Lords Chamber

Monday 27th April 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
None Portrait Oral questions: Implementation of the Supreme Court judgement in the For Women Scotland case within Government departments
-

service providers. We expect all duty bearers to follow the law and seek legal advice where necessary,
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
None Portrait Business of the House Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
-

My Lords, that concludes our questions for today. >> My Lords, I thought it would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thought it would be useful to update noble Lords on the plan for business today and plan for business today and tomorrow after the brief business. The name of the Senior Deputy Speaker. Today, the House will consider the messages from the House of Commons on the crime and policing and children's wellbeing and schools bills. Noble Lords will then debate some regulations and an associated motion in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, before taking questions on a statement from the.

For the House of Commons on a recent. On recent antisemitic attacks during the course of today I expect we will also receive messages from the Commons on the English devolution and community empowerment and the pension schemes bills. They will also be considered today after debates on the chemical regulations and the planned statement. Once the messages have arrived and are available in the printed paper office, noble Lords will have one hour to table any motions. The precise deadlines for tabling will be advertised on the Annunciator and via the usual channels.

Once they are known. I would, however, strongly encourage any noble Lord considering tabling to discuss this in advance with the public Bill office. I expect that once the statement concludes, we will be ready to consider the message on the devolution Bill, followed by the message on the Pension Schemes Bill. But if that needs to change, I will update the House via the Annunciator and make further announcements in the chamber as necessary. This may include a burning during pleasure. Also, we await debate.

The messages. Tomorrow, noble Lords will have an opportunity to further scrutinise messages from the House of Commons on all bills left in play after today's debates. Have we sent either the crime of policing or the Children's Wellbeing School Schools Bill back to the other place today? I expect they will be. We will consider those bills and return them to our House later today. The deadline for tabling motions on both these bills will therefore be 11 a.m. tomorrow morning, and they will be considered after Oral Questions.

A further consideration on the devolution of pension Schemes Bill is needed tomorrow. I'll update labour laws and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

plan tomorrow after questions. Lord Roe City of London Markets

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Roe City of London Markets Bill Senior Deputy Speaker My Lords, I beg to move that the. Motion in my name be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion in my name be agreed to. The question is that this motion be agreed to, as many of their opinion will say, content contrary, opinion will say, content contrary, not content The contents have it. This may be an appropriate moment for those who wish to do so to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Consideration Consideration of Consideration of Commons Consideration of Commons reasons and amendments on the Crime and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Policing Bill. The Lord Hanson of Flint. My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason and amendments be
15:23
None Portrait Legislation: Crime and Policing Bill – consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
-

now considered. >> The question is that the Commons
15:23
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
>> The question is that the Commons reasons, reason and amendments be now considered as many as are that opinion will, say content. The opinion will, say content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. Motion a Lord Hanson of Flint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion a in my name, that this House do not insist on its amendment. Two H to insist on its amendment. Two H to Commons amendment two f and its amendment two J to Commons amendment two G, and to agree with amendment two G, and to agree with the Commons and their amendment two K to comment amendment two F and amendment two L to Commons amendment two L to Commons amendment two G in lieu. If that's all clear, I will also speak to all clear, I will also speak to motion B.

My Lords, I very much hope we've had just over 18 months in both houses on this bill, and I very much hope that we're debating now the Crime and Policing Bill. For the very last time. Your Lordships House has quite properly discharged its role as a revising chamber on a number of occasions. We have now asked the Commons to consider and reconsider the two outstanding issues before us today not once, not twice, but on three occasions. The Commons, as it is right, has made its views perfectly clear on the 14th of April, the 20th of April, and again on the 22nd of April, and on each occasion it has rejected the Lords amendments by majorities exceeding 100.

I would suggest respectfully to your Lordships House that the time has come to heed the clearly and repeated, expressed views of the elected House. Now, I know the issue of fixed penalty notices has been one of importance, and I've listened very carefully to the well-made arguments put forward by the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones. Indeed, we've acknowledged some of the concerns he's raised about the actions of some contractors. We've now indeed enshrined in the bill a requirement to issue statutory guidance about the use of fixed penalty notices to enforce public space protection orders and community protection notices.

And we're also committed, and again, thanks to the pressure from the noble Lord and others to issuing such guidance within six months of Royal Assent. And indeed, I've said already, I will share the guidance with the noble Lord before it's issued. And I know the noble Lord is disappointed we've not gone further, but we have concerns, as amendments would effectively terminate the legitimate use of private contractors to enforce anti-social behaviour, civil orders to the detriment of the safety and security of local communities who want to see effective action to tackle anti-social behaviour.

And I also welcome, if I may say so, that when the Bill was again debated in the Commons last Wednesday, Max Wilkinson, speaking for the Liberal Democrat frontbench, indicated that he would not press the issue further. I don't know what the noble Lord will do today, but I hope the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones would similarly now agree to be content and agree. Motion a. Now turning to prescription of the IRGC again, we've had several opportunities to discuss the stall on this matter, and there is little more to be said.

I've been very clear that amendment 439 is not one that the government can accept. But I've also been very clear that this government has and will continue to take strong action to hold the Iranian regime to account by sanctioning Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC, as well as placing Iran on the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. And indeed, the Prime Minister reiterated last week that we're also committed to introduce legislation to provide for a prescription like power to address the threat of hostile activity posed by the state and state linked bodies.

Work on this legislation is well underway. And again, without pre-empting the King's Speech, your Lordships can expect to see more soon. As I've said, the Commons has now endorsed the government's position in voting to reject the Lords amendment on three separate occasions over the past two weeks. There can be no doubt about where the elected House stands on this issue, and I respectfully submit that there is nothing to be gained from sending the amendment back to the Commons. And I hope the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower and the whole House will agree to motion B, but in doing so, I also hope that he will recognise that the government has a strong view on the situation in Iran and on the Iranian regime, and I've outlined what that view is, and I hope with those comments that I beg to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the motion in my name. The question. Is that motion A be agreed to?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that motion A be agreed to? I rise to respond to the government's motion A regarding the government's motion A regarding the issuing of fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour. My Lords, I do thank the Minister for all his I do thank the Minister for all his efforts. He's, throughout this process demonstrated goodwill, but process demonstrated goodwill, but without making any great classical allusions, my Lords, this felt very
15:27
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
much like pushing a boulder uphill. At each stage of this bill's passage. We've had to push the government incredibly hard to recognise the sheer scale of the problem regarding the cowboy enforcement economy that has been enforcement economy that has been preying on the public. However, I am pleased to say that this persistence has finally paid off and genuine progress has been made by accepting the government's latest amendment. Today, we are securing the necessary safeguards through statutory guidance, which must be delivered within six months of Royal Assent, to make sure that local authorities cannot incentivise private contractors to fine for the breach of public space Protection Orders and Community Protection notices.

For far too long, the system has allowed a revenue collection industry to masquerade as justice, with private companies retaining the vast majority of fine income and aggressively targeting people for anodyne actions. With this amendment now in place, our citizens will be much better protected against the cowboys who've sought to abuse these enforcement powers for their own financial gain. Now, my Lords, while the journey to get here has required relentless pressure from these benches and across the House, and I sincerely thank the conservative benches for their solid support throughout.

The outcome is a significant victory for fairness and proportionality in our justice system, and I am content, therefore, to accept the government's latest amendment today. And my Lords, I was pleased to hear that the. From the Minister that the government will share the draft statutory guidance before it is issued. We know roughly what wording the Home Office have in mind that of the DEFRA guidance on litter, but the consultation process on the new guidance will be important, and I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Home Office will consult not only with local government, but also with those who have been instrumental in raising this finding for profit issue during the passage of this bill, such as myself and the campaign for Freedoms in Everyday Life, formerly the Manifesto Club.
15:30
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yes. >> My Lords, on the question of prescription of the IRGC, despite everything that the noble Lord, the Minister has said, I think we're now in something of an Alice in Wonderland world. The Prime Minister has told the media in Minister has told the media in recent days that the government proposes to introduce further legislation to address state threats. Such legislation has been reported by the BBC, among others, as enabling government to ban state related organisations such as the IRGC and the Prime Minister.

Prime Minister says the King's Speech next month will commit to such legislation. Yet the Terrorism Act already permits such a ban by section one four of that act. Terrorist action includes action outside the UK. The public affected includes the public of a country outside the UK and the government affected means the government of another country as well as the government of the UK. So terrorism is specifically international. Section three, as we know, permits the proscription of terrorist organisations without limiting them to UK organisations or UK terrorism, and the government knows this.

As we heard last week, the Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, and the present foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper, herself a former home secretary, both specifically called for proscription of the IRGC while in opposition. Just as we on these benches have consistently called for it as well, and nobody, but nobody has said that there has been no power to proscribe the IRGC because it is state related. The EU, led by France and Italy, Australia, the United States, Canada and several of the Gulf states have all proscribed the IRGC.

Yet the government, despite previous labour policy, has promised Parliament only an anodyne statement about. And I quote the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to the Secretary of State's powers under section three. My Lords, last week the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower called that patronising. My Lords, it is worse than that. Despite their previous policy, the government rely only on the repeated mantra that they will not give a running commentary on decisions on prescription.

My Lords, the IRGC is connected on very substantial evidence, not only to the appalling pressure, oppression and murder of protesters in Iran in December and January, but also to multiple acts of terrorism in the UK and abroad. There are clear links with antisemitic attacks here and elsewhere in Europe and the world, including on synagogues. The UK Maritime Trade Operations Centre, responsible for monitoring and assisting international shipping, has reported on large numbers of attacks on cargo ships in and around the Straits of Hormuz, which are carried out by the IRGC or their connected entities.

We recognise, of course, that the government does have a strong view on the Iranian regime, as the noble Lord rightly said. Yet it is said to Parliament that we are not entitled to an explanation of why the IRGC is not to be prescribed, that we must wait for further legislation targeted as state related organisations for such prescription. Yet if indeed the new legislation is to involve the implementation of the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC. In his recent report, updated in January that was aimed at improving legislation on state threats under the National Security Act and the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act for the prescription of the IRGC under section three of the Terrorism Act, such new legislation is unnecessary and a red herring.

We should continue to demand a proper and timely explanation of what the government intends to do and when subject. We agree, of course, to the provision of confidential information being restricted to the Intelligence and Security Committee. So we support the conservative motion B1 and if the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower does wish to test the opinion of the House, we will vote for his motion. Yeah. The Lord Donoughue.
15:34
15:36
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, we. Return to this >> My Lords, we. Return to this highly important. Matter once again. >> I know the. >> Government will not appreciate this, but it is our duty in this this, but it is our duty in this House to hold them to account for their promises. The Labour Party committed one in opposition to prescribing the IRGC. They have now voted against this six times. On Wednesday, the Minister for Policing and Crime, Sarah Jones, said, and I quote, we are reaching the stage where the issue before the House is no longer the detail of the various Lords amendments, but whether the unelected Lords should continue to disregard the clearly and unequivocally expressed views of the House of Commons and delay the enactment of the Bill, unquote.

My Lords, I take particular exception to this. It is wrong and entirely incorrect to claim that this House is somehow acting inappropriately. There is nothing out of the ordinary for this House to insist on an issue as important as this. And I remind the noble Lord, the Minister, how many rounds of ping pong we had on the safety of Rwanda. Bill. This House sent the bill back to the Commons five times. That is not criticism, but a fact. It is this House's right to do so.

What is not acceptable is to have Ministers in this government seeking to delegitimize the important work of this House, and I hope the government will reflect on that. There has been a consistent thread of criticism of this amendment from the government that I would like to address. The noble Lord, the Minister said last week the government do not provide a running commentary on which organisations are being considered for prescription, but this completely misunderstands the argument. I am not asking the noble Lord, the Minister, to give a running commentary on prescription.

I am not asking the government to air sensitive information in public. All I'm asking is for the government to actually get on with it and prescribe the IRGC. The Minister does not need to provide a running commentary. He just needs to agree the amendment. I do note that there has been some progress. Now, the Prime Minister himself said on Friday that the government will move to prescribe the IRGC in a new session. So it seems the Prime Minister is now willing to give us a running commentary on organisations being considered for prescription.

That is good news, providing he remains in post, of course, and I do welcome. The government has finally remembered the promises they made in opposition. It is testament to the determined campaigning on this matter from organisations around the country and from opposition parties in this Parliament. However, why has it taken the government so long? It is an incomprehensible position. They have had ample opportunity now, during the passage of this bill, to simply say what the Prime Minister said on Friday. This is disappointing, but regardless of that, the government has said that they will now move to proscribe the IRGC and all that remains is to press the Minister on timelines.

This cannot wait for months and months. We are all united in our support for this. I have sought an assurance from when the government will bring forward the legislation. Unfortunately, the government have refused to tell us when they will do this. My Lords, this is completely unacceptable at a time when we need strong and decisive leadership in the national interest. We have a government and a Prime Minister who take months to make a decision, and once they have made that decision, then can't even commit to a basic deadline.

We have seen this time and time again with the government refusal to give Parliament even the most basic of assurances on when they will do things they had promised to do. So, my Lords, it is time for the government to put its money where its mouth is and get on with the promises they made. And it is with some trepidation that I accept what the noble Lord, the Minister has said. But be sure that we will hold the government to account again.
15:39
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I wasn't quite sure at the end >> I wasn't quite sure at the end of that whether the noble Lord was intending to press his amendment or intending to press his amendment or not, but the noble Lord said he'd let me know in a moment. It's very, very gracious. I'll. I'll keep. I'll keep an eye out for it. I'm pleased in some way that we've made some progress. I'm grateful to the noble Lord Clement-Jones for his pragmatic approach. I know he would have liked the government to have gone further on the issue of fixed penalty notices.

I know they'll be holding me to account on the question of statutory guidance and the monitoring, but I hope we've we've achieved some form of settlement, and I'm grateful for him for agreeing that form of settlement today. Now, on the question of prescription, I'm not quite clear whether the noble Lord intends to push his amendment. But let me just say to him this. The elected House has made its views known on a number of occasions now by significant majorities. It has made its views known, supporting the arguments that I've deployed in this House.

The arguments I've deployed are that we don't give a running commentary on prescription, and I just point in aid, if I may. The noble Lord Pannick has just said a moment ago that the Prime Minister said last week, we understand the need for action. The second session starts very shortly, and we will be looking to bring forward this legislation as soon as we can. And by this legislation he means the legislation, which is not the running commentary on prescription under 2000 powers.

It's on the potential for a revised state threats prescription like regime, as recommended by Jonathan Fisher QC, a KC Jonathan Hall Jonathan Hall. I've got my fingers in my holes. I've Jonathan Hall KC in his report to the government recently, so we can't anticipate what the King's Speech is going to say. But I'm saying to the noble Lord today that the Prime Minister has said, and I'll just repeat for clarity, we understand the need for action. The second session starts very shortly, and we're looking forward to bringing legislation forward.

I say also to the noble Lord Marks of Henley that he's made his strong case for prescription. But I put to him that the government has made its view clear. The government will share information with the ISC in due course on the state threats, but we're not going to comment on prescription on a random deadline set by a motion in this House, without the full facts being examined in a public way as to what the government want to do on this particular issue, as we have in the past on organisations for prescription, we've tabled motions in both Houses of Parliament.

We've argued why we've wanted a table, those motions, and we've done that with no foreknowledge to the organisations we're seeking to prescribe. That's under the 2000 act. My noble. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said what he said on the visit to the synagogue last week, and I would hope that the noble Lord Davies of Gower will give the government the opportunity to fulfil that, because, as the noble Lord Pannick has said, we will be held to account on a article of faith in relation to what the Prime Minister has said in due course, but I cannot today in this House either give an agreement to proscribe the IRGC within the timescale that the noble Lord has put in his motions.

Nor can I pre-empt the King's speech, because that is what the King's speech is for later next month. So I would hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord Davies of Gower would not move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his amendment. And again, I beg to move the motion standing in my name. The question is that motion A be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion A be agreed to as many as are that opinion will say content. The opinion will say content. The contrary not content, but contents have it motion B, the Lord Hanson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it motion B, the Lord Hanson of Flint. I just. Motion be. And yes, my Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion be. And yes, my Lords, I've already spoken to motion B that this House do not insist on its amendments four three, nine E and 439 F and do agree with the Commons in their amendment 439 C and 439 D and I beg to move.
15:44
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
The question is the motion be be agreed to motion B one the Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Davies of Gower. Also wish to thank the opposition parties for their opposition parties for their support in this, and particularly the Liberal Democrats, for their unswerving support and appreciation unswerving support and appreciation of the seriousness of the issue. I would have preferred to have had something more positive from the something more positive from the Minister. However, as I say, we will hold government to account, but for now I beg leave to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the. Be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question, therefore, is that motion be be agreed to as many as are that if anyone say content, the contrary not content, the contents have it. Again. Consideration. Thank you so much. Consideration of Commons reasons and amendments on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The Baroness Smith of Malvern.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is not present. My Lords, as we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, as we. Are, I think are still awaiting the Minister. We move a little fast on that bill and we were expecting. on that bill and we were expecting. So perhaps we might adjourn on pleasure for a five minutes until

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister arrives. Question is of the House. Do adjourn during pleasure for five adjourn during pleasure for five minutes. As many as of that opinion they. Content of the contrary, not
15:45
None Portrait House Adjourned During Pleasure until 15:50
-

15:51
15:52
None Portrait Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - consideration of Commons amendments Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-

its amendments. 38 V to 38 X to Commons amendment 38 J, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do the Commons have disagreed, and do propose amendments 38 Z 1 to 38 z nine to Commons amendments 38 J and nine to Commons amendments 38 J and 38 K in lieu of amendments 38 V to 38 X, and I'll also speak to motions A, one, A, two, B, C and C one. My Lords, in this group we will be debating amendments made in this House and in the other place relating to a social media ban for under 16 seconds mobile phones in schools and school admissions.

And before getting into the details of the motions and amendments before us, on behalf of my noble friend, Lady Lloyd of Effra myself, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have engaged with US ministerial colleagues and departmental officials throughout the bill's passage, and particularly can I say, during this rather fast paced bit of ping pong that we are now engaged in. We are, of course, at the. Hopefully at the very end of this parliamentary session. And today brings us to the third round of ping pong on this important bill.

That is beyond the point that the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord Lord True, is generally seen as the juncture at which the unelected House should give way to the House of Commons. Noble Lords will be familiar with my history as a member of, and a ministerial office holder in the other place. That House has now spoken clearly on the matters before us on multiple occasions, endorsing the government's alternative proposals. But I do recognise now that I'm a member in this place, that that perhaps one of the advantages of noble Lords is the ability to scrutinise in detail and to push successfully for revision of government proposals.

And I think we have seen that throughout the course of the consideration of this bill because, for example, for each of the issues we are debating again this afternoon, the government has recognised the strength of feeling expressed both here and in the other place, and we have responded on each one. I want to start by setting out the important package of amendments that the government has tabled to better protect children online. Once again, I am grateful for the constructive debate and committed engagement of noble Lords on this.

In light of these discussions, we have strengthened our position. Responding directly to your Lordship's concerns about urgency, scope and parliamentary scrutiny, and to put beyond any doubt that this government will act in a way that responds to the concerns of your Lordships' House, we have now gone further still. Under my motion, we are placing a clear statutory requirement that the Secretary of State must, rather than may act following the consultation. This removes any question of whether action will follow, while rightly allowing the detail of that action to be shaped by the evidence and by those most affected.

The parents and children who have already responded to the consultation in their thousands. The government has now also committed to a timeline. On the face of the Bill. I am aware that there has been some commentary on this proposed timeline over the weekend, and I would therefore like to set out our position very clearly to inform the debate that is to follow. My Lords, this government is committed to moving as quickly as possible on this important issue. The timeline set out in our power is a ceiling, not a target.

I recognise there are particular concerns regarding the inclusion of an option for the Secretary of State to further extend the timeline. To be clear, this extension would only be deployed in exceptional, unforeseen circumstances that prevent the government from meeting the original deadline. This is not a means of delaying regulation, but a measure of last resort, only to be used if absolutely necessary. Noble Lords should therefore think of the implementation timescale as 24 months at the outside, rather than any longer, and remain mindful of my earlier remarks around this being a ceiling, not a target.

We have also listened carefully to concerns about harmful and potentially addictive design features. As noble Lords will know, the consultation seeks views on restrictions to addictive features and functionalities, and we have therefore tabled a further amendment, specifically requiring the Secretary of State to have due regard to such features when deciding how to exercise the power, ensuring these risks are properly addressed. On the face of the legislation, I hope noble Lords will recognise that, taken together, these changes demonstrate the government's determination to proceed with this work and to do so in a manner that meets the concerns raised across both houses.

They provide certainty of action, a clear timetable and stronger recognition of harmful and addictive design. This is a balanced, evidence led approach that protects children now and remains fit for the digital challenges ahead. I hope that noble Lords will recognise this as a credible and responsible landing point, and support the government's amendment to deliver strong, effective and decisive action. Turning now to motion a one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which insists on the same amendment that was brought to the House last week and amends government amendment 38 J.

It requires the Secretary of State to restrict under 16 s from accessing user to user services, or restrict specific features or functionalities. When making these regulations. I want to thank the noble Lord again and his supporters for this sustained focus on these vital issues. Protecting children online is not a point of difference between us. It is a shared priority and one this government is determined to deliver on. I welcome the progress already made and the constructive way in which noble in which the noble Lords amendment now reflects the government's approach.

However, the government consultation and the legislative means in the government's amendment are the most responsible way to get this right, ensuring effective outcomes for children that will last. The noble Lords amendment also specifies the age of 16 for restrictions. We cannot place an under 16 age limit on the face of the Bill. Doing so would require the government to act before the evidence gathering process is complete, and would pre-empt the consultation. A consultation that has already received over 55,000 responses demonstrating the public's desire to shape the government's approach.

And it is right that we listen to them. We recognise that many restrictions may be appropriate for age 16. There may also be specific interventions better suited for those over 16. Many members of this House have rightly recognised that children of different ages interact with these services differently, and this is why the government power now specifically acknowledges this. The noble Lords amendment would therefore limit the scope of the protection we can deliver on. That said, there is now significant common ground.

We agree on the direction of travel. We agree on the need for urgent and responsible action to protect children online. We agree that it is something we must get right. And let me reassure your Lordships House. The government's amendment provides the most effective way to secure robust and lasting protection regarding the part of the noble Lords Amendment on supporting children's understanding of user to user services. 214 C as I think I. I emphasise the last time we discussed this, the government's response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review sets out how the revised curriculum will take forward recommendations to strengthen media literacy, to enable young people to critically engage with the messages they encounter through different media channels, and ensure that they can identify and challenge mis and disinformation.

Media literacy will be embedded in the new primary citizenship curriculum and strengthened across relevant subjects. Recent updates to relationships, sex and health education guidance now also include content on AI and deepfakes. It explains how social media works and provides guidance on countering sexual health misinformation. For example, the updated guidance will actually be used in schools from this September September 2026. Turning to motion a two proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. This amends the government's power to require age restrictions to be placed on all providers of internet services.

If a number of specific requirements are not adhered to. It also proposes changes to the national curriculum. New criminal offences for non-compliant services, a new legal right for a child to not be subject to harm, and a review of Ofcom's enforcement powers. Once again, I thank the noble Lady for her continued commitment to children's safety and rights, and the government shares her desire to ensure children can have safe and age appropriate experiences online. The noble Ladies Amendment actually highlights many of the areas which the government has sought views on through its consultation, including features such as infinite scroll, autoplay and communication with strangers.

The cumulative effect of the factors requiring restriction and the heavy penalties for failure to comply mean that, in effect, children under the appropriate age would be taken off the internet entirely. As I have already explained, the government cannot accept proposals which would pre-empt the consultations outcomes while supporting the noble Lady's aim to support children's understanding of how to be safe online. The government already has a programme of work on this through media literacy and the curriculum. Moreover, her proposals to create new criminal offences for failure to comply risks creating unnecessary legal complexity that overlaps with the existing regime.

Under the Online Safety Act, which already includes criminal offences for senior managers in specific circumstances. The government also considers that the enforcement of any new regulatory requirements should be for a regulator, rather than for parents and guardians to seek through the courts. Placing responsibility for enforcement will be complex, cumbersome and expensive, and it will also benefit only the few children who have parents or guardians willing to spend the significant resources required to pursue these claims. Where potential criminal activity is being threatened and there are imminent risks, that is also a matter for the police.

Finally, she proposes a review of Ofcom's enforcement powers within six months of Royal Assent. My Lords, the Online Safety Act already includes a statutory review of Ofcom's powers, and it would be unnecessary and duplicative for a new review to be introduced. At this stage. Turning to motion C this stage. Turning to motion C relating to amendment 106. And motion C one table tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, in which amends Government amendment 106 G to 106 J and seeks to prohibit the use of and access to smartphones during the school day.

I'd like to start by thanking the noble Lady for meeting with the Minister in the DfE this afternoon. The Minister Lord Bailey, made it clear that we all have the same ambition here. Children should not have access to mobile phones at any point in the school day. The noble Lady rightly raises the point of schools who have never seen, never heard policies which can in practice allow children to access their phones during the school day. We share this concern, which is why we updated the soon to be statutory guidance to be explicit that pupils should, and I quote, not have access to their mobile phones throughout the school day, including during lessons.

The time between lessons, break times and lunch times. This new guidance was just launched earlier this year and is from this month being underpinned by Ofsted inspections. With schools struggling to meet the expectations being supported by our attendance and behaviour hubs. I am also happy to confirm that we will continue to push this new guidance through our rise teams and regional directors to ensure all schools and trusts understand what our expectations on them are. We will, of course, monitor the impact of this guidance through a range of surveys and data collection, including our National Behaviour Survey and our omnibus surveys.

We will keep the guidance under close review and update as needed as we review the impact. For example, on the National Behaviour Survey, because we have the same ambition that pupils should not have access to their phones at any point in the day. We must trust head teachers who know their schools, their pupils and their contexts better than any of us in either this house or the other place to choose a way of delivering that outcome that works for them.

But I hope that provides some reassurance to the noble Lady about our shared objective and the ways in which we have already made it much clearer to schools, what the clear expectation of the government is, and the range of support and accountability that we will put in place. Turning finally to motion B, which relates to amendment 102, tabled in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Barran amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the independent adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number or Pan.

Following an upheld objection. I know, and we have heard during the course of the debate, and once again, this is an objective that we share that all children that we want to ensure that all children can access a great local school. We have been clear that we want good schools to offer more places where this is right for the local area, and that school quality and parental choice must be at the heart of any decisions on Pan. The amendments in lieu tabled in the other place reflect this.

They place a requirement on the face of the Bill for adjudicators to take account of school quality and parental preference. They will also require the adjudicator before making a decision to reduce a school's Pan, to consult key parties about alternatives to lowering the school's admissions number. This includes the admission authority, the local authority and now the Secretary of State, which in practice will mean consulting the relevant DfE regional director. Our proposed framework is clear that reducing places at good schools should always be a last resort, but it is right that the adjudicator can make decisions that are right for the local context, such as reflecting the significant challenges placed on schools in this period of falling rolls.

Our measure helps ensure that all children can access a great local school. We will ensure a robust decision making framework is in place to protect high quality education, and will continue to engage with stakeholders, including the Confederation of School Trusts, on this measure, including proposed changes to regulation and the School Admissions Code. To conclude, my Lords, this is now the third round of ping pong. I hope that noble Lords, who may have been frustrated at a lack of progress previously, can now see that the government is attempting to reach a reasonable compromise, and I hope that noble Lords and colleagues will recognise and welcome this, and in so doing, endorse the positions of the elected House and allow this Bill to be brought to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conclusion as soon as possible, I move. The question is that motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion be agreed to. Motion A one Lord Nash my Lord, inform the House that if my Lord, inform the House that if motion A one is agreed to, I will not be able to call motion a two by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reason of pre-emption. Lord Nash I. Rise to speak to motion a one. And my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And my. Amendment on social media. My Lords discussions have taken place with the government and I thank them for their engagement. However, we have not yet reached an agreement and I will be putting the matter to a vote today. I note the
16:10
Lord Nash Portrait Lord Nash (Conservative)
-
-
change of the word may to must, but the must is a must not to do the must is a must not to do anything very specific. But I do believe, based on the statements that the Prime Minister has made, that the Prime Minister has made, we are at one on the features of social media that should not be social media that should not be available for children. The Prime Minister has said, and I quote the algorithms clearly to my mind, should not be permitted.

They must go. Things can't go on like this. They must change. Because right now, social media is putting our children at risk. I don't think the next generation would forgive us if we didn't act now. My government will not leave parents to face this battle alone. There's an overwhelming case and that's why we have to act. We've taken the powers to make sure we can act within months, not years. But the government's new amendment gives them 36 months to lay the first regulations.

My Lords, I understand that Ministers are arguing in the other place that they need three years to lay the first regulations because they fear the possibility of a judicial review, though they have not explained by whom or why. The reality is that a judicial review would not be brought until the government announces its plans and publishes draft regulations, there's always a risk of judicial review when making regulations. But if the government specify in clear terms on the face of the bill what they intend to do, there's a much reduced risk of J.R.

If an Act of Parliament requires the government to act in a particular way, the courts cannot and will not intervene. Parliament is sovereign indeed, where the government. To accept my proposals, which would put greater detail onto the face of the Bill about matters. We appear to be agreed on about how and when Ministers must raise the age for access to certain social media features. They would substantially reduce. They would substantially reduce the chance of a judicial review, insisting on that vague discretionary powers only increases the risk for Ministers.

My Lords, if I may, just some evidence that I've recently come across from the recent social media cases, meta staff discussing how Instagram, a meta platform, is a drug and quotes where basically pushes. Meta's own testing, found that its algorithms were recommending nearly four times as many children to suspected groomers as to ordinary adults. Close to 2 million minors in three months, with 22% of those recommendations resulting in a follow up request and indeed a safety manager get put the number at 500 000 victims of inappropriate interactions with a child per day in English speaking markets alone.

And my Lords, one can now buy online an AI agent which enables a male adult to pretend to be a girl, contact a young boy through social media, persuade him to send new images of himself, then blackmail him. Sextortion, which resulted in a number of suicides by young boys and one social media site well known, is particularly the medium for this. My Lords, concerning the government's proposals on must not May. You can't use curfews or time limits to tackle harmful precision engineered algorithms and addictive features.

If they're harmful, they're harmful. And as the Prime Minister said, you cannot expect parents to deal with this on their own. If they focus on parental controls, it will only exacerbate the conflicts that we know already take place every night in households across the country. As I say, I have spoken with the government and I'm here later today and tomorrow to do a deal. I've told them that if they will just put on the face of the bill, that they will raise the age to a minimum of 16 for just and only those aspects of social media, harmful algorithmic, addictive features or features that could expose children to serious loss of privacy or contact from strangers.

The two features that the Prime Minister, Liz Kendall, and the government has already said they will deal with just those features, which I don't believe anybody could have an issue with, then I would accept that. I would also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

understand an additional conditional force majeure period. To cater.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To cater. For, for instance, a war or a pandemic. And I'd also accept a pandemic. And I'd also accept a condition that the government would not have to put this into effect if, following their consultation, the CMOs and the medical royal colleges both advised the Secretary of State both advised the Secretary of State that these measures would be more likely to do more harm than good for children under the age of 16. My Lords, it will be such a small step for the government to say that following these dreadful game changing US social media cases and the very recently increased awareness of the potentially even worse dangers of AI chatbots and companions, that they're now going to focus their consultation on how to raise the age to 16 for just those features of social media.

And not wet. How? Not not whether, but but how and what to do about the other features of social media, and to continue to explore the very worrying area of AI, chatbots and companions, gaming and VPNs and all the other areas that they're very broad consultations, covers, and the consultation would still have a role to confirm that the proposals I'm putting forward would be effective. My Lords, if we were to lose another child to features which facilitate predatory extortionists or to grotesque algorithmic bombarding, which I'm afraid can only be a matter of time.

I've heard from lawyers that legal action against government Ministers for their negligence, and failing to act on the evidence, could well be successful under article two of the Human Rights Act, following the Money Worries report that was not fully recommended on and following the US social media cases. And I'm sure that's not something the government wants. My Lords, the government has acted decisively on pornography. New defaecation, intimate image abuse, cyber flashing, preservation of data after the death of a child and a number of other areas.

They should be applauded for this. And now I am applaud them to act on this matter. It's one small step between us. But in the meantime, my Lords, I must urge you to vote for my amendment once again today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. The original question was that motion A be agreed to, was that motion A be agreed to, since when motion A one has been moved as an amendment to motion A moved as an amendment to motion A to leave out from house to end and to leave out from house to end and insert to insist on its amendments 38 B and 38 X to Commons amendment 38 J. The question, therefore, is that motion a one be agreed to.

I rise.
16:19
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
To speak to. before I do, I just wish to say that if the noble Lady Baron does decide to divide the house on C one, decide to divide the house on C one, I shall be supporting her. But I'm hopeful that some other accommodation has been made. My accommodation has been made. My Lords, amendment A two is deliberately drafted so that a successful vote for the noble Lord Nash amendment a one will automatically pre-empt it. That is intentional, and I wish to be clear at the outset that I will be voting for a one alongside the noble Lord Nash.

Indeed, we can be seen as a bit of a double act with the amendment that the noble Lord Nash is putting forward, capturing the urgent need for action and my amendment, providing a more comprehensive outline of what action should look like. My Lords, we're at something of an end game this week. I have in front of me a chart that compares amendments a, a, a one and a two, and I would be very happy to send it to any noble Lord who wishes to see it.

It shows clearly that government amendment A fails to address key risks identified by Ofcom's Register of risk. Nor does it totally tackle additional risks identified by the companies themselves. It shows clearly that government amendment fails to address the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The fundamental issue of enforcement, without. Which none of this really matters, because Ofcom will get matters, because Ofcom will get more duties without having the power to enforce them. It shows clearly that the government clearly that the government amendment fails to address the need for parents to have somewhere to go for parents to have somewhere to go when their child is in risk of harm. And I was very disappointed to hear And I was very disappointed to hear the noble Lady, the Minister, in her opening remarks, talking about parents going to the police.

When I explained at such great length, when the government overturned chatbot amendments, that when a family goes to the police, they say there is no perpetrator here. The police cannot deal with chatbots. And, my Lords, it shows clearly and quite astonishingly that the government has no sense of urgency. The government amendment gives them three years to introduce measures. And if that was not so egregious, it would be quite funny that they have given themselves their entire term of office to bring forward duties that then we do not believe are possible to properly enforce, and all with no role for Parliament.

As I said to the House last week, that the online world is more dangerous for children than it was two years ago. Yet the government have refused to engage with the substance of my concerns. So amendment A two offers a guide for what they should be doing. It is indeed bound by the scope of this bill, but it would be a phenomenal start. The amendment builds upon the noble Lord Nash amendment, which will rightly pass again today. Every aspect of the noble Lords amendment is covered in a.

Two also. Equally, there is nothing in it that precludes the government using what it learns from its consultation. In effect, amendment A two offers the government something meaningful to offer in lieu of what I hope and believe will be Lord Nash's triumph today. The government says that they need the timeline to perfect the details and get this right. But my Lords, this is a double standard. They have no such concerns for the detail when rolling out data centres, AI in classrooms, giving away creators copyright, putting valuable data sets and government service straight into the pockets of US companies.

But when it comes to children, they are overwhelmed by caution and deaf to the cries of pain from parents, teachers and the demand of children themselves for action. And my Lords, the noble Lady, the Minister said in her opening statement that these matters that the government amendments would make changes now. Well. Which now? Which change? They've given themselves 30 months to make those changes. My Lords, amendment A two is not aspirational. It sets out the provisions we need for children to be safe online.

It requires action within eight months. The prevention of sycophantic, manipulative and exploitative features, compliance with both Ofcom's and the ICO children's codes that all risks identified by Ofcom register of risks. Additional risks identified by the services are mitigating. No safe harbour. Mandatory data access for researchers. Education for under 16. It allows 17 year olds, a particularly vulnerable group, as they go out into their adult life, to have some consideration from Parliament, from Ofcom, from government to their safety.

And it brings in executive liability for senior individuals with companies injunctive relief. So parents have someone to go where the child is at immediate risk of harm. Individual redress and a review of Ofcom's enforcement powers, including its business disruption powers, within six months. And again, I say to the noble Lady, the Minister, if the review is within scope, then bring it forward, make it happen. There has been a single fine paid under the OSA of £50,000. Please do not tell the House that enforcement is going to work as it does as as it is now.

My Lords, if we are not here to protect children, then why are we here? Whose moral compass are we following? Whose interests are we serving and what outcome are we all working towards? I am a crossbench peer who on this issue sadly does not enjoy the support of the official opposition in the other place, nor of the government in power. Both of those facts are a cause for immense disappointment. But it is not me, but children who are going to pay this price.

My Lords, I said to the House during the debate on chatbots. If we fail to protect children, we would see more children die and we failed. Today I have put this on the record so we all, each one of us, understand the price of our inaction.
16:26
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> I rise to speak in strong support of motion a two tabled by support of motion a two tabled by the noble Baroness Kidron. As I said on the last occasion when we debated this bill, we are united in debated this bill, we are united in our objective in this House to protect children online, yet we still differ on how to achieve it. Baroness Kidron amendment represents the precise, workable and robust framework our children so desperately need.

Now, my Lords, while we welcome on these benches, we welcome recent concessions and I do thank the Ministers for the noble Baroness Smith of Malvern and the noble Baroness Lloyd of EFRA for their engagement. My Lords, the government's core, such as the must rather than may duty. The government's core approach remains flawed. The government continues to cling to sweeping Henry, the Eighth powers that allowed them to amend primary legislation via secondary regulations, bypassing full parliamentary debate. My Lords, we need a sunset clause to ensure that this power is not abused in the future.

The current proposal of up to three years, possibly to implement regulations is simply unacceptable. We believe on these benches the timeline is the critical issue. Our aspiration is a six plus six model, six months for a progress statement and six months for regulations, rather than the protracted window currently offered. The government is focusing on regulating user access rather than addressing the toxic nature of thems recognise the new reference to feature penalties in the government's amendments. But they avoid referring to addiction and do not include a list of prohibited features, nor to manipulative features such as penalties for non engagement or interaction with AI companions.

And finally, we are concerned about the enforcement of the Online Safety Act and whether these provisions would be robustly enforceable. My Lords, will the government promise a review? The last time the Bill was in the House, I expressed our considerable respect for the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and his campaign. However, his central mechanism is a near blanket ban for under 16 seconds and we on these benches favour a more proportionate approach. A total ban of this sort risks a creator creating a dangerous cliff edge, where children are suddenly exposed to an unfiltered internet at 16, without having developed digital resilience.

Accidental accidentally blocking essential safe services like educational platforms or Wikipedia. Motion A2 offers the safety by design alternative that we on these benches strongly endorse. These amendments require tech companies to fundamentally rewrite their code to remove harmful features. The key strengths of Baroness Kidron's amendment three eight Z ten include specific prohibitions explicitly targeting addictive design features that hijack a child's attention include infinite scrolling, autoplay, AI companions, and push notifications during the school day or at night.

It moves beyond assessing risks to explicitly identifying and banning the architectural hooks of social media. It introduces a private right of action, as the noble Baroness explained, allowing children who suffer harm to seek court orders against non-compliant providers. And it mandates review of Ofcom's enforcement powers to ensure that they are fit for purpose in protecting children. So, my Lords, while the government proposes a framework essentially for monitoring addictive features, the noble Baroness Kidron and I do pay tribute to her, my Lords, for her persistence in this campaign.

My Lords proposes a framework for dismantling them, backed by direct legal recourse for families harmed by design. We do recognise, however, the political reality that the noble Lord Nash's amendment commands significant support in the House. We. On these benches, the Liberal Democrats prefer the proportionate approach of the noble Baroness Kidron. However, to ensure the government makes the necessary concessions, we will vote for the noble Lord Nash's motion as a means of maintaining leverage until the government agrees to a tighter, more effective framework.

My Lords, we will not accept a timeline that gives platforms years to comply. If the government wants to avoid further deadlock, they must return with a package that incorporates a tight timeline. Constraints on Henry VII's powers Baroness Kidron vital safety by design mechanisms, and much greater assurance on enforcement by Ofcom. We must, my Lords, regulate the product, not the child. We must send a clear message to the government today about the standard of legislation we expect to.
16:31
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to all the amendments in this group, but in amendments in this group, but in particular to my amendment C1, but I'll start, if I may, with I'll start, if I may, with amendments A, A1 and A2, and the House may be relieved to hear that I'm pretty much lost for words in responding to the government's position, because in the face of overwhelming evidence of a need for urgency to act, most recently from the court cases from the US, the government has chosen, as we've heard, the following route.

The first is to act within three years, which in practice could mean never. Given the timing of a general election within that time frame and another government taking a different view. Secondly, to avoid putting. As my noble friend Lord Nash stressed, a clear age limit on the face of the bill in relation to accessing harmful social media, which is essential and entirely possible, of course, in relation to gambling and pornography pornography. So I'm unclear why the noble Baroness, the Minister, says it's impossible in this case.

And finally, admitting reference to highly effective age assurance, which we know is the key element for effective implementation and which we know is already working in relation to pornography and gambling. Our confidence is also rattled because, as I said in an earlier round of ping pong, the government almost always quotes the one notable charity in this area, which has not signed up to the Joint Statement of Principles for Online Safety, which has been signed by over 40 other charities and rarely quotes the evidence of health professionals, police and law enforcement parents.

And indeed, sadly, the growing number of bereaved parents and the noble Baroness. The Minister again talked about the importance of the consultation and the fact that we have divided views on this issue, but we have divided views on just about every important issue, and it's crucial that the government takes a lead on this. So I really would urge the House to follow the lead of the noble Baroness Kidron and the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones, and give my noble friend's amendment the support that it deserves.

Turning to motion B, I'd just like to recognise again that the government really has moved in relation to this issue and the vital issues of quality of education and parental preference are now clearly set out. Turning to my motion C1 in relation to smartphones in schools, I am genuinely sorry that we're still in a position where we felt it was necessary to table another amendment to clarify the government's position. We do welcome the progress that's been made in putting the guidance on a statutory footing and the refinement of the case studies, which are included alongside.

The guidance itself. And as the noble Baroness the Minister referred to, I'm very grateful to the meeting I had with the hon. Member for Reading West in Mid Berkshire earlier today. The Minister responsible for this policy area who met with me and my noble friend Lord Agnew earlier, and I took away from that her undoubted personal commitment to see an end to the disruption and destruction caused particularly by smartphones in schools. She stated clearly in our meeting that she did not want children distracted by a smartphone vibrating in their pocket or in their book bag, and we agree with her entirely.

We welcome the comments that the noble Baroness, the Minister made just now on enforcement and the commitment of the government to improve the guidance. If it becomes apparent that that enforcement is not working and just and although I would like to see it sooner, and I hope when the noble Lady comes to close, she can give us some time frame in which the government would commit to review that. I think the timing of the next behaviour survey would be a good moment to review it.

But just to be clear, what the behaviour survey last year, 2425 showed was that 17% of school leaders in secondary believe that their mobile phones were rarely or never followed. 34% of pupils in the same schools thought they were rarely or never followed. Or putting it the other way, around 82% of school leaders in secondaries thought that their mobile phone policies were followed all or most of the time. That compared to 38% of pupils in the same schools.

And sadly, we know who's right in that regard. So I won't based on the reassurance, particularly if the noble Lady can give us some idea on timing our test. The opinion of the House today. I think the message from the government is clear that they don't want to see. Not seen, not heard policies, particularly in relation to smartphones, but just to take one quote from a teenage witness in the judicial review of Montgomery and others against the Secretary of State for education, who said, and I quote, not seen, not heard, didn't stop us using our smartphones at school.

It just made us more discreet. This was an outstanding school where enforcement was claimed to be strong. And the reason we think this is so important, and I appreciate many noble Lords, may feel like we're dancing on the head of one of the smallest pins ever manufactured, but these policies outsource enforcement to chance. And if a smartphone isn't seen, then effectively it doesn't exist. It creates huge amounts of work for school staff with constant low level boundary testing pockets, toilets, corridors under the desk and so forth.

And it's just not where we want our teachers spending their time. And we don't want children being exposed to harmful or upsetting content through the school We don't want them. Over a quarter said they were photo wishes, and almost a third said they thought they'd have got higher GCSE grades if they hadn't had smartphones in schools, and educational psychologists are absolutely clear that, particularly for neurodivergent children, the distraction is even more pronounced. Having a smartphone in their bag makes learning harder because it takes extra mental effort to ignore it, which can make it tougher to focus and push through when work becomes challenging.

We owe it, my Lords, to pupils and teachers, to close the loophole in the government's position. I hope very much, and I trust both Ministers involved that they will continue to push to do so. But if it doesn't work that in short order we will see 1 or 2 sentences added to the guidance. That really does, in the words of the government, make it crystal clear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

EA Baroness Barran. If I may speak from the Labour benches.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benches. Why don't I stand before the House to say that I am supporting House to say that I am supporting Lord Nash's appointment? I am not Nash's emotion and my knowledge. I Nash's emotion and my knowledge. I listened very carefully to my noble friend who has spoken as the Minister on this. But I have the greatest difficulty and understanding why you need a consultation period when dealing
16:40
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
with 16 year olds and under. And the restraint that that Lord MAT the restraint that that Lord MAT seeks to put on them, not to have access to pornography and pornography that I have described pornography that I have described in this House as vile pornography. in this House as vile pornography. My Lords, that is the reason why I believe Lord Nash is right. And what Lord Nash is proposing is that what Lord Nash is proposing is that there should be, from the moment this bill comes into force, a ban right away on 16 year olds.

And so I do hope my learned friend the Minister will understand why I speak as a matter of conscience, and that's why I wish to support Lord Nash's motion. My Lord, I would just like to speak, if I may, as a departing hereditary peer. Regrettably, no time has been allocated for hereditary peers to say farewell to this House, and I'm very sad about that. But that is the position. So, my Lords, would your Lordship be kind enough to listen to me? A departing hereditary peer saying a brief goodbye to this house? My Lord, I first entered this house 54 years ago in 1972.

The house then was very different. There were only very few peers in the house, less than 10%. And those peeresses who were in the house all wore hats. My Lords, I had the very scary experience when I was giving my maiden speech to be attacked by the hatted Paris Summerskill, who wrongfully attacked my maiden speech. It took me a long, long time to recover from that attack from the hatted Paris, my Lords, that the house in those days was much less proactive, I.

I give a comparison. In those days, if you wanted to table an oral question, you would go to the table office and you would say, have you have you got a space for me in Thursday of next week? And the answer may be not, but we can give you another space in ten days time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. to. appropriate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moment. My Lords. I do insist on on continuing to speak, and I'm very continuing to speak, and I'm very glad I have support from the benches over there. My Lords, I was benches over there. My Lords, I was comparing the less active house, less proactive house 54 years ago, less proactive house 54 years ago, and how you would go to the table office and quickly get an opportunity to table your oral amendment. Look at it now. There's a ballot held almost daily.

I don't know, the number of questions are down in the Oral Questions are listed in the Baroness Mone, but there's probably 30 or 40 a great difference. Your Lordships may think, my Lords. It has been a great honour to have serve this House now for over 30 years, and I will miss the house and you very much indeed, but I do most sincerely wish you well in your new constitution for the House. I do hope that you will have a large elected element, my Lords, that is needed to get a proper constitutional balance between ourselves and the other House.

My Lords, it was about 40 years ago. Lord Hailsham Quinton Hailsham gave a lecture entitled The Elected Dictatorship. My Lords, that is prevailing even more seriously now than it was 40 years ago, with incoming governments with large majorities, and thus completely take over the the legislature, not only in in the other House, but in this House. And we're we're seeing that during this ping pong period we're in now. So I will leave the rest of you to the ping pong.

That has to be done in the next few days and say farewell to you as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hereditary peer. My Lords, it's. A huge privilege to follow the noble Lord Hacking, and I'm sure many noble Lords will have the same sentiment as I do, thanking him for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sentiment as I do, thanking him for country. Yeah, yeah, yeah. My Lords, I would like to associate myself with everything associate myself with everything that the noble Lord Clement-Jones has said, and particularly my. Add has said, and particularly my. Add my support to the noble Lady Kidron in motion a two. I will not repeat those arguments, but I want to.
16:45
Baroness Harding of Winscombe Portrait Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Conservative)
-
-
Just to make two particular points. It's of great sadness to me that on It's of great sadness to me that on this topic, my Lords, we appear no longer to be working as a collaborative group. Those of us collaborative group. Those of us that worked on the Online Safety Act across all sides of this House and the other place spent quite a lot of time together discussing how to find common ground that seems to to find common ground that seems to have been absent in the last couple of weeks.

And while I do really recognise the effort that the noble Ladies, both Ministers on the front bench today, have put into this, personally, I think we have really missed out on trying to find that common ground that I think all of us here want to find to protect children. And as a result, I find myself again supporting my noble friend Lord Nash on an amendment that I really don't like in order to try and get to the amendment that I really do like, in the name of the noble Lady Kidron.

And I think that is because we have lost the ability to collaborate on this topic, which is a great shame and something that none of us should feel very proud of. I think there is a path. It is about time, as everyone has been saying, I'm afraid I don't believe that a ceiling, not a target works. That is not what has happened with the Online Safety Act at any stage. Every ceiling has definitely been a target and some of them have been missed.

And the same is true for the DMC act, I'm afraid. So in this digital world, I'm afraid ceilings definitely become targets. And the noble Lady, the Minister, says that there is the power to review the enforcement of Ofcom. When is the government going to use that power? I think a commitment to use that, a commitment to shorten the time, a commitment to work collaboratively throughout the consultation, would move quite a few of us.
16:47
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, my Lords. >> The government is arguing that they need much more time to consider the evidence because of the given challenges of enforcement. the given challenges of enforcement. But my Lords, the bereaved parents who have lost their children who have lost their children through online harms don't agree. They want action now, not some time in the future. My Lords, I met with the bereaved parents again just last week who have written a letter to the Prime Minister, but what they desperately wanted to do was to meet with the Prime Minister personally, to show their strength of feeling for having a social ban, a social media ban for under 16.

To hear their harrowing, heartbreaking stories would make any morally minded person weep. My Lord, the Prime Minister has met with the tech companies. Why not also with those who have suffered tragic losses of their children? They felt so hurt by that. My Lord, the bereaved parents are seeking change so that other families do not have to go through what they had to endure and still do every day since their loss. My Lords, right now, at this moment, as we debate, a child is being affected negatively by social media harms.

How many more children will be harmed every day by the dangerous, addictive effects of social media before something is done to stop it as soon as possible. My Lords, I urge the Prime Minister to meet with the bereaved parents to give them hope and security for the government to accept Lord Nash's amendment for the sake of our children's future, happiness, for their mental health being, and for my Lords to give thanks to the Nations to. To give the nations thanks to all the bereaved parents who are fighting and campaigning for change.

Let's not let them down. Let's act now. And remember, as I keep saying, childhood last a lifetime.
16:49
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Amen. >> Briefly, and it will be a source of huge disappointment to all of you that I do not intend to give a valedictory speech. >> I'm sure. Shame.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure. Shame. Shame indeed. First of all, I'd like to thank the noble Lady, the like to thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for responding to the points I raised on educational technology at the last round of ping pong, and thank her for that. It does have an awful lot of consultation in it, rather than action, which I think is sort of emblematic of the situation that we find ourselves in. On the Online Safety Act, I just checking we actually only went through one round of ping pong, and the reason that we went through only one round of ping pong was that there was, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, has said, there was a degree of cross-party accord which got to the nub of these problems.

There was a genuine interaction between the key parties and a willingness to listen to one another, and I'm just very sorry that we don't seem to be in quite the same place today. I speak in support of motion A1 by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and particularly on motion A2 in the name of my noble friend Baroness Kidron, for exactly the same reasons that the noble Lady Baroness Harding said. I'm not sure that a social media ban is the perfect answer.

I'm not sure there is a perfect solution, but the intent is to concentrate the government's mind. My Lords, if one wants to look at what leadership looks like in this area, I would call your Lordships attention to a column in the Financial Times of the 17th of this month by no less than the Prime Minister of Spain, Pedro Sanchez, who is doing two things simultaneously. First of all, he is standing up to our occasional friend across the Atlantic, who is currently probably testing His Majesty's patience somewhat, but I'm sure we'll be fuelling his sense of humour, probably unintentionally.

What the Prime Minister said was wrote in this column is clear. Unequivocal that on the social media and protecting under 16 year olds consultation and talking about it is not enough. What is required is action. And my Lords, Her Majesty's Government really must do better on this account. One of the things that it is telling us, at least if you read the press, is that we are thinking about trying to get closer to our erstwhile colleagues in the European Union, within Europe, France, Norway and Spain have all said quite unequivocally, we will move to protect children from social media under the age of 16 or in one case, 15.

My Lords, by working together, all of us who might take this as a course of action will come across the same problems, the same problem. Australia is coming through with ingenious ways to get around it and the ways the companies are reacting by working together and by talking to each other to find a joint approach, to find out where the loopholes are and to close them together, is surely an intelligent way to respond to this, not to try and go it alone.

When it comes to amendment A two. My Lords, Her Majesty's Government really doesn't need a consultation. All they need to do is shut themselves in a room with the noble Lady Baroness Kidron, and she would be able to tell them with her eyes closed, exactly what Her Majesty's Government needs to do to get action and to have results. The noble aide of the Minister mentioned in her opening that she was very grateful for the interaction she'd had with a variety of people across the House on this subject.

My Lords, there is one person who has largely not been included in those discussions, and that is the noble Lady Baroness Kidron. And indeed, if there are any meetings, guess who is usually the last who will be met? My Lords, that is, on the one hand, a compliment to the noble Baroness, because they know she will ask some extremely awkward questions, and she will almost certainly know a great deal more obviously than the Ministers who are not experts, but certainly the so-called experts who are advising them.

But, my Lords, that is really not the intelligent way to go about this as a backdrop to this, mentioning the Financial Times again today, Gideon Rachman, one of the columnists, has written a piece saying Europe and America headed for divorce. I would suggest to the government that looking over your shoulder, which it has done since it has taken office, worrying about what the United States may or may not do, what it might or might not think is really getting us nowhere.

If it comes to a choice between looking after our children and trying to protect them as quickly as possible and worrying what if, maybe what will the US do to react? Could that hurt us economically? My Lords, surely that is not a proper choice. Children obviously come first, and I implore the government to follow that route.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excellent. It's a source of great regret to me that I will be great regret to me that I will be following into the lobbies Baroness following into the lobbies Baroness Kidron and quite possibly Lord Nash, because I do think the government is making a mistake here. I do think that we should have been much more courageous in addressing these
16:55
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
-
-
more courageous in addressing these problems. Now, I'm mindful of the fact that the United States of America is making life rather difficult for us at the moment, because taking any kind of independent stance seems to be a reason for being roundly scorned by the United States president. But all I would say is that there has to be a moment where we do take a stand. We've done it in relation to the war on Iran, and I think it would be right to be doing it here, for the very reasons that have been expounded by others already, which is that this is about protecting our children.

And so I think that we're making a grievous mistake by not listening to those voices about the need for us to be working in coalition on this, and not to be making it something that we're worrying about. And we have to be prepared, as indeed Lord Russell has just said, we have to be prepared to stand up to the technical oligarchs who basically don't want any regulation at all. And really, this is an area where we have to be brave, courageous and empower of Ofcom to be doing its job properly, but also to be protecting those whose lives are made so difficult in trying to restrain their children from using this, these phones in the ways that we've heard about.

So I, I really do regret it because I don't want to be disagreeing with the government at the moment, but I do think that this is something where we have to see the issue of principles that should be adhered to. And I do hope that other colleagues on these benches will see that this is too important for us to put off. For three long years.
16:57
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you, my Lords. Could I >> Thank you, my Lords. Could I just start. By thanking Lord Hacking. For all your services. >> That you've. >> Given all the many years, and it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Given all the many years, and it was an absolute pleasure to join you in on the dining table earlier, you in on the dining table earlier, before this debate, to exchange our views about your long history here and your guidance. To me as one of the more younger members of your Lordships House. So I think we will miss you dearly, my Lords. My Lords, when I was intending to do was to basically agree with my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, and therefore I wasn't intending to speak on the issues around social media.

But I have to say, not only do I agree with Lord Clement-Jones, but also Baroness Kidron, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Baroness Kennedy of Shaw, in the sense that this is a plea to the government Ministers that you have engaged with us all. Yeah, but both Baroness Meyer and Lord Boyd and we really thank you for the time that you've taken to speak to us all. We are not that far apart. There's clearly you can tell from the opinions right across the chamber, including Baroness Harding as well.

And I want to thank her for her contributions that we all want the same thing. We're trying to get the government, and I don't know whether maybe somebody new, you know, here's a radical plan. Why don't we all get together one single time, always in one room together, and let's see if we can thrash something out because we know the clock is ticking on us. There's people out there, as Baroness Benjamin said, are awaiting our actions, and clearly we need to move at pace.

And I really hope that the when the Minister gets up, that maybe you can reflect on what's been said. So I was going to concentrate on the smart phones in schools issue, and in particular, I was going to share the comments of Paul Whiteman, the National Association, Association of head teachers, secretary general secretary, who said, My Lords school leaders are are also are as concerned as everyone about the impact of social media and phones on children and young people, and his organisation has supported the call for a ban on pupils using smartphones during school days.

And that's a really important section that we on these benches agreed to. Statutory guidance will give school leaders the clarity they need to implement a ban, and we will remove any ambiguity or differences between how schools approach smartphone policies. And he goes on to say schools will will only then need to decide how to implement and enforce a ban across their school community, and the government must provide any support they require to do so. And I really hope that the Minister gets up to comment.

I was also heartened to learn about and read about the comments of the Conservative Secretary, Shadow Secretary of State Laura Trott, in the Who last week, I think both on social media and was quoted on the BBC and I quote, after years of resistance, resisting our calls for ban smartphones in schools, Labour has finally listened and U-turned. They were wrong to dismiss it as an unnecessary gimmick, and this will give teachers the backing they need. And it's a huge win for behaviour and attainment in schools.

And I agree with Laura. That's why I say that having read the guidance and actually, more importantly, having just listened to the Minister from the despatch box, that the assurances that you've given, in particular from the guidance that the Department of Education expects schools to implement a policy where pupils do not have access to mobile phones throughout the day, including during lessons, the times between lessons and break times and lunch times. For me, my Lords, is the reassurances that those campaigners that came to your Lordships' House, also those outside and from these benches.

We are not minded. If the noble Lady does push, wants to test opinion, how to support C1, because I think if the Minister can get up and give us that reassurance, I think we got it. OK. Thank you. Yeah, yeah. C1

**** Possible New Speaker ****

c1 C1. My Lords, in starting, can I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, in starting, can I also recognise the contribution of the noble of my noble friend Lord the noble of my noble friend Lord hacking? I have to say, as a as a former chief whip in the other former chief whip in the other place, I'm not quite of the same view that rebelling against your party is a sign of a conscience, party is a sign of a conscience, but nevertheless, can I. Can I thank him for his service and his comradeship to me as well? Since I have been in this House.
17:02
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Very much. >> And I'm sure he will remain busy even if he isn't in here. And I look forward to to hearing his views from afar as I've heard them views from afar as I've heard them from from behind me over recent years. So turning to Lords amendments 38 V and 38 X. This. This government has listened carefully to the concerns raised in both houses, and has acted decisively to directly address them. I understand from today's debate that there is a view amongst noble Lords that the government may not yet have gone far enough, but it is, of course, important to remember that it is the passing of this bill that will ensure that the progress that has been made will be on the statute book, because we are absolutely committed to protecting children online and doing it the right way.

And that has, I think, throughout the the whole of this bill involved a discussion and consultation and engagement, including, can I say, with on a range of issues, actually, earlier on in the passage of the bill with the noble Lord, Lord Russell. And in fact, I had the pleasure of meeting with the the noble Lady Baroness Kidron on, on a range of issues that we then looked at in detail during the Committee stage. Noble Lords have told us that the progress that we need to make on this could not be optional.

We agree, and that's why we have now put on the face of the Bill the statutory requirement that the Secretary of State must, rather than may act following the outcomes of the consultation. So please be reassured due to that change, that action will follow. It must follow your lead. Lordships House also told us that this must happen at pace, and that is why we have committed in legislation to a clear timeline. The six month progress report must set out when regulations will be made, and I will come back to that timing point in a moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Nash, reiterates his. Request, his demand that the age of 16 is included on the face of the legislation. Just to repeat. And I and I know again, that there isn't necessarily a consensus on whether or not this is the right thing to do. Even amongst those who aren't satisfied with how far the government has gone already. And I think the reason for that is because it does pre-empt the outcome of our consultation, which seeks views on what restrictions would be best, on what features and at what age.

And we want to be confident that what we introduce works and works for all children, including the most vulnerable. And that's why we aren't waiting. We are testing options now, taking evidence from families themselves. And as I've said, putting the legislative powers in place to act quickly once the consultation closes. Our amendment allows for this outcome, but it also allows for a range of other outcomes, including, as I suggested earlier, for example, restricting some of the most harmful functionalities for children older than 16.

And we rightly heard noble Lords concerns around the harmful and potentially addictive nature of many services. And that is exactly why this is explicitly addressed in the consultation. But in terms of legislation, we have to be a little bit careful about the terms that we use. Addiction, for example, is a medical term and a specific diagnosis of social media addiction has not been medically recognised and is a contested concept. So if we're not careful using this term in the legislation is likely to create a high bar for exercise of this power to tackle the problem of addictive design.

As it's colloquially understood and our drafting is intended to specifically capture features which might cause children to overuse services in a risky or harmful way. And the Secretary of State must have due regard to these features in exercising the power. As I say, though, we have gone even further with a legislative commitment that the Secretary of State must now have regard to how services and features could impact children's usage of services and the potential harms which excessive use might cause.

Collectively, these changes represent a significant strengthening of the government's position. They provide certainty of action, urgency and stronger safeguards for children, and I do urge noble Lords to recognise how far we have gone and to support the government's amendments. But we particularly recognise the concerns that have been voiced during this debate and more widely with regards to the government's intended timescales. And I repeat again that the power to extend is designed to cover exceptional circumstances only rather than being a means of delay.

Nevertheless, we have heard the arguments made this afternoon, and I'm sure that my colleagues in the Commons will have more to say on timings when the Bill returns to the other place this evening, and I'm sure everybody will have noted the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to continue with his constructive engagement with Ministers on that and on other issues. I thank the noble Lady Baroness Barran for recognising the progress that we've made in the area of admissions and the published admissions number, and I hope and believe that that we can now be confident that these changes will help to ensure that school admission numbers give all parents a choice of high quality local school places, and that is the objective that we share.

And on the on on amendment 106 in relation to mobile phones. Once again, I'm grateful to the noble Lady for recognising the progress that we have made on this, the clarity of the government's position that pupils should not have access to their mobile phones during the school day, and a recognition of the assurances that my hon. Friend Minister Bailey, was able to give around the strengthening of the guidance and the enforcement support that we will now put in place, and I recognise the point made by the noble Lady about the behaviour survey being a a good way in which to measure the impact of the changes that the government has already made.

And for that reason I. I am able to say to the noble Lady that we can commit to to looking both at the behaviour survey and seeing how that impacts and using that to make any necessary revisions to the guidance by September 2027 with those assurances, I hope, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the government, given the considerable movement that I think we have made in a range of different areas, and I beg to move.
17:10
Lord Nash Portrait Lord Nash (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> I'd like to. I'd like to pay tribute to the noble Lady Baroness Pidgeon, who really does know what Pidgeon, who really does know what she's talking about. I remember that during the debates on the Online Safety Act, it was her who Online Safety Act, it was her who first draw your Lordships' House attention to the dangers of the algorithm. And here we are so many years later. But. But it is the algorithm which the Prime Minister has said must go for children.

And all I'm asking for today is that we focus on that and stranger content, which has led to so much child abuse and deaths. That's all. I would like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken today, including Lord Hacking, and I wish him well in the future. Baroness Benjamin, Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws Lord Mohammed and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. And thank you for his comments about other countries. I would also add Indonesia, the fourth most populous country in the world, Brazil, the seventh most populous, and many other countries.

Frankly, at the rate we're going, 50% of the world population will have acted on social media before we do anything, and that will put our children at a massive economic disadvantage. The noble Lady says. My proposals pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, but the way I've outlined them today, I do not believe that is the case because it allows for experts, the chief medical officers and Royal Medical colleges to consider the outcome of the consultation in relation to the very limited and focussed proposals I have today suggested.

My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble Lady has said, but I don't believe that on the basis of what she said on the floor of the House here today, that I sense much movement yet. So I must ask the House to agree to motion A1 and I therefore would like to test the opinion of the House today. My Lords, I should remind the House that if motion A1 is agreed, it will pre-empt motion A2. The question is that motion A1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. As many of their opinion will say, content. Content. To the contrary, not content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. The question will be decided by a division, and I would advise the a division, and I would advise the House when voting is open. Voting
17:13
None Portrait Division
-

My My Lords, the question is that motion A1 be agreed to, as many people say, content contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In In this In this way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The question is that motion A1 My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have voted content 316 not contents 165 therefore the contents have it. therefore the contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Motion B Baroness Smith of Malvern. My Lords, I have already spoken to motion B that this House do not to motion B that this House do not insist on its amendment 102, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement and insisted on their disagreement and do agree with the Commons in their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. 102 J to 102MI beg to move. My Lords. The question is that motion be be agreed to. Is that motion be be agreed to. Is that opinion content of the contrary, not content. the contents have it motion C Baroness Smith of Malvern.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry, my Lords, I have already spoken to motion C that this House spoken to motion C that this House do not insist on its amendment 106, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement have insisted on their disagreement and do agree with the Commons in their amendments. 106 G to 106 J. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Question is that motion C be agreed to amendment C1 Baroness Barran.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Barran. Not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original questions motion be agreed to as many that opinion will say content contrary not content. My My Lords, chemicals, health and safety. (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

2026. Baroness Sherlock. Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg. To move that the house to approve the chemicals, health and safety (Amendment, Consequential safety (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026, which were laid before the House on the 24th of before the House on the 24th of February of this year. I will come on to the motion from the noble Lady Baroness Bennett in a moment. But first let me introduce the But first let me introduce the regulations. The measures in this instrument form an important part of the government's programme to ensure that Great Britain's post EU exit chemical supply regime is robust, proportionate and fit for the long term.

They amend three pieces of assimilated EU chemicals legislation rectifying issues that could not be addressed at the point of EU exit due to the limited powers available under the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018. I am satisfied that these regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They reflect the government's commitment to maintaining high standards of protection for human health and the environment, while ensuring that regulatory systems work efficiently for businesses and support sustainable economic growth. In combination with the commitment from the Health and Safety Executive.

In combination with the commitment from the Health and Safety Executive, the HSE to remain aligned with EU regulatory decisions other than in exceptional circumstances. They create a framework by which EU chemical hazard classifications can be adopted more quickly in Great Britain. This supports the objective shared across chemical stakeholder groups to remain as aligned as possible with the EU, to facilitate trade and to ensure we
17:29
17:30
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
identification and communication of chemical hazards and adopts the United Nations globally harmonised United Nations globally harmonised system of classification and labelling of chemicals. And finally the Great Britain Prior Informed the Great Britain Prior Informed Consent Regulation GB pick, which governs the export and import of certain hazardous chemicals and certain hazardous chemicals and implements the UK's obligations under the Rotterdam Convention. These regulations were carried over These regulations were carried over from EU law and became assimilated law under the retained EU Law, Revocation and Reform Act 2023.

The act now enables us to make sensible amendments to ensure these regimes operate effectively in a GB only context, while achieving the same objectives I previously set out. These regulations apply to England, Wales and Scotland, whose Ministers earlier this year consented to the making of the regulations. EU chemicals legislation continues to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework, while the chemical supply framework inherited from the EU provided a high level of protection, it also brought with it several structural and operational challenges.

When applied within a single country system. Without these regulations, we will face a series of challenges. First, up to 173 active substances used in essential biocidal products would imminently lose approval, risking their removal from the GB market. This would have significant consequences, for example, shortages of key disinfectants, rodenticides and other biocides vital for public health and the functioning of critical infrastructure. Second, businesses would continue to face unnecessary administrative burdens. Thirdly, the agency's ability to prioritise more quickly and flexibly those chemical hazard assessments relevant to the GB market would remain constrained, as it is currently obliged automatically to consider classification proposals from the EU Risk Assessment Committee, even when they are irrelevant to Great Britain and exporters of hazardous chemicals would continue to navigate redundant or inconsistent processes, such as needing to obtain a special reference identification number.

The customers customs authorities don't even use. Left unaddressed, these issues would risk market disruption, regulatory inefficiency and increased cost to business without any corresponding benefit to health or environmental protection. Let me unpack the measures for the Biocidal products regulation. This instrument extends the expiry date for up to 173 approved active substances to the 31st of July 2031. Provided renewal applications are submitted. This prevents them from lapsing through no fault of the applicants and avoids severe market disruption. It reforms emergency provisions so that essential biocidal products, such as drinking water disinfectants, may remain available until an authorisation decision is made, where the need for use is long term, and it clarifies and extends data protection rules to ensure businesses investing in scientific data can recover costs consistently across all relevant approval routes.

On the 9th of March this year, the government announced that the biocides regime would be in scope of a new UK, EU sanitary and Phytosanitary SPS agreement as part of the UK EU reset negotiations. Now, while we can't speculate on the outcome of negotiations, the direction of travel is that the UK plans to follow a model of dynamic alignment with the EU for biocides. This will also supersede previous proposals for the reform of biocides regime for the classification, labelling and Packaging regulation.

This instrument introduces a streamlined procedure for seeking the consent of devolved governments to update the mandatory classification and labelling MCL list, through removal of duplicative actions, removes the obligation to consider automatically. Initial EU hazard classification proposals, enabling the HSE to prioritise what matters for Great Britain, replacing it with the bespoke GB MCL work plan, setting out transparently HSE's classification priorities over a three year period, it creates a faster evaluation pathway for adoption of classification proposals produced by the EU.

Other than in exceptional circumstances. It relocates technical notes to HSE's website, so updates to guidance no longer require legislation, meaning technical guidance can be more readily updated and accessible, and it revokes unnecessary notification requirements, eliminating the need for businesses to submit data which are redundant for regulatory oversight and saving suppliers time and cost. Together, these changes simplify regulatory processes while maintaining high standards of protection. They do not change the existing legal requirement for HSE to evaluate chemicals for mandatory classification on the basis of being carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction, HSC can already make a case by case assessment for other types of hazard, such as those covered by the new EU hazard classes for possible inclusion on the GB MCL list for the Export and Import of Hazardous Chemicals regulation, this instrument removes the redundant Special Reference Identification Number requirement for small quantities of chemicals exported for use in research, analysis or emergency situations.

It harmonises conditions for granting waivers where importing countries fail to respond to consent requests. Removing barriers to legitimate trade. It makes the HSE as the designated national authority responsible for reviewing and updating the GB picklist, reducing administrative delays and ensuring faster implementation of international obligations. And it aligns GB pick up dates more closely with decisions under the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, giving greater clarity to exporters about prohibited substances. These improvements streamline processes while maintaining the UK's strong commitment to our international obligations.

EU chemicals regulations continue to apply in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Windsor framework. These measures introduce a more efficient regulatory process and enable more timely decision making that facilitates faster alignment with decisions made in the EU. The government is confident that these changes will not have a significant impact on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Within the UK internal market, the potential impact of GB decision making on the supply of chemicals to Northern Ireland will continue to be a key consideration for HSE, and will be evidenced in their recommendations for ministerial decision.

As part of the normal track evaluation, HSC will also consider the impact of GB decision making on the supply of chemicals to Northern Ireland. In its agency opinion. And finally, I'd like to address the fatal motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I should say there will be serious consequences for the House to decline to approve this instrument, but I hope I can dispel the concerns set out in her motion. First, the motion says that these regulations mean that hazard classifications in GB will be adopted selectively from foreign jurisdictions, with limited accountability for HSCs.

Our regulator will also. This is not the case. I suspect this concern relates to provisions which permit hazard classifications made in a foreign jurisdiction to be adopted more quickly in GB, provided that jurisdiction. That jurisdiction meets the defined criteria and only the EU is currently known to meet those criteria, which effectively limits the use of the fast track procedure to EU classification proposals. However, for the purposes of future proofing, it must be right that our legislation should be drafted in a way that recognises that every jurisdiction has the opportunity to match those high standards.

I believe that the World Trade Organisation and other adoptees of the UN, including countries with which the UK has existing trade agreements, would agree. Nevertheless, the government will consult before determining determining if a non EU jurisdiction meets the fast track criteria before any changes are made in future. Secondly, the motion notes that these regulations do not incorporate the new EU hazard classifications in line with existing commitments on Northern Ireland, but that is correct. But it is not an argument for declining to approve the regulations.

The UK government is committed to making further legislation incorporating new EU hazard classes under the EU Withdrawal Act by 2027. We have not been able to include the necessary provisions to deliver this commitment in this legislation because of the constraints in the Rule Act, which do not permit an increase in the overall regulatory burden. However, the government is committed to delivering the legislation to allow for the adoption of the EU hazard classes and other EU related measures in the forthcoming 2027 legislation, on which HSC has already begun work that will complement this sea.

To create a regulatory system that works for GB and for the UK as a whole. Thirdly, the motion says that the measures in this in this s I amount to regression in environmental and public health protections, notably in extending the approval expiry dates for harmful biocides. My Lords, it is of course, the case that by their nature, biocidal substances can sometimes be a cause for concern, but they also play a crucial role in controlling other organisms, which themselves present risks to society.

The substances in question have previously been evaluated and their risks are understood. If we fail to extend their approval expiry dates, then between now and 2031, up to 173 substances could become illegal to place on the market in Great Britain, putting our society at risk from the harmful organisations which they control. I should stress this is a temporary measure which secures access to those biocides. While a new arrangement is negotiated with the EU. In the context of the SPS agreement.

Finally, the motion suggests that these measures make it easier for UK exporters of harmful chemicals to bypass controls, but also the ability for HSE to issue a time limited waiver from the explicit consent requirements of GB pick already exists. Under the current arrangements, only a small number of these waivers are issued each year and only if certain conditions are met. These measures simply harmonise those conditions so that the same conditions will apply to all chemicals for which a waiver can be granted. This is a valid regulatory approach where importing countries fail to engage with their trading partners, and is in line with the requirements of the Rotterdam Convention in issuing a waiver only where official sources confirm a substance is already in use in the importing country.

These measures are nowhere introduced. New risks to our trading partners. So, my Lords, the regulations before the House are a practical and necessary set of amendments. They prevent disruption to critical biocidal products that safeguard public health. They reduce unnecessary burdens on businesses while keeping protections in place. They enable the regulator to focus its resources on the hazards that matter most to Great Britain, and they strengthen the coherence, efficiency and future readiness of our chemicals regulatory system. These reforms maintain protection to human and animal health and the environment, while making the regulatory process more efficient.

They deliver a proportionate regulatory environment aligned to the needs of Great Britain. I urge the House to support them, and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

EA my Lords, the question is that the motion be agreed to. Castle.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for her very clear introduction, and I think at least introduction, and I think at least one piece of new information that was presented to us, and I rise to move the amendment which, as the move the amendment which, as the noble Lady said, is a fatal motion, because I still do have very grave because I still do have very grave concerns about this. S I. I declare my interest showing noble Lords where I'm coming from here, my consumer products control of biocides bill, to which large number of noble Lords contributed positively at Second Reading, will
17:41
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
lapse at the end of this session, but I remain committed to its principles in the interest of principles in the interest of protecting our own microbiomes, our whole existence as holobionts those of other creatures, the health of of other creatures, the health of the environment and the prevention of even more out of control antimicrobial resistance. And antimicrobial resistance. And associated with that, I declare my position on the all party parliamentary Group for antimicrobial Resistance and the support I receive from the British support I receive from the British Society for Antimicrobial Resistance, as declared on the Register.

I note also that this may be the last such debate conducted before the new trial. Restrictive rules on time length of s I debates comes into force, so I hope we can enjoy the chance to debate fully what our own secondary legislation scrutiny committee described as being politically or legally important, giving rise to issues of public policy, likely of interest to the House. Now, I was asked by a fellow member what place this debate has, in the midst of multiple bouts of ping pong, I suggested maybe it was a gymnasium wall on which is now being splashed hastily, a thin coat of paint which is failing to mask the uneven failing surface underneath.

With 1970 ceiling panels hanging above it, the type to make it a builder, sucker teeth and worry about asbestos for as our secondary legislation scrutiny committee reflects. As the noble Lady herself reflected, these. These draft regulations are being. Reflect the fact that the retained EU Law Revocation and Reform Act of 2023 powers expire in June this year, and these are the only ones available to cover the three assimilated chemical regimes using secondary legislation, the HSE has indicated that it considers that more general powers are required.

Now, I'm interested that the noble Lady said, I believe in her speech that that she expected that new legislation in 2027. I'd like to get perhaps a further confirmation of that, because I think that is new information from what I've been aware of, this is in the face of fast changing knowledge of the risk we face from the chemical cocktail to which all our bodies and the environment is being subjected. For context, I note, for example, the scathing report last week from the.

With the call for urgent restrictions on the use of PFAs in consumer goods, including school uniforms, cookware and food packaging from the Commons Environmental Audit Committee. I hope the noble Lady, the Minister, will be having a chat with her education colleague about that issue at all main stages of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. We heard support from all around your Lordships House for a ban on PFAs in school uniforms. Given the the action your Lordships House has just taken in ping pong, the government has a last minute chance to take clear, decisive action on a cause of great health concern to many parents whose children have been forced to wear by official rules uniforms impregnated with these chemicals.

Now, I think it's useful to put this in context. Chemicals regulation is often referred to as one of the great failures of Brexit, a category, of course, in which competition is very fierce. England, Wales and Scotland officially exited Europe's truly world leading, although still inadequate chemicals regulation, a position the noble Lady acknowledged. They then created the copy and paste effort the UK reach, and we've since steadily fallen behind. So, for example, zero substances of very high concern SPH cs have been added to the UK list since 2021, while the ECHA has added 44 substances.

The second question. My first question. Now I've crossed out the last one. My first question to the noble Lady, the Minister, is. I note that the UK has said that it will potentially add the EU, SB, cs to our list, and it is working towards aligning the sanitary and phytosanitary controls that will include chemical regulation. The noble Lady referred to this, but I really appreciate any further information she can provide on progress on that. Now I apologise to the Chief Whip's office for when the staff told me this fell under the DWP, I raised my eyebrows.

That was before I dug into the detail of the health and environmental campaigners concern about this s I, and I realised that I hadn't adequately considered that the HSE, which is of course primarily concerned with workplace safety, was in 2022 designated the agency for the UK's own reach version version, while DEFRA became the policy lead also for the three sets of regulations that the noble Lady referred to. Now the HSE's capacity and will to fulfil that role have been seriously questioned.

After Brexit, it didn't just have to fund a 40% increase in its chemicals workforce, it also had to become the regulator for building safety and dangerous goods such as explosives, all on an organisation wide budget. That was down, I understand, by £122 million, 43% between 2010 and 2020. In 2025, the HSE had nearly 3000 staff, nine 900 inspectors. That was well below the more than 4000 staff and 1500 inspectors it had in the 2000. Another question Will the government be boosting the clearly inadequate resources of the HSE?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady? Lady Burnett is making some very serious points, but in respect of the responsibilities of respect of the responsibilities of the HSC, surely she will recognise that they aren't just restricted to that they aren't just restricted to workplace activities. Section three of the Health and Safety at Work Act explicitly mandates the HSC to Act explicitly mandates the HSC to take account of any harm produced by workplace activities to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public. I thank the noble Lady for raising what is essentially my next point that, yes, it has had these responsibilities included, but its whole raison d'etre. It was created about workplace safety, and there have been many concerns that it doesn't have the regulatory or conceptual framework to truly consider environmental safety, either for humans exposed through consumption, perhaps, or from the natural world. And then, of course, this government has added a growth duty for the HSE.

Now, I note that Janet Newsham, a trustee at the Workers Policy Project, has noted how this compromises the independence of the HSE. If it has a duty to economic growth, that great God. That's. It's got to balance against the actual health risks and the environmental risks. Will the government reconsider the growth duty, given that this is clearly hampering its work? Now, returning in detail of the C, I note that the environmental charity Fidra concluded the draft regulations were, quote, not fit for purpose due to the lack of specificity and the lack of statutory timelines, which could result in inaction or slow progress on critical chemical regulatory controls.

Returning to the second to other recent official pronouncements, I start with the CLP elements of this s I. I note that the Minister in the other place supported aligning with the UN's globally harmonised system of Classification and labelling of chemicals known as GHS, rather than in the six new hazard classes introduced by the EU. Now, in the other place, the Minister repeated repeated the claim from the HSE that there's a question about whether the EU, what the EU will do if these classes are not adopted globally.

That prompted the European Commission to formally put on the record that it had not expressed any such commitment. Can the noble Lady, the Minister, confirm that the government understands that the EU position on the CLP, as it is so clearly stated, is not to change to the UN model, but to keep to its own, reflecting its better understanding of the growing risks. Turning further indeed to the detail of the C to which the noble Lady also referred the. The. The powers about foreign jurisdictions.

Now I know what the noble Lady said that the EU is the only regime that fits within the government's classification. I welcome that assurance. But I wonder if the noble Lady will consider what might happen if we had in future a different government that might interpret those those regulations in a different way. Now, I also just want to mention I'm running out of time, but I rather suspect we have some more Northern Ireland people here. But I do want to raise the issues about what problems this raises for Northern Ireland.

But I finally do want to get to the the final element of my concerns about making it easier for UK exporters of some of the most harmful chemicals to bypass controls. These are the products we have decided are too dangerous to use in the UK. Removing the need for a special reference identification number from the HSC. Can the noble Lady assure me that this is in line with our commitments under underneath the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed consent? Is this not just a reflection of an ideological attachment to this idea of cutting red tape, which has done so much damage across so much areas of our safety? I note, of course, that, as campaigners often highlight with UK exports, we last year exported 8500 tonnes of pesticides that are banned on British farms because of the dangers they pose to human health and nature.

98% of these are produced by the Swiss headquartered, Chinese owned agrochemical giant Syngenta, and include huge quantities of die cat, which is reported to have caused symptoms in Brazilian farmers, including tremors, temporary paralysis and permanent eye damage. And there's been exported enough of the notorious banned here in the UK. Bee killing insecticide Thea fam to spray an area bigger than England. This is going to countries including Cote d'Ivoire and Morocco. A broader question, and this is why is the government planning to act on this clearly morally untenable and environmentally dangerous situation? That's a risk to other people around the world.

But ultimately, of course, the health of everybody. No one is safe until everyone is safe. And there may well be products coming back to the UK from those countries on which those products have been used. I have one further specific question that I was asked to put to the noble Lady, the Minister, because I think there is considerable concern about this. We have seen disbanded a regular DEFRA event, the UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum, which had offered both media and NGOs and other stakeholders some degree of access to chemical updates from the NHS.

Is the government planning to restore or replace that forum in a way that the public is able to scrutinise our chemical regulations? So, my Lords, I'm aware that I have just said a lot of very technical stuff and a lot of very large words, but this is stuff to which your Lordships House really needs to pay attention. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has a very long report with many expressions of concern in it, and I have not at the moment decided whether to put this to the vote.

I'm well aware of the situation of fatal motions, but I think there is real concern right across many different NGOs, many different, different people concerned with public health. And I think it's really important that we have a full debate on these issues. I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. The original question was that the regulations laid before this the regulations laid before this House on the 24th of February be agreed and approved, since when an amendment has been moved by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle to leave out all the words after the word that, and insert the words as set out on the Order Paper. The set out on the Order Paper. The question for the House, therefore, is whether the amendment be made. My Lords, I don't have sympathy My Lords, I don't have sympathy with the amendment, and I do think the Minister is right to set out
17:54
Lord Redwood Portrait Lord Redwood (Conservative)
-
-
two main aims for her planned Statutory Instrument. I think it is right that we should allow certain products to continue, which are necessary for wider health and necessary for wider health and safety issues whilst alternatives are found, or whilst we further are found, or whilst we further research the known risks of these products. And I also think it is right that the United Kingdom can right that the United Kingdom can have an independent, strong body of health and safety and other chemical regulation, which is also a bit more business friendly and a bit more timely than that which the European Union produces.

And so I note that the Minister tells us that the system she is proposing for England, Wales and Scotland will be a little more flexible and a little bit more helpful to innovation and to the products we currently have than the Northern Ireland system, which will be dynamically aligned or entirely dependent upon the growing volume of regulation coming in Northern Ireland. So I have a lot of sympathy with her high level aims. I think it would probably help the House if she comes to wind up the debate.

If we could have a little bit more information about whether Northern Ireland is going to be badly disadvantaged by losing access to the products that are currently used for important health and safety and chemical industry purposes, in a way which won't apply in England, Wales and Scotland. And I think that also poses the issue that when the government gets into even more detail in its spfs and other regulatory discussions with the European Union, it should dig in to avoid having to dynamically align with a known system of chemical regulation, which the government is quite rightly today saying is less than perfect, and we need to differentiate the English and Scottish system from it to be more successful.

The British chemical industry is in free fall at the moment, mainly because of the high cost of energy and the big retreat from petrochemicals. We've seen massive closures in the last year or so and they are really struggling. And so it is very incumbent on the government to listen carefully to what they say about regulation. Now, I like the Minister, and I'm sure every noble Lord present in this place would regard health and safety as the urgent priority that you do not compromise on safety.

But we are talking here about being able to produce, make and sell, and then use what are often intrinsically dangerous things for a good purpose. And so you can't ban them because they are in themselves dangerous, because they are not dangerous when they are used for a good purpose. As with a strong disinfectant, killing germs. But obviously people mustn't drink it. So we do need rules or the industry will impose rules on the handling and the disposal because there are obvious risks.

If people don't handle dangerous chemicals well and there are obvious risks if they're not disposed of safely under controlled conditions, and that requires a different kind of regulation. So I just hope when we we consider this, that we can have a little bit more information about whether Northern Ireland is being disadvantaged and whether there will be immediate problems for either its chemical industry or for the users of its chemicals, given that more things will be banned in Northern Ireland. Whether we can have a little bit more reassurance that we will not sell out to an EU regulatory system, which we think is far from perfect, when we could get some greater advantage out of better regulation, but rather less regulation.

And it would be very good to set this into the very briefly, into the broader context that our chemical industry is in free fall. It is really struggling. We're losing factories, we're losing capacity, and it would be very important not to do anything in this regulation, which made that more likely to occur.
17:59
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I think it is worth saying that the chemical industry under pressure, indeed, as the under pressure, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood has said, is still a very important sector in this country in terms of the manufacturing area, it's a place good wages, it has high employment and perhaps more importantly, it is particularly centred in the North east and the North west and in central Scotland. And so really adds to regional policy in this country. It suffers indeed from high energy costs, but it's also suffered, particularly from regulatory affairs, particularly immediately post Brexit, when the government, the then government, was completely clueless about the costs of and the timing of setting up UK reach.

The estimates of the industry at the time was that it would cost some £10 billion to change from EU reach to UK reach within the time scales that were talked about and thankfully some degree of sanity then came along in terms of those dates. And I note that earlier this year that the transitional compliance deadlines that were originally supposed to take place in 2021 will finally now take place in 2031, ten years after that was originally expected. My comments are around the sea itself today, and it's very specifically around the EU, UK interface.

The government, quite rightly, has made it clear that it wishes to increase convergence with EU regulations, making exports and the work of industry in terms of the chemical sector, in terms of regulatory compliance, far, far easier. I would say, though, to to expect under the sanitary and phytosanitary regulations, I suspect we don't have the cards there to really insist on any great giveaways or divergence from EU regulations. Once we do those negotiations, unfortunately, we are now out of the tent rather than inside it.

But the question I wish to put to the Minister is, is there as as many have said, there are risk that divergence under these regulations because the the exceptions to that compliance are very broad in the sea. Isn't there a real risk that divergence could increase rather than decrease? So my question is this will the government, through the HSE, start to report on UK? EU divergence in classifications and in particular explain why an EU chemical classification is not being considered for a UK classification and report that regularly.

Now, like the noble Baroness Bennett, I am interested in the mention of the 2027, which is not so far away. And does that mean that those convergences with EU regulations will stop at that point? But in the meantime, will we have much better information and timely information of why those divergences are still taking place? Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I am grateful. For the opportunity to speak on these regulations, and I begin by these regulations, and I begin by thanking the noble Lady, the Minister, for explaining and setting out the Statutory setting out the Statutory Instrument with clarity, and the noble Baroness Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, for bringing forward Manor Castle, for bringing forward a motion in order to ensure that here in the chamber we have a detailed debate on what is a detailed debate on what is a particularly important issue.

My thanks also go to the Wildlife and Countryside Link for their briefings on this issue. These regulations address matters of real significance, the protection of public health, the integrity of our environmental standards and the effectiveness of chemical regulatory systems on on which both businesses and consumers rely. It is not a narrow technical adjustment. I think we can all agree, and it has a set of changes that have wide ranging implications. No one in this House would dispute the need to keep such frameworks under review.

Science evolves, risks change and regulation must be fit for purpose. The government argue that these measures will resolve practical issues arising from the EU exit, streamline processes and reduce burdens on business, in particular, the extension of expiry dates for a substantial number of biocidal active substances, which is intended to avoid disruption and ensure continuity. These are legitimate objectives. However, the question is whether the balance between efficiency, scrutiny and scientific rigour has been correctly struck. One concern relates to the increased flexibility given to the Health and Safety Executive, as mentioned by others, alongside the removal of certain statutory timeframes, time limits aren't mere administrative detail.

They provide discipline, transparency and accountability. If they are to be relaxed, the government needs to explain how timely and robust scientific decision making will be maintained. A more fundamental concern is that these regulations appear to fall behind developments in the European Union system. To explain, in particular, the failure to incorporate six new hazard classes covering, for example, endocrine disruptors and persistent mobile and toxic substances. This raises questions about whether this framework represents progress or, in practice, a step backwards in protections.

That concern is closely linked to the broader issue of alignment. As mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teverson, the European system remains a highly relevant for trade regulatory coherence and the operation of supply chains. Evidence to consultation on this suggested strong support for continued alignment where the UK chooses to diverge, that should be done deliberately, transparently and with clear rationale, not by omission or delay. The position of Northern Ireland. And I note that colleagues are absent on this, and they've they've really missed out this evening.

And and we're all very grateful. Add a further layer of complexity, because these regulations do not apply. They're under the Windsor framework. Divergence is not theoretical, but immediately. So, for an example, it's entirely conceivable that a substance such as bisphenol A could be restricted in products such as toys in Belfast under EU rules, while remaining permissible in Great Britain. That kind of divergence risks confusion for consumers and real challenges for businesses operating throughout the United Kingdom. It is also important to recognise the context in which these changes are being brought forward.

The impending June 26th sunset of powers under the retained EU law framework appears to be a significant driver of the timetable. That, in turn, raises legitimate questions as to whether this is the product of a fully considered long term strategy, or a more hurried response to an approaching legislative deadline. As we have heard in this debate, chemical regulation is not abstract.
18:07
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It affects the safety of products, the protection of workers and the quality of our environment. From quality of our environment. From these benches, we support close and constructive cooperation with the European Union. It will not come as European Union. It will not come as a shock to anyone to hear, especially where it promotes trade and stability. But we will always and stability. But we will always insist on robust environmental protections, high scientific standards and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore approach these regulations with caution.

I recognise the case for a more workable system, but need a bit more convincing. The mechanisms proposed provide sufficient clarity or confidence, and I would just say to the noble Lady Bennett, she has taken us on quite a useful tour of the Statutory Instrument. I am not sure she nailed the rationale for a fatal motion. In that spirit, I would be grateful if the noble Lady, the Minister, could address three specific questions. First, why have the government chosen not to incorporate incorporate the six new EU hazard classes at this stage, and what timetable exists for considering their adoption? Secondly, what criteria will be used to determine when Great Britain aligns with or diverges from EU classifications, and how will those decisions be reported transparently to Parliament? Third, what assessment has been made of the real world impact of divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including specific cases such as the bisphenol A, the one that I mentioned earlier, and how do the government intend to minimise resulting complexity for businesses and consumers? And I'm I'm conscious of time.

I'm conscious we're in ping pong. I'm very happy to be written to on any of those questions. The answers to these questions will be central to determining whether these regulations deliver an effective and credible framework. Without that clarity, there is a risk that increased flexibility may come at the expense of certainty, coherence and ultimately, public confidence.
18:09
Baroness Stedman-Scott Portrait Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the opposition does not oppose this instrument. We not oppose this instrument. We broadly welcome the intent behind it. The chemicals regulatory framework is one of the more framework is one of the more technically demanding legacies of our departure from the European Union, and the government is right to bring it up to date, to make it work for businesses in Great Britain, and to reduce unnecessary burdens on those who must navigate it daily. That is a legitimate and sensible aim.

The amendments to the Great Britain Biocidal Products Regulation are simply common sense, and the changes proposed to the classification, labelling and packaging regulation are a step in the right direction. They reduce the time taken for the HSC to make clarification decisions and streamline the process equally. The introduction of a fast track route for classification proposals drawn from the trusted international systems such as the EU and comparable UN jurisdictions, is a pragmatic reform where international consensus already exists.

It makes no sense to duplicate the work at domestic level. However, welcoming the intent is not the same as passing this instrument without scrutiny. The government is making changes to a framework that exists ultimately to protect human health and the environment. We have a duty to satisfy ourselves that these simplifications do not come at the cost of safety, and that the new structures will function in practice as they are designed to, in theory. On that basis, I have several questions for the Minister.

First, on safety, the instrument shifts significant decision making power to domestic institutions, to the HSC and to the Secretary of State and removes procedural safeguards that, whatever their origins in EU law, did, provide a degree of independent check. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain what safety assessment has been carried out of these changes? Has the HSC conducted a formal review of its capacity to absorb the new responsibilities placed upon it? Under the revised article 37 process? And can the Minister confirm that the removal of the notification database has been assessed not simply as an administrative saving, but for any downstream impact on the completeness of information available to regulators? Secondly, on how this has been tested, any significant change to a regulatory process should be road tested before it's placed on a statutory footing.

Can the Minister tell noble Baroness, the Minister, tell the House whether the new unified classification procedure, and in particular the fast track route, has been piloted or modelled in any way as the HSC trialled processing proposals under the new framework, and if so, with what results has industry been consulted not only on the policy design but on the operational workability of the new system? We would be concerned if this instrument is, in effect, the first real test of whether these procedures function as intended.

Connected with this, I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised concerns that removing the six month deadline for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

technical reports Could in practice slow down

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could in practice slow down decision making, particularly if the HSC is considering proposals from multiple international jurisdictions. Can the Minister explain how the government will explain how the government will ensure that the new system delivers genuine efficiencies, rather than shifting delay to an earlier stage shifting delay to an earlier stage of the process? And finally, on the transitional provisions, the saving provision in this instrument preserves the old classification procedures for proposals already in train and opinions already issued by relevant bodies before commencement.

That is sensible in principle, but in practice, the boundary between the old system and the new one will require careful management. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, set out how that boundary will be communicated to industry, to applicants and to HSC itself? What guidance will be published and when and what happens in cases where a proposal is at an intermediate stage where some steps have been taken under the old framework, but the process is not yet complete. We would be grateful for clarity on how those edge cases will be handled, and whether any guidance has been has already been shared with stakeholders.

And like my like the noble Baroness Grender, if the noble Baroness would find it more helpful to write than. We're very happy with that. My Lords, we do not seek to obstruct this instrument. The direction of travel is right. A GB led, streamlined chemicals framework that reduces unnecessary burdens while maintaining robust protections is something we support. But streamlining and safeguarding are not in tension. They should go together. We hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, can give reassurances we need.

We look forward to her response and any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

letters she might send. Lord Soames am very grateful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Soames am very grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and although we are having it in the chamber rather than in Grand Committee, it's always good to have the opportunity to scrutinise things. The hon. Lady Baroness Grender made an important point Grender made an important point these things shouldn't just be going through without any consideration. They're too important for that and the chance to have the conversation is very to have the conversation is very welcome. The regulations do introduce necessary changes to highly technical set of regulatory regimes, but the changes do preserve the high standards of protection we inherited from our time in the EU, and ensure we can continue to recognise decisions made by the European Chemicals Agency, which remains highly respected.

Let me try to go through the points that were raised. I won't get them all and I will have
18:16
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
to write, and for which I apologise. But I will try to go through those in the Baroness Davies Lady Bennetts starting with. Since she Bennetts starting with. Since she put her motion down first, she asked about the EU's sbcs, adding them to our list. The government intends to make legislation. I intends to make legislation. I should have been clear this is secondary legislation. The government intends to make secondary legislation by June 2027, secondary legislation by June 2027, providing for the incorporation of the six EU hazard classes in GB CLP.

That's something lady Grender also That's something lady Grender also asked about the development work on developing that is already underway, and HSE is currently engaging with stakeholders to understand the potential impacts of aligning with the EU on CLP measures, including as hazard classes, and has issued a stakeholder impact survey for exactly that purpose. The work has been progressed separately to the see. As I explained, due to constraints in the Rule Act, which prevent an increase in overall increase in regulatory burdens and the government has made it clear that reaching a negotiated SPS agreement with the EU is a key priority.

Negotiations are ongoing, but we are committed to reach an agreement by the end of this year. Broadly, it is expected for the areas scope will dynamically align with the relevant EU legislation. I hope that reassures both noble Lords on that front. Tony Bennett asked again about comments. So just to be clear again, that that we will continue engaging with the EU and the other international partners at the UN to consider the scientific basis for the six EU hazard classes. And as you know, the discussions at the UN, GCS have not yet concluded.

So the outcomes of those discussions have not been determined. The UK will take into account the EU's intended action in response to the outcomes of the UN work. When formulating our own position on the conclusions of the UN. GHS consideration. But again, just to underscore agency, and we do intend to make legislation by June 2027 that provides for the incorporation of the six EU hazard classes in GB CLP, and that's been done for separately for reasons I've just explained. The point Baroness Stedman-Scott and the noble Baroness Healy Bennett raised about the questions about the resourcing of the HSE and its size and HSC, its funding and its priorities and progress are monitored by the government.

We are. DWP is indeed the sponsor department for the HSC and a delight it is. And it's really important work because much of what is there is very much at the centre of our work. But just to be clear, and of course, that the fundamental scientific judgements are not changing as part of this changing the regime here. HSC business plan for this year confirms its continued commitment to concentrate on the most serious risks to target industries with the greatest hazards, and sectors with the worst risk management record.

And just in response to the Baroness Stedman-Scott where necessary. For example, HSC significantly increased its resources to deal with the extra workload after leaving the EU, for example, on the 1st of January 2021, there were approximately 262 approximately. There were 262 technical staff and HSC Chemicals Regulation Division working across the six chemicals, supply and use regimes. Today, that division has approximately 440 staff. So where it's necessary to respond to that additional resource is put into those areas. And I think in terms of the regulatory approach, the number, Baroness Lloyd said.

Lady Bennett raised this, and the noble Lord Lord Redwood pulled it from the opposite direction. I think it is. It is the job of the HSC, and its regulatory approach is aligned with the requirements of the growth duty, but its job is to achieve the right regulatory balance between supporting safe business practice and protecting workers and the public, and proportionate health and safety regulations do facilitate economic growth, but the key is they have to be proportionate. Noble Lord Lord Redwood is quite right.

This isn't about taking risks or cutting corners on safety. It's about making appropriate, proportionate decisions. But there is no point in leaving regulatory requirements in place if they serve no purpose and do nothing to to act. They do nothing to actually make anybody safer. They simply make things more difficult for business. So and I think apparently I should make a correction. Apparently when I was talking about biocides actually have a useful role in controlling harmful organisms. Apparently I said harmful organisations. So. So if I did, there aren't I wasn't making I wasn't dissing anyone's organisation, just the organisms.

So apologies for that. Excellent. The noble Lady Bennett asked about oh, the jurisdiction question. Yeah, this is at the moment already we can consider a jurisdiction from anywhere. This is about speeding it up. But let me reassure the noble Lady that qualification for the fast track evaluation process has to be subject to the criteria set out in the s I. So it's the only jurisdiction that meets them now is the EU. No other jurisdiction adopts in the same way as the UK apart from the EU and no other jurisdiction apart from the EU, has an open and transparent classification system based on public consultation as we do.

Other jurisdictions can submit proposals, but they'll be part of the normal track evaluation process and any proposals to add jurisdictions were considered to meet the criteria in future will be included in the work plan, subject to consultation as part of the work plan and decisions are taken by Ministers. But the bottom line is they have to meet the criteria and that's the safety net. The noble Baroness Suttie, Lady Bennett asked about removing the special reference identification number. Now she. She mentioned that cutting red tape and cutting red tape can sometimes be good.

Special reference identification numbers are not a requirement of the Rotterdam Convention. They were introduced for use in an EU IT system to which we no longer have any access. They therefore serve no serve, no useful purpose. So removing the requirement for companies to obtain a special reference identification number for small quantities of chemicals being exported solely for research or analysis removes a completely unnecessary burden on businesses and on HSC as the designated authority. They simply do not have a function. The hon.

Lady asked about the disbanding of the DEFRA stakeholder event. Now, regular stakeholder engagement is really important in this area as other others, but it can take many forms. I'm advised that Defra will continue to engage closely with a range of stakeholders to gather their input, harness their expertise and share defra's thinking. They do not plan to organise any further CSF meetings, but their engagement remains strong through their monthly chemicals NGO forum and the Chemicals Policy and Communication CPD Industry Forum, as well as through relevant events.

But can I just say, in relation to any materials that were discussed in that context, I want to say really clearly, the agency is happy to engage and consult with stakeholders at any time. So if there are concerns about HSC, I would encourage her to get in touch with me and we can take that forward from there. The noble Lord Lord Teverson asked about the exceptional circumstances. I think it was a noble Lord Lord Teverson it was. He's nodding. I'm grateful. Just to be clear, these reforms do not allow exceptional circumstances to be used to weaken protections.

Divergence will only occur in exceptional circumstances and only on scientific and technical grounds, not on economic grounds. Government explicitly prioritises, excuse me. Government priorities explicitly emphasise maintaining high standards of health and environmental protection, and leaning into alignment with EU decisions unless scientifically justified otherwise. That could, for example, be the fact that more information may have come to light after an EU opinion had been issued. But it is scientific. Yes, I think yes. I mean, again, the the I mean, I'm I'm assured the agency's commitment to align with EU discussions has been welcomed across all chemical stakeholder groups.

The. Possibly not by the noble Lord Lord Redwood, I acknowledge, but that reflects a strong commitment across a number of priorities, including reducing trade barriers that, of course actually which arise from divergent standards, actually supports trade in goods with our biggest trading partner, protecting the UK internal market by ensuring that different regulatory requirements don't apply in Northern Ireland, significantly reducing the risk of suppliers of chemical products no longer supporting the market in Northern Ireland. And I say to the noble Lord Lord Redwood, this process is not about banning other products in Northern Ireland.

One of the things that closely aligning where possible does is actually protect Northern Ireland's supply chain by making sure that the companies will still be able to supply and will want to supply. And I should say, the extent of agreement or divergence with EU classification proposals or decisions will be will be identified and reported in the HSE work plan. So I hope that answers the question he asked about answers the question he asked about that. So that's been covered. I think somebody asked about about whether or not extending expiry dates would increase or would reduce risk protection, just to be clear, because these are substances that have previously been evaluated under PBR, meaning the risks are understood and they have been and they've already been approved for use.

Postponing the expiry dates allows regulatory resources to be focussed on higher priority evaluations, including first time approvals, where the risk is less well understood and a limited number of high hazard renewals. So I think that hopefully that makes a difference. And what it does mean, of course, is that critical biocides remain on the GP market, which in themselves would cause issues if not available. Nothing in the regulations allows new biocidal products which are not already in the market. Rather, the purpose is continuity to ensure essential products such as those critical for aviation safety and safe drinking water are not lost.

The Baroness Stedman-Scott asked about raise the issue about the GB CLP notification database. In the absence of that, GB CLP suppliers can use other resources such as the European Chemical Agency's analogous database, which may encourage agreement between EU and GB suppliers on hazard classifications for their chemicals, otherwise known as self classifications, and also, duty holders still have a legal obligation to self classify a substance that pose higher risks are already regulated under frameworks such as reach GB, BPR and GB Plant Protection Products Regulation or other downstream legislation such as the UK Cosmetics Regulation or the control of substances hazardous to health regulations.

This ensures ongoing oversight of relevant hazards and associated risks. But I think I may be running out of things I can usefully say so I hope I've answered the things that are critical to today's vote. I can assure the House that we will. I will look carefully at Hansard, and I will write to noble Lords with questions that I have not been able to answer today. But while I am grateful for the scrutiny, I do stand by the case I have set out for these regulations.

This instrument is practical, proportionate and urgent. It keeps essential biocides available, safeguarding public health and critical infrastructure while preserving the ability to respond quickly to emerging risks. It speeds up our regulatory decision making so it is more transparent and better targeted to GB needs, enabling us to align more quickly with EU classification decisions and prioritise chemical hazard evaluations. Of greatest importance to the GB market and it simplifies export requirements under. GB while ensuring we continue to meet our international obligations. These are measured improvements to ensure the system works for Great Britain as intended.

Supports our chemicals industry, protects people and the environment and allows us. To regulate where it delivers the greatest value. I hope Honourable Baroness Bennett has been reassured and will not push a motion to decline these regulations. If she does. I urge the House not to vote for and I beg to move.
18:27
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this quite short. But I think important debate. Perhaps shorter than we debate. Perhaps shorter than we expected due to the absence of our Northern Ireland colleagues, and I particularly thank the noble Lady, particularly thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for a very comprehensive, careful and clear response. I think there is going to be significant reassurance in what the noble Lady said to the campaigners with which I have been working, and for all of those noble Lords who might be thinking about their dinner.

I will give advance notice that I am not intending to put this to a vote. Having heard the debate, however, there are a couple of things that I would like to say. I particularly want to thank the noble Lady Baroness Grender for, I think, a very clear explanation of the importance of this debate. And I think the really important point that relaxing time limits is not a mere detail, but actually a matter of potentially great safety and health concerns. Now, in responding to the noble Lord Lord Redwood, I have to first of all say that the noble Lords spoke with some glee about strong disinfectant killing germs.

I really would love to have a chat with the noble Lord about the issue of antimicrobial resistance and where that interacts with what the noble Lord said. And I also think the noble Lord was suggesting this was some kind of Brexit freedom. I would point to the fact that substances of very high concern, zero for us, 44 for the EU is not some kind of freedom. I don't think anyone could reasonably call that. I just want to also say that I was really pleased to hear from the noble Lady Baroness Stedman-Scott about the concerns about his capacity to hear those from the Tory frontbenchers and the noble Lady.

The Minister pointed out that additional resources were being put into chemical regulation. Of course, unless the overall resources increase, that means the regulation is being resources are being taken away from other places. And I'll just note in passing an area I've done a lot of work on, on silicosis associated with machine worktops and the issues around that. I think I may have misunderstood the noble Lady's introduction, which is undoubtedly my fault. I was pleased to hear about the six classes, the six classes, and that the government intends Statutory Instrument on that by June 2027, from which I think I misunderstood and thought that was talking about 2027 for primary legislation.

I will therefore ask the noble Lady, the Minister, to write to me about what the government's framework is for primary legislation, because, of course, both the secondary legislation scrutiny Committee and the HSC itself say that secondary legislation, that primary legislation is absolutely necessary for us to keep up to date with the secondary legislation. I'm just going to conclude with one final thought. Just to think about what kind of chemicals we're actually talking about here. There's a class of chemicals known as second generation anticoagulant rodenticides.

And actually many members of your Lordships House and the other place have been asking the government many questions about this, including my hon. Friend, Ellie Chowns. She was told that the government is considering monitoring residues of these very dangerous chemicals in red kites, buzzards, sparrowhawks, peregrine falcons, red foxes, otters and hedgehogs. That really just gives you a sense of the way in which we are contaminating our environment, our natural world, with some very dangerous substances, which is something I would urge your Lordships House to keep a very close eye on.

In the meantime, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to withdraw my amendment. Yeah. This amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that the original motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content of the contrary, not content. the contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. My Lords, I now expect we will receive the message from the House of Commons on the pension schemes of Commons on the pension schemes and English devolution bills later than I originally thought, to ensure the House can make productive use of time. I suggest that after the statement, we move straight on to the regulation, agricultural regulations and the regret motion. In the name of the noble Lord Lord Roborough. We will then consider the messages on those two bills.

After debate on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regulations. My Lords, may I suggest a short pause to allow noble Lords to leave
18:31
18:33
None Portrait Statement: Recent Antisemitic Attacks Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-

think almost at about the same time, a Jewish man working in Slough was subject to appalling antisemitic subject to appalling antisemitic abuse and threatening behaviour. Now that incident, unlike most Now that incident, unlike most incidents, was caught on video and the perpetrator has now admitted racially aggravated assault and is racially aggravated assault and is awaiting sentence. So I'll say nothing more about that specific case except one thing, my Lords. According to newspaper reports, the victim of that attack has now decided to stop wearing his kippah, his religious head covering in public.

No further comment is necessary, my Lords. I've said before that while the Jewish community is grateful to this government and previous governments, because this ought not to be a party political issue, while we are grateful for increased funding for security, and especially to the Community Security Trust, the response to the current spate of anti-Jewish violence has to move beyond building ever higher walls and buying more stab vests for yet more security guards, and on to the root causes of the problem.

Now, when asked a very specific question by my hon. Friend Matt Vickers in the other place about the link between Islamist extremism and these antisemitic attacks, the security Minister said, and I quote, the honourable, hon. Gentleman also made an entirely reasonable and important point about extremism. As I said in my previous remarks, the government are doing a lot of work led by the Secretary of State. There is also a lot of work coordinated across government to target the threats we face from extremists.

I find that reply odd. The security Minister responded by talking only about general extremism. If the government can't bring themselves, to use the phrase Islamist extremism and to recognise that the specific problem we currently have is with Islamism, then how can we have faith that they grasp the enormity of the challenge? My Lords, you cannot solve a problem if you cannot even identify what the problem is. It's clear what the problem is. It's demonstrated on the Near-weekly marches, where attendees still praise Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are prescribed organisations.

It's the chance of globalise the intifada. We all now know what globalising the intifada looks like in practice. The Metropolitan Police have now belatedly said that they will intervene if such chants are made. But why, my Lords, did it take blood on our streets for that change of position which some of us have been demanding for months? My Lords, last night I and my daughter were dining at a kosher restaurant on the Golders Green Road. Halfway through our dinner, two uniformed police officers popped into the restaurant.

They explained that they were, quote, just doing their rounds quotes and wanted to check that everything was OK. My Lords, I am sincerely grateful to the rank and file police officers for all the work they do, but I would like to live in a country where I don't have uniformed police officers securing my synagogue or guarding my community schools. And now, it seems patrolling kosher restaurants too. I used to live in that country. I would just like to live in it again.

The late Chief Rabbi, Lord sacks, reminded us that anti-Semitism is a mutating virus. When I grew up, most Jew hatred came from the far right. But today that has changed. So can the noble Lord. The Minister today demonstrate that the government does recognise that Islamist extremism. Extremism is now the root cause of the majority of rising antisemitism, and set out the steps the government is taking to address this. We know that there are a number of groups operating within the United Kingdom who are actively stoking anti-Semitic hatred.

I hope the recent promise to ban the IRGC will be enacted speedily in the next session. But the Muslim Brotherhood and Harakat Al-islamiya, the group that has claimed responsibility for the recent attacks, have not been banned and they are active. My Lords, the United Arab Emirates has warned its citizens not to study at British universities for fear of radicalisation on our campuses. Yesterday, the United States Embassy in London issued an extraordinary security warning instructing American citizens in Britain and elsewhere in Europe to quotes exercise extreme caution in the vicinity of Jewish institutions in Britain and, perhaps most worryingly, is the.

The most worrying development is the likely influence of the Iranian state in all of this. If Iran is found to have coordinated these recent attacks, will the government now move to expel Iranian diplomats and step up sanctions against Iran? My Lords, there is so much more that needs to be done to stamp out anti-Semitism in Britain. And what we know is that walls, guards and stab vests are the equivalent of palliative care. They are not a cure.

We need to focus on the cure. And as we all know, my Lords, the first step to any cure is correctly identifying the disease. My Lords.
18:39
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you to Lord Wolfson for >> Thank you to Lord Wolfson for his views on that. I, as a member of the Jewish community, am grateful for all the speeches of grateful for all the speeches of sympathy that have been and are being extended to the Jewish community. I am personally grateful. In between the First and Second World Wars, that my late mother was able to move to Britain from Szrensk in north central Poland. Sadly, her mother and other family members were never heard of again.

After 1945. Many came to this country to escape anti-Semitism and were welcomed and made able to make good lives for themselves and their children. This makes it even more horrifying that we have seen recently an upsurge in violence and hate speeches and demonstrations against the Jewish population. My Lords, anti-Semitism is not new, as explained by by the noble Lord, but is now being more obvious by the attacks on Jewish sites in the UK and elsewhere. And I could not previously have imagined a world where many British Jews are feeling very vulnerable and even doubting their long term security in Britain.

A pro-Iranian group, as has been mentioned, has claimed responsibility, although I believe that other groups and individuals and individuals are involved. I hope it should influence this debate to list recent attacks. In March, there were attacks in Greece, Belgium, Netherlands and France. The nearer to home there were, there was the arson attack on Hatzolah ambulances in my local Jewish community on the 15th of April. Local again to me and arson attack in Finchley Reform synagogue.

Then in all. Then all. In April, an arson attack in Park Royal, a drone attack on Israeli embassy, an arson attack on a Jewish charity, and an arson attack in Kenton shul. This is just April. We must not forget, my Lords. The October 25th attack on Heaton Park shul in Manchester, killing two people. We must, I hope, ask itself if this can be tolerated. We in the UK are grateful for all this country has done to enable the Jewish community to thrive here, and are horrified by the increase in anti-Semitism and attacks on Jewish premises, synagogues and charities.

The answer we hear seems to be as. As noted by the noble Lord about his trip to the restaurant and an increase in security, and the community is grateful for the efforts of the police and the CST, including extra funds for this purpose. However, no other community needs to have its kids, schools, places of worship and community behind security guarded walls. A world where our kids and teens are afraid to show their Jewish identity. Not safe to wear a Magen David or a yarmulke head covering.

As has been said, as has been stated. I spoke to Rabbi Ben Kurtzer, who is my my local community rabbi, and he said, and I quote, Whilst the Jewish community is strong and resilient and continues to flourish, this situation is unacceptable for us as a nation. As with antisemitism through the ages, this is not a Jewish problem. It's a societal one. The hate that begins with the Jews who are not my Lords end with the Jews. Jewish tradition teaches that Moses in ancient Egypt looked around and realised there was no one to stand up against the aggressors, and that was why he took the lead.

To paraphrase our sages, in a place where there is no person stepping forward, try to be that person. My Lords, but I say we need to go to the source. An incitement to this violence. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say as to what they intend to do, about what some call hate marches. I think they are. Some people don't. And demonstrations that fuel this anti-Semitism. When is that dreadful organisation? I keep waiting for it.

Organising the IRGC actually going to be banned as a terrorist organisation. It's been on the cards for such a long time. Could the noble Lord, the Minister, say that the government will seek to explain what Zionism means, that it is a desire for a homeland for the Jews in Israel? Surely the rise in UK anti-Semitism Semitism makes a need for Zionism an absolute must for many in the community. My Lords, the word anti-Zionism is being increasingly used as an acceptable excuse for antisemitism.

Anti-Semitic sentiments. My Lords, there needs to be a line between objecting to events outside the UK and terrorising a section of the UK, of which I am part, and I look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to the minister's response. Thank you. My Lords. I'm grateful to the noble Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and noble Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and the noble Lord Palmer of Childs Hill for their comments, and I think for the general support in think for the general support in terms of the action the government is taking. I want to begin by just condemning anti-Semitism actions by those who are undertaking those those who are undertaking those actions. There is no place for anti-Semitism in our society.

There is no place for individuals not
18:45
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
is no place for individuals not being able to enjoy and share and work with their religion and show that visibly, there is no place for that, and the government will take action to ensure that we protect those rights for the Jewish community. I think it's important to remember that, of the incidents at the time of the statement and the statements, I should just say to the noble Lord Wolfson is being held today. I'm happy to do that any time. It's arranged by the usual channels for today.

I could have done it last week, but the statement did make clear that there were 26 arrests following the activities last week. There have been eight charges to date. There has been one conviction to date, and it is absolutely important that we do, as both noble Lords have said, tackle not just the protective elements of this because I don't want to have a situation whereby individuals have to have that protective security around them long term, but we tackle those root causes as a whole.

But I should say to both noble Lords, that the £28.4 million given to the Community Security Trust is useful resource to help protect society from anti-Semitism. We've additionally added £5 million recently on that. And I would just say as well that and this goes to the heart of the points that have been made about tackling the long term root causes, the social cohesion strategy. The government has recently announced called Protecting What Matters, has allocated £800 million, but is actually looking at a whole range of what I would call proactive measures that I think the noble Lord will welcome, such as stopping hate preachers from entering the United Kingdom, expanding the Global Visa Taskforce, publishing an annual state of extremism, embedding the 2024 definition of extremism across government, and looking to work with the noble Lord Mann and Dame Penny Moreland on the Commission with the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

On the question of anti-Semitism as a whole. We've also got to. And this again goes to the long term issues the noble Lord has mentioned. Look at combating anti-Semitism across all elements of society, including reviewing the public order and hate legislation which is being undertaken by the noble Lord MacDonald of River Glaven at the moment, looking at universities and schools and colleges, and we've committed some £7 million of resource to help clamp down on antisemitic extremism there. And also we've had the review of preventing 2023, which has made a number of recommendations that we brought into power currently.

I should also say to the noble Lord. Sorry, Sir Charles Hill, that we have looked at the issue of hate marches this very day. We've completed the Crime and Policing Bill, which is now going for potential Royal Assent very shortly, in that there are definitive powers to redirect marches, to redirect persistently aggressive marches, and to give police additional powers to do that. And I think it's also important that we take, again, on board the points that both noble Lords have mentioned, which is the question of how do we deal with this in the longer term? It's important that the police have intelligence led policing, looking at where there are organisations and groups that are causing potential anti-Semitism, we have the arrests that have been made to date, and I think, again, with regard to the organisations that have claimed responsibility for these attacks, I want to, if I may, take that at face value.

For the moment, the police have a job to do. The police have a job to see whether they are responsible, whether there are potential proxies for potential state actors responsible. We will receive reports from the police. I hope that we can allow the police to do their job and to investigate and report back, and if action is required, we will consider taking that in due course. We've had significant discussion around Iran, and again, I know the sensitivities and and concerns over that.

And I'd just say again, and I said this already today, but we have placed the entire Iranian government on the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, which means that individuals who undertake activity in the UK on behalf of the Iranian government face a choice between registering that activity and or by having a criminal offence with a five year prison sentence. We've brought that in. In the last 12 months, we've sanctioned IRGC in its entirety, as well as 550 Iranian individuals and entities.

We've put a robust package of measures in place to tackle threats from the Iranian regime. We have already sanctioned the IRGC financier Ali Ansari, freezing over £100 million of his UK property. And. And this goes back to, again, the reviewer of terrorism. We do have powers to prescribe. Now, we've had that debate earlier, the reviewer of terrorism, Jonathan Hall KC has recommended that we take further action against state actors and state prescription. He has recommended legislation for that.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when visiting a synagogue last week, has mentioned that we want to bring that forward as a matter of urgency. As soon as practicable, noble Lords will know that the King's speech is not too far away. I cannot anticipate today what is in the King's speech, but I hope noble Lords can understand the direction of travel at the earliest opportunity to take that legislation forward. So I say to all noble Lords, this is an issue the government takes seriously.

People of the Jewish community have the right to live their lives free from intimidation, free from threat, free from attack. And the job of the government is to ensure that through protective security, through legislation and where possible, tracking down perpetrators of action and tracking down those who seek to perpetrate action. And we will not rest until that is eradicated. It is a difficult, challenging task. We have, you know, a range of potential operators in the UK and beyond.

There are hate legislation in place. There's a range of measures we're bringing forward in the Crime and Policing Bill. There's measures that are going to be looking at at the earliest opportunity when legislation comes forward. And it's important that all of us in this chamber unite in support for the Jewish community, the condemnation of these attacks, and to ensure that extremism has no place in our society in this 21st century.
18:52
18:53
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I condemn those people from who have a perverted view of the faith of Islam, who undertake this, this of Islam, who undertake this, this action against the Jewish community. But I have to say also, the noble Lord himself mentioned this. I grew Lord himself mentioned this. I grew up in the 1970s when the National Front, the British National Party, right wing organisations had a hatred and activity against the Jewish community as well. So I think it's important that we tackle anti-Semitism from whichever source it comes, because there will be people today who will be relishing anti-Semitism, who are not from a.

The Islam Islam community who are not extremists, and there are others who will take that forward in a way that is unacceptable. Our job is to make sure that we tackle that extremism wherever it comes from, and that's why we will take action against right wing extremism, and we will take action against Islamist extremists as well. The important thing is people have a right to live their religion and live their lives as they wish, free of that intimidation. And that's the job of government to offer that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protection. My Lords, my Lords, may I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my Lords, may I firstly thank the Minister for his strong statement that he has made, but also pay tribute to my noble but also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Wolfson. On the front bench. He pointed to an important point which was we must attack and point which was we must attack and tackle all forms of extremism. Yes, but also, and I say quite clearly, as someone who's served in
18:54
18:55
18:56
18:57
18:57
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Does mine? Does the minute. rabbi as saying, this is unacceptable for us as a nation, and that is what I would like to to and that is what I would like to to emphasise. And I think the noble Lord, the Minister has has has given us an account of a lot of the given us an account of a lot of the good work that the government has said, but I. I can't help thinking that we're not really getting down to a lot of the roots of it, and even the.

The title of this statement is Recent Antisemitic Attacks, which is a bit precise. I mean, it's about anti-Semitism and and which is a virus, as has been said. And and, you know, we ideally want to cure. But first of all, we have to look at all the root causes and, and the way that it's, it's, it's, it's changing. It's mutating as, as has been said, I can't help thinking that we need something a bit bigger and, and bolder to, to really get across to this nation just what is happening to the Jewish community.

I mean, something like the Prime Minister going on television, if that isn't, you know, maybe I don't know if it's a daft idea, but somehow I think we need to sort of sock it to our fellow Brits. Just what the Jewish community is experiencing at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moment. Well, the title of this statement is What It Is, because my statement is What It Is, because my right hon. Friend the Security Minister wanted to make a statement to the House of Commons straight to the House of Commons straight after the events that took place just over a week ago, and he went to the House of Commons last week. to the House of Commons last week. I'm now repeating that statement today. And he also visited the synagogues, as did my right hon.
18:59
19:00
19:01
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
The Minister said. of all parties to stand up against anti-Semitism. Does the Minister share my disgust at the comments of the leader of the Green Party, Mr. Zack Polanski, who suggested that the problem was a perception of anti-Semitism, an unsafety for the Jewish community, and who suggested that anti-Semitism had been, quote, weaponized against Jeremy Corbyn. As the former leader of the Labour Party, does the Minister share my concern that the Green Party is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

providing a home for anti-Semites? Well, let me say, first of all, anti-Semitism is not a perception. There are people who have died in Manchester as a result of anti-Semitism. It is not a perception. It is something that we perception. It is something that we have to tackle. The leader of the Green Party and the Greens can speak for themselves. I speak for the Labour Party and for the the Labour Party and for the government, and I hope for the whole House. When I say anti-Semitism has no place in our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

society, we have to root it out and those who apologise for it are not fit to hold public office. Amen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my Lords, I had the privilege of attending Canton synagogues Friday night service last week, which happens to be my local synagogue. No more than two minutes from where I live, I heard a huge concern amongst congregants, a huge concern amongst congregants, not only of the recent recent attack at the synagogue, but the general feeling of insecurity as general feeling of insecurity as Jews, something we absolutely urgently need to address is just not acceptable as a community feels not acceptable as a community feels that fear and are facing that fear.

The rabbi also spoke of support and solidarity they received from the wider community. Can my noble friend the Minister, please give us more detail on how the government, more detail on how the government, with other agencies, intends to promote positive interaction between communities as part of a between communities as part of a long term and sustainable future solution to the Jewish community are safe in this country.
19:03
19:03
19:04
19:05
19:06
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, to. >> My Lord, to. >> Pick up on. >> The notion that it is indeed Islamic extremism.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That lies behind this. Now this means, and I hope the Minister will agree, that the Charity Commission should be investigating charities that support extremism and funnel money towards extremism. But behind that, Islamic extremism lies the religion. It is religious teaching that has brought us to this point. Let us not forget that all the Jews in the Middle East were thrown out of countries like Yemen and Syria before Israel was established, but just as many Jews were expelled from the Middle East as Arab Palestinians left Palestine on religious grounds, Jews were always second class citizens in those countries because that's what the religion prescribes.

And that means the government must not stop inspecting and registering religious schools. I believe there's been a movement to exempt them. That would be absolutely wrong. If there are schools where children spend the whole day studying religion, those schools must be inspected. We must make sure they get secular education and they are not taught to hate. And Lord Mann and Penny Mordaunt pointed that out in the report they made about anti-Semitism. Indeed, asking the Church of England to make sure that children were not taught hostility.

I also hope that the Minister will condemn the possible motion, which wasn't actually put in the end of the Green Party, that Zionism is racism and that Israel should not exist to have a party in this country. That takes that attitude in order, presumably to attract the worst in society is simply unacceptable. And I look to this government to condemn it.
19:08
19:09
19:10
19:12
19:13
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, on the first point the noble Lady mentions, which is the question of hate marches. As I've said earlier in my contribution, said earlier in my contribution, the government has passed and and the Crime and Policing Bill is now heading for Royal Assent. The government has passed that legislation that includes additional powers for the police to both ban and reroute marches. It is for the police to do that, not for politicians. It's for the police to take those actions and where those actions now through the trauma policing Bill, lead to persistent marches of hate, the police have additional powers to take action on that as a whole.

As I've said in response to the earlier points made by the noble Lord Grade, I will look at the issue that's been mentioned around the banning of people because of their religion from activities. But again, I just want to leave the house because time has now finished with this government gives a strong condemnation to anti-Semitism, will take whatever action it can to root it out, will give what action it can, as we are doing now to support the Jewish community. But I hope that as a whole we can work towards a cohesive society where people's religion, colour or indeed their background does not cause violence against them or intimidation against their behaviour and the way in which they choose to live their lives.

Everybody is individual. Everybody should be allowed to live their life to their full potential.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, time. On the this statement has now elapsed and I'll wait just a moment elapsed and I'll wait just a moment to. The house can leave if it wishes to, before I call the next My My Lords My Lords. My Lords. Agriculture Delinked. Payments. Reductions England Regulations 2026. Baroness Hayman of Ullock.
19:16
None Portrait Orders and regulations: Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026 and the associated regret motion in the name of Lord Roborough Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-

My Lords, I beg to move that the House approves the draft. Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) England Regulations 2026, which were laid before the House on the 10th of March. My Lords, I should also declare an interest as I am in receipt of Delinked payments. This instrument sets the reductions that will apply to dealing payments in England for the years 2026 and 2027. In doing so, it delivers our commitment to phase out these subsidies by the end of the seven year agricultural transition period, as we redirect funding to our other schemes for farmers, 2027 will be the last year of payments.

My Lords, a regret motion has been tabled expressing concern about the impact on farmers. The government is committed to supporting our farmers in the vital role they play, and we will continue to invest in our farmers and land managers to make their businesses, food production and our country more sustainable and resilient for the years ahead. Reducing delinked payments is essential so that we can fund our other schemes which help us to achieve this. Dealing payments do not address the underlying challenges affecting farm profitability.

They do not support the healthy soils, the abundant pollinators and clean water that's needed to produce good food. They do not promote innovation and do not provide good value for money. So the reductions to dealing payments will complete the move away from the previous scheme, which rewarded land ownership with 50% of payments going to the largest 10% of farms. We are applying the reductions fairly, with higher reductions to amounts in the higher payment band, and we announce the reductions last June in order to help farmers to plan.

The money released from DLUHC payments is being reinvested in the sector. Farmers and land managers will benefit from an average of £2.3 billion a year over the period 2026 27 to 20 2829 through the Farming and Countryside programme, and up to £400 million from additional nature schemes, including those for tree planting and peatlands. This includes increasing annual funding for the environmental land management schemes from 1.8 billion in 20 2526 to more than £2 billion by 2020 829. This means we're backing farmers with the largest nature friendly budget in history to support them to help restore nature and boost farm productivity.

There are now 5000 farm businesses and half of all farmed land managed under our environmental land management schemes. Earlier this year, we announced plans for our new sustainable farming incentive offer, which will ensure more farmers can access funding. A range of improvements will be introduced to make SFI 26 simpler, more streamlined and easier to navigate. The new offer will continue to support sustainable farming by strengthening the environmental foundations of farm profitability and our long term food security. Last September, the new Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier opened for applications to those who have been invited to apply, have received pre-application advice and have completed any preparatory work and landscape recovery projects that were awarded.

Development funding in rounds one and two are continuing to progress towards the delivery phase. Plans for a third round will be confirmed in due course. The latest round of the Environmental Land Management Capital grant offer will open in July this year, backed by £225 million in funding, and that's 50% more than was available in 2025. We've also announced plans for £120 million in innovation and productivity grants for 2020 627. Such grants can help the sector access cutting edge technology and techniques like robotic weeders, which reduce chemical use in our countryside and help farmers grow more food.

This funding forms part of the government's commitment to invest at least £200 million in agricultural innovation by 2030 to improve productivity and trial new technology as part of the UK's modern industrial strategy, and we will be spending up to £30 million over three years on a new approach to farm collaboration and advice. And we are working with Doctor Hilary Cottam to develop a place based approach for upland communities, and we've also extended the Farming in Protected Landscapes programme for another three years until March 2029.

We want to continue to work in partnership with the sector. We've established a Farming and Food Partnership Board which brings together voices from farming, food, retail and finance to drive profitability. Building on the recommendations made in Baroness Batters Farming Profitability review. And we've also been engaging with farmers and stakeholders on a 25 year farming roadmap, which will set out the government's long term vision for farming, giving farmers the clarity they need to plan ahead. This government wants farm businesses that are productive, profitable and resilient while contributing to food security and nature's recovery.

The reductions to delinked payments are essential to enable us to make the planned investments in the future of farming and the countryside. Thank you.
19:21
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
The question is, does this motion be agreed to? Amendment Lord Roborough. >> My Lords, I first draw the House's attention to my register of House's attention to my register of interests as a farmer and landowner, also in receipt of Delinked and other government payments. And I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, the Government Chief Whip, for moving this debate to a civilised time this evening. I think the much appreciated by by all noble Lords, and I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for outlining this s I.

Although we do regret its introduction. Indeed, it is now at the end of this session that we are about to lose significant agricultural expertise from this House, which keenly understands the impact of legislation such as this on the ground and in our close knit communities. My Lords, when in government we replace the basic payment scheme with delinked payments based on historic BPS claims. We intended this to be gradually phased out by 2028 in favour of environmental land management schemes, where farmers and landowners receive payments only for public goods, as outlined by the noble Baroness, the Minister.

The reductions we put in place put these delinked payments on a gradual glide path to zero. In 2028. This government dramatically accelerated that decline last year and have continued at a similar rate this year. This effectively ends the seven year transition well before the 2028 deadline that farmers had been led to expect, undermining their budgeting. We support the long term transition, but not at this accelerated pace. Conflict in the Middle East has caused uncertainty over fuel prices and fertiliser, and a shortage of industrial Co two grain prices remain at low levels, undermining profitability for our arable farmers.

However, it is not just external factors that are adding pressure to farmers. Deliberate choices made by this government have left farmers more vulnerable. The early closure of the SFI application window last year, the Family Farm and Business Tax, an increased employer, national insurance and the government's refusal to consider our cheap power plan to lower energy costs all have a cumulative impact, and I note that the government has set to spend £100 million to reopen the Ensus bioethanol plant in Teesside to mitigate CO2 disruptions, but this might not have been necessary had the Prime Minister not effectively sold out.

The UK's bioethanol industry at the last minute. In the UK US trade deal, these plants provided a valuable source of demand for our farmers producing wheat, closing them down to benefit American ethanol producers means that we are now supporting American maize or corn farmers at the expense of our own farmers. The deal reduced British tariffs on a quota of 1.4 billion litres of US ethanol, when the total market size for bioethanol in the UK was coincidentally 1.4 billion litres. These are not events outside of the UK's control.

These are government choices. And now this see reduces the direct financial support farmers receive at a time when they need it most. My Lords, ultimately this see does not help farmers. Precisely at a time when global events and this government's choices threaten their viability, let alone profitability,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The original question was that the regulations laid before the the regulations laid before the House on the 10th of March be approved, since when an amendment approved, since when an amendment has been moved by Lord Roborough at the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment be agreed to. My Lords, I would like to support my. My noble friend and challenge the government on how they are going to spend the money they are going to allocate, because
19:25
Lord Redwood Portrait Lord Redwood (Conservative)
-
-
whilst I can understand the wish to have a transition, I think it is right that it has to be done at a right that it has to be done at a sensible pace. But I think the really big disappointment of the farming community is that the farming community is that the alternative schemes that the government is bringing in are not the kind of schemes that are the kind of schemes that are particularly attractive to many farmers, and are not the kind of schemes that promote the production schemes that promote the production of more domestic food.

And I would hope the government would have a rethink. Now, does the government not understand there is currently a crisis in world trade and the supply of food in the months ahead, because of the difficulties of getting fertiliser out of the Gulf area and the damage being done to chemical and fertiliser plants by more than one war in this world, as well as by the trade disruption that is very acute, with no immediate signs of it being resolved. And those that I've heard from in the farming industry tell me that fertiliser prices are not only extremely high, but there is no visibility as to when they will be able to buy serious quantities of fertiliser again at sensible prices.

And as we know, without proper fertiliser applications, yields will plunge and there will be a further shortage in food provision. I think it is a tragedy that this century there has been a big decline in the amount of home produced food that farms have been able to make because of the grant choices of the EU and successive United Kingdom governments. And I would have thought now is the wonderful opportunity for a rethink to place at the very centre of agricultural subsidy policy, in line with many other countries around the world.

The need to have more domestic, reliable supply and production. And the Minister reminded us that there are some small pots available for those important topics of innovation and new technology. I agree that there can be a new agrarian revolution. It was this country that launched the original one, and there is now huge scope for mechanisation, with robotics and drones and all the other things that can come in. But the amount of money being offered in these small grant schemes is very small and very unambitious.

We have some great farms and some great farmers, but many of them would like to have access to serious money for that big investment and that pioneering technology that could start to make the difference. So I would urge the government to think again, put food production as the central issue that we need to deal with, understand the urgency of the collapse, both in British farming and in the wider world market, because of the interruptions on fertiliser and other chemicals, and just do something to make available that money, which they are saving.

By this rundown of the existing grant system in a more intelligent and more purposeful way, so that farmers can get decent money in order to rebuild their ability to feed us. Yeah, my Lord, my maiden speech in.
19:28
Earl of Devon Portrait The Earl of Devon (Crossbench)
-
-
2019 was on the impact of Brexit on food and agricultural produce, with a focus consistent with my with a focus consistent with my interests as a farmer on the Devon Cream Tea, it is fitting that my final words are on matters agricultural and the Delinked payments regulations, the final decoupling of our agricultural subsidy regime from the Common Agricultural Policy. When I joined the House of Lords, one of the silver linings of the Brexit storm clouds was the promise of autonomy over agricultural policy, which we sought to deliver through the agriculture Bill, scrutinised largely online during those dark days of the pandemic, the birth of environmental land management and the sustainable farming incentive promised a brave new world of public money for public goods, under which the blunt instrument of cap area payments would be replaced by the agile deployment of DEFRA budget to allow British farming to increase productivity and sustainability in equal measure.

During the passage of that bill, this House reiterated multiple times the long term nature of agricultural business and the need for certainty and continuity in government policy to enable farmers to adjust their business models at an appropriate pace, consistent with the annual harvest cycle, their very narrow margins and their necessarily long term investment strategies. Despite my Lords, the hard work of many at Defra and the Rural Payments Agency, that continuity has not materialised. Not only have farm and food businesses been battered by the pandemic wars in Ukraine and Iran, but also by extreme climatic events, drought and flooding and government policy that has become even less clement than the weather.

The IOPC fiasco, coupled with the abrupt closure of the SFI 2025 applications window, has forced farmers trust in government to an all time low mistrust that is not helped by the criminalisation of traditional rural pursuits. While an epidemic of rural crime rages unabated. My Lord, it is against this backdrop that this regrettable and precipitous reduction in delinked payments must be considered. They are, in my view, regrettable and should be delayed, as they will only further push already stressed farming businesses into the red at the worst possible time.

On top of this, the Lords the government's manifesto commitment to abolish hereditary peers has a regrettable impact of removing from Parliament a cohort of rural Britain's most supportive voices, from Caithness and Dundee to Devon and Leicester, there will be a deafening silence. Who can replace Lord Carrington on farm productivity or the Duke of Wellington on water? Add to that the well-earned retirement of the noble Lord Currie, Northumbria's tireless agricultural champion, and our Parliament will be hugely diminished in the expertise necessary to scrutinise and support rural and agricultural policy of the long term.

Just as a 25 year farming strategy is being launched, there can be no other policy sector so damagingly impacted by the loss of hereditary peers, and I urge the government to do all they can urgently to remedy this sad imbalance. And that's not to say that rural champions not will not remain. Hopefully, the noble Lord Roborough will find a reprieve. And thank you to him and to the usual channels for securing this debate. The noble Baroness Batters and the noble Lord Cameron on our Crossbenches are as expert as they come.

And of course the noble Minister, Baroness Hayman from Cumbria, will champion rural interests going forwards, but I hope they can find the support that they need to fight on behalf of rural Britain against the ever spreading strain of urbanisation. Finally, my Lords, given, I will not speak again, may I just take a moment to thank all the clerks, the doorkeepers, Black Rod and his security team, the crossbench convenors office, the myriad of remarkable public servants from the libraries to the finance team to the kitchens, who allow us so seamlessly to do what we do with grace, dedication and bravery.

Can I also thank my family, colleagues and teams at Mitchell and Paul Gerrard for supporting me in my years of service? While I profess to run a business and maintain a career in private practice to finish where the Earl of Devon started, I remind the house that all dwarf my Saxon predecessor, farmed in Devon and first served cream teas to the rebuild of Tavistock Abbey after the Viking invasion of 997 A.D. I look forward, therefore, to returning to Devon and purveying cream teas while helping to rebuild our rural economy of our dear county once more.
19:33
Lord Swire Portrait Lord Swire (Conservative)
-
-
Somebody who lives in Devon. I look forward to a long time of the look forward to a long time of the noble Lord, Lord Devon's cream teas, for which he is regrettably going to have more time to produce as a result of the delinking of the hereditary peerage and the legislative process of this country. My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Lady. The Minister's statement today, and several things strike me. The first is this assault on the rural community and on the farming community is not a perception.

It is a reality. We have seen year on year farm incomes shrinking. We've seen a rapid increase in costs, not least as we heard from the noble Lord Lord Redwood. The problems we are now confronted with with fertiliser, which are very serious indeed, but also the tremendous growth in bureaucracy, with the chopping and changing of government policies and the bringing forward of this latest government policy creates huge amounts of paperwork for farmers who should be out there farming. But what concerns me, my Lords, is the missed opportunity presented by this rethink on farming in this country, just at a time when we should be looking long term at food security and food production, we seem to be thinking in the short term.

So I would ask the noble Lady, the Minister, what is the government doing to encourage younger people to come into the industry just at a time when we are seeing it getting older and older, and more and more people giving up their farms or wanting to, what hope can she hold out to a younger generation that there is a career and a life in farming for them as well? And what more can she do as well to encourage the land based colleges up and down the country who have offered, often suffered from very poor financial support to get younger people into the industry, because only in that way will we preserve the landscape in the way she envisages.

We can put every kind of subsidy, we can divert every kind of subsidy into all these initiatives, and with some I have no problem with some of those at all. But at the end of the day, this is a man made landscape which we enjoy. It is made by the land managers. It is made by the farmers. It is preserved by the land managers. It is preserved by the farmers. Without them it will not continue to exist, and nor will the food on which we have come to depend be there for us either.
19:36
Lord Curry of Kirkharle Portrait Lord Curry of Kirkharle (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, may I. >> This is my final speech in the chamber. Unlike the Earl of Devon, so rather poignant moment, it feels so rather poignant moment, it feels rather odd. Speaking on this topic this afternoon, as if after 24 this afternoon, as if after 24 years, I've come full circle, I found this rather interesting report when I cleared my desk last week, written by a chap called Kerry in 2002. Let me read a sentence from page 23.

It says. The guiding principle must be that public money should be used to pay for public goods that the public wants and needs. That remaining price supports and associated production controls must go. That direct payments should be phased out as quickly as possible. So here we are, my Lord, 24 years later, completing that process. The journey to this point has been anything but straightforward. I've got to say this, that after the ten years after leaving the European Union and ten Secretaries of State in Defra, later successive governments have failed to provide the leadership that the farming industry deserves.

We had a unique opportunity, whether one agreed with Brexit or not, to write a new script, to design a plan to deliver all the public goods the public wants and needs, to use the phrase in the report. What we have had is ten years of dithering, indecision and procrastination. Of course we had Covid to disrupt the process, but here we are. We still don't have a plan, a vision, any clarity on our future ambitions for this crucial industry of ours to give the current government some credit.

We now have a land use framework. After five years of gestation and the promise of a farming roadmap which noble Baroness the Minister mentioned. Meanwhile, farmers are left in limbo, unclear of what is expected of them. The transition journey is ending with this debate today, but the train doesn't have a destination. So what are the public goods that the public needs and wants that farmers and land managers can deliver? We've wrestled with this definition of public goods, which and which public goods require government intervention, because there is no functioning market for them.

Carbon markets are still immature. Natural capital is still a great idea, but most environmental outcomes still require government intervention. Restoring and maintaining habitats, cleaning up and managing water, carbon sequestration and so on. We need clean air, clean water and healthy soils. One outcome that farmers can and are delivering successfully is renewable energy. We certainly do not need any further financial inducements to deliver that, particularly solar. I do hope that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has read the Land Use Framework document and begins to think about it before completely ignoring local opinion.

When he blindly signs off every large solar application to cross his desk, the $54,000 question is about food, which a noble Lord Redwood has stated. If, as the government has recognised, food security is national security, then what does it mean? Food is the outcome from the management of the countryside that most farmers want to deliver. It's why they came into farming. So if it's a public good and I think the government now accepts that it is, is there a functioning market that supports the production of food at a price that provides farmers with an adequate return, without government intervention? This, it seems to me, is the fundamental question and was, of course, the challenge given to the noble Baroness Batters.

And we wait with keen interest for the government's response to her very important report. Two factors are important for the market to function well requires fair competition. So there is a need for an adjudicator to oversee a market dominated by powerful players. And I welcome the move of the adjudicator to DEFRA. Hopefully this will lead to much stronger links to the sectorial adjudicators and a more forensic monitoring of market behaviour. The wider scheme ought to include the processing sector to which it doesn't at present.

The second factor is that a well-functioning market requires a level playing field, with imports being produced to the same or equivalent standards as we have here. Despite regular reassurances that the new trade deals are robust, I'm still concerned about this. The only way to be satisfied is to carry out a thorough and regular audit of supply chains in countries of origin, and that requires resources and audit not only of food safety standards, but also of environmental measures and animal welfare standards, so that trade can compete fairly.

So having satisfied ourselves on supply chain relationships and achieved achieved a level playing field on imports, is it possible to produce food profitably without subsidisation? Well, the most efficient farmers can, at least some of the time. So skills, training, technical knowledge are important. T has been established to help with skills. Access to scientific knowledge is important. Benchmarking and having excellent business skills is important. Adding value wherever possible is important. Applying risk management tools is also important, and so on.

Producing what the market wants is critically important, particularly having access to local markets and the public sector. All these need to be in place and government need to help. Do we need to reconsider our attitude to subsidies? I don't think we should go back to direct subsidisation of food production. It distorts markets and distorts behaviour and puts developing countries at a serious disadvantage. However, there is much more we could do to assist farmers in their commitment to produce food, which is also in the nation's interest.

I've been struck recently when rummaging through old documents, how influential the development grant schemes were that I and most farmers, took advantage of in the 1960s, 70s and into the 80s to improve our facilities, build fences, buildings, equipment, etc. to extend the SFI application process to embrace and include productivity support rather than a separate productivity grant scheme to help improve business efficiency alongside environmental management and environmental protection measures, would deliver multiple outcomes from the multifunctional landscape through a combined scheme with today's online technology, it wouldn't cost much more to administer than the current complex mix of schemes we have.

Every farm business should have the opportunity to participate, either individually or through a combined collaborative scheme, and this should include tax allowances appropriate for investments. The Treasury need to recognise the critical critical importance of this industry of ours and the importance of producing food. After introducing the entry level scheme following this report, we achieved over 7,070% participation in stewardship schemes. We have regressed since then. The current uncertainty and stop start processes with SFI will not deliver the landscape.

Improvements in environmental management, including species improvement and restoration that we need. Whole catchments need to be included. Every farm needs to engage. All the agencies need to work together, all the agencies to agree. Plans for the Wye Valley, for the Tees Valley, for the chalk streams and importantly for the Tyne Valley, etc. etc. My Lords, we need to be bold in developing a new vision for farming and the management of the countryside, which is agreed in partnership with the sector, and I hope Baroness will confirm that the new Partnership Board will be given the authority it needs to develop that and not imposed upon it by government.

So the ownership has buy in the vision that gives every farmer the opportunity to deliver the vital outcomes that the countryside is capable of, including a capable of doing, including wholesome and healthy food. In fact, my Lords, most of it is in this report. Can I add my thanks, as the Earl of Devon did to the whole team here in the House of Lords, to the doorkeepers, to the clerks, to the staff, to the restaurant staff, everybody who made my life very easy indeed.

It's been a pleasure to work with them and to have their support, and to be in a great honour to be a member of this House.
19:45
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, may I pay a personal >> My Lords, may I pay a personal tribute to the noble Lord Curry of Kirkharle? His long stood out as being, along with my sponsor, the being, along with my sponsor, the late Lord Plumb of Coleshill, as being so knowledgeable on farming and the countryside. He's paid immense and dedicated service over so many years to this house, and he's a local lad who's done his country proud and we shall all miss him greatly, but we thank him for his great service.

Can I also pay tribute to the outgoing hereditary peers and their knowledge, which passes through generations? As we've heard from the Earl of Devon, I'm probably the first and last member of my family who will enter into Parliament or politics, so I'm in awe of those who've served with such longevity. But they have all made a massive contribution and will be greatly missed. I'd like to echo the thoughts of Lord Curry of Kirkharle on the impact of the clean energy proposals that they'll have on farming in the countryside, taking between probably about 10% of land each year out of food production.

And as we heard from our noble friend Lord Redwood, that farming is essential, we're only 60% self-sufficient in this country, and in certain fruit and vegetable cases, we're only 16 or 50% self-sufficient. So it really is a very diminishing asset. If we do lose the land to clean energy proposals. The noble Lady, in responding to a question from me on SFI and whether farmers would would benefit. I'm not entirely convinced that the noble Lady grasped the point that again the noble Lord Lord Curry of Kirkharle made about recognising this as a public good and rewarding farmers for temporarily storing flood water on farmland.

We can't expect them to do it. They're not operating as a charity. They're trying to make money in very difficult circumstances. We are potentially facing another drought this year given the rainfall this month. So I do think we do need to make sort of a very, very defined understanding of what their contribution will be recognised through the SFI. I have particular concerns about the regulations before us this evening, and I'm delighted that my noble friend Lord Roborough brought the amendment before us this evening for for debate.

And there are two particular aspects that I'm concerned about. One is that in. Before the 1st of January 2025, there were approximately 83,000 farm holdings receiving basic payment scheme schemes before the change to payments in England came into effect, 83,000 Farm Holdings. After the 1st of January 2025, there were 32,200 active SFI agreements, with a growing number of businesses having more than one agreement due to the way the scheme is administered by the RPA. So that immediately demonstrates fewer farmers with SFI agreements, probably than even that number suggests.

The second real concern I have is that the lack of clarity that we can expect to see when SFI 2027 comes into effect, and I hope the noble Lady, the Minister, who I think is very aware of rural issues, given her previous constituency representation. But there is going to be very real hardship, as my noble friend Lord Roborough indicated, and it's that that I'd like to address, I represented quite a large upland area for the last five years.

I was in the other place and I'm currently patron of Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services, and I make a plea to the noble Lady. To be absolutely clear, she, as the government possibly can be, as to how the schemes will apply for common land to upland farmers and to tenant farmers in North Yorkshire in particular, about 48% of the farms are tenanted, and when a solar panel scheme takes a big chunk of the tenanted farm out of production, that leaves them with very little area on which they can claim.

So I do hope that the noble Lady, in summing up, will look carefully at the gap between the existing schemes remaining in force. The fact that if you are in an existing scheme, you're probably unable to apply. You're locked out of an environmental scheme until early 2028 at the earliest. So the pace at which basic farm payments are actually declining and the rate at which the new schemes are coming to effect, will pose very real issues of hardship for farmers.

And I do hope that that is an aspect that the noble Lady will address when she sums up the debate on these regulations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I cannot compete with the Earl of Devon. But first of all, the Earl of Devon. But first of all, let me declare my farming interests in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, and my receipt of payments. The first Lord Carrington, the third first Lord Carrington, the third Lord Carrington and the sixth Lord Carrington were all Ministers of Carrington were all Ministers of agriculture, the most famous of them was the third Lord Carrington,
19:51
Lord Carrington Portrait Lord Carrington (Crossbench)
-
-
a Liberal, who introduced a policy of smallholdings for farmers during of smallholdings for farmers during the Boer War and the First World War. And that policy, I think, War. And that policy, I think, seems to be the guiding light for what the government is currently doing on the SFE payments of concentrating on the small farmers of 50 hectares or less, rather than the larger farmers who will be capped if they get money at all. At £100,000.

Now, I'm afraid I'm speaking very much as a working farmer, a hands on farmer, and I must say I've never seen anything quite like it in all the 50 or more years that I've been involved in farming, and I want to just bring to the attention of the House some of the real horror stories that are going on, even as we speak here today. And they're based on on what we are doing on our farm. We have decided for the first time ever not to plant spring crops because we cannot we cannot risk the weather remaining dry as it is, and therefore the crops not germinating.

We are having tremendous trouble in not so much getting fertiliser, as Lord Wood Lord Redwood has pointed out. But in getting red diesel, the price of red diesel is the real crucifier of most farmers in this country at the moment. And then, of course, we have the ultimate the prices for the commodities that we are producing, all of which make leaving the land fallow the best option for us. In East Anglia. In Norfolk, I gather crops of wheat are currently being irrigated.

Now that is a very expensive exercise for a crop that is not going to produce a great deal of money. We grow potatoes and we have reduced our potato acreage considerably due to prices. We had a very good harvest last year. Prices worldwide are terrible, and now we have the problem of the potential problem. I should say the SPS agreement. Under the SPS agreement, certain chemicals are going to be banned. Now, if you buy a packet of crisps, that crisp will actually have been taken from a potato three years ago, and the chemicals that will have been used will be banned under the new SPS agreement, unless the government gets a waiver on this, which means, of course, that those potatoes will go straight into an anaerobic digester if they can't be sold.

A similar problem exists for sugar beet. Sugar beet is very susceptible, as everyone knows, to virus yellows, and it is estimated that 60% of all sugar beet grown in this country is affected by virus yellows. There are very few other profitable break crops, which means that the following year you won't be able to get the yields you want out of wheats, and so on and so forth. So it's a it's a pretty drastic situation out there, my Lord.

However, I am a very lucky farmer as we're fortunate to live in the murder capital of England. We have filming for Midsomer Murders going on even as we speak. And that is much more profitable than a crop of wheat. I'm also in a part of the country where we can grow houses. Now I'm lucky, but others are not so similarly placed in the farming world. All this, of course, I would like to say to the noble Lady, the Minister makes the government's by-line food security is national security really almost worthless? I'm therefore going to ask just one question of the Minister, if I may, and, I mean, this is really driven by the fact that farmers need to plan.

And what we're getting at the moment is not nearly sufficient to enable us to plan for the future. So can the Minister reassure the House on how Ministers and the Department are supporting farmers to business plan now by providing forward plans for the SFI and Countryside Stewardship higher tier schemes, as they are offered in both 27 and 28. Because only with that information can we make sense of our farming. Anyway, like everybody else, thank you very much for all the support you have given us.

Hereditaries and I still will be here, but sitting on the steps of the throne rather than in the chamber.
19:57
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to declare my. >> Interest as a member of the farming company and also involved in the fertiliser industry, which has been mentioned a little bit has been mentioned a little bit earlier. Food and fuel are farmers most expensive costs, and we see most expensive costs, and we see unprecedented increases ahead of them on top of three bad harvests in a row. But I want to dwell just for a moment on the SFI and the capped payments, because what capped payments do are reward inefficiency.

They militate against investment efficiency, productivity, progress, scale, all the things that farming over many generations has contributed to this nation are at risk of being thrown away carelessly by the the capped payments that these regulations will impose. A noble. Lord Lord Carey mentioned the land use framework. It's going to be a disaster for farming. It's going to be terrible for food security. It contemplates in table one that fully 1.7 million hectares of productive land will be removed from agriculture, out of a total of 9.6 million hectares.

It's about a fifth and at £2,000 per hectare gross income, which is what, on average, a mixed farm would hope to gain. It represents a £3.4 billion hit to the rural economy. We can't afford this. We can't afford it in terms of food security. We can't afford it economically. That £3.4 billion loss is out of a 13.1, 13.9 billion total GVA gross value added from agriculture. In total, it's about between a fifth and a quarter of the entire economic output of agriculture in our islands.

In all its forms, arable, livestock, fruit, veg, grains and so forth. And it's a fantasy to think that somehow magically and it's magical thinking we're going to have a 20% efficiency improvement. And this adds to further insults. The a PRVPR issue, the fact that farmers can have their land compulsory compulsorily purchased from under under them under the Ncip regime for solar destroying the credibility and capacity of farms already under pressure. Pressure is aggravated by the cash flow problems from SFI.

It's hard to get fertiliser as it is in this nation. It's my trade. I know how difficult it is to secure the cargoes as fighting off the rest of the world, and yet this government is going through. A choice is going to make it even harder to get fertiliser delivered to this nation, to support our farmers and underpin our food security. With the introduction of insane carbon taxes, that's going to add rocket boosters to the food price inflation that is already barrelling down the tracks.

And I'd just like to amplify the point about the SPS our farmers will be naked in their defence or in their armoury against black grouse. Let black grouse get a foothold. In one year. It will take us ten years to get rid of it. And I know from personal experience, having sat on the combine, when you go through a black grouse infestation in wheat, just as an example, the yield monitor goes from 10 to 1 tonne. So all these insults adding together culminate in a simple message this nation, in fact, any society, is no more than three meals away from anarchy, and a government forgets that deserves everything that's coming to it.
20:01
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
Lords, listening to this debate, >> Lords, listening to this debate, it becomes very. >> Apparent just how diverse.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our nation's. Agriculture is. For remarked. By one speaker that is probably someone who knows about agriculture someone who knows about agriculture in a different part of the country, in a different sector where it isn't really directly relevant. But the message that comes across, and I must declare my interests in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agriculture in Cumbria, which the noble Baroness the Minister the noble Baroness the Minister knows about. But it it has the same effect, and that is what ought to effect, and that is what ought to be a profitable activity providing public goods, which, of course, is not only merely food, it's a whole not only merely food, it's a whole range of other things. Isn't becomes unsustainable quite simply becomes unsustainable quite simply because it doesn't pay and it doesn't matter how you look at this at the end of the year, if income and expenditure doesn't balance, then that enterprise cannot survive for all that long.

And what worries me about the debate, about debates about agriculture in this country is that and I think the the government has an important role to play in every advanced Western society. The government provides a framework around which farming and agriculture and land use functions, not least because the consequences of what is done are so important in widely varying ways to different other parts of the economy. But if it isn't sustainable and if the businesses, be they big businesses or small businesses, become unsustainable, either because they cannot generate enough revenues from the husbandry that they and other land use activities that they carried out or.

And this is equally important because of the incidence of tax that they will have to pay. It's no good thinking that an inheritance tax is a kind of one off thing. The reality of an inheritance tax is that you have to put aside money year on year in order to build up a reserve or alternatively borrow money, which then has to be paid off over a long period to pay off the debt that's owed to the state. If these businesses, in their own commercial terms, cannot survive, we will continue in a world where many of those who are operating in a smaller way in the agricultural sector are living on standards of living, which are below those promised to the employed sector by the minimum wage.

My Lords, this isn't the basis for a long term sustainable rural agricultural food sector and we will end up if we are not careful. I believe in that those kind of circumstances, because the analysis that is necessary behind working out what the policy needs to be is not the kind of thing that is simply learnt in an economics course or an agricultural economics course at a university. It depends upon an understanding of the realities of what actually is entailed in carrying out this business.

And my concern about the context of the debate this evening is that policy is not being made with sufficient understanding and recognition of the realities of what is underlying the whole part of this economy. And if you do that, it won't work. I mean, well, ready agriculture, the rate of return that people expect is probably 2 or 3% who in commercial world I've chaired, I've shared some commercial companies who in the commercial world is going to invest, getting the rates of return that you get from agriculture.

And I heard very carefully what the noble Baroness said, and it's it's fine. It's good words, but my Lord's good words are not enough here, as the noble Lord McFall, who normally sits across the chamber, said on a number of occasions, fine words butter, no parsnips. The litmus test for agricultural policy, like every other policy is. Is it actually engendering a sector of the economy that is working in the public interest? And I am deeply concerned that the way in which it's being approached by the present administration is not going to bring that about.

Finally, as somebody who is also about to leave, I would simply like to add all my sentiments to those what a number of others have said about the way in which the whole infrastructure of the House has supported my work here, but I would like to make a particular reference to the nurse whose name I never knew, who identified. I got sepsis and sent me straight away to hospital. When was that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was so fascinated. I was. Pondering the thought.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pondering the thought. So I begin by thanking the noble Lady, the Minister, for setting out with such clarity, this Statutory Instrument, and also to the noble Instrument, and also to the noble Lord Lord Roborough, for bringing forward this regret motion, which forward this regret motion, which has created an opportunity for a much broader ranging debate. I think we can agree and indeed really, really interesting one. And it's been an absolute privilege to be here for the the last speeches by, for instance, the the noble Lord Carey Lord Inglewood and I had the great privilege of working with the noble Lord Carrington on various issues.

Sometimes we didn't agree on 1 or 2 of them, it must be
20:07
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
said, and my own colleague on the conduct committee, the Earl of conduct committee, the Earl of Devon, which is a fairly typical. In the background public service to In the background public service to protect the reputation of this place, that for which he should be place, that for which he should be thanked, and we should be thanked, and we should be enormously grateful. We. And so it's it's very fitting that we've heard, you know, kind of from so many experts, particularly on this area, turning to the regulation before us, the Liberal Democrats have long accepted the case for moving away from the basic payment scheme, a system based largely on land ownership, which was never the right long term foundation, in our view, for supporting agriculture.

We support the principle of transition towards a system that rewards farmers for the delivery of public goods, restoring nature, improving soil health and strengthening resilience in the face of the climate emergency. However, support for reform can't mean a blank cheque for the way that it is implemented. And the question, in a way before us tonight is, is not whether the change is needed, but whether this particular stage of the transition is being managed in a way that is fair, predictable and sustainable for those mostly affected.

And I think we've heard evidence that it isn't. The first concern is the scale of the reductions. Delinked payments were intended to provide a degree of stability during a period of significant change. Yet many farmers, as we have heard from this debate, now face a position in which support is being reduced more quickly than they are able to plan for and than viable alternatives are becoming available for businesses operating on a tight margins. That creates enormous pressure on cash flow and on long term planning and transition.

As we know, that is too abrupt, risks undermining, very resilient. It is expected and hoped to build. Secondly, there is the question of where the money is going, and I appreciate that the noble Lady, the Minister, set out some of this in her opening remarks. But the NFU and I thank them for their briefing, have made clear that there are some concerns about where the money is being allocated from these changes, and there remains to them a lack of clarity and in some cases, confidence about whether funding is reaching farmers in practice at the scale and pace required.

Third, there's an impact on different types of farms. Smaller and family run farms are often less able to absorb sudden change in income or navigate complex new schemes. If this transition is not carefully managed, there is a risk that support becomes unevenly distributed, with some farms better placed than others to adapt. And we have heard already about the economic consequences of that. There's the wider point about the link between agricultural support and environmental outcomes. The shift away from direct payment is, as we believe, justified in part by the promise of a more sustainable and environmentally focussed system.

But that promise depends on delivery. If funding gaps, uncertainty or administrative complexity prevent farmers from participating fully in new schemes schemes, then we risk weakening both farm viability and environmental progress at the same time from these benches. Therefore, our position is a balanced one. We support the direction of travel towards a more sustainable and environmentally grounded system of agricultural support. But we are concerned and share the concerns we've heard in the chamber that the current approach risks getting the transition wrong.

I've got three brief questions, but we're nearly at the end of the Parliament. If the noble Lady, the Minister, wishes to write to me with her answers, I am more than happy to receive that in writing. First, what assessment have the government made of the cumulative impact of these reductions on farm incomes over the next two years? What safeguards are in place to prevent otherwise viable farms from being pushed into financial difficulty? Second question can the Minister provide a clear and transparent account of how savings from reduced delinked payments are being reallocated, including how much has reached farmers through environmental schemes to date? And thirdly, what specific steps are being taken to ensure that smaller farmers are not disproportionately disadvantaged in this transition? And I would particularly refer her to the 56th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, paragraph 78, where it does suggest that we ask the Minister about the financial impact of the transition to the new support scheme, especially on small farmers.

So there are very practical questions. In closing, I return briefly to the noble Lord Lord Roborough motions as this, and it's been an absolute honour working with him on opposite benches. We had. We had a bit of a reminisce about a mean old fatal motion that I chucked his way about a year ago on exactly this issue. But we're. I reminisced more fondly than he did. But having these kind of motions, ensuring that this kind of discussion takes place is something that is absolutely critical for the issues that we have heard this evening.

And so I thank him for raising this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I thank everyone for their valuable contributions to the debate that we've had this evening? And there have been a number of really very broad number of really very broad concerns that have been raised, which I will do my best to address now, and any outstanding specific questions will will look at Hansard, and we will ensure that we write to
20:13
20:13
20:13
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
are not an effective way to support our farmers, protect food security or restore nature? We believe we or restore nature? We believe we should continue to invest in the environmental land management schemes and the range of grants and other support for farmers, which do deliver the public goods, as well as rewarding sustainable farming as rewarding sustainable farming and boost productivity. So concerns have raised from things around farm profitability, around impacts on farmers, about the phasing out of direct payments.

So I'll just go over some of this. So one of the things we've recently published is our Farming and Countryside Programme Evaluation report of 2025. And what this does is it sets out an assessment of the impacts of the first three years of phasing out direct payments. It includes a detailed look at the key transition channels for the sector, and that includes rents, diversification income, income from agri environment schemes and productivity improvements. We also publish regular statistics on farm business income in England and other data that's related to farm businesses, and I shall give an example.

On the 12th of March this year, we published average farm business income forecasts, and that included the projected contribution of delinked payments and agri environment payments to farm incomes in 2020 526, and our recently updated farming evidence packs set out an extensive range of data to provide an overview of agriculture in the UK and the contribution of farm payments to farm incomes, and this includes analysis by sector, location and time of land tenure. So all of this is available for noble Lords to look at.

If anyone has anything specific they'd like to know. And they can't find it because often digging through government websites can be quite an interesting exercise. Then please do get in contact with me and I'll be happy to send people links and more information around that. And despite the direct payments, withdrawal, average farm business income for the latest available years of the transition period, that's 2023 to 2020. 22 to 23 and 24 to 25 was approximately £75,000 in real terms, and that was higher than the pre-transition period.

Average of that was calculated in 2018 19 to 20 2021, which was approximately £60,500 in real terms. And just to confirm, again, as I said earlier, the money released by reducing delinked payments is not being lost to the sector. It's being reinvested through our other schemes for farmers and land managers. And we're being very transparent about how the money is being used. As I say, we we we publish annually a farming and countryside programme shows in detail how the farming budget has been spent.

Last year was published in September, and we will publish our next report later this year. And we've also provided a breakdown of how we plan to spend the average of £2.3 billion a year through the Farming and Countryside programme, and that shows the the planned spend for each of the years 26, 27 and 2829. But obviously, as has come across incredibly clearly in this debate, it is clear that we will not achieve either our environmental goals or our goals regarding food security.

If farm businesses are not profitable, and by increasing investment in our environmental land management schemes, we are helping farmers to protect the environmental and business foundations of farming that soil, water and pollinators. This is going to help reduce input costs and boost profitability. But while I'm on the subject of profitability, I have to say how delighted I am to see the noble Lady Baroness Batters sitting in on the debate because her farming profitability review is a really incredibly important part of how we're trying to move farms into profitability.

We published the noble Lady's independent review last December, and it highlights the the the strong need for closer collaboration between farming industry and government. And as importantly pointed out by the noble Lord Lord Carrington greater clarity and certainty for farmers that are looking to grow and invest. And. Her review offers a clear assessment of the challenges of which we have heard many details around. Tonight. Alongside the 57 recommendations for strengthening farm businesses, we are already responding to a number of those recommendations, and we are also looking at the other recommendations and how we would like to move forward, because it's important that farmers need the right support to access the tools and the opportunities to succeed.

One of the recommendations we've said we are taking forward is the formation of the Farming and Food Partnership Board, which I think is really important. I know it was a key part of the noble Ladies recommendations, and we are also considering considering continuing to consult other farmers and businesses to ensure that any implementations from the review are done properly, so they actually make a difference. They're designed to make. I was asked around about pesticides and the EU, and I haven't written down who asked that question.

So huge apologies and opposite. Thank you. Just to say that we are extremely aware of the concerns of the farming community, farming businesses around alignment with the EU on pesticides, which we are very aware of that I can't obviously talk about the kinds of discussions that we've been having with the EU, but I just wanted to reassure noble Lords. We are very aware of the considerations that farmers are concerned about. Also on bio ethanol. We are aware that the bio ethanol industry has been facing significant challenges for some time, and while the the the economist for bioethanol production in the UK are challenging today, we're not.

It's not to say that in the coming months and years, those challenges are going to stay the same. And again, the government is very aware that we need to look at the challenges that are being faced through the situation with bio ethanol. Again, coming back to the noble Lord Lord Carrington about certainty and planning, just to say on on the SFE offer, the main SFE offer is going to remain stable from now until the end of the Parliament, meaning it won't any longer be subject to the major annual changes that have been taking place since SFE began in 2022.

Clearly, you know you may need to make some small adjustments if necessary. For example, if we've put something in place and it's not attractive and nobody's taking it up, we need to look at how to adapt it because of that. But apart from that sort of situation, we're planning to keep that stable. And the Middle East came up. Obviously, you know that the Middle East conflict is having impacts in all sorts of different areas, and while there is no suggestion consumers will see impacts to supplies, we are continuing to work hand in hand with farmers, suppliers, retailers and international partners to ensure markets function fairly and that we do protect the UK's food security, and we will also be looking, if necessary, at further government action in this space.

We do work with industry and across government to to monitor any potential risks that may may arise. We do have a resilient food system, and if there are concerns from the Middle East conflict, will we be looking to address them as best we we can? The issue of Red diesel came up and fuel supplies for farmers, and we are aware that developments in the Middle East could well have an impact on the long term supply and prices of red diesel.

At the moment, I think it's a short term issue that we hope will be resolved fairly quickly, because we do benefit from strong, diverse sources of energy supplies, including red diesel. And at the moment, we know that we are well stocked for all fuel types and fuels. Industry UK has been clear that food, fuel production and imports are continuing across the UK as usual and. But importantly, the Competition Markets Authority has also put the industry on notice that they are monitoring petrol and diesel prices closely so that people don't take advantage and put up prices in a way that is unfair on fertiliser.

Clearly, the conflict in the Middle East is continuing to impact global fuel and energy prices, including fertiliser, and we know that there's been a lot of market volatility around fertiliser prices. They've increased around 30 to 40%. And again we are working with industry to to, to monitor the situation and see what we can do. We did ask at the beginning of the month, we asked farmers and land managers in England to complete a short fertiliser survey so we can best understand how fuel and energy prices are impacting fertiliser usage, and that will help us build a better picture of what's happening and inform how we shape any future support.

If that's what is deemed to be necessary. I was asked about support for new entrants. I think that was from the noble Lord Lord Redwood. The government wants to see a thriving farm industry that's attractive to new entrants, and we are working hard to address the underlying challenges facing the sector, including through supply chain reform, planning reform and the 25 year farming roadmap, which builds on the farm profitability review. Because clearly, we need to have a farming industry that is buoyant enough and strong enough to attract people to actually want to go into it.

Thank you very much. The government has also launched Skills England to ensure that there is a comprehensive suite of apprenticeships, training and technical qualifications for individuals and employers to access, which are aligned with skills gaps and also what employers are looking for. Succession planning has always been a challenge in farming for many, many years, and I do think one of the key things to do is if we can start to turn it farms around that aren't profitable to make them profitable, it becomes a much more attractive position for young people who want to move into the uplands was mentioned, obviously, living in an upland area myself, as does the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood.

I'm very aware of the challenges that upland farms face, and they can be very challenging to bring into profitability. To be blunt, it's not always easy, which is why I'm really pleased that the department's been working with Hilary Cottam about what we can do to work with upland farming in upland farming areas, to try and look about the best way to increase profitability and support farmers and communities as well. So there are two projects that are going forward in this space.

The first will be in Dartmoor and then the second in Cumbria, to which we can then look to, to learn from. And also common land was mentioned. Noble Lords are aware. I mean, we've discussed this previously in Question Time, that common land was not included in the SFI offer that came out. It's a particular issue for Cumbria, where I live, where we have more common land than anywhere else. This has been discussed and the RPA is now looking at how common land could be brought into SFI payments, small farms.

I think it was the noble Lady Baroness Grender asked about small farms. So we're developing the new schemes, so they work for as many different types of farms as possible, and that includes smaller farms. So an example, farmers between 3 and 50 hectares will be given priority access to apply for the SFI agreement from June this year. And we're also trying to make the new SFI offer simpler for all farmers, and which might particularly help with small farms. And I think I should say, as someone who has a very small farm, that is incredibly helpful.

It is when you only have a very small farm and you can't afford necessarily to pay for a land agent to do to do your return or your application, it can become incredibly time consuming to the point that you wonder why you're bothering. So I completely get that, which is why I'm really pleased that we are looking at to support small farms better. So my Lords, having said that, I think I've. Hopefully I've covered most of the issues that raised. What we want to do is to help farmers improve their productivity and profitability.

We want to collaborate with farmers on delivering positive environmental change, and we do believe that continuing to phase out dealing payments will enable us to invest in the long term future of farming. We want to make sure that the funding is targeted to where it's going to have the greatest impact. Having said all that, I would like to particularly address those noble Lords who have spoken who will be leaving us shortly the Earl of Devon, the noble Lord Lord Carey, noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and Lord Inglewood.

They've all made, I think, very valuable, knowledgeable contributions to today's debate. We will miss their contributions. I certainly will, as the DEFRA Minister. So I would first of all like to thank them for all the time they have put into considering the the different policies that we have put forward from DEFRA, the different pieces of legislation to thank them for their knowledge and expertise, to thank them for the collaborative way in which they have always worked with myself now as Minister and previously as shadow Minister, and I'd also like to personally thank them for their friendship.

You know, and the other thing I would just like to end with is say, you don't have to be a member of this House to offer advice, support, perhaps whisper in the ear that maybe you could do this in a better way. And you don't have to be a member of the House to come in and have a cup of tea with a friend. I beg to move.
20:29
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, it has been a pleasure to hear the final contributions of departing noble Lords who have been such stalwart supporters of the rural economy. It is a huge loss both to the House and to that rural economy, which will have a much diminished voice and debates in diminished voice and debates in this place when there is limited representation. In the other place. The noble Lord Lord Curry of Kirkharle has a most distinguished record in this House since 2011, and outside it the Curry Commission report in 2002, which we saw earlier, was remarkable in that the government accepted 101 out of the 105 recommendations and really marked the beginning of the shift towards environmental stewardship and sustainable farming.

I'm also personally grateful to the noble Lord for following my maiden speech and making kind comments without any preparation, or indeed ever having met me before. After my listed follower failed to make the chamber in time, the noble Lord Lord Carrington will also be much missed for his contributions within the rural economy. Debates in this House. Within my own brief tenure, amongst many other things, he won an important amendment to the Renters Rights Act, ensuring that farm businesses are able to continue offering accommodation.

It is also a great shame that we are losing the Lord Great Chamberlain from from full membership of this House. The noble Lord, the Earl of Devon, took his place only shortly before I took mine. I've enjoyed his erudite contributions to debate, displaying not just his keen interest in the rural economy, but also his formidable legal brain on display again today. The noble ALS family are one of the longest serving in parliament and have been a consistent and powerful voice for my native Devon, and it's also been evident to me in my brief tenure that Lord Inglewood has been a similar voice for Cumbria.

But of course, the noble Baroness. The Minister remains a stalwart Cumbrian resident and spokesperson. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her reply. It has been a sort of wide ranging debate about the rural economy, and I think her reply demonstrated her sympathy and empathy with the issues in the rural economy. And I think we're all much heartened by the fact that she is in her place, you know, amongst a government who perhaps don't have all of those sympathies themselves.

And I would just make one point in closing, is that the long term roadmaps are all very well. But the farming industry, and particularly the arable sector, is in crisis at the moment. And the figures that were quoted for the the two fiscal years ending 23 and 24 were generally quite good years for the industry, and 25 and 26, particularly for the arable sector, will look very different. But, my Lords, I'm grateful to all who have contributed to this debate and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Lordships pleasure. This amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that the original motion be agreed to. As many as are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. My Lords. Next due to consider

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Next due to consider the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which has currently come from the other has currently come from the other place and the. The window for tabling amendments is still open until 9:10, so we will adjourn

**** Possible New Speaker ****

during. Pleasure until a point announced on the Annunciator. The House will stand adjourned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The House will stand adjourned
20:33
None Portrait House Adjourned During Pleasure- Until 21:10
-

21:40
None Portrait House Adjourned During Pleasure- Until 21:40
-

>> >> From >> From the >> From the Commons >> From the Commons that >> From the Commons that they >> From the Commons that they do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From the Commons that they do not insist on their disagreement to an amendment made by the Lords to the English Devolution and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but proposed an amendment to that amendment to which they desire the amendment to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships. They disagreed to amendments made by the Lords in lieu of an amendment to Lords in lieu of an amendment to which they have disagreed, for which they assigned their reasons. They insist on their disagreement to amendments made by the Lords, insist on their amendments to the words so restored to the Bill, and propose further amendment to the words so restored to the Bill to which they desired the agreement of your Lordships.

They insist on their disagreement with certain amendments made by the Lords. Do not insist on their amendment in lieu thereof, and propose further amendments in lieu to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships, and they insist on their disagreement to certain amendments made by the Lords, and propose further amendments in lieu thereof, to which they desire the agreement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of your Lordships on. Consideration of Commons

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Consideration of Commons amendments and reasons on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Baroness Taylor of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move. That the Commons amendments and
21:41
None Portrait Legislation: English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill – Lords Consideration of Commons Reasons and / or Amendments Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

>> That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered forthwith. My Lords, I beg to move motion a. That this House do not insist on That this House do not insist on its amendment two, and do agree with the Commons in their amendment. 2CI will also speak to motions BB1CC1DEE1F and f one. My Lords, it is a pleasure to bring the English devolution and community empowerment back to the House of Lords to consider the amendments and reasons from the other place.

I will again thank my colleague in the other place, the Minister for devolution, Faith and communities for setting out the government's position on the amendments that remain in scope for ping pong. Turning first to motion A relating to amendment two, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken so clearly on the importance of rural affairs during our last debate. In particular, can I thank the noble Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville for her contributions? As your Lordships will know, the government's position has been that these matters are already captured within the existing areas of competence.

Nevertheless, we have heard the concerns put forward by noble Lords that rural affairs may be marginalised or ignored. We recognise that as devolution is extended beyond the predominantly urban areas of England, it will be necessary for strategic authorities to use the powers and funding at their disposal to support communities across a wider range of geographies, including rural and coastal areas. The government has therefore accepted the addition of rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of subjects included within the areas of competence, and I hope that on this basis, your Lordships will feel that their concerns have been addressed and that we can proceed in a spirit of consensus on this matter.

Now, turning to motion F, one, F, and F one relating to the amendments regarding the ministerial powers of direction. My Lords, the government has been clear that it will work with local leaders to develop devolution proposals that command broad support from local areas. To that end, we have already committed not to commence powers to direct the establishment of a combined authority or a combined county authority for a period of two years following Royal Assent. This will provide sufficient time for areas that do not currently have devolution agreements to develop workable proposals based on sensible geographies.

At the same time, we have listened and responded to concerns from local peers in this House about the scope of backstop powers to set out in schedule one. We recognise that it will be important that Non-mineral authorities will have the opportunity to build capacity, capability and effective partnership working before taking on the deepest powers and funding at mayoral level. For this reason, the government is removing the power for the Secretary of State to provide directly for a mayor in an area without local consent, and I hope that noble Lords can see that the government has listened to concerns and I beg to move my Lords motion B and B1 regarding amendments 89 B and 89 C the government fully agrees on the importance of prioritising brownfield land for development.

While concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of existing policy, I have made clear that it is too early to judge the impact of recent and proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework. The amendment made by noble Lords is unworkable as it would undermine effective plan making, restrict proper consideration of local circumstances and introduced inconsistent requirements between spatial development strategies prepared by mayors and strategic authorities and those prepared by county councils and unitary authorities. Policy remains the most appropriate place to ensure the prioritisation of brownfield, and the government is confident that our recent and proposed changes to national planning policy will deliver the outcome that we all wish to see.

Given this, I will politely invite noble Lords to withdraw their amendment. I turn now to amendment E and E one Lord Remnant 419494B94C94F and 94 G from the noble Baroness, lady McIntosh of Pickering. While I thank my noble colleagues for their insightful comments on the Agent of Change principle, I remain of the view that the most effective way to ensure the principle is being properly applied is by strengthening the existing policy framework, rather than introducing a new statutory provision.

National planning policy is neither marginal or discretionary. It carries substantial weight in the planning system. We are already undertaking a major reform programme aimed at streamlining and improving the consent process, reducing ambiguity and lengthy legal disputes to ensure decisions are made fairly and quickly. I do acknowledge noble friend's concerns that existing practice is not always effectively protecting existing businesses, such as music venues, and that is why we are proposing targeted updates to national planning policy, including clear requirements for applicants to consider both current and permitted levels of activity within existing uses, and have early discussions with businesses in their vicinity.

We will review the accompanying guidance to spread best practice and write to local authorities to reinforce the importance of the issue. I believe that these steps we are taking will genuinely improve the way things are done on the ground, and make primary legislation unnecessary and duplicative. I turn to motion C and C one relating to Lords amendments 3690 and 155, which would remove from the Bill the provisions relating to local authority governance and executive arrangements. The government retains a strong preference for executive models and believes the leader and Cabinet model provides a more effective framework for decision making in local government.

I will not repeat the examples and arguments that have been debated extensively in this House and the other place. However, we continue to believe that our approach strikes the right balance, encouraging a more consistent model of governance across England's local authorities while respecting recent local democratic mandates and decisions. Where a committee run council has adopted its governance model. More recently, I have set out previously the flexibility that the leader and Cabinet model provides, allowing councils to adopt an approach to decision making that best suits their needs within the overall leader and Cabinet model.

Finally, as your Lordships will have seen, the government has taken this opportunity to make a small but important change to the publication of local authority governance changes. The government recognises it is important for local residents to be made aware of any governance changes in their area, and to that end, we will require all councils that need to change governance model as a result of this bill to publish notice of that change in one or more newspapers circulating in their area, ensuring a consistent approach across the Local Government Act 2000.

This change amendment aligns the bill's provisions with the existing approach of publication of governance changes, while allowing a wider DCMS led review into statutory notices to decide the best long term approach. As part of its local media strategy on neighbourhood governance, the I should now refer to motion D. And amendments 37 and 91. I recognise the strength of feeling amongst noble Lords about the role of parish councils in neighbourhood governance. The government has considered Lords Amendments 37 and 91 carefully.

We cannot accept an amendment that would undermine the principle of autonomy and localism. The creation of new parish councils is for local authorities to decide based on their community's needs, and central government should not interfere with that. However, we have listened and have proposed a further concession which builds on our previous one. This makes it clear that parish councils, where they exist, have an important role to play in neighbourhood governance, alongside our commitments to review and update community governance, review guidance and publish a neighbourhood governance framework, this does strike the right balance.

We will work with local authorities and the parish council sector to promote this refreshed guidance. We will begin engagement for this work before summer recess and update the guidance as soon as possible thereafter. For the reasons I've outlined, I urge noble Lords not to insist on Lords Amendments 37 and 91 and support the government's amendment in lieu. My Lords, that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

said, I beg to move my amendments. The question is that motion A be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to move motion A1 as an amendment to motion motion A1 as an amendment to motion E at the end, insert the words and
21:51
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
do propose amendments 94 F and 94 G in lieu. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lady, carefully to what the noble Lady, the Minister, who I hold in the highest regard. What she has said highest regard. What she has said this evening. But I'm disappointed that in the other place continue to disagree with our amendment, in disagree with our amendment, in their view, because it is not necessary to make provision in primary legislation about the agent primary legislation about the agent of change principle.

I think it would be helpful at the outset to understand what the agent of change principle is. So, for example, say the noble Lady, the Minister operates a successful business, possibly a nightclub or a music venue. Then I come along as a developer of a block of flats or a housing project. I am then the agent of change. At the time that I seek planning permission. I should then at that point, ensure that any mitigation measures required are considered at that stage, and that the costs be absorbed into the cost of the development.

Most mitigation measures relate to noise, but there could be other forms of nuisance to the previous amendment reflected the situation as currently exists in that regard at the moment in England, and broaden the concept of nuisance. What we've done in this new amendment, contained in amendments 94 F and 94 G, narrows this down to noise. In each case. This represents the position in Scotland where a statutory provision came into force seven years ago and is seen to be working well.

It gives a clear legal basis in statute for planning authorities and businesses to follow. All we seek to do is to put English law on the agent of change, on the same statutory footing as exists successfully in Scotland. The current situation is policy only based in the National Policy Planning framework, and guidance has no legal effect and in fact delays planning decisions on houses and flats which is so dear to the government's agenda and causes a barrier to the government growth strategy.

The government proposes to review the Nppf and guidance and add a letter for local authorities to refer to. How nice this will lead to the downward trajectory of business closures, predominantly but not exclusively, music venues, to continue unabated. So unless the Minister is able to give us this evening a clear undertaking of a review of the current position in one year, with then a commitment to introducing a statutory provision, I am minded to test the opinion of the House.

I beg to move.
21:54
Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to. >> Support Baroness McIntosh more focussed amendment on amendments on the agent of change that deal only with the noise issue primary, of course, as it might affect and does affect grassroots music venues. My Lords, a number of amendments and bills have been going through. Ping pong recently have had guidance as their theme and the concern that guidance is or will not be enough. This amendment is perhaps a little unusual in that there are two sets of evidence, the one that shows that over a period of years, the existing guidance has not worked.

But the other the set of evidence that shows that over a period of seven years, a statutory solution, the Scottish solution, as Baroness McIntosh has set out, does work and taken together, that is, I would submit, a powerful body of evidence as a whole. My Lords, I want to quote what Lord Brennan of Canton said last week. Lord Brennan is in his place at the moment, he said, putting the agent of change principle around music venues in the bill and making it a statutory provision will ultimately need to happen.

And of course, Lord Brennan Lord Brennan led the fan led review of live and electronic music for the culture, Media and Sport Committee. My Lords, this amendment is so important for our music venues, for the music industry and in turn, which in turn is such an important part of the industrial growth strategy. And I will certainly support this amendment if the noble Baroness takes it to a vote.
21:55
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I rise in support of amendment E one. The noble Baroness, lady McIntosh, has explained the agent of Change principle with characteristic clarity. I would have preferred the amendment that we passed at report which reflected the full range of ways in which new development can harm existing businesses. But I accept that the amendment before us, focussed on noise and closely modelled on Scotland's statutory provision, is, as the noble Lord Lord Brennan has powerfully argued, the right next step.

As we have heard, the government's answer is to strengthen an updated guidance and a letter to local authorities. My Lords, a letter has no legal effect. Guidance has no legal effect and the result of years of policy without statute is plain to see. Hundreds of music venue trust interventions every year, and a continuing downward trajectory of venue closures that show no signs of abating. Scotland legislated seven years ago. The Minister, in her previous speech, points to a handful of ministerial call ins as evidence that disputes persist.

But a small number of orderly, legally grounded call ins over seven years is not a system failing. It is a system working compared that to England, where hundreds of interventions are needed annually simply to make guidance. Bite the Music Venue Trust, the fan led review and those like my colleague, have reached the same conclusion. Scotland's statute has brought clarity, compliance and fewer disputes. That is not a cautionary tale. It is a model. Whatever the outcome today, I urge the Minister not to let this issue fade.

If the interventions continue and the closures continue, please review this. And when you do take the statutory route seriously. In the meantime, should the noble Baroness wish to test the opinion of the House, I will support her.
21:57
Lord Brennan of Canton Portrait Lord Brennan of Canton (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> My Lords, I would. I respect very much the views that have already been expressed, and I also respect the the views of the elected House on this matter, which elected House on this matter, which have been expressed quite clearly on a number of occasions to us. And this is an improved amendment from from the noble Lady that she's put before us this evening. I'd simply say this I do think that at whatever point that it will become necessary to put this on a statutory basis, even if the government at this point doesn't seem ready to do so.

As part of the fan led review, which I was commissioned to lead by the Culture Committee of the House of Commons, I visited every corner of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, and one of the places where we held a round table was in the sub Club in Glasgow, which has benefited from the statutory provision of the Agent of Change principle. In that flats. Residential flats have been built nearby in recent years and they absolutely, without any question, had to provide the mitigating measures that were necessary if they were going to be opening up residential properties next to an existing music venue with the existing noise, not noise nuisance, but the existing noise that already was generated by that very valuable cultural institution in Glasgow.

So I, I do think that and I've expressed this clearly before, that the right way forward would be to put this on a statutory basis. But I would say if the government isn't ready to do that, at the very least, and I appreciate that. My own report was only published last week, and the government has now will have to respond to it when the culture committee submits it to the government for response. I do hope that if this amendment is not successful, that the government will seriously undertake a review of how the systems operating in Scotland will look at the recommendations that are contained within my report and will report back in due course to Parliament on its conclusions as to how the system is working in England in comparison with Scotland.

And it's my view that any dispassionate examination of that will find that putting these provisions on a statutory basis would be a better way forward. But I do appreciate appreciate that the government has has accepted that the current. The current system under guidance hasn't worked in an ideal way and wants the opportunity to strengthen. It's. It's a strengthening. And to prove that it can work in that way. And. And if it undertakes to review that and report back in due course, then I think that will be an important step forward.

And on that basis, I, I very much welcome the comments from noble Lords and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
22:00
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
There have been four very powerful speeches on the agent of powerful speeches on the agent of change principle, and I support the motion in the name of the noble motion in the name of the noble Baroness, lady, lady McIntosh of Pickering, and I would say that if she were to decide to test the opinion of the House, she would have the support of these benches, my Lords. Not a lot has actually changed as a result of the votes that we made last week.

Some amelioration of them. But but but our views have not changed on brownfield land priority or on strengthening parish governance. And I welcome any improvements to those that the government is able to come up with and has come up with. But I think we have some movement yet to achieve. But could I say thank you to the Minister on the question of rural affairs being a competence, I, I, we are grateful to the noble Baroness Lea, Stevenage and her colleagues in the other place for agreeing to our amendment on rural areas to be added as a competence in the Bill, and I'm sure that those who live, work and enjoy rural areas for their recreation will find.

This amendment will make a difference to the way in which this bill affects their service, delivery and environment. And I'd like to place on record to our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott Bible for her support and that of her team on this particular issue, and also to thank the noble Lord Best and Lord Cameron of Dillington from the cross benches. Lord Cameron in particular, has been a vociferous advocate for the consideration of rural areas over many years, and I hope that he, like us, will feel a sense of achievement in at last getting rural affairs to be fully part of this bill.

Well, my Lord, I have motion C-1. Relating to the governance structures of local authorities and in particular, who decides what the governance structure should be. And it is a disappointment to me that the House of Commons has not agreed with the amendment that I moved, and which was agreed by your Lordships House last week. And the central issue remains this Bill is about devolution and community empowerment. So I ask the government again, why can't a community decide for themselves, their own model of local governance, for their local council? My Lords, the Minister said sorry.

The Minister in the other place said on the 21st of April, and I'm quoting from column 265 of Hansard on that date, that the government wanted to create strong local authorities that can deliver for their people. My Lords, it is the case that councils with committee systems do deliver for their people, and surely it is for local people to decide their government governance structures. I think that a, a a a committee system is more transparent, more democratically accountable than a Cabinet system.

And it will involve more people, more elected councillors. Well, since the passing of the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act, the committee system has shown its effectiveness in bringing councillors of different parties together. Because a committee structure engages all councillors with the decision making processes of a local authority. My Lords scrutiny system has not been that effective in local government because it tends to take place after the decision has made. A committee will assess policy proposals before and as they are agreed.

So, my Lords, in conclusion, this is a very simple issue. Who decides a local authority governance structure? Is it Ministers in Whitehall or is it local people? And my Lords, I submit it is for local people to decide what they feel is best for their area, and I will, when we get to see one, beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
22:05
22:06
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm pleased to see the >> My Lords, I'm pleased to see the government has conceded, first of all, to add rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of coastal communities to the list of competencies for mayors. I'd like to extend my thanks. My. To the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for pressing ahead with this issue until now, and for getting what she quite rightly argued for. It is crucial that our rural and coastal communities, and often left behind or treated as merely secondary.

They are just as input, should be just as empowered as other communities throughout the bill. Turning to the one brownfield land, our amendment in lieu sought to address the government's concerns about placing a clear prioritisation of brownfield development in legislation. I say it again prioritising brownfield land is not simply a matter of preference. It is essential. We are small island, my Lords, with with finite land. The choices we make about development are therefore not abstract.

They go directly to how we protect our countryside, our agricultural capacity and ultimately our food security. Every acre of greenfield land lost to development is an acre no longer available for food production. In an increasingly uncertain world, where supply chains are fragile and global pressures on food are growing, it is short sighted not to recognise the strategic importance of safeguarding that land. But this is not only about protection, it's also about opportunity. A brownfield first approach supports the renewal of our towns and cities, encourages sustainable city living and makes better use of the infrastructure we already have.

It is about bringing life back into urban areas rather than continually expanding outwards. It is therefore disappointing that the government has not been willing to match its stated ambitions with action. Last week, the noble Baroness Minister said that spatial development strategies were only high level documents. But let us be clear they are the strategies which will inform local plans. Furthermore, I recall that she said we should not judge the effectiveness of brownfield policy prematurely by enshrining this principle into law.

However, my Lords, we believe we should entrench the brownfield first approach from the start rather than look back potentially years from now years when more development on greenfields have taken place, to conclude that the government should have done more to protect our greenfield land. And for those reasons, I remain firmly of the view that a brownfield first approach should be embedded from the outset, and as a result, I intend to insist on our amendment and test the opinion of the House on motion B one.

Moving on to motion C one. My Lords, regarding motion C one, I thank the noble Lord Lord Shipley for tabling this motion on governance models again, which invites the House to consider the balance between consistency and local choice in local governments. We believe this bill, as its title suggests, should tip the balance in favour of local choice. We support the motion C one to leave out clause 59, removing the requirement for a leader and Cabinet model would allow local authorities to adopt arrangements that reflect their communities and their circumstances.

Local government is most effective when it can respond to the needs of its communities, and a single prescribed model risks overlooking that diversity, allowing councils to determine their own structures respects both their mandate and, my Lords, their judgement. The same principle of local discretion brings me now down to town and parish council governance. My Lords, I'm very grateful to the Minister for her government's amendments and for the commitments made from the despatch box. The requirement to engage with parish councils is a welcome and constructive step forward, and we recognise the progress that's been made on this issue.

However, engagements now must be meaningful and timely. Parish councils are a vital part of our local democratic fabric, and it is important that this duty translates into genuine involvement in practice. In that spirit, I would ask a great. Ask the noble Baroness if she could. The Minister, if she could outline how the government intends to take this forward. Specifically, what plans are in place to begin engagement with sector bodies representing town and parish councils? And how will that engagement help shape implementation? And with if we get those insurances, then we will be supporting the government's way forward.

Moving on, my Lords, to motion E one in the name of my noble friend lady McIntosh of Pickering. And I've spoken before on the merits of her original amendments, and I'm grateful for her dedication to this issue. That said, we've listened carefully to the reasons outlined by the Minister, and we do hope that more work can be done on this issue to ensure new developments, integrate well with existing communities and with businesses. But, my Lords, by narrowing the this amendment to just noise and particularly to music, we have great concern that those other issues that were originally in the amendments, things like noise, smell, things like.

Light from existing businesses, etc. will be negatively impacted because the agent of change only relates to noise. And we have concerns of that, and we think more work should be done on this issue. Therefore, as the amendment stands today, we cannot be supporting it. Finally, my Lords, moving on to motion F one. My Lords, I also note that the government has tabled amendments in lieu to remove the powers in schedule one for the Secretary of State to directly provide for a mayor for an existing authority without local consent.

My Lords, this is welcome and I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, that we are making progress on this issue. However, we will insist on our amendments to challenge the further powers of the Secretary of State that are in schedule one. This is, my Lord, fundamental about protecting successful devolution and ensuring local consent is at the heart of this bill. We believe the Secretary of State should not have the power to override the will of local people. And my Lords, the government is not moving fast enough.

Enough on this. These amendments are that we are minded, therefore, to test the opinion of the House on motion for f one. When it comes to a vote, my Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we have heard and addressed concerns over the role and importance of rural affairs and importance of rural affairs within our devolution framework for England. And can I add my thanks? I already thanked Baroness Bakewell, but can I thank Baroness Scott Lord Best and Lord Cashman for their for Best and Lord Cashman for their for their very thoughtful interventions on this subject, as well as my colleague the Minister for colleague the Minister for devolution, Faith and communities set out.

In the other place. Mayors of strategic authorities should be in no doubt that they have the ability to convene meetings with local partners and collaborate with neighbouring mayors on matters relating to rural affairs and coastal communities. Nor should there be any doubt that the government has the power to provide additional functions for strategic authorities in relation to these matters, where doing so will support them to deliver against their areas of competence. And that is why the government is proposing the addition of rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of subjects included within the areas of competence, and I thank noble Lords for their support of that
22:15
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
change. My Lords, on ministerial powers of direction. The government's clear policy and established practice is to work with local leaders to develop devolution proposals that command devolution proposals that command broad support from local areas. Our commitment not to commence the powers for a period of time following Royal Assent, will following Royal Assent, will provide sufficient time for areas that do not yet have devolution agreements to develop workable agreements to develop workable proposals. We will also now remove the ability for the Secretary of State to provide directly for a mayor in an area without local consent, and this strikes an important balance.

It maintains the ability to secure access to devolution as a last resort, while ensuring that decisions about adopting a mayoral model within existing Non-mineral authorities are made locally at the point they consider is right for their area. On the issues around brownfield land, the government acknowledges the strength of feeling amongst noble Lords as to the importance of prioritising the use of brownfield land for development. It is a priority that the government shares, but we still believe that policy is the most appropriate place to provide for this, and that the amendment made by this House is unworkable, and that when the new rules based wording and the new MP is published, that will tighten up the.

The wording that applies to brownfield land. I thank noble Lords for their interventions on Agent of Change and appreciate the arguments made once again on this topic by Baroness McIntosh, the noble Lord Freyberg, the Earl of Clancarty, and the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Brennan. However, I remain convinced that a policy led approach is the most effective means of addressing the challenges that have arisen in the application of the agent of Change principle. Authorities are legally required to have regard to national policy when preparing statutory development plans, which form the basis for decision making.

The evidence does not clearly demonstrate a statutory approach in Scotland, has delivered materially better outcomes on the ground and legislation can be inflexible and difficult to adapt. It would also cut across our wider reforms to streamline the planning and consenting process. As I've mentioned, we have committed last week to updating planning practice guidance and it is simply wrong to say that planning practice guidance carries no weight. This would draw on established best practice to support consistent application across the country, and this includes learning from guidance developed by authorities such as Greater Manchester, Brighton and Sheffield.

My Lords, it was very clear from my meeting with the Music Venues Trust last week that the agent of change issues are only part of the issues faced by the music industry, and that's why it's important that I point out that the government is already committed to supporting the UK's music and will soon. Music industry, and will soon publish a music plan with £30 million of music growth package over three years from this year, we are also supporting the sector's work to adopt a voluntary ticket contribution, where a pound from every stadium and arena ticket goes towards supporting grassroots music.

And in 2027, all live music venues will benefit from a 15% business rates relief. On top of the support announced at budget 2025, and their bills will then be frozen in real terms for a further two years to allow vital infrastructure that showcases our vibrant music industry to continue to thrive. My Lords, I genuinely believe that by taking a case by case approach informed by the type of development being considered and the type of noise involved, including the nature of the proposed location, is the best way forward.

And there are many different types of mitigations like engineering, layout, planning conditions, obligations and mitigating the impacts on areas likely to be effective through noise insulation. Finally, local authorities can already take account of the agent of change principle within the current licensing system, and we conducted a call for evidence last November on reforming the licensing framework, which sought views on whether there is value in strengthening the existing approach. I am very happy to look further at my noble friend Lord Brennan report, and I thank him very much for all the work he's done in his fan led review.

And once we've published the new MP and updated planning practice guidance, we will of course monitor implementation and keep this policy under review on local authority government governance. The government remains clear that executive models, particularly the leader and Cabinet model, provide the most effective framework for local decision making. Though we are making a small but important change to ensure residents are properly informed of governance changes in their area. It is the clear will of members in the other place to have these provisions relating to local authority governance and executives restored to the Bill.

I therefore ask the noble Lord not to insist on his amendment, but instead to work with the government to ensure that any council required to change its governance model is able to operate a version of the leader and Cabinet system best suited to its local needs. And I have said previously, the Cabinet executive model does give scope for both pre and post scrutiny of decisions, and for members to get involved in Cabinet panels or any other model that works within that system.

On neighbourhood governance, the government government cannot accept Lords amendments 37 and 91 as drafted, but we have brought forward an amendment in law that addresses some of the concerns that have been raised. The proposed amendment provides that regulations made under clause 60 provide for councils to be represented on neighbourhood governance structures, and it goes further and places beyond doubt the expectation that local authorities should engage with parish councils about parish representation under neighbourhood governance arrangements. We are also pleased to commit to reviewing and updating the Community Governance Review guidance, and we will start the engagement for this work before the summer recess, and we will update the guidance as soon as possible thereafter.

And in response to the noble Baroness Lady Scott's question, of course we will be speaking to the National Association of Local Councils to determine what's the best way of taking this engagement further. And I think that's the key body alongside the LGA to work with so that we can make sure that we're carrying out that engagement in a way that works for them, alongside our commitments to update the community governance review and publish a neighbourhood governance framework. This is proportionate and practical way forward.

It secures meaningful parish engagement but avoids necessary prescription, and I would therefore ask the House to support these amendments in lieu to insist on disagreement with Lords Amendment 37 and 91, and to allow the Bill to proceed with a proportionate approach that respects parishes and supports effective neighbourhood

**** Possible New Speaker ****

governance everywhere. The question is that motion A be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion A be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say content. Ten can't you not content the contents have it motion content the contents have it motion B Baroness Taylor of Stevenage the question is that motion be be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question is that motion be be agreed to motion B one Baroness Scott of Bybrook. To move and test the opinion of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House. The original question was the motion be be agreed to since when motion B one has been moved as an amendment to motion B, leave out from house to the end and insert the words as printed on the master list. The question therefore is the motion b one be agreed to as many as that opinion will say content. Concerns the contrary, not content content. The question will be decided by a division. I will notify the House when voting is notify the House when voting is
22:23
None Portrait Division
-

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that be The question is that be one The question is that be one be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content. Content. Content, content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not contents to the The The question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And And so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And so. My Lords, they have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, they have voted content 217 not content 145. So the contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. Unlike you I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, this is a South. Motion. See.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion. See. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage my Lords, I've already spoken to motion. See that this House do not motion. See that this House do not insist on its amendments 3690 and 155 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments 155 A to 155 F and 155 H to the words restored to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill by that non insistent on amendment 155. I beg to move. Well said. The motion be agreed to motions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

C one Lord Shipley. Take leave to move motion c one. The original question was that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion C be agreed to, since when motion C one has been moved as an amendment to motion C leave out amendment to motion C leave out from house to the end and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question Marshalled List. The question therefore, is that motion C one be agreed to as many as that opinion agreed to as many as that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. content. The question will be decided by a division.

I shall notify the House when voting is open. We abstain from voting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. robot. The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion C1 The question is that motion C1 be agreed to as many as I that opinion content Of the contrary, not content. not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion c1 be agreed to.



**** 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted content 210 not content 145 so the content 210 not content 145 so the contents have it. Motion D Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've already spoken to motion D that this House do not motion D that this House do not insist on its amendments 37 and 91, and do agree with the Commons in their amendments. 91 C to 91 e in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendments. 91 C to 91 e in lieu. I beg to move. That motion d be agreed to as many as opinion will say content contrary not content. The contents have it motion e Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stevenage. My Lords, I've already spoken to motion E that this House do not insist on its amendments 94 B and 94 C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 94 D

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and 94 E. I beg to move. Is that motion be agreed to motion E one Baroness McIntosh of Pickering.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pickering. Due to what the Minister had to say, but I'd like to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion of the House. I beg to move. The original question was the motion be agreed to? Since motion E one has been moved as an amendment to motion E at the end. To insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question therefore, is that motion E one be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore, is that motion E one be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be decided by division. I will notify the House division. I will notify the House when voting is open. Voting is open. The The question The question is The question is that motion be agreed to. As many as that opinion was content to the contrary, not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not E There There have There have voted contents 59 not contents 138 so the not contents have it. Motion f

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I've already spoken to motion F that this House do not motion F that this House do not insist on its amendments 85, 86, 97 to 1 16120121 and 123 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments. 123 C to 123 H and 123

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. 123 C to 123 H and 123 J to 123 K in lieu. I beg to move. Question is that motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that motion be agreed to motion F one Baroness Scott of Bybrook. My Lords, I beg to move amendment F one and test the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion of the House. The question was that motion F be agreed to, since where motion F be agreed to, since where motion F one has been moved as an amendment to motion F leave out from house to the end and insert the words as the end and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question therefore, is that motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

f one be agreed to as many as that opinion will say content. Content Of the contrary, not content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. Question will be decided by division. I will alert the House when voting is open. Voting is now Is Is that Is that motion Is that motion f one be agreed to. As many as of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that opinion will say content. Content. Content, content, content. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content, content, content. The contents will go to the right by the bar. The not content to the left by the throne. Sorry, I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question Question is Question is that Question is that amendment Question is that amendment one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords My Lords have My Lords have voted My Lords have voted content

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords have voted content My Lords have voted content 199 not content 144 the contents have not content 144 the contents have it. Winning streak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government. Message from the Commons that they insist on their disagreement with certain amendments made by the with certain amendments made by the Lords to the Pension Schemes Bill, insist on their amendments to the word so restored to the Bill, and word so restored to the Bill, and propose further amendments to the words so restored to the Bill to which they desire. The agreement of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which they desire. The agreement of your Lordships House. My Lords, consideration of Commons amendments on the Pension

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commons amendments on the Pension schemes. Bill Baroness Sherlock. My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered forthwith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the question is. That the Commons Amendments be now considered forthwith, if any, that opinion say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Motion a Baroness Sherlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion a Baroness Sherlock. My Lords, I beg to move motion a. That this House do not insist on That this House do not insist on its amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83, and 88, and 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83, and 88, and to agree with the Commons and their amendments 88. A 88C88E to £0.88 and 88. R to 88. W to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons Disagreement to Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88.

Lords. The Other place
23:09
23:09
None Portrait Legislation: Pension Schemes Bill – consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-

first to say something about where we now find ourselves. The elected House has now voted on the reserve power three times on each occasion.
23:09
23:10
None Portrait Legislation: Pension Schemes Bill – consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-

scrutinise what is before it, and the quality of that scrutiny has improved this bill. But we do need to be clear about the context in which we are operating. These exchanges have gone on for some time, and the government has moved a considerable distance. Let me trace that distance briefly. In the first round, the government wrote. The mansion House accord targets into primary legislation, the 10% and 5% caps, and introduced the asset class neutrality requirement in the second round. We went further.

The sunset was brought forward to 2032. The power was restricted to a single use. The application was limited to main default funds, and we provided for the full repeal of the entire asset allocation framework at the end of 2035. Not just the enabling power, but every associated provision, the approval requirements, the penalty regime, the review obligation, and any requirements that have been brought into force removed entirely from the statute book. Today, the Other place has agreed a third set of amendments.

These address the savers interest test the mechanism at section 28 G, by which schemes can apply for an exemption from any asset allocation requirement. Now, I know that the operation of this test has been a source of concern in this House, touching as it does on issues around trustees, fiduciary responsibilities to savers. The government has listened carefully to what has been said while explaining the reason for its own position, which is, in essence, that these fiduciary duties have not, to date, been sufficient to overcome the distortion of asset allocation decisions by commercial pressures.

When we debated things last Wednesday, the Nobel LEAs Baroness Altmann and Bowles described opposition as believing a market failure to exist. And that is a fair characterisation. The opposition argued that decisive government action to correct this market failure is not justified. We simply disagree. We believe it's the government's duty to take the steps needed to further savers interests. Our first new amendment, 88 U, lowers the threshold for an exemption. The bill, as drafted, would have allowed regulations to require a scheme to demonstrate that compliance would cause material financial detriment.

That language attracted close scrutiny in this House and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowls, among others, questioned whether it set the bar too high, requiring proof of certainty the threshold is now would be likely to cause. A scheme will need to show that detriment is the probable consequence of compliance, not that it is certain the Second Amendment 88 confirms on the face of the bill that where the threshold is met, the regulator must grant the exemption. The government always intended the test to work that way.

The bill now states it clearly. The Third Amendment, 88 V, expressly requires the regulator to have due regard to the scheme's own assessment of why compliance would be likely to cause material financial detriment. Schemes applying for an exemption must set out their reasoning, and the regulator will be under a statutory obligation to engage with it properly. Noble Lords have argued that trustees and scheme managers are best placed to understand the circumstances of their members, and that the regulator regulator should give proper weight to their analysis.

Due regard is established statutory language. It carries real legal weight and it means the regulator cannot receive a scheme's assessment and pass over it without proper consideration. I am aware this type of language finds favour in a number of places in the House. I hope noble Lords will recognise the government has engaged with the substance of what has been asked for. The Fourth Amendment, 88 W requires the regulator to provide reasons for any decision to refuse an application. The Bill already provides for a right of appeal to the upper tribunal.

This ensures that schemes have what they need to exercise that right a right that is only meaningful if applicants know why they were turned down. So, my Lords, let me set out what the reserve power now looks like. Taken as a whole, it is capped at the accord targets. Regulations cannot concentrate requirements in a single asset class. The power applies only to main default funds. The percentage can be set only once the power lapses, if not used by the end of 2032.

Even if used, the whole framework is repealed at the end of 2035. It remains subject to the affirmative procedure and a statutory reporting requirements before and after any use, and the savers interest test now provides a lower threshold certainty that an exemption will be granted where it is met, a statutory requirement for the regulator to give due regard to the scheme's own reasoning and transparency about decisions. If the application fails, then as I understand the position of noble Lords who believe this power should not exist at all, I have listened to those arguments with care throughout the passage of this bill, but the government's view remains that the risk of inaction, of allowing the collective action problem to persist while pension savers bear the cost, is the greater risk because the government has now brought forward three successive rounds of concessions, each responding to arguments made in this House, each written into primary legislation.

The power that is now before noble Lords bears the imprint of this House of scrutiny at every turn. Given all of that, I ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments and to agree the amendments proposed by the other place in lieu. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The question is that motion a be agreed to. Motion A one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion a be agreed to. Motion A one Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted. My Lords. I thank the Minister, including for our meeting on Friday. For the record, we suggested a have regards framework requiring trustees to consider private market investment in alignment with the
23:15
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Portrait Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
investment in alignment with the mansion House accord and to report to the regulator. That approach would meet the government's stated policy aims without overriding fiduciary duty or distorting the market. It was rejected, apparently, because it lacks a sufficiently heavy sanction threat. And so we continue, and unfortunately, Mandation remains at ping pong two. I dealt with the technical and market concerns, and all those concerns remain. Today I turn to the constitutional issues. First, fiduciary duty, a foundational principle in our common law.

Trustees must act solely in the beneficiaries interests. Yet this clause directs them towards particular asset classes without any statutory defence or immunity. Trustees are left in a double bind, comply and risk personal liability or refuse and face the authorisation. Secondly, the process has been procedurally defective. There was no consultation on Mandation discrimination between investment vehicles or the sanction. The Commons amendments this time merely add procedural language around the savers interest test, due regard and reasons which public law already requires.

Further, there is the coercive effect of the so-called reserve power, which is already being deployed to pressure schemes and trustees into compliance. Without the consultation, assessment or regulatory discipline that regulations would require. That is, constitutionally and proper policy is being pursued by threat, not by law. Thirdly, the savers interest test itself is unchanged. In substance, the insertion of likely to is trivial. The test still reverses the logic of fiduciary duty. Savers have not consented to the additional risks, and the penalty of authorisation remains draconian and disproportionate.

Fourthly, pension savings are members property a coercive statutory scheme backed by D authorisation, is an interference with property rights that requires clear justification and careful design. Neither is present for these constitutional procedural, proportionality and rights based reasons. The clause remains defective and the government's amendments do not cure it. This is legislation that relies on threat rather than clarity and coercion rather than properly framed substance. So I therefore will ask the House to insist on our deletion and to disagree with the government's amendment.

I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. My Lords. The original question was that motion A be agreed to, was that motion A be agreed to, since when an amendment amendment A one has been moved to leave out all the words from house and insert the the words from house and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. Therefore, the question before the House is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one be agreed to. I rise very briefly to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise very briefly to support the noble Lady Baroness Bowles, and I would like to just point out to the noble Lady, the Minister, that the mansion House accord had two parts. The second part had
23:19
23:20
23:21
23:21
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
doing this is because the evidence is clear internationally that pension funds, which have a small pension funds, which have a small holding in private assets as part of our diversified portfolio, bring better returns. If if the if there better returns. If if the if there were a situation where that would not be in the interests of a particular scheme, that is the point of the savers interest test. This does not cut across fiduciary duty because, in fact, nothing in the bill overrides that core the bill overrides that core principles of fiduciary duty.

And if trustees believed it not to be in their interests, not only can they make an application for an exemption under the savers interest test, we would expect their fiduciary duty to guide them to make that application that that really is the beginning and end of it. Let me say simply then this we the whole point of this bill is to make pensions better. This whole bill will transform our pensions landscape. Pensions are the promise we make to millions of people that years of hard work will be rewarded with security and dignity in retirement.

Bigger, better pension schemes will drive better returns. As well as tackling inefficiencies. We need to find a way to get this bill agreed. Industry wants to get on with implementing the reforms and our pensioners want to start benefiting. The Other place has expressed its view clearly, repeatedly and by substantial margins. I do hope noble Lords will reflect on whether it is right to ask the elected House to vote for a fourth time on a question to which it has given the same answer.

On every occasion. I asked noble Lords not to insist on their amendments and to agree the amendments proposed in lieu. In the other place, EA.
23:23
23:24
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page