Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Orders and regulations: Town and Country Planning (Crown Development Applications) (Procedure and Written Representations) Order 2025 - motion to regret

procedure and Written Representations Order 2025. Motion of regret. Baroness Pinnock.

12:01

Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Regret motion on on this statutory instrument. Well before. The Planning and Infrastructure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Excuse me. Now making its way through your Lordships House had through your Lordships House had even had its Second Reading. Many of the issues I am still concerned with in in this order, have been with in in this order, have been debated during the progress of the Bill. However, I make no apology Bill. However, I make no apology for once again making the case for community involvement in community involvement in developments that affect their locality.

This town and country locality. This town and country planning, Crown Development applications Order fundamentally applications Order fundamentally alters the planning landscape in England. While this instrument England. While this instrument appears to be merely procedural, it is in fact a key mechanism for is in fact a key mechanism for cementing a significant power grab that threatens local accountability that threatens local accountability and transparency. Now this this sea and transparency. Now this this sea that we're debating today is also one of three others statutory one of three others statutory instruments which implements the new routes for Crown development, which, to be fair to the government, were introduced by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act.

Now, during the debate on the the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, I argued at that point that there had to be community involvement in planning applications and in particular in particular on behalf of the Crown. So what? Unfortunately, this statutory instrument does is to put central expediency over local democracy and due process in regard to Crown planning applications. So just a bit of an example. The central purpose of this route for Crown development is to allow government departments, and I quote, the appropriate authority to apply directly to the Secretary of State for planning permission, but bypassing the local planning authority entirely.

Now, the rationale provided by the Department is that government departments have faced challenges securing planning permission through the through going through the local planning authority route, and this has resulted in delayed decisions for quote again, nationally important planned projects such as for prisons or defence facilities. Now my argument is simple challenges are the bedrock of a vibrant democracy, and in particular for planning a vibrant local democracy. When a local planning authority scrutinises a development, it is ensuring that the project is in line with community needs and environmental standards, as well as the national need.

So by shifting the power of determination from local authority to the Planning Inspectorate, who act on behalf of the Secretary of State, what what's happening is the local checks and balances are being sacrificed for the sake of speed of decision. One of the most startling issues I noticed in the explanatory memorandum for this is that there's been no public consultation on the instrument. The the department claims this is due to the technical nature of the sea.

Yet this technical instrument results in a in a major policy shift affecting potentially every community in the country or, sorry, in England. While the statutory instrument sets out procedures for standard Crown development, the legislative package also covers urgent crime development and for these, the department has indicated that the need for community engagement will be assessed on a case by case basis, meaning the Secretary of State appears to have almost entirely entirely on their discretion whether local engagement is needed at all.

So if they have this discretion, obviously it puts at peril the public's right to engage with nationally important projects that could drastically alter their neighbourhoods. So the the entire system hinges on the concept of a development being defined as of national importance, and the statutory instrument uses the words crown development. So I wonder if the noble Baroness the Minister can provide an explanation of what is. Defined as Crown development. Is it any development, whatever size is applied for, that takes place on Crown land? Now part five of the instrument allows for the Secretary of State to direct that information related to an application can also be defined as sensitive information.

And the Secretary of State deems that information related to national security or security measures and its public disclosure would be contrary to the national interest, the provisions requiring published public disclosure will not apply. Now, you know, I you can accept that sometimes this is the case. However, in the modern world, nothing is secret and nothing stays away from the public gaze. So while sensitive projects may require limited disclosure, this provision actually provides a broad mechanism for withholding crucial information from the public under the umbrella of national interest.

The government proposes that this package of reforms will bring benefits to the public sector, enabling faster planning decisions and potential cost savings to capital programmes. But at what cost? The statutory instrument and the supporting ones undermine the very principles of local planning. They centralised power, sidestepped public consultation, rely on vague criteria and restrict transparency. And we are being asked to accept an instrument that accelerates government projects by silencing local voices. I urge the noble Baroness, the minister, to consider the long term impact on local government, governance and planning democracy.

As I have done throughout the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and to consider enabling communities to have their voice heard before the process is concluded. Because you can guarantee that local voices will be raised at some point. How much better that those voices are heard during deliberations of a planning application on Crown land, and not after the deal is done. I beg to move. The question is that this motion be agreed to.

12:09

Lord Jamieson (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I declare my interest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. My Lords, we. On this side of the House believe in local democracy. It is why I propose an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would ensure local democracy, that would ensure local democracy, where there are valid planning grounds. And I was pleased that my noble friend, Lord Lansley's amendment on ensuring affirmative procedures for delegated planning powers was passed. However, there powers was passed. However, there is also a need for balance. Today we are seeing a government program of early release of prisoners.

of early release of prisoners. While this is in large part due to a failure to manage the prison population and deport foreign born population and deport foreign born criminals, the lack of prison capacity is also a factor. Importantly, the lack of prison Importantly, the lack of prison space also hampers prison rehabilitation. A matter I know the rehabilitation. A matter I know the prisons minister, Lord the noble Lord Timpson, is much fixed about. Lord Timpson, is much fixed about. And as my noble friend Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist raised last night, the huge impact raised last night, the huge impact of delays and additional costs on the UK nuclear programme is having on the cost of energy a major issue on the cost of energy a major issue for both struggling families and industry.

So it is right to have a balanced approach. My Lords, the section 109 of the previous Conservative government's Levelling Up and Regeneration Act added two new sections to the Town and Country Planning Act, creating new routes for Crown development. These provisions allow for an appropriate authority to apply to the Secretary of State for planning permissions, rather than the local planning authority. The intention behind this change was clear to prevent delay or obstruction to vital national development such as prisons.

My Lords, as I've said, we are sympathetic to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock. But these powers are proportionate and balanced. It is our understanding that the Town and Country Planning Order 2025 concerns the development on Crown land, where the application is deemed to be of national importance. The instrument sets out the procedure for such crown development applications, including applications for planning permissions and approval for reserved matters. Crown development refers to applications made by the Crown bodies for development of national importance.

My Lords, as so often it is in matters like these, the key issue is balance between local voice and national need, between the principle of localism and the imperative to deliver key national infrastructure efficiently. We stand by the intentions of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, which expanded local voices in the round, taking them seriously by strengthening the role of local plans, creating new opportunities for communities to shape development in their areas, and ensuring that decision making is routed closer to the people it affects.

The act sought to make planning more transparent, more accountable and more responsive to local priorities. It was never about sidelining local democracy, but about creating a system capable of delivering both local consent and national progress. The provisions on Crown development sit within that broader context. They are not a retreat from localism, but a recognition that, on occasion, developments of genuine national importance, where the public interest requires a more streamlined approach, sorry, streamline route can be done. The challenge, as ever, is to strike that right balance to protect local accountability, while ensuring the machinery of state can deliver where delay would carry a wider national cost.

Cost. My Lords, that principle underpins both this instrument and the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act itself. And it is right we reaffirm it today. right we reaffirm it today.

12:13

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

My Lords. Perhaps it's the many hours we spent in the chamber debating the planning.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I actually agree with what the noble Lord Jamieson just said. I thank the noble Baroness. Lady Pinnock for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bringing this debate. And for the contributions of the two noble lords that have spoken. I must admit, I was a little bit surprised to see the noble Baronesses regret motion on the agenda, as she had asked herself in amendment 87 for asked herself in amendment 87 for the Planning and Infrastructure bill for a request for a streamlined planning process for streamlined planning process for asylum processing sites. However, I think she's explained that maybe her regret motion went in before we started debating that bill in May.

We brought forward the regulations We brought forward the regulations subject to this debate, along with the wider suite of regulations to bring both Crown development and urgent Crown development routes urgent Crown development routes into force. These are the Crown Development route for developments which are considered of national importance, and urgent Crown development for a nationally important development, which is also needed as a matter of urgency. also needed as a matter of urgency. Some of the noble Lords in attendance today will remember when we debated these regulations we debated these regulations earlier this year.

As I said then, these routes are crucial to ensure that there is a more timely and that there is a more timely and proportionate planning process for nationally important public services and infrastructure, which services and infrastructure, which the state directly delivers. For instance, new defence facilities, prisons and border controls. The issues which we have been debating very a very short time ago in this House, and they're essential for the effective running of this country. Recent experience, including the response to Covid, exposed that the existing route for securing planning permission for urgent Crown development, which was introduced in 2006, was not fit for purpose.

In fact, it had never been used. Furthermore, government departments have historically struggled to secure local planning permission for some nationally important public service infrastructure, such as prisons. This is why, when we came to power, we decided to take forward the provisions in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, which legislate for new Crown development routes in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. As the noble Lord Jason mentioned. It's worth reiterating that these new routes can only be used where it's justified.

Crown development provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act require that applications can only be accepted by the Secretary of State if he deems that the proposed development is of national importance, and if it is also urgent in the case of urgent Crown development route. With this being said, though, Noble Lords will recall that when we were in opposition, we too had our concerns that these powers, which were being taken by the government at the time through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, would not be used appropriately.

So before we brought the regulations into force, both the Housing and Planning Minister and myself made written ministerial statements on the 13th of February, which set out the principles under which these new routes would be used, and outlined the safeguards and transparency measures which would be put in place. We also also published the draft regulations to allow scrutiny of their provisions, notably, the regulations for both routes require applicants when submitting an application to set out the reasons why they consider the development is of national importance and, in the case of urgent crown development, why that is needed as a matter of urgency.

The Secretary of State or ministers acting on his behalf, then assess whether this justification meets the criteria set out in the written ministerial statement. The gateway process provides an important safeguard as we as government ministers are accountable to Parliament in the W.m.s. we also committed to writing to the relevant MPs when we accept proposals through this gateway process and when decisions are made under the routes, and these are deposited in the library of both Houses of Parliament. In terms of public engagement, I think the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock is most concerned about that.

So it might be helpful if I just give some brief information on that. It's a key part of the Crown development process to have community engagement, much like an application submitted to the local authority, there is mandatory consultation and publicity of the application for a minimum period of 21 days. This includes notifying neighbours, affixing a site notice and advertising the application in a local newspaper. This period will be 30 days. If the development is environmental impact assessment development, and this enables members of the community to view and comment on the application.

Any comments made during the consultation and publicity period and hearing which raised material planning matters, will be taken into account as part of the decision making process. We expect that the majority of Crown development applications will be subject to a public hearing, and those who made comments will be notified when this is to take place. Interested parties can attend the hearing if the inspector allows it. The local planning authority will also have a role to play. They will need to place the application and associated documents on their planning register.

Also, as Pins don't have a local presence. The local planning officer sorry local planning authority will be required to affix site notices during the mandatory publicity period and notify those owners or occupiers who adjoin the site. And of course, with urgent Crown development, it's slightly different in terms of the procedure about consultation. We appreciate the importance of community engagement, given the urgency with such decisions must be made. We have to assess urgent applications on a case by case basis where decisions need to be made very quickly.

It may not be possible to conduct a meaningful public consultation and and reach an urgent decision. However, we do urge that alternative methods may be able to be used and taken into account. So, for example, you could use digital methods if it was necessary to consult on a very speedy basis. Also, on an annual basis, the Secretary of State will publish a report of all decisions taken under the rules. Under these routes. Sorry. Taken together, the steps will ensure that members in the upper House are properly appraised of any applications that relate to their constituencies.

This will also mean that both houses will have the opportunity to consider and scrutinise the general operation of the routes, with regard to the involvement of local planning authorities. The regulations for both routes. Ensure the local planning authority, who would normally have determined the application, is still involved. They are notified when the application is accepted, consulted before a decision is made and their comments must be taken into account by the decision maker before issuing a decision within the Crown Development route, they will play an active role by providing the Planning Inspectorate with a questionnaire setting out the key policies and site history, as well as publicising the application for the local community and by putting up site notices.

So while they're not the decision maker, they are very definitely engaged and involved in it. The noble lady asked me, what is Crown land and what is the route to this? The section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act defines who is an applicant known as an appropriate authority for the purposes of applications under these routes. For example, this includes where land belongs to a government department or is held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of a government department, or that then that government department is considered the appropriate authority for land belonging to His Majesty.

In right of the Duchy of Lancaster, The Chancellor of the Duchy is the appropriate authority, and, for example, for land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall. Such a person as the Duke of Cornwall appoints is the appropriate authority. So I hope that explains who who are the authorities in this case? And it's the person making the application. It will be expected to demonstrate the Crown has a sufficiently high degree of interest in, or control over the proposed development for which planning permission is sought at the noble Lady also asked me about sensitive information and how that's handled.

In the majority of cases, it may not be necessary to include sensitive information as part of the application. This is because it may not be relevant to whether planning permission should be granted. However, there may be some cases where it cannot be avoided and where this is the case. There are provisions to make sure and enable that information to be withheld. And there is a Crown casework team in the department, and they are made aware that there is sensitive information involved.

And that's in order to make sure that the level of care and the inspector is, is appropriate, and that inspectors are officials with the right level of clearance, can be stood up to deal with that particular application. I hope that's helpful. These regulations are important to ensure a more timely and proportionate process for dealing with planning applications of national importance for Crown development in England, the government is taking steps to ensure these routes are used appropriately, and that there is full scrutiny over the use of the powers.

I am grateful to the noble Lady for allowing me to explain all the bases behind Crown development.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I do thank the noble Baroness Minister very much for her Baroness Minister very much for her very full and detailed response to very full and detailed response to my concerns. The the fundamentals unfortunately remain, which is the unfortunately remain, which is the noble Baroness is quite right to say that all the there will be notification, the local planning authority will be involved and authority will be involved and voices of comments and so on can be heard.

But in the end the decision is taken over there and not where is taken over there and not where it should be in the locality. And that that has always been my concern as a noble Baroness the minister will know, and I just think the balance has been tipped too far in favour of government planning applications on Crown land, rather than trying to speed up rather than trying to speed up process which still engages, involves local people in a full way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

involves local people in a full way. So having said that, however. Comment that the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Comment that the noble Baroness has spent many, many hours in this chamber debating what we're doing elsewhere in the planning system to speed up decision making. So while I, I, I understand her great championing of community engagement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in planning, we are trying to get the balance right here. And I accept that wholly. And,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I accept that wholly. And, you know, I know the noble Baroness Minister has always responded Minister has always responded positively to the queries I've raised. It's just that we disagree on the balance. And so I shall on the balance. And so I shall continue sort of challenging because I think that's what's because I think that's what's always needed. But with those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw. Is it your Lordships that the Is it your Lordships that the motion be withdrawn? The motion is by leave withdrawn, and we now move

12:25

Orders and regulations: Protection of Children Codes of Practice - motion to regret

by leave withdrawn, and we now move to our next business, which is draft Protection of Children's codes of practice for Search Clement-Jones.

12:25

Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords. This today is a regret motion. And one of my regrets today is that we're debating this motion so long after it was tabled back in May this year, the Online Safety Act 2023 was born from tireless campaigning over a long period of time. And when I look round the chamber, I see a number of those who were heavily engaged on that act. And the clear parliamentary intent was to create a safer digital environment. This House passed landmark legislation with the clear ambition to compel online platforms to take proportional measures to safeguard children from accessing or being exposed to harmful and inappropriate content and behaviour.

And one of the key questions today, which many have continued to raise since I first put down the regret motion, was does the implementation of the act match that ambition? The children's codes of practice were intended to translate Parliament's intent into practical reality. Yet following scrutiny by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, extensive feedback from civil society organisations and analysis of emerging online harms, it's clear that in their current form, these codes present significant shortcomings. Hence this regret motion.

The Molly Rose Foundation, founded following the death of 14 year old Molly Russell, is, for example, deeply dismayed by the lack of ambition in these codes, and states explicitly that they do not have confidence that the Online Safety Act will prevent a repeat of Molly's death. The Online Safety Act explicitly mandates that a higher standard of protection is provided for children than for adults. It demands that services are safe by design, yet the codes recommend only a limited number of measures that do little to address the fundamental design, features and functionalities that facilitate or exacerbate harm to children.

Specifically, the codes fail to address the harmful design features that platforms have embedded in their business models, features that prioritise engagement and monetisation over safety. These include scroll mechanisms that trap children in continuous content consumption, push notifications that constantly pull them back to platforms, loot boxes that exploit addictive behaviours, and algorithmic amplification that prioritises content designed to maximise engagement rather than well-being. Ofcom will only require platforms to reduce the frequency to which children are shown.

Certain forms of harmful content, such as dangerous stunts, rather than demanding they stop recommending it altogether. Several platforms have persuaded the regulator that content moderation is not technically feasible, leading Ofcom to require only proportionate alternatives in quotes, such as preventing access to group chats where primary content primary priority content has been identified, which the Molly Rose Foundation anticipates is highly likely to be gamed by the industry. Measures that could have helped, such as enabling children to provide feedback on algorithmic recommendations, appear to have been watered down and are now effectively left to the platforms discretion.

The codes fail to adequately require safety by design, and fail to require companies to take specific actions to address high risk functionalities and like live streaming. Despite Ofcom highlighting them in its register of risks, civil society organisations such as Internet Matters have expressed disappointment that key recommendations regarding parental controls were not included as specific duties. There is a notable lack of reference to media literacy, essential for equipping families to support children's safety concerns surrounding complex issues like child on child harms were raised in consultation, yet these recommendations were not taken forward.

The fundamental problem regarding pornography is not just access, but pornography itself is extreme, depicting acts that could not be legally published in offline formats like DVDs and the regulator's proposed measures for recommender systems are seen as having misdiagnosed the core problem, focusing narrowly on demotion of illegal content rather than addressing the amplification of lawful but cumulatively harmful content. My Lords. The second key issue is the failure of process. It's a matter of great concern that civil society organisations and victims groups felt they were not listened to during consultation.

These groups draw on the lived and often traumatic experience of victims and survivors, and they report that fundamental issues they flagged remain unaddressed. There is a suggestion that Ofcom may have given greater weight to industry concerns than to the voices of safety advocates. Ofcom has explicitly confirmed that it has made no quantitative assessment or modelling of the societal costs and impacts of harmful online content. The quantified financial cost to businesses of compliance are given disproportionate weight compared to the immense political impact of the immense potential impact of harm on individuals and the wider economic and societal costs and my Lords.

The third issue is the question of structural flaws. The safe harbour problem. Perhaps the most urgent concern relates to the fundamental architecture of these codes. Ofcom initially described them as transformational, yet subsequently characterised them as merely a first iteration. Was this what we envisaged when we passed the Online Safety Act? Ofcom's codes provide a safe harbour to platforms that effectively mean the codes act as a ceiling, not a floor, for their safety standards, and this provides platforms at exactly the incentive we would wish to discourage the incentive to do precisely what is mandated and nothing more.

The measures risked baking in the current industry response, rather than incentivising safety by design or taking steps beyond the status quo. The regulatory mechanism mirrors what the largest platforms are already doing. Setting a ceiling that disincentivizes innovation beyond the status quo. Ofcom's iterative approach has been criticised as being too slow and reactive, leaving a big gap in outcomes. Despite claiming that the protection of children's codes are transformative and a game changer, Ofcom has not produced any impact assessment to set out their likely effects, nor does it face any requirement to meet or report against specific specified harm reduction targets.

Ofcom does acknowledge that not all individual risks have specific measures in the codes. A platform may identify new harmful trends through its mandatory risk assessments, new forms of grooming, emerging harms in virtual reality. The exploitation of artificial intelligence. Yet these risks are not covered by specific measures in the current iteration of the codes, and there is no immediate legal obligation for the platform to address them. This means that vulnerable children are left unprotected in the interim period, until the next iteration is consulted on my Lords.

This is unacceptable. We need urgent assurance that the government is prepared to address this fundamental flaw, potentially by amending the Online Safety Act to close this loophole and ensure that safe by design is delivered in practice. And then there is the specific decision to reduce protective measures regarding smaller services. My Lords why should smaller sites become a safe harbour where harmful activity flourishes? At the risk of returning to our previous regret motion on categorisation, we have all been clear that there should be the highest duty on sites that pose the greatest risks.

Critics rightly ask why should small sites become a safe harbour where harmful activity flourishes? And fourthly, my Lords, the practical and accessibility challenges raised by the Slsc. They pointed out that the regulatory framework is complex to the point of opacity. Key documents run to over 600 pages. This complexity makes it difficult to navigate and undermines accessibility for those trying to understand service providers duties. And this is not merely an administrative convenience inconvenience for platforms, it makes it harder for parents, victims and smaller organisations to understand their rights and to effectively report concerns.

The Slsc questioned how practical it is to expect children themselves to complain about harmful content, and it is unclear what further action children could take if a service provider simply rejects their complaint. These systems must be designed with children first approach to guarantee that they're truly accessible and effective, and these practical challenges include immediate concerns about implementation, the widespread use of virtual private networks by children and young people risks rendering age assurance measures ineffective. My Lords what is the government's response to that? Concerns remain that age assurance systems may pose a data protection or privacy threat to users.

Crucially, civil society organisations are concerned that both Ofcom and the ICO have not stipulated a clear approach as to how age assurance methods will be evaluated for compliance with data protection. There are concerns also that important content such as political debate, educational sites and information sites like Wikipedia, and support forums dealing with LGBTQ plus rights or sexual health are being inappropriately age gated on social media. My Lords. We raise this as a major risk during the passage of the act, what is the government's response? And my Lords, I want to return to the harms and the scale of emerging threats that these regulatory gaps leave unaddressed.

The Child Online Harms Policy think tank has highlighted emerging threats the codes do not adequately address. These are not hypothetical harms. They are happening now in virtual reality environments. Children as young as nine are entering 18 plus virtual rooms. Instances of virtual groping and sexual assault have been documented. The Virac project found that grooming is a top risk, with half of young participants reporting strangers asking for personal images or details features in these immersive platforms encourage policing and moderation, and the high level of immersion makes harassment, hate speech and exposure to harmful adult content far more impactful than in traditional online spaces.

Yet it remains unclear how the Online Safety Act will adequately address these challenges, particularly given its focus on content rather than the contact and conduct risks that dominate in virtual reality platforms and my Lords. I could mention the threat from artificial intelligence, which is projected that 90% of all online content will be AI generated by the end of 2025. AI powered systems can inadvertently or deliberately expose children to inappropriate content, encourage risky behaviours, and enable new forms of targeted exploitation.

And this represents a fundamental shift in how children are being exploited online. Young people are increasingly vulnerable to becoming both victims and perpetrators of cybercrime. My Lords. The draft codes form an essential part of the new online safety regime, but the criticisms that have been made are completely justified. These codes are too cautious. They fail to incorporate civil society expertise. They're undermined by the safe harbour provision and an incremental approach that leaves gaps which leave children vulnerable. My Lords can the Minister confirm what timescale has been agreed with Ofcom for the revision of these codes? We must have assurance on the approach to future consultations and scrutiny, ensuring Parliament is kept fully informed of progress in closing these dangerous regulatory gaps.

We also need confirmation that future risk assessments will be required to consider not just content, but also content, conduct and contract risks. The full range of harms children face. The ambition of the Online Safety Act demands robust, comprehensive and urgent action. We cannot afford to leave children exposed to known risks in the digital world while we wait for a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gradual, reactive regulatory process to catch up, I beg to move. The question is that this motion

12:38

Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to? My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones for initiating Lord Clement-Jones for initiating this debate, and I agree with almost everything he has just said. I applaud the enormous work Ofcom has put into creating and implementing the children's code. I am pleased to hear that it has already led to a huge reduction in children online, online, accidentally stumbling upon pornography and other harmful materials. However, I do fear, as the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones has just said, that the rules based nature of the codes specify narrow recommended measures rather than incentivising desired outcomes and encouraging the platforms to implement mitigations to children's harms which go beyond these codes.

This is particularly the case with live streaming. According to Ofcom's own finding, it is a risky functionality. The regulator's register of risk says that live streaming can be a risk for several kinds of harm to children. It specifies the real time sharing of suicide and self-harm content. Dame Melanie Dawes, When she came before the Communications and Digital Committee on which I have the privilege to serve, said that Ofcom had implemented mitigations to live streaming for under 18. The measures stopped them from using lights, switches off screen capture and prohibits comments on their feeds.

This is the beneficial effect of stopping any adult who might consider grooming a child from interacting, and encouraging the child user to take further action. However, it still exposes children to potential harms from adult predators. Surely the best option would be to stop children from using the functionality, or at least introduce some age appropriate design, which limits usage to 16 to 18 year olds. I know that Ofcom regards such a ban, or even age appropriate design, as being too punitive for service, which is used by under 18 year olds, but it would achieve the aim of the Online Safety Act, which is to protect children from harm.

In addition, I'd ask the regulator to address established pathways to harm that end in live streams, even if they don't begin there. In particular, to address the specific threat profile of Comt groups, where children are identified and contacted via other functionalities and then moved onto live streams where they're often coerced into horrific actions. These and other upstream measures will protect children from these harms. Maybe looking at introducing time delays between the account being set up and being allowed to to start a live stream would be a good idea.

Already some services, such as Live Me app have banned children from live streaming on their app. My additional fear is that even when services such as these go beyond the threshold set out in the act, there is no rollback provision to stop them reneging on such beneficial actions. My other area of concern is the use of VPNs by children, which have just been raised by the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones. When the codes were first introduced, there were reported to be a huge rise in their use.

Internet matters estimated that 1 in 10 under 18 year olds were using VPNs. The fear was they were going on to VPNs to access harmful content where the codes had prevented them from reaching it. Ofcom has said it is uncertain why there is such a big increase in use. Many children claim they need the VPN because the internet connection at their school is bad, and it's a way of improving access to the internet. I just wonder why, if this is the case, the rise in VPN use should coincide with the introduction of children's codes.

If there have been such a problem with school connections, surely that would be an issue raised prior to the adoption of the codes. The Children's Commissioner, in her August report, called for the government to explore options to ensure the use of VPNs to avoid the age assurance process could could be achieved by amending the Online Safety Act to bring in an additional provision, which would require VPN providers in the UK to adopt a highly effective age assurance threshold to prevent children accessing pornographic sites.

Can the noble Lady the minister tell the House whether any such measures are being considered? At the very least, there should be an education programme for parents who in many cases enhance the policing of their children's use of VPNs by understanding their possible misuses. For instance, when they're asked to pay for the children's access to VPN app, they should interrogate the need for this access. Surely there could be general advice for safety protection given to parents, as happens with parental controls of video games.

I know Ofcom is carrying out research into why children are using VPNs. It's a welcome step. I have to ask why this wasn't anticipated and research carried out earlier. I'm pleased with the greatly improved safety environment for children imposed introduced with these codes. But the internet is a dangerous place, and I ask the noble Lady of the Minister to ensure that a safe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place for all our children, in all its functionalities. My Lords.

12:44

Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Conservative)

- -

12:47

Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords I also thank the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones for introducing this regret motion, which I'm very familiar with because as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I was part of the team scrutinising it when they came in front of us. I welcome the noble Lady of the minister to her post. This is one of her early baptisms in the world of online safety, and it will be the precursor, I suspect, to many more. So I suspect she'll be on a fairly steep learning curve and I wish her well.

Many people have spoken about the perception many of us have, between the difference between what Parliament we thought was being very explicit about, in terms of our hopes and ambitions for the Online Safety Bill, as it then was, as it went through Parliament and in particular a huge amount of time in this House. And if she hasn't been able to, I would suggest that she could benefit from sitting down over a suitable libation with Lord Parkinson. Viscount Camrose Lord Clement-Jones, Lady Harding Baroness Kidron and Lord Colville and others to to just understand first hand what we thought we were being very, very clear about in terms of what our what Parliament's expectations were when this act became an act and what we are experiencing in terms of its enactment.

And I do think that would be really helpful in understanding where it is we're coming from. When we repeatedly raise some of these some of these issues. And that really comes under the heading of an insufficiency of ambition. And I think clarity of understanding about what it was we thought we were being very clear about. Secondly, the failure of process in certain areas. And I won't go into great detail, but, you know, the fact that smaller, high risk sites to a large extent are excluded is, is is madness because it is exactly on some of those smaller, high risk sites that you have incidents of people being encouraged to self-harm, you have incidents of people being encouraged to end their lives, and you have radicalisation and that that is going on in plain sight.

And at the moment, Ofcom does not appear to feel that it is in a position A to have enough resources to do anything about it, and b I'm not sure it feels it is entirely clear under the auspices of the act whether indeed this should be a priority for it. There are also structural flaws we've mentioned. Lord Clement-Jones mentioned the safe harbour, but I mean, I think there are three key questions I would pose to the minister where I don't expect her to be able to give a magic answer at the despatch box, but but to really focus on trying to get an understanding of what's going on and some answers, because I'm sure she will be asked some of these questions in the future.

The first is, does Ofcom have sufficient resources and knowledge at its disposal to do what we very clearly intended it to do in the act? The evidence at the moment, in terms of what it is able to do, is I'm not sure the resources are adequate or the resources, if they are adequate, are not being tactically and strategically deployed in the best way to achieve what it was we were trying to do. The second point was referred to briefly, but we tried very hard during the passage of the act to try and find a place for parents to go if, under the terms of the act, they are meant to go to the platform with which they have a problem, perhaps their child was harmed or God forbid, even died if the platform is unable to satisfy them and give them a, you know, adequate response.

They have nowhere to go. And we talked about that at length during the passage of the the act. That is still the case. And, my Lords, I just do not think in all conscience that that is adequate or appropriate. And I do encourage the government to look carefully at that and how that might be mitigated. And talking to people like Ian Russell and the Molly Rose Foundation would be a very good way of understanding what those families who are not getting an adequate response are going through, and will continue to go through.

The third area is the is the level of scrutiny that the act is undergoing. We fought in vain to try and encourage the then government to agree to set up a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament to actually scrutinise the Online Safety Act on a on a continuing basis, to to establish a dialogue with Ofcom in a direct and relatively open way, but also for it to be possible to be done if needs be more discreetly and and away from the limelight and publicity, to try and understand some of the issues and problems Ofcom may be having, and to see how we can help, rather than being slightly outside it as it is currently constructed.

I. I do not feel comfortable being critical of Ofcom without necessarily being in full receipt of the facts and understanding what's really going on inside. And I think all of us involved in the passage of the bill, what is now the act, would actually like to help Ofcom do its job, not sort of not not castigate it for not doing what we think it should have done. So I do think trying to see if there is a way that we can have a more regular dialogue between Parliament and Ofcom for each to understand where the other is coming from and to be better informed would be a good step forward on the day before yesterday in in our committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, we had yet another statutory instruments on online safety, in this case from the Home Office.

And again, I'm afraid it was slightly disappointing news. It has a particularly catchy title. This secondary instrument. It's called Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Content reporting by regulated user to user service providers, bracket revocation end of bracket regulations, which for those in the dispatch box, is Statutory Instrument. 2025 stroke 1066. Like the Battle of Hastings. And in this particular case, what has happened is that an online portal which was meant to enable all reports of child sexual exploitation and abuse to go into a central portal to then say they're all aggregated in one place, which was meant to go live, I think next month, for reasons to do with, I think probably poor design and project planning will not indeed go live.

They're having to, I think, effectively rebuild it and it will hopefully go online if it works at some point in the spring. But that, I think is another. And we will publish that report and we will be able to read about it and you will see the committee, we were not exactly happy. And in this case, the Home Office provided an inadequate explanatory memorandum and has agreed to go back and and do a better job. And I can see the Chair of our committee sitting behind the Minister, and he will be very well aware of that.

So I would just say, in conclusion, I do think the status quo is is untenable. And I think until and unless the group of us who were particularly closely involved in the passage of the act are more confident that and above all, some of the victims who are suffering in the online world, particularly children, until we feel that they are better protected, until we feel that the concerns and experiences they have are being responded to more robustly and succinctly and accurately, we will continue to keep on raising this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue again and again. My Lords may I start by

12:56

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords may I start by apologising? I came to listen to this debate from the steps of the throne, and the more I listened, the more I thought that I would make a very short contribution. I'd like to join others and thank you in the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones for his motion. The noble Lord Lord Storey and others in the House, the noble Lord Lord Watson will know that as part of the children's well-being and schools, Bill Lord Nash and I and others have introduced a number of amendments that are relative to our relevant to our debate today, one which would raise the age of access for children to social media from 13 to 15, one which would prohibit the use of VPNs by children, and thirdly, which would ban the the use of smartphones in schools during the school day.

And the Department for education and the noble Baroness Lady Lea Smith of Malvern, has, in her rejection of our proposed amendments at committee, cited the lack of convincing evidence as a reason for waiting and also the fact that these codes were going to be implemented and that it was premature to act. I think I hope there's some way of making sure that she is also briefed on today's debate, because I think she might feel, if she listened to some of the comments around the House, somewhat less reassured.

She also would have been less reassured. If she'd been present at the Round table. We hosted across parties and with crossbench support. Also earlier this week, which took evidence from medical experts including the noble Baroness Lady Cass from academic experts, safeguarding experts and what we heard was really deeply, deeply troubling. And the noble Baroness the minister may be aware there are a number of ongoing campaigns about aspects of this and the way that social media has led to tragic deaths of children.

The noble Lord Lord Russell referred to Ian Russell and his daughter Molly, but also Esther Gay, mother of Brianna, Guy and Ellen Room, mother of Jules, also lost their children tragically as a result of their involvement with social media. So I would just say briefly to the noble Baroness, the Minister, that it's just an opportunity to be the right side of history for the government. All the evidence seems to be going in one direction and one direction only in terms of harm to children.

And if there is ever a time to adopt the precautionary principle, then surely this is it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Baroness Baron began with an apology, and I must do the same, because I didn't leave my same, because I didn't leave my office quite soon enough, and I missed the first few paragraphs of the speech by the noble Lord Lord

12:59

Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)

- -

the speech by the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones, to whom I personally apologise. And I apologise to the House in general for that. As a noble Lord, Russell said, I am the Chair of the the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, but I speak entirely today in a in a personal capacity. The noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones has actually left very little to say. So I will say very little. But the I certainly agreed with the important points which she highlighted and went into in some detail.

I think the gaps remaining in those codes are a genuine concern, and the Department for science, Innovation and Technology and Ofcom have pointed to the fact that they are simply the first iteration. Well, that may well be the the case, but if it is, of course it is. They both will need to ensure that any shortcomings that emerge are addressed at the earliest opportunity. And I hope it may be possible for my my noble friend who I welcome to her post on the front bench to offer an assurance that the necessary legislative changes that result from the shortcomings will be implemented as a matter of priority.

I think anything else would be entirely inappropriate. Indeed, perhaps even unforgivable. I think that I've been critical of of of com in the past, and I have to say, I remain unconvinced that they have shown the necessary urgency, given the speed at which we all know that online platforms develop their content. But I have to say, in Ofcom's defence, I'm not sure that they have got the adequate resources to make sure that the these codes and indeed the ones that will follow them are adequately implemented.

I question whether they have or will have enough staff with the appropriate expertise. And that, of course, is entirely appropriate given the developing the platforms developed, but with the appropriate expertise to carry out the responsibilities stemming from the Online Safety Act and particularly these these codes. And finally, I have a word to say about the complaints process, because I think there are questions around the practicality of expecting children to complain to a service provider in situations where they come into contact with harmful content.

I think it was the noble Baroness Baron who said, who highlighted the difference between a 13 year old and a 17 year old. They're both children, but obviously they're significantly different in terms of their their development and their ability to deal with what they see as harmful content. And I think, again, I would ask my noble friend the minister to say what would happen in situations where complaints from children are rejected by service providers and what happens thereafter. My Lords in a world where we increasingly rely on technology as part of our day to day lives, surely ensuring children are safe when they're online is of paramount importance and should be a key priority.

Successive governments have, I acknowledge, moved to effectively tackle this issue and protect children from harmful online activity. But I do not think any of us can get away from the speed of development. As the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones said, there are many issues that need to be addressed in order to ensure that the draft codes of practice operate in an effective manner, and I think that is the least we should be seeking in protecting young people from the risks to their safety online.

13:03

Viscount Camrose (Conservative)

- -

My Lords I think. your Lordships' House unites us so thoroughly as our shared recognition that children must be protected from harmful online content and behaviours. I'm I'm delighted to feel that we are as one when it comes to the importance of shielding young people from extreme pornography content, promoting such self-harm, suicide or other serious risks. And this makes it all the more important to scrutinise how the government and Ofcom have chosen to implement these protections.

The role of the draft codes of practice, laid in April this year and brought into effect in July, is, of course, to translate Parliament's intentions into practical rules for service providers. And as the noble Lord, Lord Russell set out so clearly, there really are some serious concerns about whether these codes are being are achieving their stated objectives. And let me also thank the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing this really important motion to the House today and giving us the chance to our views.

There is some evidence that the codes are being applied in a way that risks overreach and unintended consequences. Some platforms, such as X and Reddit, in attempting to comply, blocked wide ranging content, including parliamentary debates on grooming gangs and posts relating to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Several experts have been warning that such overapplication actually risks stifling legitimate public debate, but it has even been suggested that some platforms deliberately overapply some of the rules as a way to influence government towards weakening them.

The act was always designed to respect freedom of expression, political and otherwise, while protecting internet users, especially children, from harm. The government's own guidance confirms this that clearly the practical effect has not always to date reflected that intent. There also exists concerns about the complexity and accessibility of the codes, platforms. Parents, of course, children themselves in some instances may struggle to understand what duties are required and how to enforce them. The guidance is hundreds of pages long, and while Ofcom has indeed issued advice on risk assessments and age verification measures, there is a real danger that the practical realities of compliance, particularly for smaller providers, leave gaps in protection.

Complexity should not become a barrier to the very protections these codes are meant to provide. My Lords, we've been discussing as well the iterative approach taken by Ofcom, presenting the codes as a first step to be refined over time. And I would argue that the taking an iterative approach in principle is actually essential for two reasons. First, because as we know, this is a pioneering piece of legislation and we must remain open to adapting it. And second, because I'm afraid the people we're up against are inventive users of fast moving technology.

But the iterative approach is also clearly creating uncertainty. Civil society organisations have reported that their concerns were not fully addressed during consultation. Children face immediate risks and it is really imperative that the government ensures that these gaps are closed without delay. As the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones I believe, stated this statistic a young life aged between 10 and 19 is lost to suicide every week, where technology has been a factor, the codes should not act or be viewed as a ceiling for safety standards.

They must set a floor for safety standards and be subject to firm and measurable enforcement. Enforcement and proportionality are, of course, critical. The act grants Ofcom significant powers, including fines, criminal liability and restrictions on financial and commercial arrangements. Yet there are practical challenges to ensuring that these powers are applied in a proportionate and evidence based way. The critical challenge facing the government as it operates the Act's machinery is to protect children, while avoiding excessive interference with legitimate content and adult access to lawful material.

So all that said, on these benches, we do have questions over the government's handling of these codes. Our purpose is to challenge the government to deliver children's online safety effectively and proportionately, and while I welcome the noble Lady the Minister, to her place and wish her the very best for her very important role, particularly in this respect, let me ask her for some greater clarity if she is able to provide it on three strands of Ofcom's work, how will they first monitor implementation by platforms? Second, how will they ensure that civil society is genuinely incorporated? And of course, that consultees recognise that they have been listened to? And third, how will they address current gaps in coverage without delay? So I am delighted to be participating in this important debate and to have the opportunity to to seek these assurances from the government.

We really must see rapid action to ensure that the codes protect children in practice, do not inadvertently suppress legitimate debate, and are accessible and enforceable in the real world. I support the scrutiny behind this regret motion and hope that when the noble Lady the Minister rises, she will provide answers that reassure us all that the protection of children online is being delivered with both effectiveness and proportionality. Yes. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Anything. their. Valuable contributions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Valuable contributions. Today, and to. The noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones for initiating the

13:10

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

Clement-Jones for initiating the debate. And I absolutely acknowledge the huge expertise in the room here in the House today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his suggestion of Russell, for his suggestion of further discussions with individual members. And I found reading the the the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee's report sort of an excellent basis for this discussion as well. That committee, discussion as well. That committee, I think, plays a very important role as as do the other committees, role as as do the other committees, the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee and the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

And I think the role of ongoing scrutiny by all of these bodies is absolutely essential. I believe that the the matter of the specific committee that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned would be a matter for the House as to whether that particular committee would be set up to monitor this, this piece of legislation and the codes as, as legislation and the codes as, as other as others have mentioned, we are working very closely with Ofcom to monitor the effectiveness of of to monitor the effectiveness of of the Online Safety Act.

And while the early signs are encouraging, the true test will be whether adults and children are having a safer online experience. Ofcom has put in place a robust monitoring and evaluation program, tracking changes firms are making in response to regulation, gathering data from the supervised services and commissioning research to measure impact. And I think some of that research has been mentioned in the course of the debate. It is quite extensive and actually provides quite a lot of information to civil society organisations and members of this House and others.

And I think what does bind us together is the determination to do everything we need to keep children safe online, built on the evidence that is a priority. And the previous Secretary of State, in issuing his statement of strategic priorities, made clear that the first priority was safety by design. And that builds on the safety by design measures within the codes, such as the safer design of algorithms to filter out harmful content from children's feeds. And on the 25th of July, Ofcom published its statement setting out how it proposes or what it proposes to do.

In consequence of that statement of strategic priorities, and it must, under the act, publish further annual reviews of what action it has taken as a result of those statement of strategic priorities, including on safety by design. We have also taken action to strengthen the regulatory framework by making further offences priority offences under the Online Safety Act, reflecting the most serious and prevalent illegal content and online activity. For example, laying an Si to make cyber flashing and encouraging self-harm a priority offence, and the intention of making sharing of intimate images without consent a priority offence under the act.

Others have mentioned the importance of basing our decisions on good evidence on what is happening, and recognising the research was further required to improve the evidence base. The government has also commissioned a feasibility study to explore the impact of smartphones and social media on, on on on social media use on children. Let me turn to some of the specific issues. The first is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

obviously. Just on the point about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just on the point about the evidence, if I may, and I'm absolutely not an expert in this, absolutely not an expert in this, but Baroness Cass definitely is, and I just think it would be a very good use of the noble Ladies time, good use of the noble Ladies time, if I may, to meet with her, because. if I may, to meet with her, because. What she described is a situation where the research that's being where the research that's being done is at a population level where changes will be very, very difficult and attribution will be difficult and attribution will be very difficult to discern.

What she what. I understood her to make the what. I understood her to make the case for I don't want to misrepresent her. Was that what clinicians are seeing in front of clinicians are seeing in front of them has a lot of parallels with her review of the Tavistock. So on her review of the Tavistock. So on the one hand, you wait for great population level surveys, but actually you need to act on what's actually you need to act on what's being seen. And as I say, I think it's important that the government it's important that the government looks at both.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

looks at both. I think the Baroness Burt suggestion, I'd be very happy, obviously, to speak with Baroness Cass and. Leverage her experience in drawing up the right, the right models of evidence gathering and research. The just just coming back to the the sort of the core, I think of some of the points that Lord Clement-Jones and others were making about the, the, the implementation of the act through the codes. Ofcom has met the 18th month statutory timeline that was set by Parliament to finalise the guidance and codes of practice relating to illegal harms and the protection of children.

The illegal content safety duties came in March this year, meaning that all companies in scope will need to protect all users, including children, from illegal content and criminal behaviour on their services. And then on the 24th of April this year, Ofcom submitted to the Secretary of State the final draft protection codes of conduct, and that regime came into force on the 25th of July following parliamentary scrutiny. So these protection of children codes are a significant step forward, with the largest social media companies having to keep children safe online.

By law, this means services are required to implement age checks to stop children being exposed to the most harmful content, such as pornography, and content that promotes, encourages or provides instructions for eating disorders, suicide or self-harm, and services must also implement age appropriate measures to protect children from other types of harmful content, including abusive or hateful material, bullying content and content that depicts serious violence or injury. Additionally, services are now required by law to design algorithms in ways that will protect children from being served harmful content.

Let me just address here the the the question that Baroness Harding raised about age limits, as she knows, probably more than more than everyone providers have age restrictions and these are parts of their terms of service. And so that is something that Ofcom and others will be looking at very, very carefully in their supervisory procedures. And so they can be held to account for everything they say that is in their terms of service. So let me come next to the question that has been raised about the consultation with civil society and others on the codes, in line with the statutory duties.

Ofcom did consult widely on the proposals and has spoken to or heard from over 100 child safety organisations, including the Children's Commissioners and civil society organisations, some of which have been mentioned here today. Ofcom also heard from over 27,000 children and 13,000 parents when undertaking their research, and conducted in-depth engagement with around 100 children around the UK during its consultation. This research and engagement identified additional ways to strengthen the codes and that fed into the first iteration of the codes.

And in April 2025, Ofcom published a statement documenting its research and consultation responses, and this statement explains how the draft codes were changed to reflect feedback from civil society stakeholders. Examples include changing the recommended system measures to provide stronger protections for children, and how Ofcom strengthened expectations on providers to consider children's ages. My noble Lords have also raised issues around potential regulatory gaps. I think it's important to note that for the first time, industry cannot decline to take steps to protect children because it is too expensive or inconvenient.

Protecting children is a priority, and we can see this in the codes. Added to this. As others have mentioned, Ofcom has taken an iterative approach to the codes. This was to ensure that the initial codes were put in place to protect children as soon as possible, and to meet the 18 month statutory deadline, and since the summer, 6000 services have already implemented effective age assurance to prevent children seeing harmful content online. And we see the codes as the foundation, not the limit.

When it comes to children's online safety, Ofcom has always made it clear additional measures will be required to build safer experiences online for children, and it's now working to strengthen future codes on online harms. Technology. As the evidence base evolves, the noble Earl Viscount Colville mentioned live streaming and on the 30th 30th of June, the regulator announced a consultation on additional measures for the codes, which includes measures on live streaming, tackling intimate image abuse through hash matching, and additional steps to ensure services are safer by design.

These measures aim to stop illegal content going viral, tackling harms at source and providing further protections to children online. Many in the House have also raised the question of monitoring and evaluation, and how successful the Online Safety Act and the codes will be in protecting children. Ofcom has continued. Ofcom will continue to monitor the implementation of the codes, measures to identify gaps in protections and the risk assessment process for platforms. It also gathers evidence through research and intelligence activity and through engagement with civil society, who also regularly publish their own research into online harms and publish relevant reports.

Ofcom has the flexibility to establish other mechanisms for conducting research about users experience. Examples include working with the Children's Commissioner to establish a panel of children who regularly feedback on their online experiences, and how they're changing. The process of monitoring and research will identify areas for future consultation with stakeholders. In doing so, Ofcom are fully fulfilling their duties to ensure that the codes of practice are compatible with the pursuit of online safety objectives outlined in the act. Evaluating the codes and keeping the codes under review.

They have also stated that this dynamic regulatory approach is an example of how it intends to fulfil the government's strategic priority of agile regulation and the need for monitoring, risk assessing and mitigating new online harms. As Viscount Camrose said, this is a striking the right balance. This is intended to strike that right balance. In parallel, the government and Ofcom are actively monitoring the regimes impact through a programme of evaluation. Work with feeding, with findings feeding into the Secretary of State's statutory post-implementation review of the effectiveness of the act.

This review must take place 2 to 5 years after the legislation comes into force. Noble Lords have also raised concerns about the ease with which services are able to access and understand Ofcom's guidance and codes. The act requires that measures within the codes are clear and detailed. That is why Ofcom has made a significant effort to produce accessible materials alongside the codes, in order to make compliance more effective. Examples include a digital safety toolbox that supports small and medium sized services to comply with the codes.

It has also made efforts to make the codes accessible to parents and children by publishing versions of the codes at a glance for parents and age appropriate videos. These efforts to raise awareness of the codes reflect Ofcom's regard for the government's strategic priority of inclusivity and resilience, in particular the need for parents, carers and children to understand the risks and be supported to stay safe against online harm. And I think to the point that was raised about media literacy by Lord Colville, the I think the draft curriculum review raised the issue of media literacy, and that will in due course be coming be published.

The response will be published by the government. So Ofcom has built on these engagement efforts by engaging directly with different groups of stakeholders, including webinars delivered to 187 organisations and over 400 meetings with providers providing further support to help with compliance. The government is not saying the codes are perfect or that more doesn't need to be done, but the child safety and illegal content codes are a really positive step forward. Let me now turn to some other points raised in the debate.

So on the question of the complaints procedure under the Online Safety Act. So services now services likely to be accessed by children have a duty to implement processes that allow parents or children to easily report harmful content that is present in parts of the service that children can access to ensure, and that will be something that Ofcom will look at in its supervisory activities. Many have mentioned the importance of Ofcom and and the resources that it has available to it.

The the resources available to Ofcom have increased significantly in the area of of online safety. To 92 million, I think. Apologies if that's not the right figure. Yes it is to a projected £92 million in 2526, which is which is an uplift on previous years. It's something that Lord Russell and Lord Watson of Invergowrie. Highlighted in the debate. I think others have mentioned the question of of of safe harbour regarding what some regard as safe harbour.

We we believe that would not be desirable or effective to remove aspects of the framework which require Ofcom to publish pre-emptive guidance about how far providers need to go to fulfil their duties. That would be likely to create an uncertain and unclear operating environment, reducing legal certainty for services, Ofcom and users. And it could also lead to more legal challenges and obstacles in delivering the vital safety benefits that this legislation is providing. A number of of noble Lords have mentioned the fast growing technological technological advances, in particular AI.

Ofcom published an open letter to all service providers in November 2024, outlining the scope and expectations of those services to protect children online. And we are seeing some activity as a result of that, with one service reducing children services for children as a result of that. Let me also come to the question of virtual private networks. The government will continue to monitor the use of circumvention techniques, such as including VPNs, and any future interventions will be informed by the evidence.

At the moment, there is limited evidence on the children's use of VPNs, and the government is looking at ways of addressing this evidence gap. And there are no current plans to ban the use of VPNs, as there are legitimate, legitimate reasons for using VPNs. The initial findings indicate that age verification is being implemented effectively. The age verification providers associated reported there have been additional 5 million age checks conducted daily during the first few days after the child safety duties came into effect.

If a provider was not complying with their duties by promoting or encouraging VPN usage to bypass age assurance methods, Ofcom could apply any of its enforcement powers. Let me also address the question of small and low risk services, and I think it's important that we we think of the question of the risk here. Ofcom has the statutory duty to have regard to the principles of proportionality, with many services carrying low risk of harm. The risk risk assessment duties, which apply to all services, are key to ensuring that risky services of all sizes do not slip through the net of regulation, so it's, I feel I didn't that wasn't addressing your didn't that wasn't addressing your question.

I'm sure. Let me let me just. Make my final remarks. The protection of the children's codes does mark a positive shift in how children will experience the online world. Ofcom's enforcement programme has already resulted in investigations into companies responsible for 69 services. In response to one of these investigations, a prominent suicide discussion forum has chosen to restrict access to UK users. However, let me repeat that these codes are a starting point. Ofcom's recent consultations on additional measures to strengthen both the illegal harms and protection of children's codes of practice show the regulator is committed to strengthening these codes as new harms emerge.

The government has made it clear that nothing is off the table when it comes to keeping children safe, and we will continue to monitor and assess the effectiveness of the Online Safety Act in robustly protecting children online. Thank you.

13:29

Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords. Can I thank the Minister for her response? And can I add my welcome to her to the front bench? You can't have enough south Londoners on the front bench. I would say, my Lords and I kind of also thank her very much for the serious and comprehensive way in which she answered many of the points and indeed some of the points we didn't raise during the course of the debate. I think there is an essential issue, though, which runs all the way through most of the speeches, which is this question of oversight and scrutiny.

And I very much hope she'll take a leaf out of her predecessor's book, who I'm very glad to see is also on the benches today. Baroness Jones in terms of engaging with a number of members who have strong views about online safety, who helped take the bill through, who genuinely want to see Ofcom succeed in regulating these social media platforms, in engaging with us across the House, because, you know, it isn't just about formal engagement through the slsc valuable, though, that is, or other formal mechanisms.

It is really important that we get to grips. And there was quite a lot of new information in what she had to say, which I thought was extremely helpful. But she may well have read the letter that was sent to the noble Earl Baroness Jones on the 21st of May. From the chairs of two select committees, Chi Onwurah MP and Baroness Keeley. You know, complaining about the scrutiny process. And this is powerful stuff coming from the chairs of two select committees, which means that, you know, we really do have to find a better way of doing it, particularly in this implementation period of the Online Safety Act, which so many of us have helped to get on the on the statute book.

So I very much hope that, you know, we can't just rely on regret motions. I this is my second regret motion, my Lords. And, you know, I don't really want to be in a position of having a regret motion down about the the sea that the noble Lord Russell has mentioned. Just do this on a continual basis, my Lords, it was good to hear about the fact that the resources are available, my Lords. And of course, the fact that further research is being carried out by the department, I think is helpful and no doubt will be helpful through the, through the passage of of the of the children's Bill as well.

But, my Lords, this issue of safety by design is not going to go away. The noble Baroness the Minister was reassuring to some extent, but actually, you know, I'm not convinced that we've yet got it absolutely as explicit as we should, because, for instance, we heard that addiction is not covered as a harm for children sufficiently in the in the act. We heard that, I think when we had the categorisation debate. So there are gaps here. And does it require amendment of the existing act? Is Ofcom's interpretation of the existing act correct? There are quite a number of issues there, my Lords.

Are we going, you know, far and fast enough in terms of the existing act or do we need already to start thinking about changing it? And I, I noticed what the minister said about evaluating work. It's a foundation, not the limit. So I welcome all of that. Her speech, clearly her response clearly merits quite careful consideration. And I dare say many of us will want to come back to her and have further discussions about some of the detail in due course, my Lords, but I do thank her for taking this debate seriously.

And as the first of many debates, I'm sure I very much welcome the approach she's taken. I beg to withdraw the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Did you pleasure that the motion be withdrawn? The motion is by

13:34

Orders and regulations: Extradition Act 2003 (Amendments to Designations) Order 2025 - motion to approve

leave. Withdrawn. Extradition Act 2003. (Amendment to Designations)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order 2025. Lord Hanson of Flint. I beg to move that the House approves the Draft Extradition Act approves the Draft Extradition Act Order 2025. My Lords, we live in an increasingly interconnected world where crime knows no borders. International cooperation should be promoting justice, and we should be promoting justice, and we should be helping to try and keep the public safe. And that is really important to do. Accordingly, the instruments to do. Accordingly, the instruments I bring before your Lordships House today will enhance our extradition arrangements and bring arrangements and bring compatibility between our domestic and international legal frameworks governing extradition cooperation.

governing extradition cooperation. The order was welcomed in the House of Commons earlier this month. All sides of the House were able to support it. But I also welcome the chance today to probe some issues chance today to probe some issues following the regret motion tabled by the noble Baroness Brinton. If I may, I can start by explaining a may, I can start by explaining a little bit more about what these changes mean. The order amends the designation under the Extradition designation under the Extradition Act of three states Chile, Hong Kong and Zimbabwe.

I will take each Kong and Zimbabwe. I will take each in turn, starting with Chile. Chile's designation is required as they have recently acceded to the they have recently acceded to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, something the UK has been a long standing supporter of. In the light of this change, it is both appropriate and necessary that Chile's designation be amended from a part two category B territory to a part two category A territory. Now that change means, effectively, that Chilean extradition requests will no longer require the provision of prima facie evidence, streamlining cooperation to reflect the underlying international legal framework that is now in place.

And it's worth reflecting. I think, that this designation is not simply a matter of administrative convenience. It's a recognition of Chile's commitment to international legal standards and a reaffirmation of our own dedication to maintaining robust and principled extradition agreements. It will enhance the efficiency of judicial cooperation, reduce unnecessary delays, and ensure justice can be pursued swiftly and fairly. Now, if I can turn secondly to Hong Kong and the designation of Hong Kong as members will be aware, the UK suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in July 2020.

This move was taken in response to the imposition of national security legislation by the Chinese authorities. Legislation which was and remains wholly incompatible with the principles underpinning our extradition framework and rule of law. Since the suspension, there has been no formal treaty framework in place to underpin extradition cooperation with Hong Kong. Now, the order before your Lordships House today formalises this reality, removing Hong Kong's designation under the act, thereby allowing its status with other non treaty jurisdictions, if I can, because this goes to the nub of what the noble Earl Baroness Brinton has brought before the House today.

I want to be crystal clear about the impact of this legislation. For the avoidance of any doubt, it does not reinstate extradition cooperation between the UK and Hong Kong. It also does not create any new powers for government. It does not change any powers of the UK courts to consider extradition requests. Now I'm aware, obviously, of concerns raised regarding the safety of pro-democracy activists and critics of the Chinese government who sought refuge in the United Kingdom. If I may, can I assure your Lordships that we take our responsibilities towards those potentially at risk of persecution extremely seriously, and that our courts remain independent and vigilant in upholding the rights and freedoms of all individuals.

This designation is a necessary step to accurately reflect the international legal position in domestic law. It protects the integrity of our extradition process, safeguards the rights of those Hong Kongers in the UK who fled political repression. And I hope with that explanation that the noble Baroness will obviously give some reflections on this. But my point is that it doesn't change where we are. Finally, Zimbabwe. The order D designates Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was originally designated as a part two category B territory on the basis of its participation in the London Scheme for extradition within the Commonwealth, which is a multilateral treaty arrangement that underpins cooperation amongst Commonwealth nations.

However, again as members

13:39

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

- -

will know, Zimbabwe withdrew formally from the Commonwealth in 2003 and as such the legal 2003 and as such the legal foundation for its designation under the act has since ceased to under the act has since ceased to exist. D designation now, therefore, is not a reflection of any change in our diplomatic position, but in our diplomatic position, but rather a necessary legal correction given the current designation is incompatible with the UK's domestic legal framework and international obligations. Zimbabwe's continued obligations.

Zimbabwe's continued designation, if I can be frank with the House, was an oversight which has spanned multiple governments has spanned multiple governments and oversight, which we are today putting right with this order. More putting right with this order. More broadly, the issue also highlights the potential for a country to remain listed under part two, remain listed under part two, despite the underlying treaty or arrangement no longer being enforced. I can therefore confirm to the House that measures have now been put in place to strengthen coordination between policy, legal coordination between policy, legal and operational teams to ensure that designation status accurately reflects the relevant frameworks in reflects the relevant frameworks in a timely manner, which it did not in the case of Zimbabwe.

So, to in the case of Zimbabwe. So, to conclude, my Lords extradition is a vital tool in our fight against cross-border crime. Offenders should not escape justice by crossing borders, and this order ensures our system remains principled, effective and fit for purpose. I look forward to listening to the noble Lady, but I therefore, at this moment in time,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commend this order to the House. Question is this motion be agreed to? Amendment Baroness Brinton.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Brinton. My Lords, I want to start by thanking the Minister for meeting with me to discuss this statutory

13:40

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

with me to discuss this statutory instrument and my concerns, which are outlined in my regret motion before your Lordships House today. As the regret motion makes clear, my concerns extend only to one of the three countries specified in the Si, which is Hong Kong. Because of the specific and different status of Hong Kong. The reason for my concerns is that most of the Hong Kongers in the UK are holders of the British National Overseas passport, an arrangement made after the UK's 100 year lease of Hong Kong expired in 1997, and the UK government then made bno arrangements for the people of Hong Kong to confirm this special status and relationship for over a century, when they were ruled by the British and felt British and most importantly these days feel they have a stronger tie to the UK than to China at the time.

In 1997, many Hong Kongers felt that they were being deserted by the UK government, and Lord Patten and my former colleague Lord Ashdown, and many others at the time said we must, as a nation recognise our responsibilities and in the House of Lords we continue to hold successive governments to this standard. We are told that the sea in front of us today aims to correct an irregularity in relation to the arrangements for extraditing a Hong Kong at the request of China, which has been in place since 2020.

And as the Minister has outlined, both Hong Kong is designated under category B in part two of the Extradition Act 2003, which requires prima facie evidence to the UK judicial system, and in the past Hong Kong was designated under the UK Hong Kong Extradition Treaty of 1997. However, this treaty was suspended in 2020 following the imposition by China of the National Security Legislation, which contains provisions that were, as the Minister had said, incompatible with treaty. I will put it more bluntly a fair trial in Hong Kong can no longer be guaranteed.

And I want to mention here that China's treatment of those that disagree with it remains completely incompatible with that treaty. Protesters are repeatedly imprisoned, and prisoners like Jemmy Lai, who are British, are treated very badly and not to a standard that our extradition processes would ever want to support. And that is why Hong Kong was given a blanket no extradition. In 1997, the minister says. And I hear him, that there are protections under the new proposals in this, when cases will be looked at on a case by case basis, which means the Chinese government could try and call for the extradition of Hong Kongers who may have both British and Chinese nationality.

And the other point that I want to make in relation to the Hong Kong is living in the UK is that there have been many reports in the last few years to the police of China's inappropriate behaviour through its agents in the UK. This has included mainland Chinese students physically attacking Hong Kongers in the streets. Hong Kong is having to move House because of threats from China not using social media, because China will use that to harass and intimidate them. This is the behaviour of a country that might try to submit extradition demands purely to get at those that Hong Kongers with a bno passport that they feel might, they might wish to pressure further.

I'm very grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, whose 34th report, published on the 11th of September, has quoted Hugo Keith KC, who stated it looks like the government is sticking, seeking to reverse through a sleight of hand the practical consequences of suspending the UK Hong Kong Treaty. And in that same report, the government responded by saying that much of that reporting is false. And I am grateful for the Minister explaining earlier why he believes that to be the case.

But actually there's been no explanation direct to our Hong Kong community here in the UK, and they need to understand why China might not behave in the way that I've outlined, and why the change in the designation will actually give them the full protection that they need. And as I understand it, the argument runs that the protection is there for extradition on a case by case basis. But how can that protect individuals targeted if the application itself is spurious? Because once commenced, a request for extradition would cause significant anxiety to the individual concerned and their family, both family here and in Hong Kong, not to mention having to incur legal costs, none of which would have happened under the previous blanket refusal that we had before.

Is it worth moving to this case by case basis, when Foreign Office ministers repeatedly call out China for its egregious treatment of those who disagree with it, not just Hong Kong? I might add in paragraph ten of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report, the Home Office noted that this brings Hong Kong into line with the other non treaty partners under the Extradition Act in 2003. Can the Minister tell your Lordships House how many other countries with non treaty partners have residents with British or British national overseas passports? Because of our historic responsibility for them for well over 100 years.

And paragraph 12 of the SLC report, where the government says it cannot confirm or deny that an extradition request has been made or received until an individual is arrested, so will the government's denial Non-denial process continue to happen in the future? And I ask this because Hong Kongers need to know if they are being targeted. So what arrangements will the government make to inform them as a community? I also note there was no impact assessment published in relation to this.

See when it was first published. And that matters a great deal for those who are concerned, concerned about their protection. And is the Minister planning to remedy this? Finally, the government's explanatory note to the sea says that they consulted widely with those involved in the process. That included discussions with devolved administrations, law enforcement partners and the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. But unfortunately, there was absolutely zero consultation with the Hong Kong community who have been very surprised by that.

So can I repeat my question to the Minister that he will meet with me, Lord Alton and some a very small group of Hongkongers so that they can listen to the robust protections that the Minister has said need to be in place to keep them safe, and that the government will continue to support them if they are targeted by China in the UK. Because for them, my Lords, this isn't a matter of a dry and legal structure. It's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a matter of safety, freedom and even life and death. I beg to move. The original question was that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that the regulations laid before the House on the 17th of July be approved, since when an amendment has been moved by Baroness Brinton at the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is, question I therefore have to put is, is that this amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is that this amendment be agreed to. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister and the noble Baroness Lady Brinton for their contributions and their son. Whilst we on this side do not believe the regret motion is necessary, I thank her for bringing to light the the

13:48

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

her for bringing to light the the plight of Hong Kongers. As has already been mentioned, the case of Jimmy Lai ever serves as a reminder of how people's freedoms continue to be curtailed. The removal of Zimbabwe from the Extradition Act designation of part two, Territories Order 2003 is certainly not controversial. They unfortunately left the Commonwealth in 2003, and as such have not been party to the London scheme for extradition in the Commonwealth since that date, and as the noble Lord, the Minister has already quite correctly mentioned the fact that Zimbabwe has not since been designated represents nothing more than an oversight.

And it is right that the government is correcting that. Similarly, it is welcome that the government is designating Chile in this order following their accession to the 1957 Extradition Convention, the final change and the change that is the target of the Liberal Democrats regret motion, is the removal of Hong Kong from article two of the 2003 order, and this reflects the fact that we suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 2020, following the national security law and the crackdown on pro-democracy activists by the authoritarian communist regime in China.

Since the treaty suspended, there is currently no formal framework for the extradition between UK and Hong Kong. And that is right. We should not be under an obligation to extradite anyone to a state with a kind of repressive laws we now see in place in Hong Kong. The removal of the designation does not represent any change in our policy. Therefore, it's therefore it simply formalises the position that there is no extradition treaty in force between the UK and Hong Kong. And I completely agree with the noble Baroness Lady Brinton that the rights of Hong Kongers must be protected.

But I do not believe this draft order will do anything to detriment them. They will not be at any more risk of extradition than before. My one question to the noble Lord, the Minister, is that given Hong Kong will now be treated the same as all other non treaty states under the Extradition Act, requests will be made and assessed on a case by case basis. And I am grateful for the comments that the noble Lord Minister made in his opening remarks. But can I just ask again, can government absolutely assure the House that they will not cooperate with the authorities in Hong Kong regarding the extradition of Hong Kongers, so that we are never complicit in the subjugation of Hong Kongers by the Chinese Communist Party.

13:51

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

- -

I'm grateful. Well, first of all, I'm grateful for the very broad support that the noble Earl Lord Davies of Gower has given to the orders, particularly. And I think essentially we've had agreement from the speakers that we've had that Zimbabwe and Chile are necessary, right and proper. And the only queries we've had are relation to Hong Kong, so I will park in Zimbabwe and concentrate precisely just on Hong Kong in the in the wind up to date. I hope I've given the the noble Lady Baroness Brinton assurance in my opening remarks very clearly.

But for the avoidance of doubt, this instrument does not place any new obligations on the UK government to seek extradition from these countries or indeed to accept extradition from them, particularly in relation to Hong Kong. It also does not change any of the powers available to the UK courts to consider any extradition request on its individual merit. It does not impact on the power of UK judges to bar extradition, and it does not, particularly in relation to Hong Kong, does not revive the suspended treaty, nor does it create any new powers and on the contrary, as the noble Lord Davies of Gower recognised, it formally recognises the suspension by removing Hong Kong's designation under the Extradition Act of 2003.

Noble Lord Davis asked a specific question and I would just say to him that it will be a case by case basis. I can't guarantee that no extradition will ever take place for the reasons that we've said, but it's a case by case basis and it's not automatic, and we remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting those who sought refuge here. And no individual will be extradited. And this is the important point where there is a risk of persecution. And I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness Brinton.

British National Overseas Route for Hong Kong as is a historic and moral commitment. Those with bno status and their eligible family members can apply to come to the UK, since that route is opened, close to 225,000 visas have been granted to Hong Kongers, and I hope that today's debate and the comments that I've made gives reassurance. I will take away, if I may, by the noble Lady the detailed questions that she has put. But I hope that's a general reassurance. I will also look at what we can do over and above the reading of this debate, to ensure that we put some notice out about the impact of all three orders, so that that is widely known by those who may be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

impacted upon it and give some reassurance. And of course, I'll give way. Thank the noble Lord. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the noble Lord. And I thank Baroness Brinton very much for describing things so well. But for describing things so well. But with all the assurances you're giving, giving, is there still not a danger that the People's Republic of China can put pressure on the UK government through trade, diplomacy or elsewhere for extraditions? And or elsewhere for extraditions? And we have no way of knowing, checking whatever the evidence is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whatever the evidence is. Well, as I've said in this debate, we are regularising a situation with legislation before the House today. The position is the House today. The position is that there can be case by case basis issues. But I've just been very clear in what I've said that very clear in what I've said that the UK government will act against persecution and recognises the persecution and recognises the rights of Hong Kongers, both in the United Kingdom, to enjoy and live a fruitful, free life without that fruitful, free life without that persecution.

So I hope that gives the noble Lady the assurances. But I understand. Obviously I can't I understand. Obviously I can't give a complete 100% assurance on all occasions because there may be areas where extradition from both parties is is the right thing to do, but it's a case by case basis, not an automatic discussion, and it will be dealt with on a judicial basis as well. The noble Lady, in summary, has asked me again if I will meet with her and with the noble Earl Lord Alton, for whom I again send my best wishes for a speedy recovery.

I will happily do that. I'll happily meet with a small representative group, and if I personally can't do it, I will make sure that another minister in the department does that as well, because we have both the immigration bill, police and crime bill, and several others in November. So if there's a need to do a speedy meeting, we'll arrange for a minister in the Home Office to meet with the noble Lady. And with those comments, I do hope that she will withdraw her regret motion and that the House will agree.

The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order, which I believe is sensible and proportionate. I beg to move. I'm grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. To all the speakers and give thanks for them. To the Minister thanks for them. To the Minister for repeating the, the, the, the strong, hard processes that he believes are in place to protect believes are in place to protect Hong Kongers. I am also grateful to Lord Davies of Gower thank him for

13:56

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Lord Davies of Gower thank him for agreeing that Hong Kong has do need a very specific protection, and also for the question about would the UK entertain or support an application from China for extradition. I think the minister's response for that was also helpful, and I'm also grateful to the noble Lady for talking about indirect influence on the government. And this continues to remain a concern for those of us, and I'm sure it is for the for the Minister as well. So I'm grateful for his response.

I mean, I think my Lords the reason I laid the regret motion was about the difference between hard processes and soft power. And the Hong Kongers remain concerned that they will be further under threat. And I'm grateful for the hard processes promised that promises that the Minister has given. I'm also grateful for the promise of a meeting, because I think that will help people within the community to feel that their concerns are being listened to and that they will know where to go if there is a concern about China pressing extradition in the UK in the future.

On that basis,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my Lords, I beg to withdraw my regret motion. Is it your Lordship pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment? My name is withdrawn. The question is that the original The question is that the original motion be agreed to as many as are of that opinion say, content the country not content. The contents country not content. The contents have it. We move on now to Heather and Grass etc. Burning. (England) and Grass etc. Burning. (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. Motion of regret.

The Earl of

13:57

Orders and regulations: Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 - motion to regret

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Caithness. My Lords. I beg to move motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move motion. In my name on the Order Paper. For thousands of years, mankind has used fire to control vegetation. It is sensible and practical process that also benefits nature. In this that also benefits nature. In this country. We tend to burn heather and grass in prescribed manner and if done correctly, under careful regulation with practitioners trained in safe methods, only the trained in safe methods, only the vegetation and not the underlying soil is burnt. The heather and grass burning regulations effectively means that prescribed Birmingham burning or Muirburn, as Birmingham burning or Muirburn, as we call it in Scotland, as a management tool for vegetation.

management tool for vegetation. Over some 676,000 hectares of predominantly moorland is banned in

13:58

The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)

- -

predominantly moorland is banned in England. I believe it will increase the likelihood of wildfires in upland areas. Risk the Fire and Rescue Service's response capability impact livelihoods, biodiversity, peatland protection and human health and life. No full impact assessment, including on wider government priorities, has been published. If the vegetation is not controlled, it becomes older, woodier and denser, creating a bigger fuel load and making it more prone to intense, uncontrolled and indiscriminate wildfires which always burn the underlying soil.

If that is peat, the damage to this carbon rich soil can be devastating. The recent study by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and James Hutton Institute in Scotland found that 96% of the total wildfire area outside Moorlands managed by Muirburn, suggesting that this may be due to fuel load reduction. Following Lord Jones, the National Fire Chiefs Council, in their consultation response to consultation response to these regulations, expressed concerns that restricting prescribed burning would increase the risk of larger, more intense wildfires by limiting the ability to reduce burnable fuel loads and create FA or fuel breaks.

I agree with that, my Lords. But alarmingly, it also went on to write, and I quote, further restricting land managers ability to use prescribed burning as a wildfire prevent tool could compromise FRS preparedness and response, increasing the danger to firefighters and the public. End of quote. My Lords, no government should increase risk in this way in fighting wildfires. The FRS acknowledge that the expertise of landowners, gamekeepers and farmers is almost invaluable and the recent Langdale forest fire.

It was the local gamekeepers who provided the expertise for the risky operation of bat burning the vegetation to create a firebreak. Without that, the FA would probably have crossed the A169, destroying Goathland village. If prescribed burning is stopped, the FRS will lose the benefit of the vital skills, local knowledge and equipment provided by Grouse Shooting Estate and which is so vital to them as Britain experiences hotter, drier summers. Wildfires are increasing in numbers and severity in the UK, climate change is driving increasingly frequent periods of FA supported weather, as evidenced in this year.

In 2025. This is the new norm to which we must adapt quickly. This year, 48,000 hectares have been burnt by wildfire. My Lords, that is seven times the average burn between 2006 and 2024, and more than twice the area burnt in 2022. On the 9th of October, the Scottish Government delayed similar restrictions due to its fears that they could, and, I quote, adversely affect our ability to prevent and respond to wildfires. End of quote. Sadly, this government blunders on ignoring constructive and scientifically based advice.

I agree that the scientific evidence around prescribed burning remains contested, with short term studies identifying some impacts. That is not unexpected as all interventions have an impact. However, long term studies demonstrate that these are reversed, and over time a net benefit emerges to carbon storage as well as other outcomes. Either way, the assessment of prescribed burning referenced by Defra. Near 155 only considers its impact and not the impact of not burning or comparison with wildfire impacts.

My Lords ideology has replaced evidence, as Sherlock Holmes said, and I quote, it is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts. Science research demonstrates that the mosaic of habitat types and heather ages, created through vegetation management, supports a wide range of biodiversity, including rare birds, plants and invertebrates. Habitat diversity with areas of short vegetation due to burning. Management R values by species such as golden plover.

Many plant species in the UK are now fire adapted and benefit from it as a management tool. My Lords. Turning to air quality, the government claim that local communities are set to benefit from improved air quality. This is a new justification for the increased restrictions to prescribe burning. Can I ask the Minister what data on air quality during the legitimate heather burning season was used to support this decision? What improvements are inspected in air quality with extended ban on legitimate burning? How will extending the ban on legitimate burning protect public health? What is the public health impact on wildfire smoke outside the burning season? Given that the risk of wildfires is increasing? While air quality is a key wider government objective, as with carbon emissions, the relative contribution of prescribed burning to poor air quality in comparison to wildfire is not quantified.

Owlpen Minister why not? Atmospheric particulate matter 2.5 is a major contributor to air pollution and can lead to reduced visibility and various health issues. The Saddleworth Moor Far demonstrated PM 2.5 in excess of W.H.O. guidelines lasted for several days, resulting in over 20 million of extra health costs, and the lives of nearly 30 people were shortened. In contrast, prescribed burn events last a matter of hours. Furthermore, given the severity and intensity of wildfires, the resultant ash, like the smoke from burning peat, contains toxic poisonous chemicals not found in vegetation burning.

The health effect of the co-exposure to other pollutants are significant. According to the UK Health Security Agency. My Lords, the noble Lord, the minister sadly missed the wind up by his fellow minister to an earlier regret motion. Baroness Lloyd of Efra was replying to the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and in conclusion she said nothing is off the table so far as the health of our children is concerned. My Lords clearly controlled heather burning to stop wildfires is off the table and our children are likely to suffer as a result.

The government championed the rewetting of peatlands as a silver bullet to save them. However, most of our people and cannot be rewetted. Moreover, the Chief Executive of Natural England told me only a couple of weeks ago she did not know how much could be burned, could be rewetted where it is possible, both desolate and natural England acknowledge this rewetting will take time. How valid in the long term is this policy, given that climate change is affecting the potential for consistently high water tables characteristic of healthy sphagnum peatlands? Peat bogs require a positive water balance and a buffer trophic that is their only rain fed.

More rain water must go into the system than leaves it via drainage or either transpiration blocking drains built with taxpayers money some years ago to improve farm production has and will continue to help some, some of us, but not enough. Recent research shows that under all UK climate projections, there will be substantial losses in areas suitable for healthy peatland in the foreseeable future. Sphagnum desiccation will increase due to drought conditions and there will be a migration to more drought tolerant species of vegetation.

There remains the problem of wildfires, and it is surely folly to stop an appropriate management approach to mitigating this. During the restoration phase. My Lords, I wish now to pick up some points made by the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in their 38th report, the SLC supported concerns raised during the consultation process about the timing of the introduction of these regulatory changes. Whilst the new rules came into force on the 30th September, the day before the start of the burning season, application can take up to 12 weeks to process, but only if an appropriate SSI consent is in place.

Even so, a new application may be needed if the original consent specifies a depth of 40cm. If burning on an SSI and consent is not in place, land managers need to apply to Natural England first. The process that can take up to four months before Defra will commence. The before Defra will commence the licensing process. This means that about half of the statutory burning season is lost, with practical experience showing that Springbrook prescribed burning season is more likely to be compromised by inappropriate conditions.

Defra did not see the need see the need for interim measures given the new process should should make applications more straightforward, thereby taking far less than 12 weeks and the availability of other options for managing vegetation, such as cutting. However, cutting is an operation requiring any consent on SSI and is difficult to conduct in rocky, sloping and remote areas, and so this may not be an easy alternative. When I ask the minister why these regulations were timed to cause maximum difficulties.

Secondly, why was the change to the wildfire licensing ground for risk to impact was not consulted upon? Whilst the SLC accepts there was no legal duty to do this in response to consultation feedback, it does state that the absence of a legal duty should not be a blanket approach, given the contested nature of this debate, it would have been appropriate to contact land managers and their representative organisations in advance of the announcement. My Lord, I think this is just another example of the government's dismissive attitude towards landowners and farmers.

The SLC also picked up on the National Fire Chiefs Council suggestion of a more integrated cross-government approach to our prevention. Can the Minister update the House on the current wildfire framework and the outcome of the scoping exercise? Lead responsibility for wildfire has moved from the Home Office and now risks with MHCLG. However, it is on the advice of Natural England that Defra have laid these regulations which will exacerbate the risk of wildfires. Mandating the wildfire framework would require any to consider the impact on wildfire on the conservation status of land.

I suggest it should go further and require me to take account of the impact and enable mitigating actions. My Lords when will this government stop talking about not working in silos and have an integrated cross-government approach to our prevention my Lords. While the government did it, England burns. In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister about liability, and I notified him about this yesterday. Given that a landowner can be held liable for doing something on their land that interferes with the neighbour's land, where does the liability rest in this case? If I owned land next to the noble Lord, for instance, who had been instructed or followed advice by Natural England as to how to manage his land, and because of that management, the fuel load increases.

I warned noble Lord, my neighbour, of the consequences of the inevitable fire. Wildfire will cause. And sure enough, this happens and destroys some of my property. So my Lords, who is responsible for this? Am I under the new regulations, am I entitled to sue Natural England? And should not their directors face the same consequences as those that the directors of water companies now have to face? My Lords. It's a pity these regulations have been brought forward in such a hurried state.

After a short consultation period, and when so much badly needed research is actually being funded at the moment. To try and get more science into this particular nutty you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be agreed to. My Lords, I'm pleased to be able to support the noble Earl of

14:12

The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)

- -

14:23

The Earl of Shrewsbury (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as a member of the Basc and the Countryside Alliance. As my noble Countryside Alliance. As my noble friend has alluded. 2025 has seen almost 48,000 hectares of the UK burned by wildfires, which is seven times the average area burnt between 26 and 2024 and more than twice the area burnt in 2022. This my Lords represents the new far norm, where our changing climate is driving increasingly frequent periods of fire supported weather. Whilst the majority of this hectarage was in semi-natural habitats.

I'd like to highlight the risk that wildfire is posing at the rural urban interface. My Lords development of the rural urban interface is putting more assets and people at risk, either directly through loss of life or property, or indirectly via impacts on health and vital infrastructure and my Lords. The government are now talking about the possibility of housing developments being built on greenbelt land, and that is bound to cause further to further exacerbate the problems. My Lords the Wellington wildfire in July 2022 destroyed over 18 houses and the residents possessions in them 12 stables, five cars and six garages and fortunately there was no loss of life.

But such risks are not limited to London, as the Ordnance Survey has estimated that over 1.8 million homes sit within the first 100m of urban rural edges. And as they state, these transition areas are where fuel and ignition sources converge, with a potential for high human and economic impact. The need to create and manage fuel breaks applies as much at the rural urban interface as it does on our peatlands. The difference being, though, on our peatlands there are expert land managers and gamekeepers whose knowledge is absolutely vital in both preventing and also fighting wildfires.

My Lords the peatlands of the Peak District on the Staffordshire Moorlands where I live, are close to the urban conurbations of Stoke on Trent, Manchester and Sheffield, where experience already proves that wildfires can threaten homes and affect the health of local populations. The Saddleworth Moor wildfire of 2018, which was close to the Greater Manchester conurbation, resulted in 50 homes and 150 people being evacuated and 4.5 million people being exposed to very high concentrations of parts per million, 2.5 above the World Health Organisation's 24 hour guideline up to 80km away, causing an estimated £21 million of extra health costs.

So my Lords. Whilst the debate over how we protect our peatlands becomes mired in the broader ideological ideological debate over grouse shooting and my Lords, I no longer shoot. So I don't have an interest in that. The very real threat of wildfire to these precious ecosystems, and to the health and infrastructure of our communities, and the role of prescribed burning in addressing these risks is being relegated to being a mere sideshow. If government is not prepared to accept the practical experience of land managers, the experts, then surely they should take note of the National Fire Chiefs Council's response to the consultation on these regulatory changes.

This expressed concern that policy decisions are not aligned with the need to manage wildfire risk, and that increasing the restrictions on a land manager's ability to use prescribed burning for wildfire prevention would have implications for the ability of the fire and rescue services to respond to a wildfire wildfire, thereby increasing the danger to firefighters and the public. My Lords. I sincerely hope that the licensing process is able to facilitate this need.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Lady Lister made life a little bit difficult for myself. Apologies.

14:27

The Earl of Leicester (Conservative)

- -

14:40

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

the Earl of Caithness, for putting down this motion which has enabled us in this House to hear from the noble Lord, the Earl of Lytton, my noble friend, the Earl of Shrewsbury, and my noble friend, the Earl of Leicester, three three hereditary peers, I Ford including that my noble friend Earl of Caithness, who have tremendous experience of safely managing moorland and using controlled burning, and in particular the noble Earl, the my noble friend, the Earl of Leicester is always regularly quoted by Natural England Defra as leading one of the finest private nature reserves in the country, and goodness knows how many official visits have been made to his estates to show others how it should be done.

Therefore, it's terribly important that the whole House and Defra should pay attention to the wise words of my noble friend. And I'm absolutely certain, although I'm speaking from the backbenches, I shall probably agree absolutely with my noble hereditary friend, the Earl of Roborough, when he makes his speech from the front bench. Now, my Lords, I drafted my notes on the assumption that the excellent Baroness Hayman of Alec would be back with us today, but that that is not to be so.

I hope that the noble Lord will pass on the remarks, and I know that others in the building will pass on our remarks to Baroness Hayman of Alec. I wish to raise a related matter about the destruction of heather moorland, when the old straggly heather is not controlled properly through rotational burning. My noble Lords will be aware, and we have heard already about the fires on Saddleworth Moor in 2018, 2020 and this year since 2007, my Lords, the Peak District has had fires which destroyed 77,000 sorry, sorry, 77kmÂ² of moorland now in real money that's 30miÂ² destroyed in nearly all cases by disposable barbecues.

My Lords, just after the 2018 fire, which took three weeks to extinguish, people were again found on an unburnt bit of the heather moor with disposable barbecues lit again, leading the Manchester Fire chief to say that it beggars belief on how stupid they were. My Lords, first of all, I want to demolish the myth perpetuated by some commentators that these fires are because of climate change. That is simply not true. There is no known case anywhere in the world, and certainly not in the UK, where a wildfire has started because of spontaneous combustion caused by global warming or climate change.

There are no cases of dry grass spontaneously combusting. Wet grass tightly packed into hay bales can ignite when the chemical reaction causes the temperature to get to 250Â°C, trees can self-ignite if the external temperature reaches again 250Â°C, and our temperatures have not quite got to that level yet, dry Heather cannot self-ignite. Of course, my Lord, we all accept that when the habitat is bone dry, then it will burn more easily if a fire starts and if there's wind, it will burn more ferociously.

So how do wild so-called wildfires happen? My Lords, quite simply, in every case they are caused by humans, either deliberately or accidentally in a minority of cases, but the vast majority by carelessness or stupidity, as in nearly all the cases of those Peak District fires. One was caused by a discarded glass bottle acting as a magnifying glass for the sun, and one was a controlled burn. This year, Lord Moore, which got out of control due to a wind change that should not have happened, but it is very rare.

My Lords. In June 2022, the magnificent Thursley Common National Nature Reserve, which I visited, was devastated by a massive fire, most likely started by disposable barbecues. Almost half of the rare heath was destroyed, the Surrey fire chief said help us to prevent wildfires. Pack a picnic instead of a barbecue. There was a devastating fire in Dorset linked to barbecues and contributed to Dorset Council's decision to ban them in many areas. This led to a subsequent council report that showed a huge increase in barbecue related fires from 2016 to 2020.

There are hundreds more incidents my Lords which shall not go into including 300 in Greater London itself. It's not just the urban fringe in the countryside. Leading the London fire chiefs to call for a ban on these filthy, disposable barbecues. Now my noble friend, the Earl of Caithness, had an amendment on the Planning and Infrastructure bill calling on the which we did not debate yesterday, calling for the government to do more on public education, on the risks of wildfires in the countryside.

But I also want the minister. That is when she's back in action, the noble Lady Baroness Hayman of Ullock, to do some more private education, private education of the remaining supermarkets, which continue to sell these dangerous items. Now, the Keep Britain Tidy organisation advocates for banning disposable barbecues due to the significant fire risk and environmental damage. They highlight the fact that these barbecues caused wildfires, injure people and create hazardous litter when left hot and cold, sometimes causing fires even in public litter bins.

The organisation Keep Britain Tidy is campaigning is campaigning for retailers to stop selling them permanently and encourages the public to support these efforts. My Lord, I congratulate those shops and supermarkets. The majority, I think now, which have stopped selling them, but too many still do. That's why I want the noble Lady the minister, to call in the other retailers, still selling them, and give them a bit of private education on the sheer destruction they're causing to our wildlife habitats, to our heather moorlands by continuing selling these things, if retailers insist on selling them, then I believe they should be banned.

Now, I am not a natural banner my Lords, but there is no God given fundamental human right for people to go into the countryside, sit in a farmer's field and nature reserve, a national park or public moorland, and then light a fire. And soon it is practically impossible to pack away a dirty, greasy, charcoal dust filled tree. They get left behind or dumped as a danger to animals. In fact, since these things burn at 400Â°C, they all carry warnings on them to let them cool for about eight hours before packing them up.

That's another reason they're dumped my Lords people using. The crucial point is this. And I end up by summing up this way people using disposable barbecues on heather moors or upland heaths. They don't apply to Defra for a licence. They don't care about the depth of peat, but they cause the most destruction more than any controlled heather burning ever does. We are obsessed with moorland owners doing a controlled burn, but we are not taking that huge damage caused by wildfires caused by human stupidity seriously.

So I say to the noble Lady Baroness Hayman, if public education does not work, get the shops to stop selling them. And if that fails, go for a ban on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

filthy things. My Lords, I'm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm. Very grateful to my noble friend, the Earl of Caithness, for moving this this debate this morning,

14:47

Lord Roborough (Conservative)

- -

15:15

The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)

- -

Lord. I'm extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, bringing their experience and knowledge to make a very useful debate. And it's wonderful to hear about Exmoor. It was also very from the noble Lord, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Shipley mentioned Wennington an extremely, very different part of the country. It's about 15 miles behind where the minister is sitting now, and that with 18 over 18 houses burnt and the devastation to people's property there, it shows what an important subject this is.

I don't understand why Natural England listened so carefully to my noble friend Earl of of Leicester when it comes to his private, his nature reserve at Holkham. And don't listen to him when he comes to his expertise on moorland that I find difficult to understand. My noble friend Lord Blencathra quite rightly wages war against disposable barbecues. I would just question one thing when he said that all wildfires are started by human stupidity. No, my Lords, the most are.

Some are started quite deliberately because the yobs want to go out. Think it's fun to light a fire? It won't go very far and they suddenly find it's out of control. They can't do anything about it. They scarper and the fire and rescue services and the good locals have to pick up the bill. My noble friend Lord Roper mentioned the Flow Country Fire in 2019. A special interest to me as I was living up there at the time. The minister also raised it.

I think it's also worth pointing out to what my noble friend Lord Roborough said that far doubled Scotland's greenhouse emissions for six days of of burning the noble Lord. The minister said the Far was not so strong where wetting had taken place and had helped my Lords. Langdale forest fire. The FA was not so strong where rotational heather burning had taken place. So why is one good and one bad? It's totally illogical position for the government to take, the minister said how important the peat was.

Yes, my Lords, we all knew that it was very important long before Defra was even thought about the noble Lord. The Minister mentioned any 155 why don't I just confirm to the Minister that took some scientific evidence, but it did not take any scientific evidence on the take any scientific evidence on the impact of not burning and. So the it's a it's a very biased report and has been highly criticised by those who know the noble law.

The minister said there wasn't an impact assessment because the costs weren't going to be over £10 million Hang on, my Lords. The health costs of the Saddleworth Moor fire were £20 million by themselves. How can the minister possibly say that these regulations, which are going to increase wildfires, are not worthy of an impact assessment? And I end by thanking the Minister for for what he said. He ended with the consultation, my Lords, and I'm not at all surprised by the result of the consultation.

We can all devise questions to get the answer we did we want. That's what Defra did in this case. My Lords, given it's Thursday afternoon at this time and there's another piece of business, I will withdraw my motion and once

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again, thank all noble Lords for taking part. Is it your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that the motion be withdrawn? The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Thank you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Control of Mercury Enforcement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Control of Mercury Enforcement Amendment Regulations 2025. The Baroness Anderson of Stoke on Trent. Apologies, my Lords. My poppy has just fallen out, so not quite the opening of this, I thought. I'll put that back on for my response. My Lords, I beg to move that. The House approves the draft Control of Mercury Enforcement Amendment Regulations 2025. This instrument introduces the mechanisms to enforce the EU Mercury regulation in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework, which maintains Northern Ireland's dual market access to the EU single market and the UK internal market.

I know that questions of democratic legitimacy and the effectiveness of the Windsor framework democratic scrutiny mechanisms are a frequent area of consideration and discussions, which I'm sure we will continue to discuss again today. This affirmative statutory instrument clearly demonstrates the purpose and benefit of the Windsor framework. But before I set out its scope and objectives, I want to provide some further background on the arrangements that apply in Northern Ireland, which makes this measure necessary. Dental amalgam is a dental filling material made up of a mixture of mercury and metal alloys, including silver, tin and copper.

It is a stable, safe, filling material that is widely used across the UK to fill cavities

15:22

caused by tooth decay. Compared to alternative fillings like composite

15:22

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

alternative fillings like composite resins, dental amalgam fillings are typically cheaper and take less time to apply. Last year, the EU introduced amendments to the EU introduced amendments to the EU Mercury Regulation, which applies under the Windsor framework. These amendments introduced a ban on the amendments introduced a ban on the use of and export of dental amalgam from the 1st of January 2025, and a ban on the manufacture and import ban on the manufacture and import of dental amalgam from the 1st of July 2026.

Here we saw an issue that would pose particular that would pose particular difficulties for Northern Ireland. We saw members of the Legislative Assembly scrutinise the issue and voiced their concerns, because an voiced their concerns, because an immediate ban on dental amalgam would have led to longer dental treatment times in Northern Ireland, meaning fewer patients being treated. This could ultimately worsen oral health outcomes in Northern Ireland. The government Northern Ireland. The government has acted on these concerns and made representations to the EU, and the EU Commission recognised the EU Commission recognised Northern Ireland's specific circumstances last year, leading us to the bespoke arrangements for Northern Ireland.

We are discussing Northern Ireland. We are discussing today. Northern Ireland will have a much longer transition period until 2034 or until an earlier phase out 2034 or until an earlier phase out date is agreed by the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which is an international treaty to which the UK and the EU are parties. It will mean the continued use of dental amalgam in Northern Ireland is aligned with the rest of the UK. The absence of these exemptions would have meant an immediate ban on dental amalgam use and import, and would have had a negative health and socio economic impact on Northern Ireland.

For instance, mercury free alternatives such as composite fillings generally require longer treatment times, which could strain dental service capacity and may not be suitable for all patients. This could have resulted in longer treatment times and patients and patient waiting lists potentially harming oral health. In Northern Ireland, a gradual transition to mercury free alternatives would ensure a managed phase out, therefore minimising disruptions in Northern Ireland's dental service provision during this time. Businesses and dentists in Northern Ireland may continue to import and use dental amalgam.

Such treatment may only be given to UK residents and imports need to be proportionate with use. This gradual phase out of dental amalgam will allow a longer period to transition to alternative fillings. This would give dentists time to improve practical efficiency, gain experience with more complex fillings, adapt to emerging alternatives, and support the training of dental professionals. The dental amalgam exemptions on use and import have applied in Northern Ireland since the 1st of January 2025, and the authorities in Northern Ireland have taken steps to implement this, including through issuing further guidance and engaging with dentists.

The purpose of this instrument is to further strengthen the enforcement measures Northern Ireland authorities can take on the ground to support the arrangements in Northern Ireland. These include powers to enforce the prohibitions of dental amalgam, export and manufacture. Additional reporting requirements for dental amalgam importers, and restrictions on dental amalgam use for patients, as set out in the European Commission notice. The instrument also implements the allowed exemptions to the import and use of dental amalgam on Northern Ireland, gradually phases out its use on the issue of mercury more broadly, I do recognise the concerns about the environmental impact of mercury.

It is highly toxic substance that can cause, that can harm human health and the environment if improperly, if improperly managed. When dental amalgam is exposed to high temperatures, such as during cremation, the mercury it contains can enter the environment as a toxic gas. If there is no mercury emission controls in place, I am happy to confirm that the crematoria Northern Ireland are fitted with control technologies to reduce mercury emissions, and under our environmental improvement plan, we are taking steps and further developing plans to reduce mercury emissions, including from crematoria.

As part of this, the government will soon publish the updated process guidance note for crematoria and the accompanying government consultation response, which will include further guidance on emission abatement technologies and crematoria. In conclusion, this measure is clear in its purpose by ensuring Northern Ireland authorities have the powers to enforce the EU export and manufacturing prohibitions, reporting requirements and exemptions on dental amalgam use and import as set out in the European Commission notice. This instrument will also mean that the European that Northern Ireland continues to benefit from exemptions on dental amalgam use and import, allowing for a longer transition period and equity of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dental provision. With the rest of the UK. I beg to move. The question is that the motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the motion be agreed to. Amendment Baroness Hoey. I can I say how nice it is to

15:26

Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can I say how nice it is to see the noble Lady answering this statutory instrument? And can I ask for her outline of what it contains? for her outline of what it contains? Can I also reassure noble Lords that what it says on the Whip's notice that the end of session would be probably about 7 p.m. I have no intention of continuing this debate, and I don't think any of us have until 7 p.m. That might be helpful.

I obviously, dentists in Northern Ireland are very relieved that this kind of burden that was hanging over them about a date has now been lifted. It has given them a great deal of relief. But I've actually brought this to the floor of the House today as I, along with all my colleagues from many of my colleagues from Northern Ireland, feel it's really important and actually necessary to expose how drip by drip, the EU is taking over more control over what happens in a part of the United Kingdom.

We've talked regularly about the 300 areas of law which are now out of our own government's hands, and sometimes it seems that no one actually understands the practical problems these are causing. We've seen the the questions on duty free pet travel about the large numbers of GB businesses who are now refusing to send anything to Northern Ireland because of the bureaucracy. And just recently, in the last couple of days, we've had the ridiculous situation where poppy sellers in Northern Ireland have had to have had to get EU and EU leaflets and EU bureaucracy in order to be able to sell poppies.

It is really outrageous, and I'm sure that the noble lady would agree with me on that particular point. So why am I concerned about this? See, the British Dental Association did a great job alerting dentists in Northern Ireland to the original fact that the EU directive was going to ban amalgam filling from the 1st of January 2025, in Northern Ireland. This became a topic of much concern and to be fair, His Majesty's Government sought talks with the EU, which led to a Commission notice, regulation 24 1849, which said that Northern Ireland being required to cease using amalgam fillings in June 2026, dentists could continue to December 34th, 2034.

So the purpose of this essay today, of course, is to give effect to the solution that the EU Commission developed. But, my Lords, the solution deeply problematic because these regulations rest on the foundation not of EU law, but of a Commission's notice. And I'm sure I don't need to remind noble Lords that there are five types of EU law regulations which are binding directives, which are binding recommendations which are non-binding, and opinions which are non-binding. So the reality is that the Commission notices do not even have the standing of non-binding law.

Indeed, the Commission notices are not law, because in the constitutional architecture of the EU, the Commission proposes legislation, but it does not make it. And that's the role of the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. And also the Commission is not the judiciary. And they usually add to their statements. And I quote from what they usually say is the following is without prejudice to the fact that it is the role of the European Court of Justice to make final determinations on the application of the law, and indeed, after the Northern Ireland EU Scrutiny Committee in the in the Assembly had been notified of this change and were quite pleased about it.

A few weeks later, the Department of Health sent them a letter which, regarding the standing of the Commission notice, and I quote from it. It is described in the preamble as a guidance note, which is intended to facilitate the application of regulation 2024 1849. End of the quote. So, my Lords, it's not a piece of binding legislation in itself, but rather an interpretative aid regarding the application of the law in Northern Ireland in the unique context of the Windsor framework.

But there are further particular causes for concern in this particular Commission. Notice. Firstly, the notice begins with the heading in very large capitals. Disclaimer. And this is very unusual, this only. We've only discovered one other time when this happened. And of course this is designed to underline the tentative nature of this interpretation. And secondly, the nature of the warning itself is blunter. Rather than saying that their reflections are without prejudice to the role of the courts as the ultimate arbiter, the notice says that only the Court of Justice can do authoritatively what it is now going to do interpret the law.

And I quote from that. While this notice seeks to assist authorities and operators, only the Court of Justice of the European Union is competent to authoritatively interpret union law. So, given that the Commission notice is not law and is supposed to interpret the EU regulation something that only the European Court of Justice can do authoritatively, can the noble Lady of the Ministers tell us how really how secure these regulations are if we pass them today, if the courts are called upon to make a judgement, it must confine itself to an interpretation of the wording of the EU legislature of the Council of Ministers in the European Parliament, and how could they possibly reach the conclusion that when the legislature determined that all states should ban the use of amalgam from the 1st of January 2025, with a derogation until June 2026 that the words affecting this requirement also mean that amalgam fillings can continue to be used generally in Northern Ireland until December 2034, when those words actually say no such thing.

So we are being subjected to legislation resting on the foundation of a non Legal Commission notice presented, which, with a big disclaimer in capital letters, really is quite ridiculous. It's almost contemptuous how this is being treated by the EU. So let us be clear the regulations only here, because of the grace and favour of the European Union, if they expect me and others to be appreciative of a foreign administration giving us a few more years of affordable dentistry than I'm not, and certainly I'm very ashamed that both the last government, I'm afraid this government to have allowed this to happen and now dress it up as a statutory instrument to give authority what they have allowed us to do.

It is a sticking plaster solution with no legal standing, which will cause dentists to be asked to be put into a very difficult situation. They're not supposed to treat anyone who has come from another jurisdiction, so I'm not sure what's going to happen when people come over the border in the Republic. Because if the Republic of Ireland hasn't got a derogation, then people will come over to Northern Ireland because there's no hard border, as the government keep wanting to tell us, is the dentist, you know, are they going to be guards at the, at the, at the border looking at people's teeth? I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous.

And I really would like to ask the noble Lady, the minister, how is it going to be enforced? How are we going to make this actually happen to make sure that it is being complied with? So let us be clear. The I'm this is this is not about whether amalgam should be phased out, as I know many people want. There are good reasons for that. And there are. We really do need a proper debate on the whole dentistry situation in in the United Kingdom.

And the British Dentists Association are very clear that a great deal of more funding has to go into dentistry if we are going to actually phase out amalgam. If not, we will see the end of any NHS dentistry in Northern Ireland when it's already so difficult to find a NHS dentist. So it's not about the issue of amalgam, it's about equal citizenship. It's about whether we really believe that people in Northern Ireland should have the same opportunities with the National Health Service as anyone else in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that's why my Lords I moved this amendment today so that at the very least, we get a debate and we get a discussion, and we get an understanding of what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people in Northern Ireland are having to go through. I move the amendment. The original. Question was that the regulation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question was that the regulation laid before the House on the 17th. Of July. Be approved. Since when an amendment has been moved by Baroness Hoey at the end to insert the word set out on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the word set out on the Order Paper. put. Is that this. Amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment be agreed to. My Lords, if I. Might be allowed a brief speech not on the constitutional aspect of this, but

15:34

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Conservative)

- -

constitutional aspect of this, but on the dentistry aspect of this. I thank the noble lady, the Minister, very much for introducing this, and indeed the noble lady for moving the amendment. And I, I do recognise there is a very important constitutional issue as well. But in relation to the amalgam ban, which will come in in ten years time in Northern Ireland, it is worth saying that as respects the rest of the United Kingdom, although the clearly the EU rules do not apply, the fact that there is a supply chain and a price chain has a massive effect in the rest of the United Kingdom.

So there is an issue about the availability of mercury and amalgam within within

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the next period. So as the noble Lady of the minister. Said quite. Correctly, that amalgam fillings

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Correctly, that amalgam fillings are cheaper and that that the treatment is far, far longer for treatment is far, far longer for alternatives. Also, it's worth saying that they they last longer, they don't need replacing as often. they don't need replacing as often. So there's a very real issue here about the cost going forward of an alternative Research and Development being needed within the dentistry profession, and sponsored and helped by the government to look at alternatives to mercury and look at alternatives to mercury and also investment in better oral health.

Without those things, I fear that within the next ten years, irrespective of the constitutional aspects that we're talking about, there is a real concern here for there is a real concern here for dentistry and for oral health, not just in Northern Ireland, though admittedly it'll hit there harder, admittedly it'll hit there harder, but in the rest of the United Kingdom as well. And I hope the noble Lady will be able to address that. And if she hasn't got that. And if she hasn't got specific details on that, I would appreciate if she could.

Right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appreciate if she could. Right. OSA Lord Swire. I am pleased to rise here today in support of Baroness Hoey motion. There is no doubt that one of our greatest. National institutions is.

15:36

Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Indeed the NHS. have in the past been exercised about the possibility of those whom they elect might tamper with it, accountability.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the electorate. Imagine then, the concern that attends the the concern that attends the prospect of having a key aspect of the NHS placed in jeopardy by the the NHS placed in jeopardy by the politicians of a foreign country who are not accountable to you. who are not accountable to you. That is the plight that befell the UK citizens living in Northern Ireland when the EU Parliament voted EU regulation 2024 by 1849. voted EU regulation 2024 by 1849.

In 2024, being disenfranchised, which had already been mentioned in which had already been mentioned in some 300 years of law, is bad enough. But when the laws give the foreign legislators the power to strike down any aspect of one of our great national institutions, the justice of that disenfranchisement is completely intolerable. It is an indignity to which the people of England, Wales which the people of England, Wales and Scotland should never be subjected. Why, then, the people of subjected.

Why, then, the people of Northern Ireland, my Lord? In this context, I was aghast to listen context, I was aghast to listen last week to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Right Honourable member for Leeds South, giving evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee in another place that the government, he said, has solved the amalgam problem. My Lord, that was just quite extraordinary, to put it mildly. A piece of legislation has been imposed on part of the UK by a legislator in which it is not represented, and which places a key component of one of our greatest institutions in jeopardy.

And rather than standing as citizens, we are subjected to the humiliation of being taken as supplicants to the bar of the grace and favour of a foreign executive, to see what crumbs might be persuaded to toss from their gilded table. And then, to make matters worse, we are expected to be thankful, grateful and accepting it, even though we have no more made the concession than the original legislation. My Lord, whatever happened to self-respect? Whatever happened to the United Kingdom, then my Lord, we are forced to confront the consequences of the fact that rather than being treated as legislators, we are taken for dumb supplicants in the development of the alternative provision through the fact that this alternative provision further alienates us from the rest of our home country.

Under the Commission notice from the 1st of July 2026, it will be illegal to produce amalgam in Northern Ireland and will have to come from Great Britain. This introduces two compulsions. First, in order to have amalgam, Northern Ireland must buy it from GB because it is not allowed to be produced in Northern Ireland. Secondly, its movement from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is subject to the imposition of an international customs border, cutting the United Kingdom into two.

My Lords, this means that from the first, from July 2026, it will only be possible to take amalgam across the red lane, as if moving to a foreign country, in a context where the numbers of traders selling goods from GB to Northern Ireland is falling all the time because of the cost of having to negotiate the border. What certainty do we have that anyone in GB will be ready to sell dental amalgam to Northern Ireland from July 2026 until December 2034, while UK citizens living in England, Wales and Scotland will be protected from this uncertainty.

Apparently it is fine not to afford the same protection to the citizen UK Citizen Northern Ireland. Then, my Lords, we must be confront the fact that the regulations before us today rest, in any event, on a very uncertain foundation. The fundamental problem with the regulations before us today is that when interpreting the relevant EU law, to which the regulations before us today seek to relate, the European Court of Justice will have to confine its interpretation to the law.

It will have to ask what EU regulation 2024 by 1849 means in relation to Northern Ireland, not. What does EU Commission notice means? Because rather than being the law, the latter is simply the Commission's rather extraordinary interpretation of the EU regulations 2024 by 1849. In her response, the noble Baroness might be tempted to say that there are other examples of commission notice before the same kinds of fate as the Commission notice that underpins the regulations before us today.

Well, I can only locate two that come with the leading disclaimer in capital letters and seek to interpret the relevant piece of legislation to the point of changing its effective meaning. And interestingly, they both relate to the Irish Sea border and attempts to interpret one's way out of earlier problems. One relates to human medicines, the other to veterinary medicines. Finally, my Lords, could the noble Baroness, the minister, explain why it is acceptable to bring to your Lordships House legislation that one testifies that disenfranchisement of the people of Northern Ireland in relation to key aspects of the NHS two further alienates us from the rest of the United Kingdom through the imposition of a dental amalgam sea border from July 2026.

Three presents this all on a legal foundation that relates not to EU law, but an interpretation of it that bears no relation to the actual legislation and could be struck down by the European Court of Justice at any time. And fourth, and finally acquiesces with the unconstitutional practice of effectively using the executive to suspend laws made by this legislature. Thank you.

15:43

Lord Reay (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I. for introducing this debate and also Baroness Hoey for her motion. This C addresses the implications to Northern Ireland of the government's decision not to follow the Minamata Convention on phasing out the use of mercury dental amalgam fillings throughout the EU. I would like to say a few words about why it is concerning that the UK government is rowing back on its Minamata commitments, and why mercury amalgam fillings, which are highly toxic, should be banned throughout the UK at the earliest opportunity.

This issue is not merely one of dentistry. It concerns public health, environmental protection and ethical responsibility. Mercury is one of the most toxic substances known to science, as the Minister readily accepts in her opening statement, and there is no safe level of exposure for humans. Studies show that mercury vapour is released continuously into the mouth from amalgam fillings, especially when we chew, grind our teeth, or have old fillings removed. These vapours are inhaled, absorbed into the bloodstream, and stored in the body's tissues.

Chronic exposure has been linked to neurological damage, kidney dysfunction, and developmental harm in unborn children. The problem does not stop at the patient's mouth. Mercury from dental practices, cremations and landfill waste seeps into water systems where it is transformed, where it transforms into methylmercury, a highly toxic compound that accumulates in fish and other wildlife. That same mercury then returns to us through the food we eat. In fact, dental amalgam is one of the largest sources of mercury pollution in the UK.

And once mercury enters the environment, it cannot be destroyed. It circulates indefinitely, contaminating ecosystems for generations. A ban is not just a medical issue, it is an environmental necessity. The global community recognises this danger. The Minamata Convention on Mercury, which the UK signed in 2013 and ratified in 2017, commits nations to reducing and eventually eliminating mercury use. Countries such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark have already banned amalgam entirely. The European Union is phasing it out completely this year and next.

If the UK does not act, it risks falling behind international standards and undermining its environmental commitments. The proponents of mercury fillings in the UK, such as the British Dental Association, argue that amalgam remains necessary because it is cheap and durable. That argument no longer holds. Modern composite resins and compounds such as zirconium are strong, safe, and aesthetically superior. They bond directly to the tooth, preserving a more healthy structure. Yes, they may take slightly longer to place, but with modern techniques that difference is minimal.

And when we consider the environmental cost of mercury pollution, composites are not only safer, they are more economical in the long term. This debate is also about ethics. Can we in good conscience continue to sanction the use of a neurotoxic material in medical treatment, particularly when safer alternatives exist? Government policy on mercury amalgam fillings should not be determined solely by the British Dental Association. The government must also commit to engaging toxicologists and environmental scientists to advise them on the toxicity of mercury fillings and their repercussions as a matter of urgency.

The government should also commit to grant extra funding to the already underfunded NHS dentistry, to cover for any increase in cost of alternative fillings. The United Kingdom has both the evidence and the moral imperative to act by banning mercury dental amalgam fillings. We are. We affirm our commitment to science, safety and ethical progress. Let us not cling to outdated practice. Let us consign mercury and amalgam mercury amalgam fillings to history.

15:48

Lord Bew (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords.

15:48

Lord Reay (Conservative)

- -

I thank the Minister for her statement, which did fill out very carefully the exact situation that

15:50

Lord Bew (Crossbench)

- -

we now face with amalgam fillings in a very useful and important way, and I am very grateful for that. and I am very grateful for that. But I do want to say that Baroness Hoey is right on one key point. I have friends in the Irish Republic have friends in the Irish Republic who regularly use the Northern Irish Dental services, and this is at the very least a loose end in the regulations that are presented towards an in principle presented in the House today and in principle in the House today and in principle place a burden on Northern Irish dentists, which is very difficult to see how they can actually deal to see how they can actually deal with in any in any proper way.

And I do think that is the, if I may say so, the loose end in the noble Lady, the Ministers very elegant Lady, the Ministers very elegant introduction. If I can say something else, this is a sensitive matter, and the references already matter, and the references already made to the operations of the NHS in Northern Ireland. One of the key in Northern Ireland. One of the key differences between the Windsor Framework and the 2019 withdrawal Agreement is that the Windsor Agreement is that the Windsor Framework makes clear on page 14.

The basic state functions include medical supplies, and this is medical supplies, and this is essentially an issue of medical supplies. It's one of the things that is can be said in favour of that is can be said in favour of the of the Windsor framework. And indeed it was the first item in the DUP's election manifesto for the Assembly elections that this situation had to be had to be rectified. And this debate today just raises a degree of uncertainty as to how these matters are going.

Now, in broad outline, there is a practical resolution, and most of the questions in the minister's already made that clear. But one has to understand why there is a certain neuralgia in the public mind nonetheless. And it it is related to two other to another issue, which is in no way the Minister's responsibility. But it is the case that Lord Murphy has brought forward a report on the Windsor framework for the government in this House, an independent report, and my Noble friend Lord Carlile Select Committee has also produced an important document on the working of the Windsor Framework Committee, in which noble Lord Lord Dobbs sits again.

I wonder, does the Minister of any idea if there are any significant EU response to the issues that are raised, these loose ends, one of which we have discussed the burden on, on Northern Irish dentists, that is apparently being placed. Those two reports so far, I hear very little about government response. And again, it raises questions at this moment of of recess, of recess in Anglo-Irish relations, for example, the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which I attended last week, the Irish minister, Mr.

Lawless, said that the key thing about Windsor Framework was it protected the Irish position on the island economy. Actually, the Windsor framework makes it quite clear on page five that the foreseeable future is to economies on the island of Ireland. But there is no British minister for the first time in decades at the Bipa to reply to that, if they had so wished again in this House eight days ago, in response to a relatively innocent question on the green lane and its working in the Windsor framework, the Minister Lord Livermore dismissed the question.

In fact, on the grounds that the green lane was a kind of old style brexity thinking. In fact, the green lane is in the Windsor framework. And if you look at page eight it is explicitly referred to it is. So it's not an unreasonable thing to ask how it is working out in actual fact. So what I'm trying to really convey is this for those of us who support, critically, the Windsor framework, but know it leaves a lot of irritants for the public in Northern Ireland.

It does need to be fully implemented. The government cannot just pay lip service to it, which it does, but also then half shy away when the Irish government says something else or it doesn't appear to be fulfilling commitments which have been given to the electorate in Northern Ireland and are fundamental to the reason why the Assembly and the Good Friday institutions currently operate. The fact that those commitments were given in good faith and then became the basis for the return of the assembly, because there are quite a significant minority of unionists in Northern Ireland who are tired of these institutions, who are deeply critical of them, and in my opinion, unrealistically and unreasonably wish to replace them.

But it gives succour to that group. If the government does not just support the Windsor framework, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support it with vigour. My Lords earlier. Today we had a think a the

15:53

Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Today we had a think a the collective term a hall of Earls. I rise, I think, in this debate on issues which pertain to the issues which pertain to the protocol in Windsor framework is one of a number of unionist peers. I'm not quite sure what the collective term is, whether we are an anger of peers or a frustration of peers. I will allow some of the more erudite colleagues to be able to disseminate what the correct answer is.

I should also say as well, I appreciate, I think, and I think Baroness Hoey made reference in her earlier remarks, that a number of colleagues from across the chamber, I think, are due on a different flights tonight to return home to Northern Ireland. I am not, but I will forego what I intended to do a two yard contextual dissertation on the impact of dental amalgam in terms of its history over the last hundred years within British dentistry. When looking at this issue and looking at the regulation that is in front of us, I think we need to disaggregate two particular issues.

One is the call it the landing point of the regulation itself, and then what is perhaps much more concerning, which has been highlighted by Baroness Hoey and others, the underlying issues behind it on the regulation itself. And we have heard the concerns that have been raised in relation to the continuance of Mercury amalgam. That is a position in terms of, I think, has been accepted largely not simply by the UN convention, but also by the World Dentistry Federation.

And I think it has been accepted that there is a need, at least for a phasing out of that dental amalgam. Now, there may be some degree of disagreement over the speed with which that is is impacted in. And we do know that at present that if there was an immediate action taken on that, that there would be financial implications for dentists, that that whatever we reach in the near future, that that the alternatives are present are considerably more costly and time consuming.

And that indeed, the real concern that was raised, particularly by local dentists in Northern Ireland, that if we faced a cliff edge ban in 2025 or 2026, that this would lead to effectively the collapse of NHS dentistry within Northern Ireland. I think that was a very real fear and this does not come simply within a vacuum. We have to realise that the impact that was there, particularly in terms of the dental profession arising out of the Covid situation, where where they were particularly hard hit.

But that balance in place, I think we can, I think, as Baroness Hoey indicated, at least accept a level of relief that instead of this immediate crisis that has been created, that at least with this regulation, we're talking about the beginning of January in 2035 for the period in which there can be that phasing out. And I think that is something which is in line with what has been put by the the World Dental Federation. And it should also be indicated, I think, that I'd be interested in the Minister's response on this, that whatever is happening in terms of phasing out should be something that is done across the UK.

So I commend if you like, the landing zone, but I join with others in expressing concern over the underlying issues of how we got here in the first place. I think there are three major concerns. Firstly, on the dental issue directly itself, I think it is common for all of us. I think it's a trap that we all fall into that with a either a primary piece of legislation or regulation is passed that we then tend to dismiss the issue that is job done.

We have reached a solution. It is abundantly clear that with this regulation, we are putting off to a particular point to the end of 2034. That does not mean the issue can simply be ignored between now and then, as was indicated, I think there does need to be considerable investment and support for ensuring that we have practical alternatives to the dental amalgam. Now, as has been highlighted earlier, some of those seem to be in progress. But let us reach a point at which, for example, at the moment I think it's indicated that the alternatives are roughly in private practice, about five times the cost of what they would be within the NHS.

We need to be in a position that we can institute that alternative, and that does mean a considerable amount of work. It does mean support for the dental profession, and it does mean something being brought about on a UK wide basis. And undoubtedly it is the case that even if this was not applying to anywhere in the United Kingdom, there is a very major problem that is facing dentistry throughout the UK because of the EU ban, because it is quite likely that the supply chains and the overall European market for dental amalgam will collapse in the near future, and that will create its own difficulties.

So government does need to be aware. And again, I look to the Minister to see what support government will be giving to the dental profession as we move ahead between now and the beginning of 2035. Secondly, the solution that has been reached out today, and I do commend the officials within the government and indeed the minister in the government for raising the concerns with the EU and actually negotiating at least a sensible sort of final position. But what it does highlight is that these are issues which shouldn't have to be fought out on a one by one basis.

It shows a fundamental flaw with the system itself. These are decisions which lack any form of democratic accountability. It is their decisions because they lie ultimately with the EU in which sovereignty has been surrendered and a level of democratic and political autonomy has been given over, we are effectively being left in a situation where this solution has been able to be reached, because the EU has decided to effectively do us a favour and agree this, we can't be in a position on a long term basis of having to fight each individual basis that, on the goodwill or otherwise of the EU, that issues such as this are resolved.

That way. We do need a better solution to that. Finally, the issue is that that I think it also shows, as has been shown with a number of other issues, which I'll touch on briefly of a level of of overreach when it comes to our relationship with the EU. It is undoubtedly the case that I think the argument for a particular form of relationship that impacts on Northern Ireland is largely based on two things from an EU perspective one, the protection of the single market, and secondly, to try and reduce any friction on a cross-border basis.

But what we have seen is that the extent of the relationship at present, that is there through the protocol and to perhaps a lesser extent through the Windsor framework, has been that that we have seen this going into a wide range of areas, from immigration, for example, to, as Baroness Hoey indicated, the selling of poppies, which are nothing at all to do with cross-border trade or protecting the EU market. Last week, again in this House, again through Baroness, we had raised the issue when we talked about duty free within airports, within Northern Ireland, and the rationale given by the then minister was, well, one of the major parts of this is to prevent us having to have some form of customs regulations in airports going into the Irish Republic, for example, for flights that are that are occurring from Northern Ireland.

Yet this was a solution being an engineered into a situation which there were no flights going from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. And similarly, it has to be said, with the issue of, of amalgam should be something which is actually should be simply decided within Northern Ireland. I think the issue may well be that there will be how exactly it is meant to be policed, of people moving trunks, going cross border, and I don't know whether we're going to see some form of customs posts on the Irish border, where people are going to get their teeth examined on the way out, just to make sure that they're not smuggling fillings into the Irish Republic.

That is the kind of ridiculous nature that we've reached. And it does suggest to me that while there has been a particular solution found to this particular problem, it highlights that there are fundamental flaws within the relationship itself, which shows that the government has got to go a lot further in terms of any reset that it has with the European Union, because we need actually long term solutions, not sticking plasters from issue to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue. My Lords I thank the. Noble Lady, the. Minister, for her very clear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, for her very clear introduction to this statutory instrument, and also thank the noble Lady Baroness Hoey for raising this issue, even though I'm raising this issue, even though I'm going to take a very different approach to the sea, I'm going to

16:03

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

park the constitutional questions, leave the Windsor framework to. One side, but raise the issue of why.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is Britain. Globally trailing. On the issue. Of mercury fillings, dental fillings? I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fillings? I will. Take issue with the introduction from the noble Lady, the minister talking about a stable and safe material and typically cheaper material. It's worth stressing that material. It's worth stressing that what this does is provide bespoke arrangements, and here I'm purely looking from the medical health looking from the medical health side, bespoke arrangements for a longer transition period away from of dental mercury dental fillings of dental mercury dental fillings in Northern Ireland compared to the EU. A delay fails out that's in EU.

A delay fails out that's in line with the rest of the EU, the UK. This is bad for the people of Northern Ireland, bad for the UK and bad for the world. Coincidentally, there's actually a Coincidentally, there's actually a new study out today by the Rivers Trust and Wildlife and Countryside Trust and Wildlife and Countryside Link that shows that more than 98% of fish and mussels tested in English waters contain mercury levels above EU safety limits, and in fact, more than half of the fish and mussels tested have mercury levels more than five times above the EU safety limits.

Now, of course, we all know that mercury is a potent neurotoxin even at low levels of exposure. This the tragedy of Minamata, the disease that resulted from the industrial release of methylmercury in Japan. This is something that has been known for many, many decades. 43 countries have now banned mercury amalgam fillings the EU, the Scandinavians, but also countries such as Tanzania and Indonesia. Now, the practical reality of this is that crematoriums are now the second largest source of mercury emissions to the air, after the combustion of fossil fuels.

Now we know that fossil fuels are have to be on the way out for other reasons. So this issue, in terms of the percentage contribution is only going to rise higher and higher. Now there will actually be of course, I think this has already been mentioned. The Minamata Convention meeting in November. And there's talk of a global phase out by 2030 that's led by African countries, including Botswana and Burkina Faso. Now, I raised issue with the cheaper point. Often cost is cited as the reason why we have to go slower.

But countries such as Germany are using safer alternatives and the cost is only very marginally higher. And surely if Germany can manage it, we can manage it too. Now, I think it's also important to understand this on a global scale. And the issue of mercury pollution globally. And it's interesting that the African nations are leading at that November convention because the rise in the price of gold, the rise in the demand for gold is also associated with massive increases in mercury pollution around the world.

We're used to the idea of blood diamonds, but mercury poisoning gold might not be such a catchy phrase, but it's something we really should be talking about now. The risks are particularly acute in the Amazon, as highlighted by the campaigning priest Miguel and and Angel Cadenas, who works in Peru. It's also a huge issue in artisanal gold mining in Africa and globally. It's estimated to be releasing 800 tonnes of mercury into the air a year. That's nearly 40% of global emissions, and these are global emissions, and they don't stay where the emissions happen.

And I point the noble Lady to a very important study that's just been published in the European Geosciences Union journal. We're used to the idea that food crops being contaminated by taking up mercury from the soil. So the mercury has drifted in dust around the world, settled in the soil and then being taken up. But what this study has demonstrated, we have not realised this before. This is new, is that the mercury has been taken up from the air by the plants, literally, when they photosynthesise, they are taking mercury in from the air.

And so it's going directly, particularly into green leafy crops that we all need. So I put to the noble Lady the minister that we this see is taking Northern Ireland in the wrong direction. But more than that, overall, the government is not taking the steps that it needs to be taking for public health here in the UK, for environmental health, in the here in the UK and for Global One Health.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Waldegrave arise. Briefly. Just. To make a few comments in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To make a few comments in relation to this regret motion standing in the name of Baroness Hoey. And I'm grateful for her

16:08

Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

tabling this motion, which allows a debate on this important issue which has caused concern in Northern Ireland in terms of access to to NHS dentists and and to the not having massive expense imposed on people seeking dental treatment. And I've listened very, very carefully to the arguments that have been put forward by the previous speaker, the Baroness Bennett, and also to Lord Reay speaking very eloquently about why they believe that the EU is is right to move to a speedy removal of dental amalgam, and also to other noble lords who have spoken about the real concern about a cliff edge and about the the impact that there may be in relation to this ban happening in Northern Ireland and not in other parts of the United Kingdom, the supply chain and so on.

But the crucial thing about whatever side of the argument you're on, whether you're for implementing an immediate ban or slowing it down or having it at all, this is an issue that should be debated and decided by us. That's the crucial question. So, you know, the whole essence of all of these issues. And there's a multitude of issues within the Windsor framework. This is just one tiny example ranging from the environment, environment, agriculture, manufacturing, thousands of regulations. And we can debate are they good ideas? Bad ideas? Is the principle behind them a good thing or a bad thing? And that's great.

We should be debating that. But in Northern Ireland we can debate to the cows, come home, but there's nothing we can do about it. The debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly, or in relation to is irrelevant. The British Parliament has no powers. This is the point that has been highlighted by my noble colleague Franz Lord Morrow and Lord Weir and by Baroness Hoey. It is. It is an amazing situation that the arguments that have been put forward in relation to these matters have no relevance to Northern Ireland, because the European Commission and the European Union will decide the matter and not give a fig for what anyone elected in Northern Ireland says about it.

And when these issues are raised, example after example after example, I know that there are people in the generality of Parliament and who don't take a great interest in these matters who may find this tedious, or they find it even laughable at times. I mean, you see people who say, what's this all about? What are they going on about again? But time after time we are seeing a situation where the impact on Northern Ireland is not just in terms of the economic costs of divergence, as has been highlighted recently by the Federation of Small Business report, by the Murphy Report reviewing the Windsor Framework, which the noble Earl Lord Bew referred to, which has been highlighted in relation to the the recent report of the Northern Ireland Select Committee of this House.

And I would urge your Lordships to read that report of of a committee of this House, which sets out in very stark terms the the, the cost and the economic damage in a whole range of areas. So it's not just the cost, but it is this democratic cost as well that we we can't decide these matters. I thought the most telling remark that the noble minister made in her introduction was recognising the problem. Hearing what people were saying in Northern Ireland that the UK government, I think in the quote, was made representations to the EU.

And somebody mentioned self-respect and dignity. This is what we have come to in Northern Ireland. Yes, on this particular issue. But across a thousand areas of directives and regulations and all the rest of it across 300 areas, vast swathes of our economy, and we will continue to highlight this issue because it is something that is ultimately going to cause major problems down the line. I have been warning for some time that the Northern Ireland Assembly is a body that has been set up and has, has worked and done many good things in noble Lord Lord Bew referred to the basis in which it has been restored, commitments that were entered that the government has cast aside.

EU labelling was to be introduced for the whole of the UK, a commitment in safeguarding the union. One of the reasons why the assembly was cast aside, rejected, torn up. So commitments have been shredded and haven't been implemented. So, my Lords, this is an example of where we're going wrong and where ultimately the Northern Ireland Assembly, in my view, will be placed in danger because there is a growing it may be a minority. It's hard to know, but we will soon find out at the next election.

And there is a growing recent Life and Times survey by Queen's University indicated growing concern in the unionist community about the implications of all of these issues, and if that is replicated in an election, then it will be very difficult to have that stability within the Assembly, which which is needed by having a strong Unionist presence in the executive and a strong nationalist presence. And I don't say that out of any desire to see that collapse or anything like it, but I'm just pointing out a reality.

And I think Whitehall generally, and the government and both parties here in the big parties need to understand what's at stake. There is a growing disillusionment, a growing anger, a growing frustration that these debates, which we should be having in the Assembly in Northern Ireland or here, are not happening. Their decisions are being made by bureaucrats in Brussels and the Commission and imposed on Northern Ireland. Then we have to go and beg for a grace and favour extension to not have it implemented immediately.

It's happening over and over and over again. So I think this has been a useful debate to highlight this, and I commend those who have spoken and highlighted all these issues. And I look to the Minister, who I know takes a very strong interest in Northern Ireland, follows these things deeply and cares about Northern Ireland. And I look forward to her response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I too would like to thank the noble Lady, the Minister,

16:15

Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)

- -

thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for her very clear presentation. I would also like to take the opportunity to wish Baroness Hayman a very speedy recovery. I hope if she's watching this debate today then we all we are all thinking of her. I'd also like to thank Baroness Hoey for the the opportunity to have this debate, because I believe it is actually a very important debate we're having here today. But as ever, my Lords, it is a debate of two different issues.

The first is the on going constitutional debate about the functioning of the Windsor framework and the democratic questions arising from Northern Ireland having to accept decisions taken by the European Union when we no longer have representation there. Since leaving the EU. The second debate is the substance of these regulations, the phasing out of amalgam, dental fillings and the exemption for Northern Ireland to 2034. I would like to deal with the latter point first. I believe the exemption to 2034 is welcome.

The NHS and Northern Ireland, and dentistry in particular is in a state of some crisis. This nine year exemption will allow time to make the transition from amalgam to composite fillings in a planned and phased manner, and will avoid the shock to Northern Ireland dentistry, which many dental professionals warned about. Now my Lords. Clearly I am not a dentist. I listened with interest to Lord Weir and great interest to to Lord Rees speech, but it is noticeable, I would say that amalgam fillings have seen a marked decrease in popularity in recent years.

People are keen to choose the more aesthetically pleasing white composite fillings pleasing white composite fillings and as Lord Reay has made very in hi amalgam. Mercury amalgam is somewhat controversial. They require much greater drilling in the tooth, which can have long term consequences. They add enormously, as Baroness Bennett has said, to mercury pollution in the environment. And I was reading ahead of this debate today. A recent medical research paper has indicated that their use might even have an impact on arthritis.

I would be grateful if the noble Lady the Minister as Baroness Bennett also asked if she could clarify the government's position on eventually banning mercury amalgam fillings in England and again, like Baroness Bennett ahead of the imminent Minamata Convention on Mercury being held next week from the 3rd to the 7th of November. I would be very interested to know the government's response to a proposal by the African nations for a ban on dental amalgam by 2030, I believe the noble Lady.

The minister, in her opening remarks, said that if amalgam fillings are eventually banned for the rest of the UK, that ahead of 2034 that Northern Ireland would follow suit and that these regulations would fall, I would be grateful if she could just clarify that in her closing remarks. But on the constitutional issue, as noble Lords will know, and indeed it probably wouldn't be a Baroness Hoey regret motion if I didn't point out that if we hadn't left the European Union, we wouldn't be having these arguments about because we would have been able to make the case within the EU institutions on behalf of UK dentists, including Northern Ireland dentists, both at the Council and at the European Parliament.

But she and I are never entirely going to agree on those matters. The Windsor Framework, as others have said, is very far from perfect. There is a democratic deficit, and it's something that we and the rest of the UK are going to have to face if if we go further down the route of dynamic alignment. But this particular set of regulations, I would argue, is the positive story. There was an issue the UK government and the EU listened. The Northern Ireland Assembly made the case powerfully and an exemption to 2034 was granted.

Which is why from these benches, we support these regulations and oppose Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hodge regret motion. My Lords I welcome Baroness Hoey

16:19

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I welcome Baroness Hoey regret motion because it allows us to debate a very important subject, important from two councils we important from two councils we heard in this debate today. First of all, the constitutional issue, and secondly, the merits or demerits of amalgam and some of the powerful speeches made pointing out how dangerous it could be. But first of all, it also allows us to hear an excellent opening address from the Minister herself. So I do want to congratulate Baroness the noble Lady Baroness Hoey on two counts.

And first of all, her assurance and the noble Lord Lord Wills assurance that we'll finish by 7:00. But of course, the Northern Ireland business. I was betting on 5 to 7. But secondly, the noble Lords have northern Lords appears from Northern Ireland, have raised the important constitutional question. And I say to the noble Lord Lord Lords I don't find this tedious at all. I'm afraid I share his view that sooner or later this is going to come to a crunch. And yet we have another, another motion before us here, another regulation before us here, which slowly, slowly drives a wedge between our United Kingdom and our Northern Ireland.

So and I, I had no idea about the poppies issue. I googled, searched it after the noble Baroness mentioned it and was appalled to find she's absolutely right. EU interference on selling poppies in Northern Ireland. So my Lords, I we on this Bethnal Green recognise the importance of reducing mercury use in line with the Minamata Convention. We do not oppose the principle of this instrument. However, it is right that we probe the government on how it has been implemented, particularly regarding dental amalgam and its replacement.

As my noble friends have discussed, Northern Ireland, as we know, has been granted a longer term transition period, allowing continued import and use of amalgam until 2034 to avoid disruption to dental services. And apart, I think from my noble friend Lord Reay, I think most in the House seem to agree that extension is sensible. While we look for workable alternatives. However, I would ask the minister what engagement has taken place with dental practitioners in Northern Ireland? How will the government monitor the practical impacts impacts of divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and how will any future decision under the Minamata Convention affect this timeline? Now, we do note the British Dental Association's concerns about cost and capacity.

Amalgam, they say, is is widely used and affordable material and placing it too quickly, they suggest without proper support could worsen access issues. I think my noble friend Lord Lord Bourne has also asked that point and want reassurance. On the other hand, my noble friend the Lord Weir, in a very powerful speech, pointed out that the severe dangers of mercury amalgam and that alternatives were available already cheaper. Well, almost as cheap alternatives and better my Lords. I simply don't know.

I won't say like finding the answer is like pulling teeth. There's no time for silly. But we, the government, ought to know if the government doesn't know now, hopefully in the next few years it will. Will we will we be able before 1934 for the whole United Kingdom, not just Northern Ireland, but the whole of the United Kingdom? Will we able together to find a practical, a reasonably cheap alternative to dental amalgam so we can do it? So I say we don't oppose this instrument, but we urge the government to remain alert to its impact on front line services to ensure both patients and practitioners in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom are properly supported.

I urge the government as soon as possible, to work with those developing alternatives to make sure that a replacement is available to Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as soon as practicable. OK.

16:23

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I really I was tempted to make a joke about filling the gap in the noble Lords information. Given what we're talking about, noble Lords are aware that I am passionate about Northern Ireland, and there are many things that I thoroughly enjoy talking about with members of your Lordships' House on these issues. I did not realise that Dental amalgam was going to be one of them, so noble Lords will have to bear with me. I am very aware of people's travel arrangements for this evening, so I will be short and sweet, but that does mean I will reflect on Hansard in case I have missed any ones comments.

I also hope that my noble friend Baroness Hayman is getting better, but I'm not sure that watching your Lordships' House on it is going to assist in that. So I hope she's having chicken soup and lying in bed. My Lords, there are many points that have been raised and I'm going to try and cover all of them. There are some where I'd like to reassure noble Lords. There are other issues that I think it may be helpful to members of your Lordships House. If we if I offered a meeting to discuss what is the constitutional aspects of this with regards to the Windsor framework, because as as the noble Baroness Lady Lister team highlighted, we have a constitutional issue here and we also have the the sea at hand.

But I will try and touch on many issues for reassurance. But noble Lords are aware this is not the first, nor will it be the last time we talk about the effectiveness of the Windsor framework and where some of the challenges are, but I very much would welcome the opportunity to have further conversations on it, just to touch on one point that was raised by the noble Baroness lady Hoey, she touched on the fact that pressure was placed both through discussions in Parliament and elsewhere, to make sure that this issue was raised.

In fact, the noble Baroness has the benefit of being the the first person to have tabled a question of this government on this, on any issue, was on this issue by the noble Baroness on our first day out, and I thought I was going to have my first outing as Northern Ireland spokesperson talking about this issue. It turns out not first, but I wasn't going to escape with regards to specific concerns. I just want to put noble Lords minds at rest about poppies.

Poppies are available to be bought. There is additional materials with those poppies, but poppies are freely available in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords would be aware. I would be horrified if people could not purchase them with regards to the enforcement line, sorry. With regards to the EU Commission note that was touched upon, this government has considered all its obligations in developing this PSI, including the nature of the notice. The arrangements are already in effect and have been since January this year, and the PSI strengthens the enforcement measures of it because we are comfortable with where we are.

And obviously the PSI hand gives further practicalities to it with regards to enforcement. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency, which is an executive agency of Daera, will keep accurate records of all regulatory and enforcement action undertaken, along with information provided by Northern Ireland's Department of Health. This will enable assessment over time of the impact of the prohibitions and exemptions on Northern Ireland. I also want to assure both the noble Lady and other members of your local your Lordships' House who raised it.

There will be no guards on the border checking people's teeth. I know that that was a concern, but I can assure noble Lords that will not be how enforcement will be done on these issues. I think it may be helpful, given some of the. Yeah, I'll, I will come back to that with regards to dental tourism, which was an issue raised by several noble lords on the issue of members of the public using these services. Republic of Ireland patients will not be entitled to NHS dentistry and residency does need to be proven.

They can still access their dentist in Northern Ireland in the same way as they have before. Non amalgam fillings as they can in the Republic of Ireland, but not via the NHS. With regards to. OK with regards to Lord Bourne question on dental amalgam, what is the government going to improve and several noble Lords is this going to improve dental services? My Lords, state funded healthcare is a devolved matter and responsibility of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Government.

I was pleased to see that Northern Ireland government has this year announced an extra £7 million for dentistry services, but we are working together on both the issues that are currently faced as dentists, but also on these issues going forward. In terms of the proposed updates to the Mercury regulation in Great Britain and what's what action is being taken in the UK to reduce mercury use. The UK will be laying legislation this year to prohibit the import, export and manufacturing Great Britain of a number of products containing internationally intentionally added mercury.

These products will also be phased out in Northern Ireland by the EU Mercury regulations. The legislation will prohibit several mercury containing products to Baroness Bennett. I'm sorry, I'm realising, but some of your issues into Labour on there. The health impacts of continued use of dental amalgam which was touched upon. Dental amalgam is well established, safe and effective dental filling material. There is no evidence that amalgam fillings cause any harm to the health of dental patients. However, mercury, when released into the environment in large volumes, can cause harm, and this is carefully managed by the UK to reduce any environmental impact.

I haven't finished in terms of your. So if you want to bear with me before I get to the rest of the points that the noble lady raised with regards to. Lord Ray's comments about what we're doing in terms of our long term use of mercury and the Minamata Convention, noble Lords will be aware that this that discussions will again be occurring at Cop next week on Minamata. And what happens next? The actions we are taking align with our international commitments under the Convention on Mercury, which is an international treaty.

The convention is aimed at protecting health and the environment from the harmful effects of mercury in the UK. Is fully committed partner party to this convention. The the measures that our current measures were based on decisions made at the fourth and fifth convention of the parties of the Minamata Convention, in terms of what's going to happen, what's going to happen next, and our dental amalgam in being in line with the Minamata Convention of Mercury, UK wide restrictions on dental amalgam use have been in place for certain populations since the 1st of July 2018, including children under the age of 15, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and since the 1st of January 2019, there has been a requirement in UK law to use dental amalgam only in pre-dosed encapsulated form and for dental facilities to be equipped with amalgam separators to minimise mercury exposure to dental professionals and the environment.

There will be further discussions on dental amalgam at the upcoming Minamata Convention conference of the parties, which starts next week, so there is ongoing conversations and discussions on these issues with regard to Lord Weir and many other noble Lords comments about the government, about whether a decade is long enough and sufficient for dentistry to adapt to the legislation. The longer transition period is in line with the expert advice provided to the Democratic Scrutiny Committee by the by the BDA, who are the main organisation we have been dealing with both on the ground in Northern Ireland and more broadly, who expressed a view that the need for amalgam will much likely be reduced in ten years time because of all the issues that were raised by other members of your Lordships House, it takes into account Northern Ireland's current usage and circumstances, and expected to give Northern Ireland dentistry the necessary time to adapt on.

Banning done that. And that, my Lords, there were several other points raised on divergence from the Minamata Convention. The EU's dental amalgam provisions go beyond the current requirements in the Minamata Convention. At the last conference of the parties, Cop five in October November 23rd, there was a proposal to phase out the manufacture, import and export of dental amalgam. By 2030, there was no consensus, so parties agreed to discuss this at the next Cop, which is happening next week.

Parties, however, agreed to phase down dental amalgam and that parties yet to phase out or prohibit dental amalgam would report on their progress to phase down or phase out amalgam, which is what we are doing. My Lords, just on the other, on some of the other issues raised, I'd like to reassure Lord Morrow, who raised a really important point that was also raised at the other in the other place about Northern Ireland, producers of amalgam. My Lords, I don't believe there are any Northern Ireland producers of amalgam, but if the noble Lord knows of any who will now struggle because of the prohibitions of this, see, we would very much want to work with them, and I would appreciate an introduction with regards to Lord Murphy's ongoing report on noble Lords are very aware in your Lordships' House that my noble friend published a report from Lord Murphy on the effectiveness of the Windsor Framework.

I am very grateful to the efforts and consideration from Lord Murphy, and to all people who participated in his review, including many members of your Lordships House. The review reflects the government's commitment to securing the broadest possible confidence of communities in Northern Ireland. The government is now considering Lord Murphy's recommendations and will provide a response before the legal deadline in January. My Lords, we are clear and we will never be complacent. Our approach is not to pretend that problems never arise, but to respond pragmatically to solve the issues where they do.

I'd like to address the noble Lord Lord Bruce he. I think I have, in terms of some of the concerns around the Windsor framework, and we will meet to discuss them in more detail. He rightly raised the fact that for the first time there wasn't a British minister, the British-Irish Council. I was on my honeymoon, so I so I give my apologies. But it was also that week was the week that we published the legacy paper, that we published The legacy legislation in the other place and in your Lordships' House the remedial order.

It was because of parliamentary demands that no minister went. We will make sure there is a minister at future engagement, and we may and we have been clear with the organisers to that extent to to the noble Lord Lord Weir. I genuinely don't know what I would call a collection of Unionist peers other than I like spending time with you, but I'm not sure what collectively we would be called. But I am very grateful to thank him for curtailing his two hour speech.

I think noble Lords would appreciate that when they're running to the airport. I appreciate his process concerns and the genuine concerns around the Democratic deficit. Earlier this year in August with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, I met with a group of young unionists who made it very clear about their concerns on the issue of the democratic deficit, their overreach of the EU and what it meant for their political identity and their identity. My Lords, we take these matters very, very seriously, and we will continue to make sure the union voice is heard, is not just heard, but is also acted upon with regard to Baroness Bennett and poisoning and gold.

She will not be surprised to know that that went slightly beyond the scope of my briefing for this. See given dental amalgam and Northern Ireland and the Windsor framework were probably sufficient. So I will write to the noble lady with the issues that she raised. I'd like to thank all noble Lord as ever, for their considered contribution. I know these issues

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are difficult and challenging. Of course. I'm grateful to the noble Lady the Minister. This is not a specific Northern Ireland point, specific Northern Ireland point, but we heard fairly powerful speech in the noble Baroness Hoey from the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, saying that Germany has introduced an alternative and it's only marginally more expensive than only marginally more expensive than Mercury amalgam. I noble friend Lord Reay made a point. It should be banned immediately because that alternatives would she raise with alternatives would she raise with the ministers and the Department of Health and Social Security that we do want a statement on these do want a statement on these alternatives is is the noble Baroness, writes my noble friend.

Right. Do we have to wait ten years Right. Do we have to wait ten years before we have a replacement? We really could do with a statement from the from the Department of Health. What work is currently

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Health. What work is currently Germany? I thank my noble Lord and I will obviously raise it with my obviously raise it with my colleagues in the Department of Health. I think some of these discussions are genuinely active as part of the negotiations at Cop part of the negotiations at Cop next week too, because you can't withdraw dental amalgam without withdraw dental amalgam without having cost effective alternatives to. So I would hope that those are to. So I would hope that those are the case.

My Lords, as ever, it is a privilege to spend time talking about the impact of legislation on about the impact of legislation on Northern Ireland. I am grateful that everyone stayed on a Thursday evening to discuss it with us, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish everyone a safe travels. And with that, I beg to move. Noble Lady sits down and I very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lady sits down and I very much thank the noble Lady for the offer for the letter about the gold mining issues. All of these are related because of course it's the amount of mercury in the environment, totally globally that matters. But I also mentioned the matters. But I also mentioned the study about British seafood, fish and mussels. I that literally has been produced a couple of hours ago, been produced a couple of hours ago, and I'm aware it's not the noble Ladies department, but perhaps when she's hopefully recovered very soon, the noble Lady Baroness Hayman.

Or you could arrange for her or the relevant person to write to me on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relevant person to write to me on the fish study as well. Thank you. As I said, I would reflect on everything that she said and I'll make sure she receives the letter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make sure she receives the letter. My Lords. I feel I should, having listened to the debate, declared an interest to the debate, declared an interest at the beginning because I've got amalgam fillings and I'm very, very amalgam fillings and I'm very, very pleased that the noble Lady, the minister reiterated that whatever the issue is in the longer term, amalgam fillings are actually safe. And I think we wouldn't want to be worrying millions of people out there who have amalgam fillings.

I also want to say she's I know that the noble Lady, the minister isn't the minister for dentistry, and I don't sure she doesn't want to add that to her title. It was a very interesting debate, much wider than obviously I had intended in the sense that it was a constitutional issue. I was I was wanting to see, but it has been very helpful, and I now know where the dentists are when my amalgam filling goes, I know where they're sitting. I really just want to say the noble Lord Dobbs thank everybody for for speaking.

And particularly, as I said, for the noble Lady response, because we do know and I think I hope she knows how much she is thought of, how well she thought of in Northern Ireland. And I thought her response was in the circumstances and with the government policy positions, you know, very, very helpful indeed. I would ask her, perhaps it might be helpful if she could just write a letter, perhaps to me, to outline exactly what the legal position is of the commissions notice.

And then I just finally would say, again, this this was not about dentistry, although I do think that if we're going to ban amalgam fillings, we need to be starting now to actually make sure that our dentists are able to cope with that, because they certainly are going to have extra costs, and they don't have that in Northern Ireland amongst dentists. And finally, the noble Lord Lords, I think, in his usual way, expressed just how frustrating it is now for people in Northern Ireland.

At the beginning when all of this happened, a lot of people in the public thought, oh, it's all about business. It's all about, you know, big business, small business. It's not really anything to do with us now. They are seeing so many things happening. The chickens are coming home to roost, as they would say. And I really do hope that noble Lords listening to these voices, which we will continue to put on the parade because we need to get the information out there. Northern Ireland is being treated as a second class part of the United Kingdom.

That is not acceptable. I beg leave to remove

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my amendment to. Is it your. Lord this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn? The question is that the original motion be agreed to. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

original motion be agreed to. As content. Consent. The contrary, not contents. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contrary, not contents. The contents have it. My Lords, I'd like to move that the House do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House do. Now adjourn.

16:46

Oral questions: Ensuring any reformed national curriculum includes religious education in a form which promotes mutual understanding

16:46

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

16:46

Oral questions: Ensuring any reformed national curriculum includes religious education in a form which promotes mutual understanding

16:46

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

16:46

Oral questions: Ensuring any reformed national curriculum includes religious education in a form which promotes mutual understanding

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 30 House of Lords - 30 October

17:02

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page