Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Orders and regulations: Enterprise act 2002 (Mergers involving newspaper enterprises and foreign powers) regulations 2025 - motion to regret and motion to annul

the Enterprise Act, 2002, definition of newspaper Order 2024. This set of regulations will broaden and strengthen the public interest strengthen the public interest protections, as well as asserting the scope of options. That will

15:29

Orders and regulations: Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025

the scope of options. That will apply to the foreign state influence in UK newspapers. Taken together these are the most significant these are the most significant changes to the media public interest regime since the Communications Act regime since the Communications Act of 2003. I know a lot of noble Lords have sincerely and strongly held views on the matters being debated views on the matters being debated today and I'm grateful to those across your Lordships' House with that with me, the Secretary of that with me, the Secretary of State, or officials to discuss the matter is before us.

It is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Fox back in see the noble Lord, Lord Fox back in his place. What I would like to do is go back to 1st principles, to try is go back to 1st principles, to try and place the new measures in the proper context. Fundamental to this is the need for us all to consider

15:30

Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)

- -

the very real risks to the survival of UK newspapers, including the very of UK newspapers, including the very high profile names among our newspapers and the wider news media. I understand and share noble Lords I understand and share noble Lords concerns about the growing threat of a foreign estate actors seeking to undermine our institutions and undermine our institutions and indeed our democracy. There is a risk that this might translate into our media and freedom of the press. our media and freedom of the press.

This is not the only risk, although it is a risk that these measures it is a risk that these measures seek to manage. The far greater risk is how UK news media, national and is how UK news media, national and local faces a significant, genuinely existential and I do not use that existential and I do not use that word lightly, my lords, challenges as their business models move away toward digital and new technologies toward digital and new technologies emerge. Publishers have sought to consolidate and make efficiencies in response with three publishers accounting for over 80% of national print copy sales in the UK and three print copy sales in the UK and three also accounting for about 70% of the local news market.

There have been local news market. There have been some notable successes those are newspapers that have been able to develop and deliver a strong develop and deliver a strong subscription offer. Others have fared less well. Some are struggling in an economy where good quality news content doesn't always translate into reviews that are news immediate needs to prosper and innovate. The issue we see most starkly with the local media and particularly trusted in these cause which is consolidated to survive and in many places in local newspapers had to reduce Journalist numbers to a bare minimum.

So whilst it is vital that we support strong protections for UK newspapers and other news media. We need to make sure that we do not inadvertently make it harder for newspaper groups to survive. The UK wide free press, which I know all noble Lords value, the type of press landscape we are rightly proud of in this country also has to be sustainable. Let me be clear, the Government is an unequivocal supporter of a free and plural news media. Even when it doesn't agree with us.

A free media is an essential safeguard, which ensures accountability and effective government. The measures being debated strongly support this objective. The first of measures extend the scope of the media merger extend the scope of the media merger

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is she seriously arguing that the survival of a newspaper is, both national and local, depends on allowing foreign governments to have ownership?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ownership? I think it's important, I will go on to this, to distinguish foreign governments and state owned investors. If the noble Lord will allow me, this is covered in my opening remarks. The first set of opening remarks. The first set of measures extend the scope of the media measure regime to online news publications. The first order, the publications. The first order, the enterprise act -- Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order encompasses both newspapers and periodical magazines.

This will periodical magazines. This will enable the Secretary of State to enable the Secretary of State to intervene on public interest grounds in the acquisition of an online only in the acquisition of an online only newspaper. Until now, she has not had the power to do so. The second order, Enterprise Act 2002 order, Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order creates another term, news media, which captures newspapers and news programmes. It includes key public interest considerations in the Enterprise Act 2002.

Noble Lords have long called for these changes and Ofcom recommended them in their media ownership rules review. This also ensures that the foreign state influence regime introduced in May last year will be extended such that foreign powers will now also be banned from acquiring control of an online newspaper or magazine enterprise. Let me now turn to exception regulations and the regret motion. The FSI regime which the previous government legislated for in May last year bans foreign states from having any foreign influence over news -- UK newspapers or news periodicals.

This includes pension Government also made clear they would put in place exceptions to encourage investment by sovereign wealth and other state owned investors and issue a consultation before the election. To clarify, this exception, in response to Lord Forsyth's point, only applies to a narrow group of public bodies, including pension schemes and similar. It does not include estate themselves or state these. Foreign government cannot buy a newspaper. The responses received including from News UK said the proposed thresholds were overly complex and drawn too tightly.

We agree broadly with this assessment. We believe that the higher than 15% threshold is appropriate. This would not weaken the regime. The 15% threshold will still be below the level that CMA considers typically to give rise to material influence under the Enterprise Act 2002. Noble Lords have raised questions on whether an investment of 15% can really be a passive investor. The regulations include a strict requirement that include a strict requirement that the state owned investor must hold the investment personally.

They must have no rights or abilities to fire directors or other officers and they must have no ability to direct, control or influence in cyber policy. These are continuing requirements that must be satisfied every day the shares are held. The exceptions should be seen as a privilege and not a right. The Secretary of State must require a major two CMA if you suspect estate owned investor is not entitled or is not complying with these requirements. If the CMA advisers that the investment does not comply, it concludes that the situation has arisen, the Secretary of State must take action to block such a transaction.

This is a very significant penalty and safeguard. As noble Lords will be aware, when the govern remark when the government -- when the government published a further report... The changes proposed would close of any risk. This change would be applied retrospectively from 13 March, 2024, to ensure there is no regulatory gap. Secondly, we have addressed concerns relating to the lack of notification required on requirement for estate owned investors. This second draft proposes a new requirement for direct state owned investor investments and more than 5% to be notified is the exception.

If the notification is not made or made late, the investment will not comply with the exception and will be prohibited. Foreign -- following a consultation which will run until the 16th of -- following a consultation which will run until 16 September, the government will aim to lay a draft statutory instrument by the end of October. The new notification requirements will come into force after the second regulations are made. The changes proposed in the second draft, whilst important, are not fundamental in our view for the operation of the exceptions and not so critical to the FSI regime that we should delay these regulations and leave newspapers were publicly calling us to act to a further period of uncertainty.

I'd like to thank the noble Lady and officials for help with this. I hope that the noble Lady for like the safeguard deals with the issues. I will now address the constitutional issues raised by Lord Fox. The second regulations will strengthen protections. As I explained, the provisions on multiple state ownership will backdate to 13 March, 2024, to ensure there is no regulatory gap. Is also important to recognise that existing investments at any level made after March at any level made after March 2024 in a UK newspaper may -- may trigger the state to intervene.

We are concern that the delay will prolong the uncertainty for investors. I appreciate the motion comes from concerns about the impact of the SFI -- FSI regime. I will reflect carefully on the points he and other birds made during this debate. It's perfectly legitimate for Your Lordships' House debate the motion which is a very firm convention the power to annul is not used. In the specific case, the exception regulations have been expected since the passage of the Digital Market Act last year.

They have been subject to consultation and extensive parliamentary engagement and have now been approved in the other place. This government has come to a different decision to the previous government. The regulation is simpler and secured with safeguards. When noble Lords debate legislation, a small but significant phrase is sometimes heard that parliaments cannot find their successors, commitments made by one government cannot bind future government. While the five and 10% split threshold was announced by the previous government during the debate and subsequently featured in the consultation, it was not a settled matter.

It was left open at the time of the general election last year. It is both right and responsible for government to look at this afresh. We did agree that in some sensibly managed circumstances, and exception to the regime was reasonable. Aren't intention in doing so is to make a decision which protects newspapers from foreign state interference while creating a chilling effect on the British press. To conclude, I urge peers from all sides to look at these issues. The government believes these regulations provide the certainty that UK newspapers certainty that UK newspapers desperately need and have asked for.

They will guard against foreign state influence while allowing our news media to face a future with confidence. I hope noble Lords will accept the rational. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. Amendment, the Lord

15:41

Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)

- -

15:58

Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)

- -

arriving at a solution far more complicated than it needs to be. I

15:58

Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)

- -

complicated than it needs to be. I will come back to that in a moment, as well as some questions for the

15:58

Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)

- -

as well as some questions for the Minister to address, when she comes to windup. The question I have to windup. The question I have grappled with it is that whether a 15% cap, restrict passive investment 15% cap, restrict passive investment only, still supports the much bigger principle of press freedom that we principle of press freedom that we fought hard to protect. I have concluded that with some safeguards concluded that with some safeguards it does. In reaching my view, I have not just considered what is best for the future of the Telegraph, I have the future of the Telegraph, I have also very much a taken account of how we need to safeguard the future how we need to safeguard the future of the whole news industry.

Because, while we all care about protecting the free press, of holding that principle will serve little purpose principle will serve little purpose if our news industry can't survive and their economic conditions are and their economic conditions are worsening. Last year, when I brought forward my amendments, the forward my amendments, the Communications and Digital Committee was conducting a major inquiry into the future of news. It was plain to see, then, that the news industry is in jeopardy. And that business models are threatened like never before.

The noble Baroness of the Minister has already outlined how the pace of technological change, as well as a fierce and unfair competition, from the tech sector has eaten away at advertising revenue, for many years. But the situation has accelerated, since last year. The sharp decline in traffic, to news websites, from AI- generated in news sites, via search pages, or models such as the ChatGPT. Never mind the ongoing uncertainty over copyright law, which this House has debated, many times in the last few months.

Present in existential threat. I repeat that phrase, which the noble Baroness of the Minister uses, because I do genuinely think that is real. It is also worth pointing out that the major foreign platforms, which curate news stories, based on algorithms and provided these AI summaries are far more powerful and potent, in shaping the public opinion, then any British newspaper. And they have access to all the investment capital, without any restraint as to where they source their funds. The news industry needs to invest heavily, to compete with the tech sector.

Yet their routes to readers and revenue streams are shrinking rapidly. Subscriptions are not a viable model for all of them. With the market and red tops and local market at grievous risk. Even though market consolidation is unlikely and conditions are bad, we can be confident that our action, last year, dealt with the threat of several British newspapers, or news organisations ending up in the hands of foreign hands. What we need to make sure now is that the UK news industry itself can respond to the challenges it faces.

It is for the Government to set out its case as to what they've brought forward as a solution and to explain some of the detailed and technical differences for what we were expecting last year. Barbara Baroness Lister has already covered a lot of that in her opening remarks. The industry was pushing back against a 5% cap on state owned investment, a year ago. Arguing, then, that was far too restrictive and it needed to be higher. When I what I find so frustrating and has taken the government a year to get to this point.

And, as we've already heard, we still need a further set of regulations to be made to address the serious loophole, which exist the serious loophole, which exist

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could you just pick up on the following. Why would a foreign government pay a premium price to government pay a premium price to invest? Are we assuming that foreign invest? Are we assuming that foreign elements do not invest to get a return? The point the noble Lord made was the reason, the answer they prepared, when other people are prepared to pay more, is because they want the influence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are now in a different situation to what we were facing in situation to what we were facing in March of last year when it was... March of last year when it was... The prospect was real that foreign government could become the owner of government could become the owner of a British newspaper. That was a different matter. What we are dealing with now is state investment dealing with now is state investment funds. The question is now whether funds.

The question is now whether the safeguards in place are the safeguards in place are sufficient. I'm pleased that, because of pressure from me and other noble Lords, the intolerable prospect of multiple foreign powers each owning 50% 15% of the newspaper will be rolled out in the supplementary regulations published last week. Let's be absolutely clear. That 15% must be an aggregate cap. How on earth that loophole went unnoticed is hard to understand. Once it was pointed out to them, it is baffling and hugely regrettable that the government took two months to find a way to close it and chose to do so via additional regulations instead of immediately withdrawing the regulations before us today and relying -- relaying a comprehensive site so we can win this up before the summer recess.

I would be grateful if the noble Baroness the Minister could tell us why they did not do that. I know she has told us they plan to lay the supplementary regulations by the end of October. But I would like to know why it was impossible to do what I advise them to do back in May. This food dragging and apparent incompetence have given rise to legitimate questions about who or what has really influenced the government in its approach to this incredibly important matter. If the government were acting only in the interests of the press industry, we would have got all this sorted and resolved The Telegraph's ownership before now.

Although I cannot accept -- I can accept the 15% aggregate cap, it will require vigorous government oversight that passive investors must not extend. Parliament will need to be better equipped and more active in holding ministers to account. It was frankly, in my view, unacceptable for the government to stay silent for 11 months on the matter of the secondary regulations, or tell us what it was doing to safeguard The Telegraph's ownership during that time.

We heard from the Minister that the supplementary regulations which are to follow these include a new notification requirement, meaning that any state owned investor which requires -- acquires more than 5% must notify the Secretary of State within 14 days of that acquisition to be eligible for the exemption status. In my view, as a follow on to that, the Secretary of State should be required to notify Parliament twice yearly about any or nil such notifications. In the future, we are going to need more information.

Could I ask the Minister to ensure this additional requirement of accountability be added to the supplementary regulations, which the government is now consulting on? Whilst parliamentarians must respond to any failings by ministers, when it comes to upholding press freedom, the most important line of defence is the newspaper proprietor's. There who must provide a strong shield between newsrooms and illegitimate pressure or demands from investors and advertisers. They know that not doing so undermines public trust in journalism and that would damage the value of their investment.

Now, it's not for Parliament to dictate how proprietors should discharge their responsibility, but in a media world that includes the presence of state owned investors, clarity and some transparency about what proprietors are doing to protect the newspapers independence and editorial freedom becomes important. And this is particularly so where proprietors are new to the newspaper industry or are private equity funds. Could the Minister tell us therefore what such demands the government will make on of -- of the new Telegraph owners if such a transaction is complete.

Could she confirm that the deal, once it is finalised, will be subject to detailed scrutiny by the CMA before it is completed? If the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pushes his fatal motion to a division, I will vote against. As a former leader of Your Lordships' House, I have a general aversion to this chamber seeking to block legislation. Indeed, it with me, as leader, with the last Minister at this dispatch box defeated by this house on a piece of secondary legislation.

I'm not against this fatal motion for any constitutional reasons like convention, important though they are. Believe me, if I thought supporting this fatal motion was the right thing to do, I would. But I don't. While I respect those who framed this debate over the battle of -- over the future of press of -- over the future of press freedom, but it is a battle over the future of a financially viable press. We don't just need newspapers to be editorially independent, we need them to survive.

When it comes to The Telegraph, of course, I would love someone serious to come along with a consortium that could offer investment and offer a cap of 5%. I would have loved it if this sorry saga which has been so destabilising to the editorial team at the newspaper could have been avoided altogether. As I've already argued, this is not just about the Telegraph. This affects all newspaper titles. The regulations before us set the cap at 15%. As long as the government follows through with supplementary regulations to close that loophole and is prepared to give the necessary undertakings to ensure that this cap will be enforced, and willing to accept that.

Everyone else gets to fight another day. Let's make sure the same applies to the Telegraph Group and the wider press industry. If Lord Fox withdraws his motion and supports mine instead, noble Lords can express their regret and record their dissatisfaction with how the government has handled this manner -- matter by supporting my motion instead. instead.

16:10

Baroness Boycott (Crossbench)

- -

I rise to speak on behalf of the government in this measure. -- To support the government. I think 15% is perfectly OK. I support what the Noble Baronesses just said about the roles of proprietors. I have edited three national newspapers, therefore I know a lot about proprietors. Indeed, my last proprietor sold my newspaper, our newspaper, to a man who had made his money out of Asian babes. I think a passive investment is perfectly OK.

The power and influence of the newspaper is about the proprietor. The proprietor will elect an editor and if this investment is passive, that it seems to me the government has done something very valuable because we have a lot of problems in our press. The Independent is highly linked to Saudi Arabia. I declare an interest here as the editor is a friend of mine. We have discussed this endlessly. He says that you cannot find any influence of Saudi Arabia within his newspapers and I would agree.

The fact they do a Saudi Arabian issue, that their business, I'm not saying I'm liking it, but it is making a newspaper available, free at the point of delivery and also some good things that are about to disappear. Rupert Murdoch is a highly complicated proprietor. A lot of the phone hacking issues are still not resolved. It is rich for Lord Fox to say that everything is going to fall apart if we get some investment within The Telegraph. Proprietors have politics. They want things to be done in their way.

The government has a right and indeed has a big duty to not only make sure that this passive investment really is kept that way but also to look at the whole question of proprietors. Obviously, they are going to want influence. It is very important that the government carries on if this is going to be about general press and media regulation which looks also at online regulation. Heaven knows where all the money from all of that is coming from. We need to have very firm standards of what we have here and in the meantime, I thoroughly support what they are proposing today and I think a fatal motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

against this would be a real mistake. It's a pleasure to follow the

16:12

Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lady. She and I probably haven't always agreed on everything that I echo every word she says today. I thought long and hard about whether to take part in this debate. -- I concluded it would be irresponsible not to do so. Let me declare my interest and I mean that in the broadest possible sense. First, I hope all noble Lords will recognise my unwavering commit to press and media freedom. A cause which I have championed passionately for three decades.

I have stood up consistently and robustly for it in this house even when it has been deeply unpopular and unfashionable to do so. I would never support anything which I believed damaging. I stood alone in opposing the imposition of section 40. I campaigned for its repeal. I note campaigned for its repeal. I note with some irony they are putting forward this fatal motion today in the name of press freedom when they have such a track record and we should not fall for it.

Second, I worked for The Telegraph media group for 20 years which is half of my working life. I love The Telegraph. Its editorial independence and freedom and its sustainability are etched into my DNA. I would never do anything to compromise that. I declare my interest as its Deputy Chairman. Is for both those reasons, philosophical and practical, that they make these few remarks. The news publishing industry in the UK does face an existential crisis. We all know the reasons.

Impact of digital and the voracious appetite digital and the voracious appetite of the unregulated platforms has put enormous pressure on revenues of all publishers. Tragically, many titles have close, particularly in the local press, with thousands of reporters jobs lost. The future of many others hangs in the balance. The analysis put forward by my noble friend is absolutely spot on. The implications for our democracy are profound. It's a situation that has been made worse by the decisions of this Parliament, and in particular the Data Act which we have with some reluctance just as.

Publishers are finding it hard to remodel their businesses. Exponential growth of a outcome unrestrained by effective copyright law, threatens the very future of all these friends. As I've pointed out with repetition in this house. We should not make the same mistake again today. It really is 11:55 for much of the British press. Today, this house can either try to ameliorate the situation or condemn it to decline. The reason for that is simple. To survive in an intensely competitive global media marketplace, UK publishers need investment.

They need to be able to raise capital to innovate and compete with platforms, which are subject to no onerous investment restrictions and they have unlimited resources. Some of that will need to come from global investment funds. It simply not all going to come from Competition law in the UK has to recognise that reality publishers can access from sovereign government are well funds and survive, or they can sit back and await their fate. Private equity investment with significant expertise in growing media businesses is here to stay.

Indeed it is hard, it is about growth. Both the economy and the media sector. Of course it would be quite wrong for a foreign state actor to outright own and no one in the House agrees on that point to stop state ownership would be difficult for press freedom. There is nothing wrong to making a small passive investment, carefully calibrated and restricted to ensure they have no ability to infiltrate at all, or restrict freedom to report in any way.

These regulations allow such funds to make an investment of 15%, to ensure there can be no multiple purchases, recognise that and I support them. The government has got the balance right. Of course it would have been better, as my noble friend Baroness Stowell has made clear, the Secretary of State to set out all the rules in one complete set of regulations, but that failure to do so should not obscure the basic point and passage of these regulations is absolutely right.

And indeed the media and the whole of the creative economy more widely. The back, the motion of the noble Lord Fox blocking these regulations. It will condemn traditional British news brands, newspapers and magazines and their websites to decline, by cutting off a vital source for investment and subjecting them to burdensome investment regime, from which there global digital counterparts are spared, hobbling at their ability to compete. I do not believe that is what anyone really wants. It is what would happen if we simply turn our back on the raw, harsh realities of the media market.

Quite apart from these commercial realities and the matters of principle arrays. The decisions of this House would impact as we have heard on the future of the Telegraph media group. A vital part of the U.K.'s media ecosystem. All noble Lords know that this is a long running story. Much spilled chronically. It is a saga that has been running on now for more than two years, sapping the morale and energy of the exceptional team which produces incredible content day in, day out, despite all the difficulties as my noble friend Lady Stowell said.

I pay huge tribute to them for their fortitude and perseverance. An end to the saga is now in sight, if Redbird is allowed to complete its deal, with a small passive state from the UAE and other UK investors. Redbird, as a noble Lords will know one of the furthermost investors globally in the media industry and I believe plan to invest to make the Telegraph even more successful and profitable. Undaunted by the decline of print, embracing that the realities of the industry. It is my personal view that they have a clear understanding of both the importance of stewardship, this will be theirs to secure, one day to pass on in a stronger position than they found it.

And also the need for editorial integrity. I do not know if that deal will go ahead to pass these regulations today, it may, it may not. It would in my view be deeply damaging for the future of the Telegraph if this bill does not happen soon. One thing I am absolutely certain, a decision, today will send a clear signal to any potential investor, either in the Telegraph or in other parts of the British media. It will signal either that the UK media has a bright future and this parliament will support it with a modern and practical regulatory framework that reflects the realities of the global media market and is focused on growth, or it will signal that the media is close of business.

This parliament is prepared to back its future by allowing media businesses the freedom to attract investors from across the globe to compete and to grow. In that case, the media will decline and fall and the consequences for our democracy are incalculable. As someone who believes passionately the future of a free press. I know what side I'm on. That is why the name of Lord Fox. I would urge all others that want to secure sustainable optimistic future, for our media, to do the same.

do the same.

16:21

Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I rise to support my noble friend Lord Fox's amendment. When this House welcomes a complete ban on foreign government ownership, and the third reading of the digital markets Bill, last March. Then government proposed a 5% exemption for passive Sovereign Wealth Fund investments. Noble Baroness Lady Stowell and Lord Forsyth, Lord Robertson and Lord Anderson deserve huge credit for securing this change, alongside the then Minister, the noble Lord Parkinson. Yet, in a now remarkable about phase, this Labour government proposes allowing a foreign state owned investors to hold up to 15% stakes, tripling the previously proposed threshold.

15% is not trivial, as we've heard. Even a 15% stake can provide Board representation, veto powers over key decisions and a very real influence over editorial policy. The CMA, the Competition and Markets Authority's guidance on its mergers, jurisdiction and procedure it's clear that there is no exhaustive list of factors. Even A1 board seat may device, depending on the circumstances. The regulations currently allow multiple foreign states to acquire, each to acquire 15% stakes. Nothing would stop a consortium of foreign regime from stacking up the controlling interest in a British newspaper.

And the government itself has acknowledged this floor, in the later of 21 July, admitting, as we've again heard, that this will need correcting in the autumn. Why proceed with these regulations, when the government admits that they are fundamentally flawed. 15% threshold contrast starkly with international best practice, Australia set just 5% for media companies. There has been some argument today, notably, from the noble Lord black, some argued that our struggling newspaper industry needs foreign investment. The noble Baroness the Minister talked about existential threats.

If conventional investors are reluctant, as the noble Lord Fox and the noble Lord Forsyth said, foreign state investors clearly seek a different return. Influence should be mortgage editorial independence, the erosion of public trust. The consultation process was a deeply problematic, only for responses, primarily from newspaper groups seeking foreign investors. It is hardly justifying tripling the threshold. The government claims it can intervene and become active. How does one monitor passivity and detect influence as the secondary scrutiny committee noted it is an impossible task to map nuanced changes.

We must err on the side of caution. I see that the noble Lord black Brentwood came out in yesterday's Telegraph and today, with all guns blazing, his attack on the Liberal Democrat position, fundamentally this characterises what the press recognition panel actually does. The recognition panel actually does. The PRP is not a statutory media regulator that controls editorial content. It is an independent body that recognises voluntary press regulators, like Impress, will it so chooses not to seek recognition to avoid meeting proper independent standards.

This protect press freedom by ensuring that regulatory bodies themselves and the robust standards, for effectiveness. Lord Black's characterisation of this onerous statutory controls is the same misleading tactic used by media proprietors to avoid genuine accountability. While maintaining maximum commercial freedom. The position of these benches is entirely consistent, genuine press freedom requires protection from all forms of external influence, whether political interference, proprietorial control, foreign state investment. The independent regulation and opposition to foreign state media investment, both serve the same principle, in assuring editorial commitment from external pressure.

This is drafted to facilitate deals, like Redbird capitals potential Telegraph takeover, as are the noble Lord black has mentioned. Concerns exist about Redbird Chinese connections, as well. A 5% cap, strikes the right balance, allowing a genuine commercial investment, while preventing the accumulation of influence that will strangle press freedom. The British public deserves to know...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord, as ever he has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord, as ever he has made a good case. He made his point as did the noble Lord Forsyth around as did the noble Lord Forsyth around what a percentage stake might mean what a percentage stake might mean if the returns... What difference is there between 5% to 15%, in respect there between 5% to 15%, in respect of the argument that he is making an about influence? If someone was to invest 5% they are doing on the same basis as 15%, surely?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

basis as 15%, surely? Perhaps the noble Lord has never been on the board of a public been on the board of a public limited company. There is a huge difference, between 15% ownership in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a 5% ownership. There is a difference. The argument that he is making that argument that he is making that people are seeking to get influence, rather than get a financial return. If you are taking 5%, you are doing If you are taking 5%, you are doing so for a financial return, why wouldn't investors also be looking for a financial return on 15%, in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just the same way? The point is that we have a series of 5%, in a company, you have series of 5%, in a company, you have a polarity of shareholders and you will have a mix of influence. If you have 15% you have a much higher share of the company and you are probably entitled to a single board member. -- Plurality of shareholders.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

5% held by a National Wealth Fund... I entirely agree with the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I do not really understand why Lord. I do not really understand why the noble Lord night is raising what seems to be a pretty obvious issue. The British public deserves to know that their morning newspaper delivers journalism guided by British values and editorial British values and editorial independence. Not the preference of independence. Not the preference of foreign powers. A brief word about their conventions. 2006 a committee their conventions.

2006 a committee Lord the Strathclyde review of 2015 Lord the Strathclyde review of 2015 is still current and it concluded, on the basis of the evidence, we conclude, that the House of Lords should not regularly reject should not regularly reject statutory instruments, in exceptional circumstances it may be appropriate for it to do so. This is appropriate for it to do so. This is consistent with past practice represents a convention recognised by the opposition parties stop subsequently I succeed that in March 2007, when a fatal motion to prevent 2007, when a fatal motion to prevent the shipment of casino being located in east Manchester, with a strong supporter may say from the then Archbishop of Canterbury.

Since then, the noble Lord in January 2003, succeeded in defeating an illegal aid order. I do welcome what the noble Baroness still had to say about the existence of the convention. Those were exceptional circumstances and so to marks today. The ownership of our press as a matter of great public policy importance and we are fully entitled to defeat this order. I urge you to support by noble friend, Lord Fox is fatal motion simpler to send a clear message, the integrity of the British press is not negotiable.

5% is sufficient, 15% is a doorway to influence that was opened may prove impossible to close. I commend the motion to the House. To conclude, on these benches, we are also opposed to the draft enterprise 2002, amendment of section 58, considerations order and the draft enterprise act 2002, definition of newspaper order. Which has been tabled for approval today. These orders propose extending the enterprise act to encompass digital media, broadening the definition of news media, to explicitly include online news websites and broadcasting.

If we were at one on the question of media ownership, then this would be a welcome situation. However expansion at this time, while fundamental concerns regarding foreign ownership and traditional newspapers remain unresolved and potentially being dangerously broadened, it is dangerous. We will not be supporting

16:31

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

- -

I always pay careful attention to the advice that is given to me. And the advice that I am not sure I allow to reveal is that we should not support this motion on the grounds that we do not vote for people motions. I was very impressed by the speech by the Noble Lord Fox. In fact, I agreed with every single word and that is a real first for me coming from the liberal benches. And the point, of course, about not voting for fatal motions until quite recently I was telling people actually I have never voted for a fatal motion, but I discovered that I did, some six weeks ago, then Noble Lord pointed out, we had a fatal motion and quite rightly so because it was a matter that we thought was in the national interest which was about the position of the Government on their treaty on the Chagos Islands stop so, it was I at the Noble Lady, we have both voted for fatal motions in very recent history.

So, I am a bit confused by the suggestion that we should deal with this matter on the basis of some kind of procedure and it does seem to me that if this House on a matter and we have already heard the nature and seriousness of the arguments, if this House now feels that it can't vote on a matter of this seriousness because of some methodology about fatal motions then what is the point of us being here at all? What is our purpose? Because at all? What is our purpose? Because it is a central issue.

And, indeed, the other reason that I am a little bit confused is because when we amended the legislation last year under the previous Government, my Noble Friend Lord Parkinson at the third reading where the amendment was made we will amend the merger explicitly to roll out newspaper and periodical newsmagazine matters including ownership influence or control by foreign states. And the investment in newspapers of any size would be banned and we will therefore have 5% of the total this would apply to passive investment by sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, or similar.

Not by foreign states. That was primary legislation. There was some vote because there is unanimity across the whole of the House about the importance of banning foreign Governments from condoning parts of their statements and there was also consensus across the House from extending that to other media services which the other regulations have referred to and that the Noble Lord Clement-Jones quite rightly puts it would be been supportive where, I think about the House, were not for the fact that they're changing the ownership rules to allow foreign Governments not just to be involved in our newspapers but also other news organisations.

And my Noble Friend Lord Parkinson went on to say the Government recognised the risks that foreign state ownership of the U.K.'s newspapers and magazines could pose to democracy and free speech allowing them over time took a road trust in our media as a whole. So, I ask your Lordships what has changed in the last 12 months about these principles? And with the government's change, that is not a reason to change one's principles on this side of the House.

At this Government they have sought to take secondary legislation and use that to change not just the intention but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the effect of primary legislation. Will my Noble Friend give way? On

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will my Noble Friend give way? On this point on the use of statutory, would he agree that many of the problems that he has identified problems that he has identified arise from the fact that statutory instruments cannot be amended? And is it not bizarre that we are going to have, in the autumn, a remedial to have, in the autumn, a remedial statutory instrument, the terms of which could be incorporated into the present statutory instrument if we present statutory instrument if we were able to amend it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Noble Friend makes an excellent point but it takes me slightly of the subject because I am arguing that these procedural arguments are tracked by the fact that what is being done here is the primary legislation is, in effect, primary legislation is, in effect, being amended on which, as he says, were not able to debate amendment and I think that is completely wrong. And I think if we allow this to go forward, there will be other examples. This is the executive examples.

This is the executive thumbing his nose to the Parliament. thumbing his nose to the Parliament. And this is taking power. I believe these regulations therefore abandon an important principle and this is deftly avoided and an iron with the suggestion that investment was needed from foreign Governments. I have no objection to National Wealth Fund, indeed we amended the legislation and the 5% had nothing to do with foreign Governments, the 5%, as I recall, introduced to the noble Lords, the Norwegian pension- fund to be able to continue its existence.

This is an exception to the rule, this was necessary because of the nature of those funds. Now we have regulations that allow 15% to be held by foreign states. That is what is at stake here, notwithstanding the powerful advocacy by my Noble Friend for the daily Telegraph, this is nothing to do with the daily Telegraph. This is about a general principle that foreign Governments could take a stake in our newspapers and media assets. When I say it is nothing to do with this, of course, I am slightly suspicious just taking my noble friend's point.

Why is it that we are being asked to do this at such speed and in such a hurry? Nothing to do with the daily Telegraph, I am sure. Why did the Government nudge us to withdraw the amendment and re-table new ones that we can discuss at length in the autumn? Could you to do with some other business going on with the daily Telegraph? I may be cynical, perhaps I am being unfair, but it feels like that. And then we have the argument, and I took the liberty of sending it to colleagues and I promise not to do it very often.

An article written by Fraser Nelson who I hold in the highest regard as a journalist. And I have circulated that to a number of colleagues. And that article tells the inside story from his ringside seat of what has been going on with the budget of the daily Telegraph and I commend it to you because if you have read that article you will see openly hold the discussion in the name of the Noble Lord because it is completely unacceptable that our Parliamentary procedure should be overwritten and that we should create an open door for foreign Governments to get in order to meet a particular bed.

Now, the remarkable thing is when you ask the Ministers why they are making this change, Nothing to do with the daily Telegraph, it is because we had a consultation exercise, and as the Noble Lord pointed out we had all four people responding to this consultation exercise and that made them change their minds and who were the people that responded to consultation? They actually said they weren't going to tell us. It was going to be kept secret because it was so embarrassing.

It was the newspaper owners themselves. And, of course, it is always very dangerous to cross newspaper owners, especially in politics, and that is why Fraser Nelson I think is to be commended for his excellent work today. I would just like to point out that if we have foreign Governments as opposed to foreign investors, foreign Governments owning newspapers, that will mean there is a conflict-of-interest between our journalists and their proprietors. Between our journalists who might want to write unpleasant things about some regimes that may or may not be allowed own newspapers.

And in this House, if it is a choice of conflict, who are we going to support? The freedom of the journalist or the financial interests of the proprietor? There can be only one answer. We have to support the freedom of the journalists. Even if they do not always reciprocate in respect of this House. So, there is one further point I would like to make, and that is about red bird. I have not got a clue where Redbird's money is coming from.

It is not disclosed. How can we possibly feel comfortable with that? I know that that Noble Lord Walton who has been so spectacularly successful in arguing in this House for freedom, not just in this country but all of the world, has grave concerns about the relationship between Redbird and the Chinese Government at the highest level. I know nothing about Redbird, and therefore I feel even more despairing that the Government should be bringing in these regulations instead of the Secretary of State having, by now, instituted for the MMC to carry out an inquiry into precisely those matters.

So, it is with great pride and pleasure that I shall be supporting the motion. Not because it has been made by the noble Lords, though I have huge respect for the Noble Lord Fox, but because I believe he is speaking for the whole house as it was before the election when almost unanimously with out a vote we upheld the principle that these regulations cease to undermine that foreign states should not be allowed to own states should not be allowed to own newspaper assets in this country.

16:43

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Labour)

- -

Last year I went to the Department of culture and sport with Baroness Stowell in a small delegation in order to make representations at that time about the lack of any regulation at that time to prevent foreign Government buying stakes in British newspapers and in the subsequent debate I certainly supported the view that she had and I liked very much when she said today the consultation may well only produce for newspaper contingents giving their views, and a lot of other people have given a lot of thought to it in the meantime and I have very much as well, so the question here for the House today is whether or not they accept the compromise which is the 15%, higher than five but lower than 25% that we would have in their statutory controls.

And go for a fatal motion today, getting close to what would be regarded as being the edges of the constitution, I think that the Government has given a fair account, disgusted and debated it and at the same time, have changed my mind. I think that the safeguards that are available under 15% and I think that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we should vote against the motion. I have enormous respect for him,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have enormous respect for him, but the safeguards are not good

16:44

Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)

- -

but the safeguards are not good enough and that he should reconsider before we get to a vote on this motion. The Noble Lord Forsyth at the end of his remarks commented about Fraser Nelson's article this morning, it is a long article, but I would just like to ask about two sentences. On the MRT sent others, he says they're using their state investment, of course, as levers for political power. That is a Liberal Democrat expert and while Parliament has protected us from that but that protection is now compromised.

That is why we are here today, none of us, I think, speaking in this debate want legally to support the fatal motion, I, along with the Noble Lord Forsyth and others have not supported on any sort of regular basis the fatal motions in the past, but this is an extraordinary regulation that we are being asked to approve and these are extraordinary times, so I agree with the Noble Lord Forsyth and the Noble Lord Fox, the Noble Lord Clement- Jones, and others that have expressed opinions outside of your Lordships chamber including Baroness Kennedy, Lord Blencathra, and they have already arrived at the same conclusion copy it productively.

One of those is the former leader of the Conservative party, so Iain Duncan Smith and, for the record, I remind house that Sir Ian and I, along with five other Parliament Terence, including Baroness Kennedy, have been sanctioned by the Chinese Communist Party regime. And as the Noble Lord Forsyth suggested in a sort of curtain raiser at the end of his remarks, that is the point I want to talk about today in my remarks without the influence that they are seeking to exert in this country and beyond.

Let's be clear, these regulations fundamentally contradict the intentions of Parliament expressed just months ago as we heard in the digital as we heard in the digital Foreign governments must not influence our press. Influence is the issue here, influence. I agree with the noble Baroness, we have been able to have conversations outside the House, I was grateful to defect should have been ironed out beforehand and we should not be asked to agree to these regulations today in the expectation that there today in the expectation that there will be an amendment about the will be an amendment about the Should do it, 15% of Should do it, 15% of the Should do it, 15% of the UK newspaper, without, as it stands, curative limits.

The defect in these relations, a revolving door through which foreign interests might reach into the heart of our discourse. And for what? A single deal. The timing is no Quincy and, we are asked to rewrite press freedom protections. As I discussed, when Lady Twycross invited me last Thursday, she said invited me last Thursday, she said These open These open advocate These open advocate for A A senior A senior Chinese A senior Chinese official A senior Chinese official put A senior Chinese official put it bluntly, we need to try to dominate the oversize media, now having the overseas media follow our steps, including the Centre for analysis, China spends up to $10 billion annually on international propaganda.

That is not soft power, propaganda. That is not soft power, it is shop our and designed to manipulate this for society towards the CCP interest, so I ask with what we now know about the PRC global ambitions and influence are we really prepared to allow a non- intermediary of fishing, a man described by Chinese state media as a modern day Kissinger, to acquire a seat at the table of one of Britain's most influential newspapers? To allow that would be the application of our duty for democracy and to the people that we serve.

Government argues further regulations will come in the autumn to address this humility problem. This raises the obvious question if the regulations are defective now, and they are, why not fix them now? On Thursday, I asked the Minister to withdraw and do just that. I rush them through with foreknowledge of their claws? I wish briefly to also use this opportunity to make a formal representation to the Government of the Enterprise Act 2002 as amended by the DMC C act 2024, the Secretary of State has a legal duty, not a discretion to issue a foreign state intervention notice if there are reasonable grounds to suspect foreign power making influence over a UK newspaper.

Given the extensive ties newspaper. Given the extensive ties between them and the Chinese state, including Mr Thorntons affiliation with PRC institutions and investments even with Chinese military linked firms, there is clear evidence meeting the statutory threshold under schedule 6B, even indirect influence or the ability to shape policy may suffice. Parliament's intention in passing the DMC C act is precisely to prevent this, therefore the Secretary of State is bound by law to investigate and cannot lawfully ignore the risk of the PRC linked influence over the Telegraph media group.

This position is supported by legal opinion Tom Cross KC and I would ask her to confirm whether that opinion would be formally considered and whether the Secretary of State will now act. Democracy dies, not in thunder, but in whispers. It dies when we look the other way, when we convince ourselves that 15% here and 15% there means nothing. It dies when influence becomes indistinguishable from ownership and when we abandon the courage to act in defence of the free press.

Remember the words of Lord Forsyth during the passage of the digital spill, he said there should be a complete ban on any foreign Government that has either ownership or leadership of our present I agreed with him then and I agreed with him now, that is the will of Parliament, let's not about to be undone by stealth because I commend the Noble Lord foxes clarity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of conviction, this is the time to act, and I support his notion. I just want to intervene briefly,

16:53

Lord Lansley (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to intervene briefly, just to make points about each of the regulations, not just that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the regulations, not just that Presented with regulations that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Presented with regulations that do not adhere to the policy intention which noble Lords have intention which noble Lords have made clear was the statute prohibits made clear was the statute prohibits foreign powers having any stake in foreign powers having any stake in our newspapers. But it allows for the government to make exceptions and it was clear the policy and it was clear the policy intention, then outlined by my noble friend, was to bring in such exemptions by reference to a shareholding of five%.

The point is, 15% figure, as the noble Lord has 15% figure, as the noble Lord has explained, is not the only condition. Schedule 6B presents condition. Schedule 6B presents other conditions that need to be other conditions that need to be met. If there is influence, control met. If there is influence, control or influence, which is not related to the shareholding it can be the basis on which an intervention notice is presented. In fact, the shareholding is only one of a number of tender issues.

Simply because we would arrive at a position where we , with control items. I share my noble friends view. I do not object to them, they do take the definition of newspapers in our public regime to where it ought to be,, publications which relate to news related material, both in hard copy and online. I know that we have discussed with ministers, because the definition of newspapers... The definition of newspaper orders includes news related material, subject to editorial control and editorial control includes that it should be first published by that publication.

It excludes news aggregators online. To give a simple example, I am sure that many Lords use Google news or Apple news, it is a news aggregator, I do not think that we should allow that is not exercising control of our media. They are choosing to determine what the most important stories are that we should see each day, setting the agenda is an essential part of the agenda is an essential part of the postal process.

If you have news aggregators setting the agenda online, I think the control of that aggregator is extremely important issue and it is excluded from our public regime because they do not publish the material that they put online and present to the millions of subscribers, I do put it to the government, that definition should be amended so as to identify that kind of news aggregator online and included under the merger regime.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, I listened carefully to the remarks made and I thank my

16:57

Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)

- -

noble friends for making such a compelling case. If only this was about the survival of specific newspapers, but as we heard clearly, it is about the survival of a fundamental freedom of our media. As has been argued so persuasively. It is the insidious nature of the threat contained within the statutory instrument that alarms me and I believe should alarm us all, that is why I urge all members of your Lordships House to support this motion.

16:58

Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)

- -

There are two practical things that are puzzling me here, the first is, if we swallow the 15% that does not bring influence, and if we do swallow that can be checked, monitored and improved, big mouthfuls to swallow, what is puzzling me, it is approved, what action will be taken, what penalty will be imposed? The second thing that is puzzling me as that we are being asked to allow this investment, essentially, because there is an extension threat.

-- Existential threat. What is going to happen if that cash runs out and more is needed, is there going to be pressure for a further five% to be added or are we going to have another discussion around what is an acceptable level of shareholding, in order to bailout this newspaper again. I have not got the complex conspiracy theories in mind, but that seems an obvious trap to me. If you give money to a struggling business, it is likely to ask you for more later.

16:59

Lord Udny-Lister (Conservative)

- -

To oppose Lord Fox's emotion, and in so doing I have a non-peculiar declaration I must make, I am the co-chairman of a business Council, I am fully aware of the situation. The reality is, the proposal would allow a minority non-controlling stake of up to 50%. I cannot see any issue of this. This is not a majority control, nor is it a backdoor granting of our press to be editorially censored by foreign state actors. We are simply discussing the ability for the national papers to seek investment needed to survive in this interconnected world which we operate.

Anybody who knows anything about any of the sovereign founders in the Gulf or any other countries will know they are all hard-nosed financial institutions who are getting involved in investments because they believe they can make money out of them, and it is not a bad influence, it is about a commercial transaction, that is the point. I think we are just getting a bit too carried away with the belief that, because of the foreign sovereign fund, is making investment, it is seeking editorial control, that is far from the case.

I would make the point that they are both reliable security countries. I would also make the point that the UK media landscape has always had foreign fingerprints, the vast majority of people today, we have already heard from people in this debate, take their news and media from social media giants. They are almost entirely American owned and remain largely unregulated. Where is remain largely unregulated. Where is Do not think any of us are concerned about sovereignty, but the Government, and as far as I know, the United States Government does not have any interests, or hopefully, in any of the social media organisations.

17:02

Baroness Fleet (Conservative)

- -

My Lords. OK, thank your my Lord. My Lords, it is an honour to follow the Noble Lord Lister. He is an old friend and an old colleague and I will declare my interest as former editor of the Evening Standard, deputy editor of the Telegraph, and the daily mail, and the dependent director of Times newspapers. As an editor, I met many newspaper proprietors, and I know that the very rich that want to invest in newspapers do so primarily because they want to have influence.

I have the highest regard for my Noble Friends Lady Stowell and Lord Black of Brentwood and commend their contributions to this debate. However, I know that sometimes there is need for pragmatism and compromise, at times of crisis, political and financial. But, my Lords, when it comes to freedom of the press, there can be no compromise. There is a principle to fight for. Several noble Lords have reminded us that this House came to the conclusion in March last year that foreign states should not own newspapers.

State control and this undermines free speech. We have heard this from the Noble Lord Walton who really is one of the great masters of this subject. And on that basis the Government, then Government, compromised. And agreed that arm's-length sovereign wealth funds could indeed own a maximum stake of 5%. We are now offering a variation that a foreign state can own a maximum of 15% of a newspaper, but in today's statutory instrument that aside there is no limit on the number of states that can each own 15%.

In other words, a coalition of states, thus having a majority ownership and the ability to exercise control. Once the Secretary of State was alerted to this possibility on multiple 15% ownership, over six weeks ago, the Government could have been fleet of foot and pushed through a second site to ensure the spirit of the first SI was not abused, but no, we waited and waited. Only last week as a second SI brought forward closing the loophole, but not immediately, not as part of the first SI, but with a possible date in the autumn.

Today's SI, therefore, has a giant loophole and this is what we are debating today, I believe. Would any savvy business sign a deal with a giant loophole only with a promise to close that loophole sometime in the future? No, of course not. Either we want to protect our freedom of speech and foreign state control or we do not. That is the control or we do not. That is the principal. What is the justification for the 5% ownership, other than a foreign state once more control? Or to save face.

We have not been told. Argue against the fatal motion on the grounds that the Telegraph urgently needs the deal to be agreed is an unacceptable compromise. This House is not here to consider transactions. This House is here to consider a point of principle. Will the Telegraph fold if a foreign state is not legally allowed to own 15%? I do not know, none of us do but that is not the point. I do not accept that we should rely on the government's promise for a second Statutory Instrument which we have heard might actually even not be possible to introduce after the legislation.

To close the loophole. Sometime in the autumn. There is no legal or parliamentary reason why the Government could not have pushed through the second SI by today, so I have grave doubts about this promise. If we agreed to today's regret notion, there is a theory and practice, nothing to stop state for foreign states buying 50% each, making the government's promise for the awesome irrelevant. The Government will say that we can rely on the regulator, the CNMI, perhaps, Ofcom and we have all seen the failure of regulators just think of the water regulator or the city regulator, when it comes to freedom of the press, my Lords, only the law protects, not regulators.

To protect newspapers from any foreign state

**** Possible New Speaker ****

influence, I will support the fatal motion. My Lords, I just wanted to ask a

17:07

Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I just wanted to ask a very quick question of the Minister, very quick question of the Minister, and that quick question is why 15%. A number of noble Lords have said very clearly that 15% does not give influence, but they are missing a very important legal right that cuts in 10% and that is because when acquiring a company if you were able to get 90% you are able to compulsorily acquire the remaining 10% of the squeeze out procedure and for that reason any takeover situation typically you put in a condition that says you will not acquire the company unless you reach 90% or more, so if you hold 10% you can lock the takeover, so why was 15% chosen and not less than 10%?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise very briefly to offer the green group support for the Noble

17:08

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

green group support for the Noble Lord foxes fatal motion and to welcome the Noble Lord Fox back and I will make three brief points, one of which is drawing on my own experience and I claimed the experience and I claimed the position as the former editor of the Guardian before award for the Guardian I worked for the Rupert Guardian owned times member and I was the one subeditor on that for a period of time in early 2000. And there was a lot of interest in the time of what influence Rupert Murdoch had on what the Times did and something happened to me, I watched very closely and there was one case where it was widely known they intervened in the Times coverage, but what I saw regularly evening after evening is seeing your editors agonising, would Rupert like this? Would Rupert not like that? I think this is a point the Noble Lord Clement-Jones about the vision here that the Minister can intervene if they see influence, how are you going to see influence like that? It is not a visible action.

Now, my second point is my rising to support the fabled motion is in no way in support of our current media ownership arrangements, the Green Party has long booked with the media from coalition focusing on the extreme concentration of our inbound media and a handful of right-wing media tycoons. But what is being proposed here is not going to improve that situation, and the third point I want to draw the houses attention to is reflecting on what the Noble Lord Walton said in terms of Chinese influence, there was a ruling this morning in the European Court of Human Rights in a case brought by three former MPs, former Green MP Caroline Lucas.

Now, they did not win their case over the Brexit referendum in 2016, but the court in Strasbourg did find that there were shortcomings in the UK initial responses to allegations and rapid interference in the Brexit referendum campaign, and as Green MP Caroline Toluca said afterwards it is hugely significant that the court has found in favour of our case that foreign interference is a threat to our right to free affairs elections. And I would add a threat to the free and fair democratic debate.

17:10

Baroness Wheatcroft (Crossbench)

- -

I will be brief. I sure noble Lords feel they have heard enough and as another format newspaper editor, I will sit quietly, but festival I must take issue with that comment from the Noble Lady that said that Rupert Murdoch was always an unseen influence on what senior editors wrote, because, as a former senior editor, they disagreed vehemently with Rupert Murdoch in the very many things, I can say that was not a consideration at all of what we wrote and they told the Sun every evening what to write, and they did.

The notion that newspapers are influenced by their proprietors if they wish to be so, and if their audience is happy and I think listening to this debate we seem to have lost the whole idea of what has happened to newspaper audiences and their no longer what they were. The Noble Lord Clement Jones talks about people being at home with their newspapers been delivered and those new newspapers of holding British values. Well, they have been reading the daily Telegraph but my reading of the daily chronograph does not tally with my British values.

It may not tally with everyone's British values here, but I think that newspapers have a role that it is no longer what it used to be. They are fulfilling it to the best of their ability, but competing with numerous other sources and not always succeeding as others have mentioned in various guises of particularly Social Media Bill providing the news that the majority of young people in this country and it is far more dangerous I content than any influence on a major national newspaper.

In some major national newspapers which influence I do not think that key a star would be the Prime Minister today. It may still be Liz Truss, but they do not have that much influence any more. And there is no doubt that the procedure that has brought us to this position has been flawed and I think the Minister will accept the Government must not make a better job of this and if she could give the House some indication that the potential loophole between now and the autumn will be fully bridged, I think that we should support the motion in the name of the Noble Lady because, clearly, there is sufficient regret with the way it has been done and we should not try and pass a fatal motion that looks to a history that no longer really exists.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this is not, as far as I am aware, maybe this is a debate from proprietors and their

17:14

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

influence, this is about state ownership, and that was what we voted on. It is not about whether Rupert Murdoch has an undue influence of the Noble Lord Robinson earlier explained the process through which he concluded I have changed my mind, but has far as I am concerned he has not changed anyone else's and nobody even asked whether we had changed our mind because the second thing that this is about is that this is about subverting primary law that we all voted on behind our backs.

It has been deliberately reversed, a decision that we made, and everybody might have changed their minds, that is not the point. The way that has to be dealt with, if you are going to think abut the constitution, is to bring it back as a debate. If it was not for the fatal motion we would not even be having this debate. And then the final thing is the context. Everyone that has spoken has stood up and said we believe in press freedom and this country press freedom is ultimate, each party declares that they are for press freedom.

Can I just remind you of the context. I am still in shock at the revelations about super the revelations about super injunction brought out by leading members of both parties or brought out by one party supported then by the other party that has, actually, completely slapped press freedom across the face in relation to the Afghan link. The reason I mention that is because when people say can you just trust us, we all believe in press freedom, this is not going to undermine press freedom, press Behind the scenes, the press can be denied rights to information, as far as I am concerned, in this instance, I will support the fatal motion, not necessarily for the reasons indicated but because I think we have to show that press free and Parliamentary procedure's cannot be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

subverted behind our backs. I have been listening quietly to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have been listening quietly to the debate, I think I am the first person derives who has shared a

17:16

Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)

- -

person derives who has shared a newspaper company. Where somebody has 50% control, they have a presence in the boardroom, it depends on the circumstances exactly how that presents might work out, but nobody, it seems to me, has addressed what is a serious point, which is, people who own things... Everything has to be owned by somebody, can change their minds. There is an underlying assumption behind much of what we have heard this afternoon that if you are a foreign state, you can either say, I will not use my position to exercise influence, or you might think, I want to promote my own country in the receiving country.

The problem is the investment market is international and most media, particularly those discussed this afternoon, our national focus. There is a disjunction between the regulatory regime and the realities of the capital markets. All that I would say is, I think it behoves us to be very cautious, as the Queen said, before the Scottish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

referendum, be careful. Never in my wildest dreams I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Never in my wildest dreams I thought my last speech of Leader of the Liberal Democrats in your

17:18

Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)

- -

the Liberal Democrats in your Lordships House would be to express concern about the future of the daily Telegraph. But, politics is a funny business. The arguments we have heard this afternoon full under two broad headings, substance and procedural. On the substance, there is no need to rehearse the argument about why foreign influence on our media is thought to be a bad thing, there is an agreement about that, the logical way in which we stop them being foreign instruments -- foreign influence is to make sure there is no foreign ownership.

But we have heard this afternoon that it is better to have some foreign ownership than for the press to face an existential threat. This argument, one would have thought, is not an entirely new argument, but yet, when the digital markets bill was being debated, amazingly, our media did not face an existential threat, nobody argued, in the course of one year, we have gone from a point where a five% stake by a nonstate foreign actor was thought to be acceptable, we now find that unless foreign governments are allowed to own 15% of newspapers, they face an existential threat.

The question that the noble Lord raised about if it has gone from zero to 15 in one year, where will we be next year? Given that we are told that traditional media is on a slippery slope, I find that a very curious and compelling argument. The question, though, is whether to accept the assurance that a 15% foreign government stake will not influence and not be allowed to influence the editorial stance of a newspaper.

The first argument is that this 15% is merely a passive stake, you are buying 15% in a newspaper in the same way that you might buy it in a oil company or a conglomerate. But, my Lords, given that we are told by the same people that these newspapers are facing an extension threat, is it likely that a hardheaded government will decide that the best use of their funds is to buy a newspaper, or part of newspaper, on a passive excess? Is that investment return looking around the world that they will find for their funds, the answer is no.

The next argument is that there is a backstop. The DCMS will be able to intervene when there is undue influence, but as the noble Baroness said, it is likely that the Minister could intervene, likely could, but supposing influence was exercised in a manner that the government was sympathetic itself to. Would the Secretary of State intervene in those circumstances? If they did not, what pressure and from whom would cause the Secretary of State to intervene? We know that influence over the way it presents itself is a subtle thing.

In those circumstances, where you have a government who was sympathetic to that influence, my contention is that they would get away with it. That amounts to me to be the substantial arguments against the proposition before us. The question about procedure relates to how this has been undertaken. There has been a consultation, they have been responses. Normally, if they had been a consultation with only a four responses, you would start again. There are clearly more than for entities that have a view.

But the for entities all have a similar and partial view because they themselves stand to gain, potentially, by this change. And the government accept that as a reason to change its mind. This seems to me to be extraordinary, I can't think of any other consultation were for entities, peddling their own arguments, would get a government to change its mind. I think that is extraordinary, if we think of it as a consultation at all. The next thing is that this is an SI amending primary legislation.

I think everybody agrees that it is vitally important, this question of press freedom. What happened when this site was debated in the House of Commons? Did they spend this sort of time, did they have impassioned arguments with people changing their minds? They spent 18 minutes on it, the vast bulk of that was the Minister, at the start and at the end. There were literally a couple of speakers in the entire debate. Either the House of Commons is not interested in the issue, or, it did not realise what was going on because it is an SI and, as we know, MPs regard it as being to Siberia for a month.

So, this issue has not been debated at all in reality. In the House of Commons. That seems to be an extraordinary thing. Something which, if most MPs realise what they had agreed to, without actually agreeing themselves to it, they would be opposed to it. So, the whole thing seems to be potentially whole thing seems to be potentially damaging, it shows parliamentary scrutiny, except for your logic ties in this case, to be non-existent. And for it to proceed, I think, would be bad for freedom of the press and the way we deal with these things.

On 3 June, the Earl of Minto was urging people to vote for a fatal motion on the Chagos islands, he said, it was his duty to bring this fatal motion to the House. We think it is our duty to bring this fatal motion to the House and we urge all the noble Lord to support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it feels like a long time since I stood at the despatch time since I stood at the despatch box opposite, taking part in a similar debate on what became the

17:26

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)

- -

17:37

Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)

- -

17:58

Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I thank those of you who did make kind comments, it is good to be back and good to be back to participate in such an important and serious debate. When I thought I was beginning to get to grips with what it is the government is intending, the Minister has introduced a whole new layer of ambiguity, reading the SI and listening to the Minister, they are at odds. Which underlines why we should not be approving this method...

This measure in the way in which we are. It has thrown up many arguments which the government confesses to, but worrying aspects about the outcome of this measure, and these problems, these worries, render a regret motion. That is why I'm going to move this motion and test the Will of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many are amendment be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The question will be decided by a

17:59

Division

question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now when voting is open. Voting is now DEFRA DEFRA my DEFRA my Lords, DEFRA my Lords, the DEFRA my Lords, the question DEFRA my Lords, the question is DEFRA my Lords, the question is that the amendment in the name of Lord Fox be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", the contents will go to the left by the throne and the not contents to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is that the amendment in the name of Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, they have voted contents 155, not contents to hundred and 67, so the not contents hundred and 67, so the not contents

18:12

Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)

- -

hundred and 67, so the not contents have it. My Lords, the amendment has been disagreed to, so now I call the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Stowell on. My Lords, I have not really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have not really gotten off a lot to add to what I said during the debate, I think I covered all of the important points. As I have said, I have accepted a As I have said, I have accepted a tap of 16 % for the funds is necessary to ensure the financial viability of the industry but with viability of the industry but with some safeguards and I am grateful to some safeguards and I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for her gracious acceptance of the criticisms that I have levelled, as have others, about the government's have others, about the government's handling of this.

It was good of her to do that, and I appreciate it. I to do that, and I appreciate it. I take her at her word about bringing back the supplementary relations to back the supplementary relations to deal with the loophole. I am disappointed that she is unable to disappointed that she is unable to give us a guarantee that it would be give us a guarantee that it would be before the end of October and I hear that she says it is the Governments intention as I say that back to the front bench I am also looking at the business managers on the frontbench, the Government.

And that Leader of the House because I think they will know from listening to this debate however they were not in the chamber but the strength of feeling from all noble Lords that loophole which currently exists in these regulations must be closed. My Lords, the noble Baroness the Minister acknowledged my requirement that the transparency and the new notification requirements and supplementary allegation should also include a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament. I know that she was not able to give it a guarantee that they will be reflected in the regulations, but I hope very much that they can be.

I do find it surprising that the Government thinks that is the part requires primary legislation and I am grateful to her commitment to now explore that point and I hope that now and bringing forward those regulations that we can discuss that further and get that properly knelt down. But I think that I will not detain the House any further by pushing this great motion to a debate because the Noble Lord Fox has already made clear that the Liberal Democrats would not feel it necessary, even though they have been so defeated, necessary to support this, but I very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate today.

I think there have been some important speeches made even those by my colleagues who have supported the fatal and I think that we all recognise, as I said earlier, this is a very important matter because one thing we do our share is our commitment to everyone and what day is about is ensuring that it can also survive. I beg leave to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the original motion be agreed to. As many as are motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contrary, "Not content", The Amendment considerations order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment considerations order 2025, Baroness Twycross. The question is the second motion... My question is the second motion... My Lords, the question is the second motion be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Enterprise Act definition of a newspaper, order 2025, Baroness Twycross.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the motion standing in my name. The question is that the third

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the third motion be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. We may take a few moments now for people not taking moments now for people not taking part in the Universal Credit debate

18:18

Legislation: Universal Credit Bill (Money Bill) - second reading and all remaining stages

Universal Credit bill. Universal Credit bill.

18:18

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

I take to move this bill be now read a second time. On top of the usual joys of a debate like this, we are blessed by the unusual compilation of a maiden and a valedictory, I look forward to the Maiden speech of the noble Baroness and touched with sadness by the valedictory speech. This is an important debate. An important occasion, this Bill forms a part of the government reforms to our Social Security system, our welfare state sits alongside the NHS as the two key pillars of our society, when our people need help, they should get it.

The commitment to both of these pillars is absolute, but that commitment cannot mean, in either case, that reform is never possible. I do not think many would disagree that some reform is needed, we have a lower rate of employment to date than before the pandemic and progress in closing the disability employment gap has stalled. One in eight of young people are not in education, employment or training. 2.8 million people are out of work for long-term sick. Whilst the number of people claiming health- related benefits with no requirement to work has increased since 20 2019 by 800,000, 45%.

This is not just about health, claimed for these benefits have in rising faster than the overall prevalence of self- declared health conditions. Things have to change. One problem the structure of the current system, everyone presenting four out of work support is put in one of two categories, classed as can work or can't work. Having created this divide, the system reinforces it financially, someone labelled as can work as expected and supported to find a job and given £92 per week to live on.

Less if they are under 25. Somebody who classed as part work is given twice as much money but little or no help to take steps towards work. This is an unhelpful binary, we know them hundreds of thousands of people claiming health benefits who are ready for work. If the right job or support were available. The system is failing them and the taxpayer. This Bill addresses that problem by addressing Universal Credit whilst protecting those who we do not expect to work from reassessment, we will underpin this by interesting record amounts in employment support for sick and disabled people.

These changes are based on three rules, if you can work, you should. If you need help to get into work, the government should give it to. If you can't work, you should be supported to live with dignity. This Bill is part of a wider package of reforms which include the record investment and employment support for sick disabled people, totalling £3.8 billion over this Parliament. We have published draft regulations on our right to try guarantee, the work in and of itself will never lead to a benefit reassessment, to give people the confidence to try out work.

We are delivering the biggest reforms in a generation, overhauling jobcentres to create a new jobs and careers service, delivering the youth guarantee and joining up work, health and skills support at a local level. This is on top of investing billions into the NHS and moving to create more good jobs across the country, reforming access to work so it is fit for the future and working with businesses on the role that they can play in creating healthy, inclusive workplaces.

We want everybody who could work to have the opportunity, not least because it is the route out of poverty. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness's contrition, try to address her concerns in my closing speech. After the recent changes, we now estimate the package of benefit changes announced at the spring statement, revised to account for the changes to the bill, will lift 50,000 people out of poverty in 2029/30, something I hope the House will welcome. These estimates do not include any impact that our record investment and private support for sick and disabled people might have on T levels.

Turning to the measures in the Bill, previous freezes to the standard allowance and the below inflation increases have built disincentives to work into the system. The Bill starts to address this by rebalancing payments in Universal Credit, including through the first ever sustained above inflation rise. Which the Bill introduces through clause 1. This will be the largest permanent increase in headline rate of out of work benefits. A single person will receive an income boost worth around £725 for a year.

This is balanced by a reduction in the health top up of Universal Credit for most new claimants, with a new rate set out in clause 2. This would also set out to whom this lower rate will apply. Existing claimants, as well as those with severe lifelong conditions that we do not expect to be able to work, and those nearing end of life, will continue to receive the current, higher rate. For those groups, it will ensure, through the cancellation for, the combined weight of the standard allowance and the health top up, in any tax year, will rise in line with inflation at least.

That means the income from these benefits will be protected in real terms for every year of this Parliament. Clause 3 makes it possible to offer this protection and freeze the top rate by removing the relevant rate for the Secretary of State operating review. Clause 5 mirrors the changes through causes one to four in employment support allowance, whilst clause 6 makes the corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland. We believe these changes strike the right and fair balance, they allow us to build a more proactive, pro-work system for the future that gives people the right incentives.

They also protect existing claimants who are familiar with the support and might find it difficult to readjust if that were to change. It also protects the most vulnerable, regardless of whether they are already claiming the top. That is why schedule 1 of the bill will ensure that people with severe, lifelong health conditions, will never be reassessed, venting unnecessary anxiety and giving them dignity and security of they deserve. Welfare reform is not easy, it never has been, but it is really important they get it right, that is why we have always said we will listen to disabled people as we deliver our reforms.

The House will be aware this Bill originally set out to reform PIP as well as UC. Having listened carefully to a full range of opinions, the government has removed the clauses relating to PIP from the bill. We will now look at it in around. We have published terms of reference for this review and expected to conclude by autumn of next year, it will be led by my honourable friend and co-produced with disabled people and other stakeholders, as we work to make PIP fit for the future.

This Bill is an important part of wider reforms to give disabled people the same rights, chances and choices to work as everybody else, it rebalancing Universal Credit to remove disincentives and gives existing claimants the security and certainty they need whilst providing new protections against unnecessary reassessments. There is more work to be done. Much of that is underway, it will take a system step closer to fulfilling the vision giving everyone a pathway to work. everyone a pathway to work.

18:26

Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness with her usual clarity, it is regrettable we have only second reading, with no further stages, as there is so much up for debate and so much progress imperative to make and is simply no not been made. In the area of welfare and health and stability related benefits. The noble Baroness has given what sounds, on the surface, like a considered approach to the strategy. But the House will not be fooled, the truth is, this is a case of much the truth is, this is a case of much fiddling.

With the facts. Because we are on course to spend one in every four pounds of income tax on sickness benefits alone, more than we spend on our entire national defence. By the end of this decade, the cost will exceed £100 billion from current £60 billion. This is unsustainable and it puts at risk the long-term viability of the system itself. Now, the word unsustainable comes not from me but from the right honourable, the senior adviser in the DBP and ex- Labour Secretary of State, following the cave in by the government to its Back Benchers against the proposed £5 billion reduction.

He has cautioned against running away from reform. Of course, he is right, the noble Baroness, Alison McGovern, on any questions on Friday, said that progress must be made on welfare. However, following the removal of clause 5, the Secretary of State said, in the other place, PIP is not about making savings, it is about making sure this benefit is fair and fit for the future. A rapid and catastrophic moving of the goalposts, presume Secretary of State has put in a call to the OBR stand them down from scoring on any savings.

I wonder what the Chancellor thinks about this. As a Resolution Foundation has stated, the body from whence came the bill. The government has basically eradicated all of the savings they hope to make this decade, it is extraordinary that the review means that this report will not be ready until autumn 2026. Think about that, two years and three months after the general election and into the next Parliament. The government will need to respond. More than 3,000 people per day will continue to sign on to PIP.

Will the government response be published at the same time of the review? Why is the review going to take so long? It is likely that legislation will then be required, how long will this take, how long will Little take. These delays are a major issue for the government, very damaging and expensive, 28 million working people are supporting the livelihoods of another 28 million people. She went on, and I quote, this country is a welfare state supporting an economy.

As a Leader in the time highlighted last week, this is one of the most serious issues stifling growth. A key driver for this government, as we have been hearing. The noble Baroness the Minister is likely to produce a cost concerning the last 14 years, I hope she does because it is a positive story, the last government made the hard choice to reform Universal Credit, replacing six benefits with one, leading to a system that proved 100% robust under the severe pressures of a Covid in 2020/21, the pressures of a Covid in 2020/21, the You're so generated next reform million jobs and this should not be forgotten.

This is a huge contrast to the current deteriorating macroeconomic background, stemming directly from this government decisions and I will name a few. Inflation remains above target at 3.6%. Payroll employment is down 0.6% compare to this time last year. Vacancies are down by over 63,000 year-on-year. Slack in the economy is widening and debt now stands at 94% of GDP. Behind economic supplies a deeper moral case for reform. Lady Stedman-Scott may expand upon this later. We commenced our own PIP consultation in 2023, so why was this pulled by the government in favour of their own one? Was in years, and I mean years of delays to change.

This was surely ideological driven and in retrospect, another big error made by the government. Let me state an important point. On these benches we have consistently said and we continue to emphasise, and it is also my personal viewpoint that those who generally need help notably if it is a severe mental or physical condition or illness, the state, and by the state I'm in the taxpayer, should provide support. After all we are developed uncivilised nation. But radical reform is needed which the last government started on the back of the COVID period.

And a measure of the current urgency is either highlighted by the Centre for Social Justice. I quote them. The recipient of the highest level of sickness benefits and £2500 per year more than someone on the national living wage. We continue to believe that individual help is needed to aid those people, that is those on sickness -related benefits into work which is essential and urgent for a range of different cohorts. Because what we need is not just money, it is targeted investment that works.

Higher welfare that is compassionate, it can trap people, stripping them of agency, of purpose and independence. A life on benefits is not a life of dignity, it is aspiration, it is work and opportunity that comfort might confirm meaning. Dependency corrodes. Let us speak plainly. UK cannot sustain the situation any longer in which one in four people self identifies as disabled. That is not compassion, it is category or descriptor creep. We will risk draining the time of its meaning and its moral force.

The welfare state must be focused, it must be functional and it must be fair. It was Trevor Phillips who made an interesting recent observation in the Times, he said that the 1995 disability discrimination act marked a transition from what was called the medical model of disability, to a social model. Meaning that a disability was deemed to have become a manifestation of human diversity. So the number of people who came under the description of disabled, and this is a very important point, has rocketed from one in 52 one in four.

That is 60 million inactive people. The cohort for benefit eligibility has ballooned from 600,000 in 1990 The cohort for benefit eligibility has ballooned from 600,000 in 1997.2 million today. This part explains why 47% of those who self-declared disability successfully between the ages of 16 and 65 do so for mental health or musculoskeletal reasons. This is why welfare reform is no longer a matter of political choice and the government know it. It's a matter of national necessity and urgent national necessity. Which was alluded to by the Minister we are told £1 billion plus a bit more from the last spending review has been allocated to support people back into work.

But is this serious structural reform or is it just surface level spending. What is the breakdown of that allocation, how far will it go? Who will make the decisions and how much it will reach frontline human facing interventions and could the baroness in hope winding up give us more information on this. Can the noble Baroness at least they win the right to try SI will be debated and is likely to commence, and also rolled out on the ground? At last I turn briefly to the bill itself.

Well, it makes a damp squib. The easiest decision for the government there decision is the increase in the UC rates. Then we have the severely water down LC WRAP and for new claimants from April 2026 was that is basically it. The bill before us today, what remains of it, fails to take the bold and essential steps required to reduce dependency, bring down the welfare bill, empower PIP claimants and reform eligibility criteria. The bill offers no credible strategy to reduce long-term demand on the system.

What in this Bill helps to address the rise in the sicknote culture? The increasing ease with which people are signed off work with the sicknote, where is the reform to clinical accountability or the incentives to keep people engaged in the labour market and perhaps the noble Baroness in her winding up could address these points. I believe the political fault lines are now clear. Labour entered office decrying a fiscal hole, then reached for tax rises not reform. Higher taxes were not inevitable, they were a choice, a preference not a necessity.

But this government facing its own internal rebellion as we have seen now retreated from reform altogether. However the electorate sees through this paralysis, they know the real questions which remain unanswered. And they are briefly who truly needs state support. How do we reduce dependency without punishing the vulnerable, and how do we ensure that systems designed to protect don't entrench disempowerment. These are the questions that the bill fails to answer. Nowhere is the gap clearer than in the government's abandonment of the PIP review and clause 5.

It was a crucial opportunity to reset eligibility, rebuild public confidence and ensure that the system is reaching the right people. Why was it quietly cancelled? We do need structural reform now, reform that reduces dependency, narrows eligibility where appropriate and ensures those in genuine need are protected and supported. Ministers appear unwilling to confront the hard trade-offs or to engage seriously with what writing dependency and spiralling costs mean for the future of the welfare state and the state of the national finances.

I conclude with another sobering statistic. Benefit claimants in most member states in the OECD have fallen below three COVID levels, in the UK they have increased so welfare dependency unfortunately they British disease. I conclude on a more conciliatory note, I look forward to the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness Lady Bryan and to the Maiden speech of Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson who I suspect may highlight issues relating to work, welfare and the family, not least from her in -- influential and authoritative.

Spend number 10.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To say this bill in its various incarnations has had a bumpy ride would be something of an

18:39

Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)

- -

would be something of an The bill is now being rushed through Parliament at what feels to me as an indecent pace and now having been assigned as a Money Bill means this chamber cannot undertake its normal scrutiny was in short this bill has had neither proper consultation nor in-depth scrutiny and to be blunt, the whole parliamentary process has been shambolic. I fear it has seriously damaged trust with disabled people including those with mental health problems who have needlessly gone through turmoil.

I totally understand that the current welfare bill is unsustainably high and that reform is needed, if the government was serious about cutting welfare spending at source it would also get serious about fixing Health & Social Care without delay so as to tackle chronic ill-health at its root rather than to start by trying to cut funding from carers and some of the most vulnerable. Having made those general points I now want to focus on two specific issues which give real cause for concern.

The first is mental health. The initial plans when the bill was introduced would have had a devastating impact on people with mental health problems. Whilst I welcome the announcement of the Tim's review of the PIP assessment, point I will return to, remain fundamental flaws with the government plans. Cuts to Of Universal Credit which remains all mean about 750,000 disabled people will miss out on about 3,000 per year by the end of the decade. This will include many people with mental health problems who find themselves too unwell to work.

These cuts to Universal Credit are supposed to be safeguarded by the new severe conditions criteria which apply to people who meet a set of requirements including having a lifelong condition and being likely to satisfy the relevant criteria for the rest of their life. This will mean two things. Firstly that at least one of the descriptors of people's conditions applies to them and I quote constantly, and secondly they will have been given an official diagnosis from an NHS practitioner will stop I share the concern of many of the sector about requirement for a descriptor to apply constantly because for many mental health problems even severe one such as schizophrenia people's mental health can be fluctuating.

The sort of fluctuating condition of course also applies to people with severe conditions such as MS and Parkinson's, and also concerned about the new NHS diagnostic requirement we know that many people with mental health problems can wait years to receive a diagnosis and many people feel forced to receive treatment or seek it outside of the NHS because of the very long waiting lists or inaccessible services. It doesn't feel fair to penalised people who seek private diagnosis and treatment due to the inadequacies of the current NHS.

On the Tim's review independence payment I do share the concern expressed by some about the extent to which this review will be genuinely co-produced endeavour. Despite welcome promises to work closely with disabled people on changes to the system, the way this bill has been handled so far and frankly the way it fell apart demonstrated a clear lack of Compositae should with the people most affected. It's also unclear what obligations the government will have to implement the recommendations of the review whether they will need to be bound by the current spending of the cuts we've already seen.

Could the Minister give me an assurance there will be proper parliamentary scrutiny including full debates in both chambers following the publication of the Tim's review? I return to the impact of this bill on unpaid carers. Given that PIP is a crucial gateway for carer's allowance and other benefits and because 150,000 disabled carers themselves receive PIP it's absolutely vital that the government provides firm commitment that unpaid carers and organisations that represent them will be consulted and fully engaged with throughout the Tim's review.

This time we really need to take the time and get it right. I end by asking the Minister what assurances the government can give that the outcome of the Tim's review will not lead to significant numbers of unpaid carers being put at risk of losing their own benefits entitlement? I think it's worth reminding ourselves that the original bill would have resulted in 150,000 carers losing entitlement to carer's allowance. I quote from one carer you said, the extra costs we face as carers will not disappear if the health element is cut.

For those like myself who are carers and disabled this will be a double

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whammy.. Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. Is a great pleasure to follow

18:44

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a great pleasure to follow Baroness Tyler and to very much echo her comments about concerns about procedural ways in which this is being rushed through in the way in which it having been declared a Money Bill denies us a broader debate that we might otherwise be having. I want to begin by thanking the Minister for introducing the bill and welcome Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson and express my sadness to see the departure of Baroness Bryan of Partick. Going to begin perhaps surprisingly by agreeing both with the Minister and Viscount Younger that we have a problem with ill-health.

Except what we have is a problem with ill- health, it's not a problem with providing benefits for ill-health. Baroness Tyler referred to the delays and the problems with NHS treatment and social care, I would add to the fact that we are a deeply unhealthy society. We have terrible quality of food system, we have terrible quality of housing. We have problems with air quality, we have problems with the nature of the environment, we have problems with low pay and insecure work. All of these things make people ill, and what we need to do very much as tackle those issues, but that is not going to, if we deny people money, if we deny people enough to live on to be to afford healthy food that is not going to make them healthier.

That's the basic reason for my regret motion. I think it's really important to explain I've spent more time explaining what a regret motion is in the past couple of days that I might have expected and I think a lot of people who are listening tonight, it's worth stressing that the House of Lords has no power to the House of Lords has no power to I regret motionless the strongest thing I am able to do. What I am intending to do and I have tried to make sure that everybody knows this, so they are aware of it.

I'm intending to put this regret motion to abode. I think it is really important that people out there who are going to be affected by this bill have a chance to know that there are people there supporting them. I note of course in the other place 47 Labour MPs, and many others indicated at third reading that they did not want this bill to proceed. Now the regret motion notes that the effects of the bill on age discrimination, the impact of people on people of high levels of need in mental health conditions and the overall impact on rates and severity of poverty among people with disabilities.

And note the important human rights concerns expressed by the UN committee on the persons with disabilities. The respect the disability rights UK briefing on this bill, which I have a widely circulated and I quote, "Debt and poverty are already a fact of life for existing disabled claimants of Universal Credit, with many unable to afford essential such as food, energy and housing. The initial cost of disability. The cuts will exacerbate this grave the situation even further, pushing people into deeper poverty.

" I and I'm sure many other noble Lord have received a flood of briefings from organisations representing disabled people, including scope, sense, the cystic fibrosis trust, the mental health trust and Amnesty International. The last very clearly identified is the UN as a human rights issue. The regret motion points out. The latest letter from the UN committee point that this is They have already identified that there was a problem. If we want to look at what that means, recent research from the Trussell Trust and YouGov found that one in five people receiving a universal and disability benefits are now have been forced to use a food bank, in the past month.

What's that going to do to people's health? How is that going to equip them to actually to find work if that is even a possibility. Now there is a further joint briefing involving many of those organisations and additional benefit consortium, the Joseph Rowntree foundation, Trussell Trust, New Economics Foundation, Z2K, turn to, the MS Society. This highlights how it means the existing recipients of the industry Universal Credit will not see the payments frozen but will also, not feel most of the benefit of the increase.

In the standard allowance. Which the noble Lady the Minister and the government has made a job. About 50,000 more people, disabled people and people in households with a disabled people are predicted to be in poverty by 2030 as a result of that. Perhaps the most pernicious part of this is the clause which cut the minimum capability for work related activity, LC W RA, government and Universal Credit. The health element. Going to affect more than 750,000 disabled people by £3000 a year.

An effect that will continue to grow. Unless we get a future government concerned about the rights of disabled people. And basic humanity. That of course means age discrimination, since younger people are far more likely to be affected. And as A Sense point out for the people it represents the complex needs if they receive £47 less in support each week, 1/4 would be pushed into debt, often further debt and one in five say that they will be forced to go without essential support to basically live their lives.

Now, the government claims and the noble Lady the Minister said that some people were terminal in and lifelong conditions will be protected, but the impact assessment confirms that fewer than 10% of new claims would be saved by this. I go to the cystic fibrosis trust who says that few of the adults erect zones are likely to meet the severe conditions criteria. "Despite the fact that a typical person was cystic fibrosis, and the health element of Universal Credit, is someone who cannot walk 200 metres, within a reasonable timescale, the majority of the time is at risk of avoiding the bells of bladder and would spend a significant portion of their day performing their daily treatment.

These are the people of this bill explicitly targets for benefit cuts. " If the noble Lady do the Minister can tell me that they are going to be protected, I would be interested to have that on the record, but that is not what charities who are experts in this area believe. Parkinson's note that it has legal opinions from two different experts, concluding that the severe criteria is likely to affect people with Parkinson's from getting the higher rate health element.

I came into your Lordships' House promising to share the voice of the voiceless. I have received and I'm sure many others have received hundreds of emails from individuals, disabled people and their carers, setting out the situation. I'm going to use it, with permission, just one. I'm not going to name the person, to protect their and their family's privacy. This person, this woman is a firm elected Labour councillor. A former NHS professional and she is a carer for a young adult autistic son and for a parent with Multiple Sclerosis.

She says, I am currently advocating for my son who was applied for Universal Credit. He is now undergoing the UC WA assessment. Without me helping him, my son could not negotiate the system. Cutting the health element for these young people is wicked. This is how they end up on the streets, when there is no family to streets, when there is no family to support them. She says, this action has been drafted should actually have been shafted by the SEND system. Most did not meet their potential in school.

She notes that the first requirement is expert communication skills. She says my son is selectively mute. He is at an immediate disadvantage. I would ask In responding for the opposition to confirm to me that she would agree, having listened to Viscount Leckie's speech that she would agree that this is a family that needs the strongest possible support. I hope that the noble Lady can confirm. And I'm going to conclude with the remarks of this former Labour councillor, who says, a quote I am shocked and appalled at this proposal.

It really will destroy proposal. It really will destroy lives. " I have to finish myself by concluding that I'm really sorry that I'm not going to be able to respond individually to everybody who is in has e-mailed me, the who is in has e-mailed me, the volume is to be grateful. There is a collective testimony, that disabled people in our society and not feeling, as the Keir Starmer told the Liaison Committee yesterday in that he wants them to feel. They are not feeling secure and supported.

They said they are feeling absolutely the opposite. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. The question is that the read a second time. Since an amendment by second time. Since an amendment by second time. Since an amendment by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, at the end insert the words are set at on the Order Paper. The question I on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that the amendment, in the name of Baroness Berridge Bennett of Alnwick Castle be agreed to? -- Baroness Bennett of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Manor Castle. As President of the Local Government Association, and also in receipt of PIP. I've received many emails from people worried about proposed changes. I'm extremely proposed changes. I'm extremely concerned about how this narrative

18:55

Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)

- -

has paid out in the media. Disabled people are being portrayed as a benefit scroungers and a drain on society. Also, I'm disappointed that this has been made a money bill. Recognising this bill is different from what his Majesty's government originally intended, due to concessions. I am frustrated that members in the other place when talking about PIP specifically have seem to have become confused. It is not an in work benefit. And inflating the pathways to the paper. It is not a benefit limited with the work not.

These inaccuracies do not help the recent debate about proposed changes. I do want to briefly cover personal independent payment payment. It is integral for disabled people's lives. It exists because society is inaccessible. Successive governments have been slow to bring about necessary changes to society more inclusive. Disabled people face discrimination in all areas of their lives, whether that be public transport, healthcare, education or employment to name a few. I think people should be working and I do agree that the system is not sustainable in its current format.

However the extra costs of being disabled have not gone away. They published a disability pricetag, even after taking PIP into account the average disabled household includes one adult or child facing extra costs of £975, per month. This figure is £975, per month. This figure is updated yearly. The report on the IPPs today has reported there are errors in the way that PIP has been awarded. That could cause DWP another £260 billion. Ultimately, I believe we are missing a fundamental opportunity to look at the whole system.

I hope the access to work can be part of a wider review. What we are doing at the moment now feels slightly piecemeal. What we have of the current bill could be developing a two tier system. I would like to repeat the comment of the noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, from disability rights UK. A quote desperate poverty is already a fact of life disabled claimants. Many unable to afford essentials such as food, energy and housing, and additional cost of disability.

Cot 's will exasperate this even further, pushing people into poverty -- cuts will. " There are some positives. The proposed increased and son allowance means 2.3 million disabled people currently receiving Universal Credit will see a total and receive protection. Dramatic cuts to Universal Credit still remain in the bill. Such is the restricted eligibility gateway, with a severe contusions criteria. The Institute for Fiscal Studies Resolution Foundation think the latest concessions could mean a no net savings by 2029 or 2013. I am concerned that the tone of the debate has generated quite a lot of victim blaming for disabled people to stop this is an ever more apparent than the debate about mobility cars.

I do not have a mobility car but when I was learning to drive it was the only way I could afford to do so as public transport was even less accessible than it is now. The cost of insurance when you drive is high. Even more so if you're young. In the media it has been portrayed as a free car, which it is not. We should remember over the years it has considerably helped the car industry. There is a website which was taken down over the weekend, with promises to put it back up.

Which would help people detect and I quote, "If an annoying neighbour, is seen driving a new car. " This is actually quite terrifying for disabled people. It has been reported to the police and it feels like it crosses the line. Looking at the website over the weekend, the replies are despicable. This doesn't feel like we are in a collaborative environment, in which to have a sensible debate. The reality is that the system is too complicated. Many disabled people find themselves unable to navigate the complex and lengthy processes.

Finally we do not have time today, but I would refer a system that is better able to assess people's needs. Where we waste less money where an appeal has been overturned. Finally a welcome at the noble Lady do the Minister's comments. Now it is time to rebuild trust and have a genuine consultation. I would ask her about more information about how we can coproduce properly with disabled people. The everybody we have to find a better solution.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend, the way she introduced the debate. I look forward, with great anticipation to forward, with great anticipation to forward, with great anticipation to the main, maiden speech... We will the main, maiden speech... We will miss her. Sorry. I support the bill,

19:00

Baroness Andrews (Labour)

- -

miss her. Sorry. I support the bill, because it has found, I think, in a very difficult time and in a very contested situation and honourable way through these issues. She has started to correct the distortion. Which is developed between the standard provision and the health elements of Universal Credit. It has begun to nudge towards, what we want to see, which is a more effective way of supporting people into work. That is the great prize, My Lords. I also welcome the fact, however that PIP has been removed and it is now going to be in the guardianship of Sir Stephen Tim.

There couldn't be a better person to look at. A man of huge integrity. And respect. Very likely to listen very closely to the people he is going to involve. He has already begun to involve Possibly weeks have been agonising for disabled people and their carers and it could have been avoided if the decision had been taken earlier to do what's Stephen intend to do now which is bring that into the dialogue so they will help coproduce and co-own the future of any review or sustainable future because their input.

The scale of the challenge has been set out not just by the Minister but by Viscount Younger between 2019 and March 2025 the numbers of working age adults claiming disability grades from three to 4 million to 113 to one in turn, phenomenal increase and within that of course the disproportionate increase of people with mental health. This has all been compounded by years of poor health and disability, rising poverty, deepening inequalities measured and recorded, but there have been years I say to Viscount Younger all parties have to own that failure, that legacy.

Failure to plan for an ageing population which we knew decades ago would require rethinking relationship between health and care. Failure to anticipate the impact of rising retirement age and the numbers of chronically sick and disabled in work. Failure to care about the inevitable impact of austerity, a decade of austerity and the loss of essential services would have on physical and mental health young and old alike. It was all left in the box and the box has now been opened. By this government, with a Most recently of course COVID changed not just patterns of physical and mental health but patterns of behaviour which we still do not fully understand.

There are some explanations but there is no one conclusive explanation so our watch, we have this inescapable duty and to share it to make not just PIP but a new social contract, welfare state which is itself fit for the future. And to meet the need for work as well as support. If nothing cases changes for a million people now, young people out of work and employment, education, they will be condemned by design to further unemployment. And poverty. I welcome the Tim's review and that is welcome I think as well for people with disabilities.

I had the privilege of chairing the Select Committee on Social care we heard over a considerable length of time from disabled people and their carers about how the system is not working for them. The precarious nature, the sense of anxiety every time there is a review, they know that the greatest danger is to do nothing and therefore the risk, the Social Security will be even worse maybe to the point of collapse in the next 10 years. I particularly welcome the emphasis on coproduction using experts by experience you can really inform the Minister on what works and what doesn't.

I want to send a particular message via our minister today has already been mentioned by Lady Tyler, it is about the absolute necessity of carers being involved, unpaid carers being involved in the review, in the leadership roles as well. He has said in the other place it will be a consideration. Let's please have some information to reassure carers that they will be on that review, their voices will be heard, because as we showed in our report two years ago, the tragedy of the unpaid carers that they are and they feel invisible and if they are left out this review it will be another egregious indication that they really do not matter.

Whatever changes for them they will have to go on caring and whatever happened to PIP will have an immediate and direct impact on them, and I do trust our minister to take that message to the other place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to begin by offering my congratulations to Baroness Chalker Wilson and look forward to her --

19:05

The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops)

- -

Wilson and look forward to her -- Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson and to Baroness Bryan for her valedictory. My remarks also begin by thanking ministers for listening to concerns about the bill as it was initially brought forward. Functional social security system is one that tackles poverty and supports people to live full lives, with that the system needs to retain public confidence expressing the best of our values and must also strike a balance between people who are able to work being supported to do so.

While ensuring people who cannot work are protected and cherished for who they are. We need economic growth that is not disputed. This is after all, a Money Bill. But I have a concern at those who are either left behind or do not fit the model of financial productivity at the rate that seems to be design. There is a granularity to this debate about the complexity of people's life that do not always fit into neat economic models. I therefore note the point made by Baroness Bennett in her regret motion about the rates of poverty among disabled people who are already disproportionately likely to be living in poverty.

This can have an impact on children, making their start in life all the more challenging, deepening systemic injustices. This landscape of poverty and economic inactivity is acute in the area covered by my dioceses in the north-east. There are opportunities to make a difference in local communities, devolved authority mayors, councillors, community leaders and citizens. But turning the tide on poverty still requires decisive leadership and vision from central government. One of dozens of emails I have received in recent days came from a father in the north-east who told me about his son who has complex disabilities.

We would like to work one day but who are struggling to navigate what feels like a punitive approach to the changes to Universal Credit. This capacity to enter the workforce basis barriers even before he can contemplate exploring opportunities. Our values should hold us to account for how we raise up the most weak and vulnerable. So what do we need? I suggest some joined up thinking. I understand the governments desire to reform the system, it is becoming more expensive to administer, and even if it were not proportionate action should be taken to help people make the most of their gifts and skills.

Whether in the labour market or through volunteering in the community. But the fact that Social Security spending is rising and more people receive health benefits points to shortcomings elsewhere as other noble Lords have elsewhere as other noble Lords have pointed out. When it comes to PIP we should not shy away from the difficult questions the Tim's review needs to ask and answer about the assessment process, the treatment of physical and mental health, and a reasonable eligibility threshold. None of that can happen without tackling some of the causes of ill- health.

The underinvestment in social security and social housing in recent decades, the shortage of mental health provisions the effects of insecure, demoralising work and many other areas other noble Lords have only spoken to. I'm glad that some of these challenges are being addressed by government, but I hope they will not be considered in isolation. That the government will monitor the impact of the spill closely and that the lives of all our citizens can be improved so we may all flourish together, each

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need. I'm grateful to the Minister for her introduction and to noble Lords

19:09

Lord Rook (Labour)

- -

her introduction and to noble Lords fort has orally been a broad discussion, I look forward to hearing the Maiden speech of Lady Shawcross Wilson and to her contribution to your Lordships house in the days to come, I also look forward to the valedictory speech of Baroness Bryan and I wish the noble Lady all the best for the future. A long time ago in a land not so far away I worked for the Salvation Army as a youth worker. In these distant times there was a new and unhappy category of young person emerging in our communities.

One of the entirely the stuff of fantasy fiction the prospect of sustainable employment for those young people who we called NEETs was not that great. When working life was concerned those young adults who were not in education, employment or training needed the government and communities to help them on their way. As was the case in 2009, we now have almost one million, we now have almost 1,000,016 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training. I welcome the efforts contained in this bill to reduce those numbers by increasing the incentive and support provided.

This will help to reduce long-term benefit dependency, motivate young people to find their place in the workplace and enable those who currently feel left out to seek a way back in. In 2009 the Stephen Timms now Minister of State for DWP and the other place was the architect of the Future jobs fund. As a youth worker I saw first-hand how this program provided the aspect -- aspiration and activation of so many young adults needed to step up onto the first rung of the career ladder.

I believe the bill before the House today provides young people with similar prospects for people with similar prospects for people with similar prospects for As with other legislation I am keen that we prioritise young people. After all, this generation has been disproportionately affected by the COVID pandemic and other societal challenges. While the current economic outlooks clearly restrict the resources available to government, the Department's investment of 2.2 billion over the next four years to increase work health and skill support for all those struggling to find suitable employment is more than welcome.

Once a youth worker, always a youth worker. When my youth work skills are certainly less demand, less in demand here in your Lordships house, my heart still goes out to those young people struggling to make their way in our country today. Of all the challenges we face the current mental health epidemic among young people is among the most significant and urgently demand the attention of government as a whole. For a significant number of those people not in education employment or training, anxiety depression and other comply conditions and provide a seemingly insurmountable barrier to employment.

I am particularly heartened with the right to try guarantee this will make it easier for those out of work to make a go of things in the workplace. Where support for young adults is concerned I hope that today's legislation will be a good start and not the whole story. There is much that needs to be done, for their sake and ours. I am grateful for that tireless work of the Minister Lady Sherlock and stand to support the bill today. Given his previous success in this area I am thankful that the Stephen Timms has been tasked with bringing his unique expertise to the upcoming Tim's review.

I hope there will be more creative and impactful policy to come and remain keen to see other institutions take the governments lead and invest in our young adults. At the Salvation Army I saw how a large employer could grasp government policy such as the Future jobs fund to give disadvantaged young people a much needed hand up. And thus reduce the requirement for future handouts. As the government seeks to quicken the path of young adults into future jobs through this bill, I hope that other institutions will also redouble their efforts to give youth a chance and provide

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future generation with a brighter future. Is a great pleasure to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a great pleasure to follow Lord Rook and I am also looking forward to the Maiden speech of my

19:13

Baroness Browning (Conservative)

- -

noble friend Baroness Shawcross- Wolfson and to hear Baroness Bryan's valedictory speech later in the debate. I should declare my interest as the Vice President of the National statistics Society and note that I am a vice chair of the APG for both autism and Parkinson's -- autistic Society. I will not talk about PIP, we will most certainly return to that after the report. This bill proposes that people with disabilities applying for Universal Credit in 2,000... 2026 /27 will receive a reduced amount of benefit from £97 per week to £47 per week.

It's a little early to know what the Equality Act will make of that, two people, same needs, same disability, I suggest it would be very helpful if when the Minister sums up we hear what the appeal procedure is going to be because I suggested going to be put to a lot of use. Young disabled people with limited capacity to work related, work with related activity will not be able to claim according to this bill until they are 22, at the moment under the age of 22 younger teenagers and those who are above 18 can claim.

We are talking here about children most likely to have grown up with a lifelong disability, and now they must wait until they are 22. If there is anything one can do to help children with lifelong disabilities, it is to give them a sense of purpose. The idea that there is going to be a stopgap in that Under this bill, disabled people will be required to provide an NHS a diagnosis to comply with the severe conditions criteria. The criteria and narrow and could reduce as we heard the annual amount by 3,000 a year, by 2028.

Could the Minister explain, if a person has a private diagnosis, from a registered. To or psychologist, will that be accepted? The government calls these changes and adjustments, balancing. I understand the government's problem and it is a problem I know is growing exponentially. I do agree with the comments that we have heard from a Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, about the impact on the sickness of the nation, for various reasons and that has affected the general health, both in terms of environmental issues and also, from Baroness Andrews, who raised the Of experiencing covert, as a nation.

I still do not think we fully understand the impact that Covid has had. Not only by those families who lost people, but those people who worked on the work front. I believe that has had an impact far greater then we fully understand. In today's times, William Hague writes and he quotes, " I'm going to mention another Labour...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The former Labour Secretary of State says the government should reform to a 10 year horizon, not a reform to a 10 year horizon, not a single parliament. I agree with that. I believe the single parliament approach, or the cliff edge, as it is sought people into those who receive benefits and those who do not. And I would go further. who do not. And I would go further. The employment, the employment and opportunities for disabled people opportunities for disabled people and the benefits they qualify for should not be based on A1 size fits all.

We have heard from the many charities, I too have heard from most of the charities mentioned we all have grave concerns for their members about the impact. And they members about the impact. And they do need to be reassured. As of course do people with disabilities course do people with disabilities themselves. Those people with disabilities who do not achieve an disabilities who do not achieve an out of work benefit or a workplace benefit these people will end up in benefit these people will end up in the second division of priority and will be affected.

There is no doubt they will be affected. The results will become obvious in time. I know the government hoped that a new approach to employment training and and opportunities for disabled people will bridge that damage. I know this Minister in particular will do her best to see that happens. It would have been a far better if there was a 10 year transition, with the job changes preceding the change in benefits.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... It's an honour to follow Baroness Browning. The retirement of

19:19

Lord Hendy (Labour)

- -

Baroness Browning. The retirement of Baroness Ryan of is a loss to the House and a loss to me personally. She has made a significant contribution on behalf of her adopted home in Scotland to devolution and constitutional affairs more specifically, in spite of the fact she is really a Cockney Sparrow. She has many friends here and I shall particularly miss her friendship and solidarity. I join, with others to welcome Baroness Shawcross also and I look forward to her maiden speech which follows in a few moments.

Turning to the bill, it was introduced, of course to cut government spending on welfare. That was the justification, originally. That was and is not necessary. In the sixth richest country in the world, there are many more ways of balancing the government's books, then cutting payments to the then cutting payments to the disabled. My noble friend the Minister says that these changes will encourage those who will lose the benefit, into work and work the way out of poverty. I understand the sentiment of course, but to factors must be borne in mind.

First of all there are not 750,000 vacant jobs waiting for disabled, or partially disabled people to fulfil. Secondly, the jobs that may be available will not necessarily lift them out of poverty. The fact is that 31% of those on Universal Credit are in work. So low are the wages at the bottom end of the labour market. The proposed changes as has been mentioned cut the health elements of universal credit for those claiming after April 2026, from £97 a week to £50 a week.

That cart does not reflect diminished need, but is irrespective of need. It is slowly to save the government money. That I find unacceptable. The proposed changes also appear to conflict with the U.K.'s obligations, under the international economic, social, cultural rights and the UN Convention on the rights of people with disabilities. The International covenant on economic cultural rights covenant on economic cultural rights , with that name. They have said this, "In his general comments, number five, and persons with disabilities, the committee emphasised the importance of providing adequate income support, to persons with disabilities, who, owing to disability and disability -related factors have temporarily lost or received a reduction in their income.

Have been denied employment opportunities, or have a permanent disability. Benefits, whether in cash or kind must be adequate. In amount and duration, in order that everyone may realise his or her rights to family protection and assistance. An adequate standard of living and living and an adequate access to healthcare, as contained in articles 10, 11 and 12 of the covenant. And under the UN declaration, Article 28 provides state parties recognise the rights of people with disabilities to an adequate standard of living, for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing and a continuous improvement in living conditions and should take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realisation of this right, without discrimination, on the basis of disability.

I won't read further time. There is a risk that the UK is, I will become in breach of its international obligations. In addition, eight of the out of nine new claimants, who would currently qualify for full limited capability for work and work-related activity and payments, will not receive it. Because of the new fourfold severe condition criteria. I will leave others to develop the injustices of those. The Joseph Rowntree foundation and the new economics Forum estimate that the effect of the bill will be to put 50,000 more people into poverty and those people are people who are disabled and their families.

Lords, the removal of benefits, from those who would otherwise be entitled to it is something that I cannot support. I know my noble friend the Minister is not responsible for the proposal. I do hope that the terms review will do hope that the terms review will cause the government to think again.

19:24

Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Conservative)

- -

It is a huge honour to make my maiden speech here in your Lordship's House. I am grateful for all the warm wishes I have received. I want to thank those of helped me since my introduction, first and foremost the clocks of the doorkeepers who have been unfailingly kind along with Black Rod and the rest of the House. I must thank my supporters, Lord Butler and Linda Jenkin. Different ways they have both inspired me across the years. Like all of us, I am the 1st to my family, my family story is one of integration.

My father's father came from Lancashire stock. He was a barrister, an MP, And at the Nuremberg trials. In 1959 he was among the first Life Peers to be introduced into your Lordship's House and sat as a crossbencher. My mother's mother was born in Lithuania. Her parents, fearing persecution and poverty emigrated to South Africa, when she was an infant. The family who stayed behind were all murdered in Lithuania as the Nazis advanced in 1941. Her grandparents led a vastly different lives.

My childhood memories are of clotted cream in Cornwall and chopped liver in Camden. But they shared a love of this country and commitment to liberty and a belief in the rule of law. My English grandfather helped to drive those ultimately responsible for my Lithuanian grandfather's family. My Lithuanian grandmother spent the second half of the life in England campaigning for human rights and ending her career as director of just a, a charity my grandfather co-founded years earlier. Their stories and the stories of my parents shaped my sense of purpose.

After starting a career in management consultancy, desire to be more useful and I confess a youthful optimism edged me into politics. My grandfather and father both started on the left of the political spectrum and moved right over their careers. I thought I save myself the trouble and start squarely in the After nearly 20 years in Westminster, but with wonderful politicians and civil servants, too many to think individually. I do critically want to thank George Osborne who took a chance, in 2007, the spreadsheet literate consultant might be useful.

George was a wonderful boss, such a good boss that he introduced me to my husband. Lord Wolfson. The courier I began Lord Wolfson. The courier I began 10 Downing Street, where I ran policy for Rishi Sunak specific was the honour of a lifetime. Richey police and public service to his core I had to follow the example he sets in public life. Unstinting hard work, steadfast integrity and work, steadfast integrity and My laws, if the first duty of government is the defence of the realm, the second, the rule of law, the third I would argue is to help the vulnerable.

I was fortunate to spend time in the Department for Work and Pensions, most recently as a non-executive director, with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey was Secretary of State. As our population ages and the demand grows, this country has to grapple with how to run an effective, fair and sustainable healthcare system and welfare system. I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on Universal Credit and the bill and I'd like to offer two reflections. First, we must also live within our means, for every spending decision is a trade-off.

Here I must acknowledge the influence of the noble Lord, Lord MacPherson and six years working in HM Treasury. Borrowing more is not a solution I agree with the Chancellor saying that nothing progressive about a government that simply spent more and more each year on debt interest. Instead we must choose. Reasonable people can and do disagree on what those choices should be as we can see here today. This debate makes for better decisions, but trade-offs are unavoidable and we cannot pretend Second, policy is always about people.

The numbers must add up and every pound tax, every pound spent every incentive creative every disincentive introduced. It makes a difference to people's lives. The government's job and I really know from first hand how difficult this is to see it all, the big picture cost, the systemic incentives and the individuals at the heart of it. 20 years in politics, or perhaps Optimism but not my belief in progress. I know there will be difficult decisions ahead but I'm greatly encouraged by the wisdom, determination and civility of witnessing the chamber.

I do my best to follow the example that evil set and I look forward to making whatever contribution I can to Lordship's House.

19:29

Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, it is a huge honour and a privilege to be the first the 1st to congratulate her on her maiden speech. I'm picking please a friend Policy to make a debut for not having served in the Department for Work and Pensions is both the chief of staff and as a non-executive director, the noble Lady brings great expertise to this debate. And, as she reminded us, it is our duty, in our position of privilege, to look out for those less fortunate than ourselves.

An obligation expressed beautifully in the speech we just heard. When a friend also brings in his Majesty's Treasury. This too is crucial. Both policy more generally and welfare policy specifically. Without a growing economy we cannot pay for welfare spending. Without a conducive environment we cannot create good jobs and we need to help the Jennifer welfare to work. I shall cement my noble friends two years as head of the number 10 policy. In this capacity she joins in many this capacity she joins in many members of the Lordship's House.

Including, hoping Wikipedia hasn't let me down, the noble Lord, Lord Donoghue, my noble friend Lord Griffiths, the noble Lady, Baroness Hogg, my noble friend, Lord Blackwell, the noble Lord, Lord Jonas. My little friend Lord Jonas E, Lord Johnson of Marylebone and last but not least, the noble Lady Baroness Cavendish. If the Number 10 partita laminae don't already have the diner club. I hope they consider setting one up. We are all lucky to have the preeminent trust in our country.

Including the newest member, Bernard Shawcross. Many congratulations on a superb speech in our collective thanks in advance. For your contributions to this Turning to today's debate, I very much welcome the government's aims with the skill to get people into work. I was heartened when the Prime Minister said in December at the launch of the Get Britain Working white paper that and I quote, getting Britain back to work is at the heart of my mission to grow the economy. This objective is to be applauded.

The government's Pathways to work Green Paper in March outlined their plan for getting people into work. This bill is a key element of that plan, in a shift away from the current system which incentivises applicants to maximise health-related benefits. However having quite followed closely the debate on the bill in the other place I was disappointed very few commented on the positive and important role that the business community has to play getting people from welfare into work. The debate today is rightly delved into a lot of detail about the workings of the benefits system, but the other element of getting people on welfare to work has to be the availability of good jobs with appropriate training.

The role of the business community as a primary creators and providers of jobs in our economy is therefore paramount. I realised this point go slightly beyond the narrow focus of this bill, but for its overall objective to be achieved it requires the carrot of decent jobs for people to transition to as the government's overall plan recognises. I would therefore like to use my remaining time to plant the seed of an idea for a cost free measure to ensure there is both the carrot of jobs for people to go to and a carrot for employers to provide these jobs.

The proposal is as follows. Noble Lords will be aware there is currently a scheme to incentivise employers -- employers to hire veterans introduced by Rishi Sunak in 2020 when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and extended earlier this year by the government to run to at least 2026. The scheme is simple, employers who hire ex- Armed Forces personnel do not have to pay employers National Insurance contributions during their first year of employment. This is facilitated with zero rate of employers NI on salaries below 50,000 per year and a separate national insurance category is used where submitting payroll reports to HMRC.

Similarly, employers hiring those under 21 do not have to pay class I national insurance up to the lower earnings limit for these workers. In its submission ahead of the Autumn Budget I hope the Department for Work and Pensions might propose extending the scheme or replicating it for those moving from welfare into work. I declare an interest here, the proposal was recently suggested by the jobs foundation charity of which I am president as declared in the register. But it was also recently advocated by the good growth foundation which was founded and directed by Rafal Nagi and -- travel now can teach stood for the Labour candidate the Islington North and the general election.

The foundation is chaired by Tim Allen who I understand might soon be joining the Civil Service as a permanent and has on its advisory Council Lord Liddle who I see in this place. I hope he supports the proposal as well. I say this to emphasise and doubly underline is not a party political solution, it's a commonsense suggestion, and even better it won't cost the Treasury anything. The good growth foundation estimates that the policy would save the Exchequer up to £1.1 billion every year.

I'm not expecting a commitment from the noble Lady the Minister tonight, but perhaps she might give us her initial thoughts on the proposal at the end of the debate. I commit to asking her officials to look into it further. We turn to where I began, if there is a dining club of further -- for the heads of the number 10 policy unit I hope they suggest at their gathering. Anything that both encourages employers helping welfare into work and saves taxpayer money is surely worth consideration by the Treasury in order to help deliver on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the very worthy aims of the spell. I pay tribute to the many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I pay tribute to the many disabled people and disability and antipoverty organisations as well as antipoverty organisations as well as colleagues in the Commons who listen to them for winning concessions and shrinking this bill so as to exclude PIP. Nevertheless there remain serious concerns although for the most part existing claimants are most part existing claimants are thankfully protected, the shrunken bill will still cause real damage. Yet the rushed process doesn't allow Yet the rushed process doesn't allow for proper scrutiny, a criticism voiced by the many disabled people who have emailed us.

We should not who have emailed us. We should not underestimate the degree of anxiety, stress and mistrust that this whole episode has caused them. The joint episode has caused them. The joint civil society briefing for which I'm grateful once that by 2030 the cuts to the health element of Universal Credit will mean the loss of £3000 per year, with 750,000 disabled per year, with 750,000 disabled people with the impacting increasing in future years. They would also have a damaging knock-on effect on carers, some of whom are themselves carers, some of whom are themselves disabled.

A major point of concern is the drafting of the severe conditions criteria which would conditions criteria which would protect a small number of future health element claimants with a terminal in saw lifelong condition.

19:38

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

- -

In particular the constant requirement which applies a more requirement which applies a more stringent standard than now to the detriment of people with severe detriment of people with severe conditions that fluctuate day-to-day including MS and Parkinson's. The including MS and Parkinson's. The Minister did try to address this during the third reading debate, but the civil society briefing warned there is a gap between his stated intention to reflect exactly the existing severe conditions test, and that which is written into this that which is written into this legislation.

Given the lack of time to look at this properly now, would my noble friend consider withdrawing my noble friend consider withdrawing paragraph 6 of schedule one which simply amend the existing regulations so this can be sorted regulations so this can be sorted out through secondary legislation. What the Minister said so helpfully in the Commons needs to be written clearly into legislation. Could my noble friend explain why it isn't? noble friend explain why it isn't? The Joseph Rowntree and economic foundations estimate that the net effect of all the bills measures will be an increase of around 50,000 will be an increase of around 50,000 in the numbers in poverty by 29/30, yet disabled people are already at disproportionate risk of poverty as demonstrated by a recent report from the APPG poverty and inequality which I co-chair.

Disabled women are particularly at risk, one of the human rights concerns raised by the UN. But the revised impact assessment offers only a superficial high-level equalities analysis rather than a proper equalities impact assessment. The one mitigating provision in the bill is the very welcome real increase in the UC standards allowance which contributes to the aim for rebalancing it and the health rebalancing it and the health element. But the rebalancing isn't exactly balanced as between the cuts to health element and the improvements in the basic UC rate.

Even by the end of the decade we are talking about a real increase of only around five pounds per week. Of course even five pounds matters to someone on a very low income, but it's hardly enough to provide the dignity and security promised in the impact assessment which indeed acknowledges that this only starts to improve basic adequacy. The Resolution Foundation want it will still leave benefit income far from adequate. Moreover the impact assessment acknowledges that a fairly small number will not gain from the increase because of the benefit cap.

Could my noble friend indicate how many this fairly small number will be? Take into account that anyone who loses entitlement of the health element would then be subject to the limit. I welcome the commitment to coproduction of the Timms Review and the assurances he has given. Hope these will allay the totally understandable fears of disabled people and carers given the lack of even genuine consultation hitherto. But while like him I hope the review group will be able to achieve a consensus, if it doesn't then what? May I ask my noble friend in such a scenario with those who disagreed with the outcome able to publish their views as part of the official reports? When recently asked my noble friend weather debug he would consider extending the principle of coproduction to the UC review, she tried to reassure me with reference to forthcoming focus groups with changing realities.

I'm a great supporter of changing realities, it brings the expertise of lived experience into the policy domain. A few focus groups don't amount to coproduction. In a letter to ministers the Tims APPG inequality made the case to establish a formal mechanism for coproduction and meaningful consultation with those who have experienced claiming UC so as to avoid the shortcomings of the avoid the shortcomings of the current scheme. Finally I hope the omni-shambles of the past few weeks will stand as a lesson in how not to carry out Social Security reform.

Yes there is general agreement we need reform, indeed I've been arguing for it for years. All the more urgently after a decade or so of cuts amounting to £50 billion per year. The very opposite of the scare stories about ballooning expenditure. Charities, think tanks, academics all make the case for investment in social security as a force for good rather than treating it as a deadweight. It's time we put the security back into Social

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Security. I declare my interest as a vice president of the Local Government president of the Local Government Association and it's a pleasure to follow Baroness Lister. My thanks to the many disabled people in organisations who have written to

19:41

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

organisations who have written to all of us and I congratulate Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson on her Maiden speech and look forward to hearing her future contributions. Along with other noble Lords I look forward to hearing Baroness Byron's valedictory speech and wish her well. Other speakers have outlined the changes in the bill following the outrageous from disabled people and also the major Labour rebellion in the Commons, but there are still concerns about this reduced bill as well as the Timms Review looking at Personal Independence Payment.

The Secretary of State's tone in her speeches were very worrying right from the start. The premise that disabled people and those with serious health problems all they needed was support to get a job was to disabled people quite extraordinary, and worse there was an implication that many of them were workshy. That is not the problem. I entirely agree with Lord Elliott when he set out more needs to be done to encourage business to offer proper jobs and support disabled people in them.

In referring to changes to PIP the Secretary of State repeatedly implied that PIP was an in work benefit. It is not. It is there to help disabled people manage the extra costs of life, as Lady Grey- Thompson outlined. At the work and Pensions Select Committee last week my honourable friend Steve Darling MP who is visually impaired had to challenge the Secretary of State's assertion repeatedly that cutting PIP would help people get into work. Kemi Badenoch MP the Leader of the Opposition said last week that it was possible to claim PIP by self certification as well as suggesting that every disabled person in the country claims disability benefits.

She also asserted that it was possible for someone with a food intolerance to get a motor ability vehicle. Not one of those statements is true. It is alarming that senior people in the two main parties in the Commons appeared to be demonising disabled people. But I have to say that it is really good that both the noble Lady the Minister and Baroness Stedman-Scott do not use this approach in this do not use this approach in this tone. The definition of a disabled person is someone with a conditional illness that lasts 12 months or more which limits their ability to carry out day-to-day activities, and the one in four statistics include the elderly, 40% of the elderly fall into the disabled brackets.

Perhaps tomography is also increasing the number of disabled people. Turning now to what remains of the spill, the changes to Universal Credit principally the limited capability for work-related activity or the health element. The proposals will create a two tier benefit system as others have said, and it may also It is extraordinary that the government believes it is acceptable to halve and then freeze the UC element. People with disabilities and health conditions will find their costs far harder to manage despite having to live with severe conditions.

This may mean that they have to resort the NHS or social care with increased costs to those public budgets. So what assessment has the government made of the additional costs likely to be Departments and local authorities. The impact assessment on the UC element says on page 5, nearly 3 million people are not working or looking for work due to ill-health, a significant increase of nearly 800,000 since early 2019. Baroness Andrews and Browning both mentioned COVID and as the health spokesperson for the Lib Dems I am interested in the statistics.

The ONS data published last year showed that the number of people in England and Scotland with long COVID had increased by 2 million, and of that number around 381,000 had serious Worse, many doctors in our reporting significant increases in certain serious chronic diseases such as Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis, because it is thought by triggering the immune system following COVID. I asked the Minister if the long-term direct and indirect consequences of the pandemic have been taken into account in these increased numbers and whether advice has been sought from the Chief Medical Officer and Finally, with the Ministers please consult and truly work with disabled people.

Disability campaigners created the phrase decades ago, nothing about us, without us. The publication and announcements, for this bill, have destroyed whatever tiny amount of hope the disabled community had, that this new government understood disabled people and their lives. There is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much rebuilding of trust to do. I congratulate the noble Lady,

19:47

Lord Sikka (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate the noble Lady, Baroness Shawcross, on her excellent speech and welcome her to the House. I also look forward to the I also look forward to the valedictory speech of my noble valedictory speech of my noble friends, Baroness Bryan of Partick, friends, Baroness Bryan of Partick, I thank her, for her compassion and mentoring. And when I first arrived at this House she said you must faithfully follow all the signs and instructions. The first sign I said instructions. The first sign I said keep left.

So, I have been following that ever since. The bill before us that ever since. The bill before us is cruel. It started life as a Universal Credit and Personal Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment bill and morphed into the Universal Credit morphed into the Universal Credit bill. Without providing any evidence that Ministers publicly said, that without cutting benefits, to the disabled, the welfare system would disabled, the welfare system would actually come up. Strange. -- Collapse. No such argument is made Collapse.

No such argument is made when large sums are handed out in corporate welfare. Billions of pounds are being handed out in pounds are being handed out in subsidies and tax reliefs to banks, steel, shipbuilding, biomass, water, rail, internet and many other industries. No equity stake is required in return and a no cost benefit analysis is ever produced. The government has said and this was on 23 April 2025, that this year, the spending on welfare would be 10.6% of GDP.

Which is considerably below the OECD average. The National Institute for economic and research said, earlier this year, that the UK has some of the least generous welfare, across that the OECD countries, yet here we are inflicting more harm. This bill still targets the disabled. There has been no assessment of its impact on the NHS, public services, local economies, families, people and human dignity. It assumes that the national savings are unlikely to materialise. Proposing 1 billion in vestment in employment support and their right to try, but after changes in the Commons, the cuts are still there, to the amount of around £2 billion.

This is a large amount and will devastate the lives of around 1.6 million disabled people. By slashing the health element from £97 a week, to £50 a week, for those applying for Universal Credit, after April 2026. That is a cut of £2444 a year and will plunge millions of people into poverty. It violates any notion of equality, by creating a two tier society. Pre-April 2026 claimants are not really safe, as their circumstances can change and they may well be classified as a new claimants and actually lose what they are getting now.

No evidence has been provided to show that the government policy will deliver the assumed objectives, jobs and savings. The OBR won't publish its analysis, until later this year. The team's review won't begin until all term and we still don't have the full wording of the new eligibility criteria and Parliament won't really be able to amend it -- Tim's review. There were maybe a to discuss it. Consultations were needed before proceeding with this bill. That hasn't really been the case. There is no shortage of money.

For example around £15 billion a year could be raised by taxing capital gains on dividends at the same rate as wages. Another 14.5 billion can be raised, by standardising tax relief, and all pension contributions, to the basic rate of income tax. But the government is choosing not to do that. We are all one a serious illness or accident away from becoming disabled. And needing benefits. None of us could live on the new level of reduced support, for future claimants.

This bill removes hope and support for those who are desperately needed. I regret that I cannot support the government on this bill.

19:51

Baroness Bryan of Partick (Labour)

- -

My Lords, it is always daunting to follow the Lord Sikka. His depth of knowledge and figures was amaze me. Can I congratulate the noble Lady Shawcross, not only on her great pedigree in coming here, but particularly her maiden speech. We, I think, are doing our bit for the numbers here, on the basis of one in, one out. Thank you, so much, for all the very kind comments. I blush, when I hear them. I actually feel a fraud, giving a valedictory speech, after only seven years, in the House.

That is just the blink of an eye, compared with many peers. But despite my short stay, I would like to put on record my thanks to those who have given me support, well I've been here. Many of whom who are in the chamber today. The doorkeepers, of course, have always been tremendous and for my first day had given me their kind support. Some old friends amongst them, retired, other store warts remain. I have also seen the professionalism of the newer doorkeepers and thanks to them all.

I was honoured to be introduced by Baroness Chakrabarti and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town. Two formidable women, from whom I've learnt a lot. It has been a particular honour to be able to support the noble Lady Chakrabarti, in her many attempts to protect human rights. During the last human rights. During the last Parliament. The most important person who helped me settle in and find my way around, both procedurally and geographically was... Baroness Gale.

She was my unofficial mentor and hopefully remains a good friend. I also remember that my first Whip is the noble Lady, the Minister. He was a gentle and supportive, as any Whip can be. I have, however, never reconciled to the unelected nature of the House of Lords and while I wish good speed to the bill to abolish the Hereditary Peers, it won't change the fundamental problem of the imbalance of representation in this House.

During my time on the opposition benches, I saw how difficult it was to pass amendments, just to ask of the Government to think again. Currently, the main opposition party can defeat the Government, simply because at times in the past, the Conservative party have used its patronage to create more Life Peers than Labour. I believe that the second chamber must be a check on the powers of the Executive. Particularly when the members of the other Place are unable to perform that role.

But the basis for a second chamber should be rooted in a democratic accountability. The House has many members who represent the grace and the good, but it isn't representative of, or answerable to the people who are affected by the legislation it considers, including legislation it considers, including the bill we are discussing today. So, I leave, still committed, to the elected Senate of the nations and regions and I will continue to write in campaign on that cause. Turning now to the Universal Credit bill.

I thank campaigning groups their briefing papers and the many individuals who shared their lived experience. Undermining the force idea that anyone can claim, can self identify as disabled. I put on record my admiration for the many disabled campaigners who were successful in persuading the Government to accept that it's the first bill was deeply flawed. And I am proud to stand with the MPs who campaigned against both bills and, in particular, the four Scottish Labour MPs, who stood by their constituents and principles and voted against this bill.

Despite the decision to consider the future of PIP in the team's review. The bill will have a devastating impact on will have a devastating impact on those claiming the health element of Universal Credit. Last week we saw the levels of unemployment rise to a four-year high. Finding skilled, well-paid jobs challenging for everyone. The slogan those who can work should work is meaningless, if employers or even less interested in making the adjustments needed to bring people into the workplace.

Surely that is where the emphasis needs to be. Employers should have an obligation to make space, in their workplaces, for disabled people. I hope the Minister will recognise that this bill has been drafted in undue haste. She did say in a debate in 2020 the very wise words, occasionally, all of us in politics and need to reflect that when we legislate in haste, we may repent at leisure. It is likely that sorry, I hope that the bill will wait on the impact assessments and supporting information, that should be published including the analysis of the office of budget responsibility, on the expected number of people, moving into work, after these changes.

It is likely that that analysis, will show that many people affect. Will not be able to move to work, instead they will be moved into greater poverty. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Baroness Ritchie, who has been such a valuable member of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this House. It is an absolute pleasure to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is an absolute pleasure to follow my noble friend, Baroness follow my noble friend, Baroness Bryan of parting. She has made her valedictory speech today and says farewell to the chamber. As a

19:59

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)

- -

farewell to the chamber. As a roommate, in room 14 on the West front, along with our mentor and boss, Baroness Gale and Baroness Chakrabarti, Baroness O'Brien formed, shall we say a very good friendship, with all of us. She is a good colleague and a hard-working campaigner for social justice, fairness and equality for all. And in particular for all of the residents in Scotland and I hope that she, outside this chamber will continue this work, in whatever guise she decides to do that.

Moving on, I would like to welcome the maiden speech of Baroness Shawcross, your very welcome to Lordship's House. Moving onto the bill itself is that I welcome the government's decision to make concessions, in relation to the original bill, regarding pics and disabilities, as well as the Winter Fuel Payments, on a separate basis. I do recognise, as a former Minister and the responsibility for welfare in Northern Ireland. This bill, under the principle of parity will apply in Northern Ireland.

I do recognise that welfare is a very challenging issue and it requires to be reformed. And that the financial bandwidth has been lessened, due to the actions of the previous government and the existential threats posed by Brexit. Nonetheless, the concessions show a listening government, but I feel there is a little more has been addressed and that has already been referred to, in this debate and by the many comments received, by email and the very submissions, from I hope the government will be able to listen to the needs of the disabled and provide a solution with particular reference to the health element of Universal Credit for new claimants.

And I hope that these measures that bring benefit to disabled people will emerge from the Timms Review, which will be co- produced along with listening to disabled people and along with working with disabled people. Because many people have said to me that there is that fear in the wider community of a possible return to austerity and I would like assurances from my noble friend the Minister that this will not be the case and that the most vulnerable who have faced disproportionate costs for heating and food over many years will be protected via operated benefits in line with inflation.

People still find themselves disproportionately affected by the rising inflation and ongoing cost of living crisis. The latest Consumer Prices Index has spiked to 3.6% from June 2025 with the Bank of England predicting possible further rises due to higher food and energy prices, in such circumstances and in the context of this bill can the Minister commit the government to social security benefit operating in line with inflation for those out of work and those in low paid work and she did provide me with some good comfort some weeks ago in answer to my question where she stated and I quote, that the bill says were guaranteeing and above inflation increase to the Universal Credit standard allowance in each of the next four years.

I hope not withstanding the challenges faced by the Treasury and the government that will be the case taking on board the increase in inflation prices released some days ago. And in fact that is the issue for advice NI in Northern Ireland to represent many people in receipt of disability benefits. A further question to the Minister, what if the move to Universal Credit takes longer to complete than by March 2026? Will anyone who moves from a size Universal Credit after March 2026 be treated as a new universal credit claimants and so subject to the health element which could mean and will mean a 50% reduction for new claimants? I'm looking for some assurances there, therefore could my noble friend the Minister indicate what would be the situation as none of us want to see people ploughed into endless poverty disadvantage and financial loss whilst in during their disability.

Cystic fibrosis trust whilst welcoming the government concessions, as did scope, the disability charity. They are concerned about the fluctuating nature of health conditions for new claimants. Therefore in supporting this bill tonight could my noble friend the Minister outline what further measures could be provided to assuage the concerns of those potential new claimants for Universal Credit around the health element as many disability conditions do not disappear with changes in Social Security

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Regulations or legislation. I am a long-standing interest in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am a long-standing interest in any chronic fatigue syndrome having seen first hand it's awful impacts

20:05

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (Liberal Democrat)

- -

seen first hand it's awful impacts on people's lives. It's good to be able to say something this evening because today we saw the publication of long-awaited delivery plan on any and it is very welcome to see that. Ministerial forward actually says and I quote, we need a better understanding of the condition and I think patients with ME would think patients with ME would think patients with ME would There's an estimated 400,000 people in the UK are living with ME and around one quarter of those are disabled to the extent that they spend most of their lives in bed.

The remainder have symptoms on a As we have heard from Baroness Brinton is also estimated that around 381,000 people have serious postviral symptoms which have lasted for more than two years as a result of long COVID, now long COVID is not the same as any but there are some similarities. The sad truth is that for many people ME is a lifelong condition. Its severity and impact varies enormously not just between individuals but actually for the same individual both over the long- term and as part of a pattern of symptoms in the short-term flareups are common and relapses occur and it's entirely unpredictable.

For claimants that means that tasks which can be completed on Sundays not be completed on others or simply can't be sustained. I had a look at the training module for assessors and it says that and I quote, this training will take you approximately 30 minutes to complete. Actually the training isn't bad but I would suggest to the noble Lady that 30 minutes is wholly inadequate to train an assessor in determining the condition of someone who is presenting such a very complex set Always referred says quote, we need to ensure that the right decisions are made first time.

Well amen to that but the briefing from scope tells us that around 49% of Universal Credit decisions reaching appeal are overturned, and I can't help wonder if this is related to the level of training on the part of the assessors, it would be very good of the Minister could say a word or two about that. From April next year two about that. From April next year new claimants will get a reduced capability for work grade, even if they have the most severe form of any, because although it is lifelong and often seriously disabling, because it is fluctuating and the uncertain prognosis means that many people will simply fail a severe lifelong condition criteria.

Many will just not reach the strict no improvement expected test and thus they will be locked out of the enhanced support. Current enhanced support. Current To again I quote, majority of occasions in which the claimant attempts to undertake an activity. The new regulations refer to all occasions, this is highly problematic for anyone with fluctuating conditions, I'm talking about ME this evening but we've heard from many other organisations and individuals who have fluctuating conditions. Freezing for four years means disability support won't rise with inflation while other basic costs like fuel and -- food and energy keep rates rising to top is fact that many ME patient keep on working, like the stuff but they keep on working.

There are many others who aspire to work. They want to recover enough one day to go back to work but is complex and unpredictable. Their general health and well-being is absolutely key if they are to get back to work, so being pushed into poverty by measures in this bill and by other measures are simply going to further advantage people with this condition. Whilst not in this bill there is consultation on removing the health element of Universal Credit for under 22 is that is causing widespread concern particularly amongst families and carers of young people with ME.

The median onset age for ME is 15. I do agree with the comments made by Steve Darling, my colleague in the House of Commons and the key to achieving government aspirations for welfare of is genuine engagement with the people affected. I would say to the noble Lady that reading the briefings with the organisations it is very clear that there is a huge gulf of understanding between the picture that has been painted by the noble Ladies today at the understanding of the organisations and perhaps even more importantly the testimony from many hundreds of people who are now desperately worried about what the future holds for them, and I really think you need collectively to do very much better to offer them not just a financial leg up but actually some reassurance that you have got their back.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all in her absence could I congratulate Baroness Shawcross- I congratulate Baroness Shawcross- Wolfson on a very graceful Maiden speech. I would like to say to Lord speech. I would like to say to Lord Elliott that if go ahead with the Elliott that if go ahead with the idea of having meetings of former heads of the number 10 policy unit, I as a mere humble member might I as a mere humble member might occasionally be invited. Secondly, I

20:10

Lord Liddle (Labour)

- -

would like to say how much I will miss Baroness Bryan. We come from opposite ends of the Labour spectrum, but one thing that we haven't -- have in common is a great love of Keir Hardie who was one of my great heroes. In the context of this debate I would like to remind people that his great campaign was for the right to work, not the right to benefits. I think the Conservatives left us with a pretty dire situation on Social Security in 2024, we're not going to talk about the triple lock today but on benefits.

We were spending 64.7 billion on incapacity and disability benefits in 23/24 which was an benefits in 23/24 which was an increase of 40% in real terms since 2013, an increase not a cut. It was forecast that this number will go up to 107 billion through this Parliament. This is massive, 36 billion increase forecast in five years. One of the reasons for this is that the number of people who receive the health element of Universal Credit sword from 2.5 million to 3.7 million under the last government.

1.2 million increase, as my honourable friend Alison McGovern in the other place said, it is just that the current system is not financially sustainable. The economic affairs Select Committee of which I am a member did a report on why this had come about. They could discover no adequate health explanation for the rise in numbers on benefits. What was clear was that the DWP had stopped vetting people properly to receive this benefit, whereas before the pandemic 7/10 were given a proper interview, that virtually stopped altogether.

That failure of stopped altogether. That failure of the system is really huge. I don't think we can go on as we are. There is another point about this which I know is very difficult, but we have created a situation where people out of work on disability benefits are significantly better off than people who work flogged their guts out on the minimum wage and receive Universal Credit. We have got the incentives for work all wrong, I think this is politically unsustainable.

I have spent much of my life campaigning for the Labour Party on council estates, going round the country representing people on three local authorities all in areas of deprived estates and I just don't think it is sustainable that you can have a situation where people are going out to work full- time and they are seeing on the opposite side of the street people with a higher, considerably higher income. So I support the essential proposition of this bill which is to equalise Universal Credit, but it has to be combined with a very strong welfare to work program.

I don't think there is anything social Democratic democratic, socialist and creating, in enabling young person with mental health difficulties to go into a lifetime of benefits. We have got to move away from that, we've got to have welfare to work programs as we did in the Blair and Brown governments. I think that is And the other reason why we have got to do something about the cost, I'm going to finish this point, is that if we don't cost, if we don't tackle the cost of these benefits, disability benefits, we are not going to be able to tackle child poverty, which for me is a much bigger cause that can lift families out of desperate poverty and enable them to have many more opportunities, in life.

I think this is the great cause, which the Labour government should address and unless we deal with the problem of working age benefits for disability, we will never be able to afford it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will speak in the gap, if I may. First of all I would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross for her maiden

20:16

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)

- -

Lady Shawcross for her maiden speech. I look forward contributions from a policy background. Thanks to Lady Ryan for her service to this House. I support the regret motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett and I have three key points to add to this evening's secondary reading of the Universal Credit bill. Firstly on Wales. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation calculates that there are almost 900,000 disabled people, in Wales. Around 30% of the population, were 26% of working age adults the self reported as being disabled.

The DWP's own evidence pack shows that Wales will be disproportionately affected by changes to welfare. Showing a 14.7% of the aged population on disability and incapacity benefits, the highest in the UK. 20.... 26.9% of working households in Wales receive Universal Credit. This bill has already been highlighted by the First Minister of Wales as having that disproportional effect on Wales. I ask the Minister if she will share with us what specific intention has the UK Government given to this a disproportionate effect? And what discussions will his Majesty's government be having with the Welsh Government on the effect of this bill.

My second point I would like to raise is that we already have a two-tiered benefits system and this bill, as was so Worsen that. And what I mean by that, the duties already in existence in relation to age. I will illustrate this briefly. Universal Credit rates are 20% less, if you are under 25. And the housing cost elements can be 45% less for those under 35. In some areas. There is a presumption here, that all young people have parents, or family members to support them, which isn't the case.

And practically speaking, the cost of food and bills are not shockingly cheaper for those at the last say 24 years old, compared to someone over 25. And I asked the Minister if this is something that will be addressed in the future on I think also the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning also raised real concerns, in relation to the gap in the welfare system, for those with lifelong disabilities, who are under the age of 22. Finally, as the previous unpaid carers, I would like to add my voice to further clarity for unpaid carers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and the system. Briefly in the gap,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Briefly in the gap, principally... OK, I just wanted to say thank you to my noble friend,

20:20

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Bryan. With people in the gap, you never

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With people in the gap, you never know where you are. First of all it is a great pleasure to welcome bonus Shawcross and congratulate her on her maiden speech and to congratulate Baroness Bryan. Enshrining the principle we have often set of one in, one out. That is a good example. The noble Lady, the Minister, Baroness Sherlock gave vary, as usual, a very good summary of the government provision, including the reasons for the provisions of the PIP, for the bill.

A common testing made that she has been gentle and supportive. I would echo that from the opposition benches. Gentle and supportive. The noble Viscount Younger in made some interesting comments, such as the House cannot be formed. That the government is running away from law reform. My noble friend Baroness Tyler drew great attention to the mental health reduction and their carers involvement, which has not been emphasised too much during this debate. The noble Lady, Baroness Bennett supports the regret motion, which she spoke eloquently to.

If she moves to a vote, I and the Liberal Democrats will be supporting that. It is a welcome relief, and a money bill to have an opportunity to vote for anything. This is something worth voting for. The noble Lord Elliott made some points about decent jobs and giving a carrot to employers. An interesting aspect which hasn't been had in the bill. Also something I didn't know about the ex-servicemen's relief. Which is something to be borne in mind.

My noble friend Baroness Brinton really gave a good qualification on PIP, gave a good qualification on PIP, during her comments. My Lords, there needs to be reform of the welfare system, but this bill is not the way to do it. The weight of the chamber, this bill has been described, by others, including my noble friend Baroness Tyler. There is not enough linkage between the NHS and the care system. There are still people stuck on Universal Credit, because they are stuck in an unresponsive NHS.

From April 2026, the health element, for new Universal Credit claimants, was cut from £97 to, was cut from £97-£50 a week. Drawn attention by the noble Lord seeker of £2444, per year. This will push hundreds of thousands, into deep poverty, stripping away legal protections and forcing people to choose, between a food and essential medication, the consequences are clear, spiralling hunger, mental health crises and suicide. These changes, My Lords, will destroy lives. Only one in nine claimants would currently receive the full capability, from work and work related activity.

Support or qualify only proposed the severe conditions criteria. 200,000 people. The SEC introduces four new harsh eligibility criteria. One, the finding of fitness for work and work related activity. Second, an NHS holy diagnosis, excluding private specialist. Which is a tribute to the old world. People are not only using the NHS, so why exclude the specialist diagnosis from this. Thirdly, the third hurdle of a lifelong condition. Fourthly, symptoms that meet schedule descriptors, constantly and not episodically.

These requirements structure and exclude the discrimination against people with fluctuating conditions, like multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia and Parkinson's. Punishing those stuck on NHS diagnostic weightless, some lasting over a decade. Baroness Scott, my noble friend Baroness Scott drew attention to any, is a long-standing symptom. It is one of many. The bill also scraps ESA regulation, 35.2, a vital safety net that protects people who are forced into unsafe work, where there is substantial risk of harm, or suicide.

The safeguard is only applied when clinicians provided serious evidence of the danger. Coroners, prevention have warned of the tragic outcomes which such technicians are missing. No one has really talked about will the bill now save money. I would like to quote from the deputy director of IMS. "The government's original reform was set to save five or £5.5 billion. And double that in the long run when fully rolled out. Without reform to the PIP payments, the watered-down bill is expected to deliver essentially no savings over the next four years.

Over this period, the cost savings from reducing Universal Credit, for new claimants would roughly offset increasing standing allowance. This is just typical of the government. There we are, just like the winter fuel. Understanding why winter fuel was cut, with the claimant benefits, the monetary benefit was there. Here we are history repeating itself. This is a money bill. Our formal powers are limited. I put it in simple terms to the government. A very simple four points.

To recognise the exclusion of fluctuating conditions is unfair, can the Minister answer that? The change to the NHS only diagnosis treatment requirements is also unfair. And defender protections of those at substantial risk and where is there, in this the engagement with carers organisations referred to by other noble peers. From these benches we call for revision, the severe conditions criteria and the restoration of a sensual safeguards which will help future legal challenges and put disabled people's voices and live realities on the record.

This is a faulty bill and it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

really should not even be here. May I thank the noble Baroness,

20:28

Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister for the introduction of the bill. The ability to speak the bill. The ability to speak openly in the lead up to today. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, the Minister. That benefits should be easy to access those in genuine need and difficult, even impossible to access, for those who are not in need. I also warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross to your Lordships' House and congratulate her on her maiden speech.

I have no doubt that my noble friend will make a significant contribution to the work of this House. The strength of that contribution clearly understood contribution clearly understood today. I have to tell you, my noble friend and I spent many interesting times, in the DWP, debating, with our own other noble friend, Lady Coffey, changes to the Child Maintenance Service. I also wish the noble Baroness Bryan of Partick world, as she moves on from your Lordships' House and I thank her for her saw service and can confirm the sea, 100% of the noble Baroness...

I want to focus your mind on the substance of the realities facing millions in this country and on the striking absence of what I really believe of ambition in this bill. I believe of ambition in this bill. I The problems the government should address and what it will do so. The worry ought to have begun before embarking on this legislation. I have always tried to be balanced and measured in my approach to the subject matter and today, will be no exception.

I want to discuss the facts which are important. And we should be straightforward about it. Because I think in discussing and debating them we might get some solutions that benefit people that we exist to serve. Firstly I was surprised there is nothing in the bill that addresses the deep-rooted challenge of long-term benefit reliance. People have always depended on the state and have seen in other path forward. I have to say that I was delighted that my heart was beating in concert with Lord Liddle's heart when he talked about it being outrageous that people should get more benefit, then they should have they went to work.

You have people who say why should I go, when I can get this. I was with somebody the other day who has been working, goodness knows how many hours a week and he told me that his friend was actually on Brighton beach, on benefits, I suppose that is legit. The fact is that when she had gone for a benefit assessment, or a review with her doctor, she used to put mascara around her eyes, like thick, thick, thick and then Vic underneath, to make a cell cry.

Well it worked. We shouldn't have Well it worked. We shouldn't have There's nothing here in the bill for those who have tried and failed for him interventions and standardised work programs have never worked. Some people have been on every government program that has ever been desired -- devised and delivered and they still remain to our shame, out of work. In speaking to one area in the country, they call these people their beached population, because they are completely held out of work by various conditions or simply a lack of opportunity.

The Right reverent colour the Bishop of Newcastle made a very good point that we can't standardise things, and one size does not fit all. To have flexibility in the service we offer people is going to be really important. -- Right Reverend Prelate. I note the points made by Prelate. I note the points made by the Minister on Pip -- PIP assessment and I congratulate you you are actually going to do them face-to-face, the only reason they were stopped the face was as a result of COVID.

I'm glad they are Especially for those living with disabilities and those who battle severe conditions every day we must do better. I recognise the government's progress on the conservative principle of the right to try and welcome recent investments and skills, but without real personalised wraparound support, these efforts will for some continue to fall short for what people who need them. I've had loads of emails as I'm sure other noble Lords have from people concerned about the impact on disabled people and I completely agree with Baroness Grey-Thompson that the media have not helped one little bit.

In the way that they have frightened people into believing certain things will happen when maybe they won't. Why can't we offer real choices to those who have never truly had one? A sense of purpose, a point well made by my noble friend Baroness Browning. Where is the choice for the choicest? I thought that Baroness Bennett had pinched my speech before she got there because we were sharing those words so we are at one with that, in fact I can very happy to confirm that the family the noble Baroness told us about should get the help that they really do deserve.

Secondly, our Is faltering. The most recent figures show that payroll employees have fallen by not .6% on the year, vacancies are down by 63,000 in the last quarter and the Universal Credit payment count rose again in June to 1.743 million, up both on the month and the year. And yet this And no plan to reverse the trend. The West Midlands and London, two of the most populous and diverse economic regions have experienced some of the weakest labour market recovery is when we look at the constituencies with the highest Universal Credit claimant rates, they dominate the top of the list.

This is no coincidence, the data reveals a stark truth. Hi claimant rates correlate directly with underperforming local labour markets. Jobs created are either out of reach or out of sync with the people who need them most. There is nothing in the bill that seeks to address this reality stop where is the effort to connect talent to opportunity? Where is the connection for the unconnected? We also know that adult education and training are the key to unlocking potential, but for too many those doors remain shut.

Whether it is basic maths and English or technical qualification, acquiring skills later in life is profoundly difficult. Even when the financial support is there, awareness is lacking, claimants are struggling to find tailored practical pathways that fit around the daily grind. Nothing in this bill seeks to address this reality. Where are the accessible education opportunities for those who need the most? Where are the education opportunities for the forgotten? In my 32 years of helping people into work I have seen the battles, as all noble Lords will have done.

The battles people face, the Demons behind closed doors, the slow grinding effort required to turn lives around. While the government can do a lot, it cannot do it alone. Neither should it. Civil society must meet the challenge with urgency, and very often they are the best people to engage with the people that we are trying to talk about and help this evening. What we need isn't another scheme, we need belief and we need commitment. We need to support people who walk life's tightrope every day, to keep them in work, not just for their finances, but for their sense of purpose.

Nothing in the bill seeks to address this reality. Where is the direction for those who need it most? And where is the hope for the hopeless? Nowhere is this more critical than with our young people, especially those who are NEETs. This is a group that I and others in this House have worked with very closely, and it's a group I am sure we all care deeply about. Today over 800,000 young people in the UK fall into this category, and that should be a shock to us all.

That should stir us into action, a point well made by Lord Rook mentioned one of my favourite organisations the Salvation Army. It was William Booth who set up the first Labour exchange and the government nixed the idea now today we've got Jobcentre plus. Behind that number are real lives, real young people were told to work hard, go to school, go to university and they did. But they now find that promise broken. Can I ask the Minister how is the government going to stop young people from becoming NEETs in the first place? Graduate jobs are also vanishing as AI and automation reshape the economy.

Up to one third of traditional graduate roles are expected to disappear. These young people are not lacking These young people are not lacking in ambition, they are simply not being met with opportunity and the consequences are severe. Studies show that time spent as a neat lead to worse physical and mental health and a greater likelihood of unemployment or poor quality work for years to come. Consider the broader economic picture regarding inactivity. The UK inactivity rate for working age adults is now 21%, 37,000 working days were lost to Labour disputes in May alone.

We face a softening labour market, falling payroll numbers and growing economic disengagement. The bill at the moment does nothing to respond to this. Lord Elliott made the point that only employers who create jobs, nobody else does that. You can't go and buy jobs, it's only employers that do it and we need to work with employers to make sure those jobs are created. Even I can't offer the noble Baroness the Minister the offer that my noble friend made so if I were you I would grab it quickly.

Meanwhile we are told that the bill delivers value but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown there are no net savings, yet we still plan to spend 2.2 billion immediately. Where is the fiscal immediately. Where is the fiscal prudence in that? Hanging over all of this our welfare bill is forecast to exceed 100 billion by the end of this Parliament. Our national debt incisors even more concerning in composition, much of it inflation linked meaning prices rise directly and they raise the cost of our repayments.

This is a dangerous fiscal position and as my noble friend Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson also said, we can't borrow and we can't borrow our way to opportunity. We do need growth and reform and above everything else people in work. We will not reduce the bill until we reduce the dependency. That is the fundamental truth at the heart of this debate. We must win the argument that an ever expanding welfare budget is not an act of kindness, it is a form of cruelty.

It traps people, robs them of dignity and hollows out societies productivity. The government through the next spell, I know it's a sore subject, they have taxed work and that has been at the expense of people. It's been at the expense of what employers are able or not now able to do. So we need a new vision, one rooted in belief, backed by action and committed to the conviction that everyone deserves conviction that everyone deserves the chance to thrive through work.

Many may ask what does that matter to me? The answer lies in the long- term health and balance of our economy and of the people impacted. We risk drifting towards a situation where the welfare state outpaces the economy that sustains it. A point that the noble Lord Charles... Lord Palmer made, my apologies. A fair and sustainable system depends on a strong workforce and thriving labour market. So, Britain needs people. Like us, here. Who will speak plainly about the scale of the challenge.

Many in this chamber are doing that. Your Lordships house knows me well, I will continue to speak for the noiseless, the choice first, the hopeless and the workless they know you will all join in that. I will continue to challenge the silence in this bill and I will continue to fight with you for a future where work is not only

**** Possible New Speaker ****

possible but purposeful. I thank all noble Lords for their contribution to this evening, it's been a really interesting debate. I been a really interesting debate. I And what an astonishing story, what an incredible heritage. I can only think that her forebears must be so think that her forebears must be so very proud of her and it is a joy to have her with us today. I also thank Lady Bryan, it was a privilege to be her wet, I can't say I was voice of her wet, I can't say I was voice of successful in persuading her.

But nonetheless it was a delight to work with her and we will miss her very much. I know that retirement for her much. I know that retirement for her will not mean walking away from the cause of social justice, indeed she may be the first person to leave the House of Lords to spend more time in House of Lords to spend more time in politics. We thank her for her contribution and we hope she will contribution and we hope she will stay in touch. Before I turn to the specific points raised I want to just say from the outset that this bill is simply one part of the bill is simply one part of the government's wider program to reform Social Security system so it is sustainable and that it helps people to build a better life.

That's what it's there to do, but it's part of a much wider program and let's bear that in mind. Look at the specifics, I will try to talk to as many points as possible but in 20 minutes I as possible but in 20 minutes I won't get to them all and I won't name everybody am sorry now I apologise in advance. Firstly the comments about whether the bill from Baroness Bennett and others that pushes people into poverty, can I say first to be clear, nobody will find themselves pushed into poverty as a result of the changes in the bill.

People who are claiming benefits are not going to be subject to these changes. As I said at the start we estimate that the benefit changes announced that spring statement revised to account for changes to the bill will now lift 50,000 people out of poverty in 29/30, that's without any impacts of our record £3.8 billion investment and deployment support. It's absolutely the case that those who qualify in the future will for the hire, will get a higher standard allowance on Universal Credit and they will still get a health top up in Universal Credit Al Bayt at a lower level than now as a result of the rebalancing, and they will get much more support in their journey towards work.

In terms of those with the highest needs we recognise that some people never be able to work, that's why those with the most severe lifelong conditions we don't ever expect to be able to work and those nearing the end of their lives will receive the current higher rate of top up whenever they apply, we will not be calling people for these pointless assessments. Lord Rook and Baroness Stedman-Scott focused on young people, we have a special responsibility to make sure nobody is written off before that adult life even begins.

That's the basis of our new Youth Guarantee for all 18 to 21-year-olds, to ensure they can access quality training opportunities and apprenticeship to help find a job full stop while that will include a targeted support for young people with learning disabilities, our Youth Guarantee trailblazers are already doing brilliant work, testing and delivering new ways to help young With all kinds of organisations including the Premier League, Channel 4, the Royal Shakespeare Company to engage and inspire young people on their journey towards work, perhaps the Salvation Army needs to be added to that list now, I take it from both benches will stop in terms of mental health can I reassure him we are expanding Mental Health Support Teams so more schools can offer early specialist help, all pupils will have access to mental health supports school by the end of the decade and through the Youth Guarantee we are improving access to Guarantee we are improving access to , , we , we consulted , we consulted on , we consulted on the , we consulted on the Green , we consulted on the Green Paper.

It is whether we should delay access to the health top up of Universal Credit, until someone is a 22. I make no apology that we have to explore every option, to make sure young people are making the best possible start to their adult lives. However, it was a consultation, no decision has been taken, nor will it be taken, and to refer the opportunity to review the responses to the consultation. Also to reassure the House if we decide to go ahead with that, the savings will be reinvested in training and work opportunities, for that age group.

And we will consider carefully what special provisions are needed for those young people, for whom the youth guarantee will never be a realistic option. I heard the comments made from Lord Hendy and others about the questions raised by the UN CPRD among CIPD. Just say to the House we take our international obligations seriously, we've had a letter considering the issues raised and will respond in due course. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey Thompson made some very important points about the way we debate these questions. I share the concern about the way the narrative can become regrettable.

It can focus really in ways that are not helpful, to the debate, never mind the individuals. America reassure Baroness Brinton, I know because I know how well that my honourable friend, the Secretary of People are workshy. What she does want to do is give people opportunities to get into work. Wanting to see a much better debate all round result we have to find a way as a country to be able to discuss reform and social security, without running into problems. Either we are not able to discuss it and causing fear and anxiety that doesn't need to be there.

I hope we can work together to find ways to do that. There, I was shocked to hear the website describing as Grey- Thompson about identifying notability users. We have checked the motor ability have confirmed any data is not accurate. The website has been taken down, there should not be happening. This is not what it is about to stop it is shocking. I agree with the noble Lady, we should set out to make sure we regain trust amongst those who use our services as a couple of noble Lords the main points of this.

We did make clear in the Green Paper that this is our mission. We announce we are reviewing our entire safeguarding processes and strengthening our clinical governance, including the noble Baroness. The training of assessors, we want to try to make sure we get this right was not a lot of time and effort is going into investing to try to make sure we have some really good people from the clinical side working through internally and doing that. I'm glad she found the training helpful, if not as long as she would want it to be.

We are moving to bring back face-to-face assessment and the standard, those things are taken together will help to make difference to the assessments that happen and are perceived. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott touched on the challenge of making sure that there are jobs there in the first place and they are right to stop he is absolutely right. We are creating good jobs across the country, including using our modern industrial strategy and investment such as clean energy. Our local get Britain working plan is based on the recognition that we do not have a single labour market in this country is that we have a number of different labour markets which depend on local conditions.

I would say to the noble Baroness Lady Stedman-Scott, this bill does what this bill does. She was the right hope and opportunity, look at what we are doing in the activity pilots. Commissioned by Sir Charlie Mayfield. It what employers can do to try to create inclusive places where people cannot stay in work. There is a huge amount going out there beyond this. I think this point it is not the first person, I will share it where it can be most carefully use. We want to find ways of making sure there are jobs there for people who want to get into them and we can support them to do it.

Fluctuating conditions was mentioned a lot. This is where the area has the claim has caused confusion. Let me start by clarifying for those noble Lords were not as familiar. The assessment is not specific to a condition, it is based on the impact of the condition, rather than the condition itself is not some conditions will have different impact of different people, or at different stages of life. The assessment does include provisions to ensure consideration of how someone's concision might fluctuate, hence the use of the terms reliably and repeatedly, within some of the descriptors.

This bill doesn't change that. The idea that we have somehow changed the bit about Constance, that is not the case. With some of the descriptors embedded in the legislation, fluctuation in the condition is explicit with the use of those terms reliably repeated. The bottom line is if a person cannot repeat an activity, within a reasonable time, then they should be considered unable to complete the task at all. I hope that is reassuring. The severe conditions and criteria are existing criteria, which we are now going to use to determine who gets the higher protected amount of health top up.

The wording in the bill reflects how the functional test replied at present and how those tests do take account of the fluctuations. The healthcare profession has to look at how someone can undertake a task or if they cannot do it reliably, repeatedly, they should be assumed not to be able to complete it at all. I hope that as a reassurance. The question at the NHS a diagnosis came up a number of times. The opportunity of clarifying this was not just to be clear, what we're saying, in order to meet the severe conditions criteria, the condition needs to be recorded somewhere in the NHS, following a proper clinical investigation and a formal medical diagnosis, in line with NHS practice.

That doesn't mean that the initial diagnosis has to be by the NHS. It does have to be recorded somewhere in the NHS system. For a person who has a severe, lifelong health condition, their diagnosis is going to be in the GP record, even if the diagnosis was made privately. So I hope that helps to reassure noble Lords. Another of noble Lords raised the question of unpaid carers and I would put on the record, the government, how much the government appreciates the work and contribution of unpaid carers.

The increase of the standard allowance will benefit around one million unpaid carers. And any carers currently getting you see health top up cover this bill does not change that. My noble friend, lady and use Andrews gave me a strong challenge, as I think did back Baroness Baroness Tyler, it is going to be produced with other stakeholders. I can reassure my noble Lady that will include carers organisations. It will be heard as part of that process. On a two tier system. One of the reasons is obvious.

It is really common in Social Security, when you make a significant change, that some people are on an existing system will stay on the old terms. The limited capability for work Freeman and Universal Credit, which was change in 2017, people getting at them are still getting it today. I will carry on getting it as long as they are getting it. If you think about it there are only two ways to do it. Either you change either note for everybody you allow those already getting something to carry on getting it and then change it.

We cannot both have no tier system and no cliff edge. It is allowing people to carry on who are used to this to adjust and it think it is the right adjust and it think it is the right thing to do. The noble Viscount Viscount Younger asked about details of exactly what the employment support will be. I cannot, I haven't got time now, I can reassure him we are scaling up fast, 600 million in 2026/2027, connect work, work work, nine Nativity trailblazers, access to thousands pathway work advisers.

Anyone affected by the reduction of the top up will be offered work, health and school support, through an adviser. Neville also talked about the challenges we are facing in the system. Making our Social Security system sustainable is a real objective for this and it must be for every government. That means action of various fronts. Action to reduce mental health, the Bishop of Newcastle said. Action which we are doing by record levels of investment and the NHS. Investment in jobs

20:55

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

import areas and implement support all of which we are doing at scale all of which we are doing at scale and reform of the benefit system and reform of the benefit system which we are committed to doing.... Are not sure that characterises governments. In office. We need to, governments. In office. We need to, as far as possible to have as far as possible to have generations to come, what the welfare state to last for generations to come. Let's try to be generations to come.

Let's try to be sensible about the change. The real price here is long-term reform, that price here is long-term reform, that was shooting for. A couple of noble Lords asked if we are still saving Lords asked if we are still saving money. The PIP measure will come at a cost, the updated assessment shows a cost, the updated assessment shows the bill will deliver some savings the bill will deliver some savings by 2029/2030. The OBR also advise these as part of the next economic and fiscal outlook.

Now, my noble friend, Lady Ritchie asked what friend, Lady Ritchie asked what would happen to people, can I say to would happen to people, can I say to her that existing claimants, anyone declaring a health condition, before 6 April next. And where they become entitled to LC W RA. They will get the higher rate. That includes claimants who currently receive income -related ESA, who can migrate to Universal Credit with no break in to Universal Credit with no break in their claim.

Now... The noble Viscount asked about that, it is not working, so through interventions like work well we are testing different approaches as part of a joined up work, health and school system. About the right to check try regulations, will have those in place and that reassures him. The noble Baroness Ladysmith asked about Wales. We have published impact assessments looking at Britain as a whole, you see as reserved in Scotland and Wales. The policies are specific to a country, take a point.

Northern Ireland has published detailed impact assessments as well stop in response to her comments, we want to make sure that positive changes in the bill make a difference as far and wide as possible. I stress again this is simply, this bill is only specific about the changes I've been describing so far. Our wider programs, some of those are devolved and some of them are reserved. We are absolutely committed to engaging closely. With governments in order to make sure we join this up.

Benefits are spread across Wales as well as other parts of the UK. I hope of address as far as I can the point about the impacts. The couple was in process. I know noble Lords don't like a money bill. I know noble Lords like this, it -- know this. I can only say to the noble Lords, if governments chose to make deals Money Bills, I suspect you would see an awful lot more of them. It was not the decision of the government at all.

I can't pick up all of the points I raised, but we have published impact assessments, we are confident the bill complies with the Equality Act 2010. We have been working with people extensively. On the Timms Review, just be clear about the process on that. We expect the road to be clear but also next year. We are committed to disabled people and others, to ensure a wide range of views and voices are heard. We have already started and will engage widely over the summer on the details of the process and the coproduction.

The review is reporting to the Secretary of State, but she has committed to reporting to Parliament and they will be coming here. I hope I have addressed as many of the points as I can in the limited amount of time. I just want to say a couple of things. One is that I am not ashamed to be part of a government that listens. Even if people have to shout quite loudly. I think sometimes we have to find ways of listening as carefully as we can and which my noble friends would suggest that you legislate haste and repent at leisure.

We have plenty of time to reflect and I'm really happy. I do want to stress that the bill had two parts. The PIP discussions will carry on, in the context of the Timms Review. This half of the bill is about reforming Universal Credit. That is absolutely worth doing, it is a promise worth having and we are happy to carry on with it. I'm glad that we been able to push ahead and look at these details, but the real difference is going to be made in the lives of people on the ground, by the engagement they have, whether work coaches, with all the various services we provide them, with the programs we refer them to.

Try to invest in getting people's lives to be better. In the end, we have to hope, we acknowledge it is something that some people will never be able to work. There are plenty of people that could have the opportunity to work. If we given the right support, and the confidence to try job. If we can get employers to listen and take them seriously, who want to bring on people with history. If we can provide them with the skills they need, with the health support they need.

We are setting out to join all of those things up. Trying to find ways for far too long, these are been separate. We have to join up health, skills, education, social security, all of this. If we can do that, the price is enormous. I do not want to be people at 18, nobody comes near them and offers help. That's not what I wanted to be. I accept I've heard the concerns around the House from different quarters in all directions. I understand that people worry.

I hope very much we are not only underway, reform is underway, we will begin to see that actually we really can make a difference. That is a price worth

**** Possible New Speaker ****

having. About to move. I thank the noble lady the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble lady the Minister for the comprehensive response, in the time available. I response, in the time available. I think everybody who has contributed to this rich debate. I think your to this rich debate. I think your Lordships' House micro has done all we can, within the limits of the procedure that allowance. I specifically highlight our maiden specifically highlight our maiden speech a valedictory speech. However this debate has never been left with as many questions on as many issues as many questions on as many issues raised.

I particularly point to that raised by the noble Lady, Baroness Lister about the way in which we heard from the noble Lady and in the third reading, what is actually on the face of the bill, in terms of the face of the bill, in terms of the constant and continuing and had we had further stages of this bill, we had further stages of this bill, we would have been able to explore that, at depth. We have simply been that, at depth. We have simply been unable to do today.

The equality points raised in terms of age, by Baroness Browning. In terms of gender, by Baroness Brinton and gender, by Baroness Brinton and indeed in terms of nations and we haven't even gone into regions of England. Wales, being raised by the England. Wales, being raised by the noble Lady, Baroness Smith. I think particular highlight was the strong and powerful contributions the noble Lady Grey-Thompson, Britain really attacking some of the disgraceful stigmatisation is and victim blaming that this debate has always been free of, a couple of exceptions.

We have seen far too much in the public have seen far too much in the public The issue of finances, the Lord pointed out the justification for this bill when we started was to cut Government spending and the Noble Lord seeker highlighted the way in which we really have no idea what impacts the bill is going to have on raised costs for the NHS or social raised costs for the NHS or social care. Rates costs for local councils and should be clear I the vice president of the Local Government Association and in terms of jobs the Noble Lord Elliott said we need to do more to encourage employers and I are before you die and with the Noble Lady baroness that I think that employers should be provided they are making appropriate accommodations and the Right Reverend Pollard said we have to embrace those that do not fit that model productivity, people can contribute to our society in many ways and the Noble Lady I sure she did not mean to say this but she spoke about a sense of purpose and I am sure the Noble Lady will acknowledge that as many sides of the House of acknowledge there will be people that will never be able to undertake paid work with those people's lives can still have a sense of purpose.

They can still contribute to communities contribute through caring, contribute through volunteering. If they get the appropriate support. So, the tone of appropriate support. So, the tone of this debate I think has very much been one of regret. I think that people listening to this debate need people listening to this debate need to hear as much support as they possibly can, so I beg to test the opinion of the House.

21:03

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

My Lords, the question is that the amendment in the name of Baroness Bennett be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", I think the not contents have it. The question will be decided by division and I will tell the House when voting is open.

21:05

Division

21:42

Introduction: Lord Case CVO

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 22 House of Lords - 22 July

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page