Lords Chamber

Tuesday 24th February 2026

(began 2 hours, 2 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:36
14:36
None Portrait Oral questions: Plans to use the Post-16 education and skills white paper to promote and deliver a culture of lifelong learning Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-

I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
14:36
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
None Portrait Oral questions: Ensuring the UK is able to optimise the opportunities arising from quantum technology Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-

My Lord.
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:09
None Portrait Oral questions: Student loans regime review Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-

Fourth Oral Question Lord Young of Cookham. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
None Portrait Business of the House
-

That concludes our questions for today. >> Message from the Commons that they have passed the Industry and Exports Financial Assistance Bill, and they have passed the Universal Credit removal of two child limit bill to which they desire the agreement of your Lordship.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords Industry and Exports Financial Assistance bill, I beg to move. This bill is now read a first time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time. My Lords, the question is that this bill be. Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The question that this bill be. Now read a first time. As many of Now read a first time. As many of that opinion will say, content the contrary not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. My Lords universal credit remove the two child limit bill. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. This bill is now read the first Time Lords. The question is that this bill be now read a first time, as many be now read a first time, as many are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Third Reading of the Sustainable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Third Reading of the Sustainable Aviation fuel Bill Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill. I beg to move that this bill now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this bill now be read a third time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords, the question is that this bill be now read a is that this bill be now read a third time. As many as have that opinion will say content content the contrary, not content. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that this bill do now pass. I am very grateful for the scrutiny, due diligence and expertise from noble Lords during the debates on this legislation. This bill is a huge step forward by unlocking the
15:21
15:21
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
greenhouse gas emissions, grow the economy and support green jobs. Your Lordships input as this bill Your Lordships input as this bill has progressed through this House has meant that it leaves this place in better shape. I would like to in better shape. I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whose engagement and scrutiny on this piece of legislation has been this piece of legislation has been welcomed, particularly on HEFA. I'm sorry about the acronyms. This bill sorry about the acronyms.

This bill is particularly full of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon and the noble Lord Earl Russell have been exemplary with their engagement on this bill. I thank them for their continued scrutiny and in particular, making sure transparency is at the forefront of the bill. I'd also like to thank the noble Lord Lord Grayling, whose amendment to the Energy Act paved the way for the first consultation on a revenue certainty mechanism for SAF. His expertise on this subject has been invaluable. The Bill will now ensure the Secretary of State can only enter into revenue certainty contracts, where the supported SAF is produced at a facility in the UK, which was always the government's intention.

In addition, I'd like to thank the noble Lord Lord Ravensdale for the expertise and clarity he's brought to our discussions on power to liquid and feedstocks more generally. Finally, I extend my personal thanks to all the officials who supported me, including the bill team, legal colleagues, the drafting team in parliamentary counsel and others that have been involved in its successful passage. I look forward to seeing this bill pass. If we are to create the jobs and attract the business investment Britain needs, we must grow aviation and grow it sustainably.

This bill does just that. I beg to move. pass.
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, as we reach the final stage of this bill, I want to start by saying a huge thank you to the Minister and his team of officials. They have been incredibly open to discussion and have genuinely discussion and have genuinely listened to our concerns throughout this process. And I hope the Minister agrees with me that our Minister agrees with me that our discussions on reporting and monitoring will help to ensure that the impacts of the act are understood thoroughly as it is implemented, including by government, the sector and other stakeholders.

I think this level of engagement has been vital in making sure the bill is practical and ready to work in the real world, and this legislation will provide the clarity and confidence the industry needs to finally get the wheels turning on sustainable aviation fuel. I want to thank Adam Bull in our whips office for his support and hard work behind the scenes. And I'd like to thank my noble Lord, my noble friend Earl Russell, for his immense work and support during this Bill. Ultimately, ultimately, my Lords, our goal is to see the aviation industry embrace a cleaner future.

I think this bill is an important step forward, making sustainable aviation fuel a common reality rather than a distant goal, ensuring we can stay connected while significantly reducing the sector's environmental impact. I look forward to seeing this legislation put into practice and seeing a much higher proportion of sustainable fuel in the sector in the years to come, OK.
15:26
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, despite. The applause from all sides of the chamber for from all sides of the chamber for this bill, I'm afraid it does remain a very troubling piece of legislation. It's been described by the Baroness, Lady Pigeon, as effectively as piece of net zero legislation. But as I've insisted throughout the passage of the bill, this is not a net zero legislation. The net zero effect in relation to sustainable aviation fuel was was achieved by the SAF mandate put in place some 1516 months ago, which requires airlines to mix in a certain amount of HEFA or increasingly other fuels.

An increasing amount of this over time. That is what will make the difference. To make the contribution to net zero. This bill is, in fact a piece of industrial policy. It is based on the premise that somehow, because we are going to consume SAF, that we need to be a world leader in producing it. And despite my pressing the government repeatedly, Minister has not been able to offer any reasons for thinking that we have a comparative advantage in this field and that we should be dedicating resources to it.

And its means of doing so is by piling subsidy upon subsidy. And it really is, as I say, very troubling. We're now through this bill guaranteeing a floor price for SAF producers, and the risk is being transferred away from them. That risk is being transferred down the chain to airlines and their passengers. And we on our side sought a commitment from the government to be transparent about the likely impact on fares. Instead, they, along with the Liberal Democrats, chose to shield the travelling public from the dangerous knowledge of what they were actually paying.

Will be paying for this policy over the years ahead, and much of what matters to make this bill work is, in fact, is is saved for secondary legislation and indeed for commercially confidential negotiations between officials, on the one hand, and the shark toothed lawyers of the international investor sector on the other. It is a recipe for success. I'm sure the Minister would want to say that. My Lords, despite all of that. I cannot fail to thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his now reliable courtesy and helpfulness in the passage of this legislation.

In working with the Official Opposition and other noble Lords, and in his responsiveness. And I also want to thank his officials who have been very helpful and have responded rapidly and efficiently when we have had questions for them. So I'm grateful to all of those for doing that. I do wish to pay particular tribute to my noble friends, Lord Harper and Lord Grayling for their contribution in the debate, but also to the noble Lord Lord Ravensdale, with whom I worked on on certain amendments.

And I think we have achieved some improvements to the bill as it's passed through your Lordships House. Nonetheless, the best solution for this bill would be that it is never called upon and never actually used, and that we procure, procure sustainable aviation fuel for use in our airline industry from the cheapest and most efficient source, whether that be produced here in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Britain or elsewhere. I thank all noble Lords and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. The question. The question is that the Bill do now pass, as many that the Bill do now pass, as many of that opinion will say, content, the contrary not content. The the contrary not content. The contents have it questions on an answer to an urgent question asked in the House of Commons yesterday

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the House of Commons yesterday on Labour Together and Apco worldwide. My Lords. The Prime Minister promised to clean up politics. Yet we have had the Cabinet Office investigating one of its own Ministers before belatedly referring the matter to the independent adviser. The process has been conflicted from
15:31
15:32
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Well. >> Good afternoon. I thank the noble Lady for her questions, of which there are several. So let me see if I can assist the noble Lady see if I can assist the noble Lady with some of her concerns. First of all, I would like to place on record my thanks and thanks to the government and the thanks of the government, to the civil servants who have so diligently undertaken their work. The noble Lady is very aware that civil servants are bound by the Civil Service Code, and therefore all of their actions are impartial.

So in terms of some of the questions, I just think it's it's important that we don't cast aspersions upon their impartiality or their ability to do their roles without fear or favour with regards to the appointment of a former member of staff from Labour Together into the team, I'd like to clarify that the post in question sits within the wider Propriety and Constitution group, not in the propriety and ethics team, and that member of staff had nothing to do with the fact finding exercise that was undertaken by the Cabinet Office just to confirm the process.

What has happened is a fact finding mission by the propriety and ethics team that the findings of which were discussed with the Prime Minister, with a recommendation that that the independent adviser on ethics then undertook a process. Sir Laurie Magnus is now undertaking that process, and I would expect him to to report soon. Noble Lords will be aware that all of his publications are placed in the public domain, so we will all be able to read his recommendations. And in terms of the role of the independent adviser on ministerial standards, I hate to say it, my Lords, but the clue may be in the name.

It's on ministerial standards. They can only investigate. Sorry, Magnus can only investigate Ministers, as has always been the case, and there is no such thing as a suspended Minister. There is a Minister or there is not a Minister, and therefore he is undertaking an investigation into the efforts and into the the member in the other place, as a Minister.
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal, for the opportunity to respond to this statement. We are three weeks on from the motion passed in the other place for this Humble Address to be presented to His Majesty, and not a single document has yet been published. We often hear that Ministers are moving at pace, but this time Ministers are moving at an unacceptably slow pace. Transparency delayed is transparency denied. The government must not drag its feet in, complying with the clear instruction of Parliament.

Can the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, confirm that there will be no further slippage in the timetable for publication? In the other place, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister accepted that compiling the material will take some time, and he spoke of publication very shortly in tranches, but very shortly is not a plan. Parliament's instruction requires urgency as well as completeness, and we will continue to hold Ministers to account for delivering both. The Chief Secretary also told the other place that the first tranche would be published in early March.

Can the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, clarify what the government means by early March? For example, should the House expect publication within the first week of March? And can she confirm the precise date on which the first tranche will be laid? My Lord, my Lords, the Humble Address expressly exempts papers that would be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. These papers are instead to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. The ISC can the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, explain what test officials are applying when they decide that disclosure would be prejudicial in each case? Will she also confirm that material identified as engaging those exemptions is being passed to the ISC promptly as it as it is identified, rather than being held back and sent only once.

The wider collation exercise is complete so that the committee can begin its work without delay. It has also been noted that the ISC Secretariat is provided by Cabinet Office officials. I want to be unequivocal. We do not question the independence or integrity of the ISC. However, given that the Cabinet Office is also leading the government's sifting and handling of material for publication, what steps are being taken to ensure that these parallel roles do not create even the perception of a conflict, and that the ISC has the resources and independence it needs to do this job quickly and thoroughly.

My Lords, turning to the matter that of the documents the government says it is withholding. Following discussions with the Metropolitan Police. In the other place, the speaker has been clear that the police cannot dictate to that House what may be required under a Humble Address. Will the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, confirm that the government accepts the principle behind that statement, that the duty to comply rest with Ministers, and that any documents withheld because of the live investigation will be published as soon as it is possible to do so? And will she also consider setting a clear backstop for further updates to Parliament, so that the process cannot drift indefinitely? More broadly, my Lords, humble addresses are understood to be binding resolutions of the House.

Does the noble Baroness Lord Privy Seal accept that a failure to comply with the Humble Address without proper justification, could be treated as a contempt of Parliament? Finally, my Lords, the Official Opposition has called for clarity on what is to be published, what is being withheld, and why will the noble Baroness commit to publishing a comprehensive list of the categories of documents within scope, identifying which have been disclosed, which have been referred to the ISC, and which are being temporarily withheld.

For example, because of the police investigation, together with the reasons in each, with the reason in each case, and if the noble Baroness cannot give a firm commitment today, will she undertake to write to clarify the government's position? My Lords, we have been patient and constructive, but the public interest in these papers is clear. They must be published in a timely way if lessons are to be learned and accountability secured.
15:46
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, we all now recognise that it was a massive misjudgement to appoint Lord Mandelson to the to appoint Lord Mandelson to the post of ambassador in Washington. The Prime Minister has already apologised for that. He is not the first Prime Minister to have made such a serious error, and opposition parties should avoid pretending that they are entirely innocent of similar past mistakes. That will only persuade the public that all politicians are aggressively partisan and potentially corrupt. But there should be a much wider canvas for this investigation.

What we really need to know is not only the involvement of Lord Mandelson in the Epstein network, but how far others within the UK were also involved, and whether any of the trafficking young women took place through Britain and British airports. The interaction between a sexual exploitation network and the provision of confidential governmental information, to which financiers is a potentially explosive mixture. It could deepen public mistrust not only of our political elite, but also of the City of London and its links to New York banks.

And then there are rumours of Russian links with all this. So it is vital to demonstrate as much transparency as possible, with a vigorous attempt to uncover what has really taken place. We recognise the challenge that the vast mass of documents to be examined poses. We also recognise that there will be some areas where national security interests unavoidably prevent full publication, particularly the rumours of Russian links, if they turn out to have some foundation. But we ask the government to publish as much as possible, and to explain to the public as much as possible in order to rebuild public trust.

I hope that Ministers also recognise that they are now in a position where the British government can and should, set an international example of our adherence to democratic accountability and the rule of law. There have already been a number of comments in Washington on the contrast between American and British reactions to this developing scandal. No recent arrest in the United States, reluctant release of heavily redacted documents, and an administration which is doing its best to deny any involvement.

Contrasted with the government in London and the head of state, which is taking the limited British involvement seriously, democracy and the rule of law are under attack in the United States and elsewhere. We on these benches therefore encourage our government to demonstrate in everything it does in this developing scandal that accountability and the law matter enormously. There is likely to be a lot more still to come out from all of these documents that will embarrass the US government and America's financial, high tech and business elites, as well as their counterparts in the UK.

The last conservative government resisted publication of the full extent of Russian penetration of British politics, primarily because his deepest penetration had been of the Conservative Party. We still do not know how far it extended or what lessons we all need to learn. Could I again encourage the government now to publish a much fuller version of the ISC report, to alert the public to the threats of foreign interference in British politics that we face, and is helpful to background to the sad mixture of money, sleaze and sexual exploitation that Lord Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and perhaps other leading British people were caught up in.
15:50
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank both lady and >> My Lords, I thank both lady and the noble Lord for their questions, and I'll try and answer as many as possible. I actually don't recognise the noble Lady suggestion about delay in dealing with this. There are a lot of documents to be produced. The government's been very clear. There is no hesitation at all whatsoever in complying fully and completely with the Humble Address. I hope that reassures her. In terms of timetable, there isn't a sort of scheduled timetable out, but I think it's important that with so many documents, what we don't want to do is to wait until we have every document, but to get them out in tranches and some of those there may be out of sequence in a sense, but I can say that all government departments have been asked to be very clear that all documents must be kept, whether they're, you know, whatever form they are in, information must be kept, messages must be kept, and so they can be fully disclosed.

The only areas and she asked for confirmation about what is being withheld. The only two areas withheld, that is the information that will be sent to the ISC and the government will make a judgement if that has an impact on international security, if it has an impact on international relations and national security, if the government makes that judgement, it will then be given to the ISC to assess that. So there's a clear process and an assessment of the government's judgement on that.

When it's sent to the ISC. The other document, and I understand this is one document or one maybe a suite of documents, but the one issue is the questions that were asked of Peter Mandelson by number ten. That is the information that is currently with the Metropolitan Police. There's obviously a delay in publishing that, but as soon as they're able to do so, they will. But it's and I take into account the, the Lord speaker's comments that nothing should be allowed to prejudice justice being held.

She asked me what early March means. I'm tempted to say early March means early March. I don't know quite how to further describe early March. Does it mean the 1st of March? The 2nd of March? It means early March and it will be published early March. I expect the next couple or so weeks. We'll see the information produced, she also raised a slightly curious House of Commons. It's reasonable independence of the ISC and I hope I'm not misunderstood. She's shaking her head at me, so perhaps I did, but it's the ISC has to be able to conduct its work without fear of favour, and have the full confidence of the whole of Parliament in doing so.

And although the staff are employed by the Cabinet Office, I think, and she will know from her experience of civil service how very much they work to the ISC. Now, having said that, I understand there have been discussions about whether they should be employed directly by the ISC or whether it's more appropriate that there is a pool of people that work for the ISC and they may return to other civil service jobs. That matters that have been discussed. The important thing is they have the resources to do their job.

But looking at the members of this House who are members of the ISC, the noble Lord West Baroness Brown, and I think the third one is the chair of the Lord Beamish who's behind me. Keep an eye on me. I have absolute confidence in them ensuring they do their work fully, completely and properly. I'm sure the noble Lady will actually agree with the points I make on that one. The noble Lady made a comment about the Metropolitan Police can't dictate to the house, and does the government accept its duty that any documents held be released afterwards? And I think I've already answered that they will be released when we're able to do so.

It does not jeopardise any possible further action. The police may want to take. My Lords, I think the noble Lord Wallace addressed this. All of us can make mistakes and he referred to past government mistakes, this government mistakes. And indeed, I heard his party leader on the radio this morning about his own mistakes that he'd made. And I think it's important when mistakes are being made. There's 2 or 3 things that have to happen. One is an admission that mistake has been made.

Secondly, to find out how that happened because unless you understand how it happened and why it happened, you can't take the action that's needed to protect yourself and others from making similar mistakes in the future. And I think an apology is required as well. And I think those three things are make a mistake. So I'm never going to suggest that no government has ever made a mistake. It's human life. But to have those things, to understand how and why, to put the wrong right and to apologise for doing so, I think are important steps forward.

He asked that government publish and explain as much as possible. Yes, of course. And I think transparency, particularly when they're I think it's generally an era of distrust in politicians and has been for some time that democratic accountability, the rule of law and being open and transparent as possible is really important. And who would have expected when the Epstein papers and documents and emails were released, this would reverberate around the world. And it's uncomfortable, I think, for any government to find itself in a position where the information in those emails was completely unknown by government.

I'm trying to see the little Lord trying to drive past you to see those documents, to see that information is really, really the sense of betrayal, the sense of hurt, the sense of anger and upset, I think is enormous. So I can assure him on that. When he says there are rumours about Russian influence, I think it is very difficult to just make things about rumours and I worry about rumours. What we have to work on is evidence, and so if there is any evidence that is available should be made available.

But there is that balance between I know he understands this. He talks about the Russia report, about transparency and international relations and security, and it's finding that balance. And that's where the ISC and I'm grateful for the work they are doing on this and do generally, I think the whole House must be to ensure that they are confident that that balance is the right place and they can work with the government and doing so. But ultimately, the responsibility for national security lies with the government.

He says. There's further embarrassment to come. Can I say I'm less worried about embarrassment than not doing justice to the young women and girls who abused by Jeffrey Epstein? And I think there are times in life where we have to take a bit of embarrassment to ensure that justice is done here.
15:57
15:58
15:59
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:05
16:06
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page