as people who use our canals deserve better. The central issue is remarkably simple. Along miles of urban canals to pass in England there are now no public bins at all.
There were bins on our urban to parts until two years ago, their removal was an active choice by the canal and river trust. The written answer published on 11 April, 2024, Lady Hayman of Ullock confirmed under sections 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 the canal and river trust has a duty to keep the land they are responsible for clear of litter and refuge. -- Refuse. The evidence gathered by the cleaner Kamahl is -- canals campaigners shows the trust is failing in that duty.
Many corporations and urban areas volunteer their workforce time, this is worth many many millions of pounds. They do volunteer for litter pick in urban areas and I do believe the rivers and canals trust has missed a real opportunity to engage on such free labour and help and on such free labour and help and support. I have tabled this amendment to probe whether an additional duty on the canal and river trust might spur them into action. The trust occupies an unusual space.
It is a charity yes. But it is also the steward of a vast national asset. It receives significant taxpayer funding and this is bound by statutory duties. Additional statutory duty under this bill may not be the silver bullet the cleaner canal campaigners are looking for, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction. It might send an important message to the canal and river trust leadership that this is a serious issue that does need to be resolved. Those who oppose my amendments may argue that the canal and river trust is already struggling financially and cannot support an additional statutory support an additional statutory duty.
I do not dispute that the canal and river trust faces serious financial pressures. We can all appreciate the complex demands of managing a vast and ageing managing a vast and ageing infrastructure. But there is an important context to the trust's financial challenges. The canal and river trust was formed in 2012 to take over the previous statutory responsibilities of state-controlled waterways with responsibility for 2,000 miles of canals in England. As an MP I remember in 2012 welcoming the creation of the trust by had an office in my constituency.
Cheshire has a large amount of canals running around it, the Cheshire Ring, the River Weaver, I worked with the trust to repair a bridge over the Sutton Weaver bridge, through Cheshire we have several lattice black-and-white iconic bridges. They Year's boat traffic to travel under road bridges. But they were built in the 1920s in the days of steam engines. Working with the trusts we managed to get funding from the local authority and they built a new bridge which successfully captured in keeping on time and with budget.
I am not knocking the canal river trust because they do a great job in so many ways. But on this issue they are failing. When the canal and river trust were given responsibility for our canals they committed to and I quote, reducing dependence on government grant, yet more than a decade on the trust still receives 50 million annually from the taxpayer and is still unable to stand on its own two feet. The trust is taxpayer funded, it should deliver for taxpayers. At this point I would know that while the annual central government funding for the canal and river trust is £50 million currently, the trust's own estimates suggest they have saved just £250,000 annually for removing bins from to pass on the London and south-east region.
That is just 0.5% of the annual sum they received from the taxpayer. In some areas volunteers have stepped in and probably, hosting litter in and probably, hosting litter Manatees. -- Amenities. I applaud them but they should not feel compelled to shoulder alone the responsibilities that ultimately fall on the canal and river trust under their statutory obligations. The government has a role here as well, the trust is not wholly disconnected from the government, as I have said it is a recipient of public funds and subject to statutory duties.
I therefore urge ministers and Defra in particular to reflect on the terms of the trust obligations to examine whether some form of minimum amenity provision should be incorporated into future grant arrangements. I invite them to consider whether expanded statutory duties might now be appropriate not to inappropriately burden the trust, but to ensure it delivers the basic services which the public expect. Finally I would address the point that has come up in correspondence between the cleaner canal campaign and the canal and river trust.
That these problems are somehow the fault of the public. That if people did not letter, bins would not be needed. Personal responsibility is fundamental to functioning society, but the taxpayer-funded canal river trust has responsibilities as well. We need the trust to meet the public halfway. I hope Lord Krebs will take this amendment in the constructive spirit it is meant and accept my amendments. I also hope the noble Lord the Minister will accept this amendment. I also hope the Minister will listen carefully to the concerns I have highlighted today and take away for consideration.
I'm not content to see our canals become no-go zones of neglect in urban areas, I hope noble Lords across
**** Possible New Speaker ****
your Lordships house will agree. Amendment proposed, clause 2, page 2, line 23, at the end insert
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the canal and river trust. I would like to rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Evans amendment and it's not inconsistent amendment and it's not inconsistent with my previous amendment seeking to exempt a particular public body to exempt a particular public body from the list affected by Lord Krebs this bill. At the same time this bill. At the same time supporting my noble friend desire to include another public body. I do include another public body.
I do think that conditions of the two public bodies are inherently public bodies are inherently different. I do think Great British Nuclear is in hugely different and uniquely difficult position whereas uniquely difficult position whereas I myself agree entirely with my noble friend, this is very regrettable that the canal and river trust has removed bins because our tow paths in our river communities and our waterways are an essential part of our community and the fact that you can't, think of a family out for a walk up a canal with three or four children eating bags of crisps and ice cream.
Where can they crisps and ice cream. Where can they put all the letter? It's not realistic to expect all of them to carry it all home in huge bags. I think the removal of the list bins think the removal of the list bins by the canal and river trust is hugely regrettable. For that and the other reasons put forward by my other reasons put forward by my noble friend I support his amendment.
14:55
Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
I hesitate to intervene because I'm very conscious that the next debate is waiting to begin but can I thank Lord Evans for his amendment mainly for the degree of clarity gave me on the actual status of the canals and river trust which is apparently according to the UN as a public non-financial corporation as well as a charity which is a status I have never come across before.
14:56
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
Interesting. There is huge scope for debate about what was on this list and what comes of this list, I would and what comes of this list, I would prefer it mostly to be about what was on the first. I would like to give one more example, Baroness Coffey quite rightly pointed out that mayoral authority should be on that mayoral authority should be on the list and I would like to make the case for one really particularly important body and I really should have put an amendment down but I didn't.
If it does come to the fact didn't. If it does come to the fact that the bill precedes further I that the bill precedes further I will put an amendment down. To bring the newly created National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority onto that Transformation Authority onto that list. That body has been created to implement the 10 year national and implement the 10 year national and just trust, it will have a key influence on land use, development, and their impact on climate, environment targets.
Under its memorandum of understanding I believe that it has inherited, though it's very difficult to track down, the climate change duties from one of its predecessor bodies. But it is absolutely not clear that it has any duties towards the environmental and by diverse targets. I think it would be really important that this hugely impactful structure, infrastructure rollers brought on to the list. Because I don't believe the government can achieve both the climate change and the by diverse and environmental targets of bodies like them aren't tasked with pulling their weight on this when exercising the powers in delivering the primary objectives.
I do believe that bodies can walk and talk and chew gum and that the future for this planet, for this nation and this economy is that all public bodies have to learn to do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that, it is possible. I'm very conscious of the time, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm very conscious of the time, I support my noble friend's amendment...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Of course I will defer if the Front-Bench Members wants to do it Front-Bench Members wants to do it first. I would like to make another suggestion with a declaration of suggestion with a declaration of interest, I was the chairman of Kew Gardens and I'm very much involved in the millennium seed Bank and all
If it does come to the fact didn't. If it does come to the fact that the bill precedes further I that the bill precedes further I will put an amendment down. To bring the newly created National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority onto that Transformation Authority onto that list. That body has been created to implement the 10 year national and implement the 10 year national and just trust, it will have a key influence on land use, development, and their impact on climate, environment targets.
Under its memorandum of understanding I believe that it has inherited, though it's very difficult to track down, the climate change duties from one of its predecessor bodies. But it is absolutely not clear that it has any duties towards the environmental and by diverse targets. I think it would be really important that this hugely impactful structure, infrastructure rollers brought on to the list. Because I don't believe the government can achieve both the climate change and the by diverse and environmental targets of bodies like them aren't tasked with pulling their weight on this when exercising the powers in delivering the primary objectives.
I do believe that bodies can walk and talk and chew gum and that the future for this planet, for this nation and this economy is that all public bodies have to learn to do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that, it is possible. I'm very conscious of the time, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm very conscious of the time, I support my noble friend's amendment...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Of course I will defer if the Front-Bench Members wants to do it Front-Bench Members wants to do it first. I would like to make another suggestion with a declaration of suggestion with a declaration of interest, I was the chairman of Kew Gardens and I'm very much involved in the millennium seed Bank and all
14:58
-
in the millennium seed Bank and all that it does, and the most important sentence in this bill is the sentence which says, take all reasonable steps to meet the environmental recovery objective. I think Q is right in the middle of doing things to recover the environmental objective and I believe very strongly that it should believe very strongly that it should be added -- you Gardens, -- Q gardens full stop did I have to say I'm quite surprised it isn't on it already.
14:58
Viscount Eccles (Conservative)
-
-
Viscount Eccles (Conservative)
I rise very briefly, can I thank Lord Evans of Rainow for bringing this to proposal to add the canal and river trust to the list of public bodies in part two of Lord public bodies in part two of Lord Krebs this bill. While I have every sympathy for his case, the truth is sympathy for his case, the truth is that the canal and Rivers Trust is a charity that was set up in 20 2012 charity that was set up in 20 2012 -- 2012.
My understanding that as a charity and not a public body it is charity and not a public body it is simply not possible to add them to the provisions within the bill.
My understanding that as a charity and not a public body it is charity and not a public body it is simply not possible to add them to the provisions within the bill.
14:59
15:00
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
me begin by thanking the noble Lord for his scrutiny and diligence in drawing attention to what is drawing attention to what is undeniably an important point of principle and practice. As was referenced by Baroness Young of Old Scone. The canal and river trust as the noble Lord rightly notes is the noble Lord rightly notes is responsible for an extensive and significant network of inland waterways. These are assets which contribute not only to heritage and contribute not only to heritage and recreation, but also to the health of our natural environment.
There is of our natural environment. There is no question that the trust plays a role in environmental outcomes. Its custodianship of over 2,000 miles of canals and rivers in the by diverse support is of considerable public interest. It is worth emphasising, as Lord Evans has done, the persistent and ever-increasing problem of littering in our canals. Litter not only blights these beautiful and historic waterways, diminishing the enjoyment of walkers, boaters and anglers, but crucially it also harms wildlife and contributes to the broader degradation of aquatic ecosystems.
The canal and river trust, whilst being a charitable trust, does carry out statutory functions receives central government funding to assist with the maintenance of this national in, and in that sense it is not entirely distinct from other bodies already subject to the environmental duties under this bill. Given the scale of its responsibilities and its public funding there is a strong case, powerfully argued by Lord Evans, for holding the trust to similar standards of environmental Indeed, it is precisely because they trust is in receipt of public funds and because it operates at the interface of public benefit and environmental stewardship that an additional statutory requirement might aid action.
We believe issues raised in this amendment need thoughtful consideration around the role of arm's-length bodies, in helping us to meet our legally binding environmental targets. We hope all benches in your Lordships house will carefully consider whether the trust significant environmental response abilities can be reflected within the broader
**** Possible New Speaker ****
framework of this bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for his tabled amendment to include the Canal and River Trust in include the Canal and River Trust in the list of authorities in the bill, the list of authorities in the bill, clause two, subsection 2, I also pay some tribute to his creative way of raising particular concerns he had raising particular concerns he had about the stewardship of the Canal about the stewardship of the Canal and River Trust, the removal of bins and other associated issues, in terms of their environmental responsibilities.
I will certainly bring his comments to the attention bring his comments to the attention of my colleague, Minister Hardy, who has responsibility for the Canal and
There is of our natural environment. There is no question that the trust plays a role in environmental outcomes. Its custodianship of over 2,000 miles of canals and rivers in the by diverse support is of considerable public interest. It is worth emphasising, as Lord Evans has done, the persistent and ever-increasing problem of littering in our canals. Litter not only blights these beautiful and historic waterways, diminishing the enjoyment of walkers, boaters and anglers, but crucially it also harms wildlife and contributes to the broader degradation of aquatic ecosystems.
The canal and river trust, whilst being a charitable trust, does carry out statutory functions receives central government funding to assist with the maintenance of this national in, and in that sense it is not entirely distinct from other bodies already subject to the environmental duties under this bill. Given the scale of its responsibilities and its public funding there is a strong case, powerfully argued by Lord Evans, for holding the trust to similar standards of environmental Indeed, it is precisely because they trust is in receipt of public funds and because it operates at the interface of public benefit and environmental stewardship that an additional statutory requirement might aid action.
We believe issues raised in this amendment need thoughtful consideration around the role of arm's-length bodies, in helping us to meet our legally binding environmental targets. We hope all benches in your Lordships house will carefully consider whether the trust significant environmental response abilities can be reflected within the broader
**** Possible New Speaker ****
framework of this bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for his tabled amendment to include the Canal and River Trust in include the Canal and River Trust in the list of authorities in the bill, the list of authorities in the bill, clause two, subsection 2, I also pay some tribute to his creative way of raising particular concerns he had raising particular concerns he had about the stewardship of the Canal about the stewardship of the Canal and River Trust, the removal of bins and other associated issues, in terms of their environmental responsibilities.
I will certainly bring his comments to the attention bring his comments to the attention of my colleague, Minister Hardy, who has responsibility for the Canal and
15:03
-
has responsibility for the Canal and Rivers Trust, in the department. The canal and Rivers Trust is an invaluable organisation, with which DEFRA and other government departments works closely. We will ensure its efforts are best directed, and improve and protect the natural environment and its improvement for the public. My Lords, for the sake of brevity, I Lords, for the sake of brevity, I will leave it at that.
15:03
15:04
Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
in a short debate. My Lords, I have in a short debate. My Lords, I have the good fortune of living in central Oxford, very close to the central Oxford, very close to the Oxford Canal, and indeed, this morning when I set off, I did my usual walk, 10 minutes down the canal towpath from my house to canal towpath from my house to Oxford station. A canal in Oxford, and together with its canal banks, form a wonderful corridor for wildlife, leading right into the wildlife, leading right into the city centre.
I often see a herring fishing on one of the ways, and occasionally glimpse the iridescent blue of the Kingfisher flying past, blue of the Kingfisher flying past, and in the winter, I see use who have migrated south from Scotland or have migrated south from Scotland or Scandinavia. I am lucky, unlike the Scandinavia. I am lucky, unlike the examples cited by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in my neighbourhood, the canal towpath is well maintained and litter free. I would very much wish that were true of the rest of the canal network.
In fact, my only complaint about the canal in Oxford complaint about the canal in Oxford is a rather different one is residential canal boats, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that have allowed to burn dirty, solid fuel which would not be allowed in other residences. I wish the government would do something about this. After all, one of the six key targets in environmental act is to cut exposure to the most harmful pollutant to local health, and the canal bows could be a good starting point for reducing pollution exposure.
In principle, I think it would be good to add the canal and Rivers Trust to the list. However, this is now above my pay grade, because I don't fully understand the position of the CRT, on the one hand, the noble Earl, Lord Russell said, it is a registered charity and governed by the Charity Commission, and not subject to the same regulations as proper authorities. I assumed it would have to change its charitable objects in order to comply with the intention of the bill.
So, I'd like to take it away and understand it, and in the meantime, very much hope Lord Evans will seek fit to withdraw his amendment and recognise it as had a very sympathetic hearing from all around the House. Before I sit down, I would once again like to thank all the noble Lords who have contributed to the debate this afternoon. Also, I haven't mentioned the wildlife and countryside Link and the green alliance that have been helpful in preparing the material for this bill for stopping particularly, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for -- For agreeing to continue the discussion in taking it forward.
And indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Baroness, have already mentioned, there are two routes ahead of us, we all agreed intention for the bill, in Scott taking the points of the noble Lord Hamilton, and the noble viscount, we agree in general with the principle of improving our environment. In the two routes the government could have is to accept there will be piecemeal chipping away, as things come forward when people try to table amendments, that are time-consuming, you can do it in one fail swoop by accepting the DOI proposed.
-- Accepting the bill I propose.
I often see a herring fishing on one of the ways, and occasionally glimpse the iridescent blue of the Kingfisher flying past, blue of the Kingfisher flying past, and in the winter, I see use who have migrated south from Scotland or have migrated south from Scotland or Scandinavia. I am lucky, unlike the Scandinavia. I am lucky, unlike the examples cited by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in my neighbourhood, the canal towpath is well maintained and litter free. I would very much wish that were true of the rest of the canal network.
In fact, my only complaint about the canal in Oxford complaint about the canal in Oxford is a rather different one is residential canal boats, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that have allowed to burn dirty, solid fuel which would not be allowed in other residences. I wish the government would do something about this. After all, one of the six key targets in environmental act is to cut exposure to the most harmful pollutant to local health, and the canal bows could be a good starting point for reducing pollution exposure.
In principle, I think it would be good to add the canal and Rivers Trust to the list. However, this is now above my pay grade, because I don't fully understand the position of the CRT, on the one hand, the noble Earl, Lord Russell said, it is a registered charity and governed by the Charity Commission, and not subject to the same regulations as proper authorities. I assumed it would have to change its charitable objects in order to comply with the intention of the bill.
So, I'd like to take it away and understand it, and in the meantime, very much hope Lord Evans will seek fit to withdraw his amendment and recognise it as had a very sympathetic hearing from all around the House. Before I sit down, I would once again like to thank all the noble Lords who have contributed to the debate this afternoon. Also, I haven't mentioned the wildlife and countryside Link and the green alliance that have been helpful in preparing the material for this bill for stopping particularly, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for -- For agreeing to continue the discussion in taking it forward.
And indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Baroness, have already mentioned, there are two routes ahead of us, we all agreed intention for the bill, in Scott taking the points of the noble Lord Hamilton, and the noble viscount, we agree in general with the principle of improving our environment. In the two routes the government could have is to accept there will be piecemeal chipping away, as things come forward when people try to table amendments, that are time-consuming, you can do it in one fail swoop by accepting the DOI proposed.
-- Accepting the bill I propose.
15:07
Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I am familiar with being treated separately but I accept in this case, the noble Lord, certainly has, and I would like to thank Mike noble friends -- I would like to thank my noble friends for their efforts. Very important point, as he said, the ambiguity of this trust, is that what the frontbench spokesman said, it is a charity, but receives £50 million of hard-working taxpayers money, so any organisation that receives taxpayers money from central government is aware the government might need to have a word if it is felt they are providing the public service they should be doing.
I am disappointed that in over 13 years, the trust didn't work out the business model, that it didn't need the taxpayers money a £50 million. the taxpayers money a £50 million. , they would not do that. And they failed to supply in the urban areas, they do a good job in the countryside, but it is the urban areas I am particularly thinking of. I'm very great full to the noble Lord, and wish to withdraw this amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. The question is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause to stand as part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is contents have it. The question is that this be the title of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. My Lords, that includes the committee proceedings.
This House will now proceedings. This House will now My Lords, the Committee of the whole My Lords, the Committee of the whole House, to which the environmental targets public authorities bill was committed has gone through the same committed has gone through the same and directed me to report it to your Lordships without amendment. House to be in committee on Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill the,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Lister of Burtersett. My Lords, I rise to quote from
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise to quote from the companion, that it is a firm convention that this House normally convention that this House normally rises at 10pm on a Monday-Friday, 7 PM on a Thursday and 3pm on a PM on a Thursday and 3pm on a Friday, unless agreed otherwise through the normal channels. Can I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, who reminded this House, on Tuesday reminded this House, on Tuesday evening, on this convention. And yet, this week we have finished 11: 15 on Monday, 11: 57 on Tuesday, and 15 on Monday, 11: 57 on Tuesday, and one: 17 a.m.
On Wednesday. Now, His Majesty's government, as I Majesty's government, as I understand it is seeking that we extend, yet again, on a Friday, beyond 15: 00 without even a request for some flouting convention, if I may say so, a lack of consideration for the House authorities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right, it is normal convention we rise on the hours set out, absolutely. But we have course out, absolutely. But we have course have a problem in this House at the moment, that we are struggling to actually work through these conventions. And I have struggled to conventions. And I have struggled to get agreement on a number of bills get agreement on a number of bills with the opposition. We sadly, as he has mentioned this week, we have D groupings, second reading speeches and amendments, frankly, the time and amendments, frankly, the time has been wasted and is not on this side of the House doing that.
I want side of the House doing that. I want to get back to the days when we respect our conventions, back to the days we are able to have dinner days we are able to have dinner breaks, and actually getting today right, we timetabled to finish right, we timetabled to finish around 3 o'clock but sadly we have not got there. I also know, my noble friends prepared for this bill today, The Right Reverend Prelate has come especially to speak for this, I am not prepared to have them coming wasted, so I think we need to carry on quickly, and if we all work together, we will be able to go home very soon deal with these important
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bills. I would just like to pick up on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would just like to pick up on one comment on wasting time. I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that spending just over suggesting that spending just over an hour and 1/2 in what was a very important bill with many issues in it was wasting time, I thought it it was wasting time, I thought it was important, I thought it needed examination, and has significant impact, as I said, local authorities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
authorities. Before the noble Lord goes to Dispatch Box, the noble Lord knows I wasn't aware of what is going on in the background in terms of usual channels and I agree with him about brevity, but as my muffin pointed out, these particular debates that have just gone on within the rules, the speeches haven't gone over time, and has been done with good humour. Talking personally, I stayed late in Talking personally, I stayed late in this House until 1:15, to support the government, support the frontbench, your noble friends, and very important issues.
Talking personally, I have spent a lot of time into the early evenings this week. At my understanding was it would close at 3 o'clock, so I understand and agree with the noble Lord, but this lordship has supported the government this week until the very early hours of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
morning. I am not suggesting it today at all, I only heard part of it and I thought it was good, and I have huge respect for the noble Lord, as he respect for the noble Lord, as he notes. I know he means it sincerely. But my point was about this week and also, we'll need to respect also, we'll need to respect conventions and courtesies. As I said before, my noble friend has prepared for this bill, come in prepared, others have turned appear prepared, others have turned appear today, I am not prepared we should today, I am not prepared we should now ignore that and come home, if the Lord wants to divide the House, the Lord wants to divide the House, defines the House and we will decide, if not, let get on with this bill and we will be going home very soon.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
soon. A couple of sentences as to what the Chief Whip has just said and that is, in fact, some of us have a that is, in fact, some of us have a five-hour journey ahead of us this evening, into more rural parts of the United Kingdom, and perhaps you
**** Possible New Speaker ****
would like to bear that in mind. I do bear that in mind,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do bear that in mind, absolutely, I fully understand that, in which case, we either divide the House now or get on with the bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House now or get on with the bill. House be in committee on Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Support (Prescribed Period) Bill the. Baroness Lister. I now move the House resolve itself to a committee upon the bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
itself to a committee upon the bill. The question is at the House do now resolve itself to a committee upon the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is contents have it. The question is that clause one stand as part of the bill. Lord James. bill. Lord James.
I am disappointed that in over 13 years, the trust didn't work out the business model, that it didn't need the taxpayers money a £50 million. the taxpayers money a £50 million. , they would not do that. And they failed to supply in the urban areas, they do a good job in the countryside, but it is the urban areas I am particularly thinking of. I'm very great full to the noble Lord, and wish to withdraw this amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. The question is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause to stand as part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is contents have it. The question is that this be the title of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. My Lords, that includes the committee proceedings.
This House will now proceedings. This House will now My Lords, the Committee of the whole My Lords, the Committee of the whole House, to which the environmental targets public authorities bill was committed has gone through the same committed has gone through the same and directed me to report it to your Lordships without amendment. House to be in committee on Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill the,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Lister of Burtersett. My Lords, I rise to quote from
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise to quote from the companion, that it is a firm convention that this House normally convention that this House normally rises at 10pm on a Monday-Friday, 7 PM on a Thursday and 3pm on a PM on a Thursday and 3pm on a Friday, unless agreed otherwise through the normal channels. Can I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, who reminded this House, on Tuesday reminded this House, on Tuesday evening, on this convention. And yet, this week we have finished 11: 15 on Monday, 11: 57 on Tuesday, and 15 on Monday, 11: 57 on Tuesday, and one: 17 a.m.
On Wednesday. Now, His Majesty's government, as I Majesty's government, as I understand it is seeking that we extend, yet again, on a Friday, beyond 15: 00 without even a request for some flouting convention, if I may say so, a lack of consideration for the House authorities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right, it is normal convention we rise on the hours set out, absolutely. But we have course out, absolutely. But we have course have a problem in this House at the moment, that we are struggling to actually work through these conventions. And I have struggled to conventions. And I have struggled to get agreement on a number of bills get agreement on a number of bills with the opposition. We sadly, as he has mentioned this week, we have D groupings, second reading speeches and amendments, frankly, the time and amendments, frankly, the time has been wasted and is not on this side of the House doing that.
I want side of the House doing that. I want to get back to the days when we respect our conventions, back to the days we are able to have dinner days we are able to have dinner breaks, and actually getting today right, we timetabled to finish right, we timetabled to finish around 3 o'clock but sadly we have not got there. I also know, my noble friends prepared for this bill today, The Right Reverend Prelate has come especially to speak for this, I am not prepared to have them coming wasted, so I think we need to carry on quickly, and if we all work together, we will be able to go home very soon deal with these important
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bills. I would just like to pick up on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would just like to pick up on one comment on wasting time. I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that spending just over suggesting that spending just over an hour and 1/2 in what was a very important bill with many issues in it was wasting time, I thought it it was wasting time, I thought it was important, I thought it needed examination, and has significant impact, as I said, local authorities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
authorities. Before the noble Lord goes to Dispatch Box, the noble Lord knows I wasn't aware of what is going on in the background in terms of usual channels and I agree with him about brevity, but as my muffin pointed out, these particular debates that have just gone on within the rules, the speeches haven't gone over time, and has been done with good humour. Talking personally, I stayed late in Talking personally, I stayed late in this House until 1:15, to support the government, support the frontbench, your noble friends, and very important issues.
Talking personally, I have spent a lot of time into the early evenings this week. At my understanding was it would close at 3 o'clock, so I understand and agree with the noble Lord, but this lordship has supported the government this week until the very early hours of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
morning. I am not suggesting it today at all, I only heard part of it and I thought it was good, and I have huge respect for the noble Lord, as he respect for the noble Lord, as he notes. I know he means it sincerely. But my point was about this week and also, we'll need to respect also, we'll need to respect conventions and courtesies. As I said before, my noble friend has prepared for this bill, come in prepared, others have turned appear prepared, others have turned appear today, I am not prepared we should today, I am not prepared we should now ignore that and come home, if the Lord wants to divide the House, the Lord wants to divide the House, defines the House and we will decide, if not, let get on with this bill and we will be going home very soon.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
soon. A couple of sentences as to what the Chief Whip has just said and that is, in fact, some of us have a that is, in fact, some of us have a five-hour journey ahead of us this evening, into more rural parts of the United Kingdom, and perhaps you
**** Possible New Speaker ****
would like to bear that in mind. I do bear that in mind,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do bear that in mind, absolutely, I fully understand that, in which case, we either divide the House now or get on with the bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House now or get on with the bill. House be in committee on Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Support (Prescribed Period) Bill the. Baroness Lister. I now move the House resolve itself to a committee upon the bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
itself to a committee upon the bill. The question is at the House do now resolve itself to a committee upon the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is contents have it. The question is that clause one stand as part of the bill. Lord James. bill. Lord James.
15:14
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
Thank you. My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name, I have tabled these amendments to seek to challenge the noble Lady, Baroness Lister, on the substance of her bill because the bill flies in the face of the work we did in government, to dis-incentivise illegal migrants from coming to this country. The bill seeks to blur the principles of an effective...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. I assume noble Lords had my first I assume noble Lords had my first paragraph. The bill takes what is paragraph. The bill takes what is already a generous and carefully balanced which provide support during the asylum process, and a 28 day window, for transition. At 60 stretches beyond what is reasonable, affordable, and justifiable full stubby does so at a time when public services are straining, when the housing system is under pressure, housing system is under pressure, and when public confidence in immigration is fragile.
We have been told it is about compassion but, my Lords, I respectfully suggest that true compassion is not measured in a number of weeks we allow people to remain on support after. And I would hasten to add after, their claim has failed. True compassion lies within a rules-based system, including demands, public trust, and fairly and firmly for all. Only with a system like that can we ensure taxpayer money is responsibly spent and only in a system like this, can we ensure those have a legitimate asylum claim and are not disadvantaged, punished for doing the right thing, extending support from 28-56 days is not a neutral act.
It has real costs, financial, systemic, and social. Logically, it doubles the burden on the taxpayer, it undermines deterrence, it creates further incentives for people to make dangerous, illegal crossings and risks encouraging delay and non-compliance at a time when clarity and enforcement are needed As Baroness Lister's proposed amendment to link the end of asylum support to the issuance of biometric residence documentation, let's be clear. That would tie public spending not to legal decisions but to administrative processes.
It was shift the burden of bureaucracy onto the taxpayer. And it would create a perverse incentive to delay further, muddying the boundaries of legal status and responsibility. The message we send with this bill and with its accompanying amendments is not one of fairness order, it is a message that even after your claim has been rejected, you may continue to receive taxpayer support indefinitely, so long as the paperwork is pending. That is not sustainable, not enforceable and not fair. Beyond the principle we need to be very clear in our deliberations today about what this proposal doing practice.
This bill would increase the costs of a system already stretched to its limits. It would reward failed claims, it would give you arguments to those who seek to undermine our efforts to deter illegal and unsafe migration. The very journeys that have already claimed 40 many lives. We support a compassionate, efficient and credible asylum seeker -- system but could ability requires that decisions mean some things when a claim is rejected particularly after legal challenge and appeal, support must begin to taper off, not increase, not be deferred, but conclude as part of an orderly lawful process.
This is not a question of rejecting compassion, it is a matter of applying responsibility, to the taxpayer, the Pay -- play by the rules. For these reasons I urge this House to oppose this bill and in doing so affirm our shared commitment to a fair but firm immigration system where the rights of refugees are respected but so too other rights and responsible as he is of the British public. Back to me.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sorry... I'm sorry it proved impossible to deal with all the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. I assume noble Lords had my first I assume noble Lords had my first paragraph. The bill takes what is paragraph. The bill takes what is already a generous and carefully balanced which provide support during the asylum process, and a 28 day window, for transition. At 60 stretches beyond what is reasonable, affordable, and justifiable full stubby does so at a time when public services are straining, when the housing system is under pressure, housing system is under pressure, and when public confidence in immigration is fragile.
We have been told it is about compassion but, my Lords, I respectfully suggest that true compassion is not measured in a number of weeks we allow people to remain on support after. And I would hasten to add after, their claim has failed. True compassion lies within a rules-based system, including demands, public trust, and fairly and firmly for all. Only with a system like that can we ensure taxpayer money is responsibly spent and only in a system like this, can we ensure those have a legitimate asylum claim and are not disadvantaged, punished for doing the right thing, extending support from 28-56 days is not a neutral act.
It has real costs, financial, systemic, and social. Logically, it doubles the burden on the taxpayer, it undermines deterrence, it creates further incentives for people to make dangerous, illegal crossings and risks encouraging delay and non-compliance at a time when clarity and enforcement are needed As Baroness Lister's proposed amendment to link the end of asylum support to the issuance of biometric residence documentation, let's be clear. That would tie public spending not to legal decisions but to administrative processes.
It was shift the burden of bureaucracy onto the taxpayer. And it would create a perverse incentive to delay further, muddying the boundaries of legal status and responsibility. The message we send with this bill and with its accompanying amendments is not one of fairness order, it is a message that even after your claim has been rejected, you may continue to receive taxpayer support indefinitely, so long as the paperwork is pending. That is not sustainable, not enforceable and not fair. Beyond the principle we need to be very clear in our deliberations today about what this proposal doing practice.
This bill would increase the costs of a system already stretched to its limits. It would reward failed claims, it would give you arguments to those who seek to undermine our efforts to deter illegal and unsafe migration. The very journeys that have already claimed 40 many lives. We support a compassionate, efficient and credible asylum seeker -- system but could ability requires that decisions mean some things when a claim is rejected particularly after legal challenge and appeal, support must begin to taper off, not increase, not be deferred, but conclude as part of an orderly lawful process.
This is not a question of rejecting compassion, it is a matter of applying responsibility, to the taxpayer, the Pay -- play by the rules. For these reasons I urge this House to oppose this bill and in doing so affirm our shared commitment to a fair but firm immigration system where the rights of refugees are respected but so too other rights and responsible as he is of the British public. Back to me.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sorry... I'm sorry it proved impossible to deal with all the
15:19
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
impossible to deal with all the amendments in the single group because that would have saved us time. I have to say that I do not recognise my bill in the remarks of Lord Jamieson. Not talking about illegal migration, we are talking about people who have been given refugee status. They are not illegal migrants so please can we get that clear at the outset. I will try to avoid repetition when I come to speak to my own group amendments, at this point I should voice my thanks to the assistance I received once more from the Refugee Council, from the staff that ramp at which I'm associate and two colleagues who have given up their time to support the bill on this lovely afternoon.
I would like to start with a couple of drafting points. First I am bemused by the attempt to strike out clause 3 because it's nothing to do with the extension of the move on. 56 days as suggested in the explanatory statement. The clause simply seeks to ensure that the notice to shift asylum accommodation is aligned with the move on., Be it 28 days of 56 days will stop at present it is simply a minimum of seven days and we saw the chaos and destitution that can cause when refugees were evicted with only seven days notice in late 2023.
Second I'm not sure that the amendment to clause 4 does what it purports to do, prevent the bills provisions Coming into force. Erskine May says the date of Royal Assent is the date of commencement when no other date is enacted. Likewise section 4 of interpretation at 1978 gives the commencement date is where no provision is made for coming into force at the beginning of the day on which the act receives the Royal Assent. I don't think that is what the noble Lord opposite intended.
Whereas as I will point out in the next grouping my amendment was a commencement date in the hands of the Secretary of State and makes it dependent on the outcome of the pilot. I am puzzled as to why noble Lords would not want to know the outcome of the pilot before trying to stop this bill. Surely they believe in evidence- based policy-making, although I must admit having listened to the noble Lord Lord Jamieson I suspect not. Before I turn to the evidence that I have gathered I should deal with the question of cost race by the noble Lord.
As I said at second reading research conducted at the LSE indicates there is a longer move on. Could in fact produce a modest saving and the enthusiastic response of local authorities and voluntary organisations who argue that the 56 days pilot is allowing more preventative work, support that. Because in the long run prevention is more cost-effective than firefighting. We have to whilst in any case the question, who should bear the burden of any costs. The government, local authorities, the voluntary sector or individual refugees in exceptionally vulnerable circumstances? It's worth noting here that the Local Government Association, which I believe the no ball Lord Lord Jamieson is a former chair, conducted a survey of its members prior to the announcement of the pilot.
The extension to 56 days in line with the homeless reduction act was seen as the single most effective change that could be mains -- made the move on process. I wonder whether he has sought the views of the LGA before tabling these amendments? I don't propose to repeat the arguments I made a second-rate reading which were based on years of evidence we have of the immense problems caused by the 28 days move on., At that point I can only surmise what looking, what doubling its 56 days might do.
Now the absence of an official interim report on the pilot, I will talk about more on that in the second group I would like to share with colleagues findings of the Refugee Council survey are my own unscientific gathering the information from local authority information from local authority refugee and homeless North organisations -- homelessness organisations who supported the original bill. I'm indebted to all of them for the trouble they take in providing information and I'm sorry I can't do justice to the wealth of information they sent us.
I apologise that this will make my speech and alongside especially given the time, but the upside for colleagues is that my speech on the second grouping will be much shorter. Overall there has been a uniformly positive response which is not to say they have not been teething problems, partly due to the short implementation time. I'm informed by local authorities in my home region of the East Midlands and also partly due to delays in receiving necessary documentation. Having been inevitably in variations in how well local authorities have responded to the longer move on.
Nevertheless in the words of the UK wide no accommodation network working to prevent destitution among refugees and others, the extension has proven overwhelmingly beneficial for newly refugees and the organisations that support them. One of those organisations in the north-east noted I think the main lesson is the 56 day period is a much more humane and smoother transition process than -- for everyone. Similarly London councils have called it a vital support and I suggest the impact is likely to increase because the 56 day period came into effect later in some boroughs.
Feedback from the East Midlands is that it's made a huge in difference in crisis also referred to the overwhelming response from its services that it should be retained. Help to reduce homelessness and wife sleeping particularly among symbol that back single people are though some refugees are still ended up rough sleeping it's been for short periods in crisis Starfelt the 56 days at least makes it possible to find accommodation. The glass door homeless charity has recorded a significant drop in the number of winter nights shelter guests who have Home Office accommodation departure is the reason for the homelessness.
Moreover it is enabled local authorities and other services to make a more preventative approach to the housing needs of refugees rather than having to pick up the pieces once they are homeless. This response directly to some of the response directly to some of the points made by the noble Lord. What Nakamba called a realistic timeframe to plan and take meaningful steps towards independence has been important to the mental health and well-being of refugees as they are less stressed. London councils reports feedback from SNP's outside London that it has enabled more time for people with mental health difficulties to get letters of difficulties to get letters of confirmation from GPs to prove the housing need.
It also helped refugees be more aware of the housing options and give them more time to plan thereby enhancing their autonomy. And it's enhanced their chances of longer-term integration. In turn this has reduced the pressure on services according to Nat, it has increased service capacity and reduced burnout among staff and volunteers. Local authority staff are better able to do their job and respond to the needs of refugees, those already noted there are still wide variation in how the policy is prevented, particularly as regards what documentation triggers the homelessness application.
One point made by number of respondents was that it has meant that more people are now in receipt of Universal Credit in the bank account when they are evicted which helps the individual, the local authority and homelessness services. London council have spelt out the positive indications of this, the need for emergency financial support is reduced, individuals are less vulnerable and stressed and they are evicted, and a better place to to look for work before moving into independent accommodation. To quote Islington, previously the mismatch between move on and Universal Credit in timescales was almost insurmountable.
It is really important that we keep this move on. So that we don't go back to a situation of bureaucratically enforced destitution. Nevertheless yes there are some problems which I don't have time to go into other than to note that some of them stem from e-visas which I think my amendment one together with clauses 2 and three of the bill would help to address. Not surprisingly along the move on. Is not a silver bullet that can address more systemic problems such as lack of affordability, aggravated by not being allowed to do paid work.
I hope this has given colleagues a flavour of the informal responses to the pilot and the absence of any formal evaluation so far. I hope these responses will be helpful to the Home Office. I think it's fair to say that every organisation that responded to me called for the pilot to be made permanent. I believe they would be horrified if they read the amendments in this group, therefore I do hope that the noble Lord withdraw them and be willing to wait for the outcome of the formal pilot before reaching any conclusion as to what should be the future of the 56 days move on..
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The second reading of this bill and I'm happy to support the noble and I'm happy to support the noble Lady again today. At the second Lady again today. At the second reading the second reading was not opposed one member of the opposed one member of the Conservative benches, the only member of the Conservative benches
I would like to start with a couple of drafting points. First I am bemused by the attempt to strike out clause 3 because it's nothing to do with the extension of the move on. 56 days as suggested in the explanatory statement. The clause simply seeks to ensure that the notice to shift asylum accommodation is aligned with the move on., Be it 28 days of 56 days will stop at present it is simply a minimum of seven days and we saw the chaos and destitution that can cause when refugees were evicted with only seven days notice in late 2023.
Second I'm not sure that the amendment to clause 4 does what it purports to do, prevent the bills provisions Coming into force. Erskine May says the date of Royal Assent is the date of commencement when no other date is enacted. Likewise section 4 of interpretation at 1978 gives the commencement date is where no provision is made for coming into force at the beginning of the day on which the act receives the Royal Assent. I don't think that is what the noble Lord opposite intended.
Whereas as I will point out in the next grouping my amendment was a commencement date in the hands of the Secretary of State and makes it dependent on the outcome of the pilot. I am puzzled as to why noble Lords would not want to know the outcome of the pilot before trying to stop this bill. Surely they believe in evidence- based policy-making, although I must admit having listened to the noble Lord Lord Jamieson I suspect not. Before I turn to the evidence that I have gathered I should deal with the question of cost race by the noble Lord.
As I said at second reading research conducted at the LSE indicates there is a longer move on. Could in fact produce a modest saving and the enthusiastic response of local authorities and voluntary organisations who argue that the 56 days pilot is allowing more preventative work, support that. Because in the long run prevention is more cost-effective than firefighting. We have to whilst in any case the question, who should bear the burden of any costs. The government, local authorities, the voluntary sector or individual refugees in exceptionally vulnerable circumstances? It's worth noting here that the Local Government Association, which I believe the no ball Lord Lord Jamieson is a former chair, conducted a survey of its members prior to the announcement of the pilot.
The extension to 56 days in line with the homeless reduction act was seen as the single most effective change that could be mains -- made the move on process. I wonder whether he has sought the views of the LGA before tabling these amendments? I don't propose to repeat the arguments I made a second-rate reading which were based on years of evidence we have of the immense problems caused by the 28 days move on., At that point I can only surmise what looking, what doubling its 56 days might do.
Now the absence of an official interim report on the pilot, I will talk about more on that in the second group I would like to share with colleagues findings of the Refugee Council survey are my own unscientific gathering the information from local authority information from local authority refugee and homeless North organisations -- homelessness organisations who supported the original bill. I'm indebted to all of them for the trouble they take in providing information and I'm sorry I can't do justice to the wealth of information they sent us.
I apologise that this will make my speech and alongside especially given the time, but the upside for colleagues is that my speech on the second grouping will be much shorter. Overall there has been a uniformly positive response which is not to say they have not been teething problems, partly due to the short implementation time. I'm informed by local authorities in my home region of the East Midlands and also partly due to delays in receiving necessary documentation. Having been inevitably in variations in how well local authorities have responded to the longer move on.
Nevertheless in the words of the UK wide no accommodation network working to prevent destitution among refugees and others, the extension has proven overwhelmingly beneficial for newly refugees and the organisations that support them. One of those organisations in the north-east noted I think the main lesson is the 56 day period is a much more humane and smoother transition process than -- for everyone. Similarly London councils have called it a vital support and I suggest the impact is likely to increase because the 56 day period came into effect later in some boroughs.
Feedback from the East Midlands is that it's made a huge in difference in crisis also referred to the overwhelming response from its services that it should be retained. Help to reduce homelessness and wife sleeping particularly among symbol that back single people are though some refugees are still ended up rough sleeping it's been for short periods in crisis Starfelt the 56 days at least makes it possible to find accommodation. The glass door homeless charity has recorded a significant drop in the number of winter nights shelter guests who have Home Office accommodation departure is the reason for the homelessness.
Moreover it is enabled local authorities and other services to make a more preventative approach to the housing needs of refugees rather than having to pick up the pieces once they are homeless. This response directly to some of the response directly to some of the points made by the noble Lord. What Nakamba called a realistic timeframe to plan and take meaningful steps towards independence has been important to the mental health and well-being of refugees as they are less stressed. London councils reports feedback from SNP's outside London that it has enabled more time for people with mental health difficulties to get letters of difficulties to get letters of confirmation from GPs to prove the housing need.
It also helped refugees be more aware of the housing options and give them more time to plan thereby enhancing their autonomy. And it's enhanced their chances of longer-term integration. In turn this has reduced the pressure on services according to Nat, it has increased service capacity and reduced burnout among staff and volunteers. Local authority staff are better able to do their job and respond to the needs of refugees, those already noted there are still wide variation in how the policy is prevented, particularly as regards what documentation triggers the homelessness application.
One point made by number of respondents was that it has meant that more people are now in receipt of Universal Credit in the bank account when they are evicted which helps the individual, the local authority and homelessness services. London council have spelt out the positive indications of this, the need for emergency financial support is reduced, individuals are less vulnerable and stressed and they are evicted, and a better place to to look for work before moving into independent accommodation. To quote Islington, previously the mismatch between move on and Universal Credit in timescales was almost insurmountable.
It is really important that we keep this move on. So that we don't go back to a situation of bureaucratically enforced destitution. Nevertheless yes there are some problems which I don't have time to go into other than to note that some of them stem from e-visas which I think my amendment one together with clauses 2 and three of the bill would help to address. Not surprisingly along the move on. Is not a silver bullet that can address more systemic problems such as lack of affordability, aggravated by not being allowed to do paid work.
I hope this has given colleagues a flavour of the informal responses to the pilot and the absence of any formal evaluation so far. I hope these responses will be helpful to the Home Office. I think it's fair to say that every organisation that responded to me called for the pilot to be made permanent. I believe they would be horrified if they read the amendments in this group, therefore I do hope that the noble Lord withdraw them and be willing to wait for the outcome of the formal pilot before reaching any conclusion as to what should be the future of the 56 days move on..
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The second reading of this bill and I'm happy to support the noble and I'm happy to support the noble Lady again today. At the second Lady again today. At the second reading the second reading was not opposed one member of the opposed one member of the Conservative benches, the only member of the Conservative benches
15:28
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
member of the Conservative benches who spoke raised a lot of questions he opposed the principle of the bill I think though without saying so in terms, but raise points about cost. But today we have what frankly wrecking amendments and the noble Lord who has moved the first amendment said so. He is urging noble Lords to oppose the bill. I hope I have quoted him correctly, I did write it down the objections in December were as I say, really about cost things being pretty much OK.
We know that things aren't OK and the noble Lady has made that very clear both then and now. I don't want to repeat my second reading speech, but her reminder that we are talking about people who have been accepted as refugees is absolutely to the point. I am baffled that administratively so many problems seem to have been thrown up by the arrangements that are in place subject to the pilots, because to the world Home Office is the Home Office as an entity and frankly should be able to coordinate with itself and with local authorities and the DWP and so on.
There are many reasons why we want to see the whole process working smoothly, it's hard not to imagine that moving to 56 days would not in fact lead to savings as the noble Lady has said, including planning for future accommodation rather than homelessness, concurrence of Universal Credit and so on. Opposing this bill does absolutely nothing to address the issues addressed at second reading it merely means rejecting the outcome of a pilot of which we hadn't -- have not seen the In terms of tweaking it would address them, I accept before someone picks of my logic of this that we have not seen the evaluation either, but the evidence from the sector was overwhelming, that it should be extended.
should be extended.
We know that things aren't OK and the noble Lady has made that very clear both then and now. I don't want to repeat my second reading speech, but her reminder that we are talking about people who have been accepted as refugees is absolutely to the point. I am baffled that administratively so many problems seem to have been thrown up by the arrangements that are in place subject to the pilots, because to the world Home Office is the Home Office as an entity and frankly should be able to coordinate with itself and with local authorities and the DWP and so on.
There are many reasons why we want to see the whole process working smoothly, it's hard not to imagine that moving to 56 days would not in fact lead to savings as the noble Lady has said, including planning for future accommodation rather than homelessness, concurrence of Universal Credit and so on. Opposing this bill does absolutely nothing to address the issues addressed at second reading it merely means rejecting the outcome of a pilot of which we hadn't -- have not seen the In terms of tweaking it would address them, I accept before someone picks of my logic of this that we have not seen the evaluation either, but the evidence from the sector was overwhelming, that it should be extended.
should be extended.
15:31
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford (Bishops)
My Lords, I thank my noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Beg your pardon. My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Baroness to's private in support of Baroness to's private members bill on asylum supported her suggested amendments one and two, which enable the government to extend the movement. According to their plans and timetable. This is extraordinary well timed with the move on. Pilot coming to a close and move on. Pilot coming to a close and the government having published their paper on restoring control on their paper on restoring control on the immigration system.
As the government reduces the backlog of asylum applications, and also speeds up the process times of applications, I want to suggest that applications, I want to suggest that this bill doesn't impede, but rather suppose the government can as they suppose the government can as they seek to build a well-managed asylum system, with integration back at its system, with integration back at its heart. At second reading, I spoke of why 28 days were simply not enough time for an individual with newly granted refugee status, to locate new accommodation, try to find employment, and navigator welfare employment, and navigator welfare system.
I believe this should be regarded as indisputable, given an individual cannot even access Universal Credit before five weeks has passed. At the majority of landlords won't even let a property before a first payment has come in. And setting up a bank account is proving difficult with an EVs alone. Ron McEneaney Visa. On this latter point, I hope the government will consider issuing guidance to banking services for don't want to anticipate the findings of the government's valuation. Local authorities and other groups supporting refugees who have kindly been a coach with me have provided overwhelmingly positive feedback, as we have heard about the extension of the move on.
Come and I think we have to take that seriously. It tells me that it gives council officers are much more realistic timeframe, in which to do their jobs well. Namely to find a suitable housing solution for refugees, decreasing the likelihood of homelessness, and the need for temporary accommodation. London councils reported that one region experienced a 24% increase in Homelessness Prevention Bill outcomes. One foundation said that of the individuals they have supported since the move on. Mac was extended, all had received their first Universal Credit payment before the date of their eviction, this not only prevents refugees from falling into destitution just as they are taking a step to build a life outside of Home Office provided accommodation, it also avoids the need for local authorities to provide emergency financial support.
Which will lead to savings at a time when we all know that budgets are under pressure. I was also struck by comments that the longer period has enabled local services to build trust with families, as housing teams have been able to start moving away from an emergency response, towards a more preventative and strategic approach. There has been time to assess individuals physical and mental health needs, as well as consider their existing support networks, so they can work together to oppose housing solutions.
I do hope the noble Lord, the minister, can confirm that the final evaluation will be published and can I ask the Minister whether the evaluation will include detail on the impact that the longer move an extension has had on family stability and child poverty which incidentally, I am sure, will support their work out of the child poverty strategy. We will hear more I am sure in the next grouping about sensible provisions in Amendment one, regarding documentation. By making the move an extension of permanent feature will allow steps like this to take place which will streamline the timely delivery of key information.
So that the entire 56 day period can be fully utilised to support families next steps. I do believe the ministers have recognised the benefit of a longer move on for refugees, and benefits for the local authorities and wider community, through the commencement of the pilot. And I congratulate them for that. To make it permanent, as soon as is practical, after the conclusion and full assessment of the pilot. To capitalise on the positive developments already taking place.
Let's not forget that asylum seekers that have been granted seekers that have been granted refugee status here are unable to build a life back in their home country, however much they might want to, because it is too unsafe. The gift of more time will support refugees who have a legally established right to live here to start living well in the country that has granted them a century. I may not have agreed with the words the Prime Minister use recently to frame the government white paper but I trust the intention is there to see neighbours from all backgrounds build a stronger, more cohesive society together and extending it permanently would be a step towards I came into the House today to support this bill.
And I am glad we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Beg your pardon. My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Baroness to's private in support of Baroness to's private members bill on asylum supported her suggested amendments one and two, which enable the government to extend the movement. According to their plans and timetable. This is extraordinary well timed with the move on. Pilot coming to a close and move on. Pilot coming to a close and the government having published their paper on restoring control on their paper on restoring control on the immigration system.
As the government reduces the backlog of asylum applications, and also speeds up the process times of applications, I want to suggest that applications, I want to suggest that this bill doesn't impede, but rather suppose the government can as they suppose the government can as they seek to build a well-managed asylum system, with integration back at its system, with integration back at its heart. At second reading, I spoke of why 28 days were simply not enough time for an individual with newly granted refugee status, to locate new accommodation, try to find employment, and navigator welfare employment, and navigator welfare system.
I believe this should be regarded as indisputable, given an individual cannot even access Universal Credit before five weeks has passed. At the majority of landlords won't even let a property before a first payment has come in. And setting up a bank account is proving difficult with an EVs alone. Ron McEneaney Visa. On this latter point, I hope the government will consider issuing guidance to banking services for don't want to anticipate the findings of the government's valuation. Local authorities and other groups supporting refugees who have kindly been a coach with me have provided overwhelmingly positive feedback, as we have heard about the extension of the move on.
Come and I think we have to take that seriously. It tells me that it gives council officers are much more realistic timeframe, in which to do their jobs well. Namely to find a suitable housing solution for refugees, decreasing the likelihood of homelessness, and the need for temporary accommodation. London councils reported that one region experienced a 24% increase in Homelessness Prevention Bill outcomes. One foundation said that of the individuals they have supported since the move on. Mac was extended, all had received their first Universal Credit payment before the date of their eviction, this not only prevents refugees from falling into destitution just as they are taking a step to build a life outside of Home Office provided accommodation, it also avoids the need for local authorities to provide emergency financial support.
Which will lead to savings at a time when we all know that budgets are under pressure. I was also struck by comments that the longer period has enabled local services to build trust with families, as housing teams have been able to start moving away from an emergency response, towards a more preventative and strategic approach. There has been time to assess individuals physical and mental health needs, as well as consider their existing support networks, so they can work together to oppose housing solutions.
I do hope the noble Lord, the minister, can confirm that the final evaluation will be published and can I ask the Minister whether the evaluation will include detail on the impact that the longer move an extension has had on family stability and child poverty which incidentally, I am sure, will support their work out of the child poverty strategy. We will hear more I am sure in the next grouping about sensible provisions in Amendment one, regarding documentation. By making the move an extension of permanent feature will allow steps like this to take place which will streamline the timely delivery of key information.
So that the entire 56 day period can be fully utilised to support families next steps. I do believe the ministers have recognised the benefit of a longer move on for refugees, and benefits for the local authorities and wider community, through the commencement of the pilot. And I congratulate them for that. To make it permanent, as soon as is practical, after the conclusion and full assessment of the pilot. To capitalise on the positive developments already taking place.
Let's not forget that asylum seekers that have been granted seekers that have been granted refugee status here are unable to build a life back in their home country, however much they might want to, because it is too unsafe. The gift of more time will support refugees who have a legally established right to live here to start living well in the country that has granted them a century. I may not have agreed with the words the Prime Minister use recently to frame the government white paper but I trust the intention is there to see neighbours from all backgrounds build a stronger, more cohesive society together and extending it permanently would be a step towards I came into the House today to support this bill.
And I am glad we
15:38
Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-
Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
found the time to do that. The context is that this country has a context is that this country has a long and honourable history of long and honourable history of welcoming refugees and that is something we can feel proud of and also something from which this also something from which this country has benefited over many country has benefited over many centuries. That is the background of what we do here, and I think, whatever you think of the individuals who applied to live in individuals who applied to live in this country, whatever you think of their motives, they are all entitled their motives, they are all entitled to due process of application.
We to due process of application. We must not, as a state, put ourselves in a position of pre-empting a proper inquiry. That is why, dealing with the applications swiftly, is so important, and a better government are pressing on that issue. -- I bear the government are pressing on that issue. Given that, with what the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson referred to, is what is being proposed is generous, I think generous is quite a difficult word to apply in any circumstances, but the words I would use are that the proposal is humane, and practical.
What people need to do after the decision has been made, obviously takes time, and the issue isn't one of being generous it is an issue of giving them enough time in order to sort out their affairs. And that is true whether the application has been agreed or not, it doesn't make any difference to the period of time required in order to sort out your affairs. It is quite clear that from the work undertaken in the pilot study the 56 days just works so much better than 28.
And that is as much a benefit to society as a whole, as it is to the individuals. That's the point. Giving 56 days works for society. That is why the London councils are so much in favour, as they want to see the pilot extended. A final piece of context. It would perhaps be a bit easier if applicants were entitled to undertake paid work. Perhaps after an initial short waiting period. A situation would be much easier if they were able to undertake paid work and I hope, my noble friends on the front bench will take this as a further representation on the issue, and something that I think action would just make the situation as a whole and in this particular issue, permitting them to adjust life in a new country, or making arrangements to go elsewhere, is so important.
We to due process of application. We must not, as a state, put ourselves in a position of pre-empting a proper inquiry. That is why, dealing with the applications swiftly, is so important, and a better government are pressing on that issue. -- I bear the government are pressing on that issue. Given that, with what the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson referred to, is what is being proposed is generous, I think generous is quite a difficult word to apply in any circumstances, but the words I would use are that the proposal is humane, and practical.
What people need to do after the decision has been made, obviously takes time, and the issue isn't one of being generous it is an issue of giving them enough time in order to sort out their affairs. And that is true whether the application has been agreed or not, it doesn't make any difference to the period of time required in order to sort out your affairs. It is quite clear that from the work undertaken in the pilot study the 56 days just works so much better than 28.
And that is as much a benefit to society as a whole, as it is to the individuals. That's the point. Giving 56 days works for society. That is why the London councils are so much in favour, as they want to see the pilot extended. A final piece of context. It would perhaps be a bit easier if applicants were entitled to undertake paid work. Perhaps after an initial short waiting period. A situation would be much easier if they were able to undertake paid work and I hope, my noble friends on the front bench will take this as a further representation on the issue, and something that I think action would just make the situation as a whole and in this particular issue, permitting them to adjust life in a new country, or making arrangements to go elsewhere, is so important.
15:41
Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
I very much agree with the closing words of Lord Davies of Brixton and indeed everything he said. Unlike income I have not come today with the intention of taking part in the proceedings in this bill, and I apologise to the noble Lady for that. After three Tory bills in three years, I found I would never again take part in an asylum and immigration Bill, but you know, one somehow gets into things. And I will be taking part on the borders of bill.
I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I remember sitting until 60 minutes past four in the morning, it was a bit of a haze, the Rwanda one bit of a haze, the Rwanda one member. -- Four: 16 in the morning. Trying to find your way out at four in the morning, if I say, as a woman, is not a great thing to happen. But that was his administration for anyway. What I wanted to say about the bill, the noble Lady, Lady Lister's bell, is she has confirmed in her opening words that what we are talking about is people that have had a positive asylum decision, they have got refugee status or decisional humanitarian protection, and I very much agree with The Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chelmsford, who very much talked about, I think she is the term -- Used the term realistic about it other colleagues have talked about being pragmatic and powerful.
And I apologise I didn't take part in second reading, but there is this trial going on, and I can well understand. Far from and I can well understand. Far from costing money, it could end up saving money because it is an investment. In a slightly longer term, the people to get on their own 2 feet, to find a job, to find other accommodation, being expected to do that in 28 days, and if they don't, someone has got to pick up the pieces if they are destitute.
And other provisions. It really can't be a good thing for them, or for wider society, if after 28 days, understandably, they have not managed to sort everything out. So, I completely understand by local authorities and other bodies would be keen supporters of the noble Lady's private members bill and I would hope to hear from the Minister that the government are also keen supporters of this bill, as well, it has to be said, on the right of asylum seekers.
Talking about asylum seekers, to work. It is only in the -- It is all in the interest of having an efficient and least costly as possible asylum system. Which was not, I am afraid, the purpose of the last government, which created chaos and the legacy of administrative confusion in the asylum system. This seems to me a bill which goes a seems to me a bill which goes a small way, in a limited issue to try and help make things more realistic, more practical, and to give people a start, to be able to integrate in our society and contribute which is what surely we all want.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank my noble friends, Lord Jamieson, for moving this group. These amendments seek this group. These amendments seek fundamentally to oppose the purpose of this bill at this bill seeks to of this bill at this bill seeks to provide an extension to the period in which those who have failed to secure an asylum claim can continue
I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I remember sitting until 60 minutes past four in the morning, it was a bit of a haze, the Rwanda one bit of a haze, the Rwanda one member. -- Four: 16 in the morning. Trying to find your way out at four in the morning, if I say, as a woman, is not a great thing to happen. But that was his administration for anyway. What I wanted to say about the bill, the noble Lady, Lady Lister's bell, is she has confirmed in her opening words that what we are talking about is people that have had a positive asylum decision, they have got refugee status or decisional humanitarian protection, and I very much agree with The Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chelmsford, who very much talked about, I think she is the term -- Used the term realistic about it other colleagues have talked about being pragmatic and powerful.
And I apologise I didn't take part in second reading, but there is this trial going on, and I can well understand. Far from and I can well understand. Far from costing money, it could end up saving money because it is an investment. In a slightly longer term, the people to get on their own 2 feet, to find a job, to find other accommodation, being expected to do that in 28 days, and if they don't, someone has got to pick up the pieces if they are destitute.
And other provisions. It really can't be a good thing for them, or for wider society, if after 28 days, understandably, they have not managed to sort everything out. So, I completely understand by local authorities and other bodies would be keen supporters of the noble Lady's private members bill and I would hope to hear from the Minister that the government are also keen supporters of this bill, as well, it has to be said, on the right of asylum seekers.
Talking about asylum seekers, to work. It is only in the -- It is all in the interest of having an efficient and least costly as possible asylum system. Which was not, I am afraid, the purpose of the last government, which created chaos and the legacy of administrative confusion in the asylum system. This seems to me a bill which goes a seems to me a bill which goes a small way, in a limited issue to try and help make things more realistic, more practical, and to give people a start, to be able to integrate in our society and contribute which is what surely we all want.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank my noble friends, Lord Jamieson, for moving this group. These amendments seek this group. These amendments seek fundamentally to oppose the purpose of this bill at this bill seeks to of this bill at this bill seeks to provide an extension to the period in which those who have failed to secure an asylum claim can continue
15:45
Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
secure an asylum claim can continue to receive support for housing and subsistence at the Xmas of the This bill is about people who have succeeded in their claim for refugee status so please can the remarks be put on a premise that is true to the facts.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Shall continue and may be at will become clear to the noble Lady. Once become clear to the noble Lady. Once a claim for asylum has been determined and found to be without determined and found to be without merit the presumption must shift, at merit the presumption must shift, at that point the focus shall be in compliance with our immigration compliance with our immigration system, not prolonging support mechanisms that are intended for those still within the asylum process and this bill would do precisely the opposite.
By this stage a decision has been reached, stage a decision has been reached, the current system balances support the person in question while recognising the person has, according to the determination reached, no reason to remain in the United Kingdom. We have a duty to United Kingdom. We have a duty to the person in question, but we also have the fundamental duty to the taxpayer, who at the end of the day taxpayer, who at the end of the day The support period from 28 to 56 days all we do is risk creating a further incentive for delay and non-compliance.
It sends entirely
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the wrong message, not just to those currently in the system but to those considering making unfounded claims in future. I'm sorry, I am really confused
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sorry, I am really confused because what I'm hearing you say is conflating two issues. Those who conflating two issues. Those who haven't been given leave to remain haven't been given leave to remain and those who have and therefore the and those who have and therefore the extension period is in order to give them a little bit longer to sort themselves out, they have been given their permission. Perhaps you can either explain what I'm failing to understand or clarify whether your point is about those who have been given leave to remain or who haven't.
Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Those who haven't. It's Committee stage I'm allowed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's Committee stage I'm allowed to speak more than once put this bill is not about people who have not been given leave to remain. This bill is about people who have bill is about people who have received refugee status. The reason I brought the bill originally and I have been campaigning on this for years is the heartache that refugees who finally reach the promised land in a sense, by being recognised that they have got refugee status find themselves destitute.
This is who we are talking about, we are not talking about people who have no right to be here. The right is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
recognised that is the whole point. I hear what nobody says I'm not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I hear what nobody says I'm not quite sure whether the bill is clear enough actually what it states. I'm going to continue and perhaps the noble Lady will bear with me. When British citizens are suffering from British citizens are suffering from a stagnated economy, skyhigh taxes, spiralling unemployment and failing Public Services to ask them to pay more for those who have had their more for those who have had their asylum claims rejected is unacceptable. Recent analysis have Of Of 582,000 Of 582,000 people Of 582,000 people equal Of 582,000 people equal to Of 582,000 people equal to the population of Manchester$$JOIN : Housing migrants.
In our submission the tax bills of British citizens should go on supporting the services that British citizens use, we should not be diverting such a volume of taxpayer resources to housing those who do not themselves contribute to the system. I certainly would not want to see any additional costs to local authorities. This comes on top of the 54.2 million which last year went to legal teams seeking to thwart deportations or argue asylum seekers should remain. Asylum seekers we are talking about already benefit from millions and millions of pounds of taxpayer money and as I said earlier, the crisis is worsening and the costs are spiralling.
This is all before the proposals put forward by the noble Lady are considered. Extending the period of support from 28 to 56 days would have an immediate effect on the current costs we are putting. We must also take into account the must also take into account the incentive the fact that this would have on those seeking to come to the UK, the numbers are already 30% up on last year and if people smuggling gangs were able to tell the clients the period for which they successfully expense the UK taxpayer double this would surely make the search people coming here illegally and dangerously even more extreme.
It is absolutely vital we do not create further incentives for people to make illegal and dangerous crossings into the country. This is the compassionate position to take, smallbore boat crossings have spiralled in the last year and very sadly so have the numbers of those who have died trying to cross the channel illegally. Being in favour of changes which sustain and risk Sports a system that is dangerous, exploitative and deeply unfair on those who do use safe and legal route. We need to work to deter people from making this perilous journey, not encourage them with the promise of extended financial support at the taxpayers expense which would be the direct consequence of this.
Moreover this extended support is not cost neutral, it comes at a time when pressures on our public services and local authorities and the housing local authorities and the housing system already acute. The taxpayer should not be expected to fund an extra month of housing and financial assistance for individuals who have no legal right to remain in this country. Every additional day of support after a failed claim represents not just a cost but a delay in the fair and orderly functioning of our immigration system.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Shall continue and may be at will become clear to the noble Lady. Once become clear to the noble Lady. Once a claim for asylum has been determined and found to be without determined and found to be without merit the presumption must shift, at merit the presumption must shift, at that point the focus shall be in compliance with our immigration compliance with our immigration system, not prolonging support mechanisms that are intended for those still within the asylum process and this bill would do precisely the opposite.
By this stage a decision has been reached, stage a decision has been reached, the current system balances support the person in question while recognising the person has, according to the determination reached, no reason to remain in the United Kingdom. We have a duty to United Kingdom. We have a duty to the person in question, but we also have the fundamental duty to the taxpayer, who at the end of the day taxpayer, who at the end of the day The support period from 28 to 56 days all we do is risk creating a further incentive for delay and non-compliance.
It sends entirely
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the wrong message, not just to those currently in the system but to those considering making unfounded claims in future. I'm sorry, I am really confused
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sorry, I am really confused because what I'm hearing you say is conflating two issues. Those who conflating two issues. Those who haven't been given leave to remain haven't been given leave to remain and those who have and therefore the and those who have and therefore the extension period is in order to give them a little bit longer to sort themselves out, they have been given their permission. Perhaps you can either explain what I'm failing to understand or clarify whether your point is about those who have been given leave to remain or who haven't.
Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Those who haven't. It's Committee stage I'm allowed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's Committee stage I'm allowed to speak more than once put this bill is not about people who have not been given leave to remain. This bill is about people who have bill is about people who have received refugee status. The reason I brought the bill originally and I have been campaigning on this for years is the heartache that refugees who finally reach the promised land in a sense, by being recognised that they have got refugee status find themselves destitute.
This is who we are talking about, we are not talking about people who have no right to be here. The right is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
recognised that is the whole point. I hear what nobody says I'm not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I hear what nobody says I'm not quite sure whether the bill is clear enough actually what it states. I'm going to continue and perhaps the noble Lady will bear with me. When British citizens are suffering from British citizens are suffering from a stagnated economy, skyhigh taxes, spiralling unemployment and failing Public Services to ask them to pay more for those who have had their more for those who have had their asylum claims rejected is unacceptable. Recent analysis have Of Of 582,000 Of 582,000 people Of 582,000 people equal Of 582,000 people equal to Of 582,000 people equal to the population of Manchester$$JOIN : Housing migrants.
In our submission the tax bills of British citizens should go on supporting the services that British citizens use, we should not be diverting such a volume of taxpayer resources to housing those who do not themselves contribute to the system. I certainly would not want to see any additional costs to local authorities. This comes on top of the 54.2 million which last year went to legal teams seeking to thwart deportations or argue asylum seekers should remain. Asylum seekers we are talking about already benefit from millions and millions of pounds of taxpayer money and as I said earlier, the crisis is worsening and the costs are spiralling.
This is all before the proposals put forward by the noble Lady are considered. Extending the period of support from 28 to 56 days would have an immediate effect on the current costs we are putting. We must also take into account the must also take into account the incentive the fact that this would have on those seeking to come to the UK, the numbers are already 30% up on last year and if people smuggling gangs were able to tell the clients the period for which they successfully expense the UK taxpayer double this would surely make the search people coming here illegally and dangerously even more extreme.
It is absolutely vital we do not create further incentives for people to make illegal and dangerous crossings into the country. This is the compassionate position to take, smallbore boat crossings have spiralled in the last year and very sadly so have the numbers of those who have died trying to cross the channel illegally. Being in favour of changes which sustain and risk Sports a system that is dangerous, exploitative and deeply unfair on those who do use safe and legal route. We need to work to deter people from making this perilous journey, not encourage them with the promise of extended financial support at the taxpayers expense which would be the direct consequence of this.
Moreover this extended support is not cost neutral, it comes at a time when pressures on our public services and local authorities and the housing local authorities and the housing system already acute. The taxpayer should not be expected to fund an extra month of housing and financial assistance for individuals who have no legal right to remain in this country. Every additional day of support after a failed claim represents not just a cost but a delay in the fair and orderly functioning of our immigration system.
15:51
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Lord Katz (Labour)
It's been an interesting and I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's been an interesting and I must say at two points in particular a confusing debate from my a confusing debate from my perspective. Before I go into some of the detail on my noble friend Lady Lister is prescribed. Bill I Lady Lister is prescribed. Bill I just want to respond to, well just want to respond to, well actually both to the speech moving actually both to the speech moving the attention -- intention to oppose cause one stern part of the bill and also the comments from the noble also the comments from the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower responding Lord Lord Davies of Gower responding from the frontbench.
It seems to me that it was quite I won't say reckless but an irresponsible reckless but an irresponsible approach to a debate that needs more lights and far less heat in terms of the way that we, as responsible politicians, talk about immigration and asylum seeking. To my mind, it's very clear. This is talking about what happens when an individual is judged through a process that we are doing our damnedest as a government to speed up, has been judged to have a determination that they are worthy of their asylum seeking claimed asylum has been granted how they are then moved on and integrated into the community as we all wish to do.
This is not about deterring small boats per se, this is not about smashing the boats and the fact that too many migrants are taking away resources and undercutting British workers or any of the rhetoric that we might have heard from the benches opposite. It's important that you be clear, the government is absolutely committed to reforming the asylum and system so that we both deter dangerous crossings, we provide safe and legal route where applicable and that when people are here to make an asylum claim, that claim is adjudicated and determined as quickly as possible.
If that claim is found to be wanting and that claim is rejected, then that person should should be deported. It is not in this comes to the matter of the bill, then they should absolutely be moved on, a phrase are not entirely keen on, moved on and integrated into the community. This is what this bill is about and I'm sorry the benches opposite particularly the opposition frontbench didn't recognise that and addressed the remarks accordingly. I do want to reiterate the comments made by the Minister Lord Hanson during the Belle Second Reading, though I will not speak as much like the seeded.
-- As he did. The government fully recognises the need for a smooth transition between asylum accommodation and other accommodation for those who RF recognised as refugees and granted leave to remain for the we do have huge pressures on the asylum system, as I said the covenant is working to make sure individuals have the support they need following an asylum decision. The House understandably been son focus today on the 56 day pilot scheme in place, which I will spend a bit of time talking to full stop in December the Home Office operation lines, I'm told that's the word although it's not again one that I'm that keen on, operationalised pilot to extend the me one.
So that individuals have 56 days to make a move on arrangements from the point they are notified of the grant to leave. The pilot is due to conclude shortly. This government has put this pilot in price, support local authorities during the period In In volume In volume of In volume of asylum In volume of asylum decisions In volume of asylum decisions to In volume of asylum decisions to be made because we are speeding up the system. As well as coinciding with the recent transition to e-visas for newly recognised refugees they expect we will grant that subjecting the next group of amendments.
The government believes this is the sensible pragmatic approach to take what we bring the system back into balance. It's important we take our time to evaluate the impacts of these interim measures is while there may be clear benefits to the proposal Analysis needs to be taken to consider the full impacts including those on the taxpayer for any permanent changes are made. A wide range of stakeholders have been invited to take part in evaluation including Lord Jamieson will be pleased to hear local authorities, voluntary and community sector organisations and individuals with lived experience.
The final evaluations are due later this year and a report will be published subject. You and ministerial clearance. Once the first question posed by the Bishop of Chelmsford our intention is that the final evaluation findings are available to Parliament by the end of the year. Once the Right Reverend Prelate second question, the target outcomes second question, the target outcomes are being explored and might touch on and raise responses relating to stability and child poverty. Like the improved service user experience as part of the move on journey and how improved early integration outcomes for newly recognised refugees might get access to Universal Credit, employment, housing et cetera.
How successful those have been. I think that note I want to mention briefly the move on support. Which is being evaluated, the introduction of move on liaison officers being evaluated alongside It's worth saying the support to all individuals is available through migrant help this includes providing advice on accessing the labour market and applying to Universal Credit as well as signposting local authorities for citizens for housing, with infrequent communications including making letters to individuals clearer and providing information earlier in the process as I said we recruited 72 asylum move on liaison officers who offer face-to-face support to individuals newly granted refugee status, to understand the steps they need to take want their asylum decision is issued.
This assistance includes as I previously referred, removing e-visas barriers and supporting with Universal Credit as occasions and refugee integration. These work alongside migrant help local authorities to identify and resolve issues, their spread across the country in eight regions covering more than 40 local areas, the point where there is the most pressure need in the system. As I said I will say more about the e- , As we get to the next group of amendments. For sake of time and brevity I will conclude my remarks there but I do hope the next review amendments can be conducted on the basis of what the bill and the amendment actually speak to rather than what we would like them to talk to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's been an interesting and I must say at two points in particular a confusing debate from my a confusing debate from my perspective. Before I go into some of the detail on my noble friend Lady Lister is prescribed. Bill I Lady Lister is prescribed. Bill I just want to respond to, well just want to respond to, well actually both to the speech moving actually both to the speech moving the attention -- intention to oppose cause one stern part of the bill and also the comments from the noble also the comments from the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower responding Lord Lord Davies of Gower responding from the frontbench.
It seems to me that it was quite I won't say reckless but an irresponsible reckless but an irresponsible approach to a debate that needs more lights and far less heat in terms of the way that we, as responsible politicians, talk about immigration and asylum seeking. To my mind, it's very clear. This is talking about what happens when an individual is judged through a process that we are doing our damnedest as a government to speed up, has been judged to have a determination that they are worthy of their asylum seeking claimed asylum has been granted how they are then moved on and integrated into the community as we all wish to do.
This is not about deterring small boats per se, this is not about smashing the boats and the fact that too many migrants are taking away resources and undercutting British workers or any of the rhetoric that we might have heard from the benches opposite. It's important that you be clear, the government is absolutely committed to reforming the asylum and system so that we both deter dangerous crossings, we provide safe and legal route where applicable and that when people are here to make an asylum claim, that claim is adjudicated and determined as quickly as possible.
If that claim is found to be wanting and that claim is rejected, then that person should should be deported. It is not in this comes to the matter of the bill, then they should absolutely be moved on, a phrase are not entirely keen on, moved on and integrated into the community. This is what this bill is about and I'm sorry the benches opposite particularly the opposition frontbench didn't recognise that and addressed the remarks accordingly. I do want to reiterate the comments made by the Minister Lord Hanson during the Belle Second Reading, though I will not speak as much like the seeded.
-- As he did. The government fully recognises the need for a smooth transition between asylum accommodation and other accommodation for those who RF recognised as refugees and granted leave to remain for the we do have huge pressures on the asylum system, as I said the covenant is working to make sure individuals have the support they need following an asylum decision. The House understandably been son focus today on the 56 day pilot scheme in place, which I will spend a bit of time talking to full stop in December the Home Office operation lines, I'm told that's the word although it's not again one that I'm that keen on, operationalised pilot to extend the me one.
So that individuals have 56 days to make a move on arrangements from the point they are notified of the grant to leave. The pilot is due to conclude shortly. This government has put this pilot in price, support local authorities during the period In In volume In volume of In volume of asylum In volume of asylum decisions In volume of asylum decisions to In volume of asylum decisions to be made because we are speeding up the system. As well as coinciding with the recent transition to e-visas for newly recognised refugees they expect we will grant that subjecting the next group of amendments.
The government believes this is the sensible pragmatic approach to take what we bring the system back into balance. It's important we take our time to evaluate the impacts of these interim measures is while there may be clear benefits to the proposal Analysis needs to be taken to consider the full impacts including those on the taxpayer for any permanent changes are made. A wide range of stakeholders have been invited to take part in evaluation including Lord Jamieson will be pleased to hear local authorities, voluntary and community sector organisations and individuals with lived experience.
The final evaluations are due later this year and a report will be published subject. You and ministerial clearance. Once the first question posed by the Bishop of Chelmsford our intention is that the final evaluation findings are available to Parliament by the end of the year. Once the Right Reverend Prelate second question, the target outcomes second question, the target outcomes are being explored and might touch on and raise responses relating to stability and child poverty. Like the improved service user experience as part of the move on journey and how improved early integration outcomes for newly recognised refugees might get access to Universal Credit, employment, housing et cetera.
How successful those have been. I think that note I want to mention briefly the move on support. Which is being evaluated, the introduction of move on liaison officers being evaluated alongside It's worth saying the support to all individuals is available through migrant help this includes providing advice on accessing the labour market and applying to Universal Credit as well as signposting local authorities for citizens for housing, with infrequent communications including making letters to individuals clearer and providing information earlier in the process as I said we recruited 72 asylum move on liaison officers who offer face-to-face support to individuals newly granted refugee status, to understand the steps they need to take want their asylum decision is issued.
This assistance includes as I previously referred, removing e-visas barriers and supporting with Universal Credit as occasions and refugee integration. These work alongside migrant help local authorities to identify and resolve issues, their spread across the country in eight regions covering more than 40 local areas, the point where there is the most pressure need in the system. As I said I will say more about the e- , As we get to the next group of amendments. For sake of time and brevity I will conclude my remarks there but I do hope the next review amendments can be conducted on the basis of what the bill and the amendment actually speak to rather than what we would like them to talk to.
15:58
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
The question is that clause 1...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm allowed to speak. Can I thank all noble Lords for speaking on this can I also thank the noble Baroness can I also thank the noble Baroness Lister for clarifying which I think is a very important clarification is a very important clarification that the aim of this is that it only should apply to those whether has been a determination that they have leave to remain and not for those leave to remain and not for those whether determination is that they have been rejected.
That is my have been rejected. That is my understanding of what you have said. Our concern in the side is that the way the bill is written it way the bill is written it potentially can apply to both those who have a leave to remain and those who have a leave to remain and those who have been rejected. Therefore obviously I wouldn't withdraw it because that's not the process for this, but we do wish to leave open the fact that we want that clarity the fact that we want that clarity that it very clearly only applies when and there is no confusion that this would in any way apply to those who have their case determined and it is rejected.
That that would not apply to them and I think that is a critical point that we would like some assurance on and would like to come back to in the drafting of that bill. I think the points we made for those who have had their application rejected are perfectly valid and I haven't heard anyone here say for those who have been rejected that they have an objection to our comments. It is for those where they have had their application accepted so to speak, that completely understand the comments made in this chamber and if I'm entirely honest when I was chamber of the LGA I did push for something not entirely dissimilar, but for those who have been rejected I would definitely say this is not what we should be doing.
I do think looking at the drafting to make sure that that is absolutely clear and cannot be in clear and cannot be in misinterpreted by some eagle eyed lawyer, obviously I'm not going to withdraw it because that's not the process but I wanted to be very clear where our concern is in the concern is in the drafting. We want to make absolutely certain it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
doesn't apply to those who have been rejected. He is making some helpful remarks, does that actually mean if remarks, does that actually mean if I could extend his remarks that if the noble Lord gets the the noble Lord gets the clarification he has seeking and I'm not an expert on the drafting of the not an expert on the drafting of the bill, but does that mean that he particularly with his local government experience, and even the government experience, and even the opposition frontbench would feel able to support the purpose of the bill even if there is slightly disagreeing with the drafting of the disagreeing with the drafting of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
disagreeing with the drafting of the If the noble Lady, Baroness Anderson, is tempting me to go to places I would rather not go.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
OK, my Lords, the question is clause one stand as part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content", the contrary, "Not content", the contents have it. After clause one, amendment one, Baroness Lister of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Burtersett. In introducing amendment one, I will also speak to amendment three, will also speak to amendment three, and four, perhaps I could just go back slightly. Thank you for that clarification. I don't know whether clarification. I don't know whether the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson has actually looked after legislation
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm allowed to speak. Can I thank all noble Lords for speaking on this can I also thank the noble Baroness can I also thank the noble Baroness Lister for clarifying which I think is a very important clarification is a very important clarification that the aim of this is that it only should apply to those whether has been a determination that they have leave to remain and not for those leave to remain and not for those whether determination is that they have been rejected.
That is my have been rejected. That is my understanding of what you have said. Our concern in the side is that the way the bill is written it way the bill is written it potentially can apply to both those who have a leave to remain and those who have a leave to remain and those who have been rejected. Therefore obviously I wouldn't withdraw it because that's not the process for this, but we do wish to leave open the fact that we want that clarity the fact that we want that clarity that it very clearly only applies when and there is no confusion that this would in any way apply to those who have their case determined and it is rejected.
That that would not apply to them and I think that is a critical point that we would like some assurance on and would like to come back to in the drafting of that bill. I think the points we made for those who have had their application rejected are perfectly valid and I haven't heard anyone here say for those who have been rejected that they have an objection to our comments. It is for those where they have had their application accepted so to speak, that completely understand the comments made in this chamber and if I'm entirely honest when I was chamber of the LGA I did push for something not entirely dissimilar, but for those who have been rejected I would definitely say this is not what we should be doing.
I do think looking at the drafting to make sure that that is absolutely clear and cannot be in clear and cannot be in misinterpreted by some eagle eyed lawyer, obviously I'm not going to withdraw it because that's not the process but I wanted to be very clear where our concern is in the concern is in the drafting. We want to make absolutely certain it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
doesn't apply to those who have been rejected. He is making some helpful remarks, does that actually mean if remarks, does that actually mean if I could extend his remarks that if the noble Lord gets the the noble Lord gets the clarification he has seeking and I'm not an expert on the drafting of the not an expert on the drafting of the bill, but does that mean that he particularly with his local government experience, and even the government experience, and even the opposition frontbench would feel able to support the purpose of the bill even if there is slightly disagreeing with the drafting of the disagreeing with the drafting of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
disagreeing with the drafting of the If the noble Lady, Baroness Anderson, is tempting me to go to places I would rather not go.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
OK, my Lords, the question is clause one stand as part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content", the contrary, "Not content", the contents have it. After clause one, amendment one, Baroness Lister of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Burtersett. In introducing amendment one, I will also speak to amendment three, will also speak to amendment three, and four, perhaps I could just go back slightly. Thank you for that clarification. I don't know whether clarification. I don't know whether the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson has actually looked after legislation
16:02
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
actually looked after legislation that has been amended by this bill, but I think that would probably make it clear what we are talking about, but I will of course talk to the person who drafted it which I have to admit was not myself, just to make sure there is no possible loophole there, but I'm pretty confident there isn't, and I think it rather unfortunate that perhaps the frontbench spoke as if it were purely about illegal migrants. I don't think it would be covered.
But anyway, we will look at it and thank you for that clarification which was helpful. Colleagues might be surprised that I am trying to amend my own bill. I can assure them it is not according plot to keep them, including my noble friend, the minister, and now my noble friend, the Chief Whip, here on a sunny Friday afternoon, but there is a reason for it. As we have already heard, before the second reading, the government made the announcement of the pilot extension to 56 days, due to coincide with, here in June.
It seems sensible bills will take account of that, hence amendment three which gives the Secretary of State the power to determine when clause one, which extends the reform period, shall come into force, this will follow the completion of any trial period, such as the one currently under way. Does the bill put its introduction of the main put its introduction of the main clause very much in the hands of the state, I am hoping my noble friend the Minister might look kindly on that.
Amending the bill in this way, will give the opportunity to look at the documents that can be used as proof of immigration status and identity. This amendment one, in conjunction with clauses two and three issue of -- Ensure they would receive this, for access services, before the period starts. The different documents are sent at different times from different parts of the Home Office, so once the period has already started, it aims to signify the process by ensuring refugees have the documentation before the period starts ticking.
And I would just say here, if I haven't been given refugee status, they won't get these documents, so the bill won't apply to the people that the noble Lords opposite are afraid it might apply to. Second reading, my noble friend, the minister, raise an objection to clauses 2 and three, which as I have said, ensures refugees receive all necessary documents and information prior to the start of the new one.. He says that the only way to implement that would be to delay the asylum decision, but I am advised by the Refugee Council and would make little difference given any period of time asylum seekers have had a weight already, and that the delay occurs beyond the move on., rather than during it, and giving the imitation at the outset, could in effect eat into the new one., and of course, the answer is to send all the documentation.
As it is, the Refugee Council survey I mentioned earlier, the experience of the UK Jewish voice on refugees and social justice indicated that in London at least, delays in receiving documentation means the 56 days is in practice quite a bit shorter in Pilot, my noble friend moved on to some questions I would ask which was great, but he said it would be ending shortly. Shortly as one of the Civil Service words that means different things to different people.
And if he could be a bit more precise, that would be helpful. But he also tellers what allowances are being made in the pilot on the fact EVs are being rolls out during this, and there are a whole lot of asylum seekers being taken. I just want to finish by citing the response of two organisations from the housing and refugee sectors. First, the Chartist housing warmly welcomes this -- The chart is of housing warmly welcomes this bill and urges the Home Secretary either to facilitate this package, or to facilitate this package, or otherwise legislate the 56 day move, clearly this would be simpler than you legislation, and would enhance it, as I have said, implementation will now be in the hands of the Home Secretary.
Following the pilot. Without legislation it would be too easy for a future government to refer to 28 days, without parliamentary scrutiny, and the first Amendment's testimony to that. Given the enthusiastic response to all sectors of the pilot, including local authorities, I really think there is no going back. So, second, I will give the word, extensions have proven legally coherent, proving it is a pragmatic step towards stability, to those granting safety in the UK. I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed a clause one, insert the following clause with the words printed on the Marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
list. We were told, I think, that the pilot would be until June. Which pilot would be until June. Which gives a few more days. But I agree with the noble Lady, that in with the noble Lady, that in parliamentary terms, shortly, is a parliamentary terms, shortly, is a rather expansive sort of term. I want to ask the Minister if I can want to ask the Minister if I can about the evaluation. You receive or about the evaluation.
You receive or be able to tell me any outcomes -- He obviously will not be able to tell me any outcomes of it, but I tell me any outcomes of it, but I think it will be a relatively speedy process. And somewhere, I think, in process. And somewhere, I think, in preparing for today, I saw a request that organisations working in the that organisations working in the sector to support refugees are included in consultation, there should be consultation as to what that evaluation shows.
And how the proposal can be taken forward, if there are any tweaks to be made. I do not expect the Minister to respond to that today, he will not be in a position to do so, but can I add my voice to that request. Which
But anyway, we will look at it and thank you for that clarification which was helpful. Colleagues might be surprised that I am trying to amend my own bill. I can assure them it is not according plot to keep them, including my noble friend, the minister, and now my noble friend, the Chief Whip, here on a sunny Friday afternoon, but there is a reason for it. As we have already heard, before the second reading, the government made the announcement of the pilot extension to 56 days, due to coincide with, here in June.
It seems sensible bills will take account of that, hence amendment three which gives the Secretary of State the power to determine when clause one, which extends the reform period, shall come into force, this will follow the completion of any trial period, such as the one currently under way. Does the bill put its introduction of the main put its introduction of the main clause very much in the hands of the state, I am hoping my noble friend the Minister might look kindly on that.
Amending the bill in this way, will give the opportunity to look at the documents that can be used as proof of immigration status and identity. This amendment one, in conjunction with clauses two and three issue of -- Ensure they would receive this, for access services, before the period starts. The different documents are sent at different times from different parts of the Home Office, so once the period has already started, it aims to signify the process by ensuring refugees have the documentation before the period starts ticking.
And I would just say here, if I haven't been given refugee status, they won't get these documents, so the bill won't apply to the people that the noble Lords opposite are afraid it might apply to. Second reading, my noble friend, the minister, raise an objection to clauses 2 and three, which as I have said, ensures refugees receive all necessary documents and information prior to the start of the new one.. He says that the only way to implement that would be to delay the asylum decision, but I am advised by the Refugee Council and would make little difference given any period of time asylum seekers have had a weight already, and that the delay occurs beyond the move on., rather than during it, and giving the imitation at the outset, could in effect eat into the new one., and of course, the answer is to send all the documentation.
As it is, the Refugee Council survey I mentioned earlier, the experience of the UK Jewish voice on refugees and social justice indicated that in London at least, delays in receiving documentation means the 56 days is in practice quite a bit shorter in Pilot, my noble friend moved on to some questions I would ask which was great, but he said it would be ending shortly. Shortly as one of the Civil Service words that means different things to different people.
And if he could be a bit more precise, that would be helpful. But he also tellers what allowances are being made in the pilot on the fact EVs are being rolls out during this, and there are a whole lot of asylum seekers being taken. I just want to finish by citing the response of two organisations from the housing and refugee sectors. First, the Chartist housing warmly welcomes this -- The chart is of housing warmly welcomes this bill and urges the Home Secretary either to facilitate this package, or to facilitate this package, or otherwise legislate the 56 day move, clearly this would be simpler than you legislation, and would enhance it, as I have said, implementation will now be in the hands of the Home Secretary.
Following the pilot. Without legislation it would be too easy for a future government to refer to 28 days, without parliamentary scrutiny, and the first Amendment's testimony to that. Given the enthusiastic response to all sectors of the pilot, including local authorities, I really think there is no going back. So, second, I will give the word, extensions have proven legally coherent, proving it is a pragmatic step towards stability, to those granting safety in the UK. I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed a clause one, insert the following clause with the words printed on the Marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
list. We were told, I think, that the pilot would be until June. Which pilot would be until June. Which gives a few more days. But I agree with the noble Lady, that in with the noble Lady, that in parliamentary terms, shortly, is a parliamentary terms, shortly, is a rather expansive sort of term. I want to ask the Minister if I can want to ask the Minister if I can about the evaluation. You receive or about the evaluation.
You receive or be able to tell me any outcomes -- He obviously will not be able to tell me any outcomes of it, but I tell me any outcomes of it, but I think it will be a relatively speedy process. And somewhere, I think, in process. And somewhere, I think, in preparing for today, I saw a request that organisations working in the that organisations working in the sector to support refugees are included in consultation, there should be consultation as to what that evaluation shows.
And how the proposal can be taken forward, if there are any tweaks to be made. I do not expect the Minister to respond to that today, he will not be in a position to do so, but can I add my voice to that request. Which
16:09
Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
seems to be, " Entirely humane and seems to be, " Entirely humane and My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments of the noble Lady, Baroness Lister, has tabled to her Baroness Lister, has tabled to her I will adjust my remarks to Amendment one, while the intention Amendment one, while the intention behind this amendment baby to ensure a smoother transition for asylum seekers, it does introduce significant practical, legal, policy problems that risk undermining the efficient functioning of the asylum efficient functioning of the asylum system.
And first and foremost, from my understanding of it, this amendment effectively makes the issue of a biometric residence document a precondition for the beginning of the clock on the post decision support., that is it ties together the support, not to the legal decision and status, as is currently the states The government's decision on the claim,, the person is no longer the asylum the person is no longer the asylum seeker. The prescribed support is meant to help the transition, either meant to help the transition, either into mainstream services, or depart.
-- Departing the country. This poses an administrative burden and legal uncertainty and would require the Home Office to verify the delivery of a specific document for each individual before initiating countdown to the end of support. Tracking a compliance exercise that would be both bureaucratic and costly, and ripe for legal costly, and ripe for legal challenge. Let's not forget the wider context. It's about taxpayer funded support being already generous and necessary, and a necessary safety net, during asylum process. Once the claim is accepted or otherwise determined, the individual is expected to move into mainstream provision or make arrangements for return for some delinking that transition to the legal decision itself, and tying it to the issue and some paperwork, is not only unworkable, it is unfair to the taxpayer and otherwise as a matter of policy.
-- Otherwise. -- Unwise. Unwise.
And first and foremost, from my understanding of it, this amendment effectively makes the issue of a biometric residence document a precondition for the beginning of the clock on the post decision support., that is it ties together the support, not to the legal decision and status, as is currently the states The government's decision on the claim,, the person is no longer the asylum the person is no longer the asylum seeker. The prescribed support is meant to help the transition, either meant to help the transition, either into mainstream services, or depart.
-- Departing the country. This poses an administrative burden and legal uncertainty and would require the Home Office to verify the delivery of a specific document for each individual before initiating countdown to the end of support. Tracking a compliance exercise that would be both bureaucratic and costly, and ripe for legal costly, and ripe for legal challenge. Let's not forget the wider context. It's about taxpayer funded support being already generous and necessary, and a necessary safety net, during asylum process. Once the claim is accepted or otherwise determined, the individual is expected to move into mainstream provision or make arrangements for return for some delinking that transition to the legal decision itself, and tying it to the issue and some paperwork, is not only unworkable, it is unfair to the taxpayer and otherwise as a matter of policy.
-- Otherwise. -- Unwise. Unwise.
16:11
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Lord Katz (Labour)
I thank my noble Lords for this short but interesting debate on this group of amendments. And I will try group of amendments. And I will try to be brief, given the time. On TVs, my noble friend, Baroness Lister, says the bill says the grace period does not expire until the EV, and until a positive decision is made, they able to commence the moving process, and access key services, prior to their account being created. An example of this is some Goma departments and partners have system services which allow them to access information about the person directly, avoiding the need for the person...
Prior to the decision and granted to make this clear for some granted to make this clear for some however, we recognise the importance of individuals having access to it, before the asylum supporters continue. That's why we come to have a say regarding our process, where support will not be discontinued for at least 28 days after an individual has been given access to the EVs. Where there is an error on it, which reported the Home Office confirmed a error that needs correcting, wilting extensive auto errors corrected.
Support in accessing one is available via our assisted digital services, for those with limited digital skills, and charities, and voluntary organisations across the UK are being fronted to give help to funnel people who need support. There is also some discussion around the notification process, following a decision, and interaction. Whilst individuals are notified in the grand letter that support will end in 56 days, operational and safeguarding checks prevent us from giving exact data at this point.
Despite this, every effort is made to ensure these notices are provided as early as possible, the only way to implement such an approach would be to delay the decision. As my noble friend, Lord Hanson, said in the second reading debate. I am sure all members will agree every effort should be made to serve an asylum decision as soon as we possibly can. To briefly respond to a couple of points made, certainly by my noble friend, Baroness Lister, and Baroness Hamwee, in terms of the Baroness Hamwee, in terms of the timing of the pilot.
I am afraid I will not be able to find much greater comfort to them. We are considering the exact date the pilot will end, to write out the suitable notice to confirm this, and individuals will continue to receive 56 days notice until this point. Picking up Baroness Hamwee's point, particularly about refugee organisations, and also, I will use this opportunity, as Baroness Lister
Prior to the decision and granted to make this clear for some granted to make this clear for some however, we recognise the importance of individuals having access to it, before the asylum supporters continue. That's why we come to have a say regarding our process, where support will not be discontinued for at least 28 days after an individual has been given access to the EVs. Where there is an error on it, which reported the Home Office confirmed a error that needs correcting, wilting extensive auto errors corrected.
Support in accessing one is available via our assisted digital services, for those with limited digital skills, and charities, and voluntary organisations across the UK are being fronted to give help to funnel people who need support. There is also some discussion around the notification process, following a decision, and interaction. Whilst individuals are notified in the grand letter that support will end in 56 days, operational and safeguarding checks prevent us from giving exact data at this point.
Despite this, every effort is made to ensure these notices are provided as early as possible, the only way to implement such an approach would be to delay the decision. As my noble friend, Lord Hanson, said in the second reading debate. I am sure all members will agree every effort should be made to serve an asylum decision as soon as we possibly can. To briefly respond to a couple of points made, certainly by my noble friend, Baroness Lister, and Baroness Hamwee, in terms of the Baroness Hamwee, in terms of the timing of the pilot.
I am afraid I will not be able to find much greater comfort to them. We are considering the exact date the pilot will end, to write out the suitable notice to confirm this, and individuals will continue to receive 56 days notice until this point. Picking up Baroness Hamwee's point, particularly about refugee organisations, and also, I will use this opportunity, as Baroness Lister
16:16
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
That That is That is largely That is largely beyond That is largely beyond my That is largely beyond my control. That is largely beyond my control. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
beg leave to withdraw the amendments. Is your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn, it is by leave withdrawn. The question is leave withdrawn. The question is close to Max that is part of the bill, as many of that will say content, Of the contrary, "Not content". The content of it. The question is clause three centres part of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The content contrary, "Not content". The content have it. Amendments three and four, not move? The question is that clause four stand as part of the bill, As many as are of that bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".
Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. My Lords, thank you, Andrew. The question is that you, Andrew. The question is that this be the title of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. My lord, that concludes the committee's proceedings, the house will now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
proceedings, the house will now The Committee of the Whole House to which the asylum support to which the asylum support prescribed period bill is committed has gone through the same and directed me to report it to your
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lordships house without amendment. I beg to move the House do now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move the House do now adjourn and in doing so wish everybody your weekend not as long as normal and particularly I thank as normal and particularly I thank all the staff of the House for their always excellent service this week.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
beg leave to withdraw the amendments. Is your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn, it is by leave withdrawn. The question is leave withdrawn. The question is close to Max that is part of the bill, as many of that will say content, Of the contrary, "Not content". The content of it. The question is clause three centres part of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The content contrary, "Not content". The content have it. Amendments three and four, not move? The question is that clause four stand as part of the bill, As many as are of that bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".
Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. My Lords, thank you, Andrew. The question is that you, Andrew. The question is that this be the title of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. My lord, that concludes the committee's proceedings, the house will now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
proceedings, the house will now The Committee of the Whole House to which the asylum support to which the asylum support prescribed period bill is committed has gone through the same and directed me to report it to your
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lordships house without amendment. I beg to move the House do now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move the House do now adjourn and in doing so wish everybody your weekend not as long as normal and particularly I thank as normal and particularly I thank all the staff of the House for their always excellent service this week.