Lords Chamber

Wednesday 22nd July 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:06
15:06
15:06
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
His lifetime of public service has left an indelible mark on the whole fabric of British social work, fabric of British social work, public management and indeed the very conscience of our nation. Herbert's journey into the public Herbert's journey into the public sphere began with a deeply practical grounding, dedicating 20 years to Hertfordshire County Council ultimately served as director of social services before rising to become the Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate from 1991 to 1998. However, it was his subsequent work on the national stage that elevated him into the public consciousness as a fearless seeker of accountability.

Following the tragic death of eight year old Victoria Quimby, the government turned to Lord Laming to chair the landmark inquiry in which he diagnosed a yawning gap between policy aspiration and frontline delivery. He famously observed that protecting a child, and I quote, needed nothing more than a manager doing their job by asking pertinent questions. His work directly laid the foundations for the Every Child Matters framework and the Children Act of 2004. Years later, following the tragedy of baby P, he was called upon once more to deliver an urgent National review, demonstrating a steadfast commitment to ensuring that the child's welfare remains paramount.

Since entering this house in 1998, Herbert Lane has been a pillar of the crossbenches. His parliamentary peers recognise his fairness and his integrity by letting him, convenor of the crossbench peers from 2011 to 2015, followed by distinguished tenure as chairman of committees. He has spent decades reminding us that policies are only as good as frontline execution. He combined a razor sharp administrative intellect with a deeply compassionate heart. And, my Lords, we owe him a debt of gratitude for forcing our country to look closer at more quickly and better protect some of the most innocent and vulnerable in society.

His legacy will endure for generations, and will remember him as a man of great generosity and spirit and decency. And my Lords, as good company. We had many chats in my office, and I'll always remember him first and foremost as a great friend. I know he's going to be sorely missed across your Lordships house, but weren't we lucky to have him here with us? Amen. My Lords, we send our deepest and most heartfelt condolences to all his family and friends.

May.
15:09
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the noble Baroness, the leader, for her marvellous tribute. leader, for her marvellous tribute. And I would like to convey our sincerest sympathy to Herbert's sincerest sympathy to Herbert's family and friends. I have to say, I never heard Herbert raise his voice. And perhaps he did, if he ever had a recalcitrant dog, which I doubt, because Herbert would have calmed the dog as he calmed every situation, however difficult. And there were quite a few in his life that he found.

And, as the leader said, he's left. A legacy goes far beyond anything which most of us could ever even aspire to. And as she said in her notable tribute, he did this outstanding service in chairing two of the most harrowing important inquiries and reports ever undertaken in the United Kingdom in the MBA and the baby P case, and in his typically painstaking, ever listening, ever giving to others way. His work revolutionised child care. I can only underline everything that the leader said about those reports and recommendations.

They've come to define the best of modern, professional and inter-agency standards. He was a consummate professional, though he did believe and said that career paths could be closed because of two tightly prescribed routes in life, and much of Herbert's career actually happened by accident, as he acknowledged. And he said, we're writing off a huge amount of human potential qualifications. Got you through the door, but from now on, it was what we did that mattered. He used to tell young professionals he was a practical man, never open ear and eye, and what you did for others was what he saw.

And some of his greatest insights into the need for inter-agency cooperation came from a very varied career. He started work as a probation officer in Nottinghamshire near Stanton Ironworks, where my parents actually met something we used to joke about quite often in probation. He went on to study mental health, becoming a psychiatric social worker, and that did inform that long, magnificent service in Hertfordshire, which the leader referred to. I actually first met Herbert in number ten in the early 1990s, when John Major was pushing through a programme of public service reform, which was aimed to place greater emphasis on the needs of the user, transparency of outcomes and public accountability.

Herbert was made Chief Inspector of social services in 1991, and he remained there until 1998. And he was enormous ally in all those efforts to improve public services for users. He was always, I found then, an inspiration to talk to and a breath of fresh air. He wasn't a softy, he was hard headed, but he was kindly hearted, as the leader said, and constant learning was something he applied to himself throughout his life. We must never allow ourselves to think that we know everything, he said in an interview late in his life.

Well, amen to that, my Lords. How much we did learn from his great service in this House also, not least as convenor of crossbench peers, he was uniquely considerate of others, and I must place on record my personal gratitude to him as the leader has, in her case, for his sound advice. In my many roles in this place, and perhaps I might end by quoting what was said to me earlier by a younger conservative colleague over 40 years, Herbert Junior.

I don't intend to speak, she wrote, but I wanted to let you know of Herbert's kindness. I turned to him privately many times as he was so generous with his time and his wise words. I will miss him so much. We could all say the same of this dear man, who was also a giant of public service, who will go on touching the lives of people at risk for generations to come. We will all miss him. Yes, my Lord, it's a privilege to follow the noble Lord Lord True and the leader for their very eloquent and emotional tributes to Herbert.

Herbert was convenor of the
15:14
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Crossbenches. When I entered this house in 2013, he was always house in 2013, he was always helpful, courteous, polite and for the whole of the duration that it was my pleasure to know him. He was my pleasure to know him. He never passed, and many of our many corridors without an inquiry as to corridors without an inquiry as to how I was by my name. But after an early occasion in the chamber when I came into this house, when I was I came into this house, when I was characteristically verbose, I got a polite note asking me for a chat.

I dutifully went along to the crossbench Convener's office and sat down, and after receiving a very kind review of what I said, he even more kindly suggested I needed not have said it so much and for so long. I got the taste of how he approached his professional and parliamentary life. Supportive, kind, but when necessary, firm. Being a social worker is one of the hardest professions where press reporting frequently focuses on the sad occasions when things go wrong, rather than the vastly higher number of incidences when lives are made better.

But as the leader and the noble Lord true referred to when things did go wrong, tragically, it was Herbert who was repeatedly called on to bring teams together, not to apportion blame, but to find out why things went wrong and what would be needed to prevent them happening again. Legislation, regulation and policy resulted from his work creating a lasting legacy. In his 2009 progress report on the protection of children in England, he said in the introduction sadly, sometimes even our imaginations fail to help us understand the dependency of young children or the vulnerability of adolescents, regardless of their displays of bravado.

Children and young people need security, stability, love and encouragement. Herbert held to these profound words. In a lifetime of social and public service, and worked hard to ensure local and national government reflected them. He was always kindly but also consistent, and we saw in his work in the committees of this House and in the chamber. One of my noble friends, in hearing of his passing, simply described him as a humble and effective human being. That is a suitable epitaph alongside the countless lives made better from his tireless work before and then being a member of this House, we shall all miss the soft Geordie lilt of his contributions, which were never verbose but principled, practical and came from a deep sense that care and love would always be a stronger motivator than blame and resentment.

These benches offer our most sincere condolences to his family, his friends and in particular in this House, his close colleagues on the crossbench who will miss him the most.
15:17
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, it's a great privilege to follow three such wonderful speeches as are so captured. The speeches as are so captured. The man who so dear to my colleagues on the front on the crossbench here, the front on the crossbench here, Herbert Laming, was born in 1936. He left school at 15 and in 1954 he was called up for national service. He chose the Royal Navy and was placed in a detachment that was being prepared for service east of Suez.

You can imagine their excitement at the prospect of travel to exotic climes on parade one morning, however, the Chief Petty Officer asked for four volunteers and, being the man we knew, ordinary seaman Laming put his hand up, only to find that far from being sent east of Suez, he was being posted to serve as stoker on the last remaining coal fired ship in the Royal Navy. This was also in the home fleet and not overseas in 1955. However, having been awarded some leave, he was coming back to Liverpool, where his ship was docked.

When the train broke down in the carriage, Herbert worried that he was going to let his captain down by being late, and he got talking to a senior magistrate, who told him how difficult the delay was for him to. They spoke for some hours while the train was finally retrieved, but the net result was that Herbert was enrolled on a correspondence course and Natalie. Evening courses that would allow him to go to university. The senior magistrate, Herbert's captain and others all conspired to make sure that Herbert was able to take the necessary papers, and indeed, when Herbert ship called at port, usually he would find a batch of papers were waiting for him.

Herbert graduated from Durham University in 1960. In 1962, Herbert married Aileen, who was his wife, for 48 years until her untimely death in 2010. They together were on the adventure that was Herbert's great career. They bought their wonderful home in 1971, where Herbert moved to in Hertfordshire, and it is in tune the designation of his title. You have heard in the eloquent speeches from the noble Baroness, the leader, the noble Lord Lord True, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Herbert's outstanding career in public services.

And I can add nothing further to his UK record of public services. But I would record his influence in other countries. Foster care is something that did not exist in China 30 years ago, but now does, through Herbert's patient, work with an enterprising charity, care for children. The model they developed started just in Shanghai, but is now in many parts of China and several other Asian countries, all benefiting from British expertise and Herbert Laming's magic in this most difficult area.

A year after the death of his beloved Aileen, Herbert became our convenor. He was, of course, immensely popular and finished in mid 2015, thinking that at 70 years old, his years of service were over. Lord Sewel, however, unexpectedly stood back from his duties and Herbert. And that's one way of a rare chairman of committees from. Not a major party took over during the summer recess of 2015. When asked about what sort of handover he would like, Herbert said that he would prefer it limited to activities in this it limited to activities in this house.

Sorry for those of you who weren't there then. His retirement from the front line was further delayed by his stint as chairman of the Services Committee between 2016 and 2021, and in this role, he worked with lots of members of the House administration staff. And it has been very touching to me how many of them have come forward since his death to tell me of his kindness towards him and his caring attitude. Herbert felt unwell for the first time around March this year, and was supported fully by his great friend Lord Patel, who is in his place today, and Herbert's successor as convenor.

The noble Lord Lord Hope of Craighead, was also very much a supporter in his final illness, and he is in his place today, and there was much care and love and support from his family, and especially Katharina and Sarah and to his family. I would add our condolences from these benches. In closing, I would take you back to that parade in 1954. And of the young sailors off to the Far East, I would leave the final word to Herbert, reflecting on his good fortune in life.

And he said, if someone asks you to volunteer, put your hand up. My Lords, it's with great sadness that the Lords spiritual. Join all noble Lords in marking the passing of Lord Laming, a great friend to so many of my colleagues, a man whose
15:22
Lord Bishop of Hereford Portrait The Lord Bishop of Hereford (Bishops)
-
-
life of public service spanned many decades, and whose influence was decades, and whose influence was felt far beyond the institutions in which he formerly served throughout a distinguished career in social work, public administration and Parliament, he brought wisdom, Parliament, he brought wisdom, integrity and an unwavering commitment to the protection of the vulnerable. We remember him with particular gratitude for the values that animated his work, values that resonate deeply with the mission of the church, which he loved. He was always someone who looked out for others, was prepared to stop and speak to staff, check how they were, and had an extraordinary memory for names and the details of people's lives.

He was genuinely interested to hear how people and their families were doing. Always cheerful, smiling, and with something positive to say, demonstrating his great skill of pastoral ministry, even to bishops. A trailblazer in his field and long before safeguarding became the central concern, it was rightly is today. Lord Laming understood that the measure of a society is found in the way it treats those who are most vulnerable and least able to speak for themselves. As we've already heard, the inquiry into the tragic death of Victoria Climbié became a watershed moment for child protection in this country, helping to transform attitudes, practice and accountability across public services across the church.

Like many institutions, we have learned much from the culture of vigilance, responsibility and care that he consistently advocated. His work served as a reminder that safeguarding is not merely a matter of procedure, but a moral obligation rooted in respect for the dignity of every human person. In that sense, his legacy has made a lasting contribution to the life and witness of the church, as well as to the wider public realm. In this House, Lord Laming was widely respected for his independence of mind, his courtesy, and his ability to command trust across differences.

As convenor of the crossbench peers and later as chairman of committees, he exemplified public service of the highest order. He allowed the bishops to attend the regular crossbench meeting as what he called honorary members, and his steady forensic mind helped hold the church to account during his time as a member of the ecclesiastical committee. Yet perhaps his greatest legacy lies not in the offices he held, but in the countless lives made safer because he refused to look away from difficult truths.

His determination that vulnerable children should be seen, heard and protected reflected a profound belief in human worth, one that Christians recognise as flowing from the conviction that every person is created in the image of God. We give thanks for his life, for his faithfulness to public duty, for his compassion, and for his enduring contribution to the welfare of children and families. Our prayers are with his family and friends, and with all those whose lives were touched by his kindness, wisdom, and service.

May he rest in peace and rise in glory. Amen. Amen.
15:26
15:28
15:28
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
I can indeed, my Lords, and I'm grateful to my noble friend for his welcome back. He will forgive me. welcome back. He will forgive me. I'm not going to be able to give him any specific answers on the future rates of the state pension. If I pre-empt the budget, I think I may be the shortest living Minister in history. I wouldn't even make it to 24 hours. But what I can do is tell him how the process will work is the government is required to do a review of the state pension age, and it's into that.

It has set up an independent commission chaired by Doctor Susie Morrissey, which will look at the evidence and make a report which he has now done and handed in. What the government will do is to take a wide range of evidence, including that from the Pensions Commission, and then the government has to make a decision about the future of the state pension age. What the Commission is doing is looking at the adequacy of the state pension, and obviously the state pension is there, but also the key objective is are people saving enough for retirement? So not just what is the state pension doing, but are people saving enough in private pensions for retirement? And it is clear from the interim report that they are not doing so.

So we now look forward to the recommendations that are coming. All of us will come together, the government will make a decision, and all of this is on the back of the significant work done already, the Pensions Investment Commission and also the work done by the recent the recent Bill on Pensions Private Scheme, Pension Scheme. So all of it is coming together.
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:53
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:57
15:58
15:59
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:03
16:03
16:04
16:05
16:06
16:06
16:07
16:09
16:09
16:10
16:10
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:14
16:14
16:15
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
Lords, we shouldn't have had to have read in the Financial Times have read in the Financial Times earlier this week that the government had made specific government had made specific changes to the steel tariff regime for a particular country, India, following negotiations over one of the United Kingdom's most important trade agreements. And I welcome the opening words of the noble Lord. The Minister and I always enjoy exchanges with him over the. In this chamber. But Parliament surely should not be learning from the media that the government has made specific changes to the steel tariff regime for any particular country following negotiations over what is one of the United Kingdom's most important trade agreements, the ministerial code is clear that major policy announcements should be made first to Parliament.

When Parliament is in session, so will the noble Lord. The Minister explain why Parliament was not told the full details of any further India related changes before the tariff regime came into force on the 1st of July? And will the government now commit to making a statement while your Lordships House is in session setting out what changed, why it changed, what assessment was made of the impact on these of these changes on domestic steel producers, downstream sectors, exporters,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supply chains, investment and jobs? Hello. I would just say to the noble Lord it's a pretty good try. Firstly, there has been no change to India's category four quota compared to the provisional quota published in April 2026. We did not negotiate quotas with any countries negotiate quotas with any countries apart from our great outcome with the EU, we have been engaging with the EU, we have been engaging with India on steel as we have all our trading partners. Overall, quotas reflect the need to balance stronger protection for UK producers with continued access to critical inputs of for downstream sectors and clinical critical national infrastructure.
16:17
16:17
16:18
16:19
16:20
16:20
16:21
16:22
16:22
16:23
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:25
16:26
16:26
16:27
16:28
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
I will try and sort of provide, hopefully, a more robust and hopefully, a more robust and comprehensive response to to the noble Lord. Look, as I said earlier, there is no change as far as the there is no change as far as the quota of steel imported from India, as far as I am aware of. Now, as far as the assessment is concerned, I mean, we we have laid two pieces of legislation setting out how this measure will impact the different types of businesses, bearing in mind that these measures only just come in on the 1st of July itself.

I mean, it's only 22 days, so give it some time before we can actually see how it will impact in the sector itself and the industry itself. And as I said, we constantly monitor the situation. We have regular contacts with steel manufacturers and downstream users. My ministerial colleagues have regular conversations with them, and I'm sure the noble Lord know which I'm really pleased and congratulate my colleague Minister McDonald, who has now been reappointed as Minister of State and he constantly has has regular contacts with the steel sector.

So we do work very closely with sector. If there's any changes, of course

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we will address it accordingly. For the next business. Any noble Lord who wishes to leave the Lord who wishes to leave the chamber should do so quickly and First First reading First reading of First reading of a First reading of a private member's Bill Lord John summit.
16:30
16:30
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)
-
-
Hear, hear. My Lords, I beg to move that this house consider the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Amendment Regulations 2026. We must never lose sight of why we're here never lose sight of why we're here to debate these regulations. The infected blood scandal was a catastrophic failure of the state. It is a tragedy, a tragedy measured not only by the pain and suffering of its victims, but in the decades it took for that suffering to be recognised. The victims in this scandal have suffered unspeakably, and the former Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, acknowledged the suffering caused by continued systemic failure, our new Prime Minister has long supported the infected blood community and their fight for justice, and I want to reassure noble Lords that this government will not deprioritise this important work.

My Lords, before I move on to the substance of the s I, I want to take a moment to reflect on the people behind the statistics, specifically the families of the infected who haven't just had to watch as their loved ones suffered in front of them, but have had to fight for justice, in some cases for decades, putting their lives on hold and changing them irreversibly. The families, the carers, the campaigners. My Lords, we must recognise that their sacrifice. When I first spoke at this Dispatch Box on the infected blood scandal in March last year, it was to discuss the second set of compensation regulations.

I updated your Lordships' House on the progress it had made, specifically, the 255 people had been asked to start their compensation claim, and £44 million worth of offers had been made. A substantial amount of progress has been made since then. Indeed, as of the 14th of July, 5404 people have been asked to start their claim, with over £2.7 billion of offers made. That is not to say that our work is done, which is why we are here today.

The regulations at hand are a direct product of what we heard in the consultation. I'm sure noble Lords will appreciate that there is a diversity of views within the community, and the government has done what it can to consolidate these views, to ensure that the changes we are making reflect the thoughts and feelings of the majority. I will now turn to briefly summarise those changes. Now regulation three introduces a new level two B award, as recommended by the inquiry, so that people who suffered from the side effects of interferon treatment receive an additional injury award, as well as further financial loss and care compensation to reflect the impact it had on their lives.

Following the consultation, the regulations also make sure that people who receive more than one round of interferon will be properly compensated for each of these rounds of treatment. To be clear, the introduction of the level two B band and is in line with the inquiry's recommendations, which set out that the choice between creating this new banding or uplifting those who receive treatment with interferon to level three, was for the Minister for the Cabinet Office to take. Regulation four removes the 25% deduction applied to past care compensation for people who choose to receive support scheme payments for life.

Following the consultation, the regulations make sure that people receive past financial compensation based on whichever of the two ways to calculate this award is most financially beneficial to them. The government has chosen to do this to recognise that selecting only one way of calculating this award would mean some people's expected awards may reduce in size by running both calculations and giving each person, whichever is the highest amount in their personal circumstances. We ensure that everyone gets fair compensation for this award.

Regulation five makes provision for a 50% uplift to the Core Autonomy Award for those infected under the age of 18, calculated based on the highest severity of infection they experienced during childhood. Regulation six amends the eligibility criteria for the Unethical Research Award so that everyone treated for a bleeding disorder before 1986 will receive an unethical research award. The regulations also introduce a new unethical research award for children. This means that people who were treated for a bleeding disorder in childhood will receive an uplifted award.

The regulations also increase the amount of compensation that all eligible people receive for this award. It is one of the most shocking aspects of the scandal. I'm sure noble Lords will agree that no amount of money could ever make up for the heinous experimentation that happened, and particularly when that took place on children. We have listened to the feedback received through the consultation and as a result, people who attended Treloar's will receive 600 £0 rather than the 25000 proposed in the consultation.

Other children will receive £45,000. Those treated in adulthood will receive 300 £0, tripling the amount they currently receive. Regulation seven ensures that everyone who was eligible for the special category mechanism or an equivalent payment through the infected blood support schemes, receive additional financial loss and care compensation following the consultation. These regulations ensure that everyone in this position has the award backdated to 2017, when the award was first introduced, regardless of when they were assessed, living, people who were not assessed as eligible for SSM can now apply for it through Ipsa, including those who were previously unsuccessful in their application to IBS regulations eight and nine, make changes to the Exceptional Loss Award under the Supplementary Route.

These regulations introduce a compensation uplift of £60,000 for people who had entered or had an offer to enter a career that generally would have paid 10% more than the gross national median average earnings, as determined in 2024 at any point prior to retirement age, but were unable to progress in their in this career due to their infection. This award will be made on top of their core Route Financial Loss award. We also heard in the consultation that some people are concerned that they will not be able to access the Exceptional Loss Award if they do not have historic payslips.

The government will work with Ipsa to ensure that all relevant evidence can be used to help someone show they are eligible for the exceptional award, so that that is not a barrier. The government has been clear it wants the scheme to be as sympathetic and burdensome to applicants as possible. Regulation ten introduces a 50% uplift to the core injury award for some affected people. This includes eligible bereaved partners and children and siblings who themselves have been affected under 18 years of age.

Eligible bereaved parents will also be able to receive this award in the tragic circumstances where their child passed away while under the age of 18. I want to reassure noble Lords that, as with the rest of these regulations, the decisions we made on this award directly reflect what we heard through the consultation about the specific impacts of the scandal on children. Regulations 11 and 12 are unrelated to the public consultation and relate to the transfer of responsibility for making support scheme payments from the Infected Blood Support Scheme to Ipsa to maintain consistency with the support schemes, the value of someone's support scheme payments are uprated every year.

In April, the rate of CPI on the previous September. These regulations therefore account for the next CPI uplift taking place in April 2027. After Ipqa takes responsibility for making support scheme payments for the infected blood support schemes. The changes I have set out are the result of the. This government accounting for the variety of views we heard in the consultation. Balancing this with a tariff based scheme that can be delivered as quickly as possible, today's debate will focus on the regulations is not about the government's work on this matter.

It's about those people who have lived through some of the most tragic circumstances and doing what we can to bring them justice. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This motion be agreed to. Amendment Baroness Brinton Baroness Brinton is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for her introduction to the s I and also for the recent meeting, and I will ask her many questions. And if she can't answer them all, I look forward to hearing from her in due course. My Lords,
16:40
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
from her in due course. My Lords, I've laid the regret motion because a very serious disquiet from both infected and affected victims about changes to the scheme, including some in this s I and real worries about the new processes themselves. And I particularly want to thank the individuals and infected blood organisations for contacting me, and I echo the points made by the noble Lady, the Minister, about the seriousness of what has happened to them and their lives, and the loved ones that they have lost.

The changes, unfortunately, have destroyed what remains of the trust with many of the victims and has had a deeply damaging consequence on people already victimised for decades by our NHS and government's past. There was real hope after Sir Brian Langstaff full inquiry report in May 2024, and his additional report last July stating that government and Ipka needed to review their processes to get them right and follow his recommendations. Ibca says that scheme managers attend a three week training course.

Astonishingly, there are no assessors or reviewers who have clinical experience in this specific area, and victims tell me that assessors just don't understand what had happened medically to victims, causing them immense distress. Both the Haemophilia Society and the hepatitis C trust say that the arbitrary and indefensible inequities resulting from this lack of expertise must be addressed. For example, the consequences of using interferon as an early treatment for hepatitis C is similar to having severe chemotherapy, which has caused in itself on top of the infection, very long term, life changing damage to victims and the new level to be uplift of two years financial loss award just doesn't recognise the lasting medical legacy from interferon treatment.

So will the government agree that those treated with interferon should receive a permanent uplift to their financial loss and care awards? Sir Brian Langstaff said clearly in his inquiry report that assessors must not ask for inappropriate evidence. Ipsa assessors keep asking clinicians in haemophilia centres for the exact date of infection, but the inquiry report set out in detail how many health records have been destroyed many years ago. Worse, these requests then result in long pauses to the processing of claims, as well as a frustration from clinicians and, frankly, despair from the victims.

This burden of exact proof should be relaxed. As Sir Brian said, it's clear over the decades of illness and treatment, roughly when people were infected and arguments about an exact date in the decade of infection doesn't change. The subsequent decades of ill health, loss of employment, infection of family and the consequences for affected victims too. So will the government stop this practice and take Sir Brian's common sense approach to the burden of proof? Relax. Exact evidence requirements for infected and affected families.

Once it is clear roughly when people were infected. And will the government address this and other operational problems as a priority? Concerns continue about the Unethical Research Awards. I'm glad the noble Lady mentioned it. It's not clear exactly how these awards were calculated, so please can this be explained clearly and the level reviewed, reflecting the seriousness of the treatment? To be absolutely clear, this was the NHS and the state using children as guinea pigs without their or their families knowledge nor understanding of the risks.

It is still truly shocking and not just a minor dereliction of duty. The Ibca technical experts group discussions about how to handle suicide or attempted suicide is appalling. It beggars belief for officials to suggest that people might wish to commit suicide in order to secure some further compensation for their family. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what the families have been through long before the scheme was created more recently, and their view, that is, the technical experts view, contradicts the government's own view that the infected blood scandal represents a system failure, where they, quote, profound and lasting impact on the lives of thousands, end quote.

No wonder families are distressed. Compensation for carers is also causing real concern. Many affected people provided unpaid care for family members, including children suffering financial disadvantage and missing work opportunities, and the current scheme does not recognise this financial and personal loss. So will the government review this injustice? The government says that the care award in deceased estates recognises care received by the infected person, but this award is automatically passed on only through the law of succession.

So family members who may have provided full time care for decades but who aren't in that direct line of succession, for example, a parent or a previous wife are not excluded from the estate. And that's a denial of everything that that family carer did and lost. How is this fair? Also, the financial loss payments for eligible dependants of the deceased infected people doesn't address the substantial difference in overall compensation between an infected person who survives to claim, and the one who dies just before compensation is paid.

The financial loss was the same. The difference is catastrophic. And can the Minister say why the infected injury award increases according to the severity of the infection? But the tariff ends before the most serious outcome of all the death of the infected person, and why there is no recognition of this ultimate harm. The Treasury uses their compensation death discount if there was any physical separation of the couple before death, one caregiving widow left the marital home because she feared her husband's behaviour, a side effect of his infection with their children.

The Treasury's actions seem unforgivably hard. My Lords, these are just a few of the concerns of the infected blood community, and I hope the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government will review these issues urgently. I beg to move. One question was that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One question was that the regulations laid before the House on the 18th of June be approved, since when an amendment has been since when an amendment has been moved by Baroness Brinton at the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper? The question I the Order Paper? The question I therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.
16:47
Lord Patten Portrait Lord Patten (Conservative)
-
-
I. My Lords, time is not just short for speakers in this debate, short for speakers in this debate, but increasingly so for the remaining victims of infected blood remaining victims of infected blood to get justice after one of the biggest ever failures by the British state on record, what. Curiously enough, all records are missing in Northern Ireland over infected blood issues there for unknown reasons. So when I speak, I'm speaking simply for England, Scotland and Wales. But I do strongly agree with all that my noble friend Baroness Brinton has just said in her regret motion.

For sure, there is a ongoing process to recognise and compensate, but it itself has been fraught with a lot of confusion, muddle and terrible delays. And still today, no sense of urgency that I can see these regulations. In reality, the ten of them are just one more skirmish with reality causing alarm. Indeed, in the way in which they've been mooted. For example, I had one correspondent who I don't know, who wrote to me out of the blue from the infected blood community of the world, thinking that this set of regulations gives the last chance to do anything at all.

This is not so. If Ministers decide, for they can change policy and they can change pace at will. And I have no sense that this is happening. Indeed, the obfuscation continues, for I've had a written answer kindly from the noble Baroness Shah Minister, who wrote to me earlier this month telling me that there have been 19,565 claimants to the Infected Blood Authority, but of whom only 3336 have been paid. That's clear and straightforward, and I thank her for that.

But on the other hand, in a parallel question again in this month about the numbers who've died before settlements amidst a quite a chunk of verbiage, there was actually no answer at all about those who've died before settlement has happened. And I think we should have this information. But I think it's wrong that we don't have this information. And I look to the Minister, perhaps, to revisit my question when she has a moment to see what can be done. This whole issue has been criss-crossing ministerial desks for decades.

It was certainly doing that when the new Prime Minister was himself Secretary of State for health back along quite a long time ago. I trust that his door will always be open at number ten to the afflicted, and I hope the shutters are never going to come down whilst he's Prime Minister from those who are afflicted, wishing to get access, and I certainly warmly welcome the appointment of the new Secretary of State for health. She and I say this respect is a noted Whitehall warrior and has got real depth of experience over decades in ministerial office, and I hope that she will now get a real grip as a matter of urgency on this faltering process, cutting through the administrative thickets before many more die as continuing mortality

**** Possible New Speaker ****

takes its toll. We must thank the noble MoD Baroness Brinton for her Baroness Brinton for her introduction to this motion. Like others, I've had some desperately others, I've had some desperately sad correspondence from widows whose husbands died relatively early after infection infection early after infection infection denied them children. Some suffered serious discrimination within their own family, some found their
16:51
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Portrait Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
-
own family, some found their husband's medical records are missing, and probate rules have created barriers. All those affected are so deeply wounded by the lasting emotional, financial and practical consequences of the scandal. Retraumatized over decades of seeking accountability. As one widow wrote and I quote, no amount of money will bring back our loved ones, and there is no way you can put a figure on what we've had to go through. There are ongoing problems, and we must follow Sir Brian's lead.

Two years ago, though, not a penny was going out the door in recognition of the wrongs perpetrated. The delays until now are shameful. I thank the Minister and the civil servants for meeting me. The civil servants working on this are being scrupulous as they can. The compensation coming from the Treasury, effectively taxpayers, recognises as a nation the extent of the scandal. The NHS have purchased contaminated products and some professionals abused the trust of people in services meant to protect and respect life.

We have gone from nowhere to where we are today, only thanks to those wronged speaking out time and time again to a system that seemed deaf to their plight. My noble friend Baroness Campbell of Surbiton can't be here today. Through her own experiences, she's taught me and others so much, and I'm grateful to her for sharing her thoughts on this motion and the need for recognising those affected, as well as those infected. Differing eligibility criteria the inconsistencies in estimating financial loss and bereavement have led to inequalities and unintended consequences.

Those affected fear claims over their deceased infected relative being increasingly delayed. The proposed death recognition award should be amended to recognise those who experience bereavement, rather than automatically becoming part of an estate, as probate barriers can stop the person most affected from being recognised in the compensation. Deceased infected claims progress more slowly than many expected, prolonging uncertainty for bereaved families families who provided years of unpaid care feel their contribution has gone inadequately recognised and because financial loss awards differ depending on dates and circumstances, many families believe this creates unjust disparities in compensation that they can't understand.

Thousands of families live with the consequences of the infected blood scandal. While no compensation can replace a loved one, it can acknowledge the profound loss suffered and help restore confidence that the state is committed to delivering justice fairly. There is an ancient saying trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback. This compensation scheme and the Hillsborough Law might be the foot soldiers of trust in this nation. If and only if we get candour and subsequent actions right.

My Lords, it's.
16:55
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
A great pleasure to follow the noble Lady Baroness Finlay, and noble Lady Baroness Finlay, and indeed all of the speakers thus far in this debate, and I will continue in this debate, and I will continue on where the noble Lady left off of taking a moment to look at the big picture. We have a huge problem with trust in politics, trust in government, in our society at the moment. Now, sometimes attached to that is the idea that in the past there was some golden age when everything worked, this tragedy, this awful behaviour by the state is a demonstration that that's not the case.

We have huge problems of dysfunction in the way our state has worked over long periods of time. And as the noble Lady Baroness Finlay said, addressing this fairly justly with compassion and care, is something that could start to repair the relationship between the state and the people. Now, I want to particularly note the very powerful speech of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton as, like all of the other speakers up to now who've been very much leaders in this area, I come along modestly and add the Green Party support when I can, but I do also want to thank the noble Lady, Baroness Anderson of Stoke on Trent for addressing this, the start of this debate with appropriate seriousness and recognising the sacrifice of families, campaigners, those who've been affected, who have demonstrated that campaigning works, that we do at least have a compensation scheme.

But what their experience is also demonstrating is that you cannot say we've won our fight, now we can get on with our lives. People have to keep fighting and fighting and fighting, and that is an unreasonable burden to put on people who've already fought for so much. Now I just want to pick up a couple of specific points, I think, and I'm starting with the very important contribution from the noble Lord Lord Patten, and it's considered bad form in your Lordships' House to repeat, but I am going to repeat his demand.

The government surely has to be able to find figures to show how many people have died waiting for compensation. The figures are awful. Around 3000 compensated of 19,000 applications, and we know there must be a lot of deaths in there, and it cannot be beyond the capacity of the government to give us that figure, to help demonstrate to the public, so everyone can see clearly what's happening. This is about basic transparency. There's many points to be made about what's wrong that's happening now, and many of them have already been made.

But I want to just pick on two, because I think these are two issues that the public would be quite astonished by if they were actually widely known. One is the fact that compensation payments are being eroded by inflation. The longer the state drags its feet, the less effective money that people are getting to be able to get on with their lives. And that is just inappropriate and clearly wrong. And the other point is the way in which victims who've died, it must be treated as the same way as living victims.

Bereaved families see the money immediately reduced as soon as someone dies and they're dying because of the terrible actions of the state. That cannot be considered in any way acceptable. So, my Lords, it's really easy to get really angry about this. And your Lordships' House, I think already has and will continue to do so. We have a new government. We have a chance for a new start. Let's hope this government approaches this with compassion and care and a realistic understanding that we have to restore trust in the state, trust in government.

And indeed we in this current age of shocks, with so many health and other threats approaching, need to ensure the trust in the medical profession and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this compensation scheme can go some way to restoring that. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My mum Sheila Davis, died from liver cancer in 2017 after a long liver cancer in 2017 after a long battle with hepatitis. She didn't drink, she never smoked and I think she went out of the country a grand she went out of the country a grand total of three times. In fact, she rarely ventured outside of Plymouth, where she worked in the MoD. She
16:59
Baroness Davies of Devonport Portrait Baroness Davies of Devonport (Conservative)
-
-
where she worked in the MoD. She worked all her life, paid her taxes, brought up my twin brothers as a single parent and didn't moan. In fact, she was the most stoic, brave and principled woman I know. In the late 70s, she had a gallbladder operation in Devonport Hospital, Plymouth. The gallstones they removed filled a jam jar. I remember her shaking them at me at the kitchen table. I was 15, she was on warfarin at the time and therefore needed a blood transfusion, which was standard practice for a large wound operation, and she thought nothing of it.

So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like so many hepatitis cases, it took 20 years before the symptoms started to really impact her life. From that moment, she was on a From that moment, she was on a cocktail of tablets, drugs and endless tests. Yet she never stopped working through colds, flu stopped working through colds, flu and infections. And she never explained to us children what she had. So she dealt with that fear all alone. I rang her best friend at the weekend to check, and my mum at the weekend to check, and my mum had never told her either.

Such was the shame and stigma that came from the diagnosis of hepatitis and HIV, which meant that so many people wish she had and abandoned whole families of haemophiliacs, died without communities and were ostracised. In many cases, it was women that picked up the burden of care. Mum had a consultant who seemed to get things under control, but when he went back to Australia, things went downhill very fast. He was only at the very end that my brother had taken my mum to appointments, that the truth started to come out.

I then took her to Harley Street after she decided to pay for herself to see a specialist. I sat there while she told. Well, he told her that had she been referred six months earlier, he could have done something to help her. But apart from experimental drugs that would put her in bed for six months and only just prolong her life a little, there was nothing he could now do. It was too late. It felt like the third time that our NHS had let her down.

I talked to her after spending her last few months in bed, as she was a fiercely independent woman, and three months later she died. We got her back home to the house that she lived in for 50 years, surrounded by her family. My story is not unique. There are many families with worse ones. Mum died in February of 2017, just months before the first real transparency in contaminated blood. We found out not only was blood obtained from America, American prisons, but also from prisons in the UK like Dartmouth, which might well have been the prison that supplied the blood to the hospitals in Plymouth.

It hadn't been screened, whereas it was bashed long after many countries had changed their practice. Some hospitals and trusts, as we've heard and I know, deliberately destroyed records. My mum died before she could talk about what she had endured. She was terrified that it might come out into the public that she had hep C, because I was in the public eye. Getting records together has been nigh on impossible. I've tried, even with my influence, which is better than most.

And still we've had little help. There are many poor families out there that are really struggling with just getting the information. This last weekend I spent time online with people who have lived this nightmare. I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister who I know genuinely wants to help, will find some of the expertise useful. They mentioned awareness and equality of hep B sufferers, and the importance of understanding how hep B can trigger, especially for haemophiliacs who have multiple conditions. Claim managers were suggested who target claim types so they can build up expertise.

Knowledge in specialist areas, help with record gathering and emphasis on genuine testimony speeding up compensation, especially for those that are dying. Working closely with charities and support groups who have been dealing with victims for decades, and support and recognition for the many women who were given contaminated blood during childbirth and were told not to have any more children. This was beyond a terrible, avoidable mistake, and it was an even bigger disgrace of a cover up. A minimum of 30,000 people affected and 3000 premature deaths, and hundreds of thousands of families affected by this contaminated blood scandal ignored for so many years.

All governments have to own their part. And all members of this House and the other players need to come together to establish justice and transparency for all victims. And we must take lessons from what's gone on in the past and do no harm going forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's an honour to follow the noble Baroness, and I think when noble Baroness, and I think when you hear stories directly like that, it has an impact and I am so sorry for your loss. And as ever, I have for your loss. And as ever, I have to declare my interest as always, because one of my sister's twin because one of my sister's twin boys, my nephew, a haemophiliac infected with hepatitis C, died at the age of 35, leaving a ten month old baby daughter.

And I'm more than support the noble Baroness Brinton regret motion, of course, although progress has been made, the implementation of the
17:04
Baroness Featherstone Portrait Baroness Featherstone (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
compensation scheme is still causing unnecessary and huge distress to too many victims and their families. And despite we who fight in this chamber and raised fight in this chamber and raised this issue and these issues that we're hearing today, as do the we're hearing today, as do the affected and the infected, nothing fundamental changes to the issues that we raise in this chamber anyway. I begin by acknowledging this minister's personal commitment to this issue, which is appreciated. And I know that much work has gone into establishing the compensation scheme.

But I have to say that the measure of success is not the creation of the scheme. It is the experience of those going through it. I want to raise three practical concerns today. The first is the burden of evidence. Time and time again, I hear from victims and bereaved families who are being asked to provide information that they have already supplied many times over many years to government departments, to previous support schemes and to the infected blood inquiry itself. Others are being asked for records dating back 40 or 50 years, long since disappeared.

Surely, surely the starting point should be different where the state already holds the information or has previously accepted the facts, it should rely on its own records. And after decades of fighting simply to be believed, people should not now feel that they are being asked to prove their case all over again. My second concern is that these problems are not new. Representative organisations have been raising them consistently. Affected individuals have been raising them consistently. The government knows about them.

Imka knows about them. We politicians have raised them often enough. And yet the same concerns continue to be raised over and over again to no avail. The government should and must expect the authority to learn quickly from claimants experience to adapt its processes as problems emerge and if the same complaints continue to be heard month after month after month, something is plainly not working as it should. And my third point is about certainty. Many people still do not know when they are likely to be invited into the scheme, how long the process is expected to take, or what stage their claim has reached.

And after decades of uncertainty, they deserve clear communication about what they can expect and when they can expect it. So I ask the Minister three questions. First, what further steps will the government take to ensure that claimants are not repeatedly asked for information that the government and other organisations already possess? Secondly, what assurances and examples can the Minister give the House that the government are holding it to account for resolving these recurring problems more quickly, and what punishment do they mete out to Ibca when they can't answer? Thirdly, what what further improvements will be made to communications with claimants so that they do have a clear understanding of where they are in the process and when they can realistically expect decisions.

You know, the hard decisions have already been taken. The inquiry established the truth. Parliament accepted the need for compensation. The money is there. The remaining task is to ensure that delivery matches the promises that have been made. That is what victims and families and those who have waited so long for justice now deserve.
17:08
Lord Doyle Portrait Lord Doyle (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> It's a pleasure. To follow the. >> Noble Lady. >> And I want to particularly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I want to particularly mention the contribution from the noble Lady, Baroness Davis of Davenport, who so powerfully set out the real world consequences of this scandal. And not just the infections, but also the stigma that went with them. And I thank her for doing that in this debate. I want to thank my noble friend, the Minister, for all of her work on this. I know she has been a passionate advocate for change, and I also want to use this debate to pay tribute to the outgoing Paymaster General, Nick Thomas-symonds, for all he did to implement the inquiry recommendations.

We do now have an operational, funded compensation scheme that has paid out more than £2.5 billion. The difference this has made to victims is immeasurable, and for many infected people, this has brought not only financial security but after more than 40 years, a sense that they can begin to move forward with dignity and hope. My Lords, I would like to pay tribute to the Terrence Higgins Trust for their tireless work supporting people living with HIV and hepatitis C, and ensuring that victims voices have been heard.

Because there are a couple of outstanding issues for those co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C from contaminated blood and blood products that I want to mention today. The first regards. Interferon treatment. Many people co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C could not wait for newer, safer treatments. Their health was deteriorating. HIV treatment options were limited and the pressure to act was immense. Interferon brought severe side effects, repeated courses of therapy and additional suffering compounded by HIV infection. Now, the government has said in the other place that those who suffered side effects from interferon will receive an additional award and that each course of treatment will be recognised.

That commitment is absolutely welcome, but I have to say, from my reading of it, that commitment is not explicitly in the regulations before us today. So I ask my noble friend, the Minister, to confirm that this regulation will apply equally to all Co-infected victims, including payment for each round of interferon treatment. And my second point concerns bereaved parents. I welcome the proposed exceptional loss uplift for bereaved partners, children, siblings and parents of children who died before 18. But my Lords, there does remain a gap.

Many people infected with HIV never had the opportunity to build families of their own because of the stigma, discrimination, fear and the expectation of an early death. Some died as adults while still being cared for by their parents. Those parents still suffered profound loss and should not be excluded simply because their child lived beyond their 18th birthday. I therefore ask my noble friend, the Minister, to consider extending the 50% exceptional loss uplift to bereaved parents whose infected child died over 18 without a partner or children.

My Lords, the scandal caused lifelong physical and psychological harm, compounded for those living with HIV by stigma, isolation and decades of uncertainty. This government has made great strides toward justice, to rebuilding trust through the scheme and with the passing of the duty of candour law to deal with other such scandals. I hope we can now take these final steps to ensure everyone impacted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

receives the fairness, dignity and recognition they deserve. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I'm deeply conscious of how much knowledge many noble Lords have on this topic. Knowledge that has often been tragically accumulated through their own personal experiences and that of their experiences and that of their families. So I want to start by paying tribute to those both in this House and outside it, who have
17:12
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
this House and outside it, who have done so much to expose the scandal and to push for justice, including, of course, as we've heard so eloquently, several noble Lords participating in this debate. And if I may just briefly mention one other, the noble Lady Baroness Featherstone late sister Della, who I remember is always such a smiling, happy person, but who was also such a formidable campaigner, driven by her own family's tragedy. Of course, one issue of widespread concern, as both Lord Patten and Baroness Bennett in particular have touched on, is the speed with which compensation payments are being made and will be made, especially given the steady death toll, sadly, of victims of this tragedy.

So I very much welcome the government's response when the secondary legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I'm a member, dug into this s I to confirm that it expects the vast majority of payments for infected people to be made by 2027 and for affected by 2029. But last year, Baroness Anderson, the Minister, went a little further on the 19th of March, when she talked of IPC's aim to have made the majority of its payments far ahead of those dates. So I hope the noble Lady, the Minister, might be able to tell us what progress is being made on those more ambitious dates and when, for example, can we expect the majority of payments to have been made by.

And have those dates changed since the original profile of compensation spending was agreed with the Treasury? But even with the best possible answers on those points, it will still be several years before payments are concluded. And so the fixed numbers, the fixed financial figures set in this Statutory Instrument and the other related legislation will, as we have heard, continue to be eroded by inflation, reducing what people receive before everything is settled. Now, the government's explanation for the secondary legislation scrutiny committee for not uprating figures to cater for inflation.

I must admit I found a little puzzling because it was a two prong justification, one, that it wasn't consistent with a tariff based system, and the second that it would be very administratively burdensome. I find that puzzling because there are many other forces that come through Parliament which appear to manage exactly both those things. Conscious of time, I will perhaps mention just the one the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme Amendment Order 2026, which takes several financial numbers fixed in legislation related to compensation and updates them explicitly in response to those figures, have been eroded over time by inflation.

And indeed, the government's explanatory memo also talks of plans to regularly review the relevant lump sum in future in order to uprate it in future, in line with inflation. And that's just one of many different examples. There are of other schemes, other compensation arrangements, where the government does regularly update figures in line with inflation. It doesn't find it inconsistent in those other areas with tariff based approaches, and it doesn't find it unnecessarily administratively burdensome. So I hope the noble Lady, the Minister can, if not, maybe necessarily promise future uprating to deal with inflation, at least set out a clear path to look least set out a clear path to look further at this because this is not just an abstract matter of sort of geeky modelling.

Tragedy will finally be properly treated and respected by the systems that govern us. So I very much hope the noble Lady, the Minister, will be able to respond positively on those points and the others that we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heard in this debate. My Lords, before I speak to the motion to approve these regulations motion to approve these regulations and the regret motion in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, I want to begin by reflecting on I want to begin by reflecting on the courage and tenacity of all the infected and affected victims of the infected blood scandal. They the infected blood scandal. They have shown immense strength in the course of their long campaign, and they deserve justice without delay.

they deserve justice without delay. There is one point that ought to be made at the outset. The previous Minister for the Cabinet Office rightly placed great store on the delivery of infected blood compensation and repeatedly presented it as a central priority. Victims are now entitled to ask where it leaves them. They not only
17:17
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
have to live with the uncertainty that inevitably accompanies a change of government, but the latest figures demonstrate that the pace and consistency of compensation payments remain well behind where they should be. After everything these families have everything these families have endured, they should not be expected to endure yet more uncertainty about when justice will uncertainty about when justice will finally arrive. I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, and the Baroness, the Minister, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, both for their time and for putting the victims at the centre of their remarks.

Our shared cross-party objective of delivering justice for the victims is why we are having this debate, and we will continue to work constructively to maintain that consensus across the main parties. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton notes in her motion. We should recognise the progress made by the government and the Infected Blood Compensation Authority since October 2025. The latest publicly available figures show 3358 people have received compensation. But while that is welcome, there is still widespread concern about the pace of progress.

The hepatitis C trust has said compensation must be delivered faster, and that thousands of victims are still waiting even to be invited to claim compensation, let alone be paid or actually be paid what they are due. There also remains a striking imbalance in who has received compensation to date living infected persons who have never received support comprised just 35 people. 1% of the claims paid a. Concerning the small number of affected people and those acting on behalf of a deceased infected person have received payments following their claims.

When does the noble Baroness, the Minister, anticipate a meaningful increase in the figures for those groups of victims? On the costs. On the issue of costs and compensation, the previous government allocated £11.8 billion to fund infected blood compensation, but the National Audit Office now estimates the total expected payout to be £12.8 billion. What contingencies are being put in place to ensure that funds are available to pay compensation to all those who are eligible. And my Lords, pace is not the only concern.

A number of important issues remain unresolved, including but not limited to, the disparity between compensation for living and deceased infected people and the injury award for unethical medical testing. I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able to address those and other concerns when she responds to this debate and in responding to those points, will the noble Baroness, the Minister, set out what work is being done to support affected and infected people with their applications for compensation? We need a scheme that recognises the complexities of individual cases and takes care to give people tailored support.

I would very much like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Davis of Devonport, who has spoken today so movingly of her own experiences and her mother's story. She and other noble Lords have rightly highlighted the challenges faced by many families in obtaining the necessary records. This is another example of the need for tailored support for victims. So do the teams that have the skills to support families where records are difficult to access. What assessment has been made to ensure Ipkat has the necessary skills in place to deliver the best possible support for all victims, because it is they and their families who must come first.

We will continue to work constructively with the government to ensure rapid progress is made.
17:21
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, before I start, I want to put on record my. The fact that to put on record my. The fact that I am in awe of the noble Baroness, Lady Davis, for her speech. I can only imagine how difficult it was only imagine how difficult it was for her to stand up and do that. And she demonstrates, as we have all had to. We have all listened on many occasions to the pain and heartbreak of why we are actually here, and the fact that behind each statistic that is so easy for us to talk about, that there is a family that is still grieving for their loved.

And so for her and for, I'm going to say my noble friend, but also for Baroness Featherstone. We are so grateful that you are here to, to share, to remind us every day of the realities. And while I say that, I also want to put on record my personal thanks to Baroness Campbell, who isn't able to be with us today, who makes sure that every day she speaks truth to power on behalf of everybody that is suffering. I thank all of you is suffering.

I thank all of you for doing so. I also want to just there's many points that have been raised, and I'm really aware this is the first time I've done a timed s I. And this is such an emotive issue that I may not be able to answer every point. But as ever, I'll reflect on Hansard and write. But there's a couple of things I want to put on record, because when they're when we discuss the issues of infected blood, we know that there are people listening to us to make sure what the government is actually saying and what we that we are sticking with, what we have promised.

And it is on that that I want to make sure. So in answer to a very, very important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fin, I want to make it very clear that the £11.8 billion that has been allocated is neither a target nor a cap, and the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I make and I wouldn't. And I would also make every guarantee on behalf of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the money will be found if the money needs to be found.

But this is neither a target nor a cap. And the noble Baroness, Lady Davis, raised a range of specific recommendations, and so did the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. What I'd like to do is facilitate two meetings. If noble Lords wish to attend, one of which, with the leadership of Ibca, to go through some of the recommendations, because some of them are about humanity and how we engage. And I think that would be very helpful for them to hear those stories.

But also, again, with my officials. And it's an open door always with my officials about the specifics that we face. I think every member of your Lordships' House reflected that we are still dealing with a matter of national shame, that this is a black mark, that we are still having to to tackle. And I very much want to echo the words of the noble of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in terms of. These are. This is taxpayers money, in recognition of something of an appalling state failure.

And we need to get this right. I personally am hoping that the way in which we are doing this, and I very much appreciate we had an option whether the tariff based scheme was the option that was recommended as the fastest way of getting the money out of the door, because every one of the people we are trying to support has a varying have lives that are more complicated, more challenging, and how we can definitely help support the majority. So my Lords, in terms of the specifics that have been raised with me and I wish to speak quickly, so forgive me because I want Baroness, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to have as much time as possible at the end of the debate.

But in terms of the points raised on Ipcs prioritisation, which was raised by many members of your Lordships House, it prioritises claims based on recommendations from the infected blood inquiry prioritisation list differ slightly depending on the cohort, but I want to reassure noble Lords that those sadly nearing end of life and aged 75 or over are prioritised across the board, whether infected or affected. But noble Lords will be aware that every affected claim has to be based on the assessment of an infected claim.

A foundational claim to tie the two claims together that, as per community update of 9th of July earlier this month, they have asked everyone registered as living infected, never compensated and nearing the end of their life to start their claim, and are now contacting people with advanced liver disease. If have asked everyone who has registered to make a deceased infected claim with a beneficiary of an estate who is nearing the end of their life to start their claim and are now contacting beneficiaries who are aged 75 or over, we're currently asking living affected people who are nearing the end of their life to start their claim, and expect to soon have contacted everyone currently registered in this group.

They will then see. They will then have contacted contact people aged 75 or over to start the claim on staff training by the noble Lady enabled Baroness, Lady Brinton and IPA's claim managers do indeed receive an initial three week training, which includes background into the infected blood scandal and the inquiry's work and recommendations so that everyone in the organisation understands the human stories behind their work. Staff receive specific, trauma informed training from a clinical psychologist to ensure they can provide the best support possible to each person coming to Ipqa claim managers meet members of the community during their training to ensure they understand not just what happened, but how it has impacted their lives and this continues throughout their employment.

Noble Baroness rated the long term side effects of interferon. These regulations introduce a new, higher level of award for infected people who were treated with interferon. The new level TB Core Compensation Award will provide more financial loss and care compensation for the full two years after treatment to anyone treated with interferon, who would otherwise be receiving a level two award, and on the those on level three or level four infection severity banding. The inquiry made no recommendations in relation to recognising the impact of interferon treatment for people who are already eligible for level 3 or 4 awards.

The Technical Expert Group supported the view that level three compensation awards already account for the types of harms that people may have suffered as a result of treatment with interferon. Noble Baroness Lady Brinton raised the most heartbreaking, which is the historic evidence of suicide. The government looked at how to make the Severe Health Condition award for psychiatric disorders more accessible and with a less intrusive ask for evidence. We examined using types of evidence, such as suicide, to qualify for the award.

Imposing such a retraumatizing requirement replaced an unconscionable and egregious burden on families who have already endured decades of profound mental suffering. When designing any compensation scheme, the government must ensure that no mechanism or award criteria inadvertently risks create a risk to potentially vulnerable people, which is why we are progressing in the way that we are. But I will again write to all members of your Lordships' House to make to put that in writing on recognition of carers, the. I have also met with many of the people who.

And heard from many of the people that members of your Lordships' House have to. The carer Award is provided to people making a claim as an infected person or as the representative of a deceased infected person's estate. This award is intended to compensate specifically for financial loss caused by the hour and nature of care needed, but I am aware of the impact that that has had on some people who would not necessarily have received that through the estate the government took.

In terms of the unethical research award amounts. I have had this raised with me both in in your Lordships' House, but also outside. Many times. The government took a great deal of care in determining the award values and the qualifying criteria for a cohort of people subjected to, or may have been subjected to, unethical research. This includes obtaining advice from legal experts and considering the responses to the consultation. The published response to the consultation provides an analysis of the responses received. This award is intended to compensate people for the specific distress caused by discovering they may have been subject to unethical research practices.

The Core Route Award, such as the Injury and Social Impact Awards, already compensate for the long term physical and mental impact caused by someone's physical, someone's infections. And my Lords, I'm really aware that if I speak for much longer than the noble Lady, the noble Baroness Brinton won't have much time. So I will write on every other point raised apologies, but what I would like to say I want to put on. Thanks, put on record my thanks to every member of your Lordships House who has ensured that this issue continues to have the hearing that it deserves.

I also want to thank my incredible team, both my office and my civil servants, for making sure that on such an emotive issue, I am well informed and engaged, and that we are trying our very best to make sure that we are supporting those victims of what is one of the most egregious scandals in living memory. Thank you.
17:30
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. Baroness Brinton is taking part remotely. I invite taking part remotely. I invite Baroness Brinton to speak. >> My Lords, I thank Lady Davis of Devonport for her very moving contribution about her mother's own experience, reminding us of the consequences of stigma, hidden infections and the consequences of diseases like hepatitis not identified, meaning she couldn't be treated. And I think I understand what it took for her to to give that speech. But it was very, very powerful. And I'm sorry, Lady Campbell of Surbiton can't be here this afternoon.

And I pay tribute to her for her many decades of campaigning on justice for victims of contaminated blood. As with my noble friend Lady Featherstone, and her family's experience sobering for all of us and a reminder of the real impact of this. And I thank the noble Lord Patten for his informed contribution and the stress on urgency of resolving the many outstanding issues. And I'm grateful to the Minister for responding to that. And both Lady Finlay and Lady Bennett also spoke movingly about the bigger picture, that we mustn't lose sight of that.

And Lord Doyle reminded us of the progress that's been made. And I must confess, I apologise. My speech did not talk much about the progress that has been made, and there has been. My concern is what is still outstanding, and Lord Pack made a very important point about inflation, and I do hope the Minister can look at this, and I want to thank the Minister, as ever, for her measured and caring approach. This is something that we really all want to work together on.

But today's debate has demonstrated that there remain urgent issues. So I want to end by thanking all the victims and their families and hope that they're reassured by the cross-party support for them and their concerns, and I hope the Minister will be able to help improve payment times and remedy some of the many injustices in the scheme at the moment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my amendments to the motion. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that the original The question is that the original motion be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. The contents contrary not content. The contents have it. I have a second to allow Greater Cambridge Development Corporation Establishment Order 2026. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.
17:33
17:33
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
interest and following a public consultation between the 4th of consultation between the 4th of February to the 1st of April 2026, the government held a public consultation on establishing the Greater Cambridge Development Greater Cambridge Development Corporation to promote ambitious, high quality, sustainable growth and unlock the full potential of and unlock the full potential of Greater Cambridge for the benefit of its communities and the country as a whole. I am grateful to all those who took time to engage and provide thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Consultation respondents were clear that Greater Cambridge faces increasingly complex challenges relating to infrastructure provision and the supply of affordable housing. This is having a detrimental effect on quality of life and holding back the region's ability to scale its globally significant innovation economy. The government believes that these challenges cannot be met by incremental change alone, delivering nationally significant growth in greater Cambridge requires a bold, long term approach and a genuine step change in how infrastructure is planned, coordinated and delivered.

Government considers that establishing a centrally led development corporation is the most effective way to unlock nationally significant growth at the pace and scale required, combining responsiveness to local priorities with national leadership and influence to show the government's commitment to fulfilling the full potential of the region. Since publishing the consultation, the Chancellor has announced a further £400 million of funding for the Oxford Cambridge corridor, doubling the £400 million announced in October 2025. Once established, the boundary of the Development Corporation aligns with the combined administrative boundary of Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council.

This will enable the enable the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation to deliver on its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth necessary to deliver on both local and national interests. As we set out in the consultation, the development area captures the core functional geography of the Cambridge economy, enabling a holistic approach to growth and infrastructure delivery. It will enable coherent planning across a wide area, strategic land assembly and land value capture to fund infrastructure.

However, the success of the development corporation will also depend, of course, on a strong partnership and proactive engagement with neighbouring authorities and transport and utility providers beyond its boundary. Although the Development Corporation will predominantly focus on its designated development area, it will also have influence beyond its formal boundary. This includes the ability to acquire land outside its development area to enable it to meet its objectives. The Development Corporation will bring a combination of powers, financing and national influence beyond what is available to existing local organisations.

The Development Corporation will provide clarity and certainty through a clear vision for place and a stable governance framework. The Development Corporation is intended as a joint national and local endeavour, combining local insight and input from locally democratically elected representatives with national leadership, powers and investment. It will have direct access to central government and the ability to convene and co-ordinate partners around shared priorities. The democratically elected local leaders from Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council, Cambridgeshire County Council and the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will be invited to join the board.

The government also recognises that resident voices from across Greater Cambridge will form an integral part of the joint, local and national endeavour in shaping the area's future. The government will therefore ask the Development Corporation to create structured forums for engagement, which reflect the diversity of places and lived experiences across the region, and serve as an exemplar of innovative, transparent, continuous and deep engagement. In short, it will provide Greater Cambridge with the tools, certainty and investment needed for sustainable infrastructure.

First growth. The model will form an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, setting the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country. This establishment order will establish the GCDC as an entity upon which it will be granted automatic infrastructure, financial and land assembly powers. My officials are now preparing the powers and functions order a negative such instrument that is due later this year, which will equip the GCDC with planning powers, including the ability to determine planning applications for strategic development.

Prior to the point we defined the strategic sites. The Development Corporation will use minimum thresholds as a proxy to provide a clear and proportionate mechanism to focus the development corporation's resources on sites of strategic importance. The Development Corporation will also take on plan making powers, but it is anticipated that this will be once the draft Local Plan has been adopted, subject to public examination. This combination of powers will provide Greater Cambridge with the tools, certainty and investment needed for sustainable infrastructure.

First growth. The model will be an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, setting the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country, delivering the good growth that this government supports. So, to conclude, this order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation and set out the boundary in which it may operate. The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation will be focussed on the delivery of strategic, nationally significant growth in its boundary. Work collaboratively with councils both within and bordering the development area, transport bodies and utility providers to help supercharge growth and unlock development opportunities.

It will support the delivery of new homes, infrastructure and businesses and laboratory space. I extend my thanks to the local leaders and their councils for their hard work, and for their ongoing collaboration in delivering nationally significant growth in Greater Cambridge. I would also like to thank the Cambridge Growth Company, under the leadership of Peter Freeman, for their ongoing work in Cambridge that has helped to unlock planning applications for over 9000 homes and 528,000m² of commercial space. And can I also, while I'm standing at the despatch box, thank my noble friend Lord Vallance, who is standing down from the front bench, but who has made a huge contribution to the development of the Ox-cam arc in his time as a Minister, and I'm very grateful to him for that work.

I hope that noble Lords will join me in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting this order. I move. The question is that this motion be agreed to. Amendment Lord Lansley. My Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister for the introduction to the order and setting out so very clearly what it is the government clearly what it is the government is seeking to achieve. I've tabled a regret motion, not because I a regret motion, not because I oppose the. The establishment of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, but because I think
17:40
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
what is presently in this order and in the government's plans is both insufficiently ambitious in terms insufficiently ambitious in terms of the geography and what needs to of the geography and what needs to be achieved, but also overreaches in terms of what the government is seeking to do for planning and plan seeking to do for planning and plan making powers. In Cambridge itself. I should declare an interest. Of course. I was member of Parliament course. I was member of Parliament for 18 years for the area of South Cambridgeshire that the Development Corporation will cover, but also for the last decade, chairman of the Cambridge Cambridgeshire Development Forum and I have had the only the most positive continuing engagement through that role with local planning authorities and with the Cambridge Growth Company, and I entirely agree with the noble Lady that we will very much miss the noble Lord, Lord valence, in his role as the Ox-cam Growth Corridor Minister, and I hope that the government will continue to follow through on the excellent work that he implemented.

From my point of view. Why do I why do I say the government is insufficiently ambitious? Because when one looks 25 years ahead and we are looking for a development corporation to add value to what is already being done in Cambridge, which, you know, we've already now building the university has helped to build Eddington. We've built out at Trumpington Meadows, we allocated green belt and a building out at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. We. We are. It's the government that prevented us from proceeding as we wanted to in Cambridge North because it wouldn't pay for the wastewater treatment removal and we have just had homes England Hill Residential and the local authority and the Cambridge Growth Company coming together to set out plans for the redevelopment of Cambridge Airfield as the Cambridge East development.

With East West Rail coming through, there is no shortage of impetus from the planning authorities and indeed the Greater Cambridge shared planning service between Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire. Last year was the planning authority of the year. So what we need to do is to look at this development corporation and say, how does it add value? Well, the noble Lady, the Minister, is absolutely right. By building the infrastructure out. We know, for example, I'll just give one example, which is the mass rapid transit requirements around Cambridge.

When when you look at what Cambridge ahead have said recently, for example, about where the Cambridge cluster really extends to and how in the years ahead, we're looking at what is effectively a polycentric system of Cambridge and related large settlements, which will form part of a functional economic geography. You go, if you were to look at a map and a 20 mile radius around Cambridge, it includes Ely, Newmarket, Haverhill, Royston, Saint Neots, Huntingdon and Huntingdon is an excellent example.

We need mass rapid transit to Huntingdon in addition to the A14 and in addition to the Cambridge guided busway. And we've got the space to do it, and in Huntingdon, their Local Plan process currently is looking at some 24,000 additional homes in the planned period and more beyond at places like Alton, Alconbury, Weald and Whitton. But if if the Cambridge Greater Cambridge Development Corporation is going to deliver that infrastructure, it doesn't. It has the powers to do that.

Beyond, as the Minister said, beyond its territory. But if it wanted to take responsibility for major settlements like all can be wheeled or Whitton or heading to the East somewhere like Wesley Green, it is actually technically beyond the boundary that we are looking at. And if the if the Minister wanted to add value to the local planning process, she might like to have a look at East Cambridgeshire who are not proceeding with any local plan process, unlike the Greater Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire authorities, who are in the midst of creating a very ambitious local Plan and expect to conclude it by the end of 2027.

So what I asked the Minister to do is to think very hard as a result of this regret motion and accept that that the development corporation should not be confined to the geography that is set out here. And it should, in time, potentially be responsible for other major settlements. But within within Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire, it should not take general planning powers and specifically should not take the plan making powers after the point at which the current Local Plan is adopted.

That would be an outrageous abuse of the democratic process and would actually vitiate all the partnership working that is being done in Cambridge City and beyond in the greater Cambridge area, in order to try and deliver precisely the nationally significant growth that the Minister has been advocating. So we are talking here about the establishment order, but I think the Minister fully understands that what we are really talking about is that when the subsequent planning functions order comes forward, that is should be an opportunity for the Minister to think again about the results of the consultation and to bring forward something that is focussed on red line sites for major settlements, really strategic settlements, not taking responsibility for plan making powers.

I beg to move the regret motion in my name. The original question was that the regulations laid before the House on 4th June be approved, since when an amendment has been moved by Lord Lansley at the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. ha put is this amendment be agreed to?
17:46
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Would I begin by thanking the >> Would I begin by thanking the Minister for setting out the case for the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation? Unavoidably, that was a case that sounded like something out of the 1970s rather than something fit for 1970s rather than something fit for the 21st century, and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Lansley. Although my perspective is very different to his. For one of my regrets about his motion is that it is only a regret motion, for there is clear evidence that there is strong local opposition to the creation of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, and very good reason for that opposition.

It might be said to be the last thing the city, its residents and its environments need or want, and the last thing that the government should need or want. You would think, given that we have a new Prime Minister acknowledging that far too much focus has been put on and resources sunk into development of a small area of the country, while the North, the Midlands and the south west of England, many parts of Wales and far too many coastal communities in market towns, have been ignored and stripped of resources by austerity.

But back to Cambridge. The corporation model is designed to accelerate growth far beyond what local infrastructure, water supplies and fragile ecosystems can sustain, whilst stripping democratic control from Cambridge and Cambridge city residents. Developers, not communities stand to benefit. The corporation risks becoming a vehicle for speculative development, with profits privatised and the costs, water shortages, traffic congestion pushed onto residents. The structure of the corporation is profoundly undemocratic, taking away from local councils control over planning decisions, undermining the power of representatives who local people have voted for.

The consultation, of course, showed majority resident opposition, and it is also apparent from the debates that have taken place in the newly elected Cambridge City Council, which is now under no overall control. But with a ruling Labour group, the Greens, as the second largest party and the Lib Dems close behind the local green group, tells me that none of these parties support this corporation more. The corporation plan is severely underfunded. What it is due to receive will do nothing to address the existing shortfall in infrastructure, and it focuses on all the wrong outcomes on growing the biosciences and IT sectors.

But before any commercial development happens, what needs to be addressed is particularly the chronic water shortage, shortages, the transport bottlenecks, the acute social housing shortfall, which new high priced housing estates will not resolve, the insufficient electricity supply, the limited sewage capacity, the lack of sufficient hospital places, the schools that are overstretched and how much the infrastructure is there is inadequate. It's been demonstrated recently by the conditions in Addenbrooke's Hospital during the recent heat wave, media reports indicated that four staff went home ill and two more collapsed at work.

And that's the staff. There's a need for significant investment clearly there. And also the more than 60 schools that either closed early or indicated that that pupils could leave because they were too hot. We need to fix the existing infrastructure before we think about going further. But water stress is, of course, the biggest issue. No one has really provided a substantive answer of where the water will come from for future significant development proposed under the corporation. Lincolnshire may be, or Wales.

Well, both of those places in this heavily water stressed land might have something to say about that. The Environment Agency, as is well known, has opposed local planning applications already, such as the West Cambridge site due to the lack of water supplies. The trees in the area this is filling the local media right at the moment are dying because there's not enough water for them. That's been absolutely dominating the local press in the last few days. Now, I note that recently the labour group on the City Council amended downgraded the Green Party's group groups amendment on motion, sorry, on the rights of the River cam, but even that was downgraded.

The Labour motion still said we regard the river as an integral part of the life of our city. Threats to our river are a threat to all of us. I hope that the new government is listening to its local representatives, because this whole development corporation is an idea that comes from the 20th century, a failed model that has given us the climate and nature emergencies, the terrible state of public health, and the rampant inequality of the UK of 2026.

It's an. It is ironic that this is happening while we have a new Prime Minister who says that he wants to give greater say to communities, this corporation takes away that say, to quote local green councillors, this is a power grab, not a plan. And I realise that the noble Lady, the Minister, may not be able to provide a fresh perspective today, but I hope that a fresh approach does appear in the new government over the summer.
17:52
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
I note the criticisms of the new Development Corporation for Cambridgeshire as spelt out by the noble Lord Lord Lansley from his noble Lord Lord Lansley from his expert local knowledge. But my comments are from the broader comments are from the broader policy perspective, I do believe that the use of the Development Corporation model represents a huge opportunity up and down the country to re-order the development of new homes and infrastructure, and the regeneration of existing neighbourhoods. Criticisms have abounded.

Of the major house builders and developers failing to deliver the quantity or quality of new homes, facilities and infrastructure that they have promised. Development corporations can do so much better by capturing the land value now, without the necessity of incorporating hope value, with the possibility of using compulsory purchase powers as a last resort, a development corporation can deliver a high quality master plan to include much needed affordable homes and social and community benefits, delivering new and regeneration schemes is a long term proposition, during which there may well be changes of political control within local government.

For the area. The value of the development corporation is not only its public accountability but also its longevity. Irrespective of the local uncertainties our democracy creates and of course, planning decisions that are bound to cause local upset, but which are in the national or regional interest. And we do need to build 1.5 million new homes. These are hard to take at the local authority level. My Lords, we know from the success of the development corporations already up and running that this model can be a game changer.

Greater Cambridge would be well served by having its own. My Lords, I support this order and I greatly welcome in principle the establishment of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, with or without the modifications recommended by the noble Lord Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lansley. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. With permission a few thoughts. And I speak as Chancellor of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I speak as Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. I welcome

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the establishment of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation. It will quite simply speed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It will quite simply speed things up and cut through
17:54
Lord Smith of Finsbury Portrait Lord Smith of Finsbury (Labour)
-
-
bureaucratic delays. We need to acknowledge the growth potential of our best universities, and our best universities, and Cambridge is, I'm proud to say, one Cambridge is, I'm proud to say, one of them, the best place for start up, start up businesses in Europe up, start up businesses in Europe is currently Cambridge. The alumni of the University of Cambridge in recent years have founded 2600 venture backed start ups, more than anywhere else in Europe. We are rivalled only by the Bay Area in California and the other Cambridge and Boston area in Massachusetts.

Cambridge since 2024 has raised more venture capital investment in deep tech industries per capita than anywhere else in the world, and we have had particular success in oncology, AI, drug discovery, semiconductor manufacturing chips and processing, cardiology and aerospace. The government must recognise the world class opportunity for catalysing growth that is represented by our leading universities, and especially by Cambridge, the development Corporation is therefore very welcome. Three small words of warning.

However. First, we've heard warm words before the Oxford Cambridge arc, especially the new rail link between Oxford and Cambridge has been promised before. It must now happen. One other potential problem. Second is the issue of water resources, highlighted by the noble Baroness Baroness Bennett. All of Cambridge's water at the moment comes from boreholes dug into the aquifer below ground. In the long term, the huge pressure for development makes that resource unsustainable.

I hope the government will therefore do everything possible to ensure that the new Fens reservoir, which is desperately needed, can indeed happen. And third, there must be full and considered local consultation and I'm delighted that the Minister has committed the government to ensuring that that happens. The Development Corporation is a great start, but please make sure that Cambridge's full potential is actually realised.
17:58
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Well, my Lord Wilson develop development corporations have have development corporations have have been widely, but with one exception, welcomed as an important. Because welcomed as an important. Because they have an important function in enabling development decisions that enabling development decisions that cover a wide area. So the question for us is not the principle of development corporations, but whether the greater Cambridge Devco is the most effective vehicle for achieving the purposes set out in the order now of a number of criticisms.

And the first one is this is that of geography, which the noble Lord Lansley also pointed out. So decisions on local government reorganisation have so far specifically excluded a decision on the Cambridge area. Yet here is a proposal with boundaries that may not may not conform with those decisions. So this particular order is therefore, in that regard, premature. Further, the boundaries proposed may actually constrain provision of the much needed infrastructure. The next criticism is the locally shared diagnosis.

That development in the Cambridge area is hampered by inadequate transport. We've just heard water resources, which are well known, energy and the affordability of housing. Now, despite the scale of the proposed development corporation, the solutions to the fundamental infrastructure problems lies with private companies such as Cambridge Water and Central Government to to enable the development of much needed improved transport structure and. The noble Baroness May Minister said there's going to be another £400 million to to to do all this good work and all I can say to us that that's a drop in the ocean as to what is required in terms of absolutely essential infrastructure before all this development can take place.

So what I would like to know from the the Minister is whether the Department of Transport and the relevant water company and National Grid have been provided with the funding, either directly or via the regulators, to deliver this essential infrastructure in a timely way. The third major criticism is that there is no clear rationale or evidence base for removing local plan making powers from Democratic elected councils serving the area. The problem that this creates is enabling development without the consensus of residents or indeed those elected to represent them.

The councils involved have a strong record, which the noble Lord Lansley referred to of successfully making the arguments for growth. 77,000 homes are included in the Emerging Local Plan, and local plans are the bedrock for encouraging agreed change in an area they consult. Residents, provide criteria for change, develop a coherent plan and then councillors debate and agree an outcome. Now that process is absolutely essential if those affected by development believe they have had a chance to influence it, to remove plan making powers and then disgracefully planning decisions for all.

But small development is democratic vandalism. All these issues were raised during the consultation, which resulted in 68% of individuals opposing the death co, as well as nearly half of local government organisations, and a significant concern of all those who were consulted was with the protection of the natural environment. And the government's response is to commit to establishing what they've described as structured forums to allow direct engagement with residents. Now, the question I, the Minister must answer is what influence will the views from those forums have on decision making if these forums become no more than talking shops, than they will rightly be derided? What is not clear is why the government has not chosen to use a different model, such as the Regional Development Development Agency model, certainly the one in Yorkshire with which I was involved enabled very significant

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Development. Across the. Region by negotiating a strategic plan and providing strategic plan and providing funding that enabled the private sector to implement, but importantly, without bypassing importantly, without bypassing local planning authorities. So can the noble Baroness Limb Minister agree that plan making powers will be deferred until the draft Local Plan being developed is adopted, and then to do only. Only do so following evidence based reasons being provided. The noble Lord Lansley was right to table this regret motion with which the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrats totally agree. My Lords. Just like to make the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just like to make the House aware of my potential interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, which neighbours this area. I which neighbours this area. I support my noble friend Lord Lansley in his motion. I also was Lansley in his motion. I also was going to say how important that Cambridge is to this economy of the UK, but I think Lord Smith of
18:04
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
UK, but I think Lord Smith of Finsbury has done a far better job than I can and you know, it is an absolute critical part. If this country is going to be successful and have the growth that it desperately needs. But Cambridge is hamstrung. It's hamstrung by a lack of housing, a lack of infrastructure and a lack of commercial space, be it for bio labs, technology and so forth. You have a town of around 150 000, which every day, according to the 2021 census, has 55000 commuters coming in.

And bearing in mind that was during Covid, that actual number is probably far higher. And largely, they're coming in by car. So the government is right that Cambridge does need to grow. It's why I was pleased that the last government progressed with East West Rail A14 dualling A14 to eight, Caxton gibbet to the A1. But there is much more to do. Cambridge, as I said, needs more housing, lab space, commercial space. It also needs to work with other areas of the wider geography.

It's not just the Ox-cam arc. It is actually the Golden Triangle, spanning from Oxford to Cambridge to London, which is a global powerhouse in technology and biotech, amongst others. It encompasses the noble Baroness, the Minister, Stevenage, and it has Central Bedfordshire at its geographic heart. A DCO can be a useful delivery mechanism, but it needs to be one built on local support. Functional geography and democratic accountability. And it must have a clear outcome based objectives, with the resources and powers linked to those outcomes.

Now, the noble Baroness, the Minister, mentioned the negative instrument that is to come that will outline those. But I very much feel that's a bit of the cart before the horse. If you're going to look at the organisation, you need, first of all, know what it will do and what its powers are. And then there is also the question of local government reorganisation, as the noble Baroness Pinnock mentioned, we may set up a geography here only for it to change completely in a few months time.

The issue of geography, I think, is a very important one. Major projects in developments just outside the proposed area could have huge impact. Tempsford Newtown is potentially almost as large as Cambridge itself around junction 13 of the M1. We have the new town in Milton Keynes. We have a large data centre, we have universal. And we have the Marston Vale development, which will have a huge impact, particularly on East West Rail and the M1 and East west corridor travel. And then we have the issues of things like the A1 realignment that needs to somehow all fit together as a package.

Planning powers. Now, several people have talked about planning powers, but clearly we need to know what the geography is when we need to look at the planning powers. Because if you're going to have a much bigger strategic overview, you should not have detailed planning powers. If you're going to have detailed planning powers, well, then that raises the question why can it not just be based on a council led DCO rather than a centralised national DCO, or even a mayoral DCO? I talk about resources.

We've heard of a lack of water. We've talked about a lack of electricity. I know from my own experience that development in Biggleswade could not go ahead until we had additional power, and there is a constant refrain of a lack of water. So what powers will this DCO have over things like GP railways, Anglian Water highways and the electrical and power companies, not to mention East West Rail? Will it have defined outcomes and targets? Will it have clear division of responsibilities between the DCO organisation and the local councils and others? I do want to be clear on this, because the Minister talked about strategic sites, and we discussed this in previous issues on the planning bill.

It's strategic above nine houses. Is it above 500 houses? What size of development is that? Because I think many people have a different view of what strategic is. And many have mentioned democratic oversight. How does central planning into a government centralised body fit with the new Prime Minister's promotion of devolution? Now, I believe the answer is going to be the creation of the so-called structured forums for local residents. But what are their details? What will their statutory status be? How will members be selected? What powers will they possess? How will their views influence decision making? And how will Ministers be held accountable if those views are ignored? And it is for these reasons that I support my noble friend Lord Lindsay in his motion, and I look forward to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness. The Minister's response. My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in a very interesting debate around the future of Cambridgeshire, and. And this Greater Cambridge Development Corporation. I wanted to start by thanking Lord Lansley for his contribution to Cambridge, which I contribution to Cambridge, which I know we. We had a visit there, and I could see his involvement in the
18:10
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I could see his involvement in the way Cambridge is developing. I thank my noble friend Lord Smith for setting out the benefit to the whole UK economy of the growth that we see, an innovation we see taking place in Cambridgeshire, and how important it is to continue investing in that, not just for the local area, but for for a national purpose as well. And I thank the noble Lord Best for his comments in terms of welcoming the development corporation approach to these major growth areas and to Baroness Bennett, I would I would just reflect that all the comments she made with a slightly negative perspective on the development corporation were made in the 1940s and 50s about the development corporation for my town.

But we need the growth that Cambridge offers now. The Green Party may want our country to stand still, but this government won't let that happen. I'll. And I thank the noble Baroness Pinnock, as usual, for her thoughtful comments about the engagement of local people in this project. I'm going to start with the boundary issues because that's the subject of the regret motion, and I think that's important. The boundary proposed for the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation covers a broad geography, which will enhance the ability to maximise funding and enable land value capture, increasing the viability for strategic infrastructure projects.

The boundary lines, as I said before, with the existing boundaries of South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council, simplifying governance arrangements and allowing the Development Corporation to support the emerging Local Plan. This boundary is considered of a suitable scale to allow the Development corporation to respond flexibly and adapt to the emerging constraints within Greater Cambridge. The government recognises the boundary does not always align with the location of essential strategic infrastructure, so I recognise that this will require the development corporation to build strong relationships and carry out proactive engagement with neighbouring authorities and transport and utility providers beyond its boundary.

And I thought the example that the noble Lord Lansley gave about mass rapid transit between Huntingdon and Cambridge, which is very relevant here. The development corporation will also hold influence beyond its boundary, and this can even include acquiring land outside of the boundary, so long as it's in line with its functions and is deemed necessary. The noble Lord Jamieson referred to the Golden Triangle. I'm very aware of that. My own hometown sits in in the middle of it, and it's a very important area, the whole area for the UK economy.

Moving on to planning powers, the Development Corporation will be granted development management powers for sites of strategic importance, and we will be defining that through the functions and powers. See if an application exceeds the proposed threshold set out in the consultation, but is not deemed to be strategic. It's expected that the Development Corporation will delegate decision making to the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service to determine the application in the usual way. As a result, we expect the vast majority of planning applications to continue to be determined by the existing planning service.

Plan. Making powers will be essential to developing that long term spatial vision for Greater Cambridge, and that delivers significant national, sorry, nationally significant growth. And the government is clear that the planned approach is and must remain the cornerstone of the planning of the planning system and by laying the functions order later in the year. This does give us time to build a planning service capable of delivering its objectives. The Development Corporation will be granted development management powers once the Statutory Instrument is approved, but the intention is to take a phased approach to the exercising of plan making powers, with the intention that those exercising the powers will be limited by Secretary of State direction, so we anticipate that direction will be lifted once the draft Local Plan has been adopted, subject to the public examination, the Secretary of State may choose to lift it sooner.

For example, if it becomes apparent that the draft Local Plan would not deliver development at the scale and pace necessary. So I was asked some questions by the noble Lord Lansley, the noble Lord Jamieson about the scope of the planning powers for the Development Corporation as a proxy for a definition of strategic sites, the Development Corporation will use the following minimum thresholds to provide certainty about the sites which it intends to examine for their strategic importance, with a view to exercising its development management responsibilities.

So this will include all sites proposed with a minimum of 250 houses, flats or houses and flats. 5000m² of floor space for all other development and infrastructure development, which occupies more than one hectare of land. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock and the noble Lord Jamieson asked me about the impact of local government reorganisation on this program. The development Corporation's boundary didn't pre-empt or prejudice the recent consultation on local government reorganisation that, as we know, is a fundamental change given the significance of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough for the national economic growth.

It's important we take the time to get this right and we will make a decision by the very latest by October this year, and we're still committed to the existing timetable with new elections, sorry, elections to new authorities in May 27th and a go live date in April 28th, the boundary of the development corporation will be kept under review to ensure it continues to meet its objectives. Any such review could also take into consideration the new administrative boundaries resulting from local government reorganisation, if that's necessary.

There were a number of points made about water and of course, water is a very key issue, as we all know in the whole of the East of England, but particularly in the Cambridgeshire area. My noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Smith referred to the new Friends Reservoir, and he's right to raise that. No new reservoirs were built for 30 years in this country. And we know that that's caused some of the problems that we're now experiencing. So we do want to get on with that as quickly as possible.

So the government is committed to ensuring there is adequate water supply and wastewater capacity to support the sustainable growth in Greater Cambridge and, of course, protect the natural environment. We have very rare chalk streams in this area, which we have to look after. No new homes in Cambridge are currently blocked due to water scarcity issues. Our work with the Advisory Water Scarcity Group has unblocked planning applications totalling over 9000 homes and over 500 zero zero zero square metres. In December 24th, the Environment Agency lifted its objections to remaining blocked development following improvements in Cambridge Water's water resource management plan and progress made by the Water Scarcity Group, and in addition, the work undertaken by the government's Water Delivery Task Force to resolve waste water constraints means over 18,000 homes across East Anglia, Lincolnshire and the Home Counties are now a step closer to being built.

The government will continue to work closely with partners to ensure that water scarcity is not a constraint on development. In Cambridge. The Development Corporation will have powers to directly plan, fund and deliver essential infrastructure to support regeneration, including utilities such as water. This would include the ability to lay connecting infrastructure for water mains and sewerage on sites delivered by the development corporation, and there will be an opportunity for the Development Corporation to trailblaze ambitious water efficiency approaches across sites that can inform wider policy development and approaches in Cambridge over time.

Now, there are quite a few comments from the noble Baroness Bennett from Lady Pinnock about consultation and how that's taken place. So MCHLG, supported by Cambridge Growth Company, undertook a series of engagement events and publicity throughout the consultation period, engaging residents, businesses and councils and this was supported by communication about the consultation and public participation, sorry public participation through community led events. MCHLG hosted webinars, a wider programme of media and digital publicity, including local and regional press coverage, interviews, podcasts and social media and social media coverage was amplified by local authorities, businesses and organisations.

Now the government recognises the very complex challenges facing Greater Cambridge. We think this requires a bold, long term approach and a genuine step change in how infrastructure is planned, coordinated and delivered and the magnitude of these challenges just can't be met through incremental change. And I know change feels it can feel unsettling for local residents. So sometimes it's not surprising when they when the reaction is sometimes negative to the plans that are coming forward. But I do think it's very important that the centrally led Development Corporation is the most effective way to unlock nationally significant growth at the pace and scale needed.

So my noble friend Lord Smith referred to the rail link that has been promised before. It must now happen. I think he will get the sense from the both from the new Prime Minister and and the former Prime Minister of how we do see this as urgent, and we do want to deliver it. My Lords, if I've missed any points, I will respond in Hansard. But I'm running out of time. So I just want to say, in conclusion, this order delivers the establishment of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation.

We think this is absolutely the right way to go to generate the growth that will be both locally and nationally important for Cambridge and I. I hope that noble Lords will welcome the order. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I'm. Very grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this, I think really interesting, albeit short debate. I think it. But I think we have to understand that this is the first of what will necessarily be a further debate at some point later in the autumn in relation to the in the autumn in relation to the order setting out what the planning functions of the Development Corporation is to be. I thought
18:21
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
what the Minister had to say about maintaining a review of the boundaries was a really helpful and important thing to say, but I think it has to be understood that there's no legal requirement that the development corporation's boundaries should align with the administrative boundaries of local authorities. They can differ, and perhaps we ought to give ourselves the freedom to think that perhaps they should differ in this instance, because we don't know what the unitary council is going to look like, and it's not absolutely necessary.

The development corporation align with the unitary council when it comes. I would say to the noble Lord Lord Smith of Finsbury, when he explains how well Cambridge has succeeded, I think he is, in a sense, reinforcing that the place I represented and the local authorities of which I you know, I supported South Cambridgeshire was a conservative authority for years when we worked together to enable the Cambridge Biomedical Campus to be established by releasing Green Belt when we work together to allow.

Trumpington Meadows happened when the Cambridge City Council worked with the university to enable Eddington to be built, which. Award winning development to the. To the west of Cambridge. These things did happen at pace and are examples to the rest of the country. So the point of the development corporation, which I think we all support, is to do more and to add value. And I think it's not to take over the responsibilities and the powers of the local authorities insofar as they are delivering now, I think we can agree if the local plan, if the if the if the local plan didn't meet the need, then you could have to step in.

But I don't think there's any evidence that the Greater Cambridge Local Plan doesn't meet the need. There's plenty of evidence that East Cambridgeshire isn't undertaking a Local Plan process at all, and the Development Corporation isn't planning to step in there at all. And some parts of East Cambridge are only about, well, they are but Cambridge City, and they are some of the principal areas for potential development in the future. So I would just say to the Minister, I'll finish on this point if when she looks at boundaries, and particularly when she and her colleagues look at their planning functions, if they look at the possibility of of having development management powers for major sites, I don't mean 250 homes.

I mean the really big sites where the development corporation can add value to what is happening already, then fine, go for those sites, but just put a red line around them. You don't have to define strategic sites in the in the legislation. You can just put a red line around where those strategic sites are. And as they come forward, maybe outside the area in Huntingdon, or even I say to my noble friend, even at Tempsford, you could put a red line around those and make them part of the development corporation and give them the development power management powers in that place.

But particularly one does not need to take plan making powers for the whole of a local authority area. And I think that would be a step too far. And I would say we've enabled this debate this afternoon to put down that marker to the noble Lady and to the government, and think about that before we return to this in the autumn. But with all those points made, if I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

may, I beg leave to withdraw my motion. that. This amendment be withdrawn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn? The question is the original motion be agreed to as many as that motion be agreed to as many as that opinion will say content not content. The contents have. It will have a short break before I call Universal Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker's Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance, Decisions and Appeals Amendment Regulations 2026. Motion of regret. Baroness Stedman-Scott.
18:25
None Portrait Orders and regulations: Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and associated regret motion in the name of Baroness Stedman-Scott
-

May I. am to see the noble Baroness, the Minister in her place. My Lords, these regulations make a significant change to the way in which Personal Independence Payments Awards are reviewed. They allow the Secretary of State to
18:25
Baroness Stedman-Scott Portrait Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
extend an existing fixed term PIP award. Whenever Ministers consider that that. Necessary to safeguard that that. Necessary to safeguard the efficient administration of the benefit. The department's stated benefit. The department's stated intention is that for most claimants aged 25 and over, initial awards should generally last four awards should generally last four years and subsequent awards six years, with reviews taking place after three and five years respectively. Formerly, according to the department, 77% of awards were made for periods of two years or less.

The effect is therefore not simply to prevent awards expiring during an emergency. It is to make substantially less frequent reviews. The normal approach for a large proportion of the PIP caseload. That is why I have tabled this regret motion. My Lords, a properly functioning welfare system must ensure that people receive the right support at the right level and for the right length of time. Review should never be treated merely as an attempt to remove support or catch claimants out. They provide an opportunity to establish whether somebody's needs have remained the same, improved or deteriorated.

Indeed, I might say to some of those noble Lords on the Labour benches that fewer reviews will not only mean that some people lose functional capacity, is improved, continuing receive an award that no longer reflects their circumstances. They could also mean that people whose conditions have deteriorated remain on an award that's too low. The government cannot therefore present this as an entirely claimant. Friendly change reviews provide protection in both directions, nor can Ministers simply rely on claimants to report every relevant change themselves.

Some people will report changes promptly, but others may not recognise that a gradual improvement in their functional capacity is relevant. Some may not fully understand the reporting requirements. Others may be reluctant to report a change that could reduce their income. The government's own statistics underline the danger of placing too much weight on self-reporting. In the financial year ending 2026, the estimated PIP overpayment rate increased from 1.3% to 2.3%, or from 330 million to 660 million. The department found that improvements in functional needs that had not been reported were the largest cause of PIP overpayments, accounting for more than £7 in every ten overpaid.

There are also more than £1 billion worth of cases in which the claimant had been overpaid following a change in functional needs, but was not reasonably expected to have known that the change needed to be reported. We should also consider the breadth of the power being created. The regulations allow the Secretary of State to extend a fixed term award. Whenever the Secretary of State considers it necessary to safeguard the efficient administration of PIP. But what precisely does this mean? I therefore ask the Minister to tell the House the following.

What is the maximum period by which an individual award may be extended using this power? Will the Department publish the guidance used by decision makers? Will Ministers publish regular figures showing how many awards have been extended for how long and for what reason? And will the government commit to reviewing the operation of this power once the current backlog has been brought under control? Without these safeguards, the instrument risks transforming what is supposedly an emergency administrative power into a permanent alternative to conducting proper reviews.

The Prime Minister has spoken of a more preventable, supportive, supportive welfare system and one that intervenes earlier and helps more people to move forward. Yet these regulations do precisely what the Prime Minister says he wishes to avoid. There are short term administrative workaround for a backlog, not a long term reform. The Prime Minister also inherits the team. Tim's review, which concluded that the current PIP system is not fit for purpose and requires radical overhaul. That review emphasised the need for assessments.

There are accurate, timely and rooted in proper evidence. Yet these regulations move in the opposite direction. They make timely reviews, less frequent, not more robust. They risk leaving people on the wards that are too high or too low for years at a time, and they do nothing to address the underlying drivers of rising caseloads, rising costs and rising error rates. My Lords, if the government wishes to align itself with the Prime Minister's stated principles, a welfare system that is fiscally responsible, then it must confront the operational challenges in PIP directly.

The department says that younger claimants are more likely to see improvements in their functional capacity, and that prolonged unemployment and activity early in life can have lasting scarring effects. It therefore, does not want young people whose circumstances have improved to remain on PIP longer than necessary. But that raises an obvious question why does that principle cease to matter? On somebody's 25th birthday? The government cannot argue that reviews are important in preventing young people from being trapped in the system, while simultaneously arguing that the same principle should carry considerably less weight for everybody else, a central purpose in the working age welfare system should be to support those who can work towards employment.

PIP is not itself an unemployment benefit, but it sits within a wider health and disability benefit system that must promote independence, recognise changes in circumstances and avoid writing people off. Compassion does not mean abandoning people to years of passive benefit receipt without meaningful contact, support or review. The government has claimed that these changes, alongside related reforms to assessment capacity, will reduce spending by £1.9 billion over five years. Will the Minister provide the House with a detailed and clear breakdown of the 1.9 billion figure? And can the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm that an impact assessment has been undertaken and produced? More fundamentally, when does the Department expect the present backlog to be cleared, and what is the long term plan for restoring sufficient assessment capacity? The government are responding to a backlog by weakening the mechanism that identifies whether rewards awards remain correct.

They're relying more heavily on self-reporting at the very moment when their own statistics show growing losses resulting from improvements in functional needs not being reported, and they are granting Ministers a broad power without adequate statutory limits. And they have failed to provide Parliament with full information about how the power will be applied. Above all, these regulations fail to answer the central question facing the government. How will they bring the welfare Bill under control while helping more people towards independence and employment? For those reasons, I believe that these regulations represent less oversight, weaker accountability and a further retreat from the urgent task of creating a welfare system that is compassionate, accurate, sustainable and focussed on helping people fulfil their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

potential. I beg to move. Question is that this motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. I speak in favour of these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak in favour of these regulations. Despite the case made regulations. Despite the case made by the noble Lady Baroness
18:33
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-
by the noble Lady Baroness Stedman-Scott, there was much in what she remarked, what she said about the purpose of reviews with which I agree. They are in the interests of the claimants and the interests of the public in terms that they fund these payments. They're clearly an important element in the system. What wasn't mentioned is the reason for the backlog. Of course we know about Covid and that was outside our hands. But the problem with the number of assessments being undertaken at the moment is because of straightforward capacity constraints, which have result of decisions made by the previous government.

The fact that they let contracts with us, inadequate number of assessments, whether face to face or online, the fact that they've sold out sold off too much of the estate that's needed for the face to face assessments that most people seem to prefer. So I think to complain about the backlog, it takes a bit of nerve, to be honest, when it's very much their responsibility. It arose on their watch. And I also fundamentally disagree with the weight that was placed on the significance of these changes, given the physical situation of the ability to undertake assessments, something needed to be done.

There was a problem. It the it's possible to highlight potential problems with allowing the Secretary of State the discretion. But there was a real problem that needed to be addressed that was causing problems here and now. And to suggest that to me is a relatively narrow and sensible change to the process in order that the problems faced by individuals could be addressed. It it it's not so much a problem for the government, for the DWP to undertake these assessments.

It's the problem for the individuals that in certain cases were losing their benefits and were certainly faced with extreme concern and worry about their personal situation. And it's that problem which these regulations are intended to to address, talking about it in in administrative terms is all very well, but it's the pressure and the effect that it had on individual claimants that should be our major concern and why these regulations are, as I say, narrow. These narrow regulations are required.

What the regulations actually say, just to be clear to new readers, these change is only required. And it says this in the actual regulations to safeguard the official administration of Personal Independence Payment. It means what it says. You can ask, what does it mean as many times as you like, but it means what it says. It means the efficient administration. The Secretary of State cannot do it for any other reason. It's purely for the efficient administration, which we've already established.

The assessments are good for both sides assessments are good for both sides of the process now. The decision makers. When the assessment is made, will retain their existing discretion to set longer or shorter periods, including the ten year Light Touch awards, when they think this is justified. Nothing in these regulations removes that judgement. It simply makes their exercise more flexible. Strictly to repeat the point that administrative simplicity. The practical case for this is straightforward.

We have the backlog it needed to be dealt with for the claimant's benefit themselves in the. It is a fact that in the worst cases, payments have been interrupted whilst a reassessment was pending, and so I'm fully in support of providing the Department with this discretion. It's worth highlighting quickly two safeguards. First of all, individuals do have the right of appeal against the lack of an assessment. If they think their circumstances have changed sufficiently to warrant a further assessment, rather than being rolled over, they can make an appeal.

And the question was raised about the under 25 year olds. Well, this is based on the experience of those who are undertaking the assessments, and it is a clear fact that under a given age, there are far more changes in circumstances and hence more need for reassessment than older age. This is simply a fact. And maybe 25. You could have 26, you could have 24. But an age was practical and sensible. Now I recognise that this measure does give the Secretary of State a discretionary power, and hence it is right and proper that we should give it detailed consideration.

But this power is needed to extend support, not to curtail it, and it has to be exercised for administrative reasons and not because of a change in policy in relation to personal independence payments. For that, we have to await the outcome of the review, which that's not be be overoptimistic, but I think it's very much heading in the right direction and it will address the problems highlighted, as I say, by the failure of the previous government.
18:41
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Thank you. noble Lord, Lord Davies, and to join, I'm sure, a widespread view around the House in welcoming the continuing presence of the noble Lady Baroness Sherlock in her position. Personally, I consider position. Personally, I consider that a delight, even though I'm often pushing that noble Lady on the departmental decisions for which we hold her responsible. I find myself for the second Statutory Instrument in a row, thanking the conservative benches for securing this debate, while 180 degrees disagreeing with the position that they're taking.

The. I didn't catch that the comment from the frontbench was what's new? I begin by making a very simple point that the way in which they're being conducted, the outcomes of the reviews of all of the payments we're discussing, but particularly Personal Independence Payments, are causing a very great deal of unnecessary distress, fear, and the wrongful withdrawal of essential benefits. Now, as the noble Lord Low Davies just set out, this is actually a modest measure, a short term measure, a limited measure.

But I think we cannot discuss this situation without looking at the broader context, which indeed was what the conservative frontbench did. And I really want to make a call here for realism. We have an ageing population. We have healthy life expectancy that has declined two years in the past decade. We have 1 in 10 local areas where the healthy life expectancy is less than 55 years. Yes, we have a mental health crisis, which there's a lot of focus on benefits for mental health issues.

Well, we need to tackle the issues behind that. Schools forced to become exam factories, inequality, insecurity, child poverty. We need to take the focus away from individuals and trying to crack down on individuals and acknowledge that we have a social, societal problem that we need to tackle as a society. The government needs to tackle as a government, rather than continually pounding away rhetorically at individuals. And in the context of that, looking particularly at the the noble Lord Butler Davies referred to the Thames Review.

I don't think there's been enough awareness that that was given guidance, that it had to stick within the currently predicted future level spending, spending levels of PIP. And there's talk of reductions. But let's be realistic about this here. And I go to some of the reactions from organisations that would not be considered radical to the Thames Review, the British Psychological Society, which says, and I entirely agree with them, applying for PIP should not be demean. Those who are applying should not be demeaned or deterred from applying by the process.

And I think we also need to say we're talking about reviews here. The reviews people get so fearful they just give up. The British Psychological Society says everyone who's been signed off with long term sickness, including those living with a mental health condition, deserve support. And they point out, quite rightly, that financial difficulties, the stress of reviews can actually cause further mental ill health, and that has to be taken into account. That's awful for the individuals concerned, but it's also very bad for the whole of society.

Now, a group with which some in this room may have even more in your Lordships' House may have even more sympathy, though rniB, the PIP particularly assessments and reviews. It says many of them fail to properly understand the realities blind and partially sighted people face. Too many are forced to challenge decisions that are later overturned. So I want to finish by referring to a report, and I'd really urge noble Lords who haven't seen this to look at this report.

It was a report in the times in the past week, and the times went and sat for a full day at the Swindon Magistrates Court with the Social Security and Child Support Tribunals hearing and problems with hep PIP now take up about two thirds of that court's caseload. And in the first three months of this year, more than 27000 PIP decisions were appealed. 67% of those appeals are successful. And all of those who were saying, oh, isn't it terrible that this is being done by remote assessments and these remote assessments may be wrong.

Many of them are wrong in a way that the court then finds is clearly detrimental against individuals who need that support. And I'm just going to quote one case from that report. Appearing before the tribunal was a 63 year old retired GP practice manager. He was there for his 22 year old nephew, who has neurological impairment, learning difficulties, epilepsy, a severe tech and Tourette's syndrome. The loss of mass in his brain on the left side, which is the part of the brain responsible for language comprehension, analytical skills and controlling the right side of his body.

A phone assessment took away benefits. The tribunal took a very brief look at the medical evidence and restored those benefits. We have a huge problem here. This. Is possibly going to do a little bit of cleaning and tidying and sorting, but there's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

far, far more to do. It's a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness Bennett, and I want noble Baroness Bennett, and I want to speak in support of the noble, my noble friend Lady Stedman-scott my noble friend Lady Stedman-scott regret motion for the reasons that she's set out so clearly. I thought in her excellent introductory in her excellent introductory speech. And before I go into that, I want to also say what a delight it is to see the noble Lady it is to see the noble Lady Baroness Sherlock on on the frontbench as well.

So, as has been said already, these regulations look like they're just sort of simple administrative regulations, and they look like they might be just fixing the backlog and they look like they might be benign. And of course, nobody wants vulnerable
18:47
Baroness Maclean of Redditch Portrait Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-
-
claimants to lose their entitlements to those really important benefits, because the department hasn't conducted a review on time. But that's, that's, that's not what we're debating here today. What we are saying effectively is that it's acceptable for the government to respond to a for the government to respond to a system that's failing by suspending one of the few safeguards that one of the few safeguards that exist within it. And if we all cast our minds back to when Personal Independence Payment, the PIP system was introduced, it was never intended to be a benefit that just rolled on indefinitely after it had been awarded the whole point of it.

When Parliament debated and agreed PIP the PIP system, it was supposed to be based on the fundamental understanding that conditions can change over time, conditions can get worse, but they can also get better. So you shouldn't just lock somebody into a system and a system of benefits and never look again. That's a fundamentally pessimistic way, I think, of looking at human lives. And I listened to the Lord Davis's speech. And obviously, you know, he was very critical of the former government.

And I'm sure that he's probably right on a lot of those points. But at the end of the day, I mean, I'm not an expert, so I can't possibly go back over sort of 14 or 16 years of history of that. But at the end of the day, the the the current government has been in power now for actually more than two years. So there must come a point when they now need to take the responsibility for fixing what is currently presenting in the system, and also looking at the things that have happened under this government's watch.

So, my Lords, I think that if the Department doesn't have the capacity to conduct the reviews, the the answer can't be to abandon them. We need to look at the root cause. Why do we have this backlog? Why do we have so many more claims in the system and this lack of capacity? And of course, it's due to the absolutely unprecedented rise in the number of people claiming disability and benefits. And the growth, as has been said, is particularly striking among younger people, particularly younger people claiming on mental health grounds.

And we have a social security and a welfare system now that is increasingly increasingly being asked to compensate not just for severe disability, which we all agree it should do, but for a growing and large number of mental health conditions, such as anxiety and mild depression and ADHD, which would not have been recognised as disabling just a generation or even more recently a generation ago. And in fact, just before I came in the chamber, I saw somebody putting on X, a comparator.

And I don't I don't have the citation, but it's very interesting. And I would urge the frontbench and anyone to look at it. The rise in mental health conditions is a disability for mental health is proportionately much greater in this country compared to about 40 other developed nations. And we are not biologically different or biologically more likely to be disabled because of mental health in the UK and countries like France, Germany, Canada, Korea, China, Singapore and so on. So we do need to start asking ourselves some of those hard questions.

I have spoken in this House on a number of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

occasions. Oh, I. Think the noble Lady for giving way with the noble Lady, acknowledge that we should perhaps acknowledge that we should perhaps look at our own society and ask why we might be suffering from higher levels of those conditions, and levels of those conditions, and people not being able to find a place in our society, as well as looking at biology?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

looking at biology? Yes, I'm sure, I'm sure she's right, and I thank her for that point. This is a very, very broad point. This is a very, very broad question. She's posed, and I fear I will detain the House for much too long if I try and answer that with the seriousness, which it definitely deserves. I want to touch on a few themes in my in my remarks, I mean, I have spoken in this House to, to her point on a number of occasions about what I and a growing number of others regard as the growing medical medicalisation of ordinary human experiences and just life experiences.

And we don't do people any favours if we don't distinguish between severe and enduring mental illness on the one hand, and the very broad spectrum of distress and difficulty that finds its way into our welfare system in one way or the other. And so this is at the root of my worries about this particular set of regulations, because every change that reduces scrutiny or delays reassessment sends a signal that says to that person, now you're in this system, you, you, we expect you to remain there.

You just carry on. You're getting the benefits. We've decided that this is the thing that's making your life difficult. We're going to support you. Not that we're looking at you through an optimistic lens about what can we do to help you move us off this system. And reviews, of course, aren't just a mechanism for saving money, but that's really important. And people have mentioned the Tims review, and I think I'm sure it's an excellent piece of work. There's many good points in it, but my real worry was that the Minister, when he was interviewed about this, he said, well, he he didn't have any worries at all about the level of welfare spending.

That's just completely unrealistic, my Lords. I think that's it's fantasy. We should be concerned about the level of welfare spending in this country. It's absolutely it's completely unacceptable and unsustainable and wrong for the taxpayer and wrong for those people who are on welfare. So I will end this by saying that this particular debate and these regulations risk masking the true scale of the problem. We should we should be expecting Ministers to explain why they think this is acceptable. Yes, it's great that the Minister is here today, but we should be having a much more in-depth debate.

We should be asking much bigger questions. Why do we have so many young people in particular in this system? Why are we diagnosing them with these mental health conditions, which mean they're receiving welfare PIP and other benefits? And why are we allowing this welfare system just to reinforce itself and reinforce a life on benefits for some of these people? So I support the my friend's regret motion, and I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

certainly vote for it if she divides the house. Yes. It's a pleasure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure. To follow my little friend. In the frame of reference. I want to the frame of reference. I want to take a slightly better picture of take a slightly better picture of you to explain why I support the motion, because my greatest fear as motion, because my greatest fear as a suburban single person is that the overall benefits bill, and
18:54
Lord Shinkwin Portrait Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
-
-
particularly the cost to the taxpayer of those benefits taxpayer of those benefits mentioned in the motion, becomes so big that the welfare system itself big that the welfare system itself collapses. That would be catastrophic for the most disabled catastrophic for the most disabled people in our society. I recently asked the noble Lord Lord Livermore, asked the noble Lord Lord Livermore, what advice the UK government was giving to Scottish governments about managing the Devolved Benefits Bill.

In the event of our being at war by 2030, which is what many commentators are saying is likely in his reply, the noble Lord said it did not agree with the assumption underlying my question, and that while of course we must spend more on defence, we must also continue to support those who need that support the most. I say to the noble Baroness Symons tell him I also welcome back to her place, but I do not criticise her noble friends for the well-meaning desire that he expressed underlying his answer.

But I also say to her that the current level of benefit spending would not survive contact with the enemy. One only has to read the fascinating wartime dies of Chips Channon, edited by my noble friend Lord Blackwater, whom I see is no longer in his place to realise how much taxes would have to shoot up overnight were we to find ourselves in a wartime situation. And it's worth noting that Chips Channon was penning his diaries before the creation of the welfare state, and without the dribbling backlog of £3 trillion in interest payments and an annual bill of around £3 trillion of national debt and an annual bill of around 130 billion in interest payments.

My vote? Which one of us cannot? But those figures are not astronomical. I don't even know how many noughts there are in a trillion. It's absolutely mind boggling. So mind boggling. It might as well be meaningless. Only it's not the situation we got ourselves into is dire, particularly for disabled people. We fool ourselves if we think that raising taxes in a wartime emergency will be enough. It won't. It'll have to be accompanied by an urgent shift of resources to defence.

Defending our country, of course, but also defending the NHS, the welfare state, national infrastructure and our freedoms. For us to be able to defend will inevitably involve a recalibration of resources, which is why today's debate is so important because right now, not only are we nowhere near being able to fight a war, we are in denial about the invitations for disabled people, about having to serve. My Lords, unless and until we ask ourselves the question as to how we got into this hole.

The root cause is my little friend has just destroyed it. And also asked ourselves how we plan to dig our way out of it, including through appropriate reviews as called for in this motion. Disabled people will remain in grave danger because it is they who will be most vulnerable to the retranslation of resources that I mentioned. Then I would suggest that the answer to that question is relatively simple. Politicians of all persuasions uttered warm words but didn't respect disabled people enough to tell them the truth.

We employed the systems too big to fail, when actually we have allowed it to grow so unsustainably bid that I fear it's doomed to fail. Indeed, I would argue in sorrow and fear and as a stakeholder. But the very viability of the welfare state is threatened by the exponential growth in benefits. My Lords, if I respect someone, I level with them. They may not like it, but I will not lie to them just to make my life easier.

As we dig ourselves out of this hole, we urgently need to reflect on what respect looks like for disabled people. I would suggest it involves taking a number of practical steps, as well as being straight with them, about the scale of the challenge and the fact that there will be casualties of any changes. That's unavoidable. But we can plan now to mitigate the impact on those whose disability means they depend most on the system. Steps to convey respect, build trust and give hope.

Include combining any recalibration of resources with measures like ensuring existing anti-discrimination legal provisions are upheld and enforced. And I'll be writing to the chief executive of the law firm DCMS on this very question shortly. It includes the government honouring its manifesto pledge and mandating disability, employment and pay gap reporting through the introduction of the Equality and Disability Bill in this session. The IoD backs mandatory reporting. The 300 plus signatories to the Disability Employment Charter, the brainchild of Professor Tim Holt of King's College London bracket, as does, I am delighted to say, the Business Disability Forum, which today has committed to sign the charter.

All that remains is for the government to do likewise by introducing this Bill in this session.
19:02
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
What do you think? My Lords, we >> What do you think? My Lords, we all recognise that the control of public spending matters. It is public spending matters. It is right that governments examine whether money is being spent effectively and whether benefits effectively and whether benefits are achieving the purpose for which they are intended. But, my Lords, that must not be the starting point for today's debate, not simply whether government can reduce expenditure, but whether government can use the system to better, more effectively support those who generally rely on it.

I don't recognise the negative views expressed by the noble Baroness Stedman-Scott and her and some of her colleagues. My Lords, personal Independence Payment is a lifeline, not a luxury. It exists because disabled people face additional costs. Additional costs in their everyday lives. Costs that most of us never have to think about. It was never designed simply as an employment support payment. Yet in practice, it often enables disabled people to remain in work, maintain their independence and contribute to society.

That is surely an outcome we should all welcome. It follows, my Lords, that any changes to the way Pip awards are assessed or managed must place the needs of the claimants first. Administrative convenience for the department can never be the overriding objective and the noble Baroness Bennett have examples of appeals. And that's probably just a few examples. Or one example which shows the system doesn't work. It's an administrative convenience, and that should not be the overriding object.

I therefore ask the noble Lady, the Minister, who are of course, again, welcome to her position, whether she agrees that the guiding principle should always be ensuring that disabled people receive the support they need, rather than designing processes primarily around departmental efficiency. My Lords, I would also welcome some clarity from the noble Lady, the Minister, on the wider narrative surrounding welfare spending. Much public debate. Proceeds on the assumption that there has been an unsustainable explosion in the benefits Bill.

Do you recognise that? But that is not borne out by the overall figures. Welfare spending amounted to around 10.6% of GDP last year, compared with approximately 12.4% in 2009 ten. While spending on the state pension has increased. This has been accompanied by reductions in the share of spending devoted to working age and housing benefits. The real driver of increased expenditure has instead been disability related support. This reflects a troubling reality rather than an accounting problem.

We have seen growing numbers of people, particularly younger people, experiencing poor mental health and other conditions that require additional support. Those trends should concern us because of what they say about the health of our society, not simply because they affect departmental budgets. So my question to the Minister is this what is the government's long term strategy to address these underlying causes? If more people require disability benefits because of deteriorating mental health, delayed treatment, inadequate early intervention or barriers to employment, then simply tightening, tightening employment cannot be the whole answer.

The better approach is to reduce the need for support in the first place by investing in health services, mental health provision, employment support and early intervention. Are we on these benches believe that disabled people deserve dignity, security and the confidence that the support they rely upon will be there when they need it? We should judge any system. We should just any changes to the benefit system against that standard. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that this remains the government's guiding principle, and so therefore, I see no merit in the regret motion.

There's obviously work to be done, and I know that I believe the Minister and I know there is work to be done, but they mustn't get away from the underlying principle that when people need support, that support should be there. And we're not talking, as I know, Baroness Bennett said, about going to appeal and winning, winning it there. We should be able to deal with it at source and deal with the problem there, and I therefore do not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support the regret motion. My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Stedman-Scott for introducing her motion and honourable Lords for their contributions. I appreciate the many kind words, and if I had any, many kind words, and if I had any, even a moment's thought that that meant I would get away with anything at all, then the debate has made clear that I definitely has made clear that I definitely won't. But I wouldn't expect to, and I. I enjoy our discussions too, more.

And they're too important to
19:08
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
more. And they're too important to expect you to get me to get away with anything. I'm going to do my best. But I think we've had a pretty broad debate that's taken us from the nature of our society, the demographic changes through to Chips Channon and has experience of wartime. So I'm not convinced I'll manage to cover the whole territory. And it's a lot of weight for a relatively small measure to bear. But let me see what I can do. The measure we're discussing today relates to how we assess eligibility for benefits.

But the context for this change does matter. The fact is, the system of sickness and disability benefits that we inherited was simply not fit for purpose. But this government has begun taking steps to address the structural problems. We have legislated to rebalance the support provided in Universal Credit, and the Timms review that was mentioned is looking in detail at the way Personal Independence Payment, or Pip, works with its final report due in the autumn. But in the short term, we do need to take steps to help repair the system we have.

This measure grants the Secretary of State the ability to extend awards to make the most efficient use of resource. In doing so, it provides a much needed safeguard against potential future challenges. In order to protect payments to vulnerable people. The noble Lord Lord Farmer is right. We actually have to make the right choices about how to use resources. And that's that's a key to what we're doing today. Under the contracts with assessment providers, which were negotiated by the last government, the reality is we can only call on a finite volume of assessment capacity.

So we could carry on, as was done previously, by the last government, using a large part of that capacity. On frequent reassessment of Pip claimants who circumstances will most likely not have changed. However, we want to use that finite resource in a more productive way, so these regulations enable us to administer the system more efficiently and do more work capability assessment reassessments and clear that backlog, thus delivering savings down the line. But secondly, we do want to increase substantially the proportion of assessments which are carried out face to face.

These used to be pretty much all done face to face. Then came the pandemic, and for reasons we all understand, they were switched to phone based with some video assessments. But once the pandemic went face to face, assessments were never properly switched back on again. And as my noble friend Lord Davis pointed out, telephone was retained as the main channel with just a few face to face assessments starting back in 2021. And we just don't think that's good enough. At the time of the general election, only about 7% of WCA and Pip assessments were carried out face to face.

We want to do better, and I take the point made by the Baroness, lady McLean of Redditch, that absolutely we do have to address the problem, so we are going to do that. So we've already started to rebuild the capacity. We've begun to increase the proportion of WCA and Pip assessments carried out face to face on our way to a target that for both, at least 30% of them will be. So to achieve that, we will need additional assessment resource, and this measure will help us to obtain it.

But the assessment system simply wasn't equipped to do the job. And when there were contractual limits that at most 20% of assessments were done face to face. But the fact is, there wasn't even a nearly enough capacity even to do that. So we are having to fix the system to be able to do it. But without this amendment before that, a decision to extend an award of Pip meant there had to be either a new claim, evidence of an error or a mistake. With the decision evidence, the claimant's circumstances had changed, or a report had been completed by a healthcare professional appointed by the Secretary of State, which would in many cases would involve an assessment.

And as my noble friend Lord Davis pointed out, where such a decision could not be taken before an award expired, claimants would simply cease to be entitled to Pip until a further decision was completed. This amendment grants the legislation, grants a specific discretion and labelling only the length of an award to be extended, and only we are doing so is necessary for the administration of the benefit that protects vulnerable claimants who risk losing entitlement to Pip when circumstances threaten to limit the capacity to administer it.

We saw that during the pandemic and we see it now when assessments apply, simply cannot meet demand. Initially, this government will use this new power to increase the length of a large number of existing awards, in line with the policy on award lengths for new awards, for which the Secretary of State already has the power and in doing so, improve efficiency and ease the burden on the health assessment system. Existing claimants awards will be extended so that most first time awards for those over 25 are for three years duration and most subsequent awards for five years.

Only awards deemed appropriate for these durations will be extended. Now, my Lords, let me just look at some of the questions that have been asked. First of all, about the size of the benefits bill and the increase. I think it's worth pointing out that, in fact, PIP is going up. There's no question about that. But the the rate at which it's going up has actually fallen under this government. It fell from around 13% a year for the period 2019 20 to 24, 25 to the current forecast of around 7% a year, from 2425 to 2930.

Now that's still going up, and that's still huge pressure, but the rate of increase has declined, and we are working on that. And again, as I explained by this measure, we believe will help us do a better job. Briefly, in response to the noble Lord Lord Shinkwin, I can't get into the whole issue about defence spending and where that takes us for taxation, but we simply don't think it's a zero sum game between Social security and defence, between welfare and warfare. The Defence Investment Plan will provide an increase in defence funding significantly, and we set out our targets for increasing defence spending.

But our aim of welfare reform is actually designed to help long term sick and unemployed people to get back to work. So that's the game of this. I mean, I will talk a little bit more later on if I've got time, about the Milburn Review, but my Secretary of State has looked at what's happening with young people and the very large numbers of young people who are economically inactive and said, look, the system at the moment says to a young person, in this situation, what benefits do you need? And what we should be doing is saying, how do we help make your life better? What do you need to turn your life around? And that may be services and it may be support.

It may well be a job. It may be supporting, maybe work experience, maybe training and maybe skills. With the Milburn Review, we are looking right across that to see how do we bring together all of that support to give people the opportunities that they really need? In response to the Lord Brady Baroness Stedman-Scott, as my noble friend Lord Davis has said, this power is limited by considerations such as that it must be necessary for the efficient administration of the benefit. These are strong legal terms and these can only be used in limited circumstances where necessary.

As I explained, the policy on minimum rewards will apply to most claimants aged 25 or over, but exceptions to the policy will be applied to those expected to recover or make significant improvements within a shorter time frame, who will therefore get a shorter award. Longer review periods can still be made for individuals with the most severe or long term conditions. So we are we do want to be. We want to be not having unnecessary reviews. We want to be reviewing the right people. There is no maximum period in the regulations.

We'll continue to give longer awards where appropriate, as I said, and shorter where that is necessary. I was asked why younger people were given spells of unemployment and inactivity at a young age. Have clear long term scarring effects. We do not want young people whose functional capacity has improved to be on PIP any longer than necessary. So why then for not applying the wider policy change or these regulations to young people? They will continue to be assessed as now. Now, there was a question about whether or not claimants are going to lose out by this.

Well, obviously we are committed. Absolutely. And as I said, Lord Low Lord Farmer. We want disabled people to have the support they need to live to live independently. If a claimant's condition is to deteriorate or improve, they should still report a change of circumstances for their award to be reviewed and claimants have a duty to report a change of circumstances. It is something they must do. Whether the condition deteriorates or improved, they have a duty to report it and at that time could then result in an award review.

At that stage, they can report a change at any time. Now, I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about what the experience of people in PIP, and I'm sure she. I can tell from what she said that she's read the Tims and Tims Review interim report and the responses to the call of evidence put out by Tims and people told the steering group that while PIP is widely valued, they found the assessment process dehumanising and stressful and causing anxiety. And we have heard that very clearly, so clearly what the next stage for the review and the interim review report sets out what the steering group has found and heard to date.

They're going to carry on gathering evidence and engagement by developing and testing recommendations over the coming months. The government will then have to look at that and make some decisions. It became quite clear that the assessment process is not fit for purpose. However, we do have to make sure that we do all we can to support people who can work to get into work or to get back to work, and where they cannot work. Then we must give them appropriate support. And the job is not simply to focus on getting benefits out.

It's also to make sure we do, which we are doing now investing in health service, bringing together health and employment together so we can support people taking action through, for example, connect to work to stop people falling out of work when they first get sick so that we don't end up with them on on PIP for long periods in the first place. So we're doing all of those things. But my Lord, this, this change is nonetheless a small but specific and pivotal question, which we have, which will make a difference to our ability to manage things in the short term.

It would simply, as I've said, allow us to make use of more efficient use of limited assessment capacity, reduce assessments where they are not needed so we can focus them where they are, and allow Pip awards to be extended in crisis, such as the pandemic. It is a measured amendment to ensure the effective administration of the system. Finally, just a word on young people. We will continue to press into this area. I know that this House as a whole believes we should not be leaving our young people without opportunities.

We all agree on that. We have made sure in the past, we have shared information with the House about the really important work that the Milburn Review has done for its interim review. We're looking forward soon to having the final report. We'll make sure the House is informed about that and knows what this government is doing. Our job is to get the right support to the right people. Everybody who can work should be given the help they need to do it and the support they need to do it.

Those who can work should work. Those who can't work should be supported. The system has to get that right. This is part of trying to do that. Hey.
19:17
Baroness Stedman-Scott Portrait Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
Can I thank all nobles who have >> Can I thank all nobles who have spoken and for the Minister for the response? I agree with the noble response? I agree with the noble Lord Farmer 100% that disabled people need to be treated with people need to be treated with dignity and with respect. And these on these benches, we completely sign up to that. My noble friends Baroness Maclean and Lord Shinkwin rightly raised the cost of the current welfare system.

A welfare system has to be affordable, sustainable and effective. And I say this with a heavy heart. It may not worry this government how high the costs go, but believe you me, it worries the public and it worries us. And that doesn't mean that we would not be prepared to spend money to do the right thing by people. I also agree that the priority is to help people into work, and it would be really helpful if the government would take action to reduce the cost of employing people, because that's had the most single impact on there being no jobs about.

So, my Lords, as I've said, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and however, the central concerns remain the same. These regulations reduce the frequency of. Reviews, place greater reliance on self-reporting and grant the Secretary of State a broad power without sufficient safeguards or parliamentary oversight, they risk leaving some claimants on the wrong award, whether too high or too low, and do nothing to address the underlying growth in the benefits bill or the urgent need to help more people towards independence and employment.

And for those reasons, I am not content to withdraw my motion, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish to test the opinion of the House. The question is that this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary not content. Not content. Question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now
19:20
19:30
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this instrument provides national savings and investments with the legal powers it needs to establish a compensation scheme and to return money that should have been paid to the estates of deceased customers, in some cases many years ago. That remediation must now proceed as quickly and comprehensively as possible. However, it would be wrong to allow this negative resolution instrument to pass without formally noting the harm that has been caused and the serious failures that have surrounded this entire saga.

It is significant that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew the regulations to the attention of the House, because they raised significant public policy issues and because Ministers have not answered important questions. Moreover, the common statement of 26th March on the problems of NS&I was not repeated in our house because we had broken for Easter. I would add that this is not the only problem that we've heard about in relation to probate. There were terrible delays, especially during Covid, sometimes of years, and I have personal experience of lost submissions to the probate office as recently as 6th of July, we were debating my noble friend Lord McKinney's amendment to the force financial institutions, which include the.

Which would include the NSI to use the IT423 scheme to allow executors to source funds to pay inheritance tax in advance of the unrealistic six month deadline for probate and avoid the punitive rate of interest 4% above base rate. That's 7.75% at present. All of this makes you weep for the poor bereaved already going through an emotional upheaval. The wording of my regret motion is intended to highlight two matters. First, the prolonged delay that has affected tens of thousands of bereavement claims and secondly, the substantial financial consequences arising from the failures of National savings and investments.

I also have a number of questions for the Minister. The responses may provide reassurance. I recognise some of the failures to which I will refer will have occurred under conservative administrations and indeed previous Labour administrations. This is not only an administrative or a technical problem, it has had a profound human impact. Bereaved families were entitled to receive the savings of their deceased relatives, but through no fault of their own, were denied access to that money. The search process used by NS&I when handling bereavement claims, did not always identify every product held by the deceased customer.

As a result, estates were repaid only on part of what they owed, the Pensions Minister has said on the 19th of May that around 34,000 estates may have been affected, with a total value of some £367 million. I hope the Minister will tell us how many estates are now believed to have been affected, how much money remains outstanding and how confident the government are that they have identified the full scale of the problem. Behind these large numbers are individual families and executors who suffered real distress.

Some bereaved relatives have spent years trying to recover what belongs to them, facing uncertainty and obstruction as a government backed savings institution serving more than 24 million people, the fundamental attraction of NS&I products is their security and the fact that the savings are backed by the government. When NS&I fails to locate customers holdings, fails to United States with their money and leaves families pursuing claims for years, trust in that important institution is damaged. I hope the noble Lord, the Minister can tell us.

When the government first became aware of the full scale of a problem affecting tens of thousands of families, why action was not taken sooner, and whether there were earlier warning signs when NSI and I were that were missed or not escalated. For how long had the defective research progress process been operating before the failure was identified? I believe, my Lords, that some date back as far as 2008. Why did internal and external audit and Treasury oversight fail to identify it earlier? Whether letters from MPs that should have woken Ministers up to the problems facing such a vulnerable group? The departure of the former chief executive, Daxx Hawkins, and the appointment of Sir Jim Harra with his long standing experience.

HMRC are welcome and are clear indications that the government recognise the seriousness of what occurred. Turning to the substance of the regulations, we welcome the decision that N, s and I will act proactively. However, there is also the important question of funding. The money held in these accounts plainly belongs to the estates. Returning that principal sum is not a new cost to the taxpayer. It is the repayment of money that should never have been withheld. However, compensation, additional interest, professional fees and the administrative costs of identifying and contacting effective estates represent additional expenditure.

The Treasury was unable to give the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee an assurance that no further support from the public purse would be required. So I ask a simple question Will NS&I funds need to be increased to meet the extra burden or not? Can the Minister tell us now what the cost of compensation, additional interest, professional fees and the operation of the scheme will be? Will those costs be met entirely from N, S and I's existing budget? If traditional funding, if additional funding is required, will Parliament be informed promptly and transparently by the Treasury? The government have said that n s and I aims to complete the remediation process during the first half of 2027 and will publish quarterly progress reports.

That commitment is welcome, but those updates must contain meaningful, detailed information. The House should also be told what happens if the target of completion in the first half of 2027 is missed, who will be accountable, and what external oversight will there be of the scheme? So in conclusion, my Lords, these regulations are necessary. Those relying most on NSI products tend to be those who are less sophisticated financially and perhaps in other ways. In short, the vulnerable have been those most affected.

This, my Lords, is an unhappy situation. Hundreds of millions of pounds were not reunited with the estates entitled to receive them. Some bereaved relatives were forced to struggle with NS&I for years and incurred costs simply to recover their own families money. We will allow the instrument to pass because delaying remediation would only compound that harm. However, we cannot allow it to pass without demanding accountability and transparency and extracting an undertaking that the government keep on top of delivery of this vital remediation scheme.

I very much look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, the Minister,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I beg to move. This motion be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Neville-Rolfe has clearly explained the estates of deceased customers of N, S and I were not always repaid money from were not always repaid money from all of their accounts. Following a bereavement claim. The operational bereavement claim. The operational failure was identified in December 2025, but only reported to
19:38
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
2025, but only reported to Ministers and publicised in March 2026. Now the issues were resolved for current and new bereavement claims from January 2026, though I understand that the revised process is proving hard going and in and of itself is causing more delays. Could the Minister update us? As Baroness Wolf said, some 34,000 estates with a total value of 476 million were affected by the original failure? Could the Minister tell us how many of the families of the bereaved have so far been reunited with their funds in full, and have been compensated for the delay? And what are the costs of compensation and associated fees that will fall on the taxpayer? I understand the pressures to resolve this issue, but frankly, when the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments reports an S I for requiring elution elucidation on quite a number of points and for defective drafting, we really are talking about sloppy.

And that is not acceptable. NSI is one of our most trusted financial institutions, holding over £240 billion belonging to some 24 million customers. It is crucial that it retains trust, which means the response by N, S and I and the government needs to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be both accurate and swift. Noble Baroness is for the for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Baroness is for the for their comments on what is actually their comments on what is actually a very important issue. And just to put in some context, in March, the Minister for pensions announced that National Savings and Investments are identified. Serious failings in its bereavement claims
19:40
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
failings in its bereavement claims process affecting thousands of estates. The N s and I have rightly apologised to the families of the bereaved who were impacted, and the government has acted swiftly to ensure that those estates are reunited with the money they are owed. As the Minister for pensions and NSI set out in May, n s and I will reunite affected estates with the funds owed to them by mid 2027 and ensure that those estates receive compensation where it is appropriate to do so.

The process of issuing letters, repayments and compensation to affected estates is now underway, and Parliament has passed the necessary legislation to ensure that the N, S and I, as the powers to undertake its remediated scheme remediation scheme. Turning to the details of the regulations. Firstly, the regulations referred in the regret motion today. These regulations enable N, S and I to pay compensation to affected estates above the diminished minimis. Specifically, they give n, S and I the power to pay interest to estates for the entire period.

Their funds were wrongly disconnected from them. The funds will be adjusted upwards to include either the higher of the interest accrued since the error occurred, or the Bank of England bases base rate plus one percentage point in line with Financial Ombudsman Service principles. The regulations also give the power to make additional payments for other financial losses, for example, legal fees incurred because of estates needed further administration as a direct result of the errors. The regret motion laid by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-rolfe, covers two areas the process for establishing the remediation scheme to repay claimants and, separately, the cost of that scheme.

I will address them each in turn. Firstly, the process for establishing the scheme after the Treasury was notified about the serious failings in the bereavement claims process in S and I in mid December last year, officials worked at pace with NSI to identify and address the root cause of the issue, to establish which customers were affected and to develop plans to reunite estates with the money. This was a substantial task and NSI the Treasury and external advisers have worked closely to design and implement remediation scheme, which is effective, fair and meets regular standards.

The parameters of this scheme were set out in May and the necessary regulations were then made on June the 10th. MNS and I, supported by independent external advisers and expertise from across government, reviewed over 34 million customers accounts. Up to 34,000 estates have been affected, with a total value of approximately £367 million. These figures are likely to reduce in N s and I will provide an update in its quarterly progress report. Just to say the root cause of the of the initial of the problem is.

The Minister for pensions set out in March N, S and I. Tracing processes failed to comprehensively trace accounts for some customers who passed away. The result of this failure is that not all savings were identified and paid to estates. N s and I have received written assurances from its customer facing supplier and previous supplier, Atos, that the cause of this underlying issue in the tracing of customers accounts has been addressed and will not affect customers going forward. There are several questions that were asked and I can cover them all.

The remediation scheme that was asked about when will it be delivered and how long will it take then we expect that NS&I aims to return holdings to their rightful owners as swiftly as possible, and expects to complete its remediation programme in the first half of 2027. And what is the Treasury's assessment of the overall cost of this programme? As NSI is in the early stages of delivering this scheme, the expected costs to taxpayers are uncertain at this stage.

Further information on expected costs will be included in NSI annual report and accounts in the autumn n s and I will be able to develop a clearer estimate as the programme progresses and more data becomes available on the average volumes and amounts of additional payments. The overall cost will also depend on the feasibility of recovering public money. N s and I will publish an update on progress, including payment of outstanding holdings against its delivery plans on a quarterly basis. The point of introducing the Statutory Instrument is to provide a clear, fair and consistent framework for customers to be reunited with the funds as quickly as possible.

Without a scheme in place, the costs of handling potentially thousands of individual complaints and legal cases could significantly increase the operational burden, costs and legal fees for for N, S and I, and put pressure on the public finance, the Minister for for pensions said there would not be a cost to taxpayers as a result of the remediation scheme. The Minister for pensions, in his statement to the Commons, challenged the inaccurate reporting in the press that implied the costs from returning money owed to estates would impact the taxpayer.

These monies are owed to these estates and will be repaid using funds provided through the National Loan Fund. In the same way, funds would be transferred to a customer of NS&I wishing to make a withdrawal. These repayments are simply the return of customers funds and do not create any additional liability for the taxpayer. Also, about the existing budgets, I was we were asked about that as well as N, s and I is in the earliest phases of delivering the scheme.

The expected costs for taxpayers are uncertain at this stage, with further information to be provided in s annual report and accounts in the autumn, and the Treasury and N, S and I will together assess the feasibility of recovery costs associated with the scheme. But this is an extensive process and it will take time to make this recess, this assessment. There will also be operational costs of running the scheme and costs of compensation where appropriate. Affected affected estates. This will be paid from NS&I budgets in the first instance, and NSI is expected to manage pressures within its budgets set at the Spending Review last year.

My Lords, let me end by reiterating the government's commitment to deliver redress for all those impacted by the serious failings in the NS&I bereavement claims process. The government and NSI NSI have taken action to address these failings. To develop a plan to reunite customers with their money and to ensure that these failings can never happen again. The processing process of issuing letters, repayments and compensation to affected estates is now underway, and the government will continue to ensure that those impacted receive the support that they deserve.

We take this very seriously and we do want to see the money given back to those estates that have and the individuals that have been affected. This is an important issue, and it's one that we want to solve as soon as possible. OK.
19:48
19:50
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Leong. >> My Lords, I beg to move that the House approves the trade unions permissible means of voting and the Employment Rights Unfair Dismissal Amendment Order 2026 and the accompanying Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for statutory trade union ballots. I also note the motion of regret tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom, and I'm glad for the opportunity to debate this important reforms, and I shall address the concerns the noble Lord has raised during my remarks.

This Statutory Instrument and the accompanying code of practice were laid before Parliament on 22nd of June 2026. My Lords, this instrument has a clear and straightforward purpose. It modernises the statutory framework governing certain trade union ballots by allowing secure electronic voting and workplace ballots, while preserving the integrity, secrecy and independence that are fundamental to every statutory union ballot. Alongside this reforms, it makes a minor, consequential amendment to section 105 of the Employment Act Act 1996 to ensure that the legislation remains consistent following the changes made by the Employment Rights Act, 2025.

These are measured and practical reforms. They update how statutory ballots may be conducted. They do not alter the legal framework governing industrial action or trade union democracy. The legislation governing statutory trade union ballots was developed in an era when postal voting presented the most practical way to conduct nationwide ballots. That is no longer the world in which we live today. People routinely undertake secure and sensitive transactions online. Yet under the current law, almost all statutory trade union ballots must still be conducted solely by post.

That approach has not kept pace with the way people live or work. It can be slower, more expensive and more administratively burdensome than modern alternatives. The government made a clear commitment in its make work pay manifesto to modernise statutory trade union ballots by allowing secure electronic voting and workplace ballots. This instrument delivers that commitment. The instrument introduces introduces three additional methods of voting for statutory trade union ballots, with the exception of statutory recognition and de-recognition ballots, which will be addressed separately in 2027.

First, it permits electronic voting, allowing eligible members to cast their votes securely online using personal authentication, authentication credentials. Electronic voting will only be available where a union member has provided a personal email address or personal telephone number to the union. This ensures that voting materials are issued through personal channels and remain outside employer controlled or union controlled workplace communication systems. Secondly, the instrument permits hybrid working. Under this model, members will receive their voting materials by post but may choose whether to return their vote electronically or by post.

No one will be required to vote electronically if they prefer not to do so. Thirdly, the instrument allows workplace voting for industrial action ballots. This option is available only where both the employer and the trade union agree, and where the ballot is conducted under the supervision of an independent scrutiny in a suitable secure workplace location. Workplace voting reflects the fact that industrial action ballots concern workplace issues, while maintaining the same statutory safeguards that apply to every other lawful ballot.

None of these new methods is mandatory. Postal voting remains available. Trade unions will decide which lawful voting methods best suits their membership. The purpose of this reform is to expand choice, not remove it. Alongside this instrument, the government has laid a draft code of practice on electronic and workplace ballots. The code provides detailed, practical guidance on how this new voting voting matters should operate in practice. It complements the legislation by setting clear expectations on accessibility, administration, security and transparency.

My Lords, I now turn directly to the motion of regret tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe. The motion raises concerns about ballot integrity, cyber security verification, audit, auditability, resilience and the operation of workplace ballots. Now, I want to be absolutely clear this instrument does not make industrial action easier to authorise without safeguards. It does not weaken ballot integrity. It does not ignore cyber security verification or auditability or resilience. And it does not ignore the position of employers on consent or operational disturbance, or rather disruption, cost, privacy or security.

The use of independent scrutiny remains mandatory. Cyber security certification for electronic methods, secure vote authentication and ballot secrecy are mandatory. Far from weakening confidence, these reforms strengthen participation while preserving the safeguards that Parliament has long regarded as essential. My Lords, this instrument brings statutory trade union ballots into the 21st

**** Possible New Speaker ****

century. It modernises the methods of voting without Changing the fundamental principles of trade union democracy. principles of trade union democracy. It preserves the integrity, independence and secrecy that are essential in every statutory ballot. These are balanced, proportionate and carefully designed reforms. They make participation more accessible while maintaining confidence in the legitimacy of statutory ballots. My Lords, I therefore hope that noble Lords will support both the instrument and the accompanying code of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

practice. My Lords, I beg to move. The question is this motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this motion be agreed to. Amendment Lord Sharpe of Epsom. My Lords, I'm very grateful to the Minister for explaining and introducing the Statutory Instruments to which, as he has noted, that I have tabled a regret amendment because the instruments risk us do risk making it easier,
19:57
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
risk us do risk making it easier, quicker and cheaper for unions to secure a mandate for strike action while leaving too many questions unanswered about ballot integrity, cyber security, workplace disruption, employer costs and the ability of employers to challenge defects in the process. So I'd like to start by asking the Minister a number of very specific questions. Firstly, paragraph 5.14 of the explanatory memorandum sets out that the government's reasoning against piloting electronic balloting. Now, whether or not one accepts that reasoning, at least the government have attempted to explain their approach.

But I do not see the equivalent justification for workplace balloting. Workplace balloting is an entirely new voting method for industrial action ballots. It creates practical questions for employers about space security, access, staff release supervision, privacy, CCTV, safeguarding, operational disruption and cost. And I could go on. Yet, as I understand it, the impact assessment does not actually even cost workplace voting, and nor has there been a pilot to test how it would operate in real workplaces, and particularly not in complex environments such as hospitals, schools, care settings, secure sites, manufacturing sites, multi-site operations, and shift based workplaces.

So can the Minister therefore explain why the government are introducing workplace voting without a pilot and without costed evidence of the likely impact on employers? The impact assessment also states that the policy is expected to deliver net benefits overall, primarily through reduced costs to trade unions from the use of electronic balloting compared with postal methods, with estimated annual savings of between 2 million and £8.2 million. Why is reducing the administrative costs of trade unions now a priority for the government? My Lords, what is a small business meant to think when it reads that its margins are being squeezed by higher taxes, higher employment costs, regulation and endless compliance burdens, and yet it never sees this level of ministerial enthusiasm for reducing their costs.

But when it comes to trade unions, the government appear willing to redesign statutory balloting rules to save them money and make industrial action easier to organise. This says a great deal about the priorities behind this order. Secondly, the instrument designates the trade union itself as the responsible person for determining which voting method or methods are used for its own statutory ballots. The union has an obvious interest in the outcome of the ballot. Can the Minister therefore explain why the trade union, rather than the independent Scrutineer, has been designated as the responsible person for determining the means of voting? And how do they intend to avoid a conflict between the Union's interest in securing a mandate and its judgement on the practicality, on the accessibility, security and integrity of the voting method that has been selected? Thirdly, who is responsible for enforcing the required cyber security standard? What happens if a system is compromised during a ballot, and what information will employers be given if they are expected to assess whether a ballot mandate is valid? Paragraph 38 of the Code of Practice says that only the Union may want to, and I stress, may want to appoint the independent scrutiny as a first step so that the Scrutineer can advise on the balloting plan.

That is not a hard edge safeguard. It still leaves the initial strategic decision on whether to use electronic, hybrid or workplace voting with the union itself. Paragraphs 39 to 41 are similarly weak on cyber security. They acknowledge that some ballots may be more sensitive, including where there is a risk of attempted interference, hacking or even hostile state activity. Yet the code says only that the union and the scrutineer again. That phrase may want to seek advice from the National Cyber Security Centre.

If the government is serious about the integrity of electronic ballots, why is that advice optional rather than mandatory in sensitive ballots, and particularly those affecting critical public services? Public sector employees employers have particular reason to be concerned in hospitals, care settings, schools and other essential public services. The concern is whether staff can be released safely, whether patient, pupil or service user carers is affected and whether safeguarding arrangements are maintained. My Lords, these instruments form part of the government's wider Employment Rights Act passage package.

That package reduces the notice that employers receive before industrial action, extends the life of mandates, removes previous restrictions and strengthens union access to the workplace as well, of course, as adding billions in administrative costs. Taken together, these measures reduce employer flexibility and tilt the balance of power further away from employers who are trying to maintain services, productivity and investment. It is also striking that paragraph 9.5 of the explanatory memorandum says that these measures may improve participation and the representativeness of ballot outcomes, but this is in contrast with what Jonathan Reynolds said last year, saying that aligning the removal of the 50% turnout threshold with the introduction of balloting would, and I quote, ensure that industrial action mandates will have demonstrably broad support, end quote.

The removal of the 50% threshold was set to happen in April of this year, but it has not yet happened. I hope that is because even the Treasury has begun to understand the consequences that repeated militant strike action in critical public services would have for taxpayers, who would be forced to fork out millions for pay rises for the public sector. Indeed, they already have. Can the Minister tell us whether the government still intends to move to remove the 50% threshold, and if so, on what date will section 68 be commenced if Ministers can't give a date? Is that because they're concerned that removing the threshold alongside electronic voting would increase the likelihood of industrial action in schools and other public services? My Lords, the government seem to have discovered a very selective enthusiasm for technology.

Technology to help unions secure strike mandates is called modernising industrial relations. Yet, according to recent reports, the new Prime Minister is considering scrapping Palantir's work with the NHS, despite the fact that better data and technology are exactly what the NHS needs to improve efficiency, productivity and patient care. And in spite of the fact that it's widely reported to be working at a time when critical public services, especially the NHS, need reform, investment and innovation, the government should be backing technology that helps patients and taxpayers, not prioritising cartel behaviour from the BMA, who have warned they will behave more move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the original question was that the regulations laid before the House on the 22nd of June be the House on the 22nd of June be approved, since when an amendment has been moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom at the end to insert the Epsom at the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this amendment be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. My Lords, it's a pleasure to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow the Lord. Lord Sharpe.
20:04
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
However, I rise to oppose the regret motion and to support these measures which bring statutory measures which bring statutory Union balloting into the 21st century and modernise an outdated century and modernise an outdated postal only system. Our primary purpose must be to make it easier purpose must be to make it easier for members to participate in their own union democracy. Higher turnout strengthens workers collective voice and ensures that votes are more representative of the membership. All Democrats should welcome these reforms, and they have been a long time coming.

Back in 2016, the then conservative government commissioned a review from Sir Ken Knight on union electronic balloting. However, the then government never published a response. But even Sir Ken's report acknowledged that a postal only system disproportionately disenfranchised people with mobility disabilities and visual impairments, as well as young members who are much more likely to rent and change addresses more frequently. It also disadvantages significant groups of union members who spend long periods working away from home, such as offshore energy workers, seafarers, lorry drivers, cabin crew and air pilots.

Construction and creative workers. So I have no doubt that in an age when we increasingly live our lives online, and particularly post-COVID, when growing numbers work online too, that this reform will widen democratic participation. Of course, it's right that concerns about cyber security and audits regarding e ballots are taken very seriously. For unions, this will be addressed through the Code of practice and requirements such as ensuring that scrutiny is a Cyber Essentials Plus accredited.

I only wish that a stringent protection was required for company shareholder ballots, or indeed for ballots conducted by political parties that have been running for years. Given that the impact of any potential security breach for those organisations is at least as significant as those as for those conducted by trade unions, the regulations in themselves do not change strike ballot thresholds or substantive legal tests. Although, of course, it should pave the way for the repeal of the 50% threshold, which the Employment Rights Act ties to the introduction of balloting.

Any update that the Minister can provide on how soon this will be progressed would be welcome. It would also be helpful to have clarity on when phase three is going to happen, and what could come from it. For example, unions want to be able to send ballots safely and securely to members workplace emails. Around a third of union membership databases can be can include workplace email addresses, so that change could help maximise participation, too. Finally, I would welcome reassurance from my noble Lord that the extension of balloting to union recognition ballots will take place as early as possible in 2027.
20:08
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour)
-
-
This. as the chair of a class as set out in the register. And I'm grateful for. To my noble friend, the Minister, for his detailed Minister, for his detailed introduction to these two S's. As we know, these proposals are part of the rollout of the Employment of the rollout of the Employment Rights Act reforms, which are being introduced in line with the roadmap published at that time. And there's been detailed consultation and stakeholder involvement in shaping the code of practice and Acas have also been closely involved with DfT officials to shape that code.

So, my Lords, there's been plenty of time for employers and unions to prepare for these changes, and they don't contain any surprises. In fact, in a recent YouGov survey, 62% of employers reported feeling very or fairly confident about the upcoming changes to trade union rights, with only 21% not feeling confident. These proposals bring the balloting regime into the modern age, with the provisions for electronic, hybrid and workplace voting being similar to decision making in many other sectors, including political parties and shareholder votes.

So we welcome the fact that it will enhance the democratic process and increase participation, giving employers and unions more confidence that the outcome fully represents the views of those consulted in the ballot. And, my Lords, it's been important to us that the code use clear, plain, unambiguous language. This reduces the potential for misunderstandings, non-compliance and disputes, particularly at the early stages of implementation. When parties are unfamiliar with the new rights and responsibilities. And it's also important that the code strikes the right balance between principles and detail, and is properly tailored to those who will actually use the code.

For example, Acas administers voluntary ballots, particularly in recognition negotiations, as a useful tool in dispute resolution. So we're grateful that, following feedback, it's now been confirmed that these are out of scope of this particular code. This underlines how the department has listened and amended the code to reflect the practical needs of users. Finally, my Lords, while we welcome the increased participation and decision making that the code will deliver, we urge parties to keep their focus on resolving disputes through partnership and of course, Acas conciliation services are just a phone call away.

Sadly, the latest Acas research shows that 44% of people are experiencing conflict at work in the last year. My Lords, this has a cost to businesses, individuals and the economy. In the stress, time off, presenteeism and many more effects. And your Lordships have already previously discussed the fact that employment tribunal cases are rising, causing a growing unacceptable backlog of hearings. So there's clearly rising levels of discontent and unhappiness in workplace relationships. Acas already provides training and guidance on working effectively with trade unions, but we need to do more.

So I hope my noble friend the Minister, in his response, can say what more could be done to encourage parties to prevent and manage disputes, so that the needs for ballots does not arise. And I hope he agrees that where disputes do arise, the parties should be encouraged to make use of a collective conciliation services or other informal resolution, rather than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resorting to quickly to a ballot. I look forward to his response. Hey!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey! My Lords, I rise to support the regret motion tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe. My Lords, the Lord Lord Sharpe. My Lords, the strength of this country over the last 20 or 30 years has been in its very, very flexible labour market. And those of us who've like me, who've from time to time managed who've from time to time managed staff in European labour markets, know what the difference is like
20:12
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)
-
-
endless consultation, inflexibility, disputes, reluctance to employ disputes, reluctance to employ people and the significant role for social partners and trade unions is a big part of that. And now we are a big part of that. And now we are bringing that home to this country, and we already see the effects in the employment statistics. Now, the employment statistics. Now, today's SSIs that we're debating are just the latest phase in that they obviously build on what was they obviously build on what was done in the Employment Act, the extra rights for trade unions, which has been much debated, and I won't go into now, but the extra right to workplace access, easier recognition rights for union officials on employer time and, of course, lower thresholds for ballots, all kinds, including strikes.

Which brings us on to today's SSIs. My Lord, as we've heard from the Minister, the main thing that these SSIs do is to extend the the types and the arrangements of ballots that can be carried out before a strike and is presented. And indeed, the Minister did present it as modernisation of the system. My Lords, I fear that whether deliberately or not, the effect is going to be to make it easier for politically motivated union officials to make strike action happen.

Now the trade union reforms of the 1980s were brought in for a reason, and postal ballots were brought in for a reason. It was to stop intimidation. It was to make ballots secure. As to both the process and as the reliability of the result. And these SSIs risk undoing that process or beginning to do it. Workplace ballots obviously make potential intimidation of workers easier. Electronic voting, we know, is insecure. We wouldn't do it in our own general elections, and the government's own impact assessment is doubtful about the ability to provide security for such ballots.

And, of course, to add to that, trade unions themselves are made the responsible person for such ballots rather than an independent third party. Now, I imagine the Ministers will point to other organisations that have used such methods. Indeed, the Conservative Party, the National Trust, financial services institutions and so on. But I suggest gently, that such organisations do not have the same record of questionable behaviour bullying threats that unions have done from time to time. Now, we know that happened in the 1980s, but it didn't happen only then.

There are credible reports of such threats during the Post Office dispute. 2022 2023 the Birmingham bins dispute where the High Court itself was involved in this, and there are many other such cases. And this is the problem with bringing insecurity into strike ballots. We're risking bringing back some of the forces that made problems for this country in the 1980s, and which we've not seen much of in the last 20 or 30 years. So to finish with some questions for the Minister.

Does does this record not give him any pause for thought? He's a very successful businessman himself. Does he not worry about some of these these consequences? Does he not worry that since most unions nowadays are in the public sector, is he confident that these rules are not going to come back and bite the government at some point very soon? Why, as the noble Lord Lord Sharpe has. Have pilot arrangements been rejected? And finally, when we look at the unemployment figures over the last year or so, does Mr.

not have any qualms about what has been done with the Employment Act? The additional costs to Labour in this country? Would it not be better for him and the government to think again while we still can?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I need to declare an interest,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I need to declare an interest, because yesterday morning in the post, I received my ballot paper for the election of the General Secretary of my union, and I looked at it and of course I can. I will at it and of course I can. I will be voting. I won't tell you for be voting. I won't tell you for whom, but. It just seemed absurd that I could only do it by post.
20:17
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-
When I think that I can pay my income tax online, I can tax my car, income tax online, I can tax my car, I can book airline tickets, I can pay my gas bill. I can regrettably pay my gas bill. I can regrettably pay my speeding fines. I can vote pay my speeding fines. I can vote in building society elections. I can check my register to vote. So can check my register to vote. So it is involved in elections. I can apply for a postal vote.

I can correspond about any responsibility I have to participate in jury service. I can undertake DBS checks, highly sensitive, highly secret, all online. Why is this particular ballot that I have on my desk at home having to be done by post? And the clear thing is there when gamblers have this famous thing of the tell, someone blinks and you can tell what's happening. Well, kindly the opposition here, their tell is they actually put it in the motion and in the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom speech.

What they're against is making the exercise of democratic rights by free associations. They want to make it harder, they want to slow it down, and they want to make it more expensive. That's the tell. This is anti this is antiquated old fashioned anti-trade union prejudice. That's what's at the heart of it. And that's what we learned from the noble Lords speech when moving it. Just a quick comment on the comments of the speech by the noble Lord Lord Frost.

He talked about a flexible labour market. Well, we know what that's code for from the Conservative Party and its conservative members. It's about making life tough for trade unions, making life tough for rank and file employees who simply wish to exercise their democratic rights to run their own free association in the way that they want. And the more we facilitate that, the better for.
20:19
Lord Balfe Portrait Lord Balfe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> I've been a trade union member for something just over 67 years that's longer than my membership of the two political parties put together for the last 13 years, together for the last 13 years, while I've been in this House, I have at different times been the president of the British Dietetic Association, a TUC affiliated union, and Balpa, the pilots union. Also TUC affiliated union. The image that people try and give that these are somehow illegitimate organisations is totally wrong.

Most of the executive time is spent sorting out the day to day problems of members, and that's what they're there for. The debate over balloting has gone on for years. Both the unions I've been president of and the union I'm a member of, have suggested to government that we should sit down and find a way out of this problem. We have not had any encouragement at all. At the time of the 2016 act. David Cameron almost conceded that there would be a consultation, but it never happened.

And the fact of the matter is that it's become more and more time consuming and costly for unions to stay within the law. I asked the certification officer's office whether they had any complaints about balloting in the procedures. They couldn't produce any. All they would say to me is that the certification officer's job is to uphold the law, not to make it. And he was satisfied that the law had been upheld. So, you know, where are we going to go? I suggest one place we could go is to try and get a more realistic view of trade unions.

There's about 5 million in this country. 2 million of them vote for the Conservative Party. You'd be surprised how seldom politics came up in the two unions that I was president of. The unions were about looking after the workers and looking after their rights and their rights at work. A strike was not. Something looked forward to. The strike marked the fact that you would not manage to negotiate your way out of a problem. No one said, oh goody, let's go and have a strike.

Those people said, what else could we possibly do? And it was done. Mention has been made. I'll mention it again. The huge number of people who use balloting to elect people my own club, the Reform Club, I served as its finance chairman for some years. I was elected by a postal ballot, but people could also vote electronically. No one ever raised any question about whether or not it was fair, because it manifestly was. Now, what I would say to this House is get real about trade unions.

2 million of them vote for the Conservative Party. They don't believe that they're joining some insurrectionist, left wing party. Most of them believe that they're trying to improve their standard at work. And as a final word, if you ask our union what are the most popular services, they will tell you free legal advice and motor car insurance policies being reduced. That's the reason why lots of people join the union and long may it last. But please Conservative Party, do settle down and come into the real world.
20:24
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, today has been Frank Sinatra Day regrets. My Lords, Sinatra Day regrets. My Lords, there have been many regrets this afternoon, and we're thankful to afternoon, and we're thankful to the noble Lord Sharpe for this last one. Last, my Lords, but by no means least, it seemed a short time ago that we were discussing such issues as have been raised by this Statutory Instrument in the Employment Rights Bill. But actually, when I look at the calendar in many respects, it was nearly a year ago.

I guess it's still looms large in my in in my life. But to, to many extents, this this debate is something of a rerun of what we discussed then. And in that spirit, I reiterate that liberal Democrats believe in free association, that free association is a fundamental right. And that, of course, includes the workplace. Employees should be free to join or not join a trade union, and they should not face penalties either way. And to participate in a union and freely associate from time to time, there needs to be votes.

And the government's urge to update the process of voting is entirely sensible, and one that we support. My Lords, as we've heard, this Statutory Instrument extends the possible ways of voting now, as I expected, and as we've heard, some of the noble Lords have set out concerns about coercion. I fail to see how changing the voting system changes the level of coercion. The examples that the noble Lord Frost used, whether rightly or wrongly, have happened when there wasn't electronic voting.

That has nothing to do with the issue of coercion. My Lords, if there is coercion and in some cases I'm sure, as in every form of life, there is coercion. As I understand it, there is an act in place to deal with that. The Employment Relations Act of 2004 already contains the necessary legal requirements to guarantee that ballots are cast in secret and free from intimidation. So, my Lords, that's a starting point. Now, the noble Lord Sharpe came up with a rather longer list of potential disasters that could befall an electronic vote.

Perhaps his regular experience with Tory party leadership online elections has made him suspicious or sensitised him to this issue, but in this case, his list of concerns for union votes fails to recognise the provisions in the in the Statutory Instrument for any Union to consider a number of important safeguards, ballot security and secrecy. Kind of what he was talking about. Risks associated with each ballot member method, members preferences, accessibility and equal opportunities to vote, issues that we've heard today.

That's in the that's where what we're talking about. And to be honest, I think that debunks a lot of what the noble Lord spoke about, but I would also refer him to to the monitoring and review section of the explanatory memorandum ten one and ten two, which sets out some of the safeguards that go on. So. Ten two monitoring the use and effects of non postal balloting will also contribute to the government's wider consideration of participation. And as we heard from the the Baroness O'Grady, the the issue around the 50% turnout which which the noble Lord Sharpe brought out is dependent on the government laying a report on the.

The process of electronic ballot balloting. Ten one it talks about monitoring the legislation through ongoing engagement with key stakeholders and existing oversight mechanisms. So the. The noble Lord seem to imply that this is just being cast into the workplace, and there is no regime for covering it. I do not accept that. And it's wrong, my accept that. And it's wrong, my Lords. I think in sum, we the the concerns of the noble Lord Sharpe were raised at the time.

Some of the measures in this Statutory Instrument, as I recall, came as a result of some of his interventions, I believe, during during that debate it is both. A long time ago and yesterday, my Lords. So. So I would leave it with your Lordships that that that I'm sure the noble Lord Sharpe has a few regrets, but I do not think he needs to regret this particular statutory motion.
20:29
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
That's four minutes. >> Oh well, my Lords, I'm very grateful for the support across the House, especially the noble Lord Lord Woolf and noble Lord Lord Fox Lord Woolf and noble Lord Lord Fox for the trade unions, permissible means of voting and employment rights. Unfair Dismissal Amendment Order 2026 and the Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade union ballots. Today's scrutiny and debate have been constructive and light-hearted at some point, and noble Lords have raised interesting points on dispute resolution, workplace ballots and the next phases of delivery.

For this measure, they've also raised points on the 50% threshold intimidation and dispute resolution, as I mentioned earlier. So I will address these points briefly, my Lord. First, I want to respond to the point raised by my noble friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch on dispute resolution. Industrial action should always be the last resort. It is costly for workers, employers and the wider public. That is why this government is committed to a new era of partnership. We want employers, unions and government to work together through cooperation, negotiation and meaningful engagement at workplace level.

We intend to develop an over a new overarching industrial relations framework, working with stakeholders such as employers and unions to promote partnership, reduce conflict, and supportive, productive productivity and growth. And I think that's a noble ambition. My Lords. Let me now respond to the points raised by my noble friend Baroness O'Grady, the Baroness, the noble Baroness, Baroness and the noble Lord Sharpe. Also asked about the 50% threshold for industrial action ballots. To be clear, the order does not repeal that threshold and I think noble Lord Faulks have also mentioned that to commence section 68 of the Employment Rights Act 2025, the Secretary of State must first lay a statement before Parliament.

This must set out how he has had regard to the impact of electronic and other non postal voting methods on participation in industrial action ballots. This instrument delivers on our commitment to permit electronic and workplace balloting. The review of that impact on participation will then follow and inform the repeal of the 50% threshold. The noble Baroness also asked about the use of workplace email addresses. Following implementation of this instrument, we plan to establish a Senior Oversight Board comprised of key stakeholders to help assess how the new voting methods are working in practice and consider future enhancements, including the secure use of workplace email addresses.

As it stands, we are not doing that now. The noble Baroness also raised recognition and de-recognition ballots. We are committed to extending electronic and hybrid voting to the Central Arbitration Committee, or CAC run recognition and de-recognition ballots as part of phase two of delivery. We will deliver this as soon as practicable in the second half of 2027. My Lord, let me turn now to the various points raised by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe on workplace balloting. Employers will not be forced to allow workplace voting.

It can only take place where an employer agrees. Employers remain free to consider operational disruption, privacy, security and practical arrangements. Before giving that agreement, the union will continue to bear the costs of running the ballot itself, with no cost to the employer on the role of the responsible person. In practice, this will be the trade union. That is because the union is best placed to understand its membership and communication methods when deciding the appropriate voting method or methods, it would not make sense to outsource this role to a third party who will not have the information to make this determination.

But I want to reassure the noble Lord that this decision is not unfettered. The instrument sets out clear factors and criteria that must be applied before a voting method can be chosen. On cybersecurity. Responsibility rests with the independent scrutiny. Scrutineers conducting electronic ballots must hold a valid cyber essential plus certificate for networks and systems to use, and I have personal knowledge of how a laborious to apply for the Cyber Essential Plus certificate is something that one has to go through and is actually quite rigorous in its application.

They are also responsible for operating the platform securely and ensuring that the legislative requirements are met. There will be extensive audit, logging and monitoring throughout the ballot, and any security incident must be recorded. And if the legislative requirements are not met, the union will not be able to rely on that ballot and it must be rerun. I hope that provides some reassurance to to the noble Lord. I want to be clear what these orders does. It steps away from the current bureaucratic and expensive requirements that all statutory union ballots must be held by post.

It brings the voting system for trade ballots into the 21st century, and it delivers this change in a manner that ensures secure, secret and safe balloting. It does not, as we have heard today, weaken the safeguards relating to industrial action ballots. It does not weaken ballot integrity, and it does not leave questions of cyber security, verification or disability employer consent and calls unanswered. Lastly, let as I have said, as I have already made clear, workplace voting can only take place where the employers agree.

Employers remain able to consider operational disruptions, privacy, security and practical arrangements before giving that agreement. This is an overdue reform. My Lords, before I conclude, let me touch on a couple of points raised by noble Lords as well. I think the noble Lord Sharpe asked about why. Why don't we organise a ballot, a pilot rather, it is not necessary to pilot workplace balloting for statutory union ballots. This instrument is informed by detailed engagement with key stakeholders, including businesses, cyber security experts, unions and independent scrutineers, as well as public consultation on the draft Code of practice on electronic and workplace ballots itself.

I think also asks about cost, and I did mention that there's no cost to the employer. The employer expects, the government expects that individual unions will determine which voting arrangements best meet their operational needs, and will bear the costs themselves. And he also touched on the doctor's strike. My Lords, the government will continue to engage closely with BMA, ensuring the NHS remains a place where doctors can develop a rewarding and long term careers. The government is committed to building on the good progress already made, cutting waiting lists and continuing to improve conditions for the staff who make their NHS work in partnership with them.

Let me now address the point that Lord the noble Lord Frost mentioned about pressure and intimidation. My Lords of Government fully recognises the importance of protecting members from any undue influence. That is why the statutory safeguards governing ballot conduct remain in place, regardless of the voting method. The Company Code of Practice provides guidance and guidance on maintaining ballot secrecy and integrity, and the independent scrutiny remains an important safeguard throughout the process itself. My Lords, this legislation sets out clear safeguards and technical standards, ensuring integrity and confidence of the ballot process whilst making it meaningfully easier and more convenient for working people to take part in the decisions that affect themselves.

My Lords, before I conclude, I just want to wish all noble Lords who will not be here tomorrow and wish them a fantastic, restful summer recess. And with that, my Lords, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My, my. Enormously grateful to the Minister who actually answered my questions, I hope, I hope that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my questions, I hope, I hope that's not a bad sign. Great. Is that a bad sign? I think we should be told. To break through.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To break through. I'm also. That was that was a spirited and actually enjoyable spirited and actually enjoyable debate. So I'd like to thank everybody who took part in it. My Lords, I'm particularly grateful to
20:38
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Lords, I'm particularly grateful to the noble Lord Lord Fox because he said that the Liberal Democrats believed in free association. I'm delighted to hear that they believe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in something. It's a first. We've been.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We've been. My Lords. Lord Fox also made parts of my arguments for me and I won't labour the point. But he won't labour the point. But he referred to the consideration of various safeguards as opposed to the enactment of them. That was precisely the point I was making, precisely the point I was making, and I'm very grateful to the noble Lord for reiterating it. I'd like to thank the noble Lord Lord Powell to thank the noble Lord Lord Powell for his insights as well on on the unions.

I'm particularly intrigued by the free legal advice, which I fear I may need fairly soon if I carry on like this. The noble Lord Lord Frost made some excellent points about the historical context, and I think we should pay attention to him. I noticed that the noble Lord. The Minister, didn't say whether or not he'd been given pause for thought, but I'm sure we can discuss that. Perhaps outside the chamber. And look, one of the things that seemed to be talked about on the other side, about this side of the House is that we in some way are against the exercise of democratic rights.

We are against. We're not about when we are interested in making life tough for people who are in unions. Can I just assure the House that that is not the case? What we are pro is making jobs, and unfortunately, a lot of the acts and activities that this government have put through have made that very difficult a point, I think that was made very clearly by Baroness Jones, actually, perhaps inadvertently. The fact is, the 44% of the employees who are expressing discontent, well, they're the lucky ones.

They've got jobs. Let's not forget the 14.8% of NEETs who unfortunately, we heard about yesterday in the latest, latest statistics. And finally, my Lords, the noble Lady Baroness O'Grady and I found common cause in two areas. She can probably only think of the one which was the section 68, and I'm very pleased that she agrees with me on that. And I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for his answer. I think he said we'll hear about more about this in the second half of 2027.

If I've got that wrong, perhaps he could correct me. But the other area again, that the noble Lady Baroness O'Grady and I agreed on was how important democracy is, which is why it's such a shame the new Prime Minister has taken power after a bloodless coup. My Lords, it's very late. I don't see the point in having a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vote. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordship? Pleasure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship? Pleasure. This amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is the original motion The question is the original motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content, that opinion will say content, content, content, the content have it Code of Practice on electronic it Code of Practice on electronic and workplace ballots. The statutory trade union ballots Lord Leong move formally. The question is that the second motion in the name of Lord Leong be agreed to.

As many as are of that opinion will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say content not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg. adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page