Lords Grand Committee
Monday 15th June 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 5 hours, 50 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:45
15:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, this is just like old times, Baroness. And I beg to move that the committee consider the Russia sanctions. EU Exit Regulations 2026. These. Amend the Russia sanctions. My Lords, since coming into power, this government has been clear that Russia must not be allowed to succeed in its illegal war and have been steadfast behind Ukraine. My Lords, since coming into power, this government has been clear that Russia measures in this instrument subject to the made affirmative parliamentary procedure entered into, must not be allowed to succeed in its illegal war and have been steadfast behind Ukraine.
Russia represents not just the obvious threat to Ukraine, but a threat to the UK and our allies. The measures in this instrument, subject to the made affirmative parliamentary procedure, entered into force on the 20th of May. My Lords, since coming into power, this government has been clear that Russia must not be allowed to succeed in its illegal war and have been steadfast behind Ukraine. Russia represents not just the obvious threat to Ukraine, but a threat to the UK and our allies. As part of that, the UK has sanctioned over 3300 individuals and entities under the Russia sanctions regime, with over 1300 under this government.
Just last month, we introduced a new package that sanctioned 18 individuals and entities under the UKs Russia Sanctions regulations. This included cryptocurrency exchanges active in Russia, entities and individuals that we suspect are linked to the UK sanctioned A7 network, which has embedded itself in the Kyrgyz financial sector. This marks a further step in the UK sustained effort to erode Russias ability to fund its illegal full scale invasion, ramping up pressure on Putins war chest. Last month, Russia slashed its economic growth forecast from 2026 to 4 2026 from 1.3% to just 0.4%.
Russia's deputy prime minister ascribed this downgrade to the impact of sanctions, among other factors, and Vladimir Putin admitted that Russian GDP contracted by 1.8% in January and February, with a decline in areas critical to the war effort, including industrial production. To phase the implementation of these measures, we issued two targeted licences intended as a temporary measure. The licences are subject to ongoing review, with fortnightly checkpoints and may be amended, suspended or revoked as appropriate. The first licence is for the new LNG maritime services ban.
This temporarily authorizes spot market trade from Russian LNG projects. In two and Yamal until the 1st of January 2027, the second licence applies to the refined oil import ban and authorizes imports of diesel and jet fuel refined in third countries from Russian crude oil. The process of review involves continually assessing the impact of the licence on energy supply, market conditions and other relevant considerations against our overarching objective of ramping up pressure on Russia through our sanctions regime. And in light of this assessment, determining what steps are appropriate at each review point.
As part of that review process, the government has now set a clear end date for the refined oil licence of the 1st of January 2027. This is in line with the liquefied Natural Gas Maritime Services Ban Spot licence. While markets remain tight and sensitive, we recognise the need to give certainty to industry on the limited time frame in which the licence may be used and to provide a clear time limited exit pathway. I'll now turn to each measure within this instrument in more detail.
The Russia Sanctions EU Exit Regulations 2025. I want to be clear that this is a strong enhancement of our Russia sanctions regime. To reiterate what the Prime Minister and Minister for trade said on the 20th of May, we have not lifted or eased sanctions. Our sanctions are stronger now than they were a month ago. This legislation is sanctioning previously unsanctioned goods and services. The package includes multiple measures targeting Russia's energy sector. Firstly, my Lords, we've imposed further export restrictions that fall into the following four categories export restrictions, items sanctioned by the EU, including certain types of industrial chemicals, metals and machinery that have potential battlefield use.
Goods recommended for sanctions by the government of Ukraine, including additional forms of metals and articles of carbon fiber, which are frequently used in the manufacture of drones. A more expansive list of individual chemicals and chemical precursors that may be used in riot control agents, which have been found on the battlefield, or goods for internal repression. And lastly, goods related to emerging technologies, including quantum, semiconductor and engineering, biology technologies, including new goods and those that are not already clearly subject to existing sanctions. To reduce the risk of circumvention.
Secondly, the legislation bans the import into the UK of oil products refined in third countries that have been made from Russian crude oil. It also introduces a new maritime services ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, restricting Russia's access to the UK's world leading maritime services. Certain existing long term contracts are exempt from these prohibitions until the end of the year, in line with the EU's LNG measure it. Also bans the import of uranium, which is consigned from Russia and uranium, which originates in Russia and restricts UK involvement in the global trade of Russian uranium.
Exceptions are in place to mitigate risks to energy security in third countries, including to the supply of uranium to operational nuclear installations. The legislation also introduces a prohibition on providing construction services to persons connected with Russia. This prohibition will complement the other restrictions that we have in place on architecture and engineering, ensuring that UK construction businesses cannot support infrastructure and building projects which benefit Russia. In addition, we've expanded the criteria for specifying ships to include ships carrying liquefied natural gas that originated in Russia and ships carrying coal and coal products that originated in Russia.
The aim of this is to make it easier to sanction ships for a wider range of activity. We've also strengthened the trade and shipping sanctions, which can be applied to specified ships by introducing additional prohibitions. The new trade sanctions enable the government to prohibit persons from providing and procuring certain maritime and financial services in relation to specified ships. Additional shipping sanctions prohibit persons from operating or chartering specified ships and require the UK Ship Registrar, who maintains the UK Ship Register, part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, to refuse to register specified ships.
Lastly, the legislation will close a gap by prohibiting the acquisition and purported acquisition of a detained transport asset from or for the benefit of a designated person or person connected with Russia. This instrument amends the enforcement provisions of the 2019 Russia Regulations, as well as the trade, aircraft and shipping Sanctions Civil Enforcement Regulations 2024, to provide the enforcement of the new prohibitions introduced by these regulations. My Lords, to conclude, this is a wide ranging, impactful package which shows that this government takes seriously our commitment to supporting Ukraine and targeting Russia to combat Putin's attempts to prolong this barbaric war.
Our sanctions, alongside our allies have hit Putin hard. We will not let up, and we will continue to go further. I am grateful for the constructive and ongoing engagement with Parliament, especially Lord Purvis, on the issue of licensing, as well as for the strong unified support for sanctions on Russia and steadfast backing for Ukraine. The government welcomes your shared determination to maximise pressure on Putin's war machine, and recognises the concerns that you've raised. I beg to move.
Russia represents not just the obvious threat to Ukraine, but a threat to the UK and our allies. The measures in this instrument, subject to the made affirmative parliamentary procedure, entered into force on the 20th of May. My Lords, since coming into power, this government has been clear that Russia must not be allowed to succeed in its illegal war and have been steadfast behind Ukraine. Russia represents not just the obvious threat to Ukraine, but a threat to the UK and our allies. As part of that, the UK has sanctioned over 3300 individuals and entities under the Russia sanctions regime, with over 1300 under this government.
Just last month, we introduced a new package that sanctioned 18 individuals and entities under the UKs Russia Sanctions regulations. This included cryptocurrency exchanges active in Russia, entities and individuals that we suspect are linked to the UK sanctioned A7 network, which has embedded itself in the Kyrgyz financial sector. This marks a further step in the UK sustained effort to erode Russias ability to fund its illegal full scale invasion, ramping up pressure on Putins war chest. Last month, Russia slashed its economic growth forecast from 2026 to 4 2026 from 1.3% to just 0.4%.
Russia's deputy prime minister ascribed this downgrade to the impact of sanctions, among other factors, and Vladimir Putin admitted that Russian GDP contracted by 1.8% in January and February, with a decline in areas critical to the war effort, including industrial production. To phase the implementation of these measures, we issued two targeted licences intended as a temporary measure. The licences are subject to ongoing review, with fortnightly checkpoints and may be amended, suspended or revoked as appropriate. The first licence is for the new LNG maritime services ban.
This temporarily authorizes spot market trade from Russian LNG projects. In two and Yamal until the 1st of January 2027, the second licence applies to the refined oil import ban and authorizes imports of diesel and jet fuel refined in third countries from Russian crude oil. The process of review involves continually assessing the impact of the licence on energy supply, market conditions and other relevant considerations against our overarching objective of ramping up pressure on Russia through our sanctions regime. And in light of this assessment, determining what steps are appropriate at each review point.
As part of that review process, the government has now set a clear end date for the refined oil licence of the 1st of January 2027. This is in line with the liquefied Natural Gas Maritime Services Ban Spot licence. While markets remain tight and sensitive, we recognise the need to give certainty to industry on the limited time frame in which the licence may be used and to provide a clear time limited exit pathway. I'll now turn to each measure within this instrument in more detail.
The Russia Sanctions EU Exit Regulations 2025. I want to be clear that this is a strong enhancement of our Russia sanctions regime. To reiterate what the Prime Minister and Minister for trade said on the 20th of May, we have not lifted or eased sanctions. Our sanctions are stronger now than they were a month ago. This legislation is sanctioning previously unsanctioned goods and services. The package includes multiple measures targeting Russia's energy sector. Firstly, my Lords, we've imposed further export restrictions that fall into the following four categories export restrictions, items sanctioned by the EU, including certain types of industrial chemicals, metals and machinery that have potential battlefield use.
Goods recommended for sanctions by the government of Ukraine, including additional forms of metals and articles of carbon fiber, which are frequently used in the manufacture of drones. A more expansive list of individual chemicals and chemical precursors that may be used in riot control agents, which have been found on the battlefield, or goods for internal repression. And lastly, goods related to emerging technologies, including quantum, semiconductor and engineering, biology technologies, including new goods and those that are not already clearly subject to existing sanctions. To reduce the risk of circumvention.
Secondly, the legislation bans the import into the UK of oil products refined in third countries that have been made from Russian crude oil. It also introduces a new maritime services ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, restricting Russia's access to the UK's world leading maritime services. Certain existing long term contracts are exempt from these prohibitions until the end of the year, in line with the EU's LNG measure it. Also bans the import of uranium, which is consigned from Russia and uranium, which originates in Russia and restricts UK involvement in the global trade of Russian uranium.
Exceptions are in place to mitigate risks to energy security in third countries, including to the supply of uranium to operational nuclear installations. The legislation also introduces a prohibition on providing construction services to persons connected with Russia. This prohibition will complement the other restrictions that we have in place on architecture and engineering, ensuring that UK construction businesses cannot support infrastructure and building projects which benefit Russia. In addition, we've expanded the criteria for specifying ships to include ships carrying liquefied natural gas that originated in Russia and ships carrying coal and coal products that originated in Russia.
The aim of this is to make it easier to sanction ships for a wider range of activity. We've also strengthened the trade and shipping sanctions, which can be applied to specified ships by introducing additional prohibitions. The new trade sanctions enable the government to prohibit persons from providing and procuring certain maritime and financial services in relation to specified ships. Additional shipping sanctions prohibit persons from operating or chartering specified ships and require the UK Ship Registrar, who maintains the UK Ship Register, part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, to refuse to register specified ships.
Lastly, the legislation will close a gap by prohibiting the acquisition and purported acquisition of a detained transport asset from or for the benefit of a designated person or person connected with Russia. This instrument amends the enforcement provisions of the 2019 Russia Regulations, as well as the trade, aircraft and shipping Sanctions Civil Enforcement Regulations 2024, to provide the enforcement of the new prohibitions introduced by these regulations. My Lords, to conclude, this is a wide ranging, impactful package which shows that this government takes seriously our commitment to supporting Ukraine and targeting Russia to combat Putin's attempts to prolong this barbaric war.
Our sanctions, alongside our allies have hit Putin hard. We will not let up, and we will continue to go further. I am grateful for the constructive and ongoing engagement with Parliament, especially Lord Purvis, on the issue of licensing, as well as for the strong unified support for sanctions on Russia and steadfast backing for Ukraine. The government welcomes your shared determination to maximise pressure on Putin's war machine, and recognises the concerns that you've raised. I beg to move.
15:54
15:54
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
To contribute to this debate today, and indeed, I should say that I welcome these measures. After all these regulations introduce a number of new sanctions into the Russia sanctions regime, which aims to encourage the Russian government to cease its invasion of Ukraine. A noble, a noble aim. My concern, however, is not so much the regulations themselves, but the licences which were put in place on the same day to help to mitigate some of the impact in the UK. And it's to that end that I would, if I may just like to ask the minister a few questions.
In fact, I think she'll be getting them twice with this echo. That's better. Um, firstly, uh, with relevance to both the licence, it's really just clarity of the overall strategy between pressure of the sanctions, but flexibility introduced by the licences. The government has set out that these measures are intended to increase pressure on Russia, on Russian energy resources. Um and and revenues. Whilst temporary licences are used to manage the market disruption. Could the minister set out how the government will evaluate the effectiveness of that balance in practice?Specifically what indicators it will use to demonstrate that pressure on Russia is being materially sustained despite the use of these flexibilities, the government has also stated that these measures will reduce Russia's energy revenues.
Can the minister provide an estimate, even at a high level of the anticipated scale of that impact?Once the measures are fully operational?On the end state of the licensing approach, the licensing framework is described as the temporary and phased implementation mechanism. Could the minister clarify the intended end state of the policy?She mentioned an end time, but not necessarily under what specific market conditions the government expects to prohibitions to operate in full without licences. Um the review process and accountability.
Given that the licences are subject to ongoing review, could the could the minister elaborate on the governance of that process?Specifically, who takes decisions on on continuation or revocation?What evidential thresholds are applied, how frequently reviews are undertaken in practice, and whether the outcomes of these reviews will be systematically communicated to Parliament. Um, she mentioned alignment with international partners, but could the Minister update the House on the extent to which allied jurisdictions are adopting comparable approaches to licensing?And how far there is convergence on managing the balance between sanctions pressure and market stability.
On the transparency of policy presentation, key elements of the implementation, particularly the licences, were not fully reflected in the explanatory memorandum. Could the Minister outline how the government intends to ensure that future regulations are presented to Parliament with a complete picture of both the restrictions and the and the practical mechanisms used to face them in um and with regard to the oil licence only, what assessment has been made of the risk that the licence categories, particularly diesel and jet fuel, refined from Russian crude, could create unintended pathways for sustained Russian revenue.
Contrary to the stated aims of the regulation. Thank you. My Lord. Mr.. Chief engineer working for Atkins.
In fact, I think she'll be getting them twice with this echo. That's better. Um, firstly, uh, with relevance to both the licence, it's really just clarity of the overall strategy between pressure of the sanctions, but flexibility introduced by the licences. The government has set out that these measures are intended to increase pressure on Russia, on Russian energy resources. Um and and revenues. Whilst temporary licences are used to manage the market disruption. Could the minister set out how the government will evaluate the effectiveness of that balance in practice?Specifically what indicators it will use to demonstrate that pressure on Russia is being materially sustained despite the use of these flexibilities, the government has also stated that these measures will reduce Russia's energy revenues.
Can the minister provide an estimate, even at a high level of the anticipated scale of that impact?Once the measures are fully operational?On the end state of the licensing approach, the licensing framework is described as the temporary and phased implementation mechanism. Could the minister clarify the intended end state of the policy?She mentioned an end time, but not necessarily under what specific market conditions the government expects to prohibitions to operate in full without licences. Um the review process and accountability.
Given that the licences are subject to ongoing review, could the could the minister elaborate on the governance of that process?Specifically, who takes decisions on on continuation or revocation?What evidential thresholds are applied, how frequently reviews are undertaken in practice, and whether the outcomes of these reviews will be systematically communicated to Parliament. Um, she mentioned alignment with international partners, but could the Minister update the House on the extent to which allied jurisdictions are adopting comparable approaches to licensing?And how far there is convergence on managing the balance between sanctions pressure and market stability.
On the transparency of policy presentation, key elements of the implementation, particularly the licences, were not fully reflected in the explanatory memorandum. Could the Minister outline how the government intends to ensure that future regulations are presented to Parliament with a complete picture of both the restrictions and the and the practical mechanisms used to face them in um and with regard to the oil licence only, what assessment has been made of the risk that the licence categories, particularly diesel and jet fuel, refined from Russian crude, could create unintended pathways for sustained Russian revenue.
Contrary to the stated aims of the regulation. Thank you. My Lord. Mr.. Chief engineer working for Atkins.
15:58
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And say it's wonderful to be back in your lordships House. After a fairly brief hiatus. Um, but also very good to see the government bringing forward this legislation. And actually, I'm going to focus my remarks on chapter four. K a uh, what the noble lady the minister referred to in terms of uranium and the nuclear fuel supply chain. So I've actually been working on this for several years with other noble lords. Um, and actually across this government and, uh, the last government.
So it's really, it's really good to see this action being taken on nuclear fuel imports because of course, the government was very quick to sanction hydrocarbons to take action on hydrocarbons, but actually on nuclear fuel, we have been in a similar position in that in that Russia has, um, dominated that market. For example, something like 50% of the world's uranium conversion capability was undertaken by Russia. There has been a bit of a gap there in terms of our focus on energy. We've brought a focus on hydrocarbons.
But nuclear fuels have been neglected, and that is now fixed by by this legislation. So I'm going to come on to our own our own supply chains in a minute. But I think an initial question for the Minister on that is, uh. Sizewell B is the nuclear power plant that is currently impacted in terms of, uh, Russian. Cereal. And I would like to clarify in terms of the measures within this statutory instrument, whether that does, in effect, stop that existing route through in terms of Sizewell B and the Russian material going into Sizewell B, the existing contracts with Russian supplier.
So I would like to if the minister could, uh, could please let me know about that. But more broadly, I think there's there's a fantastic opportunity here with our domestic fuel supply chain because we have a whole range of companies that want to invest in the UK and want to invest in our domestic fuel supply chains. Um, and that's what this statutory instrument now provides, is that certainty for investment by businesses, because we have had a number of fairly high level commitments from governments over the years.
But having it written down in legislation, um, really gives that, that route through to, to getting more investment into the UK. So I think it's really important piece of legislation from that perspective. Uh, and actually we are seeing investment come in. Westinghouse, Ukraine, and they all have all have plans in this area. Uh, but there are a number of gaps to be filled. And I think when we look at the nuclear industry in general, it's, it's been, um, brilliant.
The recent focus on reactor technology. And we've had all the good decisions around small modular reactors around Sizewell C, but alongside that, there does need to be a focus on supply chains and ensuring that as much of that supply chain as possible is located within the UK. So we maximise the economic benefit. The nuclear fuels is one of those areas where we do have historic strengths in the UK. Um in terms of getting an end to end fuel supply chain together.
So it's, it's a, there's a possibility to get a real win here in terms of building up our own supply chains and seizing all those exports opportunities as well for the nuclear industry. And with, in terms of where those plants, where those investments are located, using that as a spur to regional regional growth as well. I would just finish by saying very much welcome the legislation, but I think I would also ask how the government is going to seize the opportunity enabled by this legislation to really bring forward additional end to end, fuel services in the UK, with all the export opportunities, skilled jobs and using it as a tool to regenerate the regions as well.
So it's really, it's really good to see this action being taken on nuclear fuel imports because of course, the government was very quick to sanction hydrocarbons to take action on hydrocarbons, but actually on nuclear fuel, we have been in a similar position in that in that Russia has, um, dominated that market. For example, something like 50% of the world's uranium conversion capability was undertaken by Russia. There has been a bit of a gap there in terms of our focus on energy. We've brought a focus on hydrocarbons.
But nuclear fuels have been neglected, and that is now fixed by by this legislation. So I'm going to come on to our own our own supply chains in a minute. But I think an initial question for the Minister on that is, uh. Sizewell B is the nuclear power plant that is currently impacted in terms of, uh, Russian. Cereal. And I would like to clarify in terms of the measures within this statutory instrument, whether that does, in effect, stop that existing route through in terms of Sizewell B and the Russian material going into Sizewell B, the existing contracts with Russian supplier.
So I would like to if the minister could, uh, could please let me know about that. But more broadly, I think there's there's a fantastic opportunity here with our domestic fuel supply chain because we have a whole range of companies that want to invest in the UK and want to invest in our domestic fuel supply chains. Um, and that's what this statutory instrument now provides, is that certainty for investment by businesses, because we have had a number of fairly high level commitments from governments over the years.
But having it written down in legislation, um, really gives that, that route through to, to getting more investment into the UK. So I think it's really important piece of legislation from that perspective. Uh, and actually we are seeing investment come in. Westinghouse, Ukraine, and they all have all have plans in this area. Uh, but there are a number of gaps to be filled. And I think when we look at the nuclear industry in general, it's, it's been, um, brilliant.
The recent focus on reactor technology. And we've had all the good decisions around small modular reactors around Sizewell C, but alongside that, there does need to be a focus on supply chains and ensuring that as much of that supply chain as possible is located within the UK. So we maximise the economic benefit. The nuclear fuels is one of those areas where we do have historic strengths in the UK. Um in terms of getting an end to end fuel supply chain together.
So it's, it's a, there's a possibility to get a real win here in terms of building up our own supply chains and seizing all those exports opportunities as well for the nuclear industry. And with, in terms of where those plants, where those investments are located, using that as a spur to regional regional growth as well. I would just finish by saying very much welcome the legislation, but I think I would also ask how the government is going to seize the opportunity enabled by this legislation to really bring forward additional end to end, fuel services in the UK, with all the export opportunities, skilled jobs and using it as a tool to regenerate the regions as well.
16:02
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Ravensdale. Um, and his contributions in the house will be continued to be welcomed. I also welcome the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, um, many of which have been playing on my mind over the last um. Couple of weeks, which I'll refer to a little bit later on, uh, on Friday. I'm aware that this, I'm not sure. Um, Deputy Speaker, whether the Chair Whether or not the audio is working correctly or whether or not I will just continue.
Um. I'm grateful, madam Chairman. Uh, on Friday, the Russian war on Ukraine became longer than the First World War. Say, it is likely that a thousand Russians will be killed or wounded in the prosecution of that aggression. But also today, the first negotiating cluster opens between the EU and Ukraine, signalling a prospect of a much more prosperous and secure future with Ukraine and the European Union. What assists this future is that there is no lifting of economic and trade pressure on Russia.
It is why tackling the Russian oil and energy sector, controlled by those close to and financial backers of President Putin, remains critical and why these measures should be supported. Russia has frustratingly managed to both exploit some resistance to act over the last few years, especially on secondary sanctions, but also to easily circumvented the sanctions that have been put in place in. March 2022. Over four years ago in the chamber, I asked the previous government to target the. Swap to allow Russia to continue to trade in oil products, allowing countries to trade and refine and then sell on.
I raised this eight subsequent times, five times during the period in the last government, when the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was an energy minister. When I challenged Lord Ahmed in the Foreign Office, I always got the slight impression that the Fcdo probably would have liked to have acted. But the Energy Department and the Treasury had more reticence because of this and me pressing so long and so consistent. I was genuinely delighted to have read the tranche of sanctions that we are now considering today.
We, I should declare, perhaps not an interest, but I should make clear that I am sanctioned myself by Putin's government, which is a degree of a badge of honour to some respects. Measures today rightly tighten the restrictions on UK businesses involved in facilitating providing assistance to and. Crews or brokering services or financial services to ships seeking to circumvent sanctions. Uh. We therefore support the powers for more shipping, trade and transport related activity in scope of sanctions to make it as the explanatory memorandum stated, more difficult for Russia's shadow fleet to obtain services and limiting UK involvement.
Further, I welcome the explanatory memorandum and I commend the government on its clarity, but also with the recent news. I also commend very strongly the Royal Marines and all of those involved in the action on the vessel, which flagrantly was passing through the channel on its passage as part of a shadow fleet. I hope that we are now progressively bringing more light on the shadow fleet and preventing it and acting on it. This, uh, support and very considerable support made me even more disappointed at the then open ended license to exempt a key part of these measures, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, had referred to, the government had in place for processed oil products, jet fuel and diesel.
An open ended licence. This was met with similar disappointment by our Ukrainian friends and the very open ended nature of the exemption was something that I found unacceptable. I spoke to and then wrote to Minister Stephen Doughty on the 4th of June, outlining my very serious concerns, and I said that I would consider moving these measures out of grand committee to be in the chamber so that the whole House would be able to make a decision as to whether an open ended licence was the correct way forward.
This was not a light thing to do, because I have been part very willingly and enthusiastically. Part of cross-party consensus on these sanctions. But nevertheless I found the open ended nature of that measure unacceptable. I was grateful for the Minister's facilitating me meeting with cross departmental officials on the 10th of June, and I received a letter on the 11th of June from Minister Doughty indicating that the government had changed its mind and would bring forward an end point. In effect, a sunset clause to the licence.
This was welcome. Uh, and that concession to me, I has also been welcomed by many of our Ukrainian friends, and the minister referred to that acknowledgement today. And I and I thank her for it. Uh, I do have a couple of questions relating to that, which are linked with the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster's questions. Um. I my understanding. Is that any British businesses continuing to trade up until the end of the year under this licence have to declare to the government that they are trading under licence, and I would be grateful to, if the Minister could, if not today, bore write to me as to how many British businesses are now operating under this licence.
This is a licence which ideally should not be in place, but if it is the government's intent that there is to be no. There is now to be clarity on the policy end point, the policy of the issue coming to a clear end, then we should have clarity as to how many British businesses are operating under it. Um, and with regards to the noble Lord Lancaster's point, I think that the fact that this now has an end point to it, a clear end point suggests that the government has moved away from saying that it will make a decision on the end of the exemption based on market conditions, and now is very clearly phasing in a policy determination.
Ultimately, we want to see this licence removed, revoked as soon as possible. Uh, if, as my as as far as I am concerned, the target point not should not be the 1st of January. That should absolutely be the backstop. And if the licence can be removed sooner than that, I would welcome it. And I would wish the Minister to bring a statement to Parliament indicating that it would be the case. We need these measures in place to ensure that our Ukrainian allies know that we will not allow there to be any let up in our support to add even more pressure on the Putin regime.
At the very point when the Ukrainians seem to be gaining some form of advantage. This is the critical point where we need to turn the screw and not to loosen it.
Um. I'm grateful, madam Chairman. Uh, on Friday, the Russian war on Ukraine became longer than the First World War. Say, it is likely that a thousand Russians will be killed or wounded in the prosecution of that aggression. But also today, the first negotiating cluster opens between the EU and Ukraine, signalling a prospect of a much more prosperous and secure future with Ukraine and the European Union. What assists this future is that there is no lifting of economic and trade pressure on Russia.
It is why tackling the Russian oil and energy sector, controlled by those close to and financial backers of President Putin, remains critical and why these measures should be supported. Russia has frustratingly managed to both exploit some resistance to act over the last few years, especially on secondary sanctions, but also to easily circumvented the sanctions that have been put in place in. March 2022. Over four years ago in the chamber, I asked the previous government to target the. Swap to allow Russia to continue to trade in oil products, allowing countries to trade and refine and then sell on.
I raised this eight subsequent times, five times during the period in the last government, when the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was an energy minister. When I challenged Lord Ahmed in the Foreign Office, I always got the slight impression that the Fcdo probably would have liked to have acted. But the Energy Department and the Treasury had more reticence because of this and me pressing so long and so consistent. I was genuinely delighted to have read the tranche of sanctions that we are now considering today.
We, I should declare, perhaps not an interest, but I should make clear that I am sanctioned myself by Putin's government, which is a degree of a badge of honour to some respects. Measures today rightly tighten the restrictions on UK businesses involved in facilitating providing assistance to and. Crews or brokering services or financial services to ships seeking to circumvent sanctions. Uh. We therefore support the powers for more shipping, trade and transport related activity in scope of sanctions to make it as the explanatory memorandum stated, more difficult for Russia's shadow fleet to obtain services and limiting UK involvement.
Further, I welcome the explanatory memorandum and I commend the government on its clarity, but also with the recent news. I also commend very strongly the Royal Marines and all of those involved in the action on the vessel, which flagrantly was passing through the channel on its passage as part of a shadow fleet. I hope that we are now progressively bringing more light on the shadow fleet and preventing it and acting on it. This, uh, support and very considerable support made me even more disappointed at the then open ended license to exempt a key part of these measures, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, had referred to, the government had in place for processed oil products, jet fuel and diesel.
An open ended licence. This was met with similar disappointment by our Ukrainian friends and the very open ended nature of the exemption was something that I found unacceptable. I spoke to and then wrote to Minister Stephen Doughty on the 4th of June, outlining my very serious concerns, and I said that I would consider moving these measures out of grand committee to be in the chamber so that the whole House would be able to make a decision as to whether an open ended licence was the correct way forward.
This was not a light thing to do, because I have been part very willingly and enthusiastically. Part of cross-party consensus on these sanctions. But nevertheless I found the open ended nature of that measure unacceptable. I was grateful for the Minister's facilitating me meeting with cross departmental officials on the 10th of June, and I received a letter on the 11th of June from Minister Doughty indicating that the government had changed its mind and would bring forward an end point. In effect, a sunset clause to the licence.
This was welcome. Uh, and that concession to me, I has also been welcomed by many of our Ukrainian friends, and the minister referred to that acknowledgement today. And I and I thank her for it. Uh, I do have a couple of questions relating to that, which are linked with the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster's questions. Um. I my understanding. Is that any British businesses continuing to trade up until the end of the year under this licence have to declare to the government that they are trading under licence, and I would be grateful to, if the Minister could, if not today, bore write to me as to how many British businesses are now operating under this licence.
This is a licence which ideally should not be in place, but if it is the government's intent that there is to be no. There is now to be clarity on the policy end point, the policy of the issue coming to a clear end, then we should have clarity as to how many British businesses are operating under it. Um, and with regards to the noble Lord Lancaster's point, I think that the fact that this now has an end point to it, a clear end point suggests that the government has moved away from saying that it will make a decision on the end of the exemption based on market conditions, and now is very clearly phasing in a policy determination.
Ultimately, we want to see this licence removed, revoked as soon as possible. Uh, if, as my as as far as I am concerned, the target point not should not be the 1st of January. That should absolutely be the backstop. And if the licence can be removed sooner than that, I would welcome it. And I would wish the Minister to bring a statement to Parliament indicating that it would be the case. We need these measures in place to ensure that our Ukrainian allies know that we will not allow there to be any let up in our support to add even more pressure on the Putin regime.
At the very point when the Ukrainians seem to be gaining some form of advantage. This is the critical point where we need to turn the screw and not to loosen it.
16:10
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
My Lords, Russia's illegal war in Ukraine is an indefensible act of aggression. The previous government was both steadfast and consistent in its support for Ukraine and its opposition to the invasion, and I'm grateful that the current government have continued that policy. And with Lord Purvis's support as well. That makes all three major parties in the UK united in this in this endeavour, although we do have some differences sometimes on points of detail. But I do agree with Lord Purvis's comments. And it is against that context that I.
That I wish to support the government's policy of tough sanctions against the Russian state and individuals linked to the Russian war machine. We will always welcome that approach and support the government in this. These sanctions are the right step, and we must continue to keep them under review to ensure that they are appropriately tough and have the proper effect of putting pressure on Putin to bring an end to the invasion. As Lord Purvis has said just at the time when it looks hopefully as though Ukraine could be making some progress, um, I would also like him like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the brave men and women of the Royal Marines and the Royal, the RAF and the Royal Navy, as well as the officers of the NCA for their skillful seizure of the Russian Shadow fleet vessel Smartos this weekend.
The government is right to have taken this action. Russia's shadow fleet should not be permitted to operate with impunity. Um, the um permission to do that was originally announced over three months ago, and many of us have been wondering why that announcement was made then. And then nothing happened since then. Um, it's estimated that something like 2 to 300 tankers have gone through the English Channel. Um, since then without being apprehended. But it's nice to see that one has now been stopped.
Um, I wonder if the noble lady could, update the committee on whether further actions will be, um, permitted. What's going to happen to other tankers that are, that are apparently on their way towards the channel at the moment, although I believe that some have turned back. So we do support the government's policy of sanctions against Russia. Um, although again, like Lord Purvis, we have raised concerns and that ministers have temporarily approved the purchase of Russian oil products refined in third party countries like my noble friend Lord Lancaster.
We are concerned about this. The government have now said that they will keep this under review every two weeks, and I think that is welcome. But we would like to see these licences ended as soon as possible. The noble lady just said in her introduction that the temporary licence for phasing in the ban will expire by the 1st of January 2027. And again, it's good that Lord Purvis has put the pressure on to enable that to happen. I.
I support that, but could the noble Baroness Minister reply to the question that I just asked her in the chamber whether that could be brought forward if circumstances change, such, of course, as the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz?And can she say what assessment the government have made of the impact of this licence on Russia's finances?It is surely not right that the UK is buying oil products derived from crude oil originating in Russia. Um, does the noble Baroness, the Minister, accept that this feels like a softening of our position on Russian oil?So we would like to see these sanctions toughened up.
We would like to see these temporary licences ended as quickly as possible. And I look forward to the noble lady's answers to the questions that she's been asked today.
That I wish to support the government's policy of tough sanctions against the Russian state and individuals linked to the Russian war machine. We will always welcome that approach and support the government in this. These sanctions are the right step, and we must continue to keep them under review to ensure that they are appropriately tough and have the proper effect of putting pressure on Putin to bring an end to the invasion. As Lord Purvis has said just at the time when it looks hopefully as though Ukraine could be making some progress, um, I would also like him like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the brave men and women of the Royal Marines and the Royal, the RAF and the Royal Navy, as well as the officers of the NCA for their skillful seizure of the Russian Shadow fleet vessel Smartos this weekend.
The government is right to have taken this action. Russia's shadow fleet should not be permitted to operate with impunity. Um, the um permission to do that was originally announced over three months ago, and many of us have been wondering why that announcement was made then. And then nothing happened since then. Um, it's estimated that something like 2 to 300 tankers have gone through the English Channel. Um, since then without being apprehended. But it's nice to see that one has now been stopped.
Um, I wonder if the noble lady could, update the committee on whether further actions will be, um, permitted. What's going to happen to other tankers that are, that are apparently on their way towards the channel at the moment, although I believe that some have turned back. So we do support the government's policy of sanctions against Russia. Um, although again, like Lord Purvis, we have raised concerns and that ministers have temporarily approved the purchase of Russian oil products refined in third party countries like my noble friend Lord Lancaster.
We are concerned about this. The government have now said that they will keep this under review every two weeks, and I think that is welcome. But we would like to see these licences ended as soon as possible. The noble lady just said in her introduction that the temporary licence for phasing in the ban will expire by the 1st of January 2027. And again, it's good that Lord Purvis has put the pressure on to enable that to happen. I.
I support that, but could the noble Baroness Minister reply to the question that I just asked her in the chamber whether that could be brought forward if circumstances change, such, of course, as the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz?And can she say what assessment the government have made of the impact of this licence on Russia's finances?It is surely not right that the UK is buying oil products derived from crude oil originating in Russia. Um, does the noble Baroness, the Minister, accept that this feels like a softening of our position on Russian oil?So we would like to see these sanctions toughened up.
We would like to see these temporary licences ended as quickly as possible. And I look forward to the noble lady's answers to the questions that she's been asked today.
16:13
16:13
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
What I think is broadly, um, is consensus. Actually, it's probably as close as we ever normally achieve. And I would like to thank all the noble lords who've taken part for their constructive contributions. The measure introduced by this instrument shows how the UK continues to use its powers to apply further pressure on Putin to help secure an enduring peace, and to show that we remain fully behind Ukraine. At the same time, it is just one part of a broader cross-government effort on sanctions.
Um Lord Lancaster asked a number of questions around how we evaluate the impact, the scale of the impact, and we keep we keep a very, very close eye on what is. Happening in Russia and what the impacts of our sanctions are, and when we need to go further, we will be prepared to go further because our aim is, as I have described, and we will just continue to do this until we see an end to this war. Um, the licences. I do appreciate the point he makes about how, when these things are announced, there was the issue of sanctions and the issue of licences, which of course are slightly separate.
And it perhaps it would be helpful to present these in a way so that for noble Lords to be able to examine them as one um single package, and I take that um constructive suggestion. Um Lord Ravensdale asked about specifically supply chains of uranium and for Sizewell in particular, um we do work with the sector to make sure that they get what they need. I really support what he says, though, about trying to make sure that the UK um, is able to benefit the maximum extent from, from this.
And we will continue to do that. Um Lord Purvis I absolutely, I mean, I, I do commend the intervention.
Um Lord Lancaster asked a number of questions around how we evaluate the impact, the scale of the impact, and we keep we keep a very, very close eye on what is. Happening in Russia and what the impacts of our sanctions are, and when we need to go further, we will be prepared to go further because our aim is, as I have described, and we will just continue to do this until we see an end to this war. Um, the licences. I do appreciate the point he makes about how, when these things are announced, there was the issue of sanctions and the issue of licences, which of course are slightly separate.
And it perhaps it would be helpful to present these in a way so that for noble Lords to be able to examine them as one um single package, and I take that um constructive suggestion. Um Lord Ravensdale asked about specifically supply chains of uranium and for Sizewell in particular, um we do work with the sector to make sure that they get what they need. I really support what he says, though, about trying to make sure that the UK um, is able to benefit the maximum extent from, from this.
And we will continue to do that. Um Lord Purvis I absolutely, I mean, I, I do commend the intervention.
16:15
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Way away from this. That comments. Made on Sizewell B. I wonder if she would be able to write to me, perhaps with more specifics about the about the supply chain and whether that supply chain that currently supplies Sizewell B is will come to an end as a result of this legislation. I'd appreciate that specific commitment, please.
16:16
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I can't tell him today. I'm happy to write to him. My understanding is that global supply is secure and that the industry gets what it needs without having to use Russian products, but I will, without knowing about specifically Sizewell um here today, I will make sure that I write to him and get the get him the information that he's requested. Um, it is good that we can work together and have these conversations. And I'm really glad that Lord Purvis is able to speak with me and with, um, my friend, uh, Minister Doughty on these issues that we can come to a better place.
And I think the outcome really proves that this house, when it does its job well, can really does a good task in improving legislation. And it certainly has in this case, the licences will be regularly, regularly reviewed. Um they can be amended, they can be suspended and they can be revoked. Businesses need to declare when they're using one of these licences, the number is I don't have the exact number, but it is very, very small, um at the moment. And I don't anticipate that changing.
And Lord Callanan asked, could we bring forward the end date?I suppose in theory we could, um, nobody, I think, wants to see the current situation last any longer than is absolutely necessary. But it is important in order to see sanctions adhered to and implemented, that we give some sort of clarity and certainty. Um, but I would just conclude by saying that the UK has transformed transformed its use of sanctions. We continue to lead internationally on sanctions implementation. And our objective remains unchanged to increase pressure on Russian revenues that fund its illegal invasion of Ukraine, will continue to explore further ways to constrain Russia's ability to sustain the war.
But I once again just want to thank this committee for its insightful contributions and to the continued cross-party support. As Lord Callanan said, um, in support of our sanctions regimes and support for Ukraine, I beg to move.
And I think the outcome really proves that this house, when it does its job well, can really does a good task in improving legislation. And it certainly has in this case, the licences will be regularly, regularly reviewed. Um they can be amended, they can be suspended and they can be revoked. Businesses need to declare when they're using one of these licences, the number is I don't have the exact number, but it is very, very small, um at the moment. And I don't anticipate that changing.
And Lord Callanan asked, could we bring forward the end date?I suppose in theory we could, um, nobody, I think, wants to see the current situation last any longer than is absolutely necessary. But it is important in order to see sanctions adhered to and implemented, that we give some sort of clarity and certainty. Um, but I would just conclude by saying that the UK has transformed transformed its use of sanctions. We continue to lead internationally on sanctions implementation. And our objective remains unchanged to increase pressure on Russian revenues that fund its illegal invasion of Ukraine, will continue to explore further ways to constrain Russia's ability to sustain the war.
But I once again just want to thank this committee for its insightful contributions and to the continued cross-party support. As Lord Callanan said, um, in support of our sanctions regimes and support for Ukraine, I beg to move.
16:18
16:19
16:19
16:19
16:19
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
The draft immigration leave to enter and remain. Order 2026. And as my noble friend Baroness Chapman said earlier, it's just like old times. Madam Chair. It's just like old times. Um, my Lords, the order we are debating today makes a simple and minor change to the legislation which governs how a person may seek to obtain permission to enter the UK via an automated automated epassport gate or E-gate. In real terms, this change lowers the age at which an eligible person can normally use an e-gate from 10 to 8 years old, provided they are also 120cm or dare I say it, my Lords, in old money three foot 11in in height.
Um. And I'm afraid I just happen to still be an old money sort of guy. But there we go. Uh, in May 2025, in the Immigration White paper, this government set out our ambition to revolutionise the UK border by using automated technology to keep the UK safe and our borders secure, and also to increase passenger flow through our ports and improve the targeted action of the Border Force. Officers, lowering the. E-gate eligibility age is the next step in delivering this ambition.
E-gates are by no means a new or novel piece of technology. They've been used in the United Kingdom since 2008. In 2025, 77 million people successfully used E-gates to enter the UK and they are proved to be a safe and effective method to cross our border. And currently, British citizens and nationals of the EU, Australia, Canada. Iceland. Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland and the United States can normally use E-gates to enter the United Kingdom.
In this see before us does not amend the list. It simply lowers the age from 10 to 8 years old. Um. I am, however, continuing to work with colleagues at options for further expansion of eligibility, including to the other five British nationalities who are currently unable to use E-gates. And I intend to bring forward further information in coming months. Um, could I also just say a word about safeguarding?Um, at this juncture?Because I would like to reassure the House that robust safeguarding protections will remain in place at the border, firstly, and in line with current policy and operating procedures, only accompanied children between the ages of eight and 18 will be able to use e-gates.
Any unaccompanied child or child below the age of eight will still be required to see a Border Force officer in the usual way. And secondly, we're going to update and reissue our guidance to officers and to airport hosts to encourage adults travelling alone with children to use the e-gates first. The reason for this is to keep the child airside and in the care of Border Force, should they encounter any difficulties using E-gates and by maintaining this approach, we can facilitate both much quicker referrals and ensure that children are reunited with family groups in an efficient, safe and controlled manner.
Um, our greatest safeguard, of course, is the continued deployment of the highly skilled Border Force officers for whom I pay eternal tribute. They will continue to be a visible presence at all ports with E-gates, and they will continue to monitor the use of the gates themselves. Observing passengers to identify any cause for concern and indeed taking action to protect any vulnerable person and the UK border as a whole. I also acknowledge, if I may, that there may also be concerns regarding the ever increasing dependency on automation deployed at our border.
I hope I can reassure the committee that all border technology is rigorously tested. There are robust business continuity arrangements in place in the Home Office and Border Force to deal with any system outage that may occur. So, my Lords, this order, I believe, makes a simple and minor change to existing legislation and border policy arrangements, and it enables us to consider progress towards delivering a future border model, a future border model will use technology to keep the UK safe, improve passenger flow for legitimate travellers and better target Border Force interventions at those who seek to do our country or individuals entering it harm.
Um, I think it would just be finally, if I may, my Lords, that in the event of both Houses of Parliament agreeing this change, the government hopes to implement the change to E-gate eligibility from July the 8th. I beg to move.
Um. And I'm afraid I just happen to still be an old money sort of guy. But there we go. Uh, in May 2025, in the Immigration White paper, this government set out our ambition to revolutionise the UK border by using automated technology to keep the UK safe and our borders secure, and also to increase passenger flow through our ports and improve the targeted action of the Border Force. Officers, lowering the. E-gate eligibility age is the next step in delivering this ambition.
E-gates are by no means a new or novel piece of technology. They've been used in the United Kingdom since 2008. In 2025, 77 million people successfully used E-gates to enter the UK and they are proved to be a safe and effective method to cross our border. And currently, British citizens and nationals of the EU, Australia, Canada. Iceland. Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland and the United States can normally use E-gates to enter the United Kingdom.
In this see before us does not amend the list. It simply lowers the age from 10 to 8 years old. Um. I am, however, continuing to work with colleagues at options for further expansion of eligibility, including to the other five British nationalities who are currently unable to use E-gates. And I intend to bring forward further information in coming months. Um, could I also just say a word about safeguarding?Um, at this juncture?Because I would like to reassure the House that robust safeguarding protections will remain in place at the border, firstly, and in line with current policy and operating procedures, only accompanied children between the ages of eight and 18 will be able to use e-gates.
Any unaccompanied child or child below the age of eight will still be required to see a Border Force officer in the usual way. And secondly, we're going to update and reissue our guidance to officers and to airport hosts to encourage adults travelling alone with children to use the e-gates first. The reason for this is to keep the child airside and in the care of Border Force, should they encounter any difficulties using E-gates and by maintaining this approach, we can facilitate both much quicker referrals and ensure that children are reunited with family groups in an efficient, safe and controlled manner.
Um, our greatest safeguard, of course, is the continued deployment of the highly skilled Border Force officers for whom I pay eternal tribute. They will continue to be a visible presence at all ports with E-gates, and they will continue to monitor the use of the gates themselves. Observing passengers to identify any cause for concern and indeed taking action to protect any vulnerable person and the UK border as a whole. I also acknowledge, if I may, that there may also be concerns regarding the ever increasing dependency on automation deployed at our border.
I hope I can reassure the committee that all border technology is rigorously tested. There are robust business continuity arrangements in place in the Home Office and Border Force to deal with any system outage that may occur. So, my Lords, this order, I believe, makes a simple and minor change to existing legislation and border policy arrangements, and it enables us to consider progress towards delivering a future border model, a future border model will use technology to keep the UK safe, improve passenger flow for legitimate travellers and better target Border Force interventions at those who seek to do our country or individuals entering it harm.
Um, I think it would just be finally, if I may, my Lords, that in the event of both Houses of Parliament agreeing this change, the government hopes to implement the change to E-gate eligibility from July the 8th. I beg to move.
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I just was not entirely clear about the the, um. Border force would address the safeguarding risks. Um, I'm not an expert on these, uh, Border Force methods, but in the explanatory memorandum, it said that the continued deployment of Border Force officers in the arrivals hall would be to identify safeguarding risks. I don't know how. And I wasn't clear from the minister's, um, presentation. How what they would be looking for to um, identify. Safeguarding risks presumably um children at the moment between 8 and 10 who have to go through physical checks.
Um there is some um training of Border Force officers in their checking and questioning, which of course will not happen with E-gates. And I wasn't clear what they would be, what they'd be looking for, what they'd be. Trying to identify in, uh, the, the. Behaviour or, or identity of the adult and child going through. May I just add, um, how impressed I've been by my use of e-gates recently?Contrary to experience at some point, um, once has sailed through recently touch wood.
That might may be a I may be tempting fate on that, but it has worked for me the last few times I've used it.
Um there is some um training of Border Force officers in their checking and questioning, which of course will not happen with E-gates. And I wasn't clear what they would be, what they'd be looking for, what they'd be. Trying to identify in, uh, the, the. Behaviour or, or identity of the adult and child going through. May I just add, um, how impressed I've been by my use of e-gates recently?Contrary to experience at some point, um, once has sailed through recently touch wood.
That might may be a I may be tempting fate on that, but it has worked for me the last few times I've used it.
16:26
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
My Lord, if I may. Obviously this is a very straightforward. But the. Obviously, the title of this order is perhaps misleading to anybody from outside the door who didn't realise. It was as straightforward as. As being suggested. Um, I can recall being in this very room when we moved the age down to ten. And at that point I discovered that, in fact the minister at that time said that he had twins, age ten.
And therefore he felt very comfortable about opposing that. Now, I can say I'm grandfather of an eight year old. I don't know whether this is any of any significance, but it certainly raised questions which I'd like to ask the minister really about some technicalities. I'd like to start with paragraph 35 of the economic note, which says that planned E-gates and Home Office system testing will provide more estimates on the security, etc., of allowing children has have this has this testing taken place?And if not, will it take place before the start date of July the 8th?Secondly, I welcome the fact that we are.
That the Minister is looking for further countries to be admitted, and I welcome. I welcome that so I can now turn to the three foot 11 issue, um, which of course I'm assuming is correct, because it's 200, 120cm and I'm sure the minister has worked it out. Um I as I understand it from the, the, the associated notes that um, basically 10% of the children in that age bracket are below that height. Um, and that's quite a significant number because if 10% of them were doing what they do at theme parks, which is to stand next to the measure and stand on tip toe so they can get on the ride, which I have seen frequently and sometimes encouraged by their parents as well.
Then they are, um, obviously, um the, the question is that if they are three foot, um um ten for example, or I can't work out in centimeters, but let's say 110cm, what would happen then is presumably the machinery wouldn't work, the camera would not, could not be taken at the right height for their face and biometric details, which had been already provided. So, um, what will happen then, of course, is that they'll, they'll have to be a turnaround. The usual problem of people not being able to work the gates.
The second question I have is related to where you have a single adult with a child. Um, the single adult is either requested or asked to or is told to go through first. Now, I know that with an eight year old, I'd be loath to leave behind a set of sliding doors, two sets of sliding doors, an eight year old child. I know what happens because you can see what happens already with parents of ten year olds who've often been in front of me in in queue, that they don't necessarily do what they're supposed to do, which is put your feet on the marks that are there and look at the camera.
And usually the parent will then lean over the gate and shout at them and say, put your feet on that. Stand up straight, look at the camera. As parents would want to do with their children. So I just wonder whether that is a a suggestion or a rule or what. But, um, you know, the natural instinct of a parent and I must say a grandparent as well would be to stand behind them to make sure they do the job that you're asking of them.
And it's what you do with children. Anyway, it seems to me put them in front of you, but to actually move through, if you're a single parent or a parent only, or only one parent with a child to move through and leave them behind is, um, I think, um, a bit unsatisfactory given that where parents will and I know what the, the, what the rule book says here in front of us that there will be an officer who will make sure they go through properly. And that's still not comforting to a parent of an eight year old when, you know, these children are much younger than, than, than a ten year old, and often need help to do the sort of straightforward things like tidying up after you've had a meal and putting the dishes out and all that sort of stuff, which they continually be reminded of at that age, even at ten year olds, I'd do the same, but it's going to be more prevalent.
Obviously, with children who have just reached that reached that age. So, um, those are two points on that. The third question I have relates to, um, what I have observed where there are French boarding gates and UK boarding gates. And I know that the gardener in Paris, for those who've been through it, where you go through the French gates and then you go through the British gates, UK gates immediately after it, one after the other two sets of electronic gates. And the difference is there are differences in the way you use them.
And the camera in the French system rides up and down so that it adjusts to the height. Not done automatically, but it slides up and down according to where you stood in the in the in the area where the gates are situated. So I just wonder whether there, given that this is not a frequent operation, because clearly it's only where the juxtaposed customs take place, whether these gates are. Whether there's any form of trying to get uniformity of some form of technical uniformity with the gates that exist for us.
And, and the French will always be the French gates. Um, where, where the juxtaposed, it seems to me. But apart from that, I think the um the, um the, this is a, certainly a measure which will encourage more and more parents if they are there to use the electronic gates. I know that those who are aware of this will be and have no children under the age of eight will be very pleased to be able to take the faster route through the electronic gates, rather than the whole family having to decamp to the to the, uh, to.
The manual system that's available. And with those comments and those questions, I think we are so pleased to support this amendment, this, um, rule.
And therefore he felt very comfortable about opposing that. Now, I can say I'm grandfather of an eight year old. I don't know whether this is any of any significance, but it certainly raised questions which I'd like to ask the minister really about some technicalities. I'd like to start with paragraph 35 of the economic note, which says that planned E-gates and Home Office system testing will provide more estimates on the security, etc., of allowing children has have this has this testing taken place?And if not, will it take place before the start date of July the 8th?Secondly, I welcome the fact that we are.
That the Minister is looking for further countries to be admitted, and I welcome. I welcome that so I can now turn to the three foot 11 issue, um, which of course I'm assuming is correct, because it's 200, 120cm and I'm sure the minister has worked it out. Um I as I understand it from the, the, the associated notes that um, basically 10% of the children in that age bracket are below that height. Um, and that's quite a significant number because if 10% of them were doing what they do at theme parks, which is to stand next to the measure and stand on tip toe so they can get on the ride, which I have seen frequently and sometimes encouraged by their parents as well.
Then they are, um, obviously, um the, the question is that if they are three foot, um um ten for example, or I can't work out in centimeters, but let's say 110cm, what would happen then is presumably the machinery wouldn't work, the camera would not, could not be taken at the right height for their face and biometric details, which had been already provided. So, um, what will happen then, of course, is that they'll, they'll have to be a turnaround. The usual problem of people not being able to work the gates.
The second question I have is related to where you have a single adult with a child. Um, the single adult is either requested or asked to or is told to go through first. Now, I know that with an eight year old, I'd be loath to leave behind a set of sliding doors, two sets of sliding doors, an eight year old child. I know what happens because you can see what happens already with parents of ten year olds who've often been in front of me in in queue, that they don't necessarily do what they're supposed to do, which is put your feet on the marks that are there and look at the camera.
And usually the parent will then lean over the gate and shout at them and say, put your feet on that. Stand up straight, look at the camera. As parents would want to do with their children. So I just wonder whether that is a a suggestion or a rule or what. But, um, you know, the natural instinct of a parent and I must say a grandparent as well would be to stand behind them to make sure they do the job that you're asking of them.
And it's what you do with children. Anyway, it seems to me put them in front of you, but to actually move through, if you're a single parent or a parent only, or only one parent with a child to move through and leave them behind is, um, I think, um, a bit unsatisfactory given that where parents will and I know what the, the, what the rule book says here in front of us that there will be an officer who will make sure they go through properly. And that's still not comforting to a parent of an eight year old when, you know, these children are much younger than, than, than a ten year old, and often need help to do the sort of straightforward things like tidying up after you've had a meal and putting the dishes out and all that sort of stuff, which they continually be reminded of at that age, even at ten year olds, I'd do the same, but it's going to be more prevalent.
Obviously, with children who have just reached that reached that age. So, um, those are two points on that. The third question I have relates to, um, what I have observed where there are French boarding gates and UK boarding gates. And I know that the gardener in Paris, for those who've been through it, where you go through the French gates and then you go through the British gates, UK gates immediately after it, one after the other two sets of electronic gates. And the difference is there are differences in the way you use them.
And the camera in the French system rides up and down so that it adjusts to the height. Not done automatically, but it slides up and down according to where you stood in the in the in the area where the gates are situated. So I just wonder whether there, given that this is not a frequent operation, because clearly it's only where the juxtaposed customs take place, whether these gates are. Whether there's any form of trying to get uniformity of some form of technical uniformity with the gates that exist for us.
And, and the French will always be the French gates. Um, where, where the juxtaposed, it seems to me. But apart from that, I think the um the, um the, this is a, certainly a measure which will encourage more and more parents if they are there to use the electronic gates. I know that those who are aware of this will be and have no children under the age of eight will be very pleased to be able to take the faster route through the electronic gates, rather than the whole family having to decamp to the to the, uh, to.
The manual system that's available. And with those comments and those questions, I think we are so pleased to support this amendment, this, um, rule.
16:32
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Um. The. Lord, the minister will be delighted to hear that, uh, His Majesty's official opposition does not oppose this order. And I'm grateful to the Minister for bringing it to the House. Um, families travelling through our major ports during school holidays will know only too well the frustrations of lengthy queues. And as the noble Lord, the minister has outlined, this order extends E-gate eligibility to a. To nine year olds who hold biometric passports of eligible nationalities, and the government anticipates that an additional 1.5 million children per year will be able to pass through automatically as a result of this change.
And this is very welcome. It will ease pressure at peak times and, crucially, it will free up our Border Force officers to focus where they are most needed on complex cases and genuine security risks. And this is a sensible rebalancing of resource. Um, just a few points that I'd like to raise. Uh, I, can I just press the minister on the safeguards I put into place?Um, so can I ask the minister, the noble Lord, the minister, what measures will the government adopt to ensure that the new lower age limits will not be open to abuse?Will the government maintain a strong presence of Border Force staff at all points of entry?And it's also very important that the implications for child safeguarding are carefully considered.
And that's already been alluded to. And I know that the minister mentioned it in his opening speech. Um, can the noble Lord, the minister, guarantee that unaccompanied under 18 will still be directed to Border Force officers?I also note that a certain peak times, the e-gates in airports can still be very busy. Obviously, where this is the case, lowering the age limit for e-gate use will not help speed up the arrivals process. So other government giving any thoughts to other measures that could help ease passenger congestion at particularly busy times.
And finally, I believe it is important that this policy is reviewed at regular intervals and that the Home Office is rigorous in its annual monitoring of these safeguards, as the policy beds in. Thank you.
And this is very welcome. It will ease pressure at peak times and, crucially, it will free up our Border Force officers to focus where they are most needed on complex cases and genuine security risks. And this is a sensible rebalancing of resource. Um, just a few points that I'd like to raise. Uh, I, can I just press the minister on the safeguards I put into place?Um, so can I ask the minister, the noble Lord, the minister, what measures will the government adopt to ensure that the new lower age limits will not be open to abuse?Will the government maintain a strong presence of Border Force staff at all points of entry?And it's also very important that the implications for child safeguarding are carefully considered.
And that's already been alluded to. And I know that the minister mentioned it in his opening speech. Um, can the noble Lord, the minister, guarantee that unaccompanied under 18 will still be directed to Border Force officers?I also note that a certain peak times, the e-gates in airports can still be very busy. Obviously, where this is the case, lowering the age limit for e-gate use will not help speed up the arrivals process. So other government giving any thoughts to other measures that could help ease passenger congestion at particularly busy times.
And finally, I believe it is important that this policy is reviewed at regular intervals and that the Home Office is rigorous in its annual monitoring of these safeguards, as the policy beds in. Thank you.
16:35
16:35
16:35
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
The order, and indeed to the noble Lord. Chairman and Baroness Ludford, for the same. They've asked legitimate questions which I'll come on to in a moment, but self-evidently the purpose of this order is to improve the customer experience for young people and for children and families particularly. So we are aware of that, and we believe that the system is an added benefit and is one that obviously, by bringing the order forward today, we support. In answer to the question about whether testing would take place before July the 1st the eighth testing will and is taking place.
I'm not going to reveal the results of those tests, but testing is and will continue to take place. And I put in the opening remarks. The officers of Border Force, central to the comments that I made, because the Office of Board of Border Force are professional officers who are trained to do a job, who will be there still in sufficient numbers to do that job, and they are being trained, particularly in behaviour detection and support for any child who, for whatever reason, cannot or fails the use of that e-gate.
Now, I'm confident that the safeguarding of individuals, when we lower the age to eight, does not significantly increase safeguarding risks. The safety and protection of all passengers at the UK border is of utmost importance and primary concern to the government. We will continue to deploy Border Force officers within arrivals halls. They will be able to monitor passengers using E-gates and at ports with higher number of e-gates in the queue to interact with families groups to mitigate against safeguarding risks and as now, they are a visible presence and where difficulties occur, either by a child being below the registered height, which is a real issue, people will differ in heights, but we need to have the machines in use where the child is below that height.
There is potential for the Border Force officer to involve themselves in that safeguarding role. We encourage single adults travelling with children to enter the e-gate first. That means should they or a child in the travelling group encounter any difficulties using the E-gate, they will remain within the protection area of Border Force officials who can assist them. Where there are multiple parents and we've all done this in the past with our own children, one will maybe go through first, one will see the children through and one will hold up the rear to see what is happening.
My kids now are 38, 37, 36, and 23, and they're quite happily doing it themselves. But like the noble Lord, um, I might on occasions have to take a grandchild who currently seven, four, two and five months through the gate and none of them currently will qualify, but they've got in Hansard, so that will be impressive for for the future, if nothing else. Um, so basically there are there are protections in place, the safety and security of the border is absolutely important. And as I've set out, Border Force officers will continue to play a crucial role in supporting family groups and crossing children on the UK border.
And I must just say as well that we're not, um, we're not alone in undertaking this type of activity. There's a number of, countries. Who use similar procedures. For example, Australia and Singapore. Now even allow seven and six year olds respectively to use their versions of the gates. Um, it's important that we do safeguard the very valid points that have been made. But I'm giving on behalf of the government the assurance that, uh, trained staff are there and ultimately the human element of this process is still present, but I hope the process will allow speedier access through an entry into the United Kingdom.
And I hope with that, I've answered the points that have been raised by noble Lords, and I commend the order to the Committee.
I'm not going to reveal the results of those tests, but testing is and will continue to take place. And I put in the opening remarks. The officers of Border Force, central to the comments that I made, because the Office of Board of Border Force are professional officers who are trained to do a job, who will be there still in sufficient numbers to do that job, and they are being trained, particularly in behaviour detection and support for any child who, for whatever reason, cannot or fails the use of that e-gate.
Now, I'm confident that the safeguarding of individuals, when we lower the age to eight, does not significantly increase safeguarding risks. The safety and protection of all passengers at the UK border is of utmost importance and primary concern to the government. We will continue to deploy Border Force officers within arrivals halls. They will be able to monitor passengers using E-gates and at ports with higher number of e-gates in the queue to interact with families groups to mitigate against safeguarding risks and as now, they are a visible presence and where difficulties occur, either by a child being below the registered height, which is a real issue, people will differ in heights, but we need to have the machines in use where the child is below that height.
There is potential for the Border Force officer to involve themselves in that safeguarding role. We encourage single adults travelling with children to enter the e-gate first. That means should they or a child in the travelling group encounter any difficulties using the E-gate, they will remain within the protection area of Border Force officials who can assist them. Where there are multiple parents and we've all done this in the past with our own children, one will maybe go through first, one will see the children through and one will hold up the rear to see what is happening.
My kids now are 38, 37, 36, and 23, and they're quite happily doing it themselves. But like the noble Lord, um, I might on occasions have to take a grandchild who currently seven, four, two and five months through the gate and none of them currently will qualify, but they've got in Hansard, so that will be impressive for for the future, if nothing else. Um, so basically there are there are protections in place, the safety and security of the border is absolutely important. And as I've set out, Border Force officers will continue to play a crucial role in supporting family groups and crossing children on the UK border.
And I must just say as well that we're not, um, we're not alone in undertaking this type of activity. There's a number of, countries. Who use similar procedures. For example, Australia and Singapore. Now even allow seven and six year olds respectively to use their versions of the gates. Um, it's important that we do safeguard the very valid points that have been made. But I'm giving on behalf of the government the assurance that, uh, trained staff are there and ultimately the human element of this process is still present, but I hope the process will allow speedier access through an entry into the United Kingdom.
And I hope with that, I've answered the points that have been raised by noble Lords, and I commend the order to the Committee.
16:39
16:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Committee has considered this instrument as measures that opinion will say content, content. A contrary, not content. The contents have it. I will pause for a moment to allow the change of scene. My Lords, Pollution Prevention and control fees. Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2026. Lord Wilson of Sedgefield.
16:40
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
My Lords, I beg to move that the committee consider the pollution prevention and control fees. Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2026, which were laid before the House on the 14th of May. Before outlining the provision made by this draft instrument, I will briefly provide some context. Um, Disney's Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning, who I shall refer to as Hopper, minimises the the impact of the offshore oil and gas sector on the environment by controlling air emissions and discharges to sea, and reducing disturbances over the life cycle of operations.
From seismic surveys through to post decommissioning, monitoring operator recovers. Sorry Recoups the eligible costs of its regulatory functions from industry in the offshore oil and gas sector in two ways. One, by using regulations that are that are covered by these fees regulations and two by five charging schemes. The charging schemes do not require legislative change and will be amended administratively. Or average income from fees is around £7.3 million annually, recovered from around 100 companies. Currently, the fees that operate charge are based on rates of £210 per hour for environmental specialists, and £114 per hour for non-specialists.
Environmental specialists are technical staff who care, who carry out the functions of the Secretary of State, and non-specialists are support staff. Operate, fees are determined by multiplying the appropriate hourly rate by the number of hours worked by both environmental specialists and non-specialist staff. Turn to the detail of this instrument. The current hourly rates have been in force since July 2025. Have been reviewed, reviewed its cost base, operate. Concluded that the existing rates need revising to reflect today's costs for regulatory services.
During this review, operator also identified that some regulatory costs were not being fully recovered. In particular, the cost of statutory advice from natural nature conservation bodies and certain costs associated with the UK Energy Portal, which has operated as Digital System for delivering regulatory services. The revised cost base ensures that all eligible costs are met by those who benefit from the services, rather than by the taxpayer. This is consistent with HMM Treasury's managing Public Money principles, which require full cost recovery where appropriate. The revised hourly rates were approved by His Majesty's Treasury in January 2026.
The fees Regulations will amend the charging provisions by increasing the existing wholly rate for environmental specialists to £256 and increasing the hourly rate for non-specialists £230. Formally consulted the offshore industry on the rate change proposals and cost base revision in February 2026. The consultation, which was launched on February the 17th and closed on March 13th, sought views on the proposed rates and their implementation. Five responses were received while there were limited responses, the issues raised were broadly consistent. Respondents committed primarily on the scale of the proposed increases in.
The cumulative impact over successive financial years and comparisons with inflation, and raise concerns about the transparency of the underlying cost base and timing of implementation. Operate considered the consultation responses and concluded that the new rates are accurately reflected. The cost of carrying out its regulation functions despite being higher than the rate of inflation. Operator acknowledged that the timing of the rate increase could cause issues for industry in relation to planning and budgeting. However, the review is an anticipated annual process and the new hourly rates are expected to be brought into effect at the beginning of July, in line with rate changes in previous years, operator concluded.
That that failure to implement the revised rates would result in costs falling to the taxpayer, rather than being met by those benefiting from operate services. Opera determined that the rate should be increased in accordance with the proposals in the consultation. A formal response to the consultation was published on the on the gov UK website in April 2026. Operates fees. Regime guidance will be revised to reflect the new hourly rate. I would like to conclude by emphasizing that the revisions to the hourly rate being introduced by the fees regulation will allow operator to recover the eligible costs of providing regulatory services from those who benefited from it, rather than those costs being passed to the taxpayer.
I beg to move.
From seismic surveys through to post decommissioning, monitoring operator recovers. Sorry Recoups the eligible costs of its regulatory functions from industry in the offshore oil and gas sector in two ways. One, by using regulations that are that are covered by these fees regulations and two by five charging schemes. The charging schemes do not require legislative change and will be amended administratively. Or average income from fees is around £7.3 million annually, recovered from around 100 companies. Currently, the fees that operate charge are based on rates of £210 per hour for environmental specialists, and £114 per hour for non-specialists.
Environmental specialists are technical staff who care, who carry out the functions of the Secretary of State, and non-specialists are support staff. Operate, fees are determined by multiplying the appropriate hourly rate by the number of hours worked by both environmental specialists and non-specialist staff. Turn to the detail of this instrument. The current hourly rates have been in force since July 2025. Have been reviewed, reviewed its cost base, operate. Concluded that the existing rates need revising to reflect today's costs for regulatory services.
During this review, operator also identified that some regulatory costs were not being fully recovered. In particular, the cost of statutory advice from natural nature conservation bodies and certain costs associated with the UK Energy Portal, which has operated as Digital System for delivering regulatory services. The revised cost base ensures that all eligible costs are met by those who benefit from the services, rather than by the taxpayer. This is consistent with HMM Treasury's managing Public Money principles, which require full cost recovery where appropriate. The revised hourly rates were approved by His Majesty's Treasury in January 2026.
The fees Regulations will amend the charging provisions by increasing the existing wholly rate for environmental specialists to £256 and increasing the hourly rate for non-specialists £230. Formally consulted the offshore industry on the rate change proposals and cost base revision in February 2026. The consultation, which was launched on February the 17th and closed on March 13th, sought views on the proposed rates and their implementation. Five responses were received while there were limited responses, the issues raised were broadly consistent. Respondents committed primarily on the scale of the proposed increases in.
The cumulative impact over successive financial years and comparisons with inflation, and raise concerns about the transparency of the underlying cost base and timing of implementation. Operate considered the consultation responses and concluded that the new rates are accurately reflected. The cost of carrying out its regulation functions despite being higher than the rate of inflation. Operator acknowledged that the timing of the rate increase could cause issues for industry in relation to planning and budgeting. However, the review is an anticipated annual process and the new hourly rates are expected to be brought into effect at the beginning of July, in line with rate changes in previous years, operator concluded.
That that failure to implement the revised rates would result in costs falling to the taxpayer, rather than being met by those benefiting from operate services. Opera determined that the rate should be increased in accordance with the proposals in the consultation. A formal response to the consultation was published on the on the gov UK website in April 2026. Operates fees. Regime guidance will be revised to reflect the new hourly rate. I would like to conclude by emphasizing that the revisions to the hourly rate being introduced by the fees regulation will allow operator to recover the eligible costs of providing regulatory services from those who benefited from it, rather than those costs being passed to the taxpayer.
I beg to move.
16:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The Grand Committee do consider this instrument. Grateful to the noble Lord Wilson of Southville for for introducing the regulations before us this afternoon. I just have a couple of questions, if I may. Um, can I ask if the number of the number of companies he said is 100?Um are they going up or down each year?Um I imagine that the number of companies are probably going to be reduced in number. Um I would be helpful to know, for example, over the coming year, if there will still be 100 companies, um, performing this task, then I'd like to really focus on the calculations that the government have used to reach this rate.
First of all, it does seem quite a large increase when the original rates were were only in in place for, for a year from the 2nd of July 2025, even though my maths isn't great, I've done a calculation on my calculator and these increases in each case are well over 10%. Um, I. I'd like to understand the basis on which, um, that sizeable increase has been introduced and basically a sort of an undertaking from the department that this will not be replicated in future years. It does seem very harsh on the companies affected that they're going to have to find this additional resource.
Um, when clearly they've been paying a lower figure in the past year. So I'd like to understand why there's been over a 10% increase for both the hourly rate for specialists and non-specialists, and an undertaking that this will not happen in future years. Then I'm slightly baffled by. Paragraph 5.4 of the, um, I think it's the explanatory memorandum on page three where it states that the hourly rates have been calculated by taking these costs that they've outlined in that paragraph, and dividing by them by what seems to be an arbitrary number of one comma, two for three hours for each staff member.
And they explain that the average number of hours are potentially the cost of recoverable activities and removes the hours spent on leave. Bank holidays, staff management, etc. will. Of course, the bank holidays are probably the same number. Uh, across the UK, but they're different to Scotland, England and other parts of the UK. So I'm having great difficulty understanding the basis on which that calculation has has been done. And I'd like to understand a little bit more, um as.
As to how that calculation has been reached. So with those few remarks, I look forward to the noble Lords reply.
First of all, it does seem quite a large increase when the original rates were were only in in place for, for a year from the 2nd of July 2025, even though my maths isn't great, I've done a calculation on my calculator and these increases in each case are well over 10%. Um, I. I'd like to understand the basis on which, um, that sizeable increase has been introduced and basically a sort of an undertaking from the department that this will not be replicated in future years. It does seem very harsh on the companies affected that they're going to have to find this additional resource.
Um, when clearly they've been paying a lower figure in the past year. So I'd like to understand why there's been over a 10% increase for both the hourly rate for specialists and non-specialists, and an undertaking that this will not happen in future years. Then I'm slightly baffled by. Paragraph 5.4 of the, um, I think it's the explanatory memorandum on page three where it states that the hourly rates have been calculated by taking these costs that they've outlined in that paragraph, and dividing by them by what seems to be an arbitrary number of one comma, two for three hours for each staff member.
And they explain that the average number of hours are potentially the cost of recoverable activities and removes the hours spent on leave. Bank holidays, staff management, etc. will. Of course, the bank holidays are probably the same number. Uh, across the UK, but they're different to Scotland, England and other parts of the UK. So I'm having great difficulty understanding the basis on which that calculation has has been done. And I'd like to understand a little bit more, um as.
As to how that calculation has been reached. So with those few remarks, I look forward to the noble Lords reply.
16:48
16:49
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I thank the noble Lord for stepping in for the Minister and for introducing this s I um this instrument revises the hourly rate used to determine fees paid by offshore oil and gas industry for environmental regulatory services provided by Otfrid. The instrument increases that hourly rate for specialist officers from £2.10 to £2.56 an hour, and for non specialist officers from 114 to £130 an hour. Um and we understand that these amendments are designed to ensure full cost recovery for operators activities. Shifting the burden of regulation from the taxpayer under the polluter pays principle.
Um, from these benches, we fully support the polluter pays principle as a pillar of responsible environmental and economic policy. And it is right that it's in place and that it's updated. So on that basis, we do not oppose the instrument in any way at all. But having said that, um, similar to the noble lady, I do have just a couple of questions. If I might ask the minister about the details of the sea itself. Um, so also on the scale of the increases, um so this, we're having a rise from £2.10, £210 to £256 per hour, which I calculated as nearly 22%.
And then we have an increase from 114 to £130 an hour for non specialist officers. So, so these are quite substantial increases. Um and we note in the sea that there have also been previous increases in recent years as well. Under the same mechanism. Um the department tells us that these reflect the application of the Treasury's managing public money. It's to account for a share of corporate services, senior management, human resources, office services and the like. And my Lords, we do not dispute.
We. In fact, we recognise that overheads are increasing for operators as they are for. For many businesses across the country. So we are aware that inflation, inflationary pressures exist. But can I just ask the Minister, since basically my concern is this in this arrangement that we have here, these inflationary pressures are put forward onto industry. So my my question really is, is what the minister can say by way of giving a reassurance to industry that operate itself is not only aware of that cost pass through, but what what reassurance the minister can give.
The operator itself is doing everything it can as an organisation to make sure that it's doing everything within its power to make sure that that cost pressures are controlled and managed so that that pass through does not happen any more than it needs to be done. Um and as the minister said, there were only five responses, but within those five responses that the issue of transparency was, was raised. So and it is, it is quite a big extra cost. So, so we are actually under the, uh, the changes here.
We're asking the sector to absorb, to absorb an extra £1.6 million a year, taking the total from 7.3 million to 8.9 million for the services. Um. I think it's also just important for just operator to provide a little bit more clarity. It talks about administrative services and these and the like. Um, and what I might ask the minister is in terms of bringing this, this sea back next year, if there could be just literally a paragraph included within the sea that says something more about what types of inflationary pressures are being placed on operator, where they're coming from, simply just using administrative pressure pressures and the like as a, as a kind of.
A catch phrase again, is to try and reflect some of industry's concerns. I think they're just wanting a little bit more clarity on that. So, so, so the request to the minister in terms of next year is just saying this year the the inflationary pressures the operators faced have come in these kind of key sectors. And these ways. Um, I just want to say a very quick word as well about, uh, small operators within the North Sea. Now, obviously, in terms of the sea, the sea says that there aren't many small operators.
And where they are, they'll require less services. So, um, although there is a cost burden for them, that cost burden is slightly less, but that does have a danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Um, can I just ask the minister, has any consideration been given to a more tiered approach?The there may not be many small operators within the field, but where there are these these cost burdens could have disproportionate and significant benefit costs for them in terms of operations of their their overall business.
Um, so I just wondered whether for next year, whether, whether, whether the department could give any consideration to that. Um, finally, obviously we are moving away from, um. European measures and I, I'm just going forward, I want to see that we will continue to ensure that we have the best management and the best practices over managing these costs and the transparency of managing those costs to make sure that we are building the. Best relations with this industry, which is under strain and we support a just transition as we move away from North Sea oil to renewables and this this industry does have a number of pressures and cost pressures, on it coming from different directions.
So with those questions, I, I, that's what I had for the minister. I do want just before I sit down to say that we fully support the work that opera does, we recognise its importance. And the questions I'm asking the Minister are not to detract from our support for the vital environmental work that this this organisation does.
Um, from these benches, we fully support the polluter pays principle as a pillar of responsible environmental and economic policy. And it is right that it's in place and that it's updated. So on that basis, we do not oppose the instrument in any way at all. But having said that, um, similar to the noble lady, I do have just a couple of questions. If I might ask the minister about the details of the sea itself. Um, so also on the scale of the increases, um so this, we're having a rise from £2.10, £210 to £256 per hour, which I calculated as nearly 22%.
And then we have an increase from 114 to £130 an hour for non specialist officers. So, so these are quite substantial increases. Um and we note in the sea that there have also been previous increases in recent years as well. Under the same mechanism. Um the department tells us that these reflect the application of the Treasury's managing public money. It's to account for a share of corporate services, senior management, human resources, office services and the like. And my Lords, we do not dispute.
We. In fact, we recognise that overheads are increasing for operators as they are for. For many businesses across the country. So we are aware that inflation, inflationary pressures exist. But can I just ask the Minister, since basically my concern is this in this arrangement that we have here, these inflationary pressures are put forward onto industry. So my my question really is, is what the minister can say by way of giving a reassurance to industry that operate itself is not only aware of that cost pass through, but what what reassurance the minister can give.
The operator itself is doing everything it can as an organisation to make sure that it's doing everything within its power to make sure that that cost pressures are controlled and managed so that that pass through does not happen any more than it needs to be done. Um and as the minister said, there were only five responses, but within those five responses that the issue of transparency was, was raised. So and it is, it is quite a big extra cost. So, so we are actually under the, uh, the changes here.
We're asking the sector to absorb, to absorb an extra £1.6 million a year, taking the total from 7.3 million to 8.9 million for the services. Um. I think it's also just important for just operator to provide a little bit more clarity. It talks about administrative services and these and the like. Um, and what I might ask the minister is in terms of bringing this, this sea back next year, if there could be just literally a paragraph included within the sea that says something more about what types of inflationary pressures are being placed on operator, where they're coming from, simply just using administrative pressure pressures and the like as a, as a kind of.
A catch phrase again, is to try and reflect some of industry's concerns. I think they're just wanting a little bit more clarity on that. So, so, so the request to the minister in terms of next year is just saying this year the the inflationary pressures the operators faced have come in these kind of key sectors. And these ways. Um, I just want to say a very quick word as well about, uh, small operators within the North Sea. Now, obviously, in terms of the sea, the sea says that there aren't many small operators.
And where they are, they'll require less services. So, um, although there is a cost burden for them, that cost burden is slightly less, but that does have a danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Um, can I just ask the minister, has any consideration been given to a more tiered approach?The there may not be many small operators within the field, but where there are these these cost burdens could have disproportionate and significant benefit costs for them in terms of operations of their their overall business.
Um, so I just wondered whether for next year, whether, whether, whether the department could give any consideration to that. Um, finally, obviously we are moving away from, um. European measures and I, I'm just going forward, I want to see that we will continue to ensure that we have the best management and the best practices over managing these costs and the transparency of managing those costs to make sure that we are building the. Best relations with this industry, which is under strain and we support a just transition as we move away from North Sea oil to renewables and this this industry does have a number of pressures and cost pressures, on it coming from different directions.
So with those questions, I, I, that's what I had for the minister. I do want just before I sit down to say that we fully support the work that opera does, we recognise its importance. And the questions I'm asking the Minister are not to detract from our support for the vital environmental work that this this organisation does.
16:55
16:55
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Of Actin and Partners, um who share an interest in energy transition and. However, on this occasion, it's a rather tenuous link to this specific debate. The only action provide global subsidy services to both offshore wind and oil and gas installations around the world. Um, can I warmly welcome the noble Lord, the minister, to this debate?Um. I sadly didn't have the. Opportunity to spend time with him in the House of Commons preceding him, although he looks exceptionally young and healthy and fit.
Um, and so it comes as comes as a surprise that we didn't um but of course he is now approaching his 10th anniversary of the support to his constituency of, of three um, significant donors who were very welcome to his constituency and to himself and to reflecting on the, um, ability of the. Member of Parliament at the time, namely Tony Blair, the GBM and unite. Now, those three happened to be completely united in their opposition to the government's policy on issuing new licences for oil and gas in the North Sea.
Um and this therefore comes as an opportunity for me to question whether the noble or the minister shares the views of those who he was so close to in, in another place, all of whom were sound on the policy of oil and gas. And just to remind him a little bit about what they, um, stand for and what they have said, um, Sharon Graham has said on protecting jobs and energy security, North Sea workers are losing their jobs at a time when the need for domestic oil and gas has never been greater.
Um, a unite said there can be no blocks on North Sea oil and gas until real comparable jobs are created. Protect jobs, protect energy security, and deliver a just transition. And on the just transition and Labour's policies, Sharon Graham said North Sea workers cannot be sacrificed on the altar of net zero. We should not be letting go of one rope until we have hold of another. My Lords, Gary Smith um stated recently If the North Sea is being prematurely closed down and we are increasing import dependence, that's bad for jobs, economic growth and national security.
So my Lords, we come to this statutory instrument and it is the view on our side of the House that the government needs to provide far greater clarity on why it needs to increase the fees paid by our North Sea oil and gas industry so dramatically. And for the second time in one year, a point echoed by both the noble Lords contributions to this debate so far, increasing costs even further will only further threaten the viability of an industry that is already struggling with the government's ban on new exploration and drilling licences, and its decision to continue levying the energy profits levy.
And these are concerns which we've also heard, and I might take a different angle on. Um, we've already heard from noble Lords. Um, the results of some of the government consultation on this subject. And I quote several respondents also highlighted that the percentage increase appeared high when compared with general inflation, questioning whether the scale of the uplift was proportionate. And there were very real concerns about the timing, because the proposal for revised hourly rates is to take effect partway through a financial year, rather than from the start of a new financial year.
And respondents indicated that introducing changes mid-year could indeed, I would argue, would create challenges for budgeting and financial planning, as many organisations set budgets annually and when it. Comes to the North Sea and it's interesting that we are now talking about Oxford. And again, I echo the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, about the importance of the work that um. Off. Off. Off from in um their views on environmental aspects of the work offshore that when it comes to the North Sea, they will know that we need oil and gas for decades to come.
And even the Climate Change Committee acknowledges that. Yet thanks to the government policies, we're now paying Norway billions of pounds for gas from the exact same reservoirs that they are banning from British industry from drilling. And those are the reservoirs across the median line. But it's the same geological structures across the North Sea. And when it comes to imports of foreign gas, that has four times the emissions of imported, the foreign gas of imported LNG compared to home grown, to use the government's phrase, British Gas and those emissions have soared because of what the government is doing to the North Sea.
They're up nearly 40% year on year at the beginning of this year. So there are real concerns in the government's approach to the North Sea, not just increasing yet again, the cost burden on the industry. Um, but there are real concerns about jobs that we're concerned about the income that could be derived to Treasury. There are real concerns about security of supply of our own reserves in the North Sea. There are real concerns in Aberdeen about the future of that great city and the loss of jobs, which amounts to nearly a thousand a month as a result of the government's policies towards the North Sea.
Oil and gas reserves. And so I would ask the noble Lord, the Minister, in closing, whether he can answer the specific questions related to the same, but also clarify whether he is in complete agreement with those three outstanding donors of his constituency some nine years ago, with whom, no doubt, as I said earlier, he would be celebrating next year. He was a fine member of Parliament, a highly respected Member of Parliament for Sedgefield, and I'm sure shares the views of those two unions who were so supportive of him when he was a member of Parliament and are so supportive of a sensible transition in the North Sea, which protects the oil and gas industry, its jobs, it's opportunities, the new licences, the new development and the new security of supply which can be guaranteed by a sensible policy towards offshore oil and gas reserves, new licences and an end to the net zero zealotry of the current Secretary of State.
Um, and so it comes as comes as a surprise that we didn't um but of course he is now approaching his 10th anniversary of the support to his constituency of, of three um, significant donors who were very welcome to his constituency and to himself and to reflecting on the, um, ability of the. Member of Parliament at the time, namely Tony Blair, the GBM and unite. Now, those three happened to be completely united in their opposition to the government's policy on issuing new licences for oil and gas in the North Sea.
Um and this therefore comes as an opportunity for me to question whether the noble or the minister shares the views of those who he was so close to in, in another place, all of whom were sound on the policy of oil and gas. And just to remind him a little bit about what they, um, stand for and what they have said, um, Sharon Graham has said on protecting jobs and energy security, North Sea workers are losing their jobs at a time when the need for domestic oil and gas has never been greater.
Um, a unite said there can be no blocks on North Sea oil and gas until real comparable jobs are created. Protect jobs, protect energy security, and deliver a just transition. And on the just transition and Labour's policies, Sharon Graham said North Sea workers cannot be sacrificed on the altar of net zero. We should not be letting go of one rope until we have hold of another. My Lords, Gary Smith um stated recently If the North Sea is being prematurely closed down and we are increasing import dependence, that's bad for jobs, economic growth and national security.
So my Lords, we come to this statutory instrument and it is the view on our side of the House that the government needs to provide far greater clarity on why it needs to increase the fees paid by our North Sea oil and gas industry so dramatically. And for the second time in one year, a point echoed by both the noble Lords contributions to this debate so far, increasing costs even further will only further threaten the viability of an industry that is already struggling with the government's ban on new exploration and drilling licences, and its decision to continue levying the energy profits levy.
And these are concerns which we've also heard, and I might take a different angle on. Um, we've already heard from noble Lords. Um, the results of some of the government consultation on this subject. And I quote several respondents also highlighted that the percentage increase appeared high when compared with general inflation, questioning whether the scale of the uplift was proportionate. And there were very real concerns about the timing, because the proposal for revised hourly rates is to take effect partway through a financial year, rather than from the start of a new financial year.
And respondents indicated that introducing changes mid-year could indeed, I would argue, would create challenges for budgeting and financial planning, as many organisations set budgets annually and when it. Comes to the North Sea and it's interesting that we are now talking about Oxford. And again, I echo the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, about the importance of the work that um. Off. Off. Off from in um their views on environmental aspects of the work offshore that when it comes to the North Sea, they will know that we need oil and gas for decades to come.
And even the Climate Change Committee acknowledges that. Yet thanks to the government policies, we're now paying Norway billions of pounds for gas from the exact same reservoirs that they are banning from British industry from drilling. And those are the reservoirs across the median line. But it's the same geological structures across the North Sea. And when it comes to imports of foreign gas, that has four times the emissions of imported, the foreign gas of imported LNG compared to home grown, to use the government's phrase, British Gas and those emissions have soared because of what the government is doing to the North Sea.
They're up nearly 40% year on year at the beginning of this year. So there are real concerns in the government's approach to the North Sea, not just increasing yet again, the cost burden on the industry. Um, but there are real concerns about jobs that we're concerned about the income that could be derived to Treasury. There are real concerns about security of supply of our own reserves in the North Sea. There are real concerns in Aberdeen about the future of that great city and the loss of jobs, which amounts to nearly a thousand a month as a result of the government's policies towards the North Sea.
Oil and gas reserves. And so I would ask the noble Lord, the Minister, in closing, whether he can answer the specific questions related to the same, but also clarify whether he is in complete agreement with those three outstanding donors of his constituency some nine years ago, with whom, no doubt, as I said earlier, he would be celebrating next year. He was a fine member of Parliament, a highly respected Member of Parliament for Sedgefield, and I'm sure shares the views of those two unions who were so supportive of him when he was a member of Parliament and are so supportive of a sensible transition in the North Sea, which protects the oil and gas industry, its jobs, it's opportunities, the new licences, the new development and the new security of supply which can be guaranteed by a sensible policy towards offshore oil and gas reserves, new licences and an end to the net zero zealotry of the current Secretary of State.
17:02
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I'd like to thank, uh, noble Lords and Baroness for their questions on this. And, uh, just to confront head on the issue that was tangental to this whole debate, which the noble Lord managed to make the substantive point in his in his debate. Uh, obviously, I've known Tony Blair a long, long time, longer than most people in Parliament. And the one thing he taught me was the one thing he should be. Always be loyal to your government. And that's what I intend to be today.
Um. Uh, well, I. Mean to first of all, start off by saying, as I said during the debate, the fees regulations will enable operator to recover eligible costs for the provision of regulatory services under the offshore oil and gas, environmental legislative regime, as opposed to such costs being passed on to the taxpayer. The change to the hourly rate will increase operators annual fees from something like 7.3 million to 8.9 million per annum, reflecting the current cost of providing environmental regulatory activities to the offshore sector.
In terms of chargeable activities. Operator considers the environmental implications of all offshore oil and gas operations before issuing permits and consents covering areas as diverse as seismic surveys, marine oil. Charges. Uh permits and consents to local permissions for offshore installations, for example. And just to. To try best I can to answer the points, just the general points that were made on on the offshore. Use of offshore North Sea fossil fuel. I think it's, it is the position of this government that we want to wean ourselves off that we are going to be using of North Sea oil and gas for a few decades to come.
But we need to become self-sufficient in, in, in what we do. Um, and obviously the workers in the north, the North Sea is very important issue. I know when there's a brilliant, uh, a brilliant, a massive change in, in employment like there was in the north east of England where I'm from during, during the 1980s for the coal industry, which, you know, the then government did very little to ameliorate. Uh, this government is doing a lot more as far as securing jobs in the North Sea.
We're stepping up support for workers with the North Sea Jobs Service offering tailored end to end support for oil and gas workers, seeking new opportunities in growing industries such as clean energy, defence and advanced manufacturing. Uh, we support an expansion of the energy, skills, passport and industry led initiative overseen by renewable UK and Offshore Energy UK and supported by the UK and Scottish Governments, to help workers from carbon intensive industries access opportunities in new clean energy sectors. We're also stepping up support for workers with the new uh.
North sea Jobs Service offering tailored end to end support. The North Sea is a highly mature basin. I think the noble Lord knows this, and it's natural decline would not be reversed by further, uh, licensing or new licensing awards. In the last decade, I've made only a marginal difference to overall oil and gas production. Over the last ten years. Only 10% of the licences in the licensing round resulted in a well well being drilled. Uh, and even fewer.
Reached production, and I'm obviously in no position to talk about the jackdaw field. For example.
Um. Uh, well, I. Mean to first of all, start off by saying, as I said during the debate, the fees regulations will enable operator to recover eligible costs for the provision of regulatory services under the offshore oil and gas, environmental legislative regime, as opposed to such costs being passed on to the taxpayer. The change to the hourly rate will increase operators annual fees from something like 7.3 million to 8.9 million per annum, reflecting the current cost of providing environmental regulatory activities to the offshore sector.
In terms of chargeable activities. Operator considers the environmental implications of all offshore oil and gas operations before issuing permits and consents covering areas as diverse as seismic surveys, marine oil. Charges. Uh permits and consents to local permissions for offshore installations, for example. And just to. To try best I can to answer the points, just the general points that were made on on the offshore. Use of offshore North Sea fossil fuel. I think it's, it is the position of this government that we want to wean ourselves off that we are going to be using of North Sea oil and gas for a few decades to come.
But we need to become self-sufficient in, in, in what we do. Um, and obviously the workers in the north, the North Sea is very important issue. I know when there's a brilliant, uh, a brilliant, a massive change in, in employment like there was in the north east of England where I'm from during, during the 1980s for the coal industry, which, you know, the then government did very little to ameliorate. Uh, this government is doing a lot more as far as securing jobs in the North Sea.
We're stepping up support for workers with the North Sea Jobs Service offering tailored end to end support for oil and gas workers, seeking new opportunities in growing industries such as clean energy, defence and advanced manufacturing. Uh, we support an expansion of the energy, skills, passport and industry led initiative overseen by renewable UK and Offshore Energy UK and supported by the UK and Scottish Governments, to help workers from carbon intensive industries access opportunities in new clean energy sectors. We're also stepping up support for workers with the new uh.
North sea Jobs Service offering tailored end to end support. The North Sea is a highly mature basin. I think the noble Lord knows this, and it's natural decline would not be reversed by further, uh, licensing or new licensing awards. In the last decade, I've made only a marginal difference to overall oil and gas production. Over the last ten years. Only 10% of the licences in the licensing round resulted in a well well being drilled. Uh, and even fewer.
Reached production, and I'm obviously in no position to talk about the jackdaw field. For example.
17:06
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Would you agree with me that the. Issue isn't, um, a. Reduction in the oil and gas available after all. Um. In the year 1990, we were 2 million barrels a day just over. And so in Norway, by the year 2000, we were both just over 4 million barrels a day. They have continued to produce because they've had a, a fiscal regime and a regulatory regime, which has encouraged production from the private sector in the North Sea.
And it's still over 4 million barrels a day. And yet ours has dived to well under a million barrels. That's not to say that the oil and gas is not there. It is to say that there isn't a licensing, fiscal and regulatory regime in place to encourage the development of those fields the exploration, the appraisal, the production of those fields. It's not as if suddenly there's no more oil and gas west of the median line. It is that the whole basis of the success of Norway's investment in the North Sea is the fact that they have a fiscal regime, an allowance regime, which has encouraged that that is the issue, not the molecules.
And it's still over 4 million barrels a day. And yet ours has dived to well under a million barrels. That's not to say that the oil and gas is not there. It is to say that there isn't a licensing, fiscal and regulatory regime in place to encourage the development of those fields the exploration, the appraisal, the production of those fields. It's not as if suddenly there's no more oil and gas west of the median line. It is that the whole basis of the success of Norway's investment in the North Sea is the fact that they have a fiscal regime, an allowance regime, which has encouraged that that is the issue, not the molecules.
17:07
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I think the issue is twofold here that we do. If you want to be secure in your energy supply, we've got to move away from fossil fuels, and we've got to do it gradually. We're going to be using the North Sea for fossil fuels for decades to come. And the issues around, uh, Finch, Rosebank and jackdaw and Campbell Fields is something that we can't talk about because it's gone through regulatory system at the moment. But it's something that the the government is, is well aware of.
And, and I think it's only fair to say that we do need a repeat. We do need to move away from, uh, from, from fossil fuels. And that's why we aim to do our best with nuclear, with wind farms, with solar farms, to ensure that we can have a security of supply. And we don't have our energy prices set by a global figure for, for gas. And we need I think we can have this debate until we're blue in the face, but I think we need to get back to the sea, to be honest.
Uh, and I will try and answer the questions. Uh, one of the questions by the Baroness was the number of companies about 100. It was 100 last year. It's 100 today. And we anticipate that it will be 100 in the future as well. Um. Uh, it reviews its, there was also the question about reviewing fees, the views, the fees are reviewed annually to ensure charging regimes is fit for purpose. And they also taken into consideration, I believe inflationary impact and the reason why and to again to repeat the reason why there's been a kind of significant increase in the price of the fees.
It's basically because we've taken it. We never in the past recovered the costs of statutory advice from nature conservation bodies and certain costs associated with the UK energy portal, uh, which is the operators digital system for delivery, regulating regulatory services. So we've done that this year, and we do not anticipate that there'll be such a big increase next year. But obviously it's something that we will consult upon and that we will look at, uh, the number of companies I've mentioned that, uh, the holy rate increase, the increase reflects our staffing and delivery costs, including pay rises and support services.
Those are other issues. The increase is greater this year because the calculation now ensures that we cover we recovering costs that we weren't in the past. Uh, and also. So we will do our best to ensure that there's no if increases in the future, because the ones that we've instigated this year, we like to think will be a one off, although we can't actually say that for definite going into the future. And the figure of, uh, that Baroness mentioned, the Holy 1243 hours, that's that's a figure that reflects the average annual time spent on potentially recoverable work.
Uh, after deducting, uh, leave bank holidays management and other non-chargeable, uh, activity. And there's a paragraph in the essay on the types of inflationary pressures, uh, that could come into effect, consultation would cover issues around inflation pressures and would set out costs and issues more appropriate for explanatory memorandum or in the memorandum, rather than the s I.
And, and I think it's only fair to say that we do need a repeat. We do need to move away from, uh, from, from fossil fuels. And that's why we aim to do our best with nuclear, with wind farms, with solar farms, to ensure that we can have a security of supply. And we don't have our energy prices set by a global figure for, for gas. And we need I think we can have this debate until we're blue in the face, but I think we need to get back to the sea, to be honest.
Uh, and I will try and answer the questions. Uh, one of the questions by the Baroness was the number of companies about 100. It was 100 last year. It's 100 today. And we anticipate that it will be 100 in the future as well. Um. Uh, it reviews its, there was also the question about reviewing fees, the views, the fees are reviewed annually to ensure charging regimes is fit for purpose. And they also taken into consideration, I believe inflationary impact and the reason why and to again to repeat the reason why there's been a kind of significant increase in the price of the fees.
It's basically because we've taken it. We never in the past recovered the costs of statutory advice from nature conservation bodies and certain costs associated with the UK energy portal, uh, which is the operators digital system for delivery, regulating regulatory services. So we've done that this year, and we do not anticipate that there'll be such a big increase next year. But obviously it's something that we will consult upon and that we will look at, uh, the number of companies I've mentioned that, uh, the holy rate increase, the increase reflects our staffing and delivery costs, including pay rises and support services.
Those are other issues. The increase is greater this year because the calculation now ensures that we cover we recovering costs that we weren't in the past. Uh, and also. So we will do our best to ensure that there's no if increases in the future, because the ones that we've instigated this year, we like to think will be a one off, although we can't actually say that for definite going into the future. And the figure of, uh, that Baroness mentioned, the Holy 1243 hours, that's that's a figure that reflects the average annual time spent on potentially recoverable work.
Uh, after deducting, uh, leave bank holidays management and other non-chargeable, uh, activity. And there's a paragraph in the essay on the types of inflationary pressures, uh, that could come into effect, consultation would cover issues around inflation pressures and would set out costs and issues more appropriate for explanatory memorandum or in the memorandum, rather than the s I.
17:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The noble order. The Minister said that the recovering costs this year, and that's why it was higher than recovered in the past. Um so can you give the House the committee a commitment that the costs will not be. So the increase next year will not be so high in the hourly rate as we've seen this year.
17:11
17:11
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
We do not want to give a card. But you know, it's one good band. And actually whether we're going to see a big increase, we anticipate that there won't be any increase. Uh, is I is, is what it has been this year because it's essentially like to think a one off because of the recoverable charges that we've been able to recover, uh, that we weren't recovering in the past, uh, and. Earl Russell's final point was about transparency and an additional paragraph in the s I about inflation, etc.
that's something that we will take into consideration and look at and. With that, I beg to move.
that's something that we will take into consideration and look at and. With that, I beg to move.
17:11
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
The question is that the Committee has considered this instrument. As many as that opinion will say content, content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. We do not need to pause, as there is no change in personnel. Oh. Oh there is. Same. Minister. Mr.. Same minister. They'll be here in a moment. My Lords. Contracts for difference.
Definition of eligible generator. Amendment regulations 2026. Lord Wilson of Sedgefield.
Definition of eligible generator. Amendment regulations 2026. Lord Wilson of Sedgefield.
17:13
17:13
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I beg to move that the grant committee considered the draft contracts for difference. Definition of eligible Generator Amendment Regulations 2026, which was laid before the House on the 14th of May 2026. This instrument seeks to make changes to the eligibility criteria for the contracts for Difference Scheme, the government's main tool for incentivising low carbon capacity in the electricity system. Investing in the future of nuclear energy generation in the UK is central to the government's mission of making Britain a clear and a clean energy superpower, delivering a secure supply of low carbon energy.
By producing baseload power in the UK, nuclear energy can work alongside renewable power sources, supporting price stability for consumers and minimising reliance on fossil fuels. It also reduces reliance on imports from international actors, crucial during geopolitical volatility. Underlying further, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the war that has ended in Iran. However, over the next decade, the UK has existing operational nuclear fleet, including the four advanced gas cooled reactors and Sizewell B, the UK's only pressurised water reactor is set to begin decommissioning. This equates to around 15% of the current electricity supply on the grid.
Between being lost by 2035. Whilst the government is continuing to deliver our broader nuclear programme through Sizewell C and the Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor programme, we should also ensure there are appropriate mechanisms to support continued nuclear generation at existing stations, where such financial incentivisation is needed and offers value for money without support. The operators of nuclear power plants may decide not to undertake the investment needed to extend their operational lifetimes. Before I turn to the provisions in greater detail, my first outline some background to the contract for difference scheme.
The contract for difference scheme is the Majesty. His Majesty's Government main mechanism for supporting low carbon electricity generation in Great Britain under a CFD, the generator receives a fixed price for electricity over the contract term. Operator sells electricity it produces on the wholesale market and receives different payments from the low carbon contracts company. When the wholesale price is below the strike price. If wholesale prices exceed the strike price, the generator must make different payments to the LCC said. Where the LCC makes difference, payments to the generator, they are funded by a statutory levy and all licensed electricity supplies, so are passed on to households and businesses through their electricity bills.
The CFD funding mechanism is fundamental to achieving the government's goal of a fully decarbonised power supply, whilst achieving value for money for electricity customers. It protects customers when electricity prices are high and provides income stabilisation for generators across the term of the contract. For example, if Inc., A had been online during the energy crisis in 2020 two, 23, consumers would have saved around £5 billion by. Let me turn now to the details of this instrument. This draft instrument makes changes to the contracts for difference.
Definition of eligibility Generator Regulations 2014 to give the government the option to utilise the CFD funding mechanism to support continuation of electricity generation at existing nuclear power stations. Nuclear energy is already eligible for support through CFDs for new build capacity, with CFD already having been utilised to support the construction of Hinkley Point C. However, nuclear power stations intending to undergo refurbishment to extend their lifetimes are currently ineligible. Expanding expanding eligibility criteria in this way will ensure that existing nuclear capacity can continue to generate low carbon electricity during extended operating lifetimes through support under a CFD, where it is considered safe and economical to do so.
The government's assessment is that nuclear lifetime extensions can deliver value for money for consumers, with modelling showing that they can reduce overall electricity system costs compared to other low carbon pathways to net zero. The instrument does not award support, nor does it guarantee a CFD for any specific project. Instead, its purpose is to enable the government to consider CFD support for nuclear lifetime extension projects. My Lords, to conclude this draft instrument expands the contracts for difference eligibility criteria so that existing nuclear plants can be eligible for support for lifetime extensions.
This reform will be critical if we are to achieve net zero by 2050. This amendment will support security of supply by providing access to financial support, if required, to support continued electricity generation at existing nuclear infrastructure. This means that lower carbon baseload electricity can be maintained on the grid without the the higher costs and longer lead times associated with new build capacity. And with that, I beg to move.
By producing baseload power in the UK, nuclear energy can work alongside renewable power sources, supporting price stability for consumers and minimising reliance on fossil fuels. It also reduces reliance on imports from international actors, crucial during geopolitical volatility. Underlying further, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the war that has ended in Iran. However, over the next decade, the UK has existing operational nuclear fleet, including the four advanced gas cooled reactors and Sizewell B, the UK's only pressurised water reactor is set to begin decommissioning. This equates to around 15% of the current electricity supply on the grid.
Between being lost by 2035. Whilst the government is continuing to deliver our broader nuclear programme through Sizewell C and the Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor programme, we should also ensure there are appropriate mechanisms to support continued nuclear generation at existing stations, where such financial incentivisation is needed and offers value for money without support. The operators of nuclear power plants may decide not to undertake the investment needed to extend their operational lifetimes. Before I turn to the provisions in greater detail, my first outline some background to the contract for difference scheme.
The contract for difference scheme is the Majesty. His Majesty's Government main mechanism for supporting low carbon electricity generation in Great Britain under a CFD, the generator receives a fixed price for electricity over the contract term. Operator sells electricity it produces on the wholesale market and receives different payments from the low carbon contracts company. When the wholesale price is below the strike price. If wholesale prices exceed the strike price, the generator must make different payments to the LCC said. Where the LCC makes difference, payments to the generator, they are funded by a statutory levy and all licensed electricity supplies, so are passed on to households and businesses through their electricity bills.
The CFD funding mechanism is fundamental to achieving the government's goal of a fully decarbonised power supply, whilst achieving value for money for electricity customers. It protects customers when electricity prices are high and provides income stabilisation for generators across the term of the contract. For example, if Inc., A had been online during the energy crisis in 2020 two, 23, consumers would have saved around £5 billion by. Let me turn now to the details of this instrument. This draft instrument makes changes to the contracts for difference.
Definition of eligibility Generator Regulations 2014 to give the government the option to utilise the CFD funding mechanism to support continuation of electricity generation at existing nuclear power stations. Nuclear energy is already eligible for support through CFDs for new build capacity, with CFD already having been utilised to support the construction of Hinkley Point C. However, nuclear power stations intending to undergo refurbishment to extend their lifetimes are currently ineligible. Expanding expanding eligibility criteria in this way will ensure that existing nuclear capacity can continue to generate low carbon electricity during extended operating lifetimes through support under a CFD, where it is considered safe and economical to do so.
The government's assessment is that nuclear lifetime extensions can deliver value for money for consumers, with modelling showing that they can reduce overall electricity system costs compared to other low carbon pathways to net zero. The instrument does not award support, nor does it guarantee a CFD for any specific project. Instead, its purpose is to enable the government to consider CFD support for nuclear lifetime extension projects. My Lords, to conclude this draft instrument expands the contracts for difference eligibility criteria so that existing nuclear plants can be eligible for support for lifetime extensions.
This reform will be critical if we are to achieve net zero by 2050. This amendment will support security of supply by providing access to financial support, if required, to support continued electricity generation at existing nuclear infrastructure. This means that lower carbon baseload electricity can be maintained on the grid without the the higher costs and longer lead times associated with new build capacity. And with that, I beg to move.
17:18
17:18
17:18
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I thank the noble Lord for introducing this instrument. Um, my Lord, this instrument is, on the face of it, a modest one. It alters just 12 words in the 20 2014 regulations to allow contracts for difference to support the continued operation of existing nuclear power stations. However, those 12 words do carry some significant implications. They open the door to long term revenue support for existing, for extending the life of existing nuclear plants, potentially committing consumers to costs over many years. I recognise that the government has the legal authority to make that change, and I recognise that these are enabling powers rather than a mandatory instrument.
I also recognise that any contracts would remain subject to value for money assessment, safety requirements and subsidy control. Nonetheless, both the process and the substance of these measures do warrant. A couple of questions and I apologize. I'm going to be slightly longer than I normally am. I want to just begin with the process. Um, can I just possibly ask the noble Lord why this is being done here through a statutory instrument and not say, through the Energy Independence bill or a piece of primary legislation?This is a meaningful shift in the type of subsidy that's being offered.
Um, and primary legislation might have offered a greater opportunity for scrutiny of it. Um, I am slightly surprised at the Secondary Scrutiny Legislation Committee didn't do a paragraph on this instrument as it does enable decisions which potentially long term consequences for consumer bills and the impacts of which the government itself describes as being uncertain. Obviously, that uncertainty, you know, one element of it is that the new CFDs haven't been calculated. I recognise that as well. Turning to the subsidence we recognise, obviously on these benches that nuclear power has a role within the balanced and low carbon energy mix.
We do not oppose, in principle, extending the life of existing stations where they are safe, reliable and represent genuine value for money. But support must be conditional and it must be justified. So the context is important. Nuclear, um, as the Minister has said, provides around 14 to 15% of the UK's electricity, and that is down from 25% in the late 1990s. And without intervention. We also recognise that existing fleet capacity is expected to retire by the 2030s, and Sizewell B following shortly thereafter.
So that would be a substantial reduction in firm low carbon capacity before new nuclear projects fully come online. So, so there is a real legitimate concern, and we recognise that the government we welcome the fact that the government is looking at this. However, firm low carbon capacity can be delivered by other options. As obviously the minister knows, there's there are other alternatives. And the cost for those alternatives are changing all the time. In many cases, they are coming down.
So when the government speaks of the need within this measure, I just we just do need to be careful that that that need for firm capacity is not quite the same as saying the need to extend these nuclear power plants, because there could potentially be other options. And there's different cost calculations. I just have sorry. I have five questions for the minister. I do apologise. Um. First, this this is um it's basically what's happening here is the government is enabling non bilaterally negotiated contracts for difference.
Normally CFDs are competitive auction processes. And that competitive nature drives down the costs for consumers. So my my fundamental concern with with this instrument or my fundamental question, let's put it that way. Is there aren't really many precedents I can find for this form of non-competitive CFD. I've found 1 or 2 for dispatchable power agreements for CC us projects. But my question is really, how does the department intend to ensure that the strike price is agreed in these circumstances actually represent fair value?Will the department be using benchmarks or shadow pricing?Um, to make sure that they're actually getting the best prices possible?Because effectively that you're negotiating against a monopoly provider in this case, right.
Second, um, the government's own analysis considers, um, considered less interventionist alternatives, including reliance on wholesale market revenues, capacity, market payments, private power purchase agreements. And, you know, you fundamentally rule those out as being insufficient. In ruling out those other measures, are we effectively saying that actually the only way to, to, to extend the life of these nuclear power plants is through a form of subsidies, and that subsidy is through CFDs?And I guess my point is, if that is basically the position, does that need to just be stated a little bit clearer?Third, the obviously the energy system is evolving rapidly.
Costs, particularly for storage, have fallen significantly and may continue probably will continue to do so. Benchmarked against the costs of updating old nuclear power plants. So my question is really, what confidence does government have that the contracts agreed here in the near term will represent good value for money over the longer term, as these prices and policies continue to shift?Um. And how how is that uncertainty being adequately calculated within these arrangements?Um, I want to talk for just a moment on the impact of household bills because.
Clearly at the moment it's uncertain what that impact will be. I do recognise that because these these this is an enabling power. These CFDs haven't been negotiated, but the explanatory memorandum does state quite clearly that the cost will fall disproportionately on lower income and vulnerable households from these decisions. And obviously that needs to be balanced against the need for firm power within the system. But can the minister just say a word about what will be done to try and make sure that those costs are that everything is done possible to shield vulnerable households from possible electricity price increases as a result of this instrument?Fifth.
Sorry. Excuse me. The, um there's a proposed five year review. Obviously, we welcome the fact that there's a review included within this measure. But I must say it feels very limited in its practice and its scope, because although the five year review is there actually between now and when the five year review kicks in, the government could have agreed 20 year CFD contracts for extending the lifetime of all of the nuclear power plants and future governments are then tied in to those 20 year contracts and their public law contracts, so that future governments are unable to escape from them.
So what I really want to ask the ministers, while we recognise that the review is there, actually there isn't any way that I can see within this that Parliament has any confidence or any way to review or to monitor what's being agreed before commercial contracts are signed. And that's that's kind of a bit of a worry for me. I just want to ask the minister about that. Um, on the nuclear workforce, I recognise the need that we need to, to, to, upskill. And provide work for our nuclear workforce.
And that's important not just for this, but for the SMR and for other programmes as well. But there is a danger here that actually this could be a distraction, that actually this, this, that working on, on this could, could actually be a drain for our nuclear workforce when actually they're needed to work on SMR and other projects. So, so there's, there's, there's a, there's a possibility that that could, is there, is there a concern that this could actually impact on, on those further developments?Um, or does the government purely see this as a strength in that there's more work and we're training people up for those projects, come online.
Those, those are really my, my concerns with this instrument. We're not against updating, um, these old plants. We do think this is an unusual form of CFDs. And we are concerned to make sure that they represent value for money and that there is some oversight of that process before contracts are agreed. And with that, I will sit down. My apologies for being slightly longer.
I also recognise that any contracts would remain subject to value for money assessment, safety requirements and subsidy control. Nonetheless, both the process and the substance of these measures do warrant. A couple of questions and I apologize. I'm going to be slightly longer than I normally am. I want to just begin with the process. Um, can I just possibly ask the noble Lord why this is being done here through a statutory instrument and not say, through the Energy Independence bill or a piece of primary legislation?This is a meaningful shift in the type of subsidy that's being offered.
Um, and primary legislation might have offered a greater opportunity for scrutiny of it. Um, I am slightly surprised at the Secondary Scrutiny Legislation Committee didn't do a paragraph on this instrument as it does enable decisions which potentially long term consequences for consumer bills and the impacts of which the government itself describes as being uncertain. Obviously, that uncertainty, you know, one element of it is that the new CFDs haven't been calculated. I recognise that as well. Turning to the subsidence we recognise, obviously on these benches that nuclear power has a role within the balanced and low carbon energy mix.
We do not oppose, in principle, extending the life of existing stations where they are safe, reliable and represent genuine value for money. But support must be conditional and it must be justified. So the context is important. Nuclear, um, as the Minister has said, provides around 14 to 15% of the UK's electricity, and that is down from 25% in the late 1990s. And without intervention. We also recognise that existing fleet capacity is expected to retire by the 2030s, and Sizewell B following shortly thereafter.
So that would be a substantial reduction in firm low carbon capacity before new nuclear projects fully come online. So, so there is a real legitimate concern, and we recognise that the government we welcome the fact that the government is looking at this. However, firm low carbon capacity can be delivered by other options. As obviously the minister knows, there's there are other alternatives. And the cost for those alternatives are changing all the time. In many cases, they are coming down.
So when the government speaks of the need within this measure, I just we just do need to be careful that that that need for firm capacity is not quite the same as saying the need to extend these nuclear power plants, because there could potentially be other options. And there's different cost calculations. I just have sorry. I have five questions for the minister. I do apologise. Um. First, this this is um it's basically what's happening here is the government is enabling non bilaterally negotiated contracts for difference.
Normally CFDs are competitive auction processes. And that competitive nature drives down the costs for consumers. So my my fundamental concern with with this instrument or my fundamental question, let's put it that way. Is there aren't really many precedents I can find for this form of non-competitive CFD. I've found 1 or 2 for dispatchable power agreements for CC us projects. But my question is really, how does the department intend to ensure that the strike price is agreed in these circumstances actually represent fair value?Will the department be using benchmarks or shadow pricing?Um, to make sure that they're actually getting the best prices possible?Because effectively that you're negotiating against a monopoly provider in this case, right.
Second, um, the government's own analysis considers, um, considered less interventionist alternatives, including reliance on wholesale market revenues, capacity, market payments, private power purchase agreements. And, you know, you fundamentally rule those out as being insufficient. In ruling out those other measures, are we effectively saying that actually the only way to, to, to extend the life of these nuclear power plants is through a form of subsidies, and that subsidy is through CFDs?And I guess my point is, if that is basically the position, does that need to just be stated a little bit clearer?Third, the obviously the energy system is evolving rapidly.
Costs, particularly for storage, have fallen significantly and may continue probably will continue to do so. Benchmarked against the costs of updating old nuclear power plants. So my question is really, what confidence does government have that the contracts agreed here in the near term will represent good value for money over the longer term, as these prices and policies continue to shift?Um. And how how is that uncertainty being adequately calculated within these arrangements?Um, I want to talk for just a moment on the impact of household bills because.
Clearly at the moment it's uncertain what that impact will be. I do recognise that because these these this is an enabling power. These CFDs haven't been negotiated, but the explanatory memorandum does state quite clearly that the cost will fall disproportionately on lower income and vulnerable households from these decisions. And obviously that needs to be balanced against the need for firm power within the system. But can the minister just say a word about what will be done to try and make sure that those costs are that everything is done possible to shield vulnerable households from possible electricity price increases as a result of this instrument?Fifth.
Sorry. Excuse me. The, um there's a proposed five year review. Obviously, we welcome the fact that there's a review included within this measure. But I must say it feels very limited in its practice and its scope, because although the five year review is there actually between now and when the five year review kicks in, the government could have agreed 20 year CFD contracts for extending the lifetime of all of the nuclear power plants and future governments are then tied in to those 20 year contracts and their public law contracts, so that future governments are unable to escape from them.
So what I really want to ask the ministers, while we recognise that the review is there, actually there isn't any way that I can see within this that Parliament has any confidence or any way to review or to monitor what's being agreed before commercial contracts are signed. And that's that's kind of a bit of a worry for me. I just want to ask the minister about that. Um, on the nuclear workforce, I recognise the need that we need to, to, to, upskill. And provide work for our nuclear workforce.
And that's important not just for this, but for the SMR and for other programmes as well. But there is a danger here that actually this could be a distraction, that actually this, this, that working on, on this could, could actually be a drain for our nuclear workforce when actually they're needed to work on SMR and other projects. So, so there's, there's, there's a, there's a possibility that that could, is there, is there a concern that this could actually impact on, on those further developments?Um, or does the government purely see this as a strength in that there's more work and we're training people up for those projects, come online.
Those, those are really my, my concerns with this instrument. We're not against updating, um, these old plants. We do think this is an unusual form of CFDs. And we are concerned to make sure that they represent value for money and that there is some oversight of that process before contracts are agreed. And with that, I will sit down. My apologies for being slightly longer.
17:27
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
And my Lords, um. It it's a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell on this occasion, because he's made some powerful points. Um, of the five key points I was intending to make, um he's alluded to four of them. And so um I think they are worth focusing on for a short time prior to the minister's response. I do think that this is a subject which in its own right is fairly limited as C but has an impact on a much wider debate over CFDs.
Um, my view is that this will need to be revisited at some length when it comes to the energy bill that will come before this House, probably at the end of this year, beginning of next year. Um, because there are some really quite critical issues that we will need to consider, many of which, um, the noble Lord Russell has, has raised as to the specific nature of this s I, I think that it will garner support from all sides of the committee. It is vital that we continue to support firm power generation from nuclear.
Um it is the view on this side of of the committee that firm power is absolutely critical. And nuclear will provide an important part of that firm power balance. Um, as does gas. Um, we need to offset the intermittency and grid instability caused by our increasing reliance on renewables. And nuclear will play a significant contribution in that context. Um, more broadly, the government must support new competitively priced nuclear power, which it intends to do to expand capacity further by implementing not least the recommendations of the nuclear regulatory review in full and easing environmental regulations that are slowing down new nuclear projects, a subject to which we will definitely return to when it comes to the energy bill.
Noble Lord, the minister stated in his opening remarks, um, this instrument amends the CFD legislative framework to enable. And it is an enabling measure, a CFD, to be offered to an existing nuclear generating station to support the continuation of generation and prior to this instrument, existing nuclear generation stations were eligible for CFD support only where they were intending to increase the capacity of the station by five megawatts or more. So, given that this amendment is purely affects eligibility and does not, as I understand it from the Minister's opening remarks, mandate the awarding of a CFD, but allows existing nuclear generators to be considered.
Then I hope that in that consideration, the following comments which reinforce those made by the noble Lord and noble Earl, Lord Russell, and will be taken into consideration. First, is um the concern that some critics have that this, um measure subsidises unnecessary refurbishments. There is a concern that operators have historically funded life extension activity without government intervention, guaranteeing these revenues could divert limited budget resources away from new build nuclear and new build renewable and low carbon technologies. So by providing this sort of certainty that this measure does, it could have a direct impact on a number of projects.
New build, renewables and low carbon technologies which would otherwise be deemed by the marketplace as willing to be supported but actually find no place in the energy balance. Um, secondly, there is administrative complexity and stability, which is a criticism that I read over the weekend that is quite widely felt. The constant tweaking of core energy definitions and budget structures, um, adds complex layers to the CFD framework. Um, this can deter long term private investment by indicating policy instability. And again, I think this concept of, um, security and predictability of the policy framework will be something we need to revisit when it comes to the energy bill.
I'm the third point which the noble Lord Russell raised is really, if I can summarize it as as follows, it's really the value for money and bill payer burdens. Um, critics have warned that extending long term contracts to existing generators without competitive allocation, may lock consumers into high strike prices, indicating long term energy bills to subsidise older facilities. And we need to be really concerned about that, because that ultimately is the cost of energy to the consumers. And I'd be grateful if the um minister could.
Respond to that point as well. I think on the other issues that I was going to raise, uh, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has put them very eloquently. Um, I think there are these wider concerns that the critics to this measure have raised, but they are principally concerned in the context of the CFD framework rather than the specific nature of this s I and I hope the minister will accept that when we come to the energy bill, we will really want to concentrate on that framework and, if necessary, revisit some of the implications made in this s I since I think that this is right at the heart of the government's energy policy, and we need to make sure that we get it right and do our best to support any government changes that achieve a better outcome for the energy market.
And ultimately, and most important, for the energy consumers. So with those comments in mind, I think this is an S I that has our support. Because it does purely affect eligibility. Um, it doesn't mandate the awarding of a CFD. Um, but does allow nuclear generators to be considered within the framework. And it is that framework that we'll be looking at in detail when we come to the bill, which no doubt will be with us within six months or so.
Um, my view is that this will need to be revisited at some length when it comes to the energy bill that will come before this House, probably at the end of this year, beginning of next year. Um, because there are some really quite critical issues that we will need to consider, many of which, um, the noble Lord Russell has, has raised as to the specific nature of this s I, I think that it will garner support from all sides of the committee. It is vital that we continue to support firm power generation from nuclear.
Um it is the view on this side of of the committee that firm power is absolutely critical. And nuclear will provide an important part of that firm power balance. Um, as does gas. Um, we need to offset the intermittency and grid instability caused by our increasing reliance on renewables. And nuclear will play a significant contribution in that context. Um, more broadly, the government must support new competitively priced nuclear power, which it intends to do to expand capacity further by implementing not least the recommendations of the nuclear regulatory review in full and easing environmental regulations that are slowing down new nuclear projects, a subject to which we will definitely return to when it comes to the energy bill.
Noble Lord, the minister stated in his opening remarks, um, this instrument amends the CFD legislative framework to enable. And it is an enabling measure, a CFD, to be offered to an existing nuclear generating station to support the continuation of generation and prior to this instrument, existing nuclear generation stations were eligible for CFD support only where they were intending to increase the capacity of the station by five megawatts or more. So, given that this amendment is purely affects eligibility and does not, as I understand it from the Minister's opening remarks, mandate the awarding of a CFD, but allows existing nuclear generators to be considered.
Then I hope that in that consideration, the following comments which reinforce those made by the noble Lord and noble Earl, Lord Russell, and will be taken into consideration. First, is um the concern that some critics have that this, um measure subsidises unnecessary refurbishments. There is a concern that operators have historically funded life extension activity without government intervention, guaranteeing these revenues could divert limited budget resources away from new build nuclear and new build renewable and low carbon technologies. So by providing this sort of certainty that this measure does, it could have a direct impact on a number of projects.
New build, renewables and low carbon technologies which would otherwise be deemed by the marketplace as willing to be supported but actually find no place in the energy balance. Um, secondly, there is administrative complexity and stability, which is a criticism that I read over the weekend that is quite widely felt. The constant tweaking of core energy definitions and budget structures, um, adds complex layers to the CFD framework. Um, this can deter long term private investment by indicating policy instability. And again, I think this concept of, um, security and predictability of the policy framework will be something we need to revisit when it comes to the energy bill.
I'm the third point which the noble Lord Russell raised is really, if I can summarize it as as follows, it's really the value for money and bill payer burdens. Um, critics have warned that extending long term contracts to existing generators without competitive allocation, may lock consumers into high strike prices, indicating long term energy bills to subsidise older facilities. And we need to be really concerned about that, because that ultimately is the cost of energy to the consumers. And I'd be grateful if the um minister could.
Respond to that point as well. I think on the other issues that I was going to raise, uh, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has put them very eloquently. Um, I think there are these wider concerns that the critics to this measure have raised, but they are principally concerned in the context of the CFD framework rather than the specific nature of this s I and I hope the minister will accept that when we come to the energy bill, we will really want to concentrate on that framework and, if necessary, revisit some of the implications made in this s I since I think that this is right at the heart of the government's energy policy, and we need to make sure that we get it right and do our best to support any government changes that achieve a better outcome for the energy market.
And ultimately, and most important, for the energy consumers. So with those comments in mind, I think this is an S I that has our support. Because it does purely affect eligibility. Um, it doesn't mandate the awarding of a CFD. Um, but does allow nuclear generators to be considered within the framework. And it is that framework that we'll be looking at in detail when we come to the bill, which no doubt will be with us within six months or so.
17:34
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Their comments and their questions, I think it's been really useful to hear what, uh, noble Lords have to say, and I'm pleased that all sides of the House is actually of the House actually agrees with what we intend doing with this, uh, with this s I there's two things that come to mind. First of all, this is just enabling. It doesn't mean to say it's going to happen because the second part of it is value for money. If we do do this, is it going to be value for money for the taxpayer, for and for the consumer as well?These factors have to be, uh, there.
And we've but this enables us to look at this if we intend doing it sometime down the future. And, uh, the Lord Moynihan mentioned about, uh, does this take money away from renewables?I think, for firm, low carbon power, it's vital as part of reaching our net zero goals. And nuclear is therefore compatible with a system dominated by renewables and complements it. It's not either or. It's both. I think we need to to see and also for the consumers, uh, this is obviously some.
Something that, uh, is close to everybody's heart because we all consumers. And secondly, we've got to pay credence to those people on, on lower incomes. But I just want to reemphasize again, that if we had this in place, for example, if, uh, as I said in my opening speech, if Hinkley Point C had been online during the energy crisis in 2022, 2023, consumers would have saved around £5 billion and, uh. And. The reason why it's in an C and not primary legislation.
This expands the existing powers. CFDs already available for nuclear new build.
And we've but this enables us to look at this if we intend doing it sometime down the future. And, uh, the Lord Moynihan mentioned about, uh, does this take money away from renewables?I think, for firm, low carbon power, it's vital as part of reaching our net zero goals. And nuclear is therefore compatible with a system dominated by renewables and complements it. It's not either or. It's both. I think we need to to see and also for the consumers, uh, this is obviously some.
Something that, uh, is close to everybody's heart because we all consumers. And secondly, we've got to pay credence to those people on, on lower incomes. But I just want to reemphasize again, that if we had this in place, for example, if, uh, as I said in my opening speech, if Hinkley Point C had been online during the energy crisis in 2022, 2023, consumers would have saved around £5 billion and, uh. And. The reason why it's in an C and not primary legislation.
This expands the existing powers. CFDs already available for nuclear new build.
17:36
17:36
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
And why are we not doing bespoke, bespoke CFDs?I think it's fair to say that the government has doing bespoke CFDs for Hinkley Point C. This is an enabling power and reversed value for money issues, and will be taken into consideration in. Extensive due diligence. I've got to emphasize the value for money. Part of this extensive due diligence of project costs, including benchmarking against other comparable assets, and the government places large importance in bringing down costs for households. It's imperative lifetime extensions of existing nuclear power is more cost effective than an alternative capacity.
Having to build a new station. If you can extend the life of one that's already there, then obviously you're going to bring down prices. It's an enabling s I. It will. We will look very closely at value for money. And we think this just gives. It's covering all bases for the for for our for energy supply going forward. And on that basis, I would beg to move that, uh, that this is read.
Now. Thank you.
Having to build a new station. If you can extend the life of one that's already there, then obviously you're going to bring down prices. It's an enabling s I. It will. We will look very closely at value for money. And we think this just gives. It's covering all bases for the for for our for energy supply going forward. And on that basis, I would beg to move that, uh, that this is read.
Now. Thank you.
17:38
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Comments. I guess there's just one thing for me is just a need for a bit of parliamentary oversight before CFD is assigned. I mean, maybe if that is something I could ask the minister at least to go away and think about if there's some process that that could be informed to Parliament. I think that would be a welcome kind of guardrail or give a. Bit of certainty around the enabling powers that the government is seeking in this s I.
17:38
17:38
17:39
17:39
17:39
17:39
17:39
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I beg to move that the House approves the draft digital Waste Tracking England Regulations 2026, which were laid before the House on the 23rd of April 2026. The introduction of mandatory digital waste tracking is a cornerstone of this government's waste crime action plan, the toughest ever crackdown on illegal waste activity aiming to transform the waste management system and target the problem at its core by requiring nil near real time information about waste movements to be recorded on a centralised system will enable the Environment Agency to identify unusual patterns, pinpoint high risk operators, intervene earlier and shape targeted initiatives supporting a shift from reactive investigation to proactive prevention.
The current system already requires accurate documentation and accompanies transfers of waste between those handling it. But there are problems with this system, which leaves it open to abuse by criminals, making it easy to undercut responsible operators and harm our environment. The first problem is that regulatory officers do not routinely see the individual documents. Currently, legal requirements mean information is only collated and sent to the Environment Agency every quarter, and this delay makes it impossible for officers to proactively identify problems. If regulators need to see individual waste records for an investigation, they usually need to request them through the serving of legal notices.
This is both time consuming and provides an opportunity for documents to be altered prior to submission, frustrating any investigation. The second issue is the confusion created by having different records required, depending on whether the waste is hazardous or non-hazardous. The non-hazardous waste system in particular, where records are required between each two parties rather than one record for the end to end journey makes it impractical for waste producers to check whether waste has ended up and who has handled it. It also makes it extremely difficult for regulators to conduct cradle to grave audits, all to hold waste producers to account because there's no legal requirements to connect the documents to each other and.
Finally, while there are many operators who do their best to complete these documents, they are undercut by those who do not. Those who think that muck is an accurate waste description, or that a partial postcode for the source of waste is acceptable. These issues have provided the opportunities for organised waste, criminals to thrive and cost our economy £1 billion a year through fly illegal waste sites, illegal exports or mis describing waste in order to avoid paying landfill tax. And that's why we are introducing these regulations.
They are the crucial first step in transforming the waste industry so that regulators have timely data on the movements of waste, from production to disposal. This first set of regulations mandates waste receivers operating under an environmental permit to make a digital record of waste that comes into their facilities and submits that information onto the digital waste tracking system. Within two working days of the waste being received. A second instrument will be laid next year to extend the requirements to capture the full end to end waste journey information.
This is one of the most transformative changes to the waste sector in decades, and will bring its practices into the digital age. Before I turn to the detail of the legislation, I would also like to acknowledge the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The committee's report highlighted a point of interest regarding how digital waste tracking would interact with the new extended producer. Responsibility for Packaging scheme once fully. Implemented the data submitted to the Digital Waste Tracking System about waste movements will provide elements of the data required to underpin the new extended Producer Responsibility for packaging scheme, and help to reduce opportunities for fraud.
So I'll now turn to the details of the legislation. The regulations designate the Secretary of State for environment, Food and Rural Affairs to establish, maintain and operate the digital system and requires that permitted waste receivers make digital records of specified information as set out in schedule one, before submitting it onto the system. There is a requirement for operators to pay an annual £26 fee, which will be used to recoup the costs of establishing, operating and maintaining the system and. There are alternative provisions for those who are digitally excluded.
Digitally excluded persons are those for whom it is not reasonably practicable to use electronic communications or to keep electronic records for any reason. This could be age, disability or religious beliefs. The alternative requirements include obtaining a digitally excluded number from the Environment Agency, keeping written records and a requirement to supply these records to the Environment Agency. If requested. Regulations introduce a new offence of failing to comply with the legislation and makes provision for both criminal penalties and civil sanctions. Criminal sanctions are necessary to enable the Environment Agency to effectively punish repeat offenders and to ensure that the new system is not undermined by unscrupulous operators.
These regulations are truly transformative. The introduction of a digital system where information about waste movements can be shared and viewed by those who need to see it in a timely way, will undoubtedly benefit us all. I beg to move.
The current system already requires accurate documentation and accompanies transfers of waste between those handling it. But there are problems with this system, which leaves it open to abuse by criminals, making it easy to undercut responsible operators and harm our environment. The first problem is that regulatory officers do not routinely see the individual documents. Currently, legal requirements mean information is only collated and sent to the Environment Agency every quarter, and this delay makes it impossible for officers to proactively identify problems. If regulators need to see individual waste records for an investigation, they usually need to request them through the serving of legal notices.
This is both time consuming and provides an opportunity for documents to be altered prior to submission, frustrating any investigation. The second issue is the confusion created by having different records required, depending on whether the waste is hazardous or non-hazardous. The non-hazardous waste system in particular, where records are required between each two parties rather than one record for the end to end journey makes it impractical for waste producers to check whether waste has ended up and who has handled it. It also makes it extremely difficult for regulators to conduct cradle to grave audits, all to hold waste producers to account because there's no legal requirements to connect the documents to each other and.
Finally, while there are many operators who do their best to complete these documents, they are undercut by those who do not. Those who think that muck is an accurate waste description, or that a partial postcode for the source of waste is acceptable. These issues have provided the opportunities for organised waste, criminals to thrive and cost our economy £1 billion a year through fly illegal waste sites, illegal exports or mis describing waste in order to avoid paying landfill tax. And that's why we are introducing these regulations.
They are the crucial first step in transforming the waste industry so that regulators have timely data on the movements of waste, from production to disposal. This first set of regulations mandates waste receivers operating under an environmental permit to make a digital record of waste that comes into their facilities and submits that information onto the digital waste tracking system. Within two working days of the waste being received. A second instrument will be laid next year to extend the requirements to capture the full end to end waste journey information.
This is one of the most transformative changes to the waste sector in decades, and will bring its practices into the digital age. Before I turn to the detail of the legislation, I would also like to acknowledge the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The committee's report highlighted a point of interest regarding how digital waste tracking would interact with the new extended producer. Responsibility for Packaging scheme once fully. Implemented the data submitted to the Digital Waste Tracking System about waste movements will provide elements of the data required to underpin the new extended Producer Responsibility for packaging scheme, and help to reduce opportunities for fraud.
So I'll now turn to the details of the legislation. The regulations designate the Secretary of State for environment, Food and Rural Affairs to establish, maintain and operate the digital system and requires that permitted waste receivers make digital records of specified information as set out in schedule one, before submitting it onto the system. There is a requirement for operators to pay an annual £26 fee, which will be used to recoup the costs of establishing, operating and maintaining the system and. There are alternative provisions for those who are digitally excluded.
Digitally excluded persons are those for whom it is not reasonably practicable to use electronic communications or to keep electronic records for any reason. This could be age, disability or religious beliefs. The alternative requirements include obtaining a digitally excluded number from the Environment Agency, keeping written records and a requirement to supply these records to the Environment Agency. If requested. Regulations introduce a new offence of failing to comply with the legislation and makes provision for both criminal penalties and civil sanctions. Criminal sanctions are necessary to enable the Environment Agency to effectively punish repeat offenders and to ensure that the new system is not undermined by unscrupulous operators.
These regulations are truly transformative. The introduction of a digital system where information about waste movements can be shared and viewed by those who need to see it in a timely way, will undoubtedly benefit us all. I beg to move.
17:45
17:45
17:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
My Lords, may I welcome the noble lady, the Minister, to her place, and thank her for introducing the regulations before us this afternoon. May I say at the outset that they are extremely welcome, and I obviously welcome them. I'd like to declare at the outset that I recently joined the Environment and Climate Change Committee in this House so ably an excellent. Chaired by the noble Baroness Sheehan, who I think may refer to some of our conclusions in that report. So I don't want to duplicate that.
Um, I would like to, um, just touch on because I read the reference to which the noble lady the minister referred in the Secondary Legislation scrutiny Committee about the relationship between these regulations and the extended producer Responsibility for packaging scheme. Uh. Just to the noble lady said that the these regulations underpin that responsibility. I wonder if she could elaborate. And is she saying that there's not going to be a sort of a double whammy to, to, to the operators um who um are under these regulations as well as the new extended producer responsibility for packaging, because I don't think it's entirely clear.
Um, I'd just like to focus my, my main question, if I may, to ask the noble lady, um, this is all very well and good. This is inviting those who we know are legal operators to comply with a new set of rules on what I think will be excellent digital waste tracking. How is her department going to tackle those illegal operators that we identified?Quite clearly in the excellent report, which I joined very lately, so I can't take much credit for it. But the recently, um, published.
Report from the Lords Committee on Environment and Climate Change on Illegal waste. The problem is that it is quite cheap. Apply for an initial licence. And here again it's only going to be £26 fee. The. What we found was that the operator was then going along and collecting and gathering. Uh, all this, um, in many instances it was building material that reappears then as fly tipping, often probably on land, uh, so she owned. My, my noble friend and others, uh, wardrobe, I'm sure will be in good company in this regard, but it's unacceptable that what is, um, toxic waste, building waste, unacceptable waste is people pay for a licence, gather this material up and then dispose of it illegally.
So my concern really is that we I think this will work well for those who are in the system legally, but how does the department intend to operate those illegal operators who are currently not operating within the remit of the law?And how will her regulations tend to address that?For the digital tracking point of view?
Um, I would like to, um, just touch on because I read the reference to which the noble lady the minister referred in the Secondary Legislation scrutiny Committee about the relationship between these regulations and the extended producer Responsibility for packaging scheme. Uh. Just to the noble lady said that the these regulations underpin that responsibility. I wonder if she could elaborate. And is she saying that there's not going to be a sort of a double whammy to, to, to the operators um who um are under these regulations as well as the new extended producer responsibility for packaging, because I don't think it's entirely clear.
Um, I'd just like to focus my, my main question, if I may, to ask the noble lady, um, this is all very well and good. This is inviting those who we know are legal operators to comply with a new set of rules on what I think will be excellent digital waste tracking. How is her department going to tackle those illegal operators that we identified?Quite clearly in the excellent report, which I joined very lately, so I can't take much credit for it. But the recently, um, published.
Report from the Lords Committee on Environment and Climate Change on Illegal waste. The problem is that it is quite cheap. Apply for an initial licence. And here again it's only going to be £26 fee. The. What we found was that the operator was then going along and collecting and gathering. Uh, all this, um, in many instances it was building material that reappears then as fly tipping, often probably on land, uh, so she owned. My, my noble friend and others, uh, wardrobe, I'm sure will be in good company in this regard, but it's unacceptable that what is, um, toxic waste, building waste, unacceptable waste is people pay for a licence, gather this material up and then dispose of it illegally.
So my concern really is that we I think this will work well for those who are in the system legally, but how does the department intend to operate those illegal operators who are currently not operating within the remit of the law?And how will her regulations tend to address that?For the digital tracking point of view?
17:48
17:48
17:49
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
To follow my noble friend, if I can refer to her. That and my erstwhile colleague in the on the Environment and Climate Change Committee. Thank you, Baroness McIntosh, for your contribution. Um, and I'll be very interested to hear the minister's response to those. Um so my Lords, I to thank the noble Lord lady, the Minister, for introducing these regulations and the move towards a digital waste tracking system represents a significant milestone that the waste industry has been calling for, for over a decade.
It's taken a very long time. Um, however, it is here now and this instrument is a vital first step, a first step only toward modernizing our infrastructure, replacing outdated paper based systems that have effectively left the door open for criminal activity. Um, but the move towards a mandatory digital record for the 200 million tonnes of waste produced in the UK annually must be effectively delivered. By establishing a real time audit trail, this system could has a potential to disrupt the organised criminal networks responsible for the 38 million tonnes of waste that are illegally dumped every year, or misdirected, a scourge that costs our economy, as the Minister has recognised, at least £1 billion a year and that is a very conservative estimate.
The introduction of a unique ID number will finally allow businesses and householders to verify that their waste has reached where it should be going, a legitimate destination supporting our transition to a truly circular economy, which has to be the aim of the final aim of anything that we do with waste regulation. Um. The um. I really. Welcome the potential that the new system will have to generate better data. Um, because that will inform better policy making. And I really welcome the intention to align this approach across the UK.
I think that's really very important. And it's very good to read in that, that we will be working in partnership with our um d a. S. However, as. Mr. has herself said, this instrument represents only the first phase and its success will depend on what follows. Full end to end transparent traceability from production to final resting place remain contingent on future legislation, and I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm that phase two will be delivered in full and on time, and that we won't be waiting another decade.
Um. And there are other critical concerns regarding the implementation framework. Firstly, we mustn't underestimate the sheer magnitude of the task on which final success depends. Phase one targets 12000 permitted sites. Phase two will bring over 100 000 operators. Carriers, brokers, dealers. Interscope across the UK. We are talking about potentially billions of data transactions and I thank the ESA, the Environment Services Association, um, for for their briefing. Will the government allocate the resources necessary to deliver the backup needed, such as communicating effectively with legitimate operators, whatever their size?Quite a lot of SMEs will be involved at this stage, as will sole traders.
And secondly, and this is, I think. To me, the most important or the most pertinent flaw in this um s I and I'm really concerned about the producer loophole. That is, uh, it is proposing I understand may be coming down the line because while producers are the start of the duty of care chain, the current proposal, as I understand it, makes their registration optional. And I. Would really want to try and understand why the government thinks whether this is actually the case.
I find it quite hard to believe that um the government. Will be trying to tackle waste crime without um, without mandating that producers take part in the scheme. I find that very hard to believe. Uh, but can the minister explain whether what the government's thinking is there?Um, because I would deeply share the industry's concern that this creates a very dangerous loophole. If waste producer registration is not mandatory, it's difficult to see how a complete audit trail can be achieved or how fly tipping and illegal operators will be effectively identified.
And, um, whilst on the note of producer responsibility, I will just mention my private member's bill. It's an opportune moment to do so. Um, the private member's bill is the corporate Waste Responsibility bill, and it becomes even more pertinent if the producers are not included within the, um, the, within the digital waste tracking system and, um, and if I may be so bold to say so, it makes my bill even more pertinent and even more deserving of government support. And I really welcome the opportunity to speak to the minister about that.
However, I hope she will address the concerns raised in the S, s I and potential non-inclusion of producers. Um. As the recent inquiry by the Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee, which I have the fortune to chair, uh, as we've highlighted in our inquiry, the Environment Agency's current record on enforcement is woeful. Um, technology alone is not a panacea. That's very clear. Without sufficient resources to monitor and act upon intelligence generated, this risks becoming a mere data collection exercise.
And what our inquiry was very clear in its findings was that the tools to tackle waste crime are essentially in place, but it is the lack of their effective use and enforcement and compliance actions that follow on from those, um, uh, powers. The the Environment Agency already had that has been lacking. And the government must provide assurance that this system will be sufficiently resourced and operationally ready from day one. And I remain of the opinion that we need more than just digital tracking. We need to foster a genuine enforcement culture.
How will the minister propose, uh, that these, uh, this instrument will do that?And can the minister provide assurance that regulators will have full visibility of waste movements from the point of production through to final treatment and disposal, and if not, how the government expects digital waste tracking to deliver the intended improvements in compliance and enforcement?I'm just I'm going to finish off now just a couple of questions for the minister. Um, the first question. My Lords, is that we must ensure that criminals can't simply submit inaccurate, inaccurate information into the system to mask their tracks.
And how will the government ensure that criminals don't do this?And, um, the second question, my Lords, it would be helpful to understand how the government will measure whether implementation of this see has been successful. What are the key performance indicators will be published and how will Parliament be kept up to date on the scheme's effectiveness?And finally, my Lords, we have a duty. We have a really strong duty to ensure this system provides end to end traceability from the point of production to final disposal.
Anything less is, quite honestly just digitizing the problem rather than fixing it.
It's taken a very long time. Um, however, it is here now and this instrument is a vital first step, a first step only toward modernizing our infrastructure, replacing outdated paper based systems that have effectively left the door open for criminal activity. Um, but the move towards a mandatory digital record for the 200 million tonnes of waste produced in the UK annually must be effectively delivered. By establishing a real time audit trail, this system could has a potential to disrupt the organised criminal networks responsible for the 38 million tonnes of waste that are illegally dumped every year, or misdirected, a scourge that costs our economy, as the Minister has recognised, at least £1 billion a year and that is a very conservative estimate.
The introduction of a unique ID number will finally allow businesses and householders to verify that their waste has reached where it should be going, a legitimate destination supporting our transition to a truly circular economy, which has to be the aim of the final aim of anything that we do with waste regulation. Um. The um. I really. Welcome the potential that the new system will have to generate better data. Um, because that will inform better policy making. And I really welcome the intention to align this approach across the UK.
I think that's really very important. And it's very good to read in that, that we will be working in partnership with our um d a. S. However, as. Mr. has herself said, this instrument represents only the first phase and its success will depend on what follows. Full end to end transparent traceability from production to final resting place remain contingent on future legislation, and I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm that phase two will be delivered in full and on time, and that we won't be waiting another decade.
Um. And there are other critical concerns regarding the implementation framework. Firstly, we mustn't underestimate the sheer magnitude of the task on which final success depends. Phase one targets 12000 permitted sites. Phase two will bring over 100 000 operators. Carriers, brokers, dealers. Interscope across the UK. We are talking about potentially billions of data transactions and I thank the ESA, the Environment Services Association, um, for for their briefing. Will the government allocate the resources necessary to deliver the backup needed, such as communicating effectively with legitimate operators, whatever their size?Quite a lot of SMEs will be involved at this stage, as will sole traders.
And secondly, and this is, I think. To me, the most important or the most pertinent flaw in this um s I and I'm really concerned about the producer loophole. That is, uh, it is proposing I understand may be coming down the line because while producers are the start of the duty of care chain, the current proposal, as I understand it, makes their registration optional. And I. Would really want to try and understand why the government thinks whether this is actually the case.
I find it quite hard to believe that um the government. Will be trying to tackle waste crime without um, without mandating that producers take part in the scheme. I find that very hard to believe. Uh, but can the minister explain whether what the government's thinking is there?Um, because I would deeply share the industry's concern that this creates a very dangerous loophole. If waste producer registration is not mandatory, it's difficult to see how a complete audit trail can be achieved or how fly tipping and illegal operators will be effectively identified.
And, um, whilst on the note of producer responsibility, I will just mention my private member's bill. It's an opportune moment to do so. Um, the private member's bill is the corporate Waste Responsibility bill, and it becomes even more pertinent if the producers are not included within the, um, the, within the digital waste tracking system and, um, and if I may be so bold to say so, it makes my bill even more pertinent and even more deserving of government support. And I really welcome the opportunity to speak to the minister about that.
However, I hope she will address the concerns raised in the S, s I and potential non-inclusion of producers. Um. As the recent inquiry by the Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee, which I have the fortune to chair, uh, as we've highlighted in our inquiry, the Environment Agency's current record on enforcement is woeful. Um, technology alone is not a panacea. That's very clear. Without sufficient resources to monitor and act upon intelligence generated, this risks becoming a mere data collection exercise.
And what our inquiry was very clear in its findings was that the tools to tackle waste crime are essentially in place, but it is the lack of their effective use and enforcement and compliance actions that follow on from those, um, uh, powers. The the Environment Agency already had that has been lacking. And the government must provide assurance that this system will be sufficiently resourced and operationally ready from day one. And I remain of the opinion that we need more than just digital tracking. We need to foster a genuine enforcement culture.
How will the minister propose, uh, that these, uh, this instrument will do that?And can the minister provide assurance that regulators will have full visibility of waste movements from the point of production through to final treatment and disposal, and if not, how the government expects digital waste tracking to deliver the intended improvements in compliance and enforcement?I'm just I'm going to finish off now just a couple of questions for the minister. Um, the first question. My Lords, is that we must ensure that criminals can't simply submit inaccurate, inaccurate information into the system to mask their tracks.
And how will the government ensure that criminals don't do this?And, um, the second question, my Lords, it would be helpful to understand how the government will measure whether implementation of this see has been successful. What are the key performance indicators will be published and how will Parliament be kept up to date on the scheme's effectiveness?And finally, my Lords, we have a duty. We have a really strong duty to ensure this system provides end to end traceability from the point of production to final disposal.
Anything less is, quite honestly just digitizing the problem rather than fixing it.
17:58
17:58
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for bringing forward these regulations, and I refer the House to my register of interests as a landowner and to confirm my noble friend Lady McIntosh's comments I have on a daily basis been a victim of illegal waste disposal and have also experienced a licensed waste haulier, illegally processing waste and disposing of it on my land with a very weak response from the Environment Agency. These regulations were enabled by the Environment Act 2021, passed under our previous government, where we announced the introduction of digital waste tracking to help local authorities crack down on waste crime.
We on these benches remain committed to tackling waste crime. 57% of landowners and farmers have been impacted, and we know there have been serious failings in the environment. Agencies performance. We need effective deterrents and police powers, which we fought for in our amendments to the Crime and Policing Act, and which were missed opportunities for this government. This digitalized tracking scheme will create a singular way for the Environment Agency to track waste, replacing the fragmented way in which it is regulated. Now, this will make it easier to monitor waste at both the national and local level to ensure it is handled in compliance with the law, rather than allowing waste crime to go under the radar.
What assurance can the noble Baroness, the Minister, offer to the House?After numerous large scale examples of the EA apparently ignoring enforcement on illegal illegal waste sites, that the EA will be more aggressive in using this information to prevent and prosecute offences. We also understand that these regulations make provisions for those who are digitally excluded, including those who choose not to use electronic equipment due to their personal beliefs. I would appreciate some clarity from the noble Baroness, the Minister, as to how these exemptions are determined and approved, and how many waste operators the government estimates will fall into.
This category. Is it really possible to be a licensed waste operator in this century, if not able to achieve a minimum level of digital proficiency?We cannot allow this well-intentioned provision to inadvertently undermine the digital tracking system. My Lords, we must recognise that the context in which this system was announced has since changed significantly. Businesses are facing huge pressures, higher costs and uncertainties. Therefore, we must ensure that these measures are sensitive to this reality. Indeed, for businesses who are subject to these regulations, the transition costs are expected to be £1.53 million over four years, with service fees amounting to 16.7 million and software costs totalling 39,000,000/15 years.
Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, clarify how well this has been communicated to businesses and what their response has been?Are there any cost savings or efficiencies available to business through these processes, which may reduce the overall impact, adding cost to lawful waste disposal increases?The incentives to deal with waste illegally?Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, help us to understand what scale of cost increase this is likely to be for lawful waste disposal?I appreciate that the benefits are predicted to outweigh the costs in the long term, and all of us are eager to see perpetrators of waste crime expelled from the market, with the severest penalties imposed.
This will see justice served and reduce the unfair competition for law abiding businesses. But we must help businesses prepare for the transition to this new system and build trust. And I am grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her comments on EPR, but agree with the noble Baroness, lady McIntosh and Lady Sheehan that a bit more clarification would be welcome on how this will work in practice. My Lords, we welcome these regulations, but we need assurances that they will not result in damaging costs for law abiding businesses, that there are no opportunities for criminals to undermine the new system.
And I look forward to the noble Baroness. The minister's response.
We on these benches remain committed to tackling waste crime. 57% of landowners and farmers have been impacted, and we know there have been serious failings in the environment. Agencies performance. We need effective deterrents and police powers, which we fought for in our amendments to the Crime and Policing Act, and which were missed opportunities for this government. This digitalized tracking scheme will create a singular way for the Environment Agency to track waste, replacing the fragmented way in which it is regulated. Now, this will make it easier to monitor waste at both the national and local level to ensure it is handled in compliance with the law, rather than allowing waste crime to go under the radar.
What assurance can the noble Baroness, the Minister, offer to the House?After numerous large scale examples of the EA apparently ignoring enforcement on illegal illegal waste sites, that the EA will be more aggressive in using this information to prevent and prosecute offences. We also understand that these regulations make provisions for those who are digitally excluded, including those who choose not to use electronic equipment due to their personal beliefs. I would appreciate some clarity from the noble Baroness, the Minister, as to how these exemptions are determined and approved, and how many waste operators the government estimates will fall into.
This category. Is it really possible to be a licensed waste operator in this century, if not able to achieve a minimum level of digital proficiency?We cannot allow this well-intentioned provision to inadvertently undermine the digital tracking system. My Lords, we must recognise that the context in which this system was announced has since changed significantly. Businesses are facing huge pressures, higher costs and uncertainties. Therefore, we must ensure that these measures are sensitive to this reality. Indeed, for businesses who are subject to these regulations, the transition costs are expected to be £1.53 million over four years, with service fees amounting to 16.7 million and software costs totalling 39,000,000/15 years.
Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, clarify how well this has been communicated to businesses and what their response has been?Are there any cost savings or efficiencies available to business through these processes, which may reduce the overall impact, adding cost to lawful waste disposal increases?The incentives to deal with waste illegally?Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, help us to understand what scale of cost increase this is likely to be for lawful waste disposal?I appreciate that the benefits are predicted to outweigh the costs in the long term, and all of us are eager to see perpetrators of waste crime expelled from the market, with the severest penalties imposed.
This will see justice served and reduce the unfair competition for law abiding businesses. But we must help businesses prepare for the transition to this new system and build trust. And I am grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her comments on EPR, but agree with the noble Baroness, lady McIntosh and Lady Sheehan that a bit more clarification would be welcome on how this will work in practice. My Lords, we welcome these regulations, but we need assurances that they will not result in damaging costs for law abiding businesses, that there are no opportunities for criminals to undermine the new system.
And I look forward to the noble Baroness. The minister's response.
18:02
18:02
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
So can I start by thanking noble Lords for their contributions and comments on today's debate?Um, I shall go through and try and pick up the questions that have been asked. As usual, if there's anything I've missed, uh, we'll go through Hansard and write with anything that I've not been able to provide information on. Um, first of all, um, the noble lady, Baroness McIntosh, asked about the regulations and EPR and how they underpin other, uh, regs. Um, so the s I underpins the system in that it's not intended to put any further burdens on operators.
The idea is to use the data such as the waste tonnages to help with calculations on the local authority payments. So it's designed to work with it rather than create the kind of difficulties that she, she talked about, um, the, I think waste. Crime is something that has come up from, from all noble lords. Um, so I'll just go through some of the issues around that the noble Lord, Lord talked about farmers having to deal with excessive fly tipping. And we've seen that's increased recently in, um, in recent years.
And obviously local authorities are mainly the people who deal with fly tipping. But we've also recently secured powers in the Crime and Policing Act to provide statutory fly tipping enforcement guidance to support councils so that they consistently, appropriately and effectively exercise their powers. And we've also obtained powers for courts to award between 3 and 9 penalty points on driving licences. For those who found guilty of fly tipping, basically just to make it harder to offenders to keep dumping illegally if they end up being disqualified from driving.
But it also sends out a clear signal that we're just not tolerating this kind of behaviour. Um, on. On illegal waste sites, we're working in collaboration with other departments to develop develop the criteria to objectively identify the sites with the most compelling cases for clearance. Because we have to look at operational community environmental factors in order to target the sites that are currently the most damaging. Um, and the EPA steps in when there's an untenable risk to the environment or, or the public.
Um, and also site specific assessments are conducted to determine feasibility and whether the clearance is the right course of action at that, that time. And then also we need to secure access. We need to look at contamination. We need to look at safety risks. And we need to look at the engineering design for actually clearing it. Um we don't have a duty to, to clear all illegal waste sites as noble lords are aware. But we are absolutely determined that this is the turning point to try and sort out a lot of the problems that we have been facing in, in recent years.
So again, um, one of the questions I think Baroness Pickering McIntosh of Pickering raised it initially was about how is this actually going to stop this illegal waste activity?So I think I said before, we're going to lay a second statutory instrument next year. And that is where we're going to require information about the full end to end journey of waste to be recorded, information about that waste movement will be required to be entered onto the digital system before the waste is moved, followed by confirmation that a waste character has collected the waste, and then confirmation is actually been received at a waste receiving site.
If those confirmations are not provided, it will. It will basically tell the regulators that the waste has may potentially have been lost, and that they can act accordingly to investigate that, each entry will generate a unique ID number, and it will be required to be given to the waste producer so that they can check that the waste has gone to a legitimate site. This transparency in near real time data will reduce the opportunities for organised waste criminals to operate, but it also makes it much harder to actually commit waste crime, um, through deliberate misdescription, uh, illegal exports.
Flytipping. I just to make it as hard as possible for people to actually want to do this in the first place. Um, and also we've, we've published in March our waste crime action plan. Um, that's to, to crack down, particularly on illegal dumping. It sets out a zero tolerance approach built around three objectives, prevent, enforce and remediate. We're also looking to strengthen the regulatory regime in order to pursue the criminals responsible. With more people actually doing the work, looking for them, um, using the advanced technologies that we've got and stronger punishments, and also trying to accelerate the clean up effort so that we can kind of get to grips with this, uh, up until March 2025 over a three year period, the Environment Agency secured 211 prosecutions against waste criminals and recent individual successes.
Since July of last year include a serial waste criminal paying over £1.4 million for widespread illegal waste dumping, and also for individuals who arrested over the Kidlington illegal tipping incident. So we're determined to ramp this, ramp this up. And the Waste Crime Action Plan also includes new police style powers for Environment Agency officers, including exploring powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and Proceeds of Crime Act, and the Environment Agency is also expanding its use of restriction notices, fixed penalty notices and permit suspensions so that high risk sites can be stopped earlier.
And we're also going to go after the tax evaders and expand HMRC tax check rules to the waste sector. Um, I think the noble lady, Baroness McIntosh, asked me about the Environment Agency funding and a number of noble Lords asked about enforcement as well, and particularly noble lady, Baroness Sheehan was interested in enforcement. Uh, just looking at the Environment Agency's resources, the EA's total budget for 2025 to 26 has been increased, and that includes £15.6 million for waste crime enforcement, which is more than 50% increase. It's gone up by £5.6 million, and that's enabled the Environment Agency to nearly double the size of the Joint Unit for Waste Crime.
They're also going to receive £45 million to spend on waste crime enforcement over the next three financial years, and that's on top of the of the increase of the waste crime enforcement budget that I've just mentioned. It's going to enable the expansion of the Joint Unit for Waste Crime to increase to 20 specialists. Um, and that's also enabled additional investment in frontline activity to intelligence and operational capacity within the EA's core waste crime teams. And just to put that into what that actually looks like, that's going to include 31 operational field based staff, uh, the equivalent of ten and a half operational analytical staff and further managerial staff as well.
So that should enable earlier and more proactive interventions. Um, also the EA is going to receive is receiving 37.5% of the Proceeds of Crime Act income back into the EA, which is then going to be specifically invested into fighting waste crime. Um, for example, since 2024, we've recouped over £1.5 million through that particular route. Uh, the noble lady, Baroness Sheehan, asked about communications, about engagement with businesses, particularly small businesses. Um, and in order to inform the design and development of the service, we've carried out extensive user research.
And that's both with both software vendors but also industry operators across the full range of sectors in the waste industry. And just to reassure the noble lady, we're not just talking about the largest operators. We've we've talked to people right down to the micro level and, and try to reach those who are harder to talk to as well. So we've been very thorough on covering that, and we are continuing that user research as we move towards expansion of the service next year. So that ongoing communications will is going to, continue.
Um, fees, service fees was mentioned and the charge, um, so the fee covers the costs of establishing, operating and maintaining the service includes things like building the digital system, ongoing housing costs and operation of the help desk as well. Um, and the service charge was determined by, um, it was estimated over a ten year period, an averaged over the total number of operated expected to be using the service once it's been fully delivered, ensuring those in the first phase are not going to be paying more. And HMM Treasury has agreed that approach.
But on the answer to to the noble ladies question around review, we do intend to review the surface charge. Once the system is operational and we have more accurate data regarding the number of users of the system. And if needed, we can, we can amend um, the service charge. Um resources was also mentioned by, I think all noble lords talked about resources. Um as I said, we are, we have increased the environment agencies funding as I've just detailed. Um, and also the Environment Agency is going to adopt a risk based approach to regulation by assessing the waste data that's been entered onto the service.
Um, we need to make this just much more efficient and effective and targeted, which is what we're looking to, to do. And also through the implementation of digital waste. Um, we will have tracking officers who will save time because they won't be looking at manual document checks. So that's also going to help. They're not going to have to carry out time consuming audits or constantly issuing repeated information notices. So we should overall be able to use the the Environment Agency resources much more efficiently and effectively, um, than previously.
And as I mentioned before, you know, the fact we'll be able to have earlier visibility of waste movements will mean that we can identify and investigate potential problems much more quickly to reduce the time and resources that is spent dealing with huge pollution incidents. Um, the noble lady asked about mandatory reporting requirements as well. Um and um, all remaining sectors of the waste industry, including those who transport and those who broker and deal in waste, will be included when we get to the second phase. Um, and waste producers who arrange their own waste movements directly will also be captured in those requirements.
But we will give out the full details of exactly what nearer the nearer the time um phasing was also mentioned. And because it's one of the biggest transformations of the waste sector, it involves such a large number of operators. It's such a complex area to, to, to, to turn, to turn around and change. We decided it was best to introduce it incrementally, starting with the creation of the firm foundation that we're looking at now. There are approximately 12,000 operators of permitting waste receiving sites, which are all going to be impacted by the requirements.
And there's a further approximately 100 000 waste operators are going to be impacted by the planned expansion of the system and the requirements that they're going to have to, to meet, but also by doing it phased, we can learn from this first phase as we move into the next phase, so that we can better identify all the waste carriers that we need to ensure that we've got on board. When we go into that. Second phase. Which brings me on to the noble lady Baroness.
Question about phase two. When is that happening?Um, so from this autumn the expanded service is going to be available for initial testing with an invited group of users. And then from spring next year, it will be made available publicly for voluntary use. And then we plan to lay the next set of regulations, um, at the same time, with requirements coming into force from October 2027. So I hope that is helpful for the, the, the noble lady, um, also, I can also confirm, um, around visibility that regulators will have visibility of waste movement data and they can also will have the ability to share data amongst themselves.
Um, and costs to business was raised. Um that obviously depends on the size, the activity, the current information, what method the business is using operators who don't already use software to record their waste information may choose to purchase software if they need to comply with the new requirements. So obviously there's a cost to that. Um, and for all operators, there are going to be costs that relate to familiarisation with the new requirements, whether there needs to be any training taking place, for example, potentially changing business processes.
So they're the kinds of costs that we think will come in. But clearly once they've been, they've happened, then the business is set up ready for the new requirements. And I hope I've covered everything. The final thing I was going to say was to Baroness Sheehan. I've seen her private member's bill. It does look really interesting. I'd be very, very happy to sit and arrange a meeting to discuss it further. Um, so I think I'm hoping that I have covered most of the questions.
The legislation is you've got something. Sorry, what have I missed?
The idea is to use the data such as the waste tonnages to help with calculations on the local authority payments. So it's designed to work with it rather than create the kind of difficulties that she, she talked about, um, the, I think waste. Crime is something that has come up from, from all noble lords. Um, so I'll just go through some of the issues around that the noble Lord, Lord talked about farmers having to deal with excessive fly tipping. And we've seen that's increased recently in, um, in recent years.
And obviously local authorities are mainly the people who deal with fly tipping. But we've also recently secured powers in the Crime and Policing Act to provide statutory fly tipping enforcement guidance to support councils so that they consistently, appropriately and effectively exercise their powers. And we've also obtained powers for courts to award between 3 and 9 penalty points on driving licences. For those who found guilty of fly tipping, basically just to make it harder to offenders to keep dumping illegally if they end up being disqualified from driving.
But it also sends out a clear signal that we're just not tolerating this kind of behaviour. Um, on. On illegal waste sites, we're working in collaboration with other departments to develop develop the criteria to objectively identify the sites with the most compelling cases for clearance. Because we have to look at operational community environmental factors in order to target the sites that are currently the most damaging. Um, and the EPA steps in when there's an untenable risk to the environment or, or the public.
Um, and also site specific assessments are conducted to determine feasibility and whether the clearance is the right course of action at that, that time. And then also we need to secure access. We need to look at contamination. We need to look at safety risks. And we need to look at the engineering design for actually clearing it. Um we don't have a duty to, to clear all illegal waste sites as noble lords are aware. But we are absolutely determined that this is the turning point to try and sort out a lot of the problems that we have been facing in, in recent years.
So again, um, one of the questions I think Baroness Pickering McIntosh of Pickering raised it initially was about how is this actually going to stop this illegal waste activity?So I think I said before, we're going to lay a second statutory instrument next year. And that is where we're going to require information about the full end to end journey of waste to be recorded, information about that waste movement will be required to be entered onto the digital system before the waste is moved, followed by confirmation that a waste character has collected the waste, and then confirmation is actually been received at a waste receiving site.
If those confirmations are not provided, it will. It will basically tell the regulators that the waste has may potentially have been lost, and that they can act accordingly to investigate that, each entry will generate a unique ID number, and it will be required to be given to the waste producer so that they can check that the waste has gone to a legitimate site. This transparency in near real time data will reduce the opportunities for organised waste criminals to operate, but it also makes it much harder to actually commit waste crime, um, through deliberate misdescription, uh, illegal exports.
Flytipping. I just to make it as hard as possible for people to actually want to do this in the first place. Um, and also we've, we've published in March our waste crime action plan. Um, that's to, to crack down, particularly on illegal dumping. It sets out a zero tolerance approach built around three objectives, prevent, enforce and remediate. We're also looking to strengthen the regulatory regime in order to pursue the criminals responsible. With more people actually doing the work, looking for them, um, using the advanced technologies that we've got and stronger punishments, and also trying to accelerate the clean up effort so that we can kind of get to grips with this, uh, up until March 2025 over a three year period, the Environment Agency secured 211 prosecutions against waste criminals and recent individual successes.
Since July of last year include a serial waste criminal paying over £1.4 million for widespread illegal waste dumping, and also for individuals who arrested over the Kidlington illegal tipping incident. So we're determined to ramp this, ramp this up. And the Waste Crime Action Plan also includes new police style powers for Environment Agency officers, including exploring powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and Proceeds of Crime Act, and the Environment Agency is also expanding its use of restriction notices, fixed penalty notices and permit suspensions so that high risk sites can be stopped earlier.
And we're also going to go after the tax evaders and expand HMRC tax check rules to the waste sector. Um, I think the noble lady, Baroness McIntosh, asked me about the Environment Agency funding and a number of noble Lords asked about enforcement as well, and particularly noble lady, Baroness Sheehan was interested in enforcement. Uh, just looking at the Environment Agency's resources, the EA's total budget for 2025 to 26 has been increased, and that includes £15.6 million for waste crime enforcement, which is more than 50% increase. It's gone up by £5.6 million, and that's enabled the Environment Agency to nearly double the size of the Joint Unit for Waste Crime.
They're also going to receive £45 million to spend on waste crime enforcement over the next three financial years, and that's on top of the of the increase of the waste crime enforcement budget that I've just mentioned. It's going to enable the expansion of the Joint Unit for Waste Crime to increase to 20 specialists. Um, and that's also enabled additional investment in frontline activity to intelligence and operational capacity within the EA's core waste crime teams. And just to put that into what that actually looks like, that's going to include 31 operational field based staff, uh, the equivalent of ten and a half operational analytical staff and further managerial staff as well.
So that should enable earlier and more proactive interventions. Um, also the EA is going to receive is receiving 37.5% of the Proceeds of Crime Act income back into the EA, which is then going to be specifically invested into fighting waste crime. Um, for example, since 2024, we've recouped over £1.5 million through that particular route. Uh, the noble lady, Baroness Sheehan, asked about communications, about engagement with businesses, particularly small businesses. Um, and in order to inform the design and development of the service, we've carried out extensive user research.
And that's both with both software vendors but also industry operators across the full range of sectors in the waste industry. And just to reassure the noble lady, we're not just talking about the largest operators. We've we've talked to people right down to the micro level and, and try to reach those who are harder to talk to as well. So we've been very thorough on covering that, and we are continuing that user research as we move towards expansion of the service next year. So that ongoing communications will is going to, continue.
Um, fees, service fees was mentioned and the charge, um, so the fee covers the costs of establishing, operating and maintaining the service includes things like building the digital system, ongoing housing costs and operation of the help desk as well. Um, and the service charge was determined by, um, it was estimated over a ten year period, an averaged over the total number of operated expected to be using the service once it's been fully delivered, ensuring those in the first phase are not going to be paying more. And HMM Treasury has agreed that approach.
But on the answer to to the noble ladies question around review, we do intend to review the surface charge. Once the system is operational and we have more accurate data regarding the number of users of the system. And if needed, we can, we can amend um, the service charge. Um resources was also mentioned by, I think all noble lords talked about resources. Um as I said, we are, we have increased the environment agencies funding as I've just detailed. Um, and also the Environment Agency is going to adopt a risk based approach to regulation by assessing the waste data that's been entered onto the service.
Um, we need to make this just much more efficient and effective and targeted, which is what we're looking to, to do. And also through the implementation of digital waste. Um, we will have tracking officers who will save time because they won't be looking at manual document checks. So that's also going to help. They're not going to have to carry out time consuming audits or constantly issuing repeated information notices. So we should overall be able to use the the Environment Agency resources much more efficiently and effectively, um, than previously.
And as I mentioned before, you know, the fact we'll be able to have earlier visibility of waste movements will mean that we can identify and investigate potential problems much more quickly to reduce the time and resources that is spent dealing with huge pollution incidents. Um, the noble lady asked about mandatory reporting requirements as well. Um and um, all remaining sectors of the waste industry, including those who transport and those who broker and deal in waste, will be included when we get to the second phase. Um, and waste producers who arrange their own waste movements directly will also be captured in those requirements.
But we will give out the full details of exactly what nearer the nearer the time um phasing was also mentioned. And because it's one of the biggest transformations of the waste sector, it involves such a large number of operators. It's such a complex area to, to, to, to turn, to turn around and change. We decided it was best to introduce it incrementally, starting with the creation of the firm foundation that we're looking at now. There are approximately 12,000 operators of permitting waste receiving sites, which are all going to be impacted by the requirements.
And there's a further approximately 100 000 waste operators are going to be impacted by the planned expansion of the system and the requirements that they're going to have to, to meet, but also by doing it phased, we can learn from this first phase as we move into the next phase, so that we can better identify all the waste carriers that we need to ensure that we've got on board. When we go into that. Second phase. Which brings me on to the noble lady Baroness.
Question about phase two. When is that happening?Um, so from this autumn the expanded service is going to be available for initial testing with an invited group of users. And then from spring next year, it will be made available publicly for voluntary use. And then we plan to lay the next set of regulations, um, at the same time, with requirements coming into force from October 2027. So I hope that is helpful for the, the, the noble lady, um, also, I can also confirm, um, around visibility that regulators will have visibility of waste movement data and they can also will have the ability to share data amongst themselves.
Um, and costs to business was raised. Um that obviously depends on the size, the activity, the current information, what method the business is using operators who don't already use software to record their waste information may choose to purchase software if they need to comply with the new requirements. So obviously there's a cost to that. Um, and for all operators, there are going to be costs that relate to familiarisation with the new requirements, whether there needs to be any training taking place, for example, potentially changing business processes.
So they're the kinds of costs that we think will come in. But clearly once they've been, they've happened, then the business is set up ready for the new requirements. And I hope I've covered everything. The final thing I was going to say was to Baroness Sheehan. I've seen her private member's bill. It does look really interesting. I'd be very, very happy to sit and arrange a meeting to discuss it further. Um, so I think I'm hoping that I have covered most of the questions.
The legislation is you've got something. Sorry, what have I missed?
18:16
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Noble lady?The minister sits down. Um, just want to be very clear. I may have missed it, but I do want to be reassured that producers will be included and that discussions taking place. Within the department now will ensure that all producers of waste are included because without producers being included, we will never be able to turn the tap off. Um, unless we can do it at source.
18:17
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Sorry. I just give me one second. I think I'm going to have to look into this in some detail and get back to the noble lady, because, um, it's quite. I've just been told it's extremely complicated, so I think it's probably best if we, if we put this down in writing to the noble lady. So she's got a clear, a proper clear answer rather than what I can say just now. Um, having said that, um we know also.
So I mean, first of all, thank you very much. I haven't thanked everyone for their support for this legislation because it is an important piece of legislation. We know it's supported by stakeholders. We know it's highly anticipated by stakeholders and noble lords as well. Um, and I'm very pleased to have been able to present it here today. I beg to move.
So I mean, first of all, thank you very much. I haven't thanked everyone for their support for this legislation because it is an important piece of legislation. We know it's supported by stakeholders. We know it's highly anticipated by stakeholders and noble lords as well. Um, and I'm very pleased to have been able to present it here today. I beg to move.