Lords Chamber

Wednesday 25th March 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
None Portrait Oral questions: Promoting equality as part of the Break Down Barriers to Opportunity mission
-

I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:50
None Portrait Business of the House
-

Yeah.
15:50
15:51
15:53
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, if I may, I'd like to >> My Lords, if I may, I'd like to make a short statement on the position regarding the legislative consent motion on this Bill. While consent motion on this Bill. While the majority of the provisions in the Bill apply to England and Wales, only certain provisions also apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The provisions relate to a mix of accepted reserves and devolved or transferred matters, and as such, engage the legislative consent process in each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I am pleased to inform the House that yesterday, the 24th of March, the Scottish Parliament approved the Legislative Consent Motion in respect of the Bill put forward and supported by the Scottish Government. The Northern Ireland Assembly has approved three legislative consent motions on the 23rd of June, 2nd of February and 16th of March. However, the 10th of March, the Welsh Senate debated a legislative consent motion which was put forward and supported by the Welsh Government. But. However, the motion was not supported by the Senate.

This is, I think, regrettable given the measures in the Bill engage the legislative consent process, include a range of offences such as the assault on a retail worker, mobile phone theft, sexual exploitation and others. And I can't really, for the life of me understand why both PLI summary reform members, indeed conservative members from HMG opposition in the Senate and the Liberal Democrats opposed the consent motion in the Senate, but that they did, and that they will have to be accountable for.

I believe the bill should pass. But we are in discussion with the Welsh Government and the Wales Office as to the way forward, and if the Lords and noble Lords will allow me, we will set out the government's position when the Bill is next considered by the House of Commons after the recess. But in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the meantime, my Lords, I beg to move the Bill, be read a third time. Question is that this bill be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this bill be. Now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it of to clause 101, amendment one Lord Hanson of Flint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hanson of Flint. And my Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Government the Marshalled List. Government amendments one, 14 and 18 deliver on the government's commitment to ensure that the strongest protections possible on violence against women and girls online are in place. They seek to create a reporting mechanism for non-consensual, intimate images and a requirement the processes and systems be in place so that such content and any content which is the same or substantially the same, is removed within 48 hours.

In moving these amendments, may I pay tribute to the work by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, in both raising this issue and being a tireless campaigner on this issue in your Lordships House? Now, we all know that non-consensual, intimate image abuse is utterly vile and the government is very clear that we will not allow the proliferation of demeaning and degrading images online. I believe the House is united in recognising the profound and lasting harm this form of abuse inflicts on victims, and we do share a common determination to ensure that victims receive meaningful protection.

The government is committed to delivering a strong, clear, enforceable response across the online safety regime, and I'm very grateful for the constructive engagement that has been crucial in shaping this amendment, both by the noble Lady and also, if I may say so, by my noble friend, Baroness Levitt. The Online Safety Act already places robust duties on services to minimise illegal content, including intimate image offences, and it provides effective reporting and complaints mechanism for users. However, given the particular and often acute impact of intimate image abuse, the government has now committed to going further to set out specific expectations of how platforms must respond when this content is reported.

And that brings me, my noble Lords, to amendment one, which delivers on the commitment we've made to ensure that the strongest protections possible on violence against women and girls online are in place. Amendment one seeks to create a reporting mechanism for non-consensual, intimate images and a requirement that processes and systems be in place so that such content and any content which is the same or substantially the same, is removed within 48 hours. This builds on the work already undertaken to strengthen the Online Safety Act, and the House has already agreed amendments that make requesting or making intimate images and sharing or threatening to share them.

Primary offences under the Online Safety Act. This amendment will impose additional duties on all regulated services and require platforms to prioritise, detect, mitigate and remove this illegal content more quickly and systematically. Amendment one goes further and delivers on my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister's commitment at the end of February to put social media companies on notice to take down any non-consensual, intimate images within 48 hours. The government's amendment will, I believe, introduce a clear, enforceable statutory duty requiring platforms to have systems and processes in place to remove reported information as soon as possible and within 48 hours.

The duty is designed to work with the Online Safety Act Systems and Processes framework, ensuring that Ofcom can enforce it effectively at scale and deliver for victims of intimate image abuse. This also means that the amendment will be subject to the full suite of enforcement powers at Ofcom's disposal, and I want to tell the House that Ofcom is currently going to consult on additional safety measures to support the removal of uploads, including work on hash matching regime, which would require relevant services to adopt technology to detect and prevent re uploads of non-consensual, intimate images.

Now together, the statutory takedown duty and the hash matching measures will create a joined up system that delivers, I believe, a stronger and more sustainable protection for victims than a standalone 48 hour rule. I just, if I may. In conclusion, I want to just quote again my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for science, Innovation and Technology, who when the Prime Minister announced the government's intention to table this amendment, said, and I quote, the days of tech firms having a free pass are over because of the action we're taking.

Platforms must now find and remove intimate images shared without consent, within a maximum of 48 hours. No woman should have to chase platform after platform, waiting days for an image to come down. And I concur with that message. These amendments ensure that nonconsensual images, images, and intimate images are treated with the seriousness that it warrants under the UK's regulatory regime. For online platforms and online safety, with enforcement and sanctions reflective of the severe harm caused to victims. If I may, also government's amendments 19 to 21 are minor technical and drafting changes which I hope are uncontroversial.

I pay tribute to the noble Lady. I pay tribute to all those who have pressed the government to take action on this matter. The government have taken action. The noble Baroness has amendments in this group, as indeed does the noble Lady Burton. I will respond to those, if I may, once I've heard comments from the noble Baroness and anybody else from the House who wishes to speak, but for now I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
16:01
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Portrait Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 101. Insert the new clause printed 101. Insert the new clause printed on the Marshalled List as an amendment to amendment one, amendment two. Baroness Owen of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alderley Edge. My Lords, I rise to speak to the Government amendments and the amendments in my name and the names amendments in my name and the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron and the noble Lords, Clement-Jones and Stevenson of Balmacara. In doing so, I declare an interest as receiving pro bono legal advice from Mishcon de Reya on image based sexual abuse. I am grateful to the government for working with me to bring forward their amendment in response to my amendment at Committee stage on 48 hour takedown.

I am pleased they are working with me on my amendments that the Lords passed at Report stage on the creation of a centralised hash registry and hash sharing. I must add that it is disappointing that after months of speaking to the government about the importance of hashing and 48 hour amendments working together, that they cannot be scrutinised together. Whilst I am very pleased Government Amendment one addresses the concerns I brought forward on indexing and duplicates, I do not believe it is sufficient in achieving the mechanism that I set out to create in my original 48 hour takedown amendment at Committee stage.

My intention was to create a system where no victim is left behind. This requires the mechanism to be agile and for internet services to feel the consequence of not acting upon each individual instance, reported my Lords. The government amendment has done the bare minimum and simply updated the Online Safety Act, where it already instructed internet services to swiftly take down such content to now add as soon as reasonably, reasonably practicable and no later than 48 hours. In reality, this represents very little change, as the good actors will still move at pace and the bad actors will continue to ignore.

One survivor, Jodie, who many noble Lords have met, responded to the government amendment, saying it is hugely frustrating to see headline grabbing commitments without the substance needed to actually protect victims. A 48 hour deadline sounds strong, especially when delivered by the Prime Minister to millions on breakfast television. But without real enforcement, it risks creating false hope. Another victim, Daria, said simply as a survivor, I feel this is quite simply gaslighting. My Lords, we must remember that Ofcom rules are about systems and processes and not outcomes.

If a service has followed the rules. But individual violations still occur, an internet service will not be held responsible. Sophie Mortimer, at the Revenge Porn Helpline confirmed this, stating that while platforms that already act in good faith will meet these standards, the persistent bad actors who continue to drive the sharing of this content will ignore. And the government amendment does not give Ofcom enough weapons to respond. My Lords, I am deeply concerned that the government has not specified how Ofcom will even know if a service fails to act within 48 hours.

Ofcom have confirmed that there is no automatic mechanism for them to know if services are not meeting the 48 hour takedown requirement in any given case. Further, the only recourse the government provides should a service be found to generally not comply, are the long and bureaucratic business disruption measures. This means that women will will still suffer ongoing trauma when platforms refuse to comply. My amendments seek to address the gaps in the government amendments, which I will outline briefly. Amendments two and eight mandate services to publicly report and report to Ofcom.

Their average takedown times amendments three and nine strengthened the government wording on finding duplicate images to ensure services have to take all reasonable steps, instead of simply relying on what a service may identify. Amendments four and ten incentivise services to act by creating a more agile mechanism whereby they can be fined per violation, and this violation can increase for every 24 hour period in which they fail to act, thus ensuring there is a consequence for not acting on individual instances of abuse.

I believe these amendments create a more agile mechanism and do not solely rely on business disruption measures. This amendment is based on the Take It Down Act, which operates which operates under the rules of the Federal Trade Commission in the USA. The sum I have chosen is based upon the figure levied under FTC rules for continued instances of violation. After companies have been notified. Amendments five and 11 mandate the Secretary of State to create a mechanism where individuals can report to Ofcom in cases where the service provider has failed to remove the content within 48 hours.

At present, it is not clear what a victim would do if they reported the content to a service, who then fails to act after the initial 48 hours. Amendments six and 12 ensure that services have to be have clear and conspicuous notices where victims can report NCI content. This uses the wording from the Take It Down act and gives more clarity to internet services, the government amendment and the Online Safety Act simply refer to being able to easily make an intimate image content report to the provider.

Amendments seven and 13 add provisions that seek to kerb against malicious reporting by requiring a statement that the report has been made in good faith. Additionally, this provides internet services with further assurances they need to act quicker upon receiving reports. My Lords, I am grateful for the government for coming to the table on this issue. However, victims deserve so much more than press releases which promise action but in reality represent little practical change in the most traumatic moment of their lives.

I implore noble Lords to vote with me so that no victim

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is left behind. I beg to move. Amendment proposed as an amendment to the new clause proposed as amendment one in subsection two, after inserting subsection two, after inserting subsection three, A, insert the new words printed on the Marshalled List.
16:07
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Portrait Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Labour)
-
-
List. >> My Lords, at Third Reading. It is extraordinarily rare to find is extraordinarily rare to find issues still in context and have been presented, as we have today, a choice on which we will have to vote. Normally by this stage, the party, the issues have been clearly discussed and the parties concerned. The government on one side and those proposing amendments on the other, have had enough meetings to be able to get to a point where they can agree on what's going forward.

Having said that, I'm I'm sure we're at the whole House is very grateful to the noble Lords Minister, my noble friend, for bringing forward what he has brought forward. These are substantial changes to the Online Safety Act. They're extraordinarily welcome. They cover the ground very well. But as has been pointed out, they perhaps do not quite go as far as they could do. We are at Third Reading, my Lord. It's therefore very difficult to find time and the space to be able to resolve what I think are quite relatively small differences between the two sides.

So I would simply point out to my noble friend, the Minister, that this place is those who support the noble Baroness, and her amendments are in a difficult position about his amendments, which we want to support, but the only way to get them to resolution is probably to vote with the noble Baroness. I hope he will appreciate that and suggest to him that when he comes to respond, he makes it very clear that the government still is willing to talk about these issues, is still willing to meet with those who have concerns and views about what the government has done and might be able to promise that action could be taken to resolve this in the Commons.
16:09
16:11
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:13
16:14
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lords who've spoken. Up in noble Lords who've spoken. Up in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, of all the ages. Amendments, Owen, of all the ages. Amendments, and I briefly rise to express our firm support on these benches for amendments 2 to 13, which she's brought forward and which I've signed and wish to speak to her, amendments to the government's new clause. And, my Lords, we also support the noble Baroness Bertin amendments.

Now, my Lords, as the noble Lord Stevenson did, and noble Baroness Kidron we acknowledge that the government has moved, and I think the words used by the noble Lord Stevenson was substantially. By tabling amendment one, they've accepted the principle of a 48 hour statutory takedown limit for non-consensual, intimate images, and I was pleased to hear also what the noble Lord the Minister had said about hash matching work, my Lords, which is ongoing. But and this, of course, is a victory for the noble Baroness Mone and survivors.

But as we reach this stage, we must ensure that the common sense safeguards that the noble Baroness has championed are not diluted in the government's new framework. And there is, as the noble Baroness Kidron and the noble Lord Pannick have said, there is an effective enforcement mechanism, my Lords, and there are a number of critical areas where the government's current position falls short. Governments clause requires takedown within 48 hours, but it provides no mechanism for the public or the regulator to see if this is actually happening.

So, for example, amendment two requires platforms to record and report the average time taken to remove content and publish that data. Without this, we're back to tactical ambiguity. We need to know which platforms are meeting the 48 hour mark and which are consistently dragging their feet. A 48 hour duty is only half the battle. If a victim has to report every single copy of an image manually, amendment three requires platforms to take all reasonable steps to find duplicates or substantially similar content once a report is made.

If the government is serious about ending the trauma of digital whack a mole, they must accept this duty to proactively scrub all versions of an abusive image from their systems. Under the standard Online Safety Act procedures. Enforcement is notoriously slow. Amendment four introduces a specific deterrent. Fine. As the noble Baroness Owen described a fine of £39,000 for every 24 hour period that a service remains in breach after the initial 48 hours has elapsed. This creates the immediate incentive needed to ensure that safety is treated as a priority, not an optional compliance cost.

An amendment 11 mandates the ability to set up an accessible process for individuals to report directly to Ofcom when a service has failed its 48 hour duty, it gives the victim a voice in the enforcement process. Process. My Lords, in summary, the Government's amendment number one is a welcome step, but without the noble Baroness amendments, it will lack the teeth to handle the true nature of modern image abuse. And I urge the Minister to accept these amendments and adopt the noble Baroness Bull package of safeguards.
16:17
16:19
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Once again, I'm grateful to the noble Lady Owen for tabling the amendments and initiating the amendments and initiating the discussion. I feel like someone has brought a birthday cake to a party to have someone else blow the candles out, but I have tried our best on behalf of the Prime Minister, the Department of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office to bring forward proposals that met the objectives that the government itself has set and which met the objectives of the noble Lady as well.

Taken together, amendments 2 to 13 would amend Government Amendment one by introducing fixed penalties, public performance reporting and new escalation routes the noble Lord Clement-Jones noble. My noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Baroness Kidron noble and learned Lord Pannick and the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool, in support of those amendments, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Molluscum, for her short, sharp intervention, which I. I very much welcome. But may I just say to to her and to others that on the proposal to require services to publish average takedown times, I recognise the desire for both transparency and public accountability.

I just say to the noble Lady that Ofcom already has the power to request information of this nature, which would also apply to the government's amendment. However, publicly benchmarking speed in this way risks hardwiring the wrong incentive into the system. This duty is not intended to be a race to remove any reported content at all costs, including where reports are mistaken, malicious or vexatious. Parliament is asking providers to act quickly and responsibly, which can necessarily include occasionally verifying that reports are valid.

A single public average time metric could encourage unintended removal of lawful content, undermine procedural safeguards and ultimately undermine confidence in the regime critically, amongst the very victims who this government wishes to stand with the noble Lady in support of Ofcom. I would also say to the House how strong powers to require detailed performance data, where there are concerns about systemic compliance, the regulator led scrutiny is a more effective, credible and proportionate means of accountability and ensures a regime that best delivers for its victims.

Now, the proposed amendment requires providers to take all reasonable steps to identify duplicates or substantially similar content. And again, I share that objective on behalf of the government. Providers are already required to take proportionate steps to seek out this illegal content under wider illegal content duties. Now, if I may, I want to just turn to the issue of the specific fines and the proposal for specific fines, the noble and learned Lord Pannick and the noble Lord Thomas have mentioned that it's important that there are financial consequences for any illegal action.

I just say to both them, but also to the noble Lady, that she will know that the Online Safety Act already equips Ofcom with very strong enforcement powers. Ofcom can already issue a heavy fine of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue in the event of contravention of regulations that Ofcom is empowered to monitor. These fines can be augmented even with daily fines on a case by case basis. Therefore, I just simply say to the two noble Lords from the crossbenches who've spoken to the noble Lady, that I would argue it's not necessary to introduce an additional fixed rate fine mechanism on the face of the bill.

When a 10% qualifying worldwide revenue is a significant and effective potential punishment by Ofcom, who have those enforcement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

powers. Sorry. I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for giving way. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, answer noble Lord, the Minister, answer how what an individual woman does in the case of her, the content not in the case of her, the content not being removed within 48 hours is the noble Lord. The Minister, suggesting that she waits for Ofcom to recognise, without a mechanism to recognise, without a mechanism to go to Ofcom, that a website has failed in its duty and therefore failed in its duty and therefore waits for the Secretary of State to mandate long and bureaucratic business disruption measures all the time, with her intimate image left online.

Whilst Ofcom seeks 10% of the worldwide revenue of that business.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the purpose of the regulation is to provide a regulation is to provide a disincentive to putting the content up in the first place. And if a up in the first place. And if a anybody who places that content on any online platform in the first place knows that Ofcom have the place knows that Ofcom have the power to alleviate 10% of worldwide fines, and the purpose of that, fines, and the purpose of that, that that power is to deter people from undertaking that breaking of the law in the first place, coupled with the powers that be given in amendment one.

I think that is a strong reassurance to anybody who has that illegal content put up by any particular organisation or individual. Now, there might be an honest disagreement between the noble Lady and myself on that, but I want to prevent prevent any illegal content being put up in the first place. And I would argue that a 10% fine of any worldwide revenue on the platform that is hosting, that is a significant contribution. And it would mean, ultimately, that Ofcom does have the power to make significant damage to any organisation that, in my view, put up that illegal content.

So I accept and I understand the concerns that have been raised, and I just hope that the noble Lady can understand as well that the government is trying to support the very victims that she is speaking to. Also, I think that it's important that we appreciate the intention behind enabling individuals also to report non-compliance. They can raise that concern through Ofcom's reporting portal. These reports can signal potential systemic issues, and they can be used for wider investigations, as I've just mentioned.

But I do recognise also the urgency with which victims rightly expect this content to be removed. Very point. The noble Lady has just mentioned. I consider that a systemic systems and processes approach remains the most effective way to secure consistent compliance and deliver protection at scale. And now, on the amendment that the noble Lady has brought forward, requiring providers to display reporting notices and routes, the 2023 act already requires platforms to have clear, accessible reporting routes that allow users to easily make intimate image reports, and again, Ofcom is best placed to specify details about this in its code of practice.

And turning to proposals for good faith declarations, the government amendment requires reporting individuals to state that the content is intimate image content, and that they are subject of that content, or they are acting on a subject's behalf. And additionally, the Secretary of State has regulation making powers to specify further requirements if needed. Now, again, I hope that satisfies the noble Lady. I appreciate that, you know, and again, I hope the House can recognise the government has moved significantly on this issue.

But we will see in the noble Ladies response in due course the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, proposed 15, 16 and 17 are accepted by the government. They were, as she has said, tidying up amendments agreed by the House at Report stage, but sadly missed. As such, the government won't oppose the amendments and will actively support them. This is without, however, prejudice to any further consideration of the substantive amendments carried out. Report. We will set out the government's position on these and other amendments passed at report when the Bill returns to your Lordships House after the Easter recess, when it's been considered by the House of Commons.

So I hope again, I've tried to be constructive in response, on behalf of the whole of the government, from the Prime Minister to the different departments that have contributed to this, I hope that they are helpful engagements. I thank the noble Baroness lady for her amendments, but I hope that having heard what she said, with perhaps little hope that she will withdraw her amendments.
16:27
16:27
None Portrait Division
-

The question is that amendment two be agreed to as manager of that opinion will say content. Content the. No question will be decided by a division. I will alert the House a division. I will alert the House when voting is open. Voting is now My My Lord. My Lord. The question is. The question is that amendment two be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content contrary, not content content. The contents will go to the right by the throne.

The knock contents to the left by the My My Lord, My Lord, the My Lord, the question My Lord, the question is My Lord, the question is that My Lords, there have voted. Contents 306 not contents 145 so the My My Lord, My Lord, I understand that amendments 3 to 13 in the name of Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge have been agreed as consequential on amendment two having been agreed, does the noble Lady wish to move these amendments formally? The question is that amendments 3 to 13 be agreed to En bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, will say content to the contrary, not content.

The contents have it. Amendment 14 Lord Hanson of Flint. Indeed. Amendments. No. Amendment 14 Lord Hanson moved formally. Question is amendment 14 be agreed Question is amendment 14 be agreed to as many as robust in order. I'm so sorry, my Lords. I have omitted the most important thing which is that amendment. That amendment one, as amended, be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Intent to the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

With my apologies again, my Lords, we do now come to Government Amendment 14, which is moved formally. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendments 15, 16 and 17. Baroness Bertin moved forward. The question is that amendment 15, 16 and 17 be agreed to on En bloc. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Intent to the contrary, not content.

The contents have it. amendments 18 to 21 Lord Hanson of Flint moved formally. The question is that these amendments be agreed to en bloc as many as that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that this bill be. Now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it.
16:42
16:42
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move that the >> My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I'm grateful, if I may say so, to your Lordships House for the contributions that have been made on this bill. We have spent over 88 hours in committee. We've had a full day's Second Reading, and we've had 44 hours at report, and we've spent an hour on the bill now, all of which is good, rigorous scrutiny, but which is a considerable amount of good, rigorous scrutiny in the process.

The bill leaves the House with a few extra pages, some extra government policy, which were manifesto commitments. But in doing so, I think it will better support the delivery of the government's Safer Streets mission to halve knife crime, to support violence against women and girls reductions in a decade. And I'm pleased overall, if I may say so, for the contributions and the degree of cross-party agreement that has been made across the House, we will continue to reflect on a number of the amendments that were made.

Contrary to my advice in the government's debates that we've had to date, and when the bill returns to the House after the Easter recess, we will examine what else will be done in relation to the view of the Commons, the government and indeed this House. I couldn't have done this bill without, first of all, the unstinting help of my noble friend Baroness Levitt and my noble friend Lord Katz, and I'm grateful to them. And I may just say, if I may, that scrutiny is a great thing.

I've done it in opposition myself, and it's a really important thing to test the government and to put forward alternative ideas. So despite our agreements on some issues and our disagreements on others, I'm really grateful to the noble Lord Davies of Gower, the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel, the noble Lord Sandhurst from the opposition front bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Ducie and Lady Brinton, and Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Marks Lord Henley from the Liberal Democrat benches, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this and other debates.

Can I also as well, just because we have sat late on a number of occasions, put on record on behalf of the whole House. Our thanks to the doorkeepers and staff of the House. There are a few days when I didn't know what time I was going home, and neither did they, and I think it's important we recognise their contribution to our parliamentary scrutiny, and I just also must, if I may, just place on record briefly my thanks to the Home Office team, the Ministry of Justice Bill team, policy officials from Department of Transport DEFRA, Department of Health, Department of Culture, Media and Sport, Ministry of defence DSIT.

Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Number ten, Downing Street. Our private offices, all of whom have contributed and which I or my fellow Ministers have spoken on behalf of in this chamber to do that. This has been the largest justice bill in a generation, and my goodness, doesn't it feel like it? But but it provides a number of key measures for the government on key issues to help prevent harms, to bring offenders to justice and to secure our community in a much safer way.

There are more parliamentary encounters to come after the recess, but in the meantime, I hope that we will help build safer streets, safer communities, safer Britain. And I beg to move that the bill do now pass.
16:46
Baroness O'Loan Portrait Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)
-
-
The question is that this bill do now pass. Amendment Baroness do now pass. Amendment Baroness O'Loan Lord Jay. >> I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords, the effect of clause 246 of this bill is to decriminalise abortion at any stage of the baby's gestation, where the baby's life is terminated by the mother, but in no other circumstances. My Lords, it's a matter of concern that we find ourselves today passing a bill which contains clause 246.

Given the dearth of information upon which noble Lords were asked to make a decision, hence my regret motion. My Lords, the Cabinet Office guide to making Legislation states that an impact assessment is a vital tool to help Parliament understand the consequences of a proposed intervention, and to identify the associated risks of a proposal which might have an impact on the public and wider society. Undeniably, clause 246 required an impact assessment to identify the consequences and risks of the clause that did not happen.

My Lords, it's possible to be both neutral and objective to respect conscience while considering policy implications and outcomes. This clause originated as a late backbench policy amendment, backbench amendment and, as others have said, there was not enough scrutiny in the other place or indeed here. Last week, many peers were denied the opportunity to speak to amendments which they had signed or supported on this most fundamental and important important of issues the life and death of the baby and the danger to its mother.

We have been unable to evaluate adequately the operational impact of clause 246 on policing. We lack clear evidence on how the removal of existing deterrents will affect the investigation of genuine cases of infanticide, or the detection of a woman being coerced by a third party into dangerous late term abortions. We have not been able properly to assess healthcare implications. There will surely have to be guidance issued to those who respond to a request for help in accordance with such in connection with such an abortion, which may turn out to require investigation as a criminal offence, may have been committed by a third party, be that a coercive partner or a family member or other who does not want any child or in some cases, unfortunately, a girl child to be born.

My Lords, I asked the question during the debate how is the mother to kill her child at these late stages so that she can abort it? I never received an answer. It seems to me that government must be aware that if a woman decides to abort a baby herself after 24 weeks, she may need help to do so. Does government intend to publicise the fact that it will still be an offence to help a mother abort her baby in these circumstances? Does it intend to highlight the fact that heavy bleeding, infection, damage to the womb and sepsis are all possible consequences of an abortion? And what of the risks of prescription or over-the-counter drug overdoses? As a woman seeks to abort her baby and to control her pain and that of her unborn child? Paramedics responding to a 999 call where a woman is haemorrhaging, or where a baby is stuck in the birth canal, will have to try and save the life of both mother and baby, unless the baby is already dead.

But there are a few precious moments when a baby which does not breathe automatically at birth, can be encouraged to live and may well do so. What is the paramedic to do? Presumably, if the woman gets to hospital before delivering. It will be incumbent on nurses and doctors to attempt to save not only the mother, but also the child. Surely the child will not be left to die uncared for, as happens when babies are born alive after abortion. My Lord's guidance will be needed.

What additional services medical and mental health services may need to be required in these cases? Required to be provided in these cases? And finally, my Lords, do we need some provision as to what the mother is able to do with her little dead baby? Is she able to bury it? Can somebody else bury it? How will the police be able to determine whether a baby was born alive and killed after death? If the baby's body has been disposed of, what if the trauma of delivering the child is such that she's unable to bury the child? What if she was subject to coercion and is torn by grief? What can she do? What is to happen? I am today sending an open parliamentary letter to the Home Secretary and the Minister for health from some 80 peers and peers articulating these and other concerns, my Lords.

But, my Lords, these issues should surely concern Her Majesty's Government. I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, how the government intends to take these matters forward to address these life and death issues.
16:51
17:00
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
No. move on so so that everybody is happy this comes to an end. Have we forgotten the hard cases? Make bad law and public policy should be a consideration, knowing that an aborted. They aborted a perfectly viable baby can haunt haunt a woman for years. That woman. Even if we start and end with an individual woman, enabling her to procure her own abortion at an extremely vulnerable point in her life. And this amendment points to vulnerability without committing a crime creates a moral hazard.

This ideologically driven push to give primacy to women's autonomy at all points in pregnancy does not actually serve them well, and abortion profoundly affects relationships within families. The impact later on, particularly with fathers unaware of or disagreeing with it, but also with disappointed grandparents existing children. What message does it send that a sibling was considered dispensable? Infertility after late stage abortion arose at Stuart Walker's trial. Even if other factors are responsible for problems conceiving, that possibility lingers. So, my Lords, I.

I will say in the end that there is no recognition that there might be a creator, an author of life, to whom we might have to give an account. Now, I'm not imposing my beliefs here simply saying assumptions are made. But what if they are faulty? Secular humanism and its hyper individualism are constantly imposed. Yet these cut across our commitments to the next generation. Despite much policy talk about prioritising children's welfare and hearing their voice, this clause will silence many before they even draw breath.

All I say I agree to this clause needs a very thorough impact assessment, to which I hope the government would agree.
17:01
17:02
17:02
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
few words about the bill. This bill attempted to counter through some profoundly important issues child sexual abuse, which police have described to me as a tsunami and which I don't think is fully understand, understood by most people, including some politicians. And the other issue that I also think is misunderstood is the rampaging impact of AI on our daily lives. Both would really deserve a bill on their own, in my opinion. But during the long hours of debate, we were constantly racing the clock, starting debates at 3 p.m.

or later and finishing them at midnight is, in my view, not a way to make good legislation. And if we are serious about effective scrutiny, we must modernise the sitting hours of this House and we must do it as a matter of urgency. And if scrutiny is to be meaningful, there really needs to be more scope for the government frontbench to agree perfectly rational, sane and good ideas that have been suggested by amendments right the way across the House.

Nevertheless, I'd like to thank the Ministers, the ever charming and affable Lord Hanson. EA who protected the government with a tenacity that a lion would use to protect his cubs, ably supported by Lord Katz, the brilliant forensic skill of Baroness Levitt, her ability to demolish. And I know from personal experience a carefully crafted speech in one sentence, but always with charm and a disarming smile just made me think, if only she was on our side.

Instead of government. I'd also like to thank noble Lords across the House, and with special thanks to the conservative frontbench who've been a joy to work with. Yeah, and thank you to my wonderful, wonderful Bill team, in particular the front bench Baroness Brinton, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Marks, and to Elizabeth Plummer from our whip's office, whose tireless and excellent support on legislation has kept us firmly on track at all times. Finally, my heartfelt thanks to Barbara Davidson, my researcher, one of the most hardworking, efficient and effective people that I have ever had the privilege to work with.

Thank you.
17:05
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Hey. incredibly long time coming. This bill has endured 15 days at committee and six days at report in your Lordships House. It has been a mammoth of a task, but throughout the bill's passage, I'm pleased to say we have executed our duties in this House as diligently as ever. To address the regret motion from the noble s noble Baroness. Lady alone, my noble friend, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, set out our concerns about the lack of scrutiny of the abortion clause at both committee and report, and our view remains the same that such a significant change of abortion law should not have been rushed through Parliament, tacked onto a completely unrelated bill.

However, the House has now decided the matter and as always, we respect that. My Lords, I said at Second Reading and again at committee that I do not believe a 500 page crime and policing bill is going to bring down crime rates. We have an enormous amount of criminal law. The problem is that much of it is not being effectively enforced. Having said that, there are elements of this bill that we are happy to see being sent to the other place, the noble Lord, the Minister, knows the parts of the bill that I am supportive of.

Indeed, there have been many. There have been several occasions in which he and I have been on the same page. There are some very good amendments that we passed at. Report, and I'm pleased that the House supported my amendments to allow the police to seize vehicles using Fly-tipping offences and to endorse the driving licences of Fly-tippers with three penalty points. I'm grateful to the Liberal Democrats and a number of non-affiliated and crossbench noble Lords for supporting my amendment to increase the maximum sentence for the possession of a bladed article with intent to commit violence from 4 to 10 years, and to force the government to review the prescription of the IRGC.

And it is excellent that my noble friend Lord Young of Acton and Lady Buscombe, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge and Lady Burton had the support of the House for their amendments as well. I must, however, express my regret at a number of provisions that have ended up in the Bill and clause 49, which makes low value shoplifting tribal either way makes absolutely no sense to me. And clause 251, which gives foreign courts greater powers over the extradition of British citizens, is also undesirable.

It is highly regrettable that the government has inserted clause one four for aggravated offences. That clause is completely unnecessary given section 66 of the Sentencing Code and the raft of aggravated offences and hate crime legislation that already exists, and it will only cause more problems for the police than is not going to contribute to the end of identity politics and a move towards greater social cohesion when the inevitable happens and more people are arrested for speeding offences. Let it be known that the Conservatives warn the government and tried to vote that down.

I am also deeply concerned that the government's amendment to grant itself the mother of all Henry the Eighth Powers, passed. The division was held outrageously late, which is not appropriate given its wide ranging constitutional implications. Ministers will now be able to amend the entire Online Safety Act as they wish, and parliamentarians will have no say. This is not the way to regulate for A1 chatbots. We should all be deeply troubled by this. But to end on a more positive note, I would like to thank the noble Lord, the Minister, genuinely, for engaging with myself and my noble friend, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and the noble Lord Sandhurst throughout the passage of the bill.

I'm also very grateful to his officials and the bill team for keeping up to date, keeping us up to date with the government amendments, and I would like to thank all those in the government whips office and indeed in our whips office for all their help. And in particular, I would mention Jamie Tucker in the opposition whips office for shouldering most of the heavy lifting on this. And I would also again like to thank the Lib Dem frontbench for their cooperation on this bill.

I sincerely hope the government will do some serious thinking over the recess and take on board the suggestion from noble Lords in this place. And when we come back to this Bill for the consideration of the Commons amendment, I do hope the noble Lords Minister will be in a conciliatory mood.
17:10
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Well said. Lords, but I just want to, if I may respond to the regret. Motion in the name of the noble Lady Baroness O'Loan. She did have the support of the noble Lord Biggar and the noble Lord Farmer, and the noble Lady Baroness Lawlor in. In that I just want to say noble Baroness Lawlor she did mention the words Labour Party. Can I just say there are members on my side of the House who voted on both sides of the abortion debate, and it's not a party political issue.

It was a free vote on this issue. From certainly the government's perspective, and I think all parties and I reiterate the fact that the government was entirely neutral throughout the proposal that was put before the bill committee and later on, report, which is now formed clauses two, four, six and 247 of the bill. So it's an entirely neutral government position. And I note the comments of the three noble Lords who spoke in support of lady alone. But I also note, if I may, the noble and learned Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness Deech and the noble and learned Baroness Butler-Sloss, because I just say that I echo what they've said in an entirely neutral way.

And I mean this, that it is neutral, but we have to respect the fact that the House of Commons passed that motion. And that proposal quite considerably, and that this House after, as was said, many hours of debate, also came to the same conclusion. Now the government remains neutral. But that is the position. And in a sense, what we're trying to do now is to look at what the implications are of that. And the government has always said that should Parliament pass any abortion amendments, the government will ensure safe and effective implementation of these provisions.

This includes any costs associated with the implementation of this provision and this bill, and there are existing processes set aside already to identify funding, both within the spending review and in future spending reviews, and around the issue of implementation. Now, the government remains neutral. But I have to say to all members of the House, both houses have spoken and that is the position that we face ourselves in today. So whatever noble Lords personal views on the provisions in part 16, we should not set aside the other parts of the Bill.

As has been said, there are a number of areas of agreement between all sides of the House. I say to the noble Baroness Doocey that there were three amendments accepted by the government at report. We are looking at what some of the amendments that this House passed and what the implications are for those when it returns to the House of Commons after the recess. But I also have to say that at the end of the day, I am proud of this bill. I'm proud of its position to protect children from sexual abuse.

I'm proud of the action we have taken on online harm. I'm proud of the action on preventing violence against women and girls. I'm proud of the action on young men and knife crime. I'm particularly proud of the long campaign that my union raised on shop workers and assaults. I'm proud of the issues on communities and anti-social behaviour. I am proud of this bill and for that reason I commend this bill. Do now pass. And I with due respect, because I did speak to the noble Baroness O'Loan today, I understand where she's coming from, but I ask her first of all not to push her regret motion.

But if she does, I'm proud of this bill. As it stands, I'm neutral on the issue of abortion on behalf of the government, but I would ask that this House do pass allow the bill to now pass.
17:14
Baroness O'Loan Portrait Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the Lord, the Minister, for his comments, and I thank him for speaking to me earlier today. He talked about the cost implications of this bill, and there are many, many cost implications to this bill. I'm not sure that anybody knows what the cost implications of clause 246 might be. Be that as it may, mine was a regret motion, and it was to draw to the attention of the House the fact that things need to be done to let people carry out the jobs for which they're responsible, and to help women in this most desperate situation.

My Lords, I don't intend to move the amendment to a vote. I thank those who did speak. We very deliberately decided that we would not ask a lot of people to speak, and we would ask people not to speak so as not to not to delay the House in its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deliberations. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that the original motion be agreed to. As many of motion be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content, not content. The contents have it. You will have a short pause before I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sit down. Sit down. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Consideration of Commons reasons and amendments on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill Baroness Blake of leads on behalf of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Blake of leads on behalf of Baroness Smith of Malvern. My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be
17:16
17:17
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
My Lord, I beg to move motion A and should also speak to motions B, K, and k one. In this group we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to child protection plans, multi-agency child protection teams and local authority consent for children not in school for each. I will set out the rationale for why government cannot accept these amendments. I will speak to motion a relating to amendment two, originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, regarding decisions to end child protection.

Plans for under fives when care proceedings are initiated or care or supervision order is granted. When care proceedings begin. The Child Protection Plan should not automatically be discharged. Statutory guidance is clear that a multi-agency meeting should take place to make this decision. Ofsted inspection frameworks reflects the statutory guidance and includes a focus on child protection. However, I do note the noble Ladies concerns about children losing support at key transition points, potentially making them more vulnerable, which is why we will strengthen statutory guidance to make sure that the reason for the decision and any ongoing support is recorded.

Going forward, we expect expert practitioners in multi-agency child protection teams to make decisions about plans. Ending these teams bring fresh child protection expertise to concerns and will know who will know the circumstances of the child well and so are best placed to make these important decisions. While senior and experienced directors of children's services should only get involved when needed. And this, I have to say is, is what the statutory framework already provides for. Turning to motion B, which relates to amendment five, also tabled in the name of noble Baroness Lady Barron, requiring the Secretary of State to lay an evaluation of the family's first families first for children.

Pathfinder in Parliament before the multi-agency Child Protection team. Measures come into force. Effective multi-agency child protection practice, which prevents tragedies and saves lives, needs to happen now. DeLay is unacceptable. The government will set out implementation plans covering the next phase of children's social care reform following Royal Assent, including information about the planned Pathfinder evaluation this summer. We expect to publish interim findings that are informing national rollout. Clause three also includes powers to make regulations about the functions of multi-agency child protection teams.

The regulations will be subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, and will reflect learning from the Pathfinders and national reform rollout. Regulations are not expected to come into effect until 2027, but the system is rightly changing now and we must not hinder this. Turning finally to motion K relating to amendment 44 and motion K1 relating to the amendment 44, B in lieu, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byron. The amendments in lieu would require parents to obtain permission from their local authority before withdrawing their child from school for home education if their child is currently or has ever been the subject of care or supervision order proceedings unless the child has since been adopted.

We share the noble Lady's commitment to ensuring every child is safe. However, we remain unconvinced about extending the consent requirement further. Children who are the subjects of such proceedings would almost always fall within existing protections, either through a child protection plan, triggering the government's proposed consent measure or as a looked after child whose education is already determined by the local authority through their care plan. We do recognise concerns about children previously subject to proceedings, potentially being vulnerable. That is why we have extended the consent requirement to children who have been on a child protection plan in the last five years, and extended the school attendance order power to these children who are already being home educated.

This approach maintains the high threshold for consent at child protection. Action recognises that children may be vulnerable if they are withdrawn from school within five years after a plan ends and balances this with the reality that families can and do change. During the Report stage, the noble Lady referenced the review into the tragic death of Sara Sharif. We have already amended the Bill to respond directly to its recommendations. We will pilot mandatory meetings before any child within a pilot area can be removed from school for home education, and the new power for local authorities to request to visit home educated children in their homes will benefit those children that the noble Lady is most concerned about.

Importantly, our wider children's social care measures also strengthen information sharing, improve early preventative support, create new multi-agency child protection teams and strengthen the role of education and childcare settings in local safeguarding arrangements. These reasons are why the government disagrees with these amendments. I beg to move.
17:23
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The question is on motion a B agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. My Lords, I will rise briefly to speak to this group of amendments speak to this group of amendments in particular. I'd like to thank the Minister in her absence as well. In terms of the meetings we've had away from the Lordships chamber. Clearly, the issue around protecting our young people is close to all our hearts, and it's something that we will keep a watching brief on. We have looked at the government's proposals. I did try early on when I arrived at your Lordships' House, working with the children's commissioner, there was a briefing that was sent out to all noble Lords your Lordships' House in June last year, which talked about something I was trying to move at reports that, in my view, was trying to make young people's lives better.

But on that occasion I failed to convince your Lordships' House on both the mental benches and as we live in a democracy, I chose not to pursue that. I will wish the government well in terms of what its intentions are. Clearly, as the opposition here, the main opposition, the smaller opposition, our duty will continue to hold the government to account in terms of the reassurances that you've given us in our briefings with you, but more importantly, what you've written to us about in terms of both yourselves in this your Lordships' House, but also in the other place.

And with that, I are not these benches are not minded to oppose what the government's proposing, but we are putting you on notice that we will continue to watch the progress and wish this bill well in this section.
17:24
17:26
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord. >> I support what the noble Lord Hampton has just said. As a family judge, I had a number of cases judge, I had a number of cases where children who'd been on protection orders and in particular supervision orders, and I vividly recall an appalling case in Liverpool where there was a continuing supervision order but was utterly disregarded. And I called the director of Social Services to explain it, and she was absolutely thinking it didn't really matter.

So every bit that can be put to put added pressure on making sure that children are home educated, are kept under proper supervision by local authorities, seems to me to be absolutely crucial.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I. Wish to confine. Myself briefly to supporting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Myself briefly to supporting motion B. It is commonly. Agreed now that the pilots of the. now that the pilots of the. Pathfinder model in selected family courts have been a success and do courts have been a success and do represent the way ahead. This model has been shown to reduce delays has been shown to reduce delays significantly and has forced the focus onto making things better for the child concerned, rather than on the parents disputes and confrontations. That model has developed sufficiently well in that delay in moving it on is into the mainstream.

Really should now be avoided. That does mean that the very recently announced expansion into child focussed court courts will be welcome.
17:28
17:28
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
amendment to give effect to the backward extension by five years for child protection plans. I'll for child protection plans. I'll just remind noble Lords briefly of the characteristics of the children we're talking about. Clearly, they we're talking about. Clearly, they have all experienced abuse or neglect, but even apart from this, we're talking about an exceptionally vulnerable group. Nearly three quarters of children in care have special educational in care have special educational needs, often conditions they were born with. That can make them particularly challenging to bring up and to educate and often complicated physical as well as behavioural needs.

And alongside that, these are children of parents whose ability to care for and to protect their own children has already been shown to be inadequate, at least for a time. And even after a care order or child protection plan has been discharged. These are, in the main, these are. These are children with serious challenges and complicated needs and whose parents have limited capacity. They're very often fragile families needing a lot of support and with a strong likelihood of further social care intervention being needed in future.

So there should be local authority consideration of proposals to home. Educate any child who's been in care or had supervision, order or under child protection plan first to make sure that the child will actually get the education and support they need at home. And secondly, to make sure that the child can safely be removed from view. Once the child is home schooled, it may not be seen by any adult from outside the family for years, and that may have been exactly the thing that was keeping that fragile family in balance.

And the letter sent to peers yesterday, rejecting the Lords amendment so bizarrely referred to the current proposal as protecting children from stigma. But there is no stigma in attending a state school. So to deny local authorities the ability to review an election, an election in these cases seems worryingly, worryingly self-denying. I therefore believe that the logic of my friend's amendment is is powerful and should be accepted.
17:30
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
I'm very pleased to see that in amendment K one, the noble Lady amendment K one, the noble Lady Baroness Barran, has reduced it to only being about section 31, and that she has provided this carve out, as it were, for adoption. I mean, imagine you adopted a two year old who'd been in care, and ten years later you have to jump through another bureaucratic hoop. So I'm very pleased to see that. I'm sorry that the government doesn't have that with that provision within it.

Current approach. Indeed, when I raised this as an amendment during the during the Report stage, I think it was that the noble Lady, the Minister told me that in such a case it would be a pure formality for the local authority with. An adopted child would simply just pass it through. Well, we all know, don't we, in this House, the noble Lordships in this house, that. What is a formality for the local authority can be a real worry and threat for the individuals involved.

So it's and the threat from people passing judgement on them. And I think that is a really important point. However, this is not the only example of people who will be inappropriately caught within this amendment and within the government's current approach, if I may say so. And I just want to give you one example, which is known to both the noble Lady Baroness Barran and the noble Lady, the Minister of a young boy who was abused and raped by his father.

And I read out with the permission of his mother, I will paraphrase a short extract from an email she sent to the government at the time when the care plan was created for her son, he had made detailed disclosures of serious sexual abuse to the mother, to four police officers, to two doctors and a social worker. Yet the police had still not arrested the perpetrator and the family court offered no protection under those circumstances. She says that the chair of the initial Child Protection Conference agreed with herself, a doctor, a nurse and a police liaison officer that he should be placed on a care plan until his rapist had been arrested.

This was done, and I suspect, helped, she says. Suspect helped to speed up the arrest. This seems to me to be yet another classic case of somebody who should not be subjected to the retraumatizing of going through this process again, and the possibility of receiving a a school attendance order when there is a mother there who has been protecting and looking after this child, making decisions on the way forward for this child and being second guessed in this way seems to me totally inappropriate.

So what I would like to ask the Minister is, who presumably is opposing K one amendment is how the government will deal with these two options. These two issues of the adopted children and this other example of as that mother says to me, the family is not the same family as when he was when the child was taken into care. You know, and it seems to me that it could be easy enough to get some kind of carve out that picks out the point that only when the same circumstances pertain and the child is living in essentially in a different family.

So what guarantees will the noble Lady, the Minister, make to ensure not only that adopted children are not affected by this policy and that others, such as the example I've used, are not affected? Let me also just turn to to the other point of the amendment K one, which is that it is people who have ever been in care. For whatever reason. I think there's a danger here of doing something that my background is health, and we recognise that health screening is a good thing, but sometimes health screening can do more good than harm.

Sorry, can do more harm than good. Let me get that the right way around. And it seems to me there's a parallel with this and in some of the rest of this bill as well, in our zeal to do the right thing, we are in danger of doing more damage than good. And if you look at the large number of people who will have to be considered, in this case, the enormous resources and the trauma that it may put people through in going through this process, I suspect that may be the case.

My Lords, let me just be clear. I'm in favour of a simple register in a society where too many children disappear or are indoctrinated or abused, I think it's right. We should be able to identify where children are. Of course there will be rogues, but we shouldn't treat every patient, every excuse me again. Every parent, no one's background keeps coming out, isn't it every parent is suspicious. And sometimes I think, well, a very experienced local education authority officer told me with regard to safeguarding, we normally react to an issue or a sign, and in a home education, experienced home education officers know the signs.

However, he adds, this bill treats everyone as guilty until proven innocent and is in danger of doing more harm than good. So my my point in raising these issues is to ask the noble Lady, the Minister, how she will both deal with the particular points that I raised about adoption and about other people who would be inappropriately treated as if they were still in care, but also how she will set about making sure that in the next stage of this bill, the setting of regulations that carry these things through into impact, the government will address some of these points, but make a truly proportionate response to safeguarding.

There are plenty of home educators who are very happy to help them and have great experience in doing so, and are not, you know, the vast majority of home educators, as we know, are reluctant educators. And perhaps I should just sign off by saying I speak partly because I have a member of the family who adopted two children some years ago and has reluctantly sent them to school and has reluctantly taken them out of school to home, educate at great sacrifice to her and to her family.

And that is the example of very many home educators. And I think we need to be imparting some of the things that we have passed here. Be careful that we do say to them that we don't think you're all criminals, you know, and that actually this needs to be a proper and proportionate response.
17:38
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for the noble Lady, the Minister, for her comments regarding motion A and the commitment to strengthen the commitment to strengthen statutory guidance and for the publication of interim findings in relation to motion B for the multi-agency Child Protection teams, if I may, to the noble and learned Lord Lord Meston I think there are multiple pathfinders, and I think the one that he was referring to and worrying that my amendment might delay, was a different pathfinder from the one to which my amendment referred.

But it's easy to be confused with so many paths going on, I would like to turn to my motion k one and again, acknowledge that the government's done the right thing by introducing a new power for local authorities to withhold consent to home. Educate a child where there are significant safeguarding concerns. And noble Lords know we spent time at committee and report testing the limits of what these concerns might be to ensure that they are proportionate, and that has been informed, of course, in part by the tragic death of Sara Sharif, whose father took her out of school.

The government broadened their initial definition of children who are eligible in response to our debates, as we've heard. And then at Report stage, we tested the appetite of the House for a much wider scope, but this was rejected in the other place. Last night, we all received a letter from Ministers which covered the response to the Sara Sharif Safeguarding Practice review. I've read the letter several times. I do find it extraordinary. Perhaps I missed it, but despite having explained to the Minister on Monday that my amendment would simply cover children who'd been in the care system, there is no mention of those children or of my amendment in the letter anywhere, unless I've missed it.

So either officials and Ministers don't understand the significance of care proceedings, which I find very hard to believe, particularly this particular Minister who's at the despatch box today, or there's no political will to engage with this subject. And I feel uncomfortable saying this in the House. But I have to say that's what it feels like reading the letter. And either way, I think it's a very unfortunate oversight. As the noble Lady Baroness Blake knows, in the hierarchy of safeguarding, the greatest concern is for children who are in care or in care proceedings, where the state judges that they cannot stay safely with their birth parents.

These children are at greater risk than those on a child protection plan. But the bill, as currently drafted and the government's rejection of my earlier amendment. Forgive me, my new motion leaves this specific gap. And as the noble Lord Lord Hampton said, you could have two children one three years ago returned having been in care to their parents. Another who came off a child protection plan three years ago. The first. The local authority can have no say if the parents want to take the child out of school and the second they can, and I'm guessing the noble Lady, the Minister does not feel entirely comfortable about that.

And of course, when she says that almost all children will fall within existing proceedings, that's almost all children except Sara Sharif. So Sara Sharif was on a child protection plan at birth. She was never on a child protection plan again. There were two sets of failed care proceedings. She is precisely the child that we should all be thinking about this evening. So I'd just like to finish by quoting from the Secretary of State, who made a statement on the 13th of November last year, when the Safeguarding Practice review was published.

She said the whole country remembers with profound sadness the tragic murder of Sara Sharif by her father and stepmother in August 2023, aged just ten years old. The unimaginable cruelty of Sarah's death at the hands of those who should have been her first and brightest source of love and care shocked us all. She went on to say. The introduction of compulsory children not in school registers will empower local authorities to better identify children who need support and protection, as will the accompanying duties on parents of eligible children and out of school education providers.

And this is my emphasis that measures will ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests. And outside this place, people will judge us not by what we said, by what we did. So let's be crystal clear. Without my amendment, these measures will not ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests.

And when the next serious case review happens, which sadly it will, I hope the House will remember this debate and remember that tonight we have the chance to do the right thing when we come to vote later and to support my amendment here.
17:44
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I am exceptionally grateful for all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today, and I recognise the commitment and contribution that all of them have made over the passage of this bill, and I'd like to thank Lord Mohammed for not pursuing any of the further points as his as he raised. So addressing the main points raised, as I said in my opening speech, I fully recognise the importance of what the noble Lady is trying to achieve in laying amendment two on the discharge of child protection plans.

I do hope. I have provided reassurance that although the statutory framework already requires robust multi-agency oversight of child protection plans, we will strengthen expectations for reasons to be recorded. Picking up on the the points raised by the noble Lord learned Lord Lord Crisp children who have previously been on a. On child protection plans may leave their birth parents care as. Of course, his. Fully aware and outlined in his comments. But many do continue to receive support to meet their needs and support.

Placement stability. With education being a central consideration in this. It is right, therefore, that these children are included in the consent requirement if they have been on the child protection plan in the last five years, because school can be a protective factor for these children in ensuring that they maintain stability and do not become vulnerable to other types of harm, such as extrafamilial harm. However, with that being said, we recognise that the child's new carers will have been through rigorous approval processes already and we will make clear in statutory guidance that we expect local authorities to make use of the relevant information they already hold on birth.

Parents and adoptive kinship or foster carers through existing assessment and approval processes to help make the consent decision. In practice, this will mean that in most cases, the consent process is expedited for these families, just moving on. The introduction of multi-agency child protection teams will also be critical in strengthening decision making. Going further than the amendment, the teams will make robust decisions for every child needing protection, regardless of age or where they are in the in the system, extending the consent measures to children who are currently subject the subject of care or supervision proceedings is unnecessary.

Risks to the child are managed through statutory care planning processes. The local authority will be involved with these families and there should be either a child protection plan or a care plan in place to support the child day to day. These children would almost certainly either be caught by the government's proposed consent measure due to a child protection plan, or be a looked after child, and therefore education provision would be a matter for the local authority to decide. Family health also provides

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a. Noble Lady for justice knowledge that that clearly, in the case of Sara Sharif and many of the other children, she'll be aware of the report into the 41 children who report into the 41 children who were home educated and who were either killed or seriously harmed, that in those cases, the current system does not work and that this very small but important loophole very small but important loophole could be closed by my amendment. I think it would be grateful if she could confirm that that's the case.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I just pick up on that, that particular point, my Lords, because.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. I can't express my sadness enough in terms of the issues that the noble Baroness raises. But what the noble Baroness raises. But what I'm seeking to do is to reassure herself, but also the House that the provisions that we're bringing the provisions that we're bringing in will be sufficient to as we move forward. That is the issue. And I think I think the Minister she's referred to on Monday was in the other place, not myself in the conversation.

Apologies. I'm sorry that she's not satisfied with the letter, but I know he went into it in meticulous detail, and I'm confident that he responded.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Meticulous detail did not refer to children in care or had been in care proceedings anywhere. In the care proceedings anywhere. In the letter, it referred to my previous amendment and children who were classified as being in need. I'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

classified as being in need. I'll let the noble Lady progress. Perhaps if I could continue with my comments and then obviously appropriate, if the noble Lady appropriate, if the noble Lady would like to carry on. So just picking up my thread, I just want to reassure all that the children would be almost certainly caught by the government's proposed consent measure due to a child protection plan or a B, a looked after child, and therefore education provision would be a matter for the local authority to decide.

Family help also provides support through targeted multidisciplinary support for vulnerable children. But I do want to reassure noble Lords that as we move into implementation of the policy, we will continue to engage with noble Lords. Should it become clear that the proposal to extend consent to children who are currently or were historically the subject of care or supervision orders or proceedings, would strengthen the policy substantially and improve protection for this wider group of children. We would, of course, be open to considering how it could be delivered, where a care order or supervision order is no longer in place and the child was not subject to current protection plan or had not previously been in the last five years, it would be appropriate to require consent.

Children who have returned home after a care or supervision order are already supervised by the local authority, and where the child is suffering or likely to suffer from significant harm. Child protection plans apply. The information sharing duty included in the bill will make sure agencies are talking to each other when there are concerns about a child, ensuring appropriate escalation using historic section 31 orders as a blanket trigger could unfairly brand families long after risks have reduced. The independent review into Sarah's death was clear that there were long term, broader, multi-agency failings that resulted in Sarah not receiving the level of protection she needed, extending the consent requirement to all children ever subject to supervision order proceedings was actually not a recommendation of the review.

Instead, the review highlighted the need for stronger multi-agency practice information sharing, early identifying, identification of risk and better decision making. And those are exactly the reforms that this bill delivers. And of course, for further reassurance, we will include specific sign off of child protection plans for children entering proceedings in consultation on multi-agency child protection team regulations. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barron, for her contribution on the matter of evidence for multi-agency child protection teams.

I hope she is now reassured and and I have said that I've set out how the findings from the Independent Families First for children Pathfinder evaluation will be used and shared. We are also confident that there is. There is also other strong evidence from the evaluations on multi-agency safeguarding hubs, the strengthening families and supporting families programmes and Youth Offending Teams, which all demonstrate how multi. How effective multi-agency working improves outcomes for children. Most importantly, I remind the House once more that the regulations are subject to the affirmative affirmative procedure, which means there is already adequate provision in place for parliamentary scrutiny ahead of the regulations coming into force.

Turning to motion K1, which would expand the home education consent requirement, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. The government is committed to ensuring every child receives a safe, suitable education. The bills current requirements strike the right balance, extending to all children who have ever been the subject of care or supervision. Proceedings would capture children already benefiting from appropriate checks and risks, indefinitely stigmatising families who have made substantial sustainable changes. I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, but I have to say, having worked with families in this space, their.

It is a. It is an issue of of stigmatisation is a very real thing for. For many families I recognise, of course, concerns that the current consent requirement would not have prevented Sara Sharif being removed from school. However, the home education measures are one part of the system that safeguards children and we have also made significant changes to reform and strengthen child protection in this bill. The bill strengthens the wider children's social care system and the children not in school measures which directly respond to some of the recommendations at and add a targeted safeguards where children can become less visible.

And of course, I recognise the noble Lord Lord Crisp comments that home educated parents do have very often a great deal to offer from their experience in this area, I. In closing, I would like to urge noble Lords to resist motions to five and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

K one. I beg to move. Question is that motion A be agreed to as many that opinion will agreed to as many that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. motion B formally Baroness Blake question is that motion B be agreed to as many that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. We now come to motion C
17:55
None Portrait Motion C: Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-

Baroness Blake with leads. >> My Lords, I beg to move motion C and shall also speak to motions D, E, F, and f one. In this group we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund. Sibling contact, regional cooperation arrangements and deprivation of liberty for each. I will set out why the government cannot accept these amendments. I will speak to motion C relating to amendment 16, originally tabled in the name of name of the noble Lord Lord Storey concerning a proposed review of the of the per child funding level for the adoption of Special Guardianship Support Fund, the government has confirmed £55 million for the Support Fund in 2627, with continuation into 2728.

A 12 week public consultation on adoption support is underway, seeking evidence on what best supports adopted children and outlining eight proposals for a future system. Introducing the review proposed in the amendment could potentially inhibit balanced consideration of the consultation responses, and we therefore cannot accept this. Turning to motion D, which relates to amendment 17, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. As we have previously set out, this amendment will not alter the duties placed on local authorities.

There is already a requirement in regulations for local authorities to record in the care plan. Any contact arrangements made between a looked after child and any sibling they are not living with. This is why the government does not support this amendment. Instead, we propose amendment 17 B in lieu to add siblings to section 34 of the Children's Act 1989. This will make clear the expectations of. On local authorities to allow reasonable contact between children in care and their whole half, and step siblings where this is consistent with their welfare, a duty that already exists for contact between children and care in their parents.

I acknowledge Liberal Democrat peers for constructive engagement, including the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and I also want to acknowledge in the Other place the hon. Member for South Shields, Emma Lou, both have tirelessly campaigned for the vital importance of relationships for children in care for many years, and I therefore urge the noble Lords to support this amendment. Turning to motion E relating to amendment 19, tabled in the name of the noble Lord Lord Bellingham. This amendment seeks to include integrated care boards in regional cooperation arrangements.

The government agrees that health partners play a vital role in improving outcomes for looked after children. However, existing duties under sections ten and 16, E, G, and J of the Children's Act 2004 already require local authorities to cooperate with relevant partners, including Icbs, to promote children's well-being. These duties will continue to apply to authorities entering into regional cooperation agreements following helpful discussions during the Report stage and with the National Network for Designated Healthcare Professionals. What is clear is that these duties could be implemented more consistently.

Minister Smith and my noble friend Lady Lady Marin, the Minister for Women's Health and Mental Health, wrote a letter to noble, the noble Baroness, Lady Barron and the noble Lord Lord Bellingham on the 5th of March, setting out the government's plan to strengthen collaboration. This includes asking Icbs to confirm in writing their commitment to working with the RCS as a condition of funding, updated program guidance issued alongside the expression of interest will set out clearer expectations on joint working should the House not insist on this amendment, which would otherwise require a different approach approach.

The government will issue this guidance tomorrow. This builds on learning from the Pathfinders in Greater Manchester and the South East, and officials continue to work with the Department of Health to ensure alignment with ongoing ICB reforms. Turning to motion F on amendment 21 and motion F1 relating to amendment 21, B in lieu, both tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barron, the government agrees that it is imperative that support for children deprived of liberty is fully integrated across social care, health, education and youth justice services.

Existing statutory mechanisms already allow local authorities and health partners to pull funding. Several areas are using these powers effectively. We would strongly encourage all local authorities, integrated care boards and partners to use these tools to improve support for these vulnerable children. As set out in the aforementioned letter, a multi-million pound national programme of work is underway. Jointly led by DfE and NHS NHS England, and this work has strengthened the evidence base through detailed studies of children's journeys and needs, and appear collaborative of areas trialling integrated approaches following helpful constructive discussions at Report stage for which I thank noble Lords, we have launched a national community of practice, giving professional professionals a single place to explore research, emerging models and training resources.

The next phase of work, beginning later this year, will be delivered within regional care cooperatives, with Iker.b involvement locked in from the outset and will support earlier intervention. More skilled practitioners. A single coherent understanding of each child's needs and, crucially, a smoother journey between services. This coordinated programme is building the foundations of a more coherent, preventative and evidence based system for. For these reasons, the government does not consider legislative change necessary and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does not support these amendments. I beg to move. Question is that motion C be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that motion C be agreed to? My Lords, I rise to agreed to? My Lords, I rise to speak to motion D and also very briefly motion f my Lords, I wish to place on record. I'm extremely grateful to the government for bringing forward amendments. 17 B in lieu, in response to the in lieu, in response to the amendments that I brought forward at committee and Report stage. It's a major step forward in strengthening and protecting children and carers relationships with their brothers and sisters, including half and step siblings.

And I'm particularly grateful that the wording of the government amendment is broad and inclusive, something that I very much support, as we discussed in earlier stages. I'd like to thank the Minister. I'd like to thank Mr. McAllister and the Bill team for their very constructive engagement on this issue. My Lords, over the years I have heard directly from care, experienced children and young people about the absolutely crushing impact of not having consistent or adequate contact with their siblings, because sometimes their siblings are the only other people who know, who understand, who've had the shared experiences of what they've been through, and the emotional distress it has caused them.

They're the ones who can provide mutual support. My Lords, it's a lifelong bond. So this amendment is a really important step forward in ensuring that contact with siblings is given the same weight as contact with parents in legislation. It has felt like a long journey getting to this point, and I really would like to place on record my my heartfelt thanks to colleagues across all
18:04
Baroness Tyler of Enfield Portrait Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
benches in this House and in the other place who have supported us to get to this process. I'd also to get to this process. I'd also like to thank the charities Become and Family Rights Group for their unwavering support, and they've been campaigning on this issue for many, many years. It's vital now that this change, which I hope we that this change, which I hope we will see in legislation, drives practice so that all children who are separated from siblings are supported to have the contact that they need with their brothers and sisters whenever it's in their best interest to do so.

And I will be monitoring this with great care. I just very briefly indeed, in relation to motion F and deprivation of liberties, it is quite a complex subject and I'm not going to go into all the ins and outs, but I think we can all agree that the needs of children who are deprived of liberty is something that we really need to be very serious thought and attention to, particularly actually the reason understanding better the increasing use of deprivation of liberty orders.

And I do commend the work that the Nuffield Observatory have been doing in in this area, because their needs and the help and support they need, however, funded, is clearly requires a package which involves health, social care, education, sometimes criminal justice. It needs to be effective. It needs to be a fully integrated package of health and support. And I think, you know, at the heart of that is how that is best actually delivered. Now, I was very grateful indeed to the Minister for allowing me to see the letter, which I think the the noble Lady the Minister has referred to, to Baroness, the noble Lady Baroness Barran and Lord Bellingham about what's going on in this area, and I read very carefully what's happening in relation to deprivation of liberties.

I am I am encouraged in the work that the government is taking forward. The fact that it has a national programme now to try to really understand the evidence better, understand what the options are around things like pooled budgets and the like that there are, as I understand it, pilots both taking place and some more in train and and really importantly, funding to test out these better integrated, joined up working and the ideas for pull budgets, improve collaboration, etc. I think it's encouraging that that is taking place.

My understanding, but it might be something I'd be very grateful if the Minister for confirming this, that that this work is backed up by 15.5 million of DfE funding over the next three years, if that if the Minister is able to confirm that, I'd be extremely grateful. I would also be grateful if we if the House, given the sort of concerns that have been raised in this area, could provide regular updates on this program and the outcomes and the sort of the key findings that it is delivering.
18:07
18:07
18:09
18:09
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, like other noble Lords, >> My Lords, like other noble Lords, we very much welcome the government's amendment in relation to sibling contact and I hope very much it makes a tangible difference in practice. I'll speak briefly to my amendment F1, which relates to how we can provide the highest quality care for the most vulnerable children, those who are deprived of their liberty. And as we. Have already debated this in must involve the local authority and the Integrated Care Board, and the Minister will be very familiar with the difficulty of getting health to the table, even if the door is often held wide open by the local authority.

But of course, the cost of them not being there is borne by children whose cases end up being repeatedly delayed because of disputes between health and social care. As to who is responsible, who are moved from placement to placement without any join up and who attend emergency services without up to date information about their needs. And my amendment would go some way to addressing this, but I am encouraged and I wrote down very large letters that the noble Baroness, the Minister, I think she promised.

That was what I wrote down anyway, that the Integrated Care Board involvement would be, and I quote, locked in from the outset, if that's what the government is going to do and if the government is going to create some innovation funding opportunities to see true integrated work between health and social care, I'm grateful to the government and look forward to following how that develops in practice. practice.
18:12
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to all the contributions to this debate, and I would like to thank. Start by thanking the noble Baroness Hale for her comments, but also to. To say I'm totally confident that she will keep keep us keep a good check on how this this goes forward, but very appreciative of of her role. The government recognises the vital role of adopters and kinship carers, and a time for the need for timely, appropriate support.

And that is why we're continuing to fund the adoption special guardianship support. The department is also consulting widely on the future of adoption support, with over 600 responses received already and consultant consultation events planned after Easter and I. Therefore, with the ongoing work, we don't believe a further review is necessary. But as I say, the. The. All of the comments from around the chamber recognising the importance of the. The work we've done on adding siblings to sections 34 of the Children's Act, I.

I'm sure that absolutely makes the government's commitment clear. And I very much welcome the support of. Of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord Meston, where committed to doing best practice in helping children to see their siblings and it's a huge step forward, I believe, for the experience of so many young people. I would like to put on record my thanks to the noble Lord Lord Bellingham through his amendment 19 for highlighting the importance of health, involvement in the creation of regional cooperation arrangements, and just to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Byron, I was very fortunate in having very good relationships with health colleagues, and I know through that what the potential of when we get it right.

I fully agree that integrated care boards as well need to move forward, and the statutory mechanisms will be strengthened through the detailed guidance we will publish, alongside the expression of interest for the next wave of regional care cooperatives. And this and can I reinstate this will require relevant icbs to state their commitment as we go forward. And I think I hope that gives the reassurance that noble Lords require. I think a financial incentive is is is an excellent way of moving forward.

Therefore, we do not believe that the amendment is is required. Turning to an amendment 21 and just again, just to say that we do understand the complexity of the pooled funding arrangements. And I want to reiterate, there are already existing statutory mechanisms there. We just need to ensure, through our guidance, that they're actually putting into place the National Health Service and Department for Health and Social Care and Ministry of Justice are working together very closely now, and we need to make sure that the included in this are plans to address systemic barriers.

And therefore, as I've said, to strengthen integration locked in. As I've said throughout. This, of course, will include testing the effectiveness of the pooled funding arrangements within the existing legal framework. And I can confirm the £15.5 million that the noble Lady Baroness Teather raised, given the existing statutory mechanisms, the coordinated cross-government programme, all linked to improving practice, and the government plans to test practical approaches to pool funding and integrated support, that we therefore believe the amendment is unnecessary for inclusion in the bill.

To close, I urge noble Lords to support motions D, E and F and resist motion f one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Question is that. Motion C be agreed to as mendoz

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion C be agreed to as mendoz of that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. motion d Baroness contents have it. motion d Baroness Blake moved formally move formally. The question is that motion d be The question is that motion d be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. motion e Baroness Blake move. Formally, the question is that motion e be agreed to. As noted, that opinion will say content is of the contrary, not content.

the contents have it. motion f Baroness Blake move formally. Move formally. The question is that motion f be agreed to motion f1 Baroness Barran not moved. The question is that motion f be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content as of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. And now we move to motion g Baroness Lloyd of EFRA.
18:18
None Portrait Motion G: Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-

My Lords. >> On its amendment. >> 37 and. >> 38 and do agree with. >> Commons Commons.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commons Commons. In that amendments. 38 a 38 B 38 C and 38 D in lieu. I will also C and 38 D in lieu. I will also speak to motions g1, g2, N, and n1 Lords amendments 37 requires the Secretary of State to introduce regulations that prohibit under Eighteens from using VPNs. Amendment 38 requires the UK Chief medical officers to publish advice about children's use of social media and make regulations to prevent under 16 from accessing user to user services within 12 months.

I would like to thank the noble Lord Lord Nash for his continued commitment to these important issues. Protecting children online remains a priority for this government. The noble Lords amendments require us to legislate for an under 16 ban for social media. Many of the noble Lords have declared that they do not support an under 16 ban, but are supporting this amendment to push the government to do more. I can assure the House that the government will do more, meaning there is no reason to support this amendment.

The Online Safety Act introduced one of the most robust systems globally, and we have already taken action to build on it. We have created new priority offences under the act and we are closing gaps for unrelated, unregulated chat bots. We know many people support a social media ban for under 16 seconds, but other respected voices are concerned it is not the right approach. That is why the government's consultation is the responsible path forward. The consultation seeks views on the areas raised by the noble Lords Amendment and beyond, including harms from gaming and AI chatbots.

We have already received over 30,000 responses from experts, parents and young people. It is right we assess these properly and we. But we are also clear we will take further action. Turning to VPNs, I understand the noble Lords concerns, but I believe that a consultation is the best way to consider the issue. We are determined to act swiftly on the issues once the consultation has concluded and we will respond by the by by the end of the summer. That is why we have tabled amendments enabling us to act quickly and decisively on its findings through regulation making powers.

We fully recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny in this process, and I can confirm that any regulations brought forward will require a vote in both Houses of Parliament. Turning to amendments 38 E, F and G tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Kidron, these amendments would introduce a new duty of care on the providers of internet services and regulation, making powers to be introduced within six months. The amendments also propose a review of Ofcom's powers. I am grateful to the noble Lady for her continued dedication to these issues.

The Online Safety Act introduced enforceable duties on platforms to protect to protect their child users, but we have always said there is more to do. Already the government is building on the act, including through its consultation, which addresses the types of services and considerations set out in the noble Ladies Amendment. The government's amendment provides the legislative means to achieve this, and I can reassure the House. Our intention is to act swiftly on enforcement. Ofcom has the government's full backing to use all the considerable enforcement levers at its disposal.

The act includes a statutory post-implementation review, which must consider the effectiveness of these powers, and we won't hesitate to strengthen the law if it is needed to keep children safe. I therefore hope the noble Lords will support the government's amendment, which provides a responsible, evidence based and workable route to the outcomes we all want to achieve. We have been clear it is not if we act, but how. Moving on to motion N relating to amendment 106 and motion N1 tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Barran, who insists on this amendment.

Amendment 106 would prohibit the use and possession of mobile phones during the school day. However, we know that the majority of schools already have policies that prohibit mobile phones, so the issue is not about new legislation. What changes pupil behaviour is enforcement backed by a whole school approach to behaviour management? We have published strengthened guidance. We have asked our network of attendance and behaviour hubs to provide targeted support to schools, and from April, Ofsted will inspect schools mobile phone policies, for example evidence that mobile phone use is contributing to behaviour issues.

Bullying, mental health or belonging will make it likely that the expected standard for attendance and behaviour is not being met, and this will be reflected in Ofsted's final reports. So, to conclude, I am grateful for the constructive engagement and hope noble Lords will support the government's amendments and reject the alternative amendments proposed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Question is that motion B be agreed? G I'm sorry I lost motion g

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed? G I'm sorry I lost motion g b agreed to motion g one Lord Nash. My Lord. I beg to move motion g one as an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move motion g one as an amendment to motion G to leave out from it's to end and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. While. My Lords, I'd like to speak to motion G one concerning my speak to motion G one concerning my social media amendment, and also to support the spirit of Baroness Kidron amendments. My Lords, I
18:23
Lord Nash Portrait Lord Nash (Conservative)
-
-
believe we need a dual track approach. I like to pay tribute to those noble tech Lords, many of those noble tech Lords, many of whom are here tonight, who work so tirelessly on the Online Safety Act, tirelessly on the Online Safety Act, but now it clearly needs updating and strengthening. Nobody could have foreseen the pace of technological change that has taken place in recent years, but I also place in recent years, but I also believe that in relation to children, we should have a dual track approach to social media, which puts the onus squarely on the companies to make their products safe for children, as we would with any other product.

Using safety by design principles. My Lords, I have been a director of tech companies in California. The Californian tech techies are some of the most able, innovative, entrepreneurial, wealth and job creating people in the world. But in relation to their cavalier approach that they have taken to harmful content online for our children, I think they've gone way too far in prioritising their commercial instincts, and we need to act now in a way that is truly effective. And of course, we know that many of these techies do not let their own children anywhere near social media.

My Lords, I don't think I need to spend much time talking about the clear evidence and causal link between social media and harm to our children, but I was horrified to hear the Right Honourable Liz Kendall on the radio say a few weeks ago that there is no proven causal link. All I can say is where has she been? This shows just how far behind the able the government is in their thinking and why. I believe we can have no faith in the outcome of the consultation.

I prefer noble Lords with an evidence document compiled by health professionals and others showing the harmful effects of social media from 50 examples. And every day I receive more research from around the world, from experienced academics, health professionals and others to the same effect. This includes evidence from whistleblowers that social media companies about their company's own internal research, showing clearly, based on the very extensive data available to them, the harms to children of social media and, in recent days, the chief executive of Pinterest, a social media company with 600 million customers, has said that we are living through the largest social experiment in history.

And social media, as it's configured today, is not safe for children under 16. As the Prime Minister of Greece said recently when announcing measures similar to my amendment, as so many other countries have done, the evidence is unambiguous. And only just minutes ago, in a court in Los Angeles, they found that Meta and Google were negligence and intentionally built addictive social media platforms. After a 20 year old woman said her early use of social media may addicted to addicted and her depression worse.

And this comes after a court yesterday in New Mexico found that meta is harmful to children's mental health, and find them $375 million, and these cases will likely influence hundreds of similar cases. Now winding their way through the US courts. My Lords, there has been some comment in the press and by hon. Members in the other place that children's charities are not united in their approach to protecting children online. I am delighted to be able to tell my noble Lords that I've had extensive discussions with charitable and civil society organisations across the sector, and there is broad agreement that an age based restriction on harmful platforms should operate alongside full throated enforcement of an increased potency of the Online Safety Act.

Turning to the consultation. Well, my Lords, it's a shocker. It doesn't even satisfy the government's own consultation. Principles for such exercises should be clear and accessible with 62 questions, which I understand many parents have given up on after answering just a few, or that it should be targeted at appropriate stakeholders holders, as opposed to severely prejudicing parents ability to contribute. And it also has no structured engagement for frontline professionals such as clinicians, social workers and police, and no transparency as to how evidence will be used.

The government may have 30,000 responses, but given the length of the consultation document, I very much doubt that that represents a cross-section of society or the national conversation that they want. Market research professionals tell me that this wouldn't begin to pass muster in a market research study. Some questions require technical or specialist knowledge. There's little information on how responses will be weighted between different groups, and it goes out of its way to emphasise in square boxes the benefits of social media without balancing sufficiently the disbenefits.

Turning to the government amendments 38 and in particular 3838 A to D, and in particular 38 A. This contains a very broad power, enabling the government to make changes to any Act of Parliament. There are many noble Lords here who are far more capable of pronouncing on this than I am. My Lords, this consultation and amendments the government have put up represent a blank check, with no definite timescale for action, no obligation to do anything and no doubt any action as happened with the gender identity in schools.

Consultation results when they eventually came, will require further lengthy consultation. I strongly suspect, my Lords, this check will come back marked insufficient action. Lastly, my Lords, I'd like to pay tribute to the 21 bereaved parents who support my amendment, many of whom are here in the gallery tonight, and I thank them for their hard work, their commitment and the fact that they are here. But I wish they weren't because I wish they didn't have to be.

And I don't want to be standing up here in 6 or 12 months time, banging the same old drum with even more bereaved parents in the gallery. I urge noble Lords to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support my amendment by agreeing to my motion G1. Oral Question was that motion g

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oral Question was that motion g be agreed to? Since when motion G1 has been moved as an amendment to has been moved as an amendment to motion G to leave out from it's to end and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion G1 be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

G1 be agreed to. While I support. My noble. Friend Lord Nash and motion G1. Following his amazingly powerful speech. May I also suggest that Commons amendments 38 A and 38 B be rejected on constitutional grounds as giving Ministers unacceptably
18:31
Lord Bellamy Portrait Lord Bellamy (Conservative)
-
-
wide. Henry the Eighth powers. I declare my membership of the Constitution Committee, but of course I don't speak on behalf of course I don't speak on behalf of that committee, but I would draw your Lordships attention to seven your Lordships attention to seven features of these amendments. First of all, there's the power to amend of all, there's the power to amend other acts of Parliament. Secondly, there are powers to restrict access there are powers to restrict access by children, powers given to Secretary of State to restrict access by children of an age, to be determined by the Secretary of State, i.e.

it's not for Parliament to determine the age. It's for the Secretary of State to determine the age. Secondly, these amendments apply to any internet service site feature or functionality. It's not restricted to social media, which of course is Lord Nash main objective. It applies to any internet service, including, for example, news services or search engines that is unacceptably wide. Thirdly, and more importantly, or as importantly, nothing is said about the criteria upon which these powers are to be exercised.

There's no mention of harm. There's no mention of any any rules or other constraints on the power of the Secretary of State. Next, there are provisions that enable the Secretary of State to effectively impose curfews, i.e. we must not listen at night or at certain times of the day. There's also power to impose time limits half an hour a day, or 40 minutes or 2 hours or something. These are very, very wide powers. There are, in addition, mandated provisions about mandating digital ID checks and to set an age of consent somewhere between the age of nine and the age of 13.

My Lords, the essential point is that no executive should have the power to restrict access by children or anyone else to the entire online space, without clear limits defined in advance by Parliament. In primary legislation specifying in particular the age at which such restrictions should apply. The grounds upon which such restrictions should apply. What are the limits of such restrictions and clear safeguards to protect democratic scrutiny? The correct approach, my Lords, is for the government to continue its with its consultation and when it has the information that it needs, and we take account of Lord Nash criticisms of the consultation when the government is fully equipped to deal with this, they should bring back a Bill to Parliament that in which all these important matters should be properly defined, and that the powers in question should be properly framed rather than be rushed through.

Now, on a Henry the Eighth basis.
18:34
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My Lords, I. Entirely agree with the. Noble Lord Lord Nash. >> And the. >> Noble and learned Lord Lord Bellamy, and I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bellamy, and I. Reiterate the. Points that he has been making. The amendments were considering posed the question of how best to make meaningful change to online safety law for our children. We must choose between two possible options. The first, as the noble Lord Lord Nash proposes, an amendment 37 and 38, is to make the changes through primary legislation, setting out the nature and extent of the changes to online safety in this bill, with the finer details left to regulations.

The second option, as the government proposed by amendments 38 A, B, C, and D, is by delegating to the executive the nature and extent of the changes to online safety by means of sweeping Henry VII's powers. These powers would enable Ministers to modify any provision of the Online Safety Act 2023, amend or repeal any provision of primary legislation to make consequential changes and amend, repeal, revoke or modify any provision of our data protection legislation. The first option is transparent and gives the decision on the nature and extent of the changes to Parliament by means of the strongest method of scrutiny and accountability in our Constitution.

That is primary legislation. Those changes would have to be implemented by the Secretary of State within a boundary set by Parliament in the primary legislation. The second option requires blind faith that the government would in fact do anything at all. And if it does, it means accepting a lesser form of scrutiny and accountability in the form of secondary legislation, which can be debated but cannot be amended. It's very much a take it or leave it approach to whatever the government come up with.

For example, the secondary legislation the government might at some point bring forward could provide that what is unsuitable for children on social media is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State, taking into account the extent to which the platform in question displays what the Secretary of State considers to be political bias, gender critical views, the promotion of religious beliefs, etc. There'd be nothing in the primary legislation to constrain the Secretary of State when deciding which services should be restricted for children and how, Parliament would then either have to accept the secondary legislation in its entirety or reject the whole package.

For my part, I overwhelmingly prefer the first option. Whatever one's view on the substance of what we're debating. It is a seismic and controversial cultural change for our children and parents. It imposes significant legal constraints on internet service providers and puts heavy monitoring and enforcement duties on Ofcom. The public need to have reassurance that the nature and extent of this huge change has been decided in the most robust way for which our cherished parliamentary democracy allows. That is unquestionably primary legislation.

My Lords, the Attorney General, in his much lauded Bingham lecture in 2024, said, quote, excessive reliance on delegated powers, including Henry VII's clauses, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law, but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty, and raises real questions about how we're governed. So I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, does she agree with her Attorney General? And if so, how does she reconcile that with amendments 38 A, B, C and D?
18:38
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Although the government's >> Although the government's amendments have been put forward as a signal of its determination to a signal of its determination to act. Sadly, it commits to nothing. It simply buys Minister a bit more It simply buys Minister a bit more time and the opportunity, at some unknown moment in the future, to push through a compromise half measure with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. My Lords, I'm appalled at this thought on this crucial issue. The government is asking peers to take a gamble on our children's safety.

They're placing their faith in a consultation that delivers nothing but more and more delay. My Lords, regularly regulating social media companies and keeping our children safe online is one of the most defining challenges of our time. That's why, my Lords, we should vote for Lord Nash's cross-party amendment, which is raising the age to 16 for the most harmful platforms within 12 months. Written into law before the summer. My Lords, it's the safest option for our children at this time.

Because, my Lords, I believe that government complex 62 questions consultation is heavily framed towards the positive. The benefits of social media rather than the horrific harms which frontline professionals report every single day, particularly on age assurance, where the perceived downside of age assurance is emphasised over obvious benefits. Also, there is no clear process of managing conflict of interest from the technology in industry. My Lords, how can this consultation be trusted? My Lords, reliable findings are precisely what this issue demands.

Also worrying. My Lords, the government has introduced the Henry the Eighth clause, which would give sweeping powers to enact legislation via secondary legislation, leaving little or no opportunity for this House to consider or scrutinise such measures. This means the government can dodge any scrutiny on its ultimate choice. My Lords, this cannot be allowed to happen because we will not be able to amend it. We'll only be able to accept or reject it in full. My Lords, we are gambling with our children's lives.

That's why, my Lords, I strongly believe that Lord Nash's cross-party amendment is the safest, most common sense option. And don't forget, my Lords, every day, every single day that we delay, more and more harms are being done to the nation's children. Do we want that? The mental and physical well-being are under relentless attack. So let us not delay. Let us do what we can to prevent this attack happening as soon as possible. And I urge the government to accept this amendment.
18:42
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak to all the amendments in this group and to amendments in this group and to talk to G2 in my in my name. I would like to say at the outset to the noble Lady, the Minister, I think we all acknowledge that everybody in this room wishes to protect children, but there is a vast difference of opinion in our approach and the sense of urgency that the government has. And if I understood the argument when she.

When the noble Lady set out the government's position, it was the Ofcom were going to be taking responsibility and Ofcom have sufficient powers, and I think many of us were in this room in this chamber earlier when the chasm between Ofcom's powers on paper and its ability to impact on survivors was laid bare and and I, I really have to say to the noble Lady that that if people do not feel the impact of the law, if the left experience of children, if the ability of parents to get help is not properly experienced, then the law has failed.

And I think that that is central to the problem and to the debate that we are going to have here tonight. My Lords, I think it's known to the House that I prefer not to speak of banning children. I prefer that it is that we speak of banning products poorly designed and unsafe to have access to our children. Now, that may appear to be a subtle point, but it's hugely important because access to children must be conditional on treating them fairly and safely and equally.

Many of us who would like to see companies that do offer services that age appropriate and designed with children in mind, want to see those available to children. Amendment G two sets out that conditionality experts and campaigners across the sector can contributed to its drafting, and it is in short form what we want from government and frankly, it is what the government promised when in opposition. Since we last debated this issue barely two months ago, researchers found AI chatbots becoming one of the most dangerous technologies for violence against women and girls.

Internet Watch Foundation reported a staggering 26,000% increase in the number of AI generated child sexual abuse materials last year. Specialist piece please email me to alert me to offenders using TikTok virtual gift system to incentivise children to perform sexual or compromising acts, and Alexa Plus arrived in the UK despite American parents raising concerns about very young children being lulled into close friendships and IT and inappropriate language, including it asking a child to look at its underwear.

My Lords, while we consult, children are harmed in real time and we cannot afford to wait. The government. We've heard already. The government amendment gives the Secretary of State extraordinary powers, but it does not offer a timeline, does not offer a promise of scope. It does not offer a model for individual redress, for parliamentary oversight or for improvements to enforcement. It relies on the existing systems and processes. It's slow. It's bureaucratic. They do not hold companies to account and and amendment G two offers another approach by filling the urgent gaps identified by dozens of online safety organisations.

It amends the RSA to include an overarching duty of care it removes, say, Safe Harbour, if a risk has already been identified by Ofcom or the company itself. It is absolutely ludicrous that we, a company, can be deemed safe even when the regulator or the company already have identified a danger. It takes a more precise approach to what services are in scope, and it includes a requirement to consider childhood development stages because while public focus tends to be on tweens and early teens, researchers are increasingly concerned about the very young children and older teens that need our attention to the amendment also limits the Secretary of State's powers and introduces a super affirmative procedure, which provides Parliament with an opportunity for scrutiny.

And finally, my Lords, it introduces a right to injunctive relief in cases of serious and imminent risk of serious harm. And it requires the Secretary of State to review Ofcom's business disruption powers and introduce new measures. Again, subject to the super affirmative procedure. My Lords, this amendment is drafted with input from experts across the online safety community. It tackles their concerns and frankly, it provides Parliament with the oversight it needs. But most importantly of all, it offers a way for the government to act more urgently.

It shows that government could, if it would take a power in a way that is agile, but gives Parliament proper scrutiny. It sets out the scope of what consultation should be looking at. It is not too late for the government to do something different, and I commend it to the House as a roadmap for what constructive and incisive leadership looks like. My Lords, there are a number of noble Lords that the so-called Lords tech team, who've worked with all UK governments for more than a decade and a half, in times where there was less evidence and less public concern.

And if we had managed to get everything that we argued for, we would already have red lines for AI. We would have already prevented addictive products, we would already have mandatory risk assessments for CSAM. We would already have privacy standards for tech. We would have spared the bereaved families years of distress, trying to get information from the courts and chatbots would have already been covered by law. But my Lords, we did not get everything we wanted.

But we did work together and this government has shied away from doing that. We are ping pong, so I won't outline the problems of a consultation that's already launched, but instead with other noble Lords. We'll write to the Secretary of State. Suffice to say, the questions are leading. The footnotes do not always reference what they're attached to. It talks about evidence without giving reassurance. Who's going to supply it? Even as concerns about the way evidence is framed and commissioned abound. And it is profoundly incurious about the gaps in inadequacies of Ofcom's codes and enforcement.

The government is in danger of simply adding duties to a regime that is already not working. And my Lords, it is not good enough. We all hoped that the government would recognise the strength of feeling and the specific issues we raised at report, and come back with something which better reflected the urgency and answered the crisis we are in. But sadly, they chose instead to grab the headlines. Today it's a pilot programme. Last time it was announced, a consultation and a power for the Secretary of State.

The same again, when we debated chatbots, even this afternoon, they announced another review. And when the reviews are done and the actions follow either slowly or not at all. So it is with some frustration, I say to noble Lady, the Minister, that the digital BMS cannot be governed by headlines alone, nor will consultations keep children safe, and the government has a duty to act. The noble Lord Nash has spoken powerfully to his amendment and I will be supporting him in the lobby.

It represents the overwhelming feeling of parents and many of us in the House, that it is neither sustainable nor right to push the can down the road and determine the outcome with no oversight. As for the noble Lady Barron on a bell to bell ban, I talked to a group of children about it and 114 year old said to me, it's a no brainer. So I will also be supporting that. The noble Lady in the lobby on that, the fact that it's subject to a vote at this late stage is really, truly extraordinary.

The government still has the option to come to the table and work together to make an adequate settlement for children online. My Lord's children deserve better than only a ban on social media. They deserve safety wherever they are online. They deserve more than safety. They deserve the right to flourish, to free play, to freedom of thought, to freedom, to participate in a world that is designed for them. And the government has the opportunity to do that. But taking vast powers with no plan is the worst of all worlds.

So I hope that the noble Lord Nash's amendment lands back in the Commons, as it surely will, my Lords. And at that moment the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government can think once again. My Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. Powerful speeches that have been made in support of Lord Nash. It's very important that noble Lords understand that the Minister is inviting the House to support inviting the House to support amendments 38 A and 38 B, neither amendments 38 A and 38 B, neither of which imposes any obligation whatsoever on the government. Those
18:52
18:53
Baroness Morgan of Cotes Portrait Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-affiliated)
-
-
would just say that having. As we've already heard, a number of Lords have spent many hours debating online safety issues in this House. We have seen progress with the online safety app, but more is to come. There is a simplicity in Lord Nash CHIS amendment. The noble Lord Lord Nash amendment that I think we should amendment that I think we should send back to the House of Commons and ask them to think again in relation to this amendment. But I relation to this amendment.

But I would also say that if the government decides that it's going to still resist and send back that amendment out and send it back, then I think what we've heard from the noble Lady Baroness Kidron this evening is there is a way forward so that it is not, as we've just heard, left to regulators or to the government to decide to act if they feel like it, that actually there is a power in this bill that we have before us, not waiting for the next Online Safety Act in order to protect young people from harmful content online.

And I would urge Ministers to take the opportunity offered by the bill being amended, I suspect, again this evening, going back to the other place, to really listen and engage with those of us who want to act now to protect young people from the harmful material we absolutely know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is doing them no good online today, as we have heard. My Lord Prior Lords, I welcome

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord Prior Lords, I welcome the government consultation, but I am distressed by how very wide the am distressed by how very wide the scope is and how. And as the noble Lord Lord Pannick has said, how Lord Lord Pannick has said, how very vague seem to be the outcomes it. The arguments I put forward and
18:55
Viscount Colville of Culross Portrait Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-
-
the Crime and Policing Bill on AI chatbot amendments also apply here. These amendments are going to allow the Secretary of State to age gate. Any internet service or function should be able to determine at what age and by what methods a platform can be restricted. Any any regulations under these powers will not be able to be amended by Parliament. All the arguments are made by noble Lords last week about severely limited parliamentary scrutiny of regulations are just as concerning this week.

With these amendments, I support the government carrying out a consultation to social media ban for under 16 evidence. The effect of such a powerful measure needs to be examined and responded to, but I urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to look at the important changes made to this amendment by the government's amendment by Baroness Kidron motion 62 G2 in amendment 38 E the government consultation needs to have parameters which are provided by Baroness Kidron amendment, most of which he has already set out.

Many are issues which don't seem to have been covered by the Online Safety Act. Addiction differential for different developmental ages, unsolicited contact and live streaming. The restrictions of these harms to children could be rapidly implemented under amendment 3080 by the prospect of tech companies facing business disruption measures. These are the enforcement measures which so many of us campaigning against online harms have been calling for. And all these issues to be considered not in a consultation with without time limit, but one which must conclude within six months.

I call on the noble Lady Minister to take on board the concerns expressed in amendment 3080 and to put them into action.
18:57
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise very briefly just to say, as was mentioned earlier, Google as was mentioned earlier, Google and Meta today were found in the California Supreme Court to be guilty of causing pain and suffering to a plaintiff who had bought a case. And the jury has initially ruled that $3 million in damages will be paid for the pain and suffering. The jury is now considering punitive damages for malice and fraud. My Lords, I put it to your Lordships House today.

We are the jury. We have heard about the malice and the fraud that these companies are visiting upon so many of our children, and indeed, on their unfortunate parents. My Lord, we as the jurors should deliberate today and give a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resounding verdict in. Its very brief because others have spoken so eloquently. But I have spoken so eloquently. But I want to rise to support Lord Nash and also Baroness Kidron the spirit of her amendment as well. But Lord of her amendment as well. But Lord Nash and his heroic efforts to stop social media for under 16 seconds. social media for under 16 seconds. I feel I must absolutely represent the army of parents out there who are bitterly disappointed that the government is failing to act decisively and quickly.

A consultation is always code for a fudge. We've been there. We know what that is. The government's amendments are presented as action, but in reality they offer very, very little certainty. They create space for delay. Space for a future compromise that may arrive with limited scrutiny, as we've heard so eloquently put before. What we are being asked to accept is a risk. And it's not an abstract one. It is a risk with our children's safety, and it offers an olive branch and a wholly inappropriate olive branch.

Now, with all the court rulings that we're hearing about to social media companies that have already done so much damage to our children and their childhoods. They must be absolutely delighted with this compromise that the government have come up with. And what I predict over the coming months will be a PR blitz about how great they are, how concerned they are with safety and you know, how much safety by design they're putting in to progress, all of which no doubt will have to be policed by us, the parents.

Instagram's recent effort, which I am sure they want a medal for, was to alert parents if they had put in the highly complicated safety notices on that their child is searching for self-harm material. Well, here's an idea. Let's stop Well, here's an idea. Let's stop them from seeing that material in the first place.
18:59
Baroness Bertin Portrait Baroness Bertin (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. just constantly negotiating this space. What is allowed, what isn't, what feels safe, what suddenly does not feel safe? Something that seems harmless can very quickly change. I think it's very powerful. The point that the Pinterest boss made, because I certainly feel that a lot of these sites that feel incredibly, you know, not harmless are in fact, constantly trying to sell content to our children. It's also, I think, a very important point to make. Straining relationships within families and changing how childhood feels for parents and children alike.

The joy of growing up and of raising children is being steadily eroded. Little wonder many young people are deciding that actually bringing children into the world is now just too challenging. With so many things that we have to face, and without a complete end in a total reset, we are just going to get more of the same and it won't be good enough. Like water, these. These will always find the cracks. These companies will always find the cracks. There's too much riding on it, too much money.

I would finally say this, that the consultation itself does little to reassure. As others have said, it's long, it's complex, it's widely described as being too difficult to complete. I'm also particularly troubled by some elements that I'm asking children as young as ten to judge whether features like sending explicit images should be restricted. That does not feel like a serious or responsible approach. There are also very important unanswered questions how responses will be assessed, whose voices will actually carry weight, and how will conflicts of interest be managed.

As Baroness Benjamin mentioned. Again. The Henry VII's palace raises further concern not just as a member of this House, but also as a parent. We can't possibly not have proper scrutiny on this issue going forward. I would also like to make the point that I'm unclear what would happen should there be a change of government. That takes a very different view of online safety. Our children are navigating a period of profound emotional and neurological development. They are working out who they are, where they belong to.

Layer. On top of that, the intensity of social media, the constant feedback, exposure and comparison is simply too much. They are not equipped for it and nor should they be expected to be. So I sincerely hope we back Lord Nash amendment.
19:02
19:03
19:04
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lord, my Lord, my Lord, even >> My Lord, my Lord, my Lord, even SEN Lord Stevenson frontbench. It's SEN Lord Stevenson frontbench. It's not going to. Right. My Lords, no, not going to. Right. My Lords, no, it's not that I'm trying to deprive other noble Lords from speaking, but the idea that we go to frontbench because we've all heard these arguments before, is actually not fair, because we've been put before us by the government. The most wide set of proposals that are completely new and came out of nowhere.

So if I can just make my point, which is I was rather disappointed not to be supporting the government when we discussed this at report. I do not support the noble Lord. Lord Nash's amendment to ban social media for under 16, despite how powerful his speech was, and I actually thought it. Report that the government had got a sense of proportion. And even though here everybody just saying, what's the point of consultations? They're all a waste of time.

I mean, that's good for people to admit who are in Parliament, because a lot of consultations around and all sides. So we all know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Saying that consultations are all a waste of time. What we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

saying is this particular consultation is deeply flawed in its construction. People have pointed out from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

People have pointed out from different political parties that we all know that consultation is a way of kicking the ball down the road of kicking the ball down the road and are not serious. And I'm just saying I thought they were. There saying I thought they were. There you go. Call me naive. I just think it's very important, as we make the decisions about this, that this is not a competition, about who cares most about children online. This is a discussion about how we deal with it and how we deal with it should not be so frenzied that we get into a situation where we're reckless, democratically, or we make decisions in a way that is not informed by evidence, but is informed by emotions and quite a highly charged atmosphere.

I think when the original amendment was tabled, it was very late in the bills process. At Report stage in the Lords, and more recently, there's been controversy about that, and I think the way we make laws does matter. There's been controversy, for example, about whether it was right to use the Crime and Policing Bill to push decriminalising late abortions, which I didn't object to in principle. I have some sympathy with these very important law changes being tagged on to another bill, and I think that we need to consider that.

I think we need to consider that the Parliament, that the parliamentary process needs to allow scrutiny. Yet many of the same Lords who, for example, raised the justifiable critique on the abortion decriminalisation seemed happy themselves to bring forward another huge law change, i.e. the under 16 media ban at report to this bill. So late that it curtailed proper scrutiny, and I had a lot of sympathy with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. Lady, I think, has said a couple of times that my noble friend Lord of times that my noble friend Lord Nash introduced his amendment at report. It was raised, it was tabled at committee and report and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tabled at committee and report and was debated at Second Reading. Maybe she'd like to correct her remarks. I had a lot of sympathy with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I had a lot of sympathy with the government's position at report, as I say, of trying to think about I say, of trying to think about whether we could use consultation to before embarking on drastic measures. So I'm just disappointed that the government has brought forward these particular amendments at such a late stage that potentially gives draconian powers to control the internet in general in the form of delegated powers. I think Lord Bellamy, the noble Lord Carter of Haslemere and Viscount Colville have explained why that's so dangerous, but can I just ask the government if they could explain why they're asking us to legislate so comprehensively? Pre-completion of that consultation, or if there is this rapid pilot of 60 children which I share with the noble Lady Baroness Cass some reservations about.

But what's the point in us knowing that if we as legislators won't be able to deal with it? The noble Lady. The Minister said that we'd all get a chance to vote. But, you know, thank you very much, but that having a chance to vote isn't what we want because we're being asked to hand over these major powers without any opportunity for meaningful debate about the outcomes of the consultation or the pilot. And the use of Statutory Instrument means that there'll be no chance to amend proposals or raise principles or practical concerns about unintended consequences, and so on.

And the government's own delegated Powers toolkit, in its guide to making legislation, sets out a clear rule of thumb quote the more significant a legal change, the stronger the presumption that it should be set out in primary legislation. And I agree, and also emphasises that delegated powers are unlikely to be appropriate simply because there has been insufficient time for policy development. So I do worry about the rhetoric from all sides or think of the children. We have to do something, a sense of urgency and so on.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the noble Lady Baroness Kidron, who I know has not kind of rushed in here with little thought. And since I've been here and long before it, she's been thinking about it, but I can't help but feel that there is just a huge amount of confusion, even about what evidence there is. And every time I hear this evidence being cited and I look at it myself, it's just not black and white, and I don't want us to be rushed into making the wrong decision, because in all the evidence I've looked at, there is no correlation between

**** Possible New Speaker ****

screen time, social media. Oh yeah. Can I just say to the noble Lady that that why is the bar for that that why is the bar for evidence in this area of policy evidence in this area of policy after the event? Most most critical industries have to have to abide by industries have to have to abide by standards and they have to prove a product is safe. Why are we, with product is safe. Why are we, with all the bereaved families standing in the in the gallery talking about the lack of evidence on a day, on a day that the court cases in the US have actually found the evidence against the companies, it doesn't make sense.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the noble Lady is is perfectly reasonable to raise that. It is contested, certainly in It is contested, certainly in academic studies, even if even if it's like, well, never mind the it's like, well, never mind the evidence, the product should be safe anyway, I'm suggesting that evidence based policy requires evidence based policy requires evidence. And when the evidence is at least contested, and that there is no correlation or direct is no correlation or direct correlation between screen use and mental health, that we should pause.

And the reason I'm saying that is because I think that teenagers using and young people using the online world can both be virtuous and full of vice, and therefore, I do not want a ban on all 16 year olds going on the internet. It's as straightforward as that, and I've explained that before, so I'm not going to. I just want to finish off. I just let me just finish.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a long, long way from a ban on all teenagers going on the internet. It's highly selective for internet. It's highly selective for those apps, which are clearly harmful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

harmful. Because you don't want to delay. And I've written a lot more, right? At the very least to finish off. At At the very least to finish off. At the very least, I would have thought that before Parliament thought that before Parliament embarks on such drastic measures, either in delegated power form, handing these powers over to the government. I note that the noble Lord, Lord and Leonard, Lord Lord Paddick said they're only powers. They're not going to act on them.

And I thought, good. I don't want them to act on these particular powers because these powers are very far reaching and we have no control over them. But before anyone embarks on this, should we not at least look at what happened in in relation to the ban in Australia, over 50% of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Made a noble Baroness Jay just went up quickly because we need to move on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move on. But I keep being interrupted. 70 in. In Australia children are over in. In Australia children are over 50% of the children after the ban are still using social media. Teens are still using social media. Teens are being pushed underground, away from mainstream platforms into darker corners of the internet darker corners of the internet without safeguards. Zero moderation. And I think it's risky and dangerous behaviour. And rather than adult help and guidance in negotiating the online world and recognition of its virtues, not just its vices, they're actually just being banned.

So I also think we need to be finally open that it's not just children who will be affected by both sides of these amendments. We know they will be detrimental to the effects and the civil liberties of all UK internet users of all ages, because they will lead to mandatory biometric age checks and or digital ID requirements that will apply to the whole of the UK population, whatever age they are. And I do appreciate that whenever we talk about children and protecting children, then civil liberties and freedoms are kind of Pooh poohed and wafted away.

I happen to think that they are important for the children that we are rearing and socialising. To understand that a free society requires somebody somewhere remembering that freedom and civil liberties are worth

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fighting for. Well, my Lords, my Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my Lords, my Lords. Lord Stevenson Lord Stevenson. on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on. Stephen, move on. I don't see why I should be so honoured, but thank you, my Lords. honoured, but thank you, my Lords. There have been very few speakers from the Labour benches and I wanted to make sure that those who are supporting the amendments are supporting the amendments before you today understand that within this party it is not exactly as was set out by my noble friend, the Minister. There are those of us who are very keen to support the movement that we can detect today in the thinking of this House, and I want to be quite clear that that
19:15
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Portrait Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Labour)
-
-
is, I am not alone in that. I want to say three things. Part of the problem we've got here is we're running towards the end of a running towards the end of a session that's got not not the right bills. And it's got the it makes it very difficult to try and get the issues we want into play. Secondly, there's no guarantee that there will be bills next in the next Queen's Speech King's Speech next Queen's Speech King's Speech that will allow us to continue the debate and move forward at the pace we want to.

So the feeling that the House has, and I'm sure I speak for all of us when we say this, that something has gone wrong with the legislative structure that we've got in place in this area and in line with so many people have spoken today, we need to find a way of getting into our laws, the sort of measures that are needed to take us forward on this. And I offer to the noble Minister, my old friend the Minister, the following option. The only way we can get this in play and continue it and get to a right solution is to back the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Dear Lord Nash.

And I think we should do that. I don't agree with all that he's saying, and he knows that because I've talked to him about it. And I don't think bans are generally a good thing, but it's the only way to get in play. A chance to look again at the other amendment that's enforced today on this issue, in the name of the noble Baroness Kidron, I know that she's worked considerably hard on trying to get a form of words into her amendment, which is before us today, but which she will not move, which takes the government to a place where I think it will be comfortable limiting the powers it wants to take, focusing on the areas that they have not yet covered, but which they must cover in terms of the way in which we relate to our regulator and does it in a way which is expedient and effective and will get quickly to the help that we need.

And I urge you to think carefully about that and to support us as we move forward.
19:17
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord, my Lord, we really. >> Briefly sum up this debate, I have nothing new to add. I merely stand to agree with. Certain noble stand to agree with. Certain noble Lords have already spoken. As for the government's approach, Henry the seventh son is all over it. That's never a good thing for a bill. I agree with the noble Lord Pannick on that and the approach I would have preferred, and many of my my own ventures would have preferred is that of the Baroness Kidron.

But what we are dealing with here is something the noble Lord Nash has done with considerable success and skill. That is to seize the argument and throw it back to government to see what they are going to do. And I would suggest that government listens very hard to us. What they have proposed is not meeting it for this House, for what we want to do to get something effective in play. Can we? I hope the government will listen, and we will be supporting the noble Lord Nash in the division forward.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey my Lords, I will be brief. I would just like to say a few words would just like to say a few words on the issue of smartphones to on the issue of smartphones to motion N1 in my name, and I'd like to acknowledge that the government has made efforts in their new guidance on mobile phones, but that their approach doesn't go far their approach doesn't go far enough to meet the needs of pupils, parents or teachers. Hence the need for my motion.

And I'd like to thank very much generation Focus and health professionals for safer screens who've helped. Many of us have the privilege of listening to a range of headteachers, educational psychologists who've been able to share their experience, and their views are absolutely clear. Firstly, they are calling for a statutory ban so that they can be clear with the minority of parents that smartphones have no place in school, and evidence from the University of Birmingham shows that head teachers are spending literally hundreds of hours that they don't have dealing with the implementation of individual school policies, and clearly that isn't a good use of their time.

And secondly, they want a clear focus on smartphones. And I noted that the Minister referred to my amendment as the mobile phone amendment. And of course, that was
19:20
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
a slip of the tongue. But it is important because it is the connection to the internet in connection to the internet in general and to social media in particular, that is causing such a particular, that is causing such a huge problem in terms of safeguarding incidents and suspensions in our schools. And as suspensions in our schools. And as I said at report, smartphones are the gateway drug to social media, the gateway drug to social media, one headteacher reported in a recent roundtable that we held that prior to having a ban in their school for children in year seven, so children who were aged about 11, almost a quarter of all suspensions in the school were for children in year seven, and they were predominantly linked smartphone use and that is unrecognisable from a few years ago, when it was an exception to suspend a pupil in year seven.

And thirdly, what we're seeing is that those schools who ban smartphones are seeing a delay in the age at which a child receive one brick phones and balance phones don't pose the same threats to attention, to concentration and to safety. And this has implications not just at school, but on the journey to and fro and at home. And the evidence from the medical profession. Because noble Lord Lord Addington has rightly raised concerns about children with special educational needs, is that it is precisely those children who are most vulnerable from having a smartphone, and teachers are quite clear that it is not appropriate for a child's special educational needs to be met with a personal device, and I've shared that with the noble Lord before this debate.

So I'm absolutely baffled at the government's resistance to my amendment. And I'm grateful to all noble Lords across the House who have supported it so far, and I hope the government will change their minds. Turning to the amendments in relation to social media and children, some of your Lordships will have read the extraordinarily brave letter this morning from Ellen Room, mother of Jules Sweeney and other bereaved parents, many of whom are behind me in the chamber tonight. And given the weakness of my tear ducts, which some of your Lordships have already witnessed, I'm not going to attempt to read any of it out, but I really, whatever your Lordships view, I commend it to you to read.

It is one of the most dignified and brave letters you will read on these benches we stand firmly behind my noble friend Lord Nash and his emotion G1. His emotion establishes unequivocally that there should be restrictions on harmful social media for children under 16. It leaves the details of implementation to secondary legislation and, of course, the results of the government's consultation could be put to good effect in informing these regulations. It places the onus on the social media companies to change their products to being safe for children to use, rather than leaving everything to an already overwhelmed regulator to resolve.

And I recognise and welcome the spirit in which amendment G 32 is framed. Building on the great expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron and the other now affectionately known tech Lords, not to be confused with the tech bros and other noble Lords who which has been forged over many years working on these issues, showing the government how they can improve on their current approach. And during the passage of this Bill, the House has shown great collaboration across all benches, and yet the government appears unwilling to engage with any of us.

And I would just say to the noble Baroness, the Minister, that that she has access to extraordinary legislative and sector expertise and to all the most expert stakeholders who are coalescing around a proactive and effective approach. And I would urge her to use this. And I'd like to close my friend Lord Nash also mentioned Bill ready, CEO of Pinterest, but I'd just like to pick out some other remarks that he made. In closing, he said in May of last year, now is the time to apply the same creativity and innovation that built the social media ecosystem to the vital task of protecting kids online.

And if we can't do this effectively, we lose any credibility to oppose a ban. As both a tech CEO and a parent, I know that legal compliance is not the same as safety. Our industry has had years to mitigate these harms, but but has time and again failed. The time for self-regulation has passed. And if tech companies don't change, then the path should be obvious to lawmakers. We need a clear standard. No social media for teens under 16, backed by real enforcement and accountability for mobile phone operating systems and the apps that run on them this evening, that path is obvious.

It points directly at supporting my noble friend's amendment to.
19:25
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Portrait Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful for the constructive and heartfelt contributions made in the House today. We have heard a wide range of views, and I want to reiterate of views, and I want to reiterate my thanks to noble Lords who have engaged so closely with Ministers in recent weeks as we work through these complex questions. I would also like to thank Baroness Kidron, who brings not only her expertise, but for her comment that that all in this House share a commitment to children's well-being online and is that that motivates motivates all of us.

The noble Lord Lord Nash has set out the reasons behind amendments 37 and 38, and why he wants to see swift action. I fully understand those those intentions and to respond to Baroness Mone, I said it is not if we act, but how. And that is the intention of the government to act. And the question is how the the the noble Lords amendments would require us to act before the consultation is concluded and would commit the government to a specific set of measures that may not ultimately represent the most effective or proportionate way to protect our children.

And that is why the government cannot accept amendments 37 and 38, not because we agree with the objectives, but because legislating could risk unintended consequences, and it would mean acting before listening to what the consultation tells us and what parents and children need. And 20,000 parents have responded to the parents specific survey, and we are extremely keen to assess and hear what parents and children say. And additionally, these amendments are restricted to user to user services under the Online Safety Act.

It's hugely important that we seek the views across other services. As we know children use other mechanisms such as AI, chatbots and gaming, which are not consistently caught by the definition of user to user services. I just want to say that the consultation we are taking extremely seriously, as we are the national conversation, the. Alongside the publication of the consultation, we announced a parallel academic panel will be formed and this panel of experts will assist in assessing the development of the evidence base.

Drawing on the international expertise that many noble Lords have mentioned today, for example, from Australia, to advise us as we take as we take these these matters forward, many noble Lords. Lord Nash Baroness Kidron Viscount Colville have rightly pressed the question of pace and swiftness of action, and the reason for the government's amendment in lieu is exactly that to provide a clear and deliverable route to take forward what we want to do, informed by the results of the consultation, the consultation closes in May and we will respond by the summer to set out next, next steps.

And that means the powers that that means we can act within months and not years, coming on to the question of the use of those powers and the parliamentary scrutiny of those which which many Lord Bellamy, Lord Barker Viscount Colville have have mentioned, we absolutely recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and the expertise that parliamentary parliamentarians in both houses provide. I absolutely agree with that. Baroness Barran and each of these powers will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which will ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny for the powers before we enact policy changes.

And we feel that the delegated powers the Bill proposes are justified and proportionate, and we have sought to provide as much detail as we can to support their scrutiny. And then just lastly on on amendment 106 and mobile phones in schools, our position is clear. Mobile phones have no place in schools. We believe this is primarily an issue of enforcement, and that is why we have set out the strength and guidance. That is why we are supporting with our network of attendance and behaviour hubs.

We are backing headteachers to take the necessary action. So to close, I urge noble Lords to support the government's amendment, which gives us power to take effective, evidence based action and to resist amendments 37, 38 and 106. We share a goal. The question is simply how best to achieve it. Our response our amendment is the right one, and I hope noble Lords will join us in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting it. I beg to move. My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Lord the Minister, has to say. Noble Lady, the has to say. Noble Lady, the Minister has to say. But I've also read the consultation very carefully and listened to the carefully and listened to the statements made publicly by the DSIT Secretary of State. I can only conclude from those that the conclude from those that the government has no real commitment to do anything serious about the harms that our children are harms that our children are experiencing on social media, and I ask the House, therefore, to agree to my motion.

G1 and therefore would like to test the opinion of the House on my social media amendment. Yeah, I must inform your Lordships that if motion G1 is agreed, it pre-empts motion g2. The question is that motion G1 be agreed? As many of that opinion will say, content content the contrary, not content, not content. The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now
19:32
19:44
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
with particular reference to introducing a monetary cap. I thank introducing a monetary cap. I thank the noble Lord again for raising the important issue of uniform costs, and we will of course monitor the effectiveness of the monitor the effectiveness of the limit as we implement it. However, our manifesto commitment is clear our manifesto commitment is clear to reduce the cost of uniform by limiting the number of branded items schools can require. This approach is overwhelmingly backed by parents, with the Children's Society finding 78% agree with such a limit.

We believe the CAS cap, a cost cap, would not create the same level of parental savings as a numeric limit. It is complex and burdensome for government and schools, and it risks appearing protective while failing to constrain actual costs. It creates a financial target and could encourage schools to increase the number or price of their branded items. It risks strengthening supply and monopolies, reducing parental freedom and increasing costs. A numeric limit opens the market, giving parents greater choice and affordability.

A cost cap also would entail unnecessary regulatory complexity and assumptions about retail pricing for size variations, promotions and parents purchasing of spare or replacing I AMS enforcement would create a significant burdens on schools, forcing annual reviews of uniform policies and prices and drawing them into disputes between parents and retailers about prices and compliance. A numeric limit is simple, transparent, and easily enforceable, and statutory guidance can make clear that high cost items should be avoided.

My Lords, turning to motion L relating to amendment 102 and motion L1 tabled in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Barran, which insists on this amendment. This amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number or p a n, following an upheld objection, we have committed to update the statutory schools admissions code to ensure school quality and parental choice are paramount in any decision. On a p a n, we have set out more detail on our planned approach in a paper deposited in the House library yesterday, including plans for new statutory principles that will ensure the availability of high quality school places is central to decision making, and that requiring high performance schools to reduce places should be a last resort.

We already expect schools and local authorities to cooperate to ensure that admission numbers give parents a choice of high quality local school places close to home, but this amendment would impose inappropriate restrictions on the scope of the Adjudicator's powers to deal with those instances where this does not happen, an individual school's decision can impact school quality and choice across an area, especially at a time of declining pupil numbers. This can impact both urban and rural communities, and this is a measure will ensure that as a last resort, an independent decision can be taken with choice and quality for all children at its centre.

Now finally turning to motion M relating to amendment 105, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, which seeks to introduce a mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools. The government agrees with members campaigning for improved allergy safety in schools, and I'm therefore pleased to confirm that we have tabled our own amendment in lieu to place allergy safety on a statutory footing. It is intended to enshrine Enshrine Benedict's law in primary legislation securing robust allergy safety measures, and I would like to pay particular tribute to the tireless efforts of Helen Blythe in memory of her son Benedict, and the members of the National Allergy Strategy Group, and Helen, of course, and her husband Peter and their daughter Etta are here today in the chamber.

Parents should be able to send their children to school in the knowledge that they will be safe there, regardless of any medical condition or allergy. Our amendment in lieu requires schools to have a to have and regularly review allergy safety policies and to publicise them and publish them on their website. In doing so, schools must have regard to statutory guidance, which has been co-produced with many stakeholder expert stakeholders. Our amendment in lieu also creates regulation making powers, permitting the Secretary of State to place specific duties to allergy safety, including the content of policies, stocking adrenaline devices and securing allergy awareness training, and to record and report incidents.

This amendment applies to all schools in England. It provides the same requirements to be placed on independent and non-maintained special schools. The noble bonus is amendments set a clear timescales for its implementation, and I reiterate our commitment that our new statutory guidance will be implemented and it will be implemented from September 2026. We further commit to commencing the duties contained within these clauses as soon as possible, and to introduce and to introducing the regulations as soon as possible.

Noting that we have undertaken to give schools at least a terms notice of any new duty, we believe that this deliver will deliver the key protections for children with allergies and the flexibility for our requirements to evolve as clinical advice changes. My Lords, I beg to move.
19:52
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The question is that motion be >> The question is that motion be agreed to motion H1 Lord Mohammed of Tinsley my. >> Lords, I. >> Beg to move motion H1 as an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Beg to move motion H1 as an amendment to motion H at the end to insert the words as printed in the insert the words as printed in the Marshalled List. My Lords, my. My motion is, as we heard earlier, is around issue of a monetary cap on school uniforms. I will not rehearse the arguments that we've had already both at committee and report stages. However, my Lords, if the government is minded and still continuing to push for a numbers cap as opposed to a monetary cap that your Lordships' House has voted before, I am saying to the government that ultimately look, I think you should leave all the options open, that if you're numbers cap does not work and therefore you should have the option to revisit this.

And that's what I say. The the numbers cap is not my preferred option. I still would like you to consider the actual monetary cap, but what's wrong with coming back in, say, 12 months time when you do your review and by supporting my motion today, H1, that allows you to say, OK, we thought this would work and it doesn't. It hasn't quite met the intentions of your aspirations in both your manifesto and in this bill. And actually, there's an alternative provision that you Lordship that House has voted on previously.

And therefore, that's why I wanted to move this. I don't want to prolong the debate because we've had a bet on that. We were going to keep our contributions to a minimum, and I'm going to stick to below two minutes. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question. Is that motion be agreed to? Since when motion H1 has been moved Since when motion H1 has been moved as an amendment to motion H to attend to insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion h1 be agreed to. My Lords, I would like to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to speak very briefly to motion M, and I very briefly to motion M, and I would like to support the amendments in Lieu amendments 105 B and 105C. I would like to thank Ministers and I know that the the noble Lord is here speaking tonight, but but perhaps he would pass on thanks to both the noble Lady Baroness Smith of Malvern, but also to Minister Bailey in the House of Commons for their engagement and the fact that they have listened on this issue, and particularly the fact that there are details in this amendment which I think the government had talked about putting in regulations, but I think it's given real assurance to those who care passionately about this amendment to have these matters on the face of the bill, I'd like to thank all the noble Lords who signed the original amendment and spoke in favour of it, and I'd also like to thank Alicia Kearns MP, who also led the campaign in favour.

But most of all, as the noble Lord has said, I think the thanks should go to the tireless campaigners and particularly to Helen Blythe, who, I have to say, if she's looking for alternative things to do, would make an excellent legislator in this this House. She's been indefatigable in her pursuit of Benedict's law, and it's a pleasure to welcome both Peter and Helen to Parliament today. And also, I think, Friends of Benedict as well. She was she was very clear, Helen Blythe, that this should not just be statutory guidance, although that was a great step forward, that legislation was needed, and I welcome the fact that the change will come in from September of this year.

In her House magazine article, Helen said this is just before the vote in the House of Commons. We are closer than ever to allergy safe schools. Progress has been made. The government has shown it takes the protection of children with allergies seriously. The question now is whether we can secure that progress in a way that guarantees equal protection for every child in every classroom. For children like our son Benedict, life mattered. His death must matter, too. And I think the government has risen to the challenge in putting down this amendment today.

As the Minister will know, there is little question about funding, but I know that the about funding, but I know that the Department is very aware of that and will work for schools who, as we all know, have budgets under we all know, have budgets under pressure. But again, I am very pleased to be able to support the amendments in lieu that the government has laid this evening.
19:56
19:57
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Portrait Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Morgan of Cotes for all her work on behalf of all those children living with allergic children living with allergic disease and their families. And tonight, I just want to briefly emphasise the importance of these emphasise the importance of these amendments, which are testament to the efforts of Baroness Mone, but also to the Benedick Blythe Foundation and Helen and Peter for Foundation and Helen and Peter for their work. And I just want to read out a couple of the hundreds of positive comments that its foundation received when the allergy community learnt of the government's intention to bring forward statutory guidance on allergy safety in schools, the mum said this is a gift to allergy families.

As an allergy mum, I can't tell you what amazing news this is. This will save lives and help so many children feel safer in school. This will mean so much to so many parents and children in this country living with allergies. This will change everything for my family. My son has multiple food allergies. This is a life changing moment. These words demonstrate the impact on people's lives the government can make. When they listen, they engage and work collaboratively with charities members from all sides of the House on in both houses and in particular, like Baroness Mone.

We too want to thank, as does my noble friend Baroness Walmsley Ramsay of Wall Heath, who can't be in her place today. Baroness Smith of Malvern and Minister Bailey in the other place, and their civil servants teams who have worked constructively with allergy charities over many, many months. Of course, there is always more to do and we look forward to continued discussions with the government on what practical support and funding will be available to enable schools to effectively implement this guidance.

But to conclude, these amendments in lieu will help to keep children safe in schools, will help to ensure they are better protected and more included in school life.
19:59
20:00
20:01
Baroness Bousted Portrait Baroness Bousted (Labour)
-
-
have been paid in the previous year with more children. But the with more children. But the opposite effect occurs to improving schools with rising roles. So this year, in my trust, we are educating year, in my trust, we are educating nearly 240 children for free, which is nearly one and a half to £2 is nearly one and a half to £2 million. Next year that will be 300 children. So, my Lord, the question to you is how difficult do you want to you is how difficult do you want to make it to improve previously failing schools?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand to support the government in its attempt to create government in its attempt to create a situation where there is an adequate regulator for school admissions at a time of greatly admissions at a time of greatly falling rolls, particularly in primary. This is particularly important, particularly when there important, particularly when there is going to be, as a result of the curriculum assessment review, a much broader curriculum, it will be important that all schools can teach this broad curriculum.

To do so, we need to have children in those schools. And the problem with schools, which as I said, Committee stage are problem with schools, which simply expand, is it can lead very good schools unable to operate. I do have a question also for the opposite benches, the Liberal Democrats who are in Committee stage supported the opposition to the local authorities having a say as an adjudicator in the last Lib Dem education manifesto 2024, promised parents and the public to give local authorities the power and resources to act as strategic education authorities for the area, including responsibility for place planning, exclusions, administering omissions including in-year admissions and SEND functions.

I simply ask, is that still the Lib Dem position? Is that that party's position, its manifesto position? And if it is, will it be supporting the government in its position?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. My Lords. On these benches we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. On these benches we share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord Lord Mohammed of Tinsley about rigidity of the government's approach to trying to control school uniform costs. Indeed, we would have been quite happy if he'd would have been quite happy if he'd wanted to bring back his previous wanted to bring back his previous amendment unchanged. We're also welcome warmly the government amendment in relation to children
20:03
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
with allergies in school, and I'd like to echo the remarks made by like to echo the remarks made by others across the House to recognise the incredible work of the Benedick Blythe Foundation and the Benedick Blythe Foundation and in particular Benedict's mother, Helen, which has culminated in this Helen, which has culminated in this amendment. Today. My Lords, my motion L1 simply supports the motion L1 simply supports the rights of parents and pupils to attend the school of their choice and get the best possible education in an area, and we understand the financial pressures faced by schools that are dealing with falling rolls.

But the way to address them is not by reducing choice and nor by cutting places in the most popular local schools. And further, if the government is to be successful in closing the disadvantaged gap which we all want to see, they will need these schools and they should not be shrinking them. In the letter that the government sent to peers last night, they set out the principles they intend to follow in the updated Regulations and Schools admissions Code, and I accept that the government has moved and has tried to clarify its position.

It is a pity that this arrived so late, and that there's been no time to discuss any of this with Ministers, despite having requested meetings since early February. I'm very open to discussing further with Ministers, but as drafted, I don't think that the proposed wording is as watertight as the intent of my motion and in particular the language of, I quote, long term sufficiency seems to give more wriggle room than is needed. Further, it's hard to see at this stage what the point of the measures in the bill are given the statement we just heard from the government, the bill's own impact assessment is clear that it will limit the ability of good schools to grow.

So I feel like we're in a bit of a muddle now of policy making with a different position in the bill, a different position in the letter and a different position in the White Paper. As long ago as 2002 Labour Party conference, the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, asked why shouldn't there be a range of schools for parents to choose from? Why shouldn't good schools expand or take over failing schools or form federations? More than 20 years on, that remains a relevant question today, and I only wish the government would listen to the views of their former leader, whose reform laid such important foundations on which subsequent governments have built and which have contributed significantly to rising school standards.

But, my Lords, the fundamental principle that we've set out in earlier debates of school choice is a crucial one and should not be eroded.
20:06
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
My Lord, I thank everyone for >> My Lord, I thank everyone for their contributions and I'll just their contributions and I'll just start with noble Lord Lord Mohammed. And I think, you know, let me be very clear. As I said in my opening speech, we will, of course, monitor the effectiveness of the limit as we implement it. But one of the concerns I have is that and the government have is that the the cost cap effectively creates a target price, incentivising prices.

Price rises for any school currently below the cap, and many schools would in fact could in fact brand more items, reducing savings for parents. And it would be more complex for parents and place unnecessary burdens on them. So I hope the noble Lord will reconsider his position. I think a numeric limit is clearer, simpler, and will deliver the savings, which is what the Children's Society says will deliver the savings that parents want more quickly and is, of course, as the Children's Society Survey said, overwhelmingly backed by parents.

But of course, is a commitment in our manifesto. Now, can I turn to Lord Moore amendment 102, which seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator published admission? Can I just say no? Absolutely. What we want is a system that ensures school admission numbers give all parents a choice of a high quality local school places. And, you know, we have committed the noble Lady referred to to update the statutory school admissions code to ensure school standards and parental choice are central to any decision on P, a n and as the noble Baroness Barron acknowledge, we have been developing proposals, developing proposed changes to the code and associated regulations, considering stakeholders views and the important points raised by members.

As this Bill has progressed, and I would certainly repeat, and I know that what the noble Lady says in terms of when it was published, but our proposed framework deposited in the House library yesterday contains at its heart new statutory principles to help ensure that requiring high performing schools to reduce places will always be a last resort. We will conduct a full public consultation on the proposed changes and the updated code and regulations must be laid before Parliament.

Finally, can I turn to return to the allergy safety and. I am grateful for the contributions of noble Lords who've spoken in support of the Covenant Amendment. And can I just replay the compliment and and thank the noble Lady Baroness Merron for her work in terms of this, and I will certainly pass on her gratitude to my noble friend Baroness Meyer and my hon. Friend in the other place, and to acknowledge their work. But I really do want to pay tribute to the people who really made the difference.

And that is, of course, the campaigners who worked so hard to ensure that this is implemented. So can I just say that we will, given the critical importance of allergy safety, we'll we will seek to continue to work collaboratively, and we will continue to do so as regulations. We develop the regulations and prepare to implement the new duties. To close, I urge noble Lords to support the government's amendment on allergies in schools and support motions H, J,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

L1. My Lords, could I thank all noble Lords for the contributions during the debate and particularly Baroness Barran for your support? I've still not convinced. I still think the government needs to have another option at the end of it, and therefore I would like to test
20:11
20:14
20:23
20:24
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

12.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, No, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, no. My Lords, the question is that motion K one be agreed to? As many motion K one be agreed to? As many as I will say content Of the contrary, not content. content contents will go to the right by contents will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to the The The question The question is My Lords, there have voted contents 163 not contents 195 so the not 163 not contents 195 so the not contents have it.

Not. My Lords. The question is therefore that motion k be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it motion L Baroness Blake for bleeds. My Lords, my noble friend has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to motion L. That this House do not insist on its amendment 102, to which the its amendment 102, to which the Commons have disagreed for their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reason. 102AI beg to move. Question is that the motion l be agreed to motion l one Baroness Barran.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Barran. To move motion L one. The original question was that motion L be agreed to, since when motion L one has been moved as an amendment. Motion L to leave out from house to end and insert and insert. Do insist on its amendment 102. The question, therefore, is that motion l one be agreed to. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many as are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. Not content. The question will be decided by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now My My Lords, My Lords, the question is that motion l one be agreed to. As many as have been will say content of the contrary, not content. no. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The My My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is that My My Lords, there have voted contents 207 not contents 148 so the contents have it.

My Lords, motion n Baroness Blake of Leeds.
20:47
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, my noble friend, has already spoken to motion M that already spoken to motion M that this House do not insist on its amendment. 105 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason 105 a and do propose amendments 105 B

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and 105 C in lieu. I beg to move. Question is that the motion M be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that the motion M be agreed to as many as of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it motion n Baroness Blake of Leeds.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion n Baroness Blake of Leeds. My Lords, my noble friend, has already spoken to motion n that this House do not insist on its this House do not insist on its amendment 106 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

100 and 6AI beg to move. The question is that motion n be agreed to motion n one Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Barran. I beg to move motion n one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion n be agreed to. Since when motion n one has been moved as an motion n one has been moved as an amendment to motion N to leave out from house to end and insert. Do from house to end and insert. Do insist on its amendment 106. The question, therefore, is that motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

n one be agreed to as many as that of you will say content. Content. Content content not. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content content not. The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now
20:48
20:58
None Portrait Legislation: National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill – Lords Consideration of Commons reasons and / or amendments
-

contribution Bill Lord Livermore. >> My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons now be considered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commons reasons now be considered. The question is that the Commons reasons be now considered. As many reasons be now considered. As many as that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it motion a Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Livermore. My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do not insist on that this House do not insist on its amendment one to which the Commons have disagreed for their Commons have disagreed for their reasons. One a my Lords, I will also speak to motions b, b1, c, d e also speak to motions b, b1, c, d e f f1 GG1HH1JK, l m and m one. The f f1 GG1HH1JK, l m and m one. The other place has disagreed with amendments 12345, six seven, eight, nine, ten, 11 and 12 as they would all to the financial arrangements made by the Commons.

The Other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is deemed sufficient. While the government disagrees with the substance of these amendments, I am pleased that we have been able to discuss and debate these issues. I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-rolfe, Lady Kramer, Lady Altmann and the noble Lords. Lord Altrincham, Lord Leigh of Hurley, Lord Fuller, Lord Mackinlay and Lord Londesborough for assuring that these important matters have been addressed on that basis. I hope that noble Lords are content not to insist on these amendments.

Let me now turn specifically to amendments 1B1C2, B two, C six, B six, C seven, B seven, c eight, b eight, c 12 b and 12 c. Tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-rolfe. These amendments would make commencement of the act contingent on the publication of impact assessments on basic rate taxpayers, employees making student loan repayments and small and medium sized enterprises before addressing each of these. In turn, it may be helpful if I remind your Lordships House of the documents that have already been published by the government and the office for Budget Responsibility, the Tax Information and Impact Note sets out the expected impacts of the policy on individuals, employers and the Exchequer.

The policy costing note sets out detail on the costing of the measure, including the tax base, static costing and a summary of behavioural responses expected by employers and employees. The office for Budget Responsibility published their Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which provides the OBR's independent scrutiny of the government's policy costing. The OBR also published a supplementary forecast note, which provided additional information they received prior to last year's budget. To further increase the transparency of this measure, I would also like to remind noble Lords that the expected behavioural impacts of this measure have been set out in the policy Costing Note, and both the OBR's Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Supplementary Note.

Both the government and the OBR have been very transparent about these expected behavioural responses by employers and individuals, turning first to amendments which make commencement of the act contingent on the publication of economic and behavioural impact assessments on basic rate taxpayers. As set out in the budget document, the £2,000 cap means that 74% of basic rate taxpayers who use salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected by these changes. The remaining proportion of basic rate taxpayers who do not, who do have contributions above the cap, will still be getting National Insurance contributions.

Relief of the first £2,000 of contributions made by salary sacrifice, in addition to the full income tax relief that is available to all employee pension contributions. Further, 87% of affected salary sacrifice contributions above the cap are forecast to be made by higher and additional rate taxpayers. This is a fair and pragmatic reform, and the distributional effects of it are clear. On this basis, the government does not consider a separate and additional impact assessment on basic rate taxpayers to be needed. Turning now to amendments which make commencement of the act contingent on the publication of economic and behavioural impact assessments on individuals repaying student loans.

It is right that we focus on outcomes for younger generations, particularly given over the past 14 years. They saw their fees trebled, interest rates increased and maintenance grants scrapped. Importantly, though, the £2,000 cap means young graduates are broadly unaffected and in fact, the £2,000 cap means that 90% of graduates under the age of 30 repaying student loans are saving into their pension are completely unaffected by this measure. Both this and the prior set of amendments make a broader point about pension savings and pensions adequacy for these populations.

This is a real challenge for our pension system, but the data is entirely clear that today's salary sacrifice is not the answer. As discussed in earlier stages, salary sacrifice existed in the 2000 and early 20 tens, yet there were falls in private sector pension saving. During that period. There has been a clear consensus throughout our debates that the key factor that has led to an increase in saving in recent years is automatic enrolment. As a result of that, over 22 million workers across the UK are now saving each month.

Although we all share a commitment to improving pensions adequacy, many groups at highest risk of saving, including the self-employed, lower earners and women, are not the most likely to benefit from salary sacrifice. Only 1 in 5 self-employed people saves into a pension, but they are entirely excluded from salary sacrifice. Low earners are most likely not to be saving, but higher earners are more likely to be using salary sacrifice. Many women are saving for retirement, but many more men use pension salary sacrifice.

The pensions tax relief system remains hugely generous, and there remains significant incentives to save into a pension for £70 billion of income tax and National Insurance contributions, relief that the government currently provides on pension each year will be entirely unaffected by these changes. Turning now to amendments seeking to impact seeking an impact assessment on small and medium sized enterprises and charities, the government agrees on the importance of supporting small and medium sized businesses and charities, but small businesses are much less likely to use salary sacrifice than larger businesses.

Furthermore, the £2,000 cap means that 90% of employees in SMEs making pension contributions through salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. Indeed, the largest benefits from uncapped salary sacrifice accrue to larger businesses, not smaller ones. In practice, the changes in this bill will help level the playing field between small businesses and their larger competitors. The amendment also requires assessment of the expected impact on business and compliance costs. This analysis is already set out in the Tax Information and Impact Note I set

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out in this document. The administration of this measure is Is estimated to result in a one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is estimated to result in a one off cost of £75 and an ongoing £99 per business per year for those using salary sacrifice. The government recognises that these changes will impact those currently using salary sacrifice. That's why we chose a long lead in time of April 2029, to give employers maximum time to prepare for these. As mentioned previously, HMRC are engaging with employers, payroll providers and software developers to deliver the changes in the most suitable way with fewest administrative burdens for businesses of all sizes who use salary sacrifice.

For the reasons I have set out, I respectfully ask, the noble Baroness does not move her amendments. I beg to move.
21:06
21:06
21:06
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
brought forward today reflect a concern raised by many noble Lords at report. Crucially, that the at report. Crucially, that the government have not undertaken the necessary analysis to understand how this Bill will affect basic how this Bill will affect basic rate taxpayers. Those repaying student loans and SMEs and charities. The most worrying thing about this bill is that it will reduce the incentive to save, particularly among the less well paid. Whether Ministers like it or not, it strikes at the heart of this and will inevitably reduce pension adequacy.

The noble Lord, the Minister, has himself admitted that many of those paying the basic rate of tax, and even some earning under £30,000 a year will be affected. Not only will the bill affect savers and pensions adequacy, it will also impose costs on businesses and charities. The detail on these points is concerning, seriously lacking. So I come to our three amendments in lieu and the three consequential amendments dealing with Northern Ireland. These require a proper assessment of the projected economic and behavioural impact of this policy on these three groups and crucially, this work is carried out, has to be carried out before the act comes into force.

So first, basic rate taxpayers, there is a very well real concern that this policy will reach far beyond those it is ostensibly aimed at. Individuals are modest incomes. Those paying tax at the basic rate may find themselves drawn into its effects. They are ordinary working people, often making careful decisions about how much they can afford to save. Yet we have not seen a clear assessment of how their net incomes will be affected, how their pension saving behaviour may change or what this will mean for the adequacy of their retirement incomes.

Second, those repaying student loans, the interaction between salary sacrifice, pension contributions and student loan repayments is not straightforward. There is a real risk here that some individuals repaying student loans could face higher effective deductions from their income. Altered incentives around saving for retirement. Our amendments would ensure that the government properly assess the impact of these interactions. And finally, small and medium sized enterprises and charities, the backbone of our economy and our communities. They operate with limited margins and administrative capacity and limited administrative capacity.

Changes to employment costs, compliance, compliance requirements all remuneration structures can have tangible effects on hiring, on wages and on growth. The government must be able to answer these questions by how much will this bill increase their costs? Will it change employment practices? Will it have an impact on wage growth or the critical area of job creation? This bill would change how people save, how employers structure pay, and how organisations make decisions. Our amendments simply require that the government should set out clearly and transparently what the effects are expected to be.

They offer the government a constructive way forward and would seem to get round the problem of financial privilege in responding. It would be helpful if the noble Lord, the Minister, could explain more clearly precisely why these provisions do not come into force until 2029. It looks like this matter is regarded by the government not as a serious measure, but as a nasty present to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their successors. Well said. The original question was that motion be agreed to? Since when motion A1 has been moved as an amendment to motion A at ends, amendment to motion A at ends, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion A1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore, is that motion A1 be agreed to. My Lords, I'll speak briefly to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'll speak briefly to this group of amendments and in lieu. And I'm grateful to my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe for returning these issues to the House. Despite the very disappointing decision to cloak all our previous amendments in the financial
21:10
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
privilege. And I can tell the noble Lord, the Minister, that up and down the country, SME businesses are horrified by this. They've had are horrified by this. They've had a wall of difficult legislation sent their way, such as the National Insurance Increase and National Insurance Increase and Employment Rights Bill. So they haven't focussed on this. But to those I talk to who focus their those I talk to who focus their mind on it, they are very unhappy, to say the least. With this, the possibility of this bill affecting possibility of this bill affecting their business.

I want to focus on one particular issue, and we've heard repeatedly in recent weeks that the position facing graduates repaying student loans is simply not fair. For those on plan two loans in particular, the picture is particularly stark an anaemic jobs market, high rents, high living costs. And on top of that, what amounts to a 9% graduate tax with interest rates of around 6.2%, meaning that for many, full repayment is not possible. And I urge the noble Lords Minister and others to speak to their children or their grandchildren, and they will tell them this, that there is this.

They are put off by this bill. This policy now risks making matter. Worse, it threatens to increase the effective burden on graduates precisely when they're trying to do the right thing, saving for their retirement through salary sacrifice. They see the costs that are ahead of them when they retire. For many particularly recent graduates, disposable income is already stretched to the limit with rents and cost of living, so they have little scope to save beyond auto enrolment minimum, which, as we've heard, is insufficient to provide savings for their for their longer, longer life.

If the government undermined the salary sacrifice regime, they risk entrenching a generation who simply cannot afford to save enough for their retirement. So in conclusion, that's why this amendment from my noble friend matters. It asks the government to do what they should have already done properly. Assess the impact on this policy of student loans, and I don't think anything the noble or the Minister said specifically addressed the issue of the impact on students. I didn't see any of the explanatory notes or anywhere else.

It may have been because they didn't think it affected it or they didn't realise it, but it hasn't been done. So in the absence of that work, the least the government can do is pause and consider the long term consequences before pressing ahead. The Treasury now has the opportunity and the responsibility to get this right. I urge the noble Lords Minister and all other peers to do so.
21:13
21:14
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise also to support these. >> Four amendments, and had it been permitted, ping pong would have added my name. I'm going to be very added my name. I'm going to be very brief, but. We are all aware that the OBR forecasts for the impact of this bill are presented with a high degree of uncertainty that we discovered through a freedom of Information applications. My Lords, under that circumstance, you would think that an impact assessment was the logical response, particularly since there's a time delay to the introduction of this measure.

I would also say, my Lord, sometimes you come across a bill and you just know that the government has a misunderstood what its impacts are going to be and that when it actually is enforced, there will either have to be very dramatic changes or the whole bill will need to be reversed. And frankly, this bill is one of them. My Lords, I'm not going to take up any more of the time of this House, but I do hope that the government understands and realises that this is not a bill that will work in its present form, and that an impact assessment would indeed have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an assistance and not a burden. My Lords, if I may, I'd like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, if I may, I'd like to make the following observations. I was speaking to a young man just was speaking to a young man just yesterday who has done everything he's been encouraged to do. He he's been encouraged to do. He studied well and he has worked and
21:16
Baroness Stedman-Scott Portrait Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
saved in order to put a deposit down on a house. He's been helped by people who've been fortunate enough to make some money and be able to help him, and he has just moved into his first flat in London, and he couldn't be happier. And yesterday he was called into his boss to be told there would be a period of consultation because of all the government's introductions of various taxes and penalties to employers to try and employ people.

And he's now in a very, very difficult and despondent position. So I would just ask the noble Lords Minister, we talk about impact assessments on pension contributions. We talk about impact assessments. Have you any idea? Have you any idea of the impact on these people's lives when they've done everything? That's right. And they're now finding themselves in the most vulnerable positions? This may not be a completely focussed on the amendments that have been laid today, but the principle still the same.

You're creating an anxiety, your, your, your the whole thing is making people wonder what what's the point in trying to better their lives? And I would just ask the noble Lord, think again. Because if we want a country that's robust, if we want a country where people feel everything's to gain, then this is not the way to go about it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, Baroness Stedman-Scott. Extremely brief. I support all these amendments in the name of these amendments in the name of Baroness Neville-Rolfe as a. My main concern is that some basic rate taxpayers will be disincentivized from making pension contributions for that extra 8% contributions for that extra 8% that they're going to pay. And that will take the real advantage that we've seen in auto enrolment. And they will opt out of those schemes
21:18
21:18
21:19
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
for Budget Responsibility publish their Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which provides the OBR's independent scrutiny of the policy independent scrutiny of the policy costing. The OBR also publishes supplementary forecast note, which provided additional information they received prior to last year's they received prior to last year's budget. I would also remind noble Lords that the expected behavioural impacts of this measure have been set out in the policy Costing Note, set out in the policy Costing Note, and both the OBR's Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Supplementary Note.

Both the government and the OBR have been very transparent about the expected behavioural responses by employers and individuals. The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, asked about the 2029 implementation date. As I said already, we chose a long lead in time of April 2029 to give employers maximum time to prepare for the changes. As I've mentioned before, HMRC are engaging with employers, payroll providers and software developers to deliver the changes in the most suitable way, with fewer administrative burdens for businesses of all sizes who use salary sacrifice, the noble Lord Lord Leigh of Hurley spoke about small and medium sized enterprises.

I would just say again, the £2,000 cap means that 90% of employees in SMEs making pension contributions through salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. Noble Lord also mentioned students and he's absolutely right. As I said before, it is right that we focus on outcomes for younger generations, particularly given over the past 14 years. They saw their fees trebled, interest rates increased and maintenance grants scrapped. The £2,000 cap means that 90% of graduates under the age of 30 repaying student loans who are saving into their pension are completely unaffected by this measure.

My Lords, these are fair and balanced reforms. They give employers many years to prepare, and they ensure both our pension system and the public finances are kept on a sustainable footing. The £2,000 cap protects lower earning employees who use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions, and preserves the tax benefit of salary sacrifice for all employees on the first £2,000 of their contributions. Importantly, these changes leave the tax reliefs on regular pension contributions completely untouched. These reliefs are worth £70 billion a year and are available to all workers and employers, not just those who use salary For the reasons I have set out, I respectfully ask the noble Lady.

Baroness never pressed the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I beg to move. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I'm afraid I'm not satisfied with the response from the Minister. You know, particularly on the question of the assessments and behavioural assessments that we've had, they're really not fit for purpose. And so I give notice that I shall seek to test the opinions of the House on motion A1 and if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

successful, on further emotions. The question is that motion A1 be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content content. The question will be decided by division. I will tell the House division. I will tell the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the bar.
21:22
None Portrait Division
-

I I said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excuse Excuse me,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excuse me, Excuse me, my Excuse me, my Lord. Excuse me, my Lord. My Excuse me, my Lord. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excuse me, my Lord. My Lords. Question is that motion A1 be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion A1

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If If not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted. Contents 95 not contents.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

137 so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

137 so. So the not contents have it. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the not contents have it. The question. The question is. The question is that motion a b agreed question is that motion a b agreed to? As many as that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not content. The contents have it. Motion b Lord Livermore. My Lords, I've already spoken to motion B that this House do not insist on its amendment two, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons to a. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. The question is that motion B be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to motion B1 Baroness Neville-Rolfe. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? that this amendment be withdrawn? No. Not moved. I'm sorry. The No. Not moved. I'm sorry. The original. Yes. The original question was that. I'm sorry. The question is that motion B be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Motion c Lord Livermore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've already spoken to motion C to E with the leave of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house, I beg to move them. En bloc. The question is that motion C to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion C to e be agreed to En bloc as many as that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, not content. The contents have it motion f Lord Livermore. My Lords, I've already spoken to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've already spoken to motion f for this House to not insist on its amendment six, to which the Commons have disagreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for their reasons. 6AI beg to move. The question is that motion f be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion f be agreed to motion f1 Baroness Neville-Rolfe. Moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moved. The question is that motion f be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say content. Content the will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it motion g Lord Livermore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it motion g Lord Livermore. My Lords, I've already spoken to motion G that this House do not insist on its amendment seven, to which the Commons have disagreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for their reasons. 7AI beg to move. The question is that motion g be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion g be Neville-Rolfe. Not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. The question is that motion G be agreed to. As many as that opinion agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, not content. The contents have it. Motion h Lord Livermore. My Lords, I've already spoken to motion H. This House do not insist on its amendment eight, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 8AI beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion h b Neville-Rolfe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. The question is that motion H be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion H be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it. Motion C Lord Livermore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, I beg your pardon, sir. J motion J to our Lord Livermore. My Lords, I've already spoken to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've already spoken to motions j to l with the leave of the house, I beg to move them. En bloc the question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

En bloc the question is that motions j to be agreed to. En bloc as many as that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it motion m Lord Livermore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Livermore. My Lords, I've already spoken to motion M that this House do not insist. On its amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for their reasons. 12 A I beg to move. The question is motion and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is motion and the Neville-Rolfe. Not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. The question is that motion M be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents have it. My Lords, a beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the House do now join. That
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page