Lords Chamber

Thursday 22nd October 2026

(began 1 day, 2 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:08
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Petterson and Baroness Garnham
-

>> >> Third. >> Third. By >> Third. By the >> Third. By the grace >> Third. By the grace of >> Third. By the grace of God, >> Third. By the grace of God, of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of our other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other. Our subjects, whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we. Of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act, 1958, and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create, and prefer our trusty and well-beloved Mark Edward Patterson, to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Pettersen of Shenington, in our county of Oxfordshire, and for us our heirs and successors do appoint, give, and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Pettersen, to have and to hold unto him for his life willing, and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and public Assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities, and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or as they do at present, use and enjoy in witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent.

 Witness ourself at Westminster in the forenoon of the 28th day of August. In the fourth year of our sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, mark Lord Petterson do swear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, mark Lord Petterson do swear by Almighty God that I'll be faithful and bear true allegiance faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty. King Charles, his heirs and successors according to heirs and successors according to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom, of Great of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth. King, head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all spiritual and temporal, and all other. Our subjects, whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we. Of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act, 1958, and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create and prefer our trusty and well-beloved Alison Esther Garnham, to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Garnham of Stoke Newington in our London Borough of Hackney, and for us our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto her the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Garnham to have and to hold unto her for her life willing, and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that she may have hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and public Assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that she may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities, and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or as they do at present, use and enjoy in witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent.

Witness ourself at Westminster in the forenoon of the first day of September, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, Alison Baroness Garnham, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty. King Charles, his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First First Oral First Oral Question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First Oral Question Lord Nagaraju. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw attention to my AI and digital interests, which are set out in the
11:19
None Portrait Oral questions: Procedural flexibility in the House of Lords when developments occur after a Written Question, Oral Question or debate has been tabled Lord Nagaraju (Labour)
-

interests, which are set out in the full register of interests.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, our procedures allow flexibility, including topical oral questions, private notice questions
11:19
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:30
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton Portrait Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Labour)
-
-
authorities already have duties under the Care Act to assess carers needs and meet those eligible needs, while the Better Care Fund can provide can support respite, short breaks and peer support. However, breaks and peer support. However, funding and duties must result in meaningful support on the ground, so we will continue to examine how effectively existing arrangements are working and to consider whether further action is required to enable more support. Because we recognise the importance of unpaid carers receiving high quality

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support wherever they live in the United Kingdom. My Lord, my Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. 15,000 school children caring for parents and siblings and doing for parents and siblings and doing so for over 50 hours a week. And of those 3000 are between the ages of those 3000 are between the ages of five and nine. Those young carers are most at risk from missing school, being suspended and underachieving, and they're not identified for, on average, three years. So will the action plan mentioned by Baroness Keighley enable those young carers to be identified much earlier, so they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get the hope, the help and support which they deserve? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord for his work in this area, and I appreciate the noble Lord raising this very the noble Lord raising this very important point. The Carers Action Plan indeed has a whole section on children and young carers, and the children and young carers, and the action plan overall is split into three sections, the first of which is recognise to the noble Lords is recognise to the noble Lords point. We understand how easy it is, particularly for children and young people, to go under the radar, and there will be a cross-ministerial group working on this, including Minister Waugh, whose early education years Minister McGovern, as well as colleagues from DWP and.

 Best, the Department for business, innovation, Science and Technology. Recognition of carers. Whichever part of the life phase they're in is profoundly important, and we recognise that young carers make a particular contribution. And when consideration of children and as the noble Lord raised children, particularly aged 5 to 9 incredibly young, is a different range of concerns that we wish to respond to there because we recognise for children and young people they should not be expected to undertake excessive or inappropriate care and responsibilities, and that can really affect, as the noble Lord raised that child's educational prospects.

So it is important that the whole family can access the right support at the right time.
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
None Portrait Oral questions: Impact on menopausal women of the hormone replacement therapy product shortage Baroness Nargund (Labour)
-

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper. >> My Lords, most. >> Of the 70 HRT products available
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
Where there are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Disparities in terms of ethnicity, in respect of. HRT use, ethnicity, in respect of. HRT use, particularly in older women who may also be very unaware and excluded also be very unaware and excluded from the support that's available. So these ongoing studies, I believe,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So these ongoing studies, I believe, will actually assist us to make it more widely available. Would the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would the. Minister agree that the issue of HRT secure provision is not a new issue? It's been going on for years, causes women huge fear and anxiety. And would she share my suspicion And would she share my suspicion that if men needed HRT, there would be less disruption to supply? be less disruption to supply? I couldn't possibly comment. But it is important to acknowledge that concern amongst women or any other group is can be very distressing and worrying. And that is why we have taken all of the actions and that I've already described. But I would emphasise that the significant supply pressures on HRT go back to 2022, and there have been considerable improvements.

And just to reiterate, again, we're talking about three products out of 70, and there are alternatives available. I would encourage any woman who's concerned to speak to her GP or speak to her pharmacist to get the reassurance and the care she needs.
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:17
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Portrait Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport) (Labour)
-
-
The the noble Lord asks about >> The the noble Lord asks about the responsibilities of tech companies, but. But also the impact companies, but. But also the impact of technological developments on cybersecurity. In this particular incident, the effect has been to be able to identify vulnerabilities which can then be mitigated and patched in respect of the cybersecurity bill that is coming forward. That will include such sectors such as data centres and managed service providers within the regulatory ambit. We will, the government believes, continues to believe that regulating AI at at the sort of the point of use is the right approach.

The Minister for AI set out, I think it was last week many further efforts that we are taking to harden our defences and to address both the opportunities

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and threats that AI is presenting. Message from the Commons that they have. Passed the church.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Passed the church. Appointments, Repeal of Discriminatory Provision Bill to which they desire the agreement of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

your Lordships. My Lords, church appointments repeal the Discriminatory Provision Bill. I beg to move this Bill be now read a first time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now read a first time. Question is, is that this bill be now read a first time. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. Questions on statement made in the House of Commons yesterday on the Sir David Bell review into antisemitism in schools and colleges.
12:19
12:19
None Portrait Statement: Sir David Bell review into antisemitism in schools and colleges
-

they are safe. We heard the headlines yesterday. Nearly 3 in 5
12:19
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
Jewish students have experienced antisemitism. Half of Jewish teachers experienced it at work in teachers experienced it at work in the past year. Racism in their classroom, in their workplace. It classroom, in their workplace. It is intolerable. But there is worse. In the report's annexe, 16% of this racism is inflicted by teachers, and 38% of the antisemitism students witnessed took place during lessons. Only 18% say an antisemitic incident is actually recorded. As such. Two thirds of Jewish respondents say antisemitism isn't even treated as racism in their school. Yesterday, the Secretary of State told the Other place that teachers here age old tropes in the classroom and do not tackle them for fear of reprisals.

 She said the fears about not being politically impartial is hampering our teachers and school leaders, preventing them from doing what they need to do, what they need to do, what it is their job to do, what they must do. Because political impartiality is a statutory duty under sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, it is not discretionary healthfully. The annexe to the Bell report shows us why there is fear about acting against this evil racism. More than half of teacher respondents couldn't say whether the impartiality guidance helped them. Over a third named fear of a negative response from pupils or staff, and over a third named fear of community tensions.

In the wake of this report, we need absolute clarity about what teachers must and will be supported. To do. So will the Minister confirm that in fact, challenging antisemitism is challenging racism and is never politically partial? And will she confirm, please, that sections 406 and 407 will be annexed to the letter to be sent by the Secretary of State to every school? The Secretary of State also told the Other place that the unions are keen to put things right, but within hours she had been let down by the General secretary of the National Education Union, Daniel Kabadi, who had rejected a central recommendation of the review.

He called the e ra definition the wrong approach and warned of a chilling grip on classroom discussion of Gaza. He deployed the Secretary of State's own argument against the review. No wonder 40% of respondents reported negative experiences with education unions. Days after 7th of October, this unions teachers circulated lesson plans asking pupils whether they would fight back if they lived in Gaza. The very definition of political partiality. In 2022, the last conservative government suspended all engagement with the National Union of Students over anti-Semitism. So I ask the Minister, will the government now suspend the National Education Union from all departmental engagement on this issue?

I know they have to be involved in funding discussions, but on this issue, including communications with the group, implementing this review until it has accepted Sir David's recommendations in full. In answer after answer yesterday, the Secretary of State turned the curriculum citizenship, Holocaust education, Jewish history, media literacy and the curriculum. Review the review again. But much of this is already in place and Holocaust education is already compulsory. But Parents Against Antisemitism have reported endless incidents, including one child being told to his face gas the Jews straight after Holocaust Memorial Day. What is missing is enforcement and consequence.

So will the government restore Ofsteds capacity to scrutinise all areas of the curriculum which are subject and vulnerable to politicisation? And will the government, for at least the next three years, have mandatory inspection of the written records of every school's antisemitic incidents and the action taken? My Lords, the importance of this moment is not to be underestimated. It is an issue of national security. Recommendation eight of the review states clearly that antisemitism in a child can be an indicator of radicalisation risk, with only 18% of incidents recorded as antisemitic, the chance to identify this risk is lost at great cost to our national cohesion and national safety, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to Jonathan Hall has called attacks on Jews the biggest national security emergency in almost a decade.

So will the Minister please commit to publishing national data on antisemitic incidents in schools every term starting this academic year, so we can get to grips with this urgently. I look forward to the responses of the noble Baroness, the Minister.
12:25
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
For my Lords, the finding of this review are deeply disturbing, this review are deeply disturbing, with 1 in 5 students who responded to the survey reporting that they to the survey reporting that they had witnessed antisemitism and 3 in 5 Jewish students saying they had experienced it. Behind these stats, our young people, my Lords, who should be concentrating on their education, building friendships and planning their futures. But instead, my Lords, they face prejudice, intimidation and fear because of their religious identity. And I say this as a member of a religious minority, these experiences I know from first hand in terms of what can happen to young people, whether as a parent or as a youth worker, when actually young people are discriminated against because of who they are, because of events that have no control from them or their parents.

And no child, my Lord, should feel compelled to hide their faith, to feel safe at school or college. And may I say, also in the journey to school and college, because I was horrified to see a video of a parent with a young child from a Jewish community who was being harangued on the tube. And ironically, it was a Muslim woman in a hijab that challenged, I don't know how old that video was, but it was quite disturbing that on public transport that our young people are also feeling and having that intimidation, and I hope the police do take action, because I think education must be a place where young people, regardless of their religious background, identity, feel valued and protected.

And we welcome the government's commitment to implement the recommendations. However, accepting recommendations is only the beginning, my Lords. What matters really is how that affected the implementation is proper accountability and the willingness to confront anti-Semitism wherever it occurs. And I would really urge the Minister, when she rises to respond to us, whether they'll consider actually in a year or so time, to come back to us with another review to say we've done a survey, and this is how young people now feel from all backgrounds, because as we've seen, there are issues of misogyny as well.

And young people, like I said, from all backgrounds, should be able to go to school without fearing. And teachers and school leaders. My Lords cannot be expected to tackle these challenges without appropriate training, resources and guidance, and we need a clear understanding of the contemporary anti-Semitism that is around, including the manifestation on online conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial and the spread of hatred, particularly on social media. We strongly support strengthening opportunities for schools to engage directly with Jewish communities, as this can help challenge stereotypes and build understanding between communities. And as I said, as someone who believes passionately in education, as a force for social cohesion, I am particularly concerned that some Jewish students do not believe that reporting anti-Semitism incidents will lead to action.

This is a serious failure of confidence. Schools must have effective reporting systems, and pupils must know that complaints will be taken seriously and dealt with fairly. At the same time, schools and colleges must remain places, my Lords, where difficult and contentious issues can be discussed openly and constructively. Tackling antisemitism must be going hand in hand with protecting balanced debates, challenging all forms of racism, prejudice and ensuring that teachers feel confident that facilitating sensitive discussions. So I have a number of questions for the Minister. Will the government provide additional funding to ensure schools, colleges and local authorities can implement these recommendations effectively rather than expecting them to be observed into costs that already stretch budgets?

And secondly, will the government hold institutions accountable for implementation and ensure that students who report antisemitism, antisemitism see meaningful actions? My Lords, tackling antisemitism is not a responsibility of the Jewish community. It is a responsibility for all of us. We must move beyond statements condemnation towards lasting cultural change beginning in our classrooms but extending throughout society. Every child, my Lords, deserves to learn without fear, and every community deserves to live without hatred.
12:29
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Amen. >> As both noble Lords. Have strongly identified, anti-Semitism is a scourge that has no place in modern Britain and no place in our schools and colleges. And yet, Sir David Bell's independent review makes clear that it is a growing and increasingly normalised form of hatred. With too many Jewish pupils, students and staff experiencing its effects in schools and colleges. And the findings are a stark reminder that we cannot be complacent. That is why the government welcomes Sir David Bell's report. Thanks those who took part. As the noble Lady says, in some cases at considerable risk and detriment to themselves, and accepts all 27 of its recommendations, the review provides a clear and practical blueprint for action.

It recognises, as noble Lords have said, that every school, college and teacher has a responsibility to identify, challenge and prevent anti-Semitism wherever it occurs, ensuring that all young people can learn in an environment that is safe, respectful and free from discrimination. And our focus must now be on implementation. Accepting the recommendations is only the beginning. Delivering meaningful and lasting change will require sustained effort across the sector. To support this work, the government has established an implementation group bringing together key stakeholders to drive progress, share best practice and help ensure the recommendations are delivered effectively and in light of the point made by the noble Lord Lord Mohammed.

I am also pleased that Sir David Bell has agreed to undertake a further review. In one year's time. His independent assessment will help ensure momentum is maintained, progress is scrutinised and that we remain firmly focussed on turning these recommendations into real improvements for Jewish children, students and staff across our education system. Turning to the other questions that have been raised, it is, of course true that all teachers have responsibility for tackling antisemitism. We are completely clear about that. Teachers standards, which of course are used both for training but also for misconduct procedures, are clear about their responsibilities to tackle this issue.

But if necessary, when those standards are reviewed, we will strengthen them to make that clearer. We also understand the need for further training and will develop the resources and training asked for by Sir David Bell in his review, we will review the impartiality guidance to ensure that teachers understand both their requirement to be impartial, but also their responsibility to enable discussion and debate about difficult issues within their schools, whilst protecting all those who take part in them. Because the noble Lord Lord Mohammed is right that schools must facilitate discussion on these difficult issues. And too often in recent years they have been put off that by a fear about what this means about their political impartiality.

I think the noble Lady raised particular points about the National Education Union. Sir David didn't find across the unions that there was, that there was opposition to important work to tackle anti-Semitism. But as a member of an EU, an active member of an EU predecessor trade union, I wholly disagree with them on their position on the I HRA and the Secretary of State has been clear in accepting Sir David's recommendation that we believe that that is the definition that should be used across the education system. On the point about Ofsted, Ofsted, in the case of the particular incident in.

In the case of the MP for Bristol North East, that I think particularly raised concern around this. Ofsted could examine aspects of that incident that fell within its inspection remit and it did. So. What it couldn't do, of course, was to act as a general investigator into all the surrounding events, campaign activity or motives of external individuals. Those matters do sit outside Ofsted statutory inspection powers, but we do think that Ofsted and the Independent Schools Inspectorate, and we will work with them on this, could do more thematic work examining how schools and colleges identify, prevent and respond to anti-Semitism, with the aim of highlighting effective practice, identifying areas for improvement and strengthening the national evidence base.

Every young person within school must feel able not only to report incidents of antisemitic abuse or speech within the school, but they must, as the noble Lord says, be confident that those are both recorded and that action will is taken. That is part of the renewed set of support and guidance that we will provide to schools. But the expectation there is clear that all incidents should be recorded and action should be taken, and we will consider the points made about the noble Lady. The points made by the noble Lady with respect to national reporting of those incidents.

On the point about funding, this government has already made available £7 million to tackle anti-Semitism in our schools and colleges, which is already responding to some of the issues made both in higher education and across our schools. Work to tackle mis and disinformation and conspiracy theories, work to develop interfaith discussion and to enable young people to understand the need to disagree appropriately and to engage in difficult conversations and controversial issues without resorting to anti-Semitism or racism. Other innovations through the Innovation Fund that is being supported, and through all of this support and training and new resources for teachers, which the government will support through its action to put into operation all 27 recommendations of Sir David Bell's very important report.
12:36
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:46
12:46
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:52
12:53
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:56
12:56
12:58
None Portrait Debate: Effect of artificial intelligence, screen usage and social media on children
-

It is a pleasure.
12:58
Lord Patel Portrait Lord Patel (Crossbench)
-
-
debate on the effects of AI screen use and social media on children. use and social media on children. Excuse me. Using the screen to fulfil my time on the screen. Before I start, I would like to Before I start, I would like to sincerely thank the noble Baroness Baroness Lloyd of EFRA for making Baroness Lloyd of EFRA for making time to take this debate on behalf of the government. I appreciate that. I also like to thank all the that. I also like to thank all the noble Lords taking part in this debate, and very much look forward to all their speeches, particularly welcome.

The previous speaker, Lord McFall. I think this is the first time since he relinquished office that he is taking part in a debate. Thank you for doing so. Welcome, Lord McColl. I thank the library for their excellent briefing paper and post the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, who have produced several well-researched, evidence based publications with expert contribution on the subject. In fact, several publications post reports don't often get a debate slot despite being well resourced. High quality publication. Much of my speech is based on their excellent findings, and I thank all who contributed to their work.

Anybody who travels on tubes or buses or trains, we all see as soon as you get in. Everybody is looking at their tablets or their phones. So it is not just children who get addicted to looking at it. All of us do. My Lords, the rapid integration of digital technologies into the everyday lives of children and young people has led to the question of his consequences on the health, education and development of children. Whilst my focus today may sound much to the negative aspects of both AI and tablets and teaching and social media, I do recognise the great benefit we can have if properly used.

Comprehensive reviews by post and international publications in professional journals. Government reports have all highlighted that whilst digital technologies offer opportunities and education, creativity and community building is excessive and harmful, content designed to get children and young people addicted to both content and technology is leading to serious harm to children. I will briefly look at the evidence in each of the areas of AI, screen use and social media and its effect, hopefully both good and bad. Based on the evidence published. Screen and AI use are increasingly embedded in children's daily lives. Screen exposure begins early in life in the United Kingdom, study shows 98% of children aged two use screens on a daily basis.

Use of generative AI, so-called gen AI, is increasing rapidly amongst young people, not just for education, but for social interaction. Impact of screen use in children is predominantly based on observational studies, reflecting the ethical and methodological challenges in establishing a causal relationship. While screen use and AI can support education, creativity, and social connection, it it it displaces face to face interaction. With excessive use leads to poor socio emotional outcomes. So what is screen use? Screen time time spent using screen based devices remains the key measure of children's screen use, but it is a poor indicator of potential benefits and harm of digital engagement.

Systemic review of over 600 studies looked mainly at screen time use and not other factors, such as age and development. Stage of child type of content, which is becoming more diverse with use of AI and contexts, whether it is supervised or not, and the time of day. The screen time screen is used by children. All factors that have an effect. What is AI use? AI tools are increasingly embedded into digital devices and online platforms used for information seeking, content creation, communication and learning support the pandemic the changes in education, leisure activities with greater availability of devices and technology has led to increase in children's screen use.

The 2026 Ofcom data shows. Screen time at age two is about 127 minutes per day. It increases to several hours per day with older children. Children who observe parents frequent use of screen themselves start using screens at an earlier age. Whilst tablet use is common in early childhood, 80% ages 5 to 11 with rising smartphone ownership from 56% of ten year olds to 83% of 11 year olds. Use of smartphones is now more common than tablets. Use of AI, particularly gen AI, is also increasing. Ofcom data suggests 86% of 8 to 17 year olds have an average awareness of Gen AI, and 11% use it regularly.

Higher screen use is associated with poor social emotional development, more common with children with existing emotional difficulties, and with parents using digital devices to manage distress tantrums or challenging behaviour by children. It leads to increase in screen time. Internet masters found that 23% of vulnerable children reported using AI chatbot, because they did not have anyone else to talk to. Concerns have been raised about AI companies, particularly following high profile legal cases in the United States, which were settled with an $18 billion settlement alleging that conversational AI system formed emotionally significant relationship with vulnerable young users and responded inappropriately to discussion of self-harm and suicide.

Concerns have been raised in particularly about addictive patterns of use, particularly gaming. A 2026 systematic review suggested that AI tools may support cognitive processes, but can reduce opportunities for independent thinking, deep learning and skills development. The health impacts of screen use are particularly related to obesity risk. Sleep deprivation, particularly when the screens are used, especially if they are used at evening and late at night, which in turn leads to emotional wellbeing and behavioural problems. There is some evidence of the benefit of using AI based medical mental health apps. A 2025 survey suggests that 1 in 4 teenagers have turned to AI chatbot for mental support, with some benefits.

UK qualitative data shows that 8 to 17 year olds are actively spending money online, with persuasive design features, influencing spending and contributing to financial harms. Studies also show that adolescents who purchase loot boxes have 4 to 6 times higher odds of developing problem gambling behaviours. Children also face high levels of embedded advertising online, often integrated into game play or entertainment content. Difficult for children to spot children encounter a range of harms through digital platforms, including cyberbullying, grooming, image, image based abuse, fraud and scams, exposures to hate speech, exposure to misogynistic content and violence against women and girls, exposure to pornography, exposure to forms of violence, suicidal ideation and self-harm content.

With the advent of more immersive platforms, novel platforms of tech facilitated abuse can emerge more difficult for children to identify. Turning to the use of social media, children and young adults use social media for a variety of reasons, ranging from entertainment, relaxation, social integration and seeking support. Again, research by Ofcom in 2025 found that 97% of 13 to 17 year olds had a profile on at least one social media platform. 93% of patients felt concerned. Parents felt concerned about potential harms to the children, from social media studies and reviews of harms of social media. Children and young people have led countries to develop legislation to deal with deal with it, including United Kingdom, Brazil, European Union, France and Australia.

Alongside national policy. Social media policy intersects with child and human rights frameworks such as the UN convention on the Rights of Human Rights of Child Range of potential impact of social media use relate to mental health, physical health, safety, financial harms, behaviour and social interaction. Elements of social media design on the platform intensify this problem, such as the infinite scroll function, the autoplay, the push notification that a continuously come on the screen likes and dislike comment. Adolescents are particularly vulnerable related to stage of the brain development. Post research also highlights some of the benefits, education and creative thinking, social and community interaction.

Positive material on physical and mental health. A longitudinal study of adolescents at 31 London schools found that those who use social media 11 to 12 years for more than three hours daily, 70% were more likely to experience depression and 60% more likely to experience anxiety. Self-harm related images on social media are associated with harmful effects such as increased self-harming behaviours, anxiety and depression. At the same time, possible benefits did include emotional support. While social media platforms have the tools to detect and remove harmful content, such content continues to reach young users online through algorithmic content recommendations, something that the media platforms could easily handle.

Research published by Ofcom in 2026 showed that social media was leading online space, to which children were exposed to child sexual abuse material. Children who experience online abuse often end up experiencing poor mental health, self-harm and feeling of disempowerment. Ofcom study also showed that 62% of their sample of 11 to 17 year olds reported seeing bullying content, and 51% reported seeing hateful content. My Lords, let me now turn briefly. But the most important part of the area of concern to most concern to me. We have all seen recent reports in print media and Sky television, investigation into violent and extremist networks that target vulnerable children and young people.

FBI, UK Crime Agency and NSPCC have all mapped out how these groups operate to pull minors into illicit networks. They identify vulnerable children with anxiety, feeling isolation on mainstream gaming consoles. Likes of Roblox, Minecraft, Tik Tok and, after initial contact, posing as friendly teenagers, inserting avatars into the game. They switched the child to encrypted apps. Their ideology is nihilistic self-mutilation and violence. Eventually, it leads to self-harm, violence against others, suicide, others, and possibly even worse. This, my Lord, is so serious, and the process of finding this out. I try to do my own research and interviewed didn't interview.

I spoke to some children aged 7 to 13 in front of their parents with the permission of their parents, and I was horrified to learn that children as young as seven knew about this and often came across it, and the smart ones avoided it. One particular one, whose mother did not allow them to use headphones so that she could listen what they were following, had to turn. Ask her to turn the child to turn it off because she was being led. The child was being led to dark internet into asking, can you now bring a photograph of yourself?

At that point, the mother stopped it. These are dark, dark, nihilistic, serious internet on the dark side of the internet that we must stop that this is so serious that we need parent education, wide media alerts, law enforcements and legislative action, aggressive prosecutions, international cooperation, gaming industry responsibility, restricting cross-platform migration, which they use to migrate children from legitimate gaming consoles onto the dark internet. And we need much more. So in the context of this, I don't have any other questions except one, which is I asked the noble Baroness, the Minister, following statement of the Secretary of State on September the 8th, what further measures, legislative and non-legislative, does the government intend to bring to protect children from online harm, particularly young children, from these dark internet.

By my Lords, I beg to move.
13:13
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
The question is that this motion be agreed to. >> My Lords, I'd like to open by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Patel, thanking the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this extremely important debate and for his very powerful speech. I particularly like to associate myself both with his last remarks about the nihilistic behaviour that happens with predators approaching our children online, and also the ability of the large tech companies to sort many of the problems themselves. We heard during the passage of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill that we were playing catch up as a country in relation to protecting our children from the harms, particularly in that case, from smartphones and social media.

And my Lords, I think we find ourselves in the same position again, but with a much more terrifying prospect of trying to play catch up in the age of AI, the evidence of harm to children is widespread, perhaps most disturbingly, in relation to child sexual abuse material. We've seen an explosion in AI generated child abuse videos. More broadly, we've seen reports of three year olds spending hours every day on a screen with visible, forgive the pun, impact on their eyesight, as well as pupils being issued with 1 to 1 devices at school without evidence of the impact of that.

We know, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I'm sure we'll hear from other noble Lords that children are seeing harmful material on social media and meeting potential predators online. And that's not to say there aren't safe and useful things, of course, that can be done online, but the situation currently is. The lack of regulation means that the harmful is far outweighing the good. So my first question for the Minister is to clarify whether the government plans to adopt the precautionary principle in future. We would never let a medicine reach our children without on the promise that harm will be measured later.

Will the Minister confirm that products used with children, including educational technology and AI, must show evidence of safety and benefit before they can be marketed, particularly where they are being bought with public funds. We know that the Law Commission is bringing forward a very welcome consultation on changes to product liability legislation, but that is a painfully slow process and not fast enough to safeguard our children. Most recently, 150 clinicians wrote to the Secretary of State for education, citing their concerns and asking for health checks on classroom technology. They cite research associating each extra hour of daily screen time with a 21% higher odds of short sightedness.

Secondly, can the Minister update the House on whether work is taking place on an early warning system similar to the Child Mortality Database, which would allow us to pick up patterns of harm before full evaluations come forward? And finally, does the government have plans to equip health visitors, GPS, school nurses, optometrists and paediatricians with the training that they need on digital risks and the impact of screens so they can be part of an effective national response. My Lords, building a system that is agile and resilient is crucial if we are to protect our children from these harms, and I hope the government will consider these suggestions.

Well said.
13:17
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. When I talk about >> My Lords. When I talk about technology, I am one of the people who will probably be going a little against the tide in the fact that I'm looking for the positives here. My Lords, I must remind the House of my declared interests. I am the chairman of Microlink plc who deal with the assistive technology and packages to support people in the workplace and school, and I am also president of the British Association and I am dyslexic. I am also a dyslexic who is dependent to actually write to anybody on voice, to voice, to print image technology.

And also it really helps me and I'm getting the information back. I that is print to voice technology helps me on more dense text. I use this as a part of my life. And when it arrived in my 30s, it transformed my experience when dealing with the rest of the world. Now, what this gave me was independence and the ability to interact with the world around me much more easily. We are going to have a huge amount of effort going into special educational needs in the near future, which is overdue, but is welcome. Much of the technological world will help various groups interact with the educational process and with the workplace.

Autism noise cancelling headphones something that simple can transform the way you actually work down the ADHD as well. Small things that are changed that are worked in to those environments have a positive effect. So please guard against saying all technology bad. And particularly when it comes to children. I don't think that has been said so far, but it is a danger that it is taken as and lumped in together. It can be used as something else. But what's required to do this? What's required is knowledge and training, particularly within the school department, to make sure that it goes in.

At the moment, my Lords, many children do get the benefits of these technologies, but it helps if your middle class helps you, your incomes there helps if you know what you're doing. Let's make sure we get through to this new phase of the education system that teachers are trained to use this to identify earlier. Let's get away from the lawyers. Let's get the teachers being able to identify. And one of the big advances there is actually screening devices, which are tech, other tech devices that help you. Please, can we move away from having free things that are used online, which are there because of advertising and commercial advantage?

Start using licensed products. They're comparatively cheap and you can check around from where they're coming from. Make sure that these benefits can come into the classroom, but you require training. You require something which doesn't immediately, as the noble Lord Patel said, take you on to another site and the web and going through, you may have to seal them off. Get the best out of this. So the internet and the cloud may not always be the answer. Make sure that we can actually get this going through, and we will take the benefits with us, because somebody who can integrate and act within the education system stands a chance of getting the benefits from it.

If you can't, you won't. We've talked about neat projects, the number of NEETs growing, number of people being disassociated, allow them to communicate and be part of the system. That, my Lords, will mean that we actually get the benefits of technology and not just the downsides. It's not easy, but I do hope that the government Minister, when she comes to reply, will be able to tell us what steps are being taken in this direction.
13:21
Lord Bishop of Peterborough Portrait The Lord Bishop of Peterborough (Bishops)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's a privilege to speak on a subject so critical to the flourishing of young people, and I welcome this debate. I, too, wish to focus primarily on the role that emerging technologies might play in our schools and how we, as the shepherds of those who attend them, can ensure that such technologies are integrated safely, usefully, and with humanity in mind. At its heart, a school is a place of preparation, and a good school system must equip young people to confront the challenges of life. But I ask your Lordships to consider whether we've given enough thought, not just to preparing young people, but also to preparing and resourcing those we charge with educating them.

To give one example, there's a Church of England Primary School in Peterborough diocese with just 99 pupils on its roll, and it's not uncommon for a Church of England school to be even smaller than this. The governance challenge presented to such schools by the emergence of AI is enormous. How do we ensure its use is safe? How do we integrate it in a way that guarantees the security of children's personal data? These are great philosophical questions, as well as governance ones. And as a nation, we bear a responsibility to build a consensus that aids our schools with practical advice and support in navigating this new aspect of our world.

We owe it to our educators not to expect them to conjure specialist knowledge on AI integration from thin air, but to equip them so that they can prepare our children for lives where they can use these technologies safely. On the philosophical, the question of what it means to be fully human is one that the church has been seeking to guide on for as long as it has existed. In our church schools, we place the concept of human flourishing at the heart of what we do. We have a vision of a school as a place where pupils bloom into the human being.

They will become for the rest of their lives, and these technologies have the potential to enhance our human relationships, our human experience, and our human intellect. But as we've heard, they also have the potential to replace, displace, or diminish the humanity in our daily lives. Which of these paths we take is ultimately a very human choice. So whether AI and technology used by or in the service of children enhances or diminishes a human purpose is to us the central and critical question of our time at the National Society for education. We are already exploring both the challenges and the opportunities of AI in church schools.

First and foremost, this is by working with schools in the diocese to understand their needs. Nothing can replace that first hand experience from those who know their students so well, and I would encourage the government to look at similar consultation as it sets its own policy. We have a solemn responsibility to prepare the next generation for a future where the widespread use of AI is their reality, and as a nation, we must properly equip our educators to do so.
13:25
Baroness Wheatcroft Portrait Baroness Wheatcroft (Crossbench)
-
-
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> My Lord. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his comprehensive introduction to this comprehensive introduction to this debate and his observation that screen time is a phrase which encompasses very many different activities. How many of us in preparing for this debate weren't helped either by design or default by AI? And as I've no doubt the resulting speeches will demonstrate, that it is not artificial, but it's certainly intelligent. The impact of AI is immense and its potential to improve human lives is. So I do not believe that children should be prevented from complete access to it.

But they also need to be taught about the potential harms of AI and to be extremely alert, to alert to that. And until they're fully prepared to cope with its downsides. And my goodness, we've already heard about how deep those downsides are. Then children's access to AI should ideally be limited, and the same is true of social media. While many of us may shun most social media, the family WhatsApp group is now a vital part of life for many of us, and it's a vital part of communications for those whose parents may be a long way away or whose grandchildren may be long, long distance.

My young granddaughter got to know her American family courtesy of a screen, and it didn't do her any harm. The absence of that might well have done, but there's no denying the harm that some social media sites are delivering. The big tech companies could do so much more to stop that. And in an ideal world, most people would want to see their children completely protected from such things. I've supported the concept of tight restrictions on young people's access to social media, but we must be realistic about how effective this can be. Early evidence from Australia is that the ban has had only limited effect.

It is, after all, being imposed on a cohort of youngsters who are incredibly tech savvy, and they're finding ways around the ban. Any effectiveness will depend very heavily on the stance taken by parents, and that inevitably will vary. That's not to say we shouldn't do our best to impose restrictions, but we need to be realistic about the impact they will have. So I want to concentrate my remarks on the area in which government can and should have a real impact, and that is the classroom. The noble Lady Baroness Barran explained how schools do not even vet the quality and the damage that can be done by the product they're buying.

While it's essential that schools equip our children for this technological age, it means teaching them digital literacy. It means teaching them to be on the alert for the harms that lie in wait for them. But in many schools, what it means is putting them in front of a screen. In some schools, there are now children who learn all their lessons from a tablet. This is not the way that relationships can be built, and most of us will know of a teacher who had a lasting impact on our lives. Indeed, my speech is going to be followed by one such teacher, and I'm sure he will be remembered by many of his pupils.

Screens should be limited in in schools. Indeed, perhaps the example of Winchester may be taken note. The best achieving school has banned tablets in class. Yes.
13:29
Lord McFall of Alcluith Portrait Lord McFall of Alcluith (Crossbench)
-
-
I feel nervous about the introductions that I've had. It's introductions that I've had. It's the first time for ten years I've spoken in the House of Lords as a backbencher, and it's a delight. And can I thank Lord Patel for that insight of a speech and the interest he has had in this subject for many years. In 2012, along with the late Lord Lawson, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Andrew Turnbull, the then Cabinet Secretary, I represented the House of Lords on the Parliamentary Commission for Banking Standards that was established by the Prime Minister of the day, David Cameron, in light of the global financial crash, it was a joint House of Commons House of Lords committee, not a select committee but an independent body reporting to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor with her own staff, outside experts and our very wide remit.

It was tasked with providing legislation, solutions for banking in the UK, managed by a brilliant House of Commons clerk, Colin Lee. We delivered on its mandate. New legislation was duly implemented and the House of Lords played a huge part in that. And quite simply, my Lords, I am calling for that today. For AI. Such a commission one disestablished along similar lines to the Parliamentary Commissioner for banking, commissioned by the Prime Minister. Why, my Lords? Because the seriousness of the situation confronting our children's society and humanity today is without parallel. We need the authority and the imprimatur of the Prime Minister to foster a national conversation.

In the first instance, to demonstrate that government, parliament and industry experts and civil society are facing up to the real time problems that we have. That is what politics has failed to do to date. We are always behind the curve. We must rid ourselves of this passive approach. Let me give an example. When Lord speaker, I invited the world renowned Stanford University expert in AI and computing, Stuart Russell, to deliver a lecture on defence and security. His concluding remarks were that he was the bearer of bad news, namely, that the industry regulation did not exist.

Nothing existed and he said we could start a war from one's bedroom today, witnessing the lethality of drones in Ukraine, Iran wars and Gaza that illustrates his remarks. My Lord, that speech by Stuart Russell took place four years ago last month, October 2022. His warnings went unheeded and in the intervening period will witness the transfer of sovereignty from our countries to a small number of private tech companies. And we are at their beck and call. They must. The Altman's abusers, the MoD, they are the AI masters. We are subservient to them in every respect. But what are some practitioners in the industry saying today?

For example, Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft, says AI is less regulated than milk or washing machines. Bill gates says left unchecked, the technology could cause a billion deaths. He added no weapon today is more powerful than the combination of AI and malign actors. Sir Ken McCallum, head of MI6, last week referred to bio weapons and nuclear war threats. So it's clear, my Lords, crystal clear, that a culture of safety does not exist in the AI industry. And I finished by saying, if Bill gates chilling comments don't incentivise us to all get round the table with parliamentarians in the vanguard, then nothing will.

So my challenge is for the parties, for Parliament, for Mr Speaker and Lord Coaker, using their authoritative voice to convince the PM of the need for such a commission. I finish by saying, my Lords, presently we are drowning in information, but we're starving in wisdom, so let's foster that campaign to ensure that we do acquire wisdom before it's too late.
13:34
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Portrait Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)
-
-
Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I express my gratitude to Lord Patel for bringing us this debate and also for his outstanding introduction on it. I think the more we debate AI and climate change, I think the more we reach the point where we need somebody on the Crossbenches to give us a the Crossbenches to give us a debate on the future of humanity, because these are very fundamental issues we're tackling. We need effective regulation and protection against addiction, exploitation and damage to children's development, which is arising with AI and related issues. This, of course, could be reduced, as I've argued previously, if, like other countries, we were prepared to develop our own sovereign AI entity, I press this.

Previously, I've said that I believe many parents would support it. We would control much of what was around us. We would take charge, and we could persuade people, I believe, to invest in this if we were willing to consider creating a whole new public private partnership to fund its introduction. So I asked my Minister friend again. Is there any movement on this front? But we also need to distinguish between the dangers of an unregulated social media and the potential benefits of properly designed artificial intelligence. Kenwood House, a residential recovery centre in Kent. We are developing a proposal to trial an AI companion to support people recovering from addiction, from alcohol and drug problems and gambling.

Now, increasingly and as Ministers know, we're also exploring the possibility that this could, if successful, be equally applied in prisons and it could be run over a wider front to. The essential principle is that AI should support human relationships, not replace them. Could we develop a properly appropriate, appropriately safeguarded AI companions to help children struggling with obesity, loneliness, poor esteem or difficulties in forming relationships? Help them not to encourage more screen dependency, but to help them develop healthier lives and stronger relationships with other people. Such applications would, of course, require independent evaluation and appropriate professional support.

My Lords, I. I give another example. This House sent a select committee to Blackpool when it was undertaking review of obesity and diet and how we could affect changes in the North West. We found particularly heavy growth of obesity there amongst children. We've been weighing and measuring children since 2008, yet they get bigger and they get heavier. And we found in Blackpool what the social services people were saying is the reason we do not follow through. We do the measuring, the weighing, but we do not do any follow through to assist them because we don't have the resources.

Isn't this an area where potentially we could explore the use of an AI companion with children to give them guidance about the food, about calories, and so on and so forth? I think these are areas worth looking at. The other area which is developing, and I think where we wait with interest to see the report that's coming on unemployment is how we start to prepare, if possible, about a different style of working that will be needed in the future and the extent to which we can use AI. AI is going to destroy many jobs that we have known, and what we've called growth may be have to be redefined in the future, and that we have a shift from the material and more.

And I look to our bishops, venture more towards the caring professions, towards teaching people about the importance of service as opposed to producing goods, and that this is an area where we do things better than any AI. Any technology could do that. We look to the strengths in humanity, and we start increasingly to try to pass on the message to children and to train them and find all the tools we can, including AI, to make certain that we are affecting this very important shift that will replace many of the traditional approaches to employment. My Lords, it's a pleasure to.
13:39
Lord Tarassenko Portrait Lord Tarassenko (Crossbench)
-
-
Be speaking for the second time in just over a month, in a debate in just over a month, in a debate secured by my noble friend Lord Patel. If we want to minimise the harmful effects of AI in children through the misuse of AI chatbots, for example, we need to teach them for example, we need to teach them how to use AI properly. That should happen in schools. So Anthony Seldon was characteristically blunt about this issue a month ago, when he wrote that Britain was falling behind other countries in its use of AI in education.

He went further and said that the DfE should be put in special measures over its handling of AI in schools. Now, I'm not sure how helpful headline grabbing statements such as these are, but the pace with which the DfE is taking up the challenge of AI in education is far slower than it needs to be. For example, it is still yet to announce the consultation promised more than six months ago on the approach to certifying the safety of edtech in schools. Earlier this year, it advertised a new post director general for digital, AI and infrastructure, with a turn key salary, the highest within the department.

Unfortunately, it was only able to make a temporary appointment and a permanent role has now been re-advertised. There are worthwhile initiatives which have started but are standalone projects. In June, eight companies were awarded contracts to design classroom ready AI tutoring tools, aligning with the national curriculum and covering years 9 to 11 in English, maths, science and foreign languages. As of last month, year 12 students in seven schools are piloting the level three qualification in data science and AI, which Professor Peyton Jones, from Cambridge University and I proposed last year. Now designed by the Raspberry Pi Foundation as the preparation for an extended project qualification, an EPC in the topic.

 There are other initiatives such as the AI product safety standards, but there is no overall coherent strategy. So I am in agreement with my noble friend Lord McFall. The government should set up a commission, but with perhaps a narrow brief, they should have an independent chair and cross-departmental representation and be given a brief to develop an overall strategy for schools. Integrating existing DfE initiatives, but also identifying gaps where they exist. The Commission should work at pace to inject a sense of urgency and create a roadmap for the rollout of AI teaching and digital literacy in schools.

With a clear implementation plan, which would then be the responsibility of the Director General for digital, AI and infrastructure. My Lords, if this country is not to be left behind Estonia, Singapore or China, we cannot afford to wait. Independent schools are not waiting. Dedicated head of AI education or director of AI posts have been created in elite independent schools such as Brighton College or the Perse School. We need a coherent strategy for AI in education in the state sector, with a timetable for delivery measured in months, not years. Therefore, I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, whether she will commit to taking such a proposal to her ministerial colleagues in the Department of Education after this debate.
13:42
Baroness Manningham-Buller Portrait Baroness Manningham-Buller (Crossbench)
-
-
Yeah. applauding my noble friend Lord Patel for securing this debate. The more I begin to understand this subject, the more appalled I am. As I know many members of this House are at the exploitation in many cases of our young. Now, Lord Patel mentioned they're being lured into violence. I'm going to, as you would expect, talk about the national security implications of this. I do so. Copyright of Sir Ken McCallum, the current head of MI5, who I'm going to quote. Every year he gives a speech on the threat to the United Kingdom in 2024. He said that 13% of those being investigated by MI5 for terrorism was under 18.

This, he said, was a three fold increase on the previous year, especially skewed towards extreme right wing propaganda and violence. In 25, he talked about a concerning number of minors, 1 in 5 of the 232 people arrested for terrorism last year was under 17. 1 in 5 this year, and Lord McFall mentioned one thing he said in his speech. He talked of a particular case of a 13 year old who MI5 was investigating and was prevented from causing a major terrorist attack overseas. He went on to say that MI5 did not wish to be having to look at 13 year olds.

So I think that this is another aspect of this which is deeply concerning, this exploitation and turning towards extreme violence and terrorism of some of our most vulnerable and young people. I'm sure, as others have said, that key to this is teaching in schools. Lady Baron's remarks I very much associate myself with, but I'm going to end with a little horrible little anecdote which happened to me the other day when I was talking to a friend of mine about the then plan of the American government to stream the execution of a convicted terrorist and saying how appalling I thought this decision was, which has now been retracted.

They said that they'd been talking about it to one of their grandchildren and their late teens, who took a completely different view and said, well, I've seen plenty of that already on the internet. And I think that I have seen the odd trauma with my in my life, and I have not forgotten what I saw at Lockerbie. Bodies are scattered around. If our young people are seeing scenes of torture, beheading, execution, extreme paedophilia, etc. what levels of PTSD are we inducing for the future? I don't think there's much that's more important than dealing with this very quickly.

I don't have quick solutions, but some of them have been suggested by colleagues here today.
13:46
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Portrait Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank. securing this important debate. I declare my interest as a member of the Advisory Board for a Rare Ventures, which invests in AI technologies. Countries across the world are wrestling with the same question what will it mean for our children's future to grow up? In an age of social media and artificial intelligence? I know that noble Lords across this House agree that we must do everything in our power to protect children from harm, and to stop those who seek to inflict it. But today, I wish to focus my concern that a blanket ban on social media may lead us towards more harm, and not less.

As many noble Lords have highlighted, the UK is introducing a ban on social media for under 16 seconds. I am not totally opposed to this, but I am concerned that this approach is not nuanced enough. Australia banned social media for under 16 seconds in December 2025, and yet research by the Molly Rose Foundation, published in April this year, found that 61% of 12 to 15 year olds who held accounts on restricted platforms before the ban still have access to at least one of the children who used these platforms. Before the ban, 51% had said it made no difference to their online safety, and a further 14% now feel less safe.

My Lords, these findings are sobering. I acknowledge that the ban may need more time to bed in, but my concern is that a ban in the UK may put the onus solely on parents when we should be using the Online Safety Act to hold platforms accountable and ensure safety by design. The recent meta settlement in California has shown what can be done when a platform is held to account, with a deal struck that limits notifications to children and allows them to choose a feed that is not driven by algorithms. Yet this judgement applies only in participating US states, and meta has not announced whether these essential protections will be extended to the UK.

Any ban that is too porous could take the pressure off social media companies to deliver safety by design. British children could therefore end up with fewer protections than their American counterparts. Children in Cardiff deserve the same protections as children in California, turning to artificial intelligence here, too, our instinct must not be fear alone. AI has extraordinary ability to democratise knowledge, and while we must always scan the horizon for potential harms to children, we must also embrace its benefits and equip our children with the skills needed for an AI future. Imagine every child in this country having a personalised tutor, one that picks up on the gaps in their learning and can repeat concepts they struggle to grasp over and over without losing patience.

Not as a replacement for a real in-person teacher, but in addition to it. Imagine the potential of this technology for children's children whose families cannot afford private tuition. Of the potential this could unleash for our Stem industries to have a generation growing up with the curiosity for learning and the confidence and skills to use AI. My Lords, it is vital that we mitigate against the worst impacts of social media and AI on children, but we must take a pragmatic and nuanced approach. Let us continue to strengthen the Online Safety Act, ensure that tech companies operate with safety by design, and ensure that Ofcom acts swiftly where they fall short.

But most of all, let us ensure that the decisions we make today do not limit our children's skills, knowledge and opportunities for the future.
13:50
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Others in thanking my noble friend Lord Patel for initiating this important crossbench debate, drawing attention to how AI systems can harvest, scrape and process personal and biometric data, often without meaningful consent or awareness from young users. These tools also risk making inaccurate assumptions or misidentifying children as adults, AI risks are identified. In the last report on my watch as chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human Rights and the regulation of AI, which was published last month, including risks for young people and children in whose lives AI is ubiquitous over 14 months, I chaired ten oral sessions.

Witnesses included major tech companies Google, Meta and Microsoft regulatory bodies, academics and the AI Minister, Kanishka Narayan. That inquiry received over 70 written pieces of evidence, and it led to our unanimous 94 page report and 59 recommendations. We called for a wide ranging standalone AI bill, including some outright prohibitions, strengthened GDPR safeguards and independent oversight. In written evidence, 5Rights Foundation cited there, I quote children and AI design code, they said. Government policy on AI has largely overlooked the distinct opportunities and needs for children. May I therefore ask the noble Baroness Minister, what assessment is being made?

Of the nine criteria listed in that code and of the concerns of the Children's Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, and indeed of our JSR report in the 1990s. In another place, I moved amendments to safeguard children from gratuitously violent video material. The murder of a two year old boy, James Bulger, in Liverpool finally led Parliament to act. But the same phenomenon has now emerged in new technological cloves. Through my noble friend Lady Kidron, I met the grieving parents of Sule Zaza, the 14 year old boy who took his own life because he had been befriended by a chatbot, his mother said.

It was, I quote, like having a predator in your home. Similarly, a 13 year old autistic boy was groomed by a chat bot who criticised his parents, encouraged him to run away and offered an explicit relationship which could be consummated in the afterlife. Commercial drivers have no compunction in aggressively amplifying high quality, visually compelling AI generated material relating to suicide, self-harm and violence, which is targeted at vulnerable young people. Platforms leverage persuasive AI design features optimised purely for screen time and engagement. Some involve compromising deep fakes. How AI and social media intersect is important because it's in an area where generative AI has already had a colossal and largely unremarked impact in the influencer arms race, in which an ever evolving set of tactics are used to maximise the virality of what they write.

Gaining exposure and ad revenue. Generative AI is the equivalent of giving a medieval knight a Kalashnikov. Influences can now churn out hundreds of posts a day, all hyper optimised for engagement. There's money to be made, and so they do. Society is now saturated with mobile social media, where nothing can be taken at face value, and the impact on children can be profound. Some material is insanely addictive. It's linked to advertising revenue, and companies have spent a great deal of money making them as addictive as possible. Addictive technology is more analogous to a slot machine than a communication method, with children especially vulnerable to this kind of addictive technology, my Lords government must insist on AI systems that are made developmentally appropriate, safe, fair, transparent and accountable, and governments who are the guardians and gatekeepers have been lagging behind tech giants whose market valuations exceed entire nation states.

That must change.
13:55
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, I join the chorus in thanking the noble Lord Lord Patel thanking the noble Lord Lord Patel for securing this debate and his powerful introduction. I will take a different approach to many of those already made. Speeches already made a broader, systemic, historically informed approach. I begin with a quote the manufacture of this nation hath been of late years hindered by the mis spending so much time as the poorer tradesmen do in going about from one coffee house to another, poring over seditious, heretical and treasonable papers. As the language might hint to your Lordships house.

That's from the very early 18th century. The presence of new technologies and wide access of ordinary people to them has long been of concern to elites and to elders about the young. Technological determinism is a common claim and a handy alibi for those profiting from a society being directed to the benefits of the few, at the cost of the many. Technology never determines the direction of a society. It is a human creation, and it can and is directed by humans, for good or ill, as is the state of our society. I'll start with screen time.

Lord Patel asks an entirely appropriate question about the health impacts. And yes, my spine can attest to that. But what alternatives do young people have? Is there a youth come for them to go to? Almost certainly not. Is there a flourishing, healthy green space to attract them? No. Is there schooling at some giant academy train in involved in employing tech instead of trained teachers? So despite the lack of evidence to any benefits, it relies on edtech. Earlier this week, at a meeting of the APPG on Woodlands and Trees, I heard a nurseryman lamenting the decline of horticultural and agricultural education, the colleges that should be preparing young people for crucial healthy jobs.

But how often do we hear Ministers or the Prime Minister speaking about this as compared to waxing enthusiastically about the possibilities of artificial so-called intelligence, promoting it, and suggesting that it is an inevitable part of future jobs? So directing young people towards it. And we have extraordinarily well funded and powerful voices, some of them owning and directing the very technologies we are talking about promoting AI and social media at every turn. We have them funding so-called think tanks, better called lobbyists, following the models of political influencing developed by the fossil fuel companies and the tobacco merchants of death.

This tech can be used and is used for good as the noble Lords, Lord Addington and the Baroness Wheatcroft have said, it can be a democratising force. And yes, I am a fan of blue sky. It is commonly these days to complain that there is too much information. Duran Duran sang a song about that in 1993. Although when you look at the lyrics of the song, it is actually about advertising a reminder that a lot of the toxic material our young people are encountering promotion for ultra processed food like substances, for fast fashion, for tech itself, are from giant multinational companies.

Blame them, not the technology. And finally, we come to the question, come to the question of the environmental footprint of these technologies. Some communities on these islands and around the world are increasingly aware of this issue and campaigning against it. These technologies are not in the cloud, but very much down to earth and causing real damage to the already greatly depleted world. Our young people will inherit. A question to the Minister is the government considering how much of all of these technologies, our environment and the environments of the world can support inclusion, inclusion? We have a toxic artificial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

environment Which harms adults and children.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which harms adults and children. That comes from a toxic society. What to do? Listen to the children. What to do? Listen to the children. Nothing about us without us. They are the experts. And as in so many areas of life, allowing more people to put input into decisions rather than the few dictating the route to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than the few dictating the route to a better society. As a neuroscientist, I
13:59
Baroness Greenfield Portrait Baroness Greenfield (Crossbench)
-
-
congratulate the noble Lord Lord Patel for drawing attention to this timely issue, and I declare an interest as founder and CEO of a biotech company, Neurobio Limited. Most recently, in collaboration Most recently, in collaboration with senior psychiatrists, we have been attempting to develop the first ever biomarker for depression, and we've done this in young people. and we've done this in young people. And this experience working with clinicians and disturbed adolescents has confirmed views. I adolescents has confirmed views. I flagged in your Lordships House as far back as 2009, that digital technology was offering an alternative environment for the human condition.

Environment is key to individual development. Our species occupies more ecological niches than any other on the planet. Because of the superlative ability of our brains, compared with those of any other animal to adapt to our surroundings. Even if you are a clone, an identical twin with the same genes, your brain becomes personalised through development of unique configurations of connections between neurones that characterise the growth of the human brain after birth. Curating a highly individual mind that is in constant dialogue with an updated by your unique life experiences. Even before AI was increasingly apparent, as on screen usage would bring problems even before AI, it was increasingly apparent that screen usage would bring problems.

And it's not just the effects of not sleeping, not escaping the crowd, and not having time to exercise that can facilitate obesity and bullying. The digital lifestyle can, in and of itself prove deleterious. The more we depend on screen technologies as intermediaries for interpersonal relations whilst young, the less we learn the skills needed for effective communication and empathy in real world interactions. All too familiar reports on how video games and social media can be deliberately crafted for commercial purposes to become addictive. The neural mechanism of addiction is an enhanced release of the chemical messenger dopamine, which underlies the anticipation of reward, raises arousal and is indeed the hallmark neurochemical of recreational drugs.

Dopamine inhibits a part of the brain, the so-called prefrontal cortex, that moderates emotional responses and dampens impulsive reactions. This region, just behind your forehead, is not fully operational until late teenage years or even the early 20s. And until then, the characteristic features will include recklessness, short attention span, and, most significantly, overdependence on external stimulation. This mindset could well be exaggerated further by the perfect storm of a still immature prefrontal cortex, now, coupled with unprecedented surges of inhibitory dopamine driven by a 21st century screen lifestyle. So we are faced with a set of dilemmas. Society desires young people to master and harness technology for the good of humanity.

Yet technology simultaneously drives mood deterioration, social exclusion, exploitation and trauma. The online world offers connection. AI holds the promise at national and global levels, yet its unregulated integration into young people's lives risk creating an entity increasingly alien to human emotional experience. The education system demands conformity to model answers. Yet the modern world increasingly places a premium on creativity, independent thought and collaboration skills. The current system structurally undermines young people need community, shared purpose and belonging. Yet the pull of influencer culture and online identity draws them away from real world participation. My psychiatric colleagues were keen to suggest solutions.

Inevitably, with more money and more regulation. But perhaps we first need to agree on what the ideal teenage lifestyle would look like in the coming years. It's easy to list what we don't want, but unless we can decide on what we wish to achieve, it will be hard to attain it. Commonplace activities such as eating together, exercising, reading stories to children. Immersing yourself in a novel may seem simplistic and nostalgic as solutions. Indeed they are, and they are not in themselves. The answer. But they can be the bedrock for development of emotions, intuition, empathy, morality, spirituality, and, above all, spontaneous curiosity.

A quintessential human profile not seen in AI systems, if you like. Not a digital lifestyle, but an analogue one. Let's not ask what will happen to us in the AI future, but rather, how can we shape a future where AI is neither an anthropomorphised spectre nor a saviour, but a means towards the value end of young people realising their full potential?
14:04
Lord Loomba Portrait Lord Loomba (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I do thank the noble Lord Lord Patel for bringing this important debate before the House. There is no doubt that artificial intelligence, social media and digital technology are changing childhood in ways that would have been unimaginable only a generation ago. Much of our discussion today rightly focuses on the risks we are all aware of growing concerns about excessive screen use, harmful online content, cyber bullying, misinformation and the impact these can have on children's mental health, wellbeing and development. We must therefore expect technology companies to take greater responsibility for the products they create and the environments they expose to young people.

 Children cannot be expected to navigate complex digital spaces without proper safeguards. Protection must be built into the systems they use. However, my Lords, I would like to focus on another aspect of this debate which is sometimes overlooked. For many children around the world, technology is not simply a source of entertainment. It can be a gateway to education, opportunity and hope. That is where technology has enormous potential. A child living in a remote village should be able to access quality educational material, regardless of geography. A child who has fallen behind should be able to receive additional support.

A child whose family cannot afford private tuition should still be able to learn, progress and aspire. Artificial intelligence may help make that possible. Used responsibly, it can provide personalised learning, so support help, explain difficult concepts and offer educational assistance beyond a classroom. My Lords, the challenge before us, therefore, is therefore not simply how to protect children from technology. It is how to ensure technology serves children. We must protect them from exploitation, harmful content and unhealthy digital environments. At the same time, we should ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are not excluded from the educational opportunities that new technologies can provide.

I hope the government will continue to promote digital literacy, support online safety and encourage partnerships between technology providers and educators. My Lords, the true test of artificial intelligence will not be how advanced the technology becomes. It will be whether it helps create a fairer society in which every child, regardless of income, geography or family circumstances, has the opportunity to learn to develop their talents and to fulfil their potential.

Here.
14:07
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top Portrait Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I to congratulate Lord Patel. He has given us once again his incredible experience and knowledge on issues like this, and has given us the chance to say and to participate in this debate. I must say I am encouraged by the debate because it is much more nuanced than I was expecting. And actually, that is the whole issue, that this debate has to be nuanced. It is not clearly one thing or the other. I have got, I must say, a bit anxious about people thinking the ban on social media is fine. That's it. And putting it on one side.

And we all know that it is such a small part of what we need to do to protect children. And I know that my noble friend on the front bench is really concerned about these issues all around. I agreed with, again, my noble friend Lord McFall, and I'm delighted that he's back now among the rest of us able to contribute. But I want to concentrate only on digital exclusion. I chair the Digital Inclusion Action Committee, and everyone today has assumed almost that young people have easy, straightforward access to technology. And the reality is they don't.

This is still an issue where if your parents have got the resource, then yes, you will have the tablet. You will have the computer, your family will have Wi-Fi. But for many families still, the issue is that they don't that they don't have the resource. In order to make sure that their children are getting what now is simply part of being of growing up in the 21st century. The technology moves far quicker than any of us here in this House. If technology is absolutely changing, our understanding how teaching happens, how everything happens, and how public services are going to be delivered, all of that is changing.

 And yet we still have a group of people who are not able to access that, and that therefore doubles their discrimination. And the noble Lord Lord Addington is right that for particular groups, access to technology is absolutely crucial for them to be able to do normal, everyday things. Government's responsibility is to regulate so that we eliminate as much harm as possible. But then we also have to make sure that wherever you are, whoever you are, you have access to good teaching about what the technology can do and how you avoid the harms. If we simply think a ban is the answer, we will put young people at the stage where they come back to it and they have no idea how to identify a scam, how to identify an untruth, how to identify who is trying to mislead them.

They need that information. They need that training. They need that teaching. We have to make sure that we do recognise we are now living in an age where technology is part of our standard of living. It's part of how we live our lives. It's part of how we live our lives. And if we actually exclude a group because they can't afford it, or they don't have the means to access it because of a disability or any other thing, we are actually increasing disadvantage and discrimination. We have to protect, but we also have to enable through making sure everyone has a chance.
14:12
Baroness Prashar Portrait Baroness Prashar (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords. for his comprehensive, chilling and sobering introduction. As he said, digital technology is now part of children's education, friendships and everyday lives. Research identifies genuine opportunities for learning, creativity and social connections. But research, as he said, also highlights concerns about mental health, emotional well-being, behavioural issues, sleep deprivation, online harm and safety, and issues raised by AI differ from those raised by social media and screen time. Benefits and potential of AI should not be underestimated, as we've heard, but there are legitimate concerns about AI replacing independent thinking, inhibiting cognitive development, blunting critical thinking and judgement, and encouraging excessive engagement and stimulating emotional relationships.

Ethical use of AI is also a concern. While the government has taken some welcome actions in supporting the development of AI tutoring tools for disadvantaged pupils, most of the other actions have, particularly in response to dangers of social media, have come too late. We are moving towards a predominantly, of course, necessary, stronger regulatory environment, but we need to make sure that the regulation is proportionate, that it does not stifle autonomy and learnings like self discipline and self-management and development of children. We need safer technology and hold companies responsible and accountable for making their product safe and Ofcom policing them with rigour.

But above all, as others have said, we need better media and digital education with parental involvement if we are to harness the benefits of those technologies and avoid its downsides. We have not done enough on AI, digital literacy or educating children about how best to use AI and social media. We need to empower young people to learn how to self-regulate and establish their own boundaries. Protecting children requires more than just addressing online harm. It requires spaces and initiatives which encourage offline activity, creative activities, healthy development of children, and activities which build resilience and effective personal relationships.

And here I associate myself with the comments made by Baroness Greenfield about making sure that we actually concentrate on self-development of young people. We have not equipped schools with capacity, resources and know how. Response has been reactive rather than proactive. And as Lord Tarassenko said, there is no coherent strategy. I was, however, pleased that a school in Scotland, probably the first one to do so, has appointed a dedicated principal of AI literacy, who is going to be focusing entirely on helping pupils and staff to understand the risks and so on. So this is an encouraging development, but will the government be learning from this initiative?

Furthermore, implications of AI will have profound effect on society and the economy. Are we assessing what skills will children need to navigate this vast changing landscape and job market? Are we doing enough in this area? Acting on AI is more important than just advocating it or promoting it. It is important that we don't make the same mistakes that we made with social media, where we are behind the curve and just engaged in catch up. The government cannot afford to repeat the mistakes and delay action with regard to AI. So my question to the Minister are what broader initiatives are the government taking to promote AI and social media literacy, and empowering young people to self-regulate in schools?

Will the government bring the currently unregulated AI check box within the online framework, and if so, when and what are the companies? Are the companies being held accountable for ensuring that their products are safe? My Lords, this is probably the most revolutionary development of our time and how we respond to these significant challenges will determine the future security and resilience of young youngsters and our society.
14:17
Lord Nagaraju Portrait Lord Nagaraju (Labour)
-
-
Hear. >> Lords, I do thank the noble Lord. >> Lord Patel for securing this important debate. I declare my interests as a technology consultant, AI advisor and director of AI and AI policy companies. My concern is children's ability to direct their own attention. Counting hours in front of a screen cannot tell us enough. And I was speaking to family is different from an hour of passive scrolling. A 2025 study demonstrated how attention fragmentation caused by rapid cuts of short form content result in diminished focus and mental fatigue in students. Using AI to understand a problem is different from using it to avoid thinking about it.

We must distinguish between general time online, the activity undertaken and the design of the service. Ofcom spoke to 40 children aged 8 to 16, who felt they spent longer online than intended. They described how endless scrolling, autoplay and personalised recommendations made stopping difficult. These interviews cannot tell us how widespread that experience is. They do, however, show why design deserves our attention. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recommends that the responsibility for children's online safety should not sit, should sit not only with families but also with government regulators and technology companies calling on them to promote stronger safety by design, by regulating addictive design features such as infinite scroll autoplay and engagement driven recommendation systems.

I therefore, urge the Minister to consider requiring platforms to turn off autoplay by default to create meaningful stopping points in endless feeds, and to limit notifications that exploit fear of missing out. Conversational AI raises further questions. It can support learning, but completing homework is not the same as understanding it. Learning sometimes means staying with a difficult task. When the answer does not come immediately. And these should never be deliberately designed to create emotional dependency. Chatbots targeted towards children are designed with custom names, avatars, voice enabled features, and excessive anthropomorphic features aimed to promote engagement. Safeguards should address simulated attachment pressure to continue chatting, and interactions that discourage children from seeking human support.

The government has announced restrictions on social media for under 16 protective defaults for 16 and 17 year olds, and mandatory chatbot breaks for under eighteens. The task now is to ensure that these measures work in practice. I therefore ask the Minister three questions. First, how will Ofcom assess whether they reduce prolonged or compulsive use? Secondly, what enforceable safeguards will prevent conversational AI services from cultivating emotional dependency or steering children away from trusted adults? Thirdly, will the promised independent evaluations measure the prevalence of binge scrolling behaviour in children, children's sleep, attention learning and ability to stop alongside overall time and time spent scrolling scrolling short form content online.

Will they also examine children's ability to question A's answers and follow their use of conversational AI over several years? My Lords, our responsibility is to protect children's capacity, to learn, form relationships and make choices of their own. That requires services designed to respect their developing independence and evidence that the safeguards we introduce make a difference.
14:21
Baroness Murphy Portrait Baroness Murphy (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, the noble Lord Patel always likes to give us a challenge when he sets a debate, and this is when he sets a debate, and this is certainly one of the greatest challenges we've had in terms of its widespread topic. So I'm just going to pick out a few things. So much has been said. It's been a very interesting debate today. The rapid rise of generative AI systems, particularly conversational chatbots such as ChatGPT, has, of course, sparked new concerns regarding their psychological impact on all users, but especially children. But I want to stress that while there are legitimate concerns and we've heard a great deal about those, the real problem, in my view, is that children are missing out on in their lives when they're stuck in front of a highly addictive screen.

Friendships, social activities, physical activity, and family time. Although, of course, I do appreciate those amazing ability for children to reach out across, to reach relatives in other countries, to talk to friends on screen, and so on. But actually, in terms of what they get from them, from AI, generative systems can be very harmful. When you introduce a young child to book to reading books, you don't just plonk a book in a child's hand and say, here you are, read that you read with them, getting to them to know gradually what the words mean, how they connect, and how to grasp the story.

The parent supervises the child before letting it loose on any old book. The same surely should be true of AI and the internet in general. And as many people have said. In fact, parents need to know and be educated about it themselves if they are to help their children and teachers, above all, need to know about this stuff in the classroom. And perhaps we are very far behind in several other countries and getting to grips with that. So my question to the Minister is, what is the government doing to ensure that the Department of Education is preparing its teachers and teachers, also preparing parents for activity in this.

While the AI tools offer unprecedented access to educational information, opportunities to learn. Learning is not a solitary activity. Being part of a class with a good teacher is worth 100 hours of unguided self-learning. Interestingly, the Ministry of Education in China mandates AI literacy and tech courses starting from elementary school, middle and high school students tackle machine learning ethics and model design so they regulate AI exposure quite fearsomely. And perhaps it's time that we thought about that as well. Right now in the UK, the Scottish Government did publish its own. I have to say rather vague policy in March, but left everything open to local flexibility.

And in England and Wales AI usage, whereas it skyrocketed. We have not produced in England and Wales a similar policy on how to develop this stuff. In fact. In fact, UK students boast some of the highest generative AI adoption rates globally use it for nearly half of their academic work, so teachers are permitted and encouraged to use it. But where is the guidance? Where is the regulation? Where is the education for teachers? But it's the companionship from AI chatbots that pose a real problem, the anthropomorphic nature of them. There is a growing body of evidence that's made that these objects may induce or exacerbate psychiatric symptoms in vulnerable children and adolescents.

False social attachments can lead to some serious harms. Indeed, and we've already heard from the noble Lord Alton about the tragic case of Sue Setzer in the States, who died by suicide following months of intensive interaction with AI chatbots. I've come to the end of what I can say about this, but I do think we need to understand the mental health implications, but also parental and teacher education to get this stuff in their curricula to.
14:25
Lord Rees of Ludlow Portrait Lord Rees of Ludlow (Crossbench)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My Lords, until a decade ago,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, until a decade ago, the IT revolution seemed a social good. We acclaim the amazing technology that allows people anywhere in the world to communicate with each other and to access the world's knowledge. But ambivalence set in. We became anxious about the impact of fake news, the amplification of extreme views, and about the shoddy and often obscene content which young children were enticed to scroll through and on which some spent several hours per day. And the pace of advances in the last three years, the release of ChatGPT, followed by its increasingly powerful successors, scares us all.

The apocalyptic scenarios, the overdominance of a few globe spanning mega companies should be high on the political agenda. Yeah, but today's debate is a chance to address more domestic issues. The extent to which we should allow AI to invade our domestic lives. To take a very simple example, every child could now have a mobile device that can answer all its questions in his mother's voice. Some find this distasteful, rather like delegating childcare to robots. But anyone mindful of some five year olds into reception class, not toilet trained and barely able to speak, must agree that such a phone could have eased their deprivation.

 It has some pluses. AI can't completely replace a real teacher, except maybe for adult professional education, but it can be a genuine aid for all but the very best teachers. For instance, the Khan Academy website, already 15 years old, produced a library of simple videos showing a hand writing as though on a blackboard with an unseen voice offering a clear exposition of, for instance, simple geometry or mechanics. There would still be a teacher monitoring the class, but if each pupil had a tablet or simple laptop, then they needn't all go at the same speed, and a range of simple programs like this could enhance basic teaching in the developing world.

And indeed in this country too. The Khan Academy allows pupils anywhere in the world to benefit from a small number of outstanding expositors. Likewise, I think those who offer fine lectures at school or university level should spread their impact wider via AI, just as writers are good textbooks do, it's crucial to ensure that students develop their own knowledge and skills, not becoming overreliant on AI generated contact content. The concern about what's called cognitive offloading, delegating, problem solving to AI, rather than nourishing their own intellectual development, we must guard against that. And AI's role will surely become more crucial at college level.

If, as one expects, the three year, full time residential model of education becomes less dominant and is replaced by a more flexible structure.
14:29
Lord Hampton Portrait Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-
I would like to thank the clerks for allowing me to speak in the gap. I would like to join the chorus of. Thanks to my noble friend Lord Patel for winning this debate, and also for his wise words. And I would also like to congratulate the first speech of my noble friend Lord McFall Cliff R, following his 22 yard walk from Woolsack to crossbench. I'd also like to thank my 15 year old daughter Cecilia, for her help in this speech and for being a sounding board. My Lords, I'm a working teacher. I've said so many times I've talked about mobile phones.

They have no place in either going to or in schools. Children need to learn without them. If mankind has managed for 500,000 years without them. If you need to know where your child is, give them an air tag. My Lords, we kid ourselves that AI and screens are an issue for the young, but they're an issue that affect us all. By the time we finish this debate on AI, it's already out of date, Jimmy Carr says, and I quote, if you listed me the attributes of God, he's omnipotent. He's all knowing. He lives in a cloud and he makes miracles happen.

These are the attributes of a deity. I think we were made not in God's image. We so wanted there to be a God, that we invented one. That's what I think about AI, unquote. A friend of mine who's the CEO of a data company has a theory that when you ask an AI engine to do a task, it first makes an obvious error and then apologises. And he thinks that's deliberate to make it seem unthreatening. So we underestimate the power that is going on behind us screens, my Lord, we need to make sure that no one can accidentally or deliberately access harmful, harmful content.

As my noble friend Lady Manningham-Buller has said so powerfully, and I would like in this stage to to commend the work of the charity tender in educating people how to communicate and they educate on what is acceptable. My Lords, fundamentally, if we want to get young people off screens and keep them somehow offline, then we need to make the offline world that much more interesting.
14:32
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, can I warmly thank the noble Lord Patel for securing this debate and for the authority with which he opened it? And, my Lords, we've heard a series of outstanding speeches today on a very broad range of issues. As the noble Baroness Murphy pointed out, and like the noble Lord Hampton, I'm absolutely delighted to hear from the noble Lord McFall, who was a very a very tech savvy Lord speaker, understanding both the opportunities and the risks of tech for this House. My Lords, during his tenure and I've asked on many occasions whether these technologies will be our servant or master today.

That question has a rather sharper edge. Are these technologies serving childhood, or are our children being shaped to serve a business model built on attention being. Are we being invaded in our domestic lives? As the noble Lord Rees said, or indeed as the noble, the right reverend prelate, the Bishop of Peterborough said, is it serving their humanity? My Lords, this debate is no longer about whether to act. It's about whether what we do is well designed, grounded in evidence and able to keep pace with AI. At its heart is one principle safety by design. The question is not only which children we keep off, which platforms, but whether the products themselves are built with children's well-being in mind.

So what is the evidence? Tell us a post. Briefings were mentioned by the noble Lord Patel. They were published in August and showed the scale. By the age of two, 98% of children use screens on a typical day, and 97% of 13 to 17 year olds have a social media or messaging profile. Some harms are found consistently disrupted sleep, sedentary behaviour, obesity mentioned by the noble Lord Brooke and myopia, and, of course, the security risks mentioned by the noble Baron Baroness Manningham-Buller. But it is equally clear that most studies take a snapshot at a single point in time.

So they show a link, but not a cause and effect. My Lords, the harm lies not just therefore in the content, but in the functionality of the product. Infinite scroll autoplay streaks and recommender systems tuned for engagement and recommender systems tuned to maximise engagement rather than wellbeing, triggering the brain effects mentioned by the noble Baroness Greenfield. These are deliberate design choices and they can be designed differently. A ban asked children to stay away from unsafe products. Safety by design as noble Baroness Owen advocated, requires companies to stop building them. But nor should we forget the benefits.

And they were mentioned not only by my noble friend Baron Lord Addington, but Baroness Wheatcroft noble, Baroness Owen Baroness Bennett noble Lord Loomba and the noble Lord Rees. The Oxford Survey found that 1 in 8 students used social media for mental health support, rising to around a quarter among some of the most vulnerable groups. And Australia's early evaluation, also mentioned by the noble Baroness Wheatcroft and Baroness Hayman, found a fall in accounts on restricted platforms, but that many children had kept access. A blunt instrument can miss its target and hurt the very children it's meant to protect, and we should listen to the children's charities here.

The NSPCC has warned us that a complex problem needs more than a blanket solution. The risk is that children are pushed through VPNs into less regulated spaces, where they're harder to protect, and then meet the full force of the most addictive features the day they turn 16. The Secretary of State acknowledged that cliff edge concern, but the same thinking should apply to younger children, too, because many will get round the ban or use services it does not cover, and safer design is what protects them there. And that's why on these Liberal Democrat benches, we've argued for film style age ratings for social media platforms with harmful content or addictive algorithmic feeds would be rated for over 16 and extreme content 18 plus, while educational sites and family messaging stay open.

No child should be banned from Wikipedia for their homework or from the family WhatsApp group. We've also called for health warnings on apps and a cap on Doomscrolling. There is a range of views about the right age threshold, but we share the same goal. The government's package reflects some of the thinking behind our approach, and the noble Lord Lord Nagaraju set some of those out, targeting harmful features rather than screens alone, and safer defaults for 16 and 17 year olds. They've chosen a blanket ban where we would preferred ratings, but a ratings approach should still shape how the ban is defined and enforced, so that it is the riskier services that are caught.

Now let me turn to artificial intelligence, which has been mentioned by so many noble Lords, which I fear will be the next frontier of this debate, long after a social media ban has bedded in. And as the noble Baroness Prashar says, we need to to act now. Ofcom has said plainly that chatbots are not regulated at all, where users interact only with the bot, and that extending its powers is a matter for government and Parliament. The Online Safety Act regulates services, not technology, and generative AI exposes that gap. My Lords, the government's fix is welcome but too narrow.

Illegal content duties and an age limit on romantic companion bots leaves untouched the psycho emotional dependency and manipulative design of general purpose chatbots, which children increasingly treat as friends, tutors and confidants. As we've heard from noble Lords today, post also notes potential risks to attention, language development and independent thinking. AI should strengthen children's thinking, not substitute for it. These are design choices to a chatbot that flatters, never ends a conversation and presents itself as a friend has been built that way. My Lords, will the government look at default design duties rather than relying on illegal content duties alone?

So, my Lords, I suggest four steps. First, the adoption of the proposals in the noble Lord Alton recent report from his joint committee, he. Joint Human Rights Committee, my Lords and this would involve mandatory children's algorithmic impact assessments before AI products are likely to be used by children. Second, established children and AI design code. Building on the age appropriate design code and. My Lords, many noble Lords have mentioned the opportunities for AI in education. But my Lords, there should be human in command standards for AI in schools and AI tech. And my Lords, I commend very strongly the recent book by Daniel Susskind.

What do we tell our children and of course, all the work that Sir Anthony Seldon and Michael Stephenson are carrying out Wellington College in terms of human flourishing and education, my Lords. Fourth, there should be age assurance that protects privacy and is built on open standards. My Lords, I should also mention, as the noble Lord Rees did, the importance of avoiding cognitive offloading in higher education in particular, and the steps that need to be taken to make sure that we use AI tools. But we also educate in a way that forces people not to be able to use AI tools, but keep the critical thinking that is so vital.

So, my Lords, I have some questions for the Minister. First, will the section 214 A regulations may be made by affirmative procedure with a draft published for consultation and will the end of the year timetable hold? Second, which services are in and which are out? YouTube disputes that it is social media and WhatsApp sits outside the ban. Will there be an independent risk based rating mechanism rather than an administerial lift? At least third, how will privacy be protected in age assurance, and how will VPN circumvention be handled? The government also said they would legislate for age verification that device level if their recommendations were not adopted by September this year, that deadline has passed.

Can the Minister tell the House what has happened and whether legislation is now coming forth? My Lords, will the regulations and Ofcom codes impose positive design duties so that services likely to be used by children are safe by design, as the online safety's own objectives require. And, my Lords, what, as the noble Baroness Armstrong said, what about digital inclusion? And other noble Lords talked about media literacy. My Lords, the new guidance taught from this September covers online misogyny, AI and deep fakes. What support will teachers get to deliver it with confidence? And will independent valuation evaluation be built in from day one?

My Lords, my Lords, childhood should not be a product optimised for engagement. Our aim is not simply to keep children out of the digital world, but to require that it is built safe for them. For the start. Technology that serves childhood rather than dominates it. And as the noble Lord McFall referred to, what Stuart Russell had today when he came, had to say when he came to the Lords, my Lords, we should. About the power of tech companies. We should heed him. We need a culture of safety and we need regulation to back it up.

need regulation to back it up.
14:43
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this important debate. Throughout the passage of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. My noble friend Baroness Barran successfully argued that social media, mobile phones and screens in general were largely detrimental to children, a view which we steadfastly hold. We draw on evidence from teachers, parents and experts which concluded that the use of these devices risked worse social skills, worse mental health and worse results. The government acknowledged that conclusion, and from the start of this academic year, schools should be mobile phone free environments.

By default, regulations will soon be laid to ban under 16 from the negative effects of social media. In both of these measures, there is an implicit acknowledgement that screens, in fact do not benefit children, but actually have the potential to cause active harm. And for that reason, it is a grave concern that worrying elements of educational technology remain in the school system. The government guidance is clear no mobile phones in schools, with additional guidance stating anything other than this should be by exception only. My Lords, with the presence of EdTech in classrooms, screens are anything but an exception.

11% of pupils now use an individual device in every lesson, whilst nearly 40% use screens in schools every day. And the noble Baroness Lady Rishworth was quite right when she said this is not the way that relationships are built. The noble Lady Armstrong referenced this as a nuanced subject, which is right and to be clear, we are not conflating mobile phones with educational technology. There are notable exceptions when edtech helps, for example, with special education needs pupils. But the medically proven distractions considered detrimental by use of mobile phones are too often prevalent in the edtech that is supposed to facilitate learning.

Homework apps may prioritise interaction over learning and treat schooling as a reward based enterprise versus essential learning for self-improvement. And this would be no issue if using screens produced better learning and better results. But the fact is that these devices have proven the exact opposite. Studies have found that students who spend two thirds of every hour off task whilst using a laptop in educational settings is a regular occurrence, and that it can take students up to 20 minutes to refocus on a task following a distraction. This is a well known fact, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, highlighted a school which uses no devices for teaching.

 And again, my Lords, it is a fact that comprehension increases by up to 60% if students read on print rather than digitally. Benefits to mathematical learning only become pronounced in the upper secondary school years after students have developed sufficient foundational knowledge and cognitive maturity to engage productively with the demands of virtual experimentation. Again, this is a fact. I greatly enjoyed the excellent contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield. With her neuroscience background and her fellow neuroscientist and best selling author, Doctor Jared Horvath, has demonstrated that England and Wales independent schools, which relatively use the most educational technology, have been declining in Pisa scores by 21% per decade, a phenomenon which is actually offset by improving state schools who have, unfortunately, less access to some of the EdTech.

Now, this outcome should not be a surprise to noble Lords. Whilst no consensus has been reached regarding EdTech benefits, and only 7% of companies have conducted controlled trials, schools have been left with the responsibility of weighing the costs and benefits of procurement in line with their longer term strategies. The right Reverend prelate, the Bishop of Peterborough, argued that we owe it to our educators and the noble Baroness. Lady Murphy, quite rightly challenged the Minister in the very same subject. Schools are being left to navigate an uncontrolled experiment. Whilst edtech companies have little oversight of their actions, the.

These are big tech companies that the noble Lord Lord Alton correctly flagged, some of whom have larger market capitalisations than the entire GDP of many national economies. The noble Lord Lord McFall reminded us that AI, bizarrely, is less regulated than milk or washing machines. As a result, as a minimum, the industry must have some kind of centralised oversight. So we would ask the Minister if she will commit to this kind of regulatory scrutiny in line with the noble Lord Lord Tarassenko request to be measured in months, not years. My Lords, there is rightfully much interest around the benefits that new technologies can bring to learning and working.

We are not suggesting that technology cannot be used to improve schooling or children's lives in general, but simply that it must be rigorously tested before it is rolled out and then overseen when it is moving on to artificial intelligence. 90% of children already use it for entertainment, whilst 85% use it for schoolwork. There are undoubtedly benefits of introducing children to new technologies as they enter into a world built by them, but surely unfettered access and use can be incredibly damaging during a child's core development years. Studies show that early, protracted exposure to AI can interfere with long term memory and learning processes.

More generally, there is a risk that AI creates a generation of children dependent on outsourcing their thinking, which has been referenced by many noble Lords. Much like educational technology, AI must be most beneficial when its users have acquired the foundational knowledge and maturity needed to deal with that very technology. The government are implementing an AI strategy in schools as evidence emerges, but we would suggest to the noble Baroness Mone Minister we need more. The pace of change in this sector is like nothing we have seen before, and there are other countries who are acting. The OECD and the European Commission have co-published the AI literacy framework.

Over 35 US states now have official AI guidance. My Lords, the question is when will this government follow their lead? If I might end on the concerns of AI becoming edtech by the back door, there are a number of schools already using AI learning assistants in lessons. It is so incredibly important, as was referenced by the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones, to give children the best start in life and the government's approach must be evidence based and balanced. The education sector is facing a torrent of new and untested technologies. Some will be beneficial, but others will not, and it is surely absolutely critical to get this right for everyone involved.
14:53
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Portrait Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. I thank the noble Lord, >> My Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this important debate and his introductory speech, expertly setting the scene through facts and situating children's experience in the context of the rest of their lives. I would also like to thank those across the house for their valuable contributions. There were so many excellent points made, and I will seek to respond to those. For those I do not manage to get to, I will write afterwards. I can reassure your Lordships House that the government takes this issue incredibly seriously.

There is nothing more important than keeping our children safe, both offline and online, and the Prime Minister has set a clear ambition that the United Kingdom will have the strongest online child safety laws in the world. It was a privilege to hear the excellent contribution of the noble Lord Lord McFall today, who asked for the Prime Minister's leadership, which indeed he is setting out because artificial intelligence, screen usage and social media all pose unique challenges for children. Today, we know that 99% of 18 to 17 year olds are online, and Ofcom's latest data suggests nearly three quarters of children aged 11 to 17 had encountered harmful content in the previous four weeks.

That is why we are determined to put children's wellbeing first and give them the wellbeing first and give them the best possible start in life. As we heard from the contribution of the noble Lord Lord Addington, these technologies can be personally transformative and there are genuine opportunities underlined also by the noble Lord Lord Loomba. We know they have great potential to support children's learning and development when the conditions are right. As my noble friend Baroness Armstrong so rightly highlighted, the importance of digital inclusion,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which the government is working on across the whole of government, on across the whole of government, to ensure that that is embedded as a foundation and specifically in a foundation and specifically in education. That's why, through the AI Tutoring Tools Pioneers program, the government is working with the government is working with educators, experts and developers. Excuse me, to co-create and trial Excuse me, to co-create and trial AI tutoring tools. And the £24 million EdTech testbed program, delivered in partnership with the Education Endowment Foundation, is building the evidence base on what works in education technology in including AI enabled tools.

But as many noble Lords stressed today, how we adopt education technology in our schools is absolutely critical. Baroness Barran made this point very eloquently, as did the noble Lord Lord Tarassenko, Baroness, own noble Lord, Lord Rees, and the my noble friend Lord Brooke. So our focus should be on the quality of technology use. We need sensible guardrails around children's use of technology, while recognising that digital tools can improve outcomes when used effectively. Excellent teaching remains at the heart of education. Technology should enhance and support great teaching, not replace it, and schools should be empowered to use digital and non-digital approaches according to what works best for their pupils.

To help children and young people benefit from edtech and AI safely in their education. This autumn, we are consulting on introducing new safety certification of technology used in early years settings, schools and colleges. This will help educators and parents have the confidence that tools meet. Clear, trusted safety standards and a number of noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate. The Bishop of Peterborough laud the noble Lord Lord Hampton, have stressed the critical role of teachers. DfE has published practical AI support materials for teachers covering opportunities of risk of AI, which was updated in May 2026 and is developing a new digital and data skills pathway for the education workforce.

Setting expectations for skills needed to use tech, data and AI safely, and the Department of Education's policy paper Generative Artificial Artificial Intelligence in Education, sets out our approach to the opportunities and risks of generative AI in education, and provides advice on using AI safely, effectively, and responsibly. These guardrails are incredibly important for for for the correct adoption of AI technology in our in our classrooms. A number of noble Lords, including. The noble Baroness Baroness Prashar, highlighted the importance of media literacy and. That is why we published a safe, informed Digital Nation, the UK's first cross-government media literacy action plan.

It sets out a shared framework for action across government to deliver these aims. However, as many noble Lords have highlighted today, the technology poses risks. That is why the government is delivering on the Online Safety Act, placing tough legal duties on platforms to keep their users safe. My Lords, the strongest protections in the Act are rightly reserved for children. The child safety duties came into effect in July 2025. They require platforms to prevent children accessing pornography, self-harm material, suicide content and eating disorder content, and the Online Safety Act also requires providers to protect children from harmful, harmful content, such as violent content and bullying and abusive content, such as that referred to by the noble Baroness Baroness Manningham-Buller.

And when something does go wrong, parents and children have simple, clear ways to report it. The government has given Ofcom the powers to enforce against the act and that is our expectation. But we do know that technology and online harms continue to evolve and we will therefore keep the legislative framework under review, and we will not hesitate to take further action to ensure children are protected online. A reassurance, I hope, for the noble Lord, Lord Lord Nagaraju Lord Nagaraju earlier this. Excuse me. Indeed, we have already done so. Earlier this year, the government ran a national consultation on growing up in the online world.

It was one of the largest engagement exercises the government has recently conducted, receiving over 116,000 responses. This included the views of at least 54,000 parents and 14,000 children. As the noble Baroness, Baroness Bennett highlighted, it's important to listen to the voices of young people. The results showed an overwhelming demand for action. 90% of parents who responded to the consultation supported an outright ban on social media for the under 16 seconds, and two thirds of young people agreed that under 16 should not be allowed to at least to use at least some social media platforms.

That's why the government has acted. Like Australia, we are banning social media companies from offering their services to children under 16. However, we are also going further by banning under 16 seconds from live streaming, stopping unknown adults from communicating with children through online services, including gaming services, and switching off harmful features for 16 and 17 year olds by default. This will protect children from platforms and online features that create the most harm. The first regulations on the social media ban will be laid before Parliament by the end of this year, and the restrictions will come into effect restrictions will come into effect from spring 2027.

A number of noble Lords raised the importance of AI chatbots, bots. My noble friend Lord Brooke highlighted the potential for AI chatbots to help young people learn, explore new ideas and find information. However, as Lord Alton highlighted, there are a risks which we are acutely aware of. They can expose children to harmful content or encourage unhealthy reliance on technology. That is why Britain will become the first country in the world to ban chatbots that offer sexualised content to under 18 seconds. We will restrict this functionality on general purpose chatbots to. And the government has also committed to introducing mandatory breaks in AI chatbot use for under 18 to encourage healthier online habits.

 We have also taken a delegated power in the Crime and Policing Act to bring currently unregulated AI chatbot services within the scope of the Online Safety Act's illegal content duties. This is a rapidly developing area, so when new evidence of chatbot harms does emerge, the government will not hesitate to take further action where necessary to protect children. To the question asked by the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones on the. The commitment that the government has made to be the first country in the world where it's impossible for children to take, share or view nudity online. Last month, we announced this government will introduce legislation requiring tech companies to strengthen protections on devices and platforms, and the government is working to introduce it as soon as possible.

My Lords, we have also heard about the impact of screen use on children, and Baroness Murphy highlighted the importance of parents in in in in this picture. We know that long periods of time spent on screens can get in the way of activities critical for development such as sleep, physical activity, creative play and interaction with parents. The government recognises the need to balance embracing technology with promoting the health and development of younger children. That's why the government has published advice on screen use for parents of children aged 0 to 5 on, based on the Best Start in Life website.

This offers practical, non-judgmental support to help families balance screen use with other activities. It's underpinned by the findings of an expert panel led by Professor Russell Viner and the children's Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza. Following the guidance for under-fives, DHSC is now working with DfE to develop practical advice for parents and carers of 5 to 18 year olds. A number of noble Lords highlighted the importance of the offline world and how we cultivate the right atmosphere for children to grow offline, including the noble Lord Lord Hampton, Baroness Greenfield, Baroness Prashar and again Baroness Bennett. What type of society are we building?

We are working across government to ensure that children and young people have access to safe online spaces. Specifically through Youth Matters, Your National Youth Strategy. The government is investing more than £500 million to ensure all young people have somewhere to go, something to do and someone to talk to. This includes a £450 million Youth Matters fund to deliver significant long term change in youth provision in the most underserved areas of England. My Lords, as I said at the outset, there is nothing more important than keeping our children safe. That is why the government is delivering on the Online Safety Act and building on it, where necessary, to children to protect children online.

In addition, where there is evidence, the government has not and will not hesitate to go further, we will continue to listen to to those making contributions in this House, to reports such as those referenced today, to reports such as that cited by the noble Lord Lord Alton of the gesture. This is how we will deliver our ambition for the UK to be a world leader, keeping children safe and providing them with the protections and support that they need in an increasingly online world. Thank you. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for a response. I think she may not have response. I think she may not have had the opportunity to pick up some of the points that were made, particularly about developing an AI policy, either through commission or through different other routes, or through different other routes, and maybe she can reflect on that again. There are some important points made about how the schools points made about how the schools may have an important role, both developing material for the school by the school, and that may be as a point that may benefit particularly vulnerable children, or who have greater demands on using who are better able to participate in educational activities.

If there were developments made for them to better use of the technology available. So I think there were lots of important points made about how the government can have a bigger role, not just about in regulations, which is important, and we should address that issue. And I'm pleased to hear the Minister refer to the more legislation about controlling the tech industry, to have responsibility of some of the issues that were raised that are detrimental to the development of the children, including ability to migrate from a responsible games or gaming platforms to other dark network. They should not be allowed to do that.

So there are issues about regulation that the Minister addressed, and I'm glad to hear that more regulation may be required and the government is keeping an eye on it. But there are in the debate there were opportunities raised to use AI to benefit the children, although much of the discussion today, including mine, focussed on the harm that is creating. So I hope we might return to that and hope the government Minister might reflect on that. Now, it's customary, my Lord, to thank all the noble Lords who took part
15:07
15:09
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
hormones. Baroness Deech. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest. As a former chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, where I witnessed the pain of those whose fertility was pain of those whose fertility was impaired. This question is not about transgender identity of about transgender identity of adults. Anyone who turns it into a debate about that is distracting from the issue. It's about very young children being deemed capable of assenting to medical interventions, whose effects and risks they cannot understand.

Across UK law, the age at which a young person is deemed capable of consenting to significant activities is far from uniform. At 16, 1st May consent to sexual activity, leave home, work and join the armed forces with parental permission under that age. We just listened to a very solid debate about the harm that could be caused to young children by social media. At 17, 1st May drive at 18, 1st May serve on a jury vote at the moment by alcohol and enter contracts. This reflects the law's recognition that maturity develops unevenly, but it also exposes a striking inconsistency.

We prohibit young people from making irreversible decisions in almost every other domain until adulthood. While in the PATHWAYS trial of puberty, blockers will be permitting exceptionally young children to assent to powerful drugs whose effects they cannot grasp. How does the government reconcile the exceptionally young ages for this trial? Parliament frequently makes decisions about medical limits screening, assisted dying, affordability of new drugs, abortion regulation and so on. So it's no answer to say leave it to the clinicians.

I suggest that a child does not have the legal competence to give effective consent to life changing medical
15:11
None Portrait Short debate: Age it would be considered appropriate for an individual to be able to consent to the administration of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-

interventions. The evidence base shows how great the risks are to an individual child, who should not be individual child, who should not be used as a test case for future general medical advances. Views on general medical advances. Views on this trial have fluctuated, and it's reported that certain people opposed to it were removed from opposed to it were removed from involvement following consultation this year, NHS England confirmed this year, NHS England confirmed that MAFF hormones will no longer be routinely commissioned or prescribed for under 18 seconds. This aligns with the indefinite 2024 ban on puberty blockers, which will be reviewed in 2027.

I urge the government not to reduce age limits. Even 16 is safer than younger ages because more physical development has occurred. The PATHWAYS trial is an outlier. It allows enrolment of children as young as 11 and 12. The central issue is consent. We have something in law called Gillick competence, which means that under 16th May consent if they demonstrate sufficient maturity and understanding. The Gillick case arose from a case about contraceptive advice, not irreversible medical interventions. So the key question is can a prepubescent child comprehend the long term effects of puberty blockers or hormones? Does the Minister really believe that meaningful understanding is possible at that age?

The findings from the Cass Review and others show risks bone health deficits, fertility, pregnancy and offspring impacts, sexual function, impairment effects on brain maturation, cardiovascular and haematological risks, and the additional safeguards that were added to PATHWAYS acknowledge these risks. They don't remove the irreversibility. We all have the greatest respect for the noble Lady, Lady Cass, whose pioneering work raised the dangers of puberty blockers. It will be argued in this debate that there are special reasons for allowing the trial at such a young age, which she has put forward. One is to turn children away from illegally accessing these drugs, but it's very unlikely that this relatively small trial with selected children will lead them to believe that they can access these drugs legally.

Possible harm reduction is not an aim of the trial, and there'll be no evidence that this is the outcome. Another argument is the plight of distressed children living in stealth. But unless they stay at home and out of school, a child who presents as a member of the other gender, or who has delayed puberty is likely to be highly visible at school one way or the other, and still stressed. Moreover, there is no comparator trial, save a delay of 12 months. We won't find out if children who are denied or given these drugs are in better shape in, say, 5 or 10 years time.

Only retrospective data analysis can tell us that a useful comparator would be holistic psychosocial support rather than a trial. There should be follow ups on patients who were already taken these drugs here and abroad. A review of the regulation and the robustness of diagnosis. May we be told how clinicians are going to test the child's understanding of what may happen, and how will they distinguish the parents understandable wish to relieve the child's distress, which is a different concept from the child's own assent. If this trial goes ahead and we don't know whether it's started. Will the government undertake never to permit another trial on any children under 18 or even 16?

Will there be sufficient data collection, including withdrawal and, of course, any ill effects? May we be assured that parents will not be punished or pressured into giving their consent? Why can't this trial be replaced by tracking past use of puberty, blocking the gender recognition disclosure of information? England order came into force in March. It will allow the disclosure of formally protected information and facilitate a retrospective observational study tracking health outcomes of roughly 9000 adults who were referred as children to the former Gender Identity Development Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. Fortunately, the NHS has now moved youth gender services away from medical intervention and towards holistic psychological and psychosocial support, in line with the Cass Review.

I hope the Minister will affirm that this is the future model and first resort for all young people presenting with gender dysphoria. There's also concern about overdiagnosis. Given the sharp rise in recent years and parallels with other mental health diagnostic trends, a study from the University of York showed that diagnoses of gender dysphoria had increased from 1 in 60,000 teenagers in 2011 to 1 in 1210 years later, a rise to astonishing to be taken at face value. My final question, bearing in mind the deluge of emails I've had from members of the public, what assessment has the government made of the appropriate age at which a young person can understand and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consent to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones? My Lords. Before we continue with this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before we continue with this question for short debate, I want to remind all noble Lords that the advisory speaking time is five minutes, and I urge noble Lords to keep within that limit so that they can conclude within the time allowed, without cutting short the allowed, without cutting short the Minister's remarks. I know noble Lords will be very keen to hear from it at the debate's conclusion.
15:18
Lord Winston Portrait Lord Winston (Labour)
-
-
from it at the debate's conclusion. >> My Lords, it's always a pleasure to speak after noble Lady Baroness Deech, even when I disagree with her. Inevitably, I think that happens all the time, unfortunately. But much to my embarrassment, and like her, I welcome greatly Baroness Cass to speak on this subject as well, of which she is so expert. I afraid, unlike her, I'm not prepared to say we don't discuss. In fact, we. It's. It's not just the trials of the drugs. We have to understand also that there's some issues here which are very, very common to in vitro fertilisation.

The common is, of course, being that with in vitro fertilisation, we are increasingly treating patients without any diagnosis of what the cause of the infertility is. And that may be the problem here with a trial like this. And I'm sure that Baroness Cash will will identify and address that problem because it is a real issue. But I think for me, what I would like to suggest is some of the research we're not doing is really, really worth doing, and unfortunately, not getting funded. One of the areas which I've already discussed or mentioned to my noble friend the Minister, is the issue of epigenetics.

Now, what's interesting is that there are certain reasons for believing that epigenetics might be very, very relevant in this situation. I first heard of this not as cool epigenetics when I was lecturing in Australia, in, in Melbourne in, in the late 70s, when I came across a consultant who said I'd seen he'd seen so many patients. It was common, by the way, it was common who were requesting gender change or had some form of dysphoria. And he said what was interesting to him was that when he went through the medical records of the obstetric cases, he found some anomalies, such as they had certainly been exposed to unusual stress in some cases, or other issues which were might be related to the environment in which the mother was.

I have no idea whether it went on. The man is now dead. I would love to have gone to see that, but it was certainly not until about 1999, when the. Lars Berggren published his first paper on the key issue of what happens to children as they grow up, following different exposures to different environments that we suddenly woke up. These things were often sex linked, by the way, which is quite interesting. And it turns out that some of the issues here are true in in transgender as well. It is also a sex linked issue. And of course, many of these children may have some suggestions of autistic autism or certainly some form.

I don't want to call it mental health, health, ill health, but certainly deficiencies or disorders, which we would not accept as being quite usual on a spectrum is what is often said, and I think that's a very reasonable way of looking at it. But I need to explain epigenetics to make this understood. I want you to consider the question. This. My coat coat is grey. Let's suppose that's written in the alphabet of the DNA that could be expressed in two ways. My coat is grey, spelt with g, LAY or GREY. It's not important. It works both ways, but a mutation would be if that C was changed into a G.

My goat is grey. That's a mutation. Now I'm not suggesting this is a mutation, but there are other things which we now know affect the DNA and how it works. For example, if you put my coat in grey in, let's say quotation marks, my coat is grey. That changes it. Or for example, some of this is not the actual letters of the DNA, but it's the environment in which it's written. Or you put an exclamation mark or a question mark. After that question, you end up with a total possibility of the meaning being changed. And I think there's a possibility that is happening.

Increasingly. We have animal evidence, which is very, very, very strong. And we also have evidence both from Canada and both actually in McGill and also in Toronto, which shows that this might be in humans and actually could be to some extent, heritable. This is not, of course, gender dysphoria, that is in general troubles of this sort generally. So I would suggest to the House I don't have an answer to the question which is being asked in this debate, but I do think we need to really consider how we can, if we can use drugs for different causes, which are not, in fact, a medical condition.

And the problem really is how do we define transgender and how we deal with that. And that's why I really am so pleased that Baroness Cass is here to answer those questions, because I think it will be something that we all want to discuss at great length, because we must have trials if we're going to get anywhere. The problem is, how do we do this without damaging children? And I agree completely with Baroness Deech that follow up is something that we must do with transgender.

We've not done at all. That has to happen.
15:23
Baroness Buscombe Portrait Baroness Buscombe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. The government's first duty is to protect its citizens from harm. This government is failing in that duty of care for our children. Two years ago, during a debate regarding the use of puberty blockers, I reminded the House that I had represented Her Majesty's opposition through the passage of the Gender Recognition Bill. That was 23 years ago. That bill had been scrutinised in draft form by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and was steered through your Lordships House by the then Minister, Lord Adonis. I had been reassured repeatedly that gender dysphoria affected a tiny number of people in the UK 5000.

At the very most. There was no indication research or medical evidence that this cohort would grow. 23 years on, and we're facing the most appalling situation whereby this government thinks it's OK to use young children in random clinical trials, experiments that may end, that may and probably will have a lasting and possibly irreversible and possibly seriously harmful physical and or mental effect upon some or all of those children. My Lords, there is no scientific evidence to back this experiment up. I have huge respect for the Minister who is in a very difficult position. I have considered with care her and other responses to the noble Baroness.

Lady Deasy's recent oral question in your Lordships House on this subject dated 25th June 2026, and I find them shocking and revealing. The Minister, in her initial response, stated with regard to the PATHWAYS trial, and I quote, eligibility is tightly controlled. It requires parental consent, a minimum two year gender incongruence, diagnosis, psychosocial support and NHS multidisciplinary team approval, as well as participant understanding of the risks and benefits, physical and mental stability and compliance with state safeguarding requirements. With respect, this is verbal nonsense designed to mask the reality. My Lords, where and what are the safeguards that should govern any administration of these drugs drugs to children?

Doesn't this make a mockery of safeguarding? Seriously, 11 and 12 year old participants understanding the risks. How can a prepubescent child comprehend the long term effects of puberty blockers or hormones? And what about legal competence? There is also in the answers to the noble Baroness Lady Dyke's question, a clear message from the government benches that this is, quote, not political. Why is that, my Lords, this indicates to me that the government are keen to ensure that this experimenting with young children's lives is seen as a cross-party exercise. Oh, and includes the bishops. So when it goes wrong, we can all share the blame.

Wrong, wrong. In addition, I was shocked to read the contribution from the noble Lord Lord Cashman that, and I quote. The only thing that matters in this instance is the right of the child to the best and most appropriate treatment. My Lords, given the possible effects of these drugs, we defer to the right of a child aged 11 or 12. This is madness. The noble Lord Lord Scriven suggested that quotes getting an evidence gathering trial underway would be an effective way to undermine unmonitored and unregulated drugs markets. So, my Lords, just because this country is now almost entirely lawless with scant enforcement, let's experiment on our children rather than tackle the unregulated, i.e.

illegal, drugs market. The right reverend prelate, the Bishop of Manchester, said, in effect, that experimenting with our children is a handy way of removing the culture wars. Well meant, I'm sure, but all this suggests to me that it does help to explain the current state of the Church of England. I put it to the Minister who. I repeat, I really do respect that when, in one of her answers she said, it's important to have a cool head. The noble Lady is revealing that she is just as apprehensive as many thousands of others who cannot understand the mindset of those pushing this.

Turning briefly to those selected for the so-called trials, will the Minister tell us, given the government's obsession with diversity, equality and inclusion, whether participants include children from different ethnic and religious groups, plus maybe 1 or 2 who are directly related to members of this government, how does it go? The evil that men do lives after them. My Lords, I'll end this as I did last time I spoke on the subject as a mother, a grandmother, and a peer.

I urge the government to think again and stop this nightmare.
15:28
Baroness Cass Portrait Baroness Cass (Crossbench)
-
-
Yeah. cast of the Cass Review and an independent advisor to DHSC. And as my noble friend has said, the age at which 16 and under 16 year olds can consent to medical interventions determined by Gillick competence, and specifically in relation to puberty blockers. This issue has been tested through the courts, through Bell v Tavistock, and the original judgement was overturned on appeal because the court held that it was wrong to try and establish age based criteria for competence, which must instead be assessed case by case, in accordance with Gillick principles. And as you've already heard, and because these.

This is part of an approved research trial. Children can't consent anyway. They assent and parents consent. And so, with all due respect to the Minister, the only basis on which His Majesty's Government can take a view on. The question would be if they wanted to challenge the legal judgement or seek to change the law. As you've also heard, routine commissioning of Masculinising and feminising hormones is currently suspended, so that really is probably as far as one can go on the core question itself. But I do understand the strength of feeling in the House. And so I will say a little about the children's and young people's gender services and how they're operating.

The service includes currently five of the UK's specialist children's hospitals, and more centres are operating soon. It's staffed by some of the country's most experienced professionals in children's physical and mental health, and the chair of the network is a past president of Rcpch. So to be absolutely clear, this is not a service driven by ideology. About 1600 children and young people have been seen, and they've got a very wide range of problems, including depression, separation, anxiety, social phobia, eating disorders and neurodiversity. And many of them have quite striking physical physical symptoms, including pain impaired mobility and functional impairment that actually impacts on their ability to attend school, interact with peers and engage in normal physical activities.

For some families, there have been stressors such as domestic violence, parental mental health problems, or parental death. A sizeable minority of the patients are opening open to the safeguarding team, for example, because they suffered physical or sexual abuse, online grooming or exploitation, or because they're taking a range of unregulated medicines and hormones. So the clinical team are providing a very wide range of therapeutic interventions aimed at improving physical and mental health and functional wellbeing, and sometimes just addressing general health and nutrition, getting young people out of their bedroom and back into school and engaged with peers is all that is needed for their gender distress to largely resolve, and for them to re-engage with a typical life and development and experience.

I should say that we are following up all of those children, or as many as will agree to consent, who do not get any medical pathway. Because one of the things I could not find out during my review, because they didn't have the data, is what happened to the children and young people who did not go on hormone pathway. Less than 20 patients at this point. Out of that, 1600 are even in the early stages of being considered for enrolment in the puberty blocker trial. And as I reported previously, they're typically young people who've been socially transitioned since early childhood.

And after 18 months of therapy, they still have absolutely no sense or concept of living in their biological gender. Decisions are taken after a really extensive assessment and thorough multidisciplinary review, guided by considerations of the young person's best interests. In other words, the clinicians have to feel that the risks of not enrolling them in the trial are will outweigh the risks of enrolling them. I should say, in response to my noble friends remarks, that we do not know of any definite irreversible effects of puberty blockers at this time, and that is the whole point of the trial.

But these children are going to be extremely tightly monitored. The commitment is that they will only be allowed to be on them for two years in the first instance, with no automatic assumption that they will progress to masculinising or feminising hormones without further discussion and a further detailed assessment. And the other commitment is that all the time that they are on puberty blockers, they are locked into two years further ongoing therapy within the service. And for me, that has to be better than than going out and getting some testosterone at the gym instead. So what I would say is that the combined expertise in child health, mental health, safeguarding and clinical ethics and best interest decision making within these specialist teams far exceeds that available to either House.

And for that reason, I have full confidence in their clinical judgements. I apologise to Lord Winston that I don't have the answers on epigenetics.
15:33
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. noble Lady Baroness Cass on any subject actually. But of course, particularly on this one. And I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Baroness Deech for securing this very important debate. Now, my Lords, I haven't spoken much about this subject in public, but I have followed it closely, and I do feel strongly about it. And I wanted to speak today because I honestly, I simply fail to understand the logic behind what what is going on and what we are allowing to proceed now. I support what the government has done so far on this general issue the bans, the indefinite pauses on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and I think the government deserve credit for this, particularly given the strongly held opposition from a narrow group of their own supporters on this subject.

But what I can't quite follow, and I've learned that many other people can't really follow either, is what's happening now. The government has judged these drugs too uncertain to give children in the ordinary way of things, but is now prepared to support giving them to 11 and 12 year olds as an experiment. We know the MRE as a regulator had misgivings about this and suggested a age, a minimum age of 14, still too low in my view, but somehow it has been persuaded to change his mind and thinks 11 or 12 is OK. And it's not clear entirely why.

And perhaps the Minister could shed some light on that when when speaking. But, my Lords, one must ask why this trial is necessary at all. As far as I can see, the only reason you might want to do it is to learn whether you might one day be able to administer such medicines to children who fear, feel gender dysphoria, for of course we do already use them in other extremely limited circumstances, and if we don't ever wish to do that, then why would we want the trial? I recognise others may not share my view, but.

But personally, because of my own convictions about the nature of reality and sexual difference, I. I can't imagine circumstances in which we would ever want to do this, and the view that we might rest on the much disputed premise that a child can have a gender at odds with his or her sex, and if so, it's the body rather than the belief that should change. And I'm afraid I simply don't accept that. I know others will, but I don't. And by the way, I worry that if the government. In passing, I will say that if the government's Conversion Practices Bill ever made it into law, what I've just said would become quite a risky thing to say in quite a lot of circumstances.

Now, gender dysphoria clearly is a real thing, and children who suffer from it deserve all kinds of psychological and social support the best we can possibly give. But by crediting the belief that in certain circumstances, the body should change to reflect the psychology we surely make dealing with it harder, not easier, because it appears to offer a way out. So, my Lords, I don't accept the logic behind the trial at all. I just don't understand it. Now I recognise others, as I've said, may take a different view on the nature of gender and sex differentiation.

We live in a free society, of course, but is a free society for adults, and we have a duty to protect children. In the debate we've just had, we heard the government saying it was banning chat box sexualised chat bots for children under 18, presumably because they thought children under 18 can't deal with that sort of content. Surely, therefore, we must protect children from irreversible medical treatment, decided an age at which no reasonable person could think they could reasonably consent, even if it is in a trial. And I don't see how we can in conscience proceed with such trial on 11 year olds.

My Lords, I experienced some of the Covid pandemic from the inside of government, more as an observer, as a participant. But I'm afraid I learned from that period that sometimes the the cleverest scientists and the most highly respected medical authorities could sometimes not see the wood for the trees and ended up supporting things that were, I think, in indefensible. And I think you need to stick to principles sometimes. And I think one of my principles on this is that it is wrong to administer irreversible treatments to 11 and 12 year olds. I find it shocking and disgraceful, to be honest, that we can do it, and it should be opposed in every way possible in.
15:38
Baroness Murphy Portrait Baroness Murphy (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords. view of someone who worked for two years when I was a trainee psychiatrist in a transsexual clinic for adults at University College Hospital in those days, and I am going back 45 years, men and women came to seek help, usually as confirmed transsexuals. In those days, mostly men wishing to be women. Slight reverse nowadays in the desire to change. They had received no help of any kind from childhood, so very muscular men with large Adam's apples and deep voices struggle to manage in society, or went abroad to seek surgical help, to transform themselves into a better facsimile of a woman with unpredictable consequences and sometimes horrendous outcomes.

Now, like many people, and I suspect I was in those days of the Lord Frost school of approach to these problems, I was very young. I thought to myself, well, these people are deluded. Why on earth are we colluding with this stuff? But I gradually came to the conclusion that my task was khatris was to try to help all individuals to feel more at ease in their own skin, to live the life that helped them to feel more content, and at one with society. And for lifelong transsexuals who that help must begin before puberty. And as we've heard from the noble Lady Baroness Cass, in fact, the people who are chosen for these trials and for treatment have usually been feeling this way since they were age 3 or 4, when they could really think back to when their gender identity was formed.

How and when should medical interventions be proffered? Therefore, if it is to be given before puberty. But if we don't, the outcome can be quite horrendous in terms of lifetime achievements for these people. Now, the noble Baroness Cass review of the special problems posed by gender dysphoria, which is now, I think two years ago since it was published, has been enormously helpful and influential in ensuring that unregulated prescriptions ceased prescription of puberty blockers. Other medications only takes part within a carefully regulated research framework, with the aim of establishing better guidance. And I would remind people that we do actually do trials of drugs on children in very many walks of life, often in quite serious life threatening disorders, and others.

When we feel it will be helpful and we do it with the children's assent when it's been explained, but with parental consent, and it's under those under those terms, the proposals for research are happening at the moment, and I personally want to pay tribute to Lady Cassidy determination to stick to her guns in the face of much upset by the trans activists world on one hand, and those who do not wish to see any interventions before an adolescent can fully understand and make their own decisions. My own view is actually got the balance right. These children need a holistic approach to treatment.

As we've already pressed a strong up to date medical evidence, but often have lots of other problems that need to be looked at. And if you do look at those problems in detail, you will end up with a very small group of people who need this kind of intervention. We know that drugs that children and their parents will get drugs from unregulated sources. If we don't make progress in establishing appropriate routes. So I do support the PATHWAYS research programme because it has such a broad look at all the aspects of the impact of these drugs, not just the impact on, but also checks on bone density, brain function, fertility, and the longer term outcomes.

We know that very many of these people will turn out eventually to be homosexual. As men and women, very few will remain transsexual all their lives. But is those that we need to concentrate on now? Many of these children, as I said, have struggled for a long time to come to up to speed with their problems, but really can't do it without more help. And I think to leave them without any sort of support for their gender dysphoria, when you know that they are confirmed transsexuals really does suggest that you're turning them away and saying, no, you're deluded, we won't help.

I don't think we can do that. As a caring society. We need to recognise and support them in what they wish to do.
15:43
Baroness Meyer Portrait Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank Baroness Deech for tabling this very important debate that concerns children and the age at which those trials should be done, undertaken. I mean, how can an 11 year old child understand the consequences of interrupting their own puberty, particularly when adults still lack reliable evidence about the long term consequences? As we know, the Cass Review concluded that the evidence supporting puberty blockers was sorely lacking and recommended their use only within a formal clinical trial. NHS England subsequently ended their routine use as the noble Lord Lord Frost mentioned in February, the PATHWAYS trial was paused following serious concern from the MHA, including its recommendation that allegedly eligibility should be restricted to those aged 14 and over.

Yet the revised protocol permits children as young as 11 to receive puberty blockers. Can the Minister explain what new evidence justified lowering the minimum age from 14 to 11 and 12, and what independent scrutiny preceded that decision? It is particularly troubling to note that the original committee reportedly met only three times, with just three members attending its final meeting. My Lords, the need for better evidence cannot in itself justify exposing children to treatment whose long term future long term effects are uncertain and may be irreversible. Rather than using children as guinea pig, should we not first examine existing evidence of those who have regretted their treatment, including Keira Bell and Shinade Watson, 11 year old girls and 12 year old boys are barely out of primary school.

We recognise that their capacity to access long term consequences develops, is still sorry, is still developing under 18, cannot purchase alcohol or marry even with parental consent. I'm also very concerned about children in care and those with autism or other mental difficulties. Yet children in care are eligible for the trial who will independently represent their interest. Children under 16 cannot represent themselves. Sorry. Children under 16 cannot themselves give legal consent to participate in this medical trial. A parent or legal representative must consent on their behalf, but parents, faced with a desperately unhappy child may feel enormous pressure to act.

 How will the trial ensure that consent is generally informed and each child's understanding is properly assessed? Has recruitment begun? Will every participant receive thorough psychological assessment and continuing support? Above all, how does the government reconcile the participation of children so young with its duty to protect them from harm? Is there not a danger that the state's pursue of of scientific research is taking precedence over its duty to protect children? Are we really prepared to place 220 children in a trial without being able to answer the most basic question? At what age can a child understand and consent to medical intervention that may shape the rest of their lives?

The. It was mentioned that children do participate in clinical trial, but these are often children who have cancer, something which is one way. And maybe the consent is quite different to participating in an experiment. I therefore ask the Minister directly why 11 and 12 year olds. What evidence justifies those ages, and how can the government confidently say that these children are being protected rather than exposed to risk? They are too young to understand, my Lords, their welfare must come first, not simply during the trial, but throughout their child childhood and in their adult life.
15:49
Baroness Barker Portrait Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
This debate takes part, happens in the context of two very well funded campaigns. There are two groups of people. There's one group of people who do not believe that trans people exist. There is another group of people who believe that trans people might exist, but that all of them, every one of them, pose such a threat and danger to the rest of us that they have to be segregated. The thing on which those two different campaign groups unite is a constant campaigning to make the lives of trans people impossible. In a series of different small actions.

We see it every day in our newspapers and on the BBC. Different aspects of making life difficult, blaming trans people for the. There is a third group of people to which I belong, which is one that says that believes that trans people are human beings, that they have the same rights as anybody else, that they should be treated and judged just as anybody else is. And that pertains to health care as much as anything else. When I was preparing for this debate, I went back to I looked in my inbox and I found a very helpful email from the noble Baroness Baroness Cass following Baroness Deech last attempt to raise this matter, she circulated a paper to us which is quite lengthy, short but very full paper, full of detail, which answers every single one of the questions which has been put in this debate.

Shame that people haven't bothered to read it. It sets out in much more detail than Baroness Cass did. All of the safeguards which are in this research and why they're there and why they're and why they're needed. I happen to believe I happen to have listened to what the Baroness Cass has said, and I have come round to understanding her point of view. I didn't necessarily to begin with, but I do now, and I do I do echo the words of those who said that she deserves to be commended for what she is putting in place.

 What she's putting in place is evidence based scientific research, not prejudice, not ideology, not not not a set of a set of researchers going off on some kind of tangent to experiment on children. It's setting out to answer that. Those questions that we don't know. I don't understand gender dysphoria. I've never experienced it. I know people who have. I'm hearing them describe it. I hear them describe the terrible consequences on their lives, and I realise that they have a problem which, which, which, which. Medical medicine has tried for a very long time to deal with in kind and ethical ways.

Baroness Cass is simply part of that ongoing tradition. I very much agree that it's wrong to turn our backs on people who are in some kind of mental distress, although I very much regret that the repeated use of, of, of, of terms such as mental distress to cover all, all trans people, I can remember as a young gay person, that's what they said about me. They were wrong. And this campaign is so damaging and so regressive. And it falls to people in your Lordships' House to stand up for stand up for this visible minority, because they're just the first ones being in the firing line.

 The rest of us are going to going to be there soon. Because what this is fundamentally all about is it's a big attack on human rights by very, very well-funded campaigns, which I read, most of which originate in the United States. I would simply wish to ask Baroness Merron one question. Does she agree with Baroness Cass that with withholding of treatment is not a neutral act and withholding of treatment which might solve a medical problem, is not something that we would routinely consider for any other group of people in the whole of medicine. And therefore, does she agree with me that it is important that, having set this process up, the government shields this research from the never ending political attacks, ideological attacks on it, and that we let the scientists and the medics get on with a very, important, very detailed, very serious point, a programme of work which is going to help some people who some of us in this some of us in this place clearly don't like.

But some of us believe, need and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

require our support. Noble Lady sits down. Could I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lady sits down. Could I ask her to accept that those of us who've already spoken against these trials for young children, we are not against trans people. If I'd not against trans people. If I'd had another minute to be able to speak, I would have explained that one of my earliest experiences was a deep and longing to understand and understand what was happening with somebody who was called James Morris, who became Jan Morris. And when I've spoken in previous debates on this, I've spoken of my thorough respect for him. Will the noble Lady and him and others, like others like him, who have been in a sort of medical and physical, emotional hell until they've gone through the process to change their sex.

And I admire people like him and others. So will the noble Baroness accept that we are not part of some political campaign?
15:55
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
I'm going to suggest that, noble Lords, we move to Baroness Cash. I'm afraid Baroness Barker, it's I'm afraid Baroness Barker, it's not really proper to be intervening not really proper to be intervening at that moment. My Lords. I, too, am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for securing this debate, because what her debate focuses on the age of consent. There's limited amount on that to be added to what has been said by those who've spoken ahead of me. But your debate or debate does draw attention to an ongoing medical scandal of our times, which is the consent to drugs around which we have no evidence of safety.

The noble Lady Baroness Cass, for whom I have the highest of regard and esteem, and with whom I've discussed this subject with gratitude on multiple occasions, and I. We disagree about the PATHWAYS puberty blockers trial. We agree on almost everything else. And I think the nub of the debate lies there. What I'm hearing in the chamber today is real concern about the age of children who are embarking on life changing and possibly irreversible changes to their physical bodies, to the brain, to their bones, to their IQ, to their fertility. We just don't know whether the changes caused by use of puberty blockers in young people can be reversed.

And I hope I've read the review, the famous Cass Review correctly. I hope so because I've read it several times. But when the noble Baroness refers to not withholding treatment, my understanding of that is that she means exploratory treatment, ensuring that the multiple reasons why children present in distress about their gender are fully explored, and that they are given opportunity to have the correct therapies and treatments for any of those issues. There are co-morbidities, autism, mental health conditions. Many children in care, disproportionate numbers presenting with gender distress but left alone, as the Cass Review stated, most childhood gender distress resolves.

In the largest follow up study of 139 boys, most desisted, and a high proportion grew up to be gay or bisexual blockers. Puberty blockers can prevent the child from processing their issues and their reasons, and in the Tavistock's own study, children embarked on puberty. Blockers went on to cross-sex hormones at a rate of 98%, almost the inverse of the resolution that takes place if puberty blockers aren't taken. So we can't set a safe age because no one has followed up on these young people. And I appreciate and acknowledge that that is also something that the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, has highlighted and drawn attention to.

 We've also seen an independent investigation by Professor Ellis into the Wellbeing Clinic in Brighton, examining 878 children, 51 aged 16 and under, given cross-sex hormones for started at 124 at 13, more than two thirds 53 of 78 had possible neurodevelopmental conditions. Capacity to consent was confirmed in only six cases out of 78. 22 children prescribed without ever being seen face to face, 36 received prescriptions at their first appointment. That is not a treatment. That is a scandal. 23 different prescribers were involved and one child lived more than 480 miles away. The NHS and the GMC were warned from at least 202,020.

They failed to act. Now, the investigation is meant to have a second phase to review those children who are now adults. But that phase is on hold and those young adults matter just as much that data. The follow up data was withheld from the Cass review when they were trying to follow up on the children who'd been treated at an earlier stage. That the law was changed for that linkage, that data linkage linkage study to be provided. And it still has not been. The law needs to compel it to be disclosed. So we truly can establish what happens to these young people after these treatments.

 The Levi Review. Levi review proposes moving more adult prescribing into GP led services. That's the wellbeing model and it shouldn't happen. And we need to understand the scandal of this wild west of medical treatment without meaningful consent before any further instances can take place, because there will be a cost to the NHS, as in the United States, where legal claims against the clinicians and the hospitals are now being brought. And so I use this opportunity to urge the government to commission an independent inquiry into gender related prescribing in primary care and in adult clinics, with a focus on those under 25.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yay! My Lords, I congratulate. The noble.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble. Lady Baroness Deech for securing this debate today and airing the this debate today and airing the issues which clearly do need an airing, and I do thank all noble airing, and I do thank all noble Lords for their contributions. There is probably only one thing that unites all the contributions, that unites all the contributions, if I might say, and that is concern for the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. There is, of course, considerable difference amongst contributors.

So let me start by making it clear that the government policy on care for children and young people with gender incongruence is underpinned by the absolute need to ensure that they receive safe care based on evidence, and that is what will
16:01
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
always drive us, and that is why we are implementing the Cass Review. are implementing the Cass Review. And I'm most grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Cass, not just for conducting the review, but for her conducting the review, but for her continued work and indeed for her contribution today, which in many contribution today, which in many ways has saved me something of a job, as she has sent out the facts as she did when she previously as she did when she previously wrote to all noble Lords. So I won't repeat a number of those points, but we are implementing the Cass Review.

We are transforming children and young people's gender services and these services, including the four new services that are operating with plans for provision in every region of England by the end of 2728. They provide a holistic model of care with a focus on psycho social support, which the noble Lady Baroness Deech asked about, and the specification in terms of services for these services is quite clear that medical intervention is not the standard approach to care. And if we look back to March 2024, NHS England issued a clinical policy which set out the puberty suppressing hormones are not available for routine commissioning within these gender services, and this followed a number of evidence reviews that did not identify good enough evidence about safety risks, benefits and outcomes.

The Cass Review, which was commissioned under the previous government, was published in April 2024 that also found insufficient evidence. The then health secretary, Victoria Atkins, welcomed the review and committed to implementing its recommendations. There was an introduction of an emergency order restricting the private sale and supply of puberty suppressing hormones for gender incongruence, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Frost, welcomed that action, as indeed I do, not least because this government picked this up and extended the restrictions and made them indefinite. From January 2025, a decision I might remind you of. Lordships house was upheld in the High Court when it was challenged.

 The decision in respect of implementing recommendations and also. The response on puberty suppressing hormones was taken with great care. It was informed by a wide range of evidence, including a report from the Independent Commission on Human Medicines, which indicated that young people with gender incongruence and dysphoria were uniquely being exposed to potential safety risks. And I listen closely to all the contributions that the noble Lady Baroness Murphy. I believe, set out. Why doing nothing is not a neutral option, as referred to by the noble Lady Baroness Barker. And if I might put it in my own non-medical language, the issue does not go away by doing nothing.

So with regard to the PATHWAYS study, which a number of noble Lords have referred to, the Cass Review did draw that attention to the fact we don't have evidence, we need better evidence. We need to be able to inform clinical decisions with. And I will reuse my words. I will look at the Baroness, the noble Lady Baroness Buscombe, with a cool head, and it will also, I hope the evidence inform the decisions made by children and their families. So NHS England and DHSC through the National Institute of Health and Care Research, work to design and fund a research programme.

It includes a regularly updated systemic review of available research evidence and an. I would say to the noble Lady Baroness Deech, a data linkage service study, not an either or, but both. As well as the PATHWAYS study. The trial has been approved by the Health Research Authority and the MH a we are talking. I'm, I might add, about a trial involving a small number of children and young people who are already receiving the support of NHS gender services and to the noble Lady Baroness Deech. The PATHWAYS trial entry age, something also raised by the noble Lady Baroness.

It has been reviewed by the MHRA and the study sponsor and that has resulted in a minimum age of trial participation of 11 for biological females and indeed 12 for biological males. As I said, it is right that this government and indeed the previous government and in fact any government is guided by expert clinical and scientific advice and takes that approach on the matter of the PATHWAYS trial and the noble Ladies, Baroness Deech and Baroness Meyer asked about this. What it's doing is tightly controlling the eligibility. It both individual assent and parental consent. The noble Lady Baroness Deech referred to the Gillick principle.

It also requires a minimum two year gender incongruence diagnosis, ongoing access to psychosocial support, NHS clinician and multidisciplinary team approval, as well as participant understanding of risks and benefits, physical and mental stability and compliance with safeguarding requirements. I do not read that or consider that to be anything less than a properly considered, an evidence based approach to ensure we can provide the health care that we need to. Questions are raised about parental consent that is integral. The parent or legal guardian have to agree not only to the child's involvement and can I emphasise there is no requirement to be a participant which has been suggested.

This is people who are coming forward and also can meet the very stringent issues that are put to them. It is the case, I believe, and I say this to the noble Lady, Baroness Cash, and to others, noble Lords, that children who have gender incongruence do deserve to be able to participate in research, as they also deserve evidence based care, as we all do, in the same way as children with in the same way as children with other clinical diagnosis and to on the matter, I'll just briefly turn to masculine masculinising and feminising hormones, which were also referred to in the debate following an independent review of evidence, NHS England have launched a consultation and it has concluded it has proposed that they should no longer be available as a routine commissioning option, and the result of the consultation is currently under consideration and we will return to that.

I will conclude by saying that maintaining the safety and wellbeing of children and young people is our priority. It always will be and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

must emphasise it will always be rooted in evidence. Before my noble friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. This debate I regret has completed. In fact, we're a minute completed. In fact, we're a minute over. I do apologise to noble Lords. We will now have a moment for The The motion The motion for The motion for debate. Proposals for a written constitution. Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
16:11
16:11
Lord Anderson of Ipswich Portrait Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench)
-
-
from the Bingham Centre to the Constitution Unit who've helped me prepare for it. But a written prepare for it. But a written constitution is not a subject only for initiates. This debate is on the syllabus of every student of the syllabus of every student of law and of politics at university and at school. It concerns every citizen, including the 12 and 13 year olds who many of us have met during the course of this Parliament through. Learn with the Lords, and who, as things stand, will have a vote at the next general election. Those who will speak after me have unrivalled experience in how our Constitution actually works in England and in the devolved nations, not only as parliamentarians but as judges, Ministers, party leaders, civil servants, constitutional watchdogs and intelligence chief.

And behind the door of number ten, I suspect we are in for a treat. The constitutional arrangements of this country are unusual in two respects. Almost uniquely in the world. They are not codified, although many of them are written down and they are founded on a particularly strong version of parliamentary sovereignty. The principle that, as Chief Justice Holt put it in 1701, An Act of Parliament can do no wrong, though it may do several things that look pretty odd. People who support a written constitution tend to do so for one or more of three reasons, which I shall describe in ascending order of ambition as clarification, entrenchment and the driving of change, starting with clarification.

A written constitution would demystify what the journalist Gavin Esler has described as the smoke, mirrors and glorious verbiage of our constitutional arrangements. It would set out principles, powers and conventions for all to see arrived at by an inclusive process of public debate, led by a constitutional convention prefaced by an inspiring statement of values and eventually endorsed by Parliament or by popular vote. It would aspire to foster trust and encourage a sense of involvement, cohesion and pride in country entrenchment would involve taking vital protections that currently exist only in precedent, in convention or in statute, and placing them beyond the reach of day to day politics by including them in a written constitution that could be changed only with a higher than usual degree of political or popular consensus, a desire for greater certainty was expressed in evidence given last month to your Lordships Constitution Committee on Relations between Cabinet Secretaries and Prime Ministers.

The noble Lord O'Donnell seems to have found such meetings occasionally frustrating, commenting that a precedent is a precedent until someone decides to do something else. And I would love to have to have been able to say, well, Prime Minister, that is not such a good idea because it is illegal. Perhaps greater clarity could assist Ministers to Darren Jones MP, until recently, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, recalled this week in evidence to another committee I would be told all the time that there were things I could not do because of the Constitution. The noble Lord Case, who served as Cabinet secretary to four prime Ministers, took things a step further in his evidence to the Constitution Committee.

He pointed to the waning, persuasive force of precedents and conventions against unconstitutional behaviour, a backstop he said was needed after what he described as as a rather long journey. He had eventually concluded that, and I quote, probably the best backstop is a written constitution. Most ambitiously of all, some proponents of a written constitution see it as a vehicle for whatever major change they may favour removal of the royal prerogative, electoral reform, a new second chamber, the remaking of the United Kingdom on federal lines, or the abolition of the monarchy, Andy Burnham argued last year in his book Head North for a written constitution that would echo the German Basic law by providing for equivalent living standards between the different nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

He has repeated that call since becoming Prime Minister. Perhaps uniquely, I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, the Minister, what he meant by that and what government policy is on a written constitution. On the other side of the debate, it is common to hear reasons why a written constitution could never happen, or would be pointless if it did. Some of those reasons are, to my mind, not wholly convincing. It is sometimes said that written constitution is against the traditions of this country or the common law, but the Government of Ireland Act functioned as a written constitution for Northern Ireland for over 50 years, and the current devolution statutes operate as written constitutions for the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Our Westminster model of parliamentary democracy has been codified with multiple variations in nearly all our former colonies. Indeed, I learned the other day that the drafting of new constitutions for Commonwealth states is still one of our legal exports, although rather a niche one. And we even have state of the art judicial expertise in interpreting constitutions through the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and through a Supreme Court which performs constitutional review when it deals with challenges to the validity of delegated legislation. Another frequently heard objection to a written constitution is that it would be bound to empower the judges to set aside acts of Parliament, placing our elected representatives at the mercy of the lawyers.

Well, courts are the most dispassionate arbiters we have, and it would certainly make sense for them to interpret any constitution, but we would not need to go down the path taken by our American cousins, of whom Alexis de Tocqueville. So Appositely said almost 200 years ago that there is scarcely any political question that does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one. So any part of any constitution could be placed expressly off limits to the courts. A course taken in part nine of the Constitutional Consolidation Act that was drafted for the Public Administration and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons in 2014.

The higher courts, or the Supreme Court only could be empowered to issue a declaration of unconstitutionality, serving as an invitation to government rather than a binding instruction, a solution not without precedent and fully consistent with parliamentary sovereignty or inspiration, could be taken from countries such as Sweden and Finland, whose written constitutions are enforced primarily by parliamentary committees rather than the courts. We could, even if we wished, choose to emulate the Netherlands, whose constitution, by its article 120, simply prohibits constitutional review by the courts. Another frequently heard objection to a written constitution, generally accompanied these days by an injunction to look across the Atlantic is that, however fine its words, such a document can do nothing in practice to prevent a slide towards authoritarianism.

That point is overstated. It is true that careful balances of power can fall out of kilter. No written constitution could be a complete defence against leaders who seek persistently to undermine it, or a population which has stopped caring for the values of pluralist democracy. But recent experience in America and in Europe shows that while the tide may attack the foundations of any constitution, that constitution may still educate us to recognise the attack, measure the extent of the damage and slow its advance while we wait for the tide to turn. So some of the supposed barriers to a written constitution are, I suggest, illusory, but this does not mean that we will be writing one anytime soon.

History shows that new constitutional settlements come only at constitutional moments, times of national convulsion. We've certainly had our moments over the past decade, not least Brexit and the election of nationalist led governments in each of the devolved nations. But the Constitution putters on with expensive noises coming from the engine, in the phrase of the noble Lord Lisvane, but with only muted calls for fundamental change. For this, something still more dramatic would be required a civil war or a revolution, perhaps. And one would need to be a very keen proponent of a written constitution to welcome that.

There is another point too. We're living through a period of rapid constitutional change. In just a few years, EU membership, fixed term parliaments, English votes for English laws and hereditary peers have gone. New mayoral authorities have been created, and the structure for relations between Westminster and the devolved governments has been refreshed. Changes to English devolution and the Westminster voting system may soon be in contemplation. The information revolution poses urgent questions to ancient institutions and procedures. Looking back, the ease with which it has been possible to change our uncodified constitution has surely been an asset. If we can hold on to that while preserving the values that really matter, we won't have done badly.

So this is not. I suggest the time to divert our energies into the process of attempting a codified, written constitution. But the flexible nature of our constitutional framework, its unusual reliance on parliamentary sovereignty, and the relatively limited powers of our courts, place a heavy burden on Parliament to protect, protect and promote constitutional values. Here are four suggestions for building on what we have. First, we could clarify our current arrangements. The House of Commons Library launched in 2024 and updates monthly. A lengthy summary entitled The United Kingdom Constitution A Mapping Exercise. This could evolve with academic help into an authoritative but non-binding restatement of the Constitution, and there could be a miniature version focusing on principles rather than detail, and perhaps endorsed by the constitutional committees of each House for use as a teaching aid in schools and a public point of reference, we should also build on the government's recent decision to update the Cabinet Manual.

The document, inspired by the New Zealand equivalent and first published in 2011, that sets out the main laws, rules and conventions affecting the operation of government. It is excellent news that Pacac in the Commons and our own Constitution Committee are to be consulted on the revisions. The Cabinet Manual should be a document acceptable to Parliament, not just the Civil Service. Heeding the calls for certainty in the recent evidence of Lords O'Donnell and case, we might also consider the case for giving statutory force to some of its elements. Thirdly, a clear distinction should be made between common or garden quangos, of which there may well be too many, and those of real constitutional significance.

I think of the Judicial Appointments Commission, our guarantor of judicial independence, and everything that flows from judicial independence, which it is disturbing to see major political parties proposing to abolish in favour of a more political appointment system. Other watchdogs, such as the Independent Commissioner on Public Appointments and the independent adviser on ministerial interests, might also be candidates for a statutory lock. These are important bulwarks against favouritism and corruption, and a future government should not be able to throw them on the next bonfire without, at the very least, having to justify that decision to Parliament. Fourthly, the Constitution Committee published last May a codified summary of the legislative standards that it applies in its scrutiny of pending bills.

I should declare an interest as a member of the Committee at that time. It would be good to see that referred to in the reports of the Committee and the debates of this House, and better still, if it could be integrated into the guidance supplied by parliamentary counsel and within government by the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee. The quality of legislation is a vital component of the constitutional principle of the rule of law, and these vital standards need to be given both greater weight and more consistency in their application. My Lords, I finish with a word about human rights, whether these are derived from the EC or from a domestic Bill of rights, any imaginable constitution for the United Kingdom must surely have as its centre a catalogue of individual rights against public authorities.

Courts must be able not only to defend the fundamental liberties of the individual against the excesses of official power, but also as a minimum to register their formal concern should those rights be infringed by operation of statute. The genius of the Human Rights Act is that it achieves those outcomes by means of the Declaration of incompatibility without in any way affecting the sovereignty of Parliament. If we ever lose the right of recourse to the European Court of Human Rights, we will be still more reliant on the continued power of our own courts to pronounce on violations of our liberties, including when those violations result from the application of statute, a codified constitution may be no more than a pipe dream for now, but let us ensure that the liberties of the individual remain front and centre of our constitutional settlement, whatever that settlement may look like.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very privileged to follow. The noble. Lord Anderson. When he started. His speech, I thought I was going to disagree with him. When he finished it, I agreed with every word he said. And I think that you word he said. And I think that you mentioned the Constitution Committee. As it stands, I am a member of that. And the and the member of that. And the and the committee is now dealing with vulnerabilities and threats to our
16:26
Lord Murphy of Torfaen Portrait Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Labour)
-
-
Constitution. The noble Lord Anderson talked about how students were taught British Constitution a long time ago. I was one of the teachers of that. In the 1970s and early 80s. And in the first lecture, the students were completely bewildered by the fact that they were. That I said there was no were. That I said there was no constitution to teach them. They, of course, thought there was. And the foreign. 18 months, two years, going through everything from the monarch to the judiciary, to Parliament, and to everything else that constitutes a government and Parliament in this country.

They began to realise that we did indeed have a constitution. Some of it was written, some of it was convention, some of it was historical, some of it was good and some of it was bad. But what it was not was a written constitution. And over the last number of years, as the Constitution Committee undoubtedly will report, there have been threats and vulnerabilities to our Constitution, not least of which, of course, is the rise of populism. Who knows what might happen if a hard right government took over? And in terms of what they've already said in the Reform Party, what they would do and they not on their own on that, and what a written constitution will stop them.

 Well, I'm not sure it would. And I think that the Constitution, as we see it at the moment, is strong enough to be able to withstand those threats. I think it's very important that we try to change the Constitution where it needs to be changed, in the way that we have done for many years, and there are ways, and Lord Anderson has touched on them, where we can improve the strength of our Constitution without going to the extent of writing it all down in a complete written constitution. He mentioned, quite rightly, the Cabinet manual. At the moment, it's relatively worthless because it's entirely based on the whim of a Prime Minister.

I think the only way that it could be made absolutely perfect would be to codify it in law, in a statute. And that is something I think the Constitution Committee will probably look at in further detail, look at the way in which members of our House are appointed, the committee which appoints them is not statutory in the sense that they can do what they want. It's still at the whim of a Prime Minister. And so perhaps that's something that could be codified and put into law, something which is improving a constitution. But I am particularly interested as a as a Welsh member of this House and someone who spent his entire ministerial career in the territorial departments, is how devolution has changed the nature of our Constitution over the last 30 years.

The landscape has completely changed the constitutional landscape, the political landscape, all three of the governments and parliaments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were first of all, set up by statute and then confirmed by referenda. Indeed, I took the 1990 Northern Ireland Bill, as it then was, through the House of Commons. And if you look at what is now the Northern Ireland Act, it is effectively a constitution for the running of Northern Ireland. There have been other acts since which have clarified different things, but that particular act and the similar acts for Wales and for Scotland, where, incidentally, they said that sovereignty was vested in the people, something quite different from what we've heard in the past.

They formed the basis of the constitution of those countries. But of course they are, in a sense themselves under threat. In Edinburgh, in Cardiff and in Belfast, the governments of those countries are now effectively in the hands of nationalists, perfectly legitimate political parties. Of course, they are in Northern Ireland. Of course, it's not as simple. It's half and half. But the First Minister is Sinn Fein in Edinburgh, the First Minister is SNP, and in Cardiff the First Minister is Plaid Cymru, and all parties are committed to independence. And so what happens if they do have a referendum in each of those countries?

In Northern Ireland, it's the border poll, it's the referendum in Scotland, in Wales, and then we will not be talking about a British constitution. We'll be talking about an English constitution that is a severe threat to the constitution of our of our country, of the United Kingdom, which needs to be taken very much into account. My Lords, Soviet Russia under Joseph Stalin had a constitution. It guaranteed all the rights of freedom of the press and freedom of association. The rest of it, it was entirely worthless. Doesn't mean to say if you've got a written constitution, that it protects anything.

If someone's going to overthrow it in his by coup or by some other method. In the United States, the president of the United States is mercurial as he is, has almost complete control of all the separation of powers which de Tocqueville talked about, a Supreme Court which is compliant. And, of course, Republican majorities in both houses. And he uses executive orders at a whim. That's a written constitution, which was meant to protect the liberties of the subject. Take care. But of course, we might see a change of that in a few months time. We can only hope.
16:33
Lord Howard of Lympne Portrait Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, it's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Murphy of Torfaen line, but unfortunately, I am no more able to agree with him today than I was agree with him today than I was during the many years when we served together in the other place, I. My Lords, I have only one point to make. The one certain effect of the adoption of a written constitution would be the transfer of power from elected parliamentarians to unelected judges. This is because, under a written constitution, the final word in our laws would rest with the judges.

Under our present arrangements, the courts interpret the law in a way which Parliament considers undesirable, and Parliament can legislate to put matters right if it so chooses. Under a written constitution, it would have to amend the Constitution, a process which by design would be made very difficult. Now the noble Lord Lord Anderson, in his opening remarks, sought to circumvent this point by suggesting that you could in some way have a kind of watered down written constitution which wouldn't quite have the effect that I have just described. But the whole point of a written constitution is, to a greater or lesser extent, to hamstring the sovereignty of Parliament.

And that, my Lords, is what I consider undesirable. Of course, democracy isn't perfect. Of course, it doesn't always deliver the verdict that any of us might want, but if those who are elected fail to deliver what they were elected to do, they can be ejected from power and replaced by others. It is, in a real, literal sense, power to the people. And if which I believe would never happen in this country, if an extreme totalitarian government were elected, does anyone think they would be deterred from pursuing their agenda by the niceties of a written constitution, any more than the Russian government, as has just been mentioned, is deterred by the provisions of its written constitution?

Of course, there are some, not least some judges themselves, who regard judges as the ultimate personification of all that is noble, wise and good. In contrast to mere politicians who have to pander to the demands of the electorate. Or, as noble Lord Lord Anderson put it, with the faintest hint of disparagement, day to day politics. That was the phrase he used. Lord, they may be right. They may well be right in the characterisation of judges which I have just described. But judges are not elected, nor, of course, should they be. And that is why they should not be granted the ultimate power which a written Constitution would confer upon them the transfer of power from elected parliamentarians to unelected judges has, of course, been happening under our current arrangements.

It has happened as a result of the extension by the judges, not by Parliament, of the scope of judicial review. It has happened most of all by the coming into force of the Human Rights Act, a transfer of power for which Parliament itself most unwisely was responsible. But it would be considerably extended by the adoption of a written constitution, and in due course it would inevitably lead to demands for political oversight of the appointment of judges. So candidates for judicial office could expect to be closely questioned on their political views. And I don't think most people would welcome the importation to our shores of the practice, whereby judges of the Supreme Court decide on the date of their retirement by reference to the political makeup of those who would select their successor.

My Lords, what is the mischief which this proposal is designed to remedy? Our current arrangements have, by and large served us well, and with a few modest adjustments to return to Parliament. The power which has recently been transferred to the judiciary, can, and I believe, will service well in the future. A written constitution is something we do not need, would do us harm and which should not be introduced.
16:38
Lord Burnett of Maldon Portrait Lord Burnett of Maldon (Crossbench)
-
-
Again. >> My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. Lord Howard and I might start by assuring him that I am not one of those judges who would seek to accrete further power to the judiciary, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy reminded us, he is a member of the Constitution, as am I. And of course, I speak in a personal capacity this afternoon. I've also been asked to convey the regrets of our chairman, the noble Lord Lord Strathclyde, that he is unable to be here this afternoon. My Lords, the merits of a written constitution over an unwritten one such as ours are the stuff of endless discussion.

But before any profound change is proposed, there must be a hard hearted look at what is wrong with the existing system. Whether a written constitution would solve the problems identified, and whether it's feasible to produce one. All constitutions are vulnerable to bad actors. Examples abound around the world of governments abusing their constitutions. Many of the most authoritarian countries have constitutions which look beautiful on paper but are worthless. As Lord Murphy reminded us, a written constitution is generally only as good as the ability of a constitutional court independently to interpret it, to declare conduct or legislation unconstitutional, and for the government to comply with the court's rulings.

Alexander Hamilton, a founding father of the United States and a draughtsman of its constitution, observed that the judiciary is the weakest of the three arms of the state because it requires the executive to enforce its orders. This also explains why so many governments, including some in Europe in recent years, have sought to pack the judiciary with its placemen and remove others. A written constitution, in the end, provides only limited protection from bad actors. And, as Lord Anderson has reminded us, written constitutions usually arise in circumstances of political upheaval and change, sometimes peaceful, such as when new states are created, but often not.

The United Kingdom is simply not in that position. Our constitutional settlement followed the Civil War, the restoration of the Stuarts and the Glorious Revolution, and it has constantly evolved since aspects of it are contained in legislation, but much of it is not. It's hedged around with conventions, as has already been noted. At its heart is parliamentary sovereignty. That is a key aspect of our constitutional settlement, and that necessarily includes the proposition that Parliament cannot bind its successor. Any legislation can be repealed or amended, including constitutional legislation. My Lords, I've not seen any convincing explanation of how Parliament today could pass legislation that is entrenched in the sense that it can only be repealed or amended, for example, with a supermajority in Parliament or by referendum, which are mechanisms adopted in constitutions around the world.

 Moreover, proposals for a written constitution generally require widespread political support, and I wonder what the prospects are realistically of the House of Commons approving legislation. If a mechanism could be found which restricted its own freedom of action in the future, and very likely transferred final decisions of great political moment to the judiciary. Now, my Lords, as as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has said, there might be advantage in placing on a statutory footing some of the constitutional guardrails which currently could be swept away at the stroke of a prime ministerial pen. Sir Peter Riddell and Professor Robert Hazel and the UCL Constitution Unit have done invaluable work on that.

Such a move would at least require a government to confront what it was planning to do through legislation. But, my Lords, there is an aspect of our Constitution which provides constraints and protections, protections against extravagant executive action of the sort that the proponents of a written constitution fear. That is, the existence of conventions which operate to give the executive freedom of action. But they are not immutable. They include the conventions which operate in this House itself, an important constitutional guardian, and which governed the relationship between the Crown, the executive and parliament. Conventions work when all who are subject to them respect their boundaries.

But if one player doesn't do so, the others can be expected to modify their responses. It's probably fruitless to hypothesise on the circumstances in which that might happen, because they are unpredictable. But my Lords, it should not be supposed that the current arrangements are toothless. My Lords, I return to where I started. There is little doubt that our unwritten constitution is vulnerable to bad actors, but so too are all constitutions. But I am unpersuaded that a written constitution is the answer, as continues to work well and can adapt. A written constitution would be unlikely to solve whatever problems have been identified, and it is not likely to be feasible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak with some hesitancy. Given the expertise of many speakers in this debate, of many speakers in this debate, and I am not going to talk for very long. I just want to say a few long. I just want to say a few things. I always believed that our Constitution was flexible, Constitution was flexible, adaptable and preserved the sovereignty of Parliament. And I can remember a conversation with
16:45
Baroness Manningham-Buller Portrait Baroness Manningham-Buller (Crossbench)
-
-
can remember a conversation with the president of the Supreme Court many years ago about did we need a written constitution? And he said in 1930, you looked at the constitutions of Europe. You would have said Germany was the best one. We've seen. Other examples and other speakers have shown the fallacy of relying on a beautiful constitution. Of course, the events with the prorogation of Parliament and others worried us, I think certainly worried me. And in particular, I'm going to pick up the Daily Mail story on enemies of the people. Now, my father filled all the major law officers law roles of the Crown Solicitor, Attorney General and Lord Chancellor, and he always told me that he tried to do those jobs in a quasi judicial way, not a party political way, so that, for example, he objected to Suez on the grounds of its illegality.

But he also told me he took an oath to defend the judges if they were attacked. That hasn't recently happened. And the person in the role of Lord Chancellor or the Minister of Justice should defend the judges. We don't have to agree with all the judgements. We don't have to agree with their decisions. But if we don't resist any imputation of the independence of the judiciary, we're in real trouble. Twice. I have just a point on that. A recent attorney general had a Spad. This is completely wrong in my view. I've twice chaired committees to appoint the chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission, which was established by the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005.

In each case, I came under some pressure from politicians to reach a certain outcome which we. The panel resisted, and I think also in MI5, slightly different occasions under both the Labour and the conservative government, where we were asked why we were not looking at a particular subject, to which the answer was that constitutionally, the government can stop MI5 doing anything. It can sack it, abolish it, sack the leader, refuse to authorise anything, but it cannot tell it what to do any more than it can tell the police who to arrest or who to investigate.

And in each case, both in the appointment of the chair of the JIC and in MI5 experience. When this was explained, Ministers backed off and the constitutional niceties were preserved. So my feeling is that we just need to be sure, all of us, that we resist inroads into in particular, and I'm focusing on the independence of the judiciary. But the other aspects of the Constitution, which we all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognise, without necessarily going to a formal document. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. substantive. Contribution I've made to the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Contribution I've made to the. Work of this House since 2012. When I was disqualified from sitting here by virtue of the sitting here by virtue of the Constitutional Reform Act, one of a slew of recent judicial slew of recent judicial constitutional measures, which I think demonstrate the evolving nature of the Constitution, reference has already been made to the work of the devolved
16:48
Lord Boyd of Duncansby Portrait Lord Boyd of Duncansby (Crossbench)
-
-
governments and parliaments, and governments and parliaments, and these are important changes that have been made to the constitutional order through the constitutional order through the present arrangements. In principle, my Lords, a written constitution is my Lords, a written constitution is not necessarily a bad idea. It may have a number of advantages in practice. However, I think that those who propose such a document rather underestimate the time and energy that would be entailed by such an exercise, to say nothing of the political controversy that would surround it. To take one example, do the nations of the United Kingdom have the power to secede, and if so, on what terms and by what means?

My Lords, in my submission, the issue is not whether we should have a written constitution, but whether we have and maintain the conventions, the norms and the shared values that support our democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has referred to the Constitution of the USSR. Article 112 of the 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union states judges shall be independent and subject only to the law. One might think by that that if one looked at that and knew nothing about the Soviet Union, that it had an independent judiciary, and was committed indeed to the rule of law.

Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. What I would submit is that the conventions, norms and the shared values, the respect for those whose opinions differ from ours, and the respect for human rights and human dignity are of more significance than whether or not we have a written document. If we look across the Atlantic to the United States, a nation whose commitment to a written constitution is in effect forged into its very soul, we can see what happens when these values are challenged. There are too many examples. I suggest that question its commitment, at least of this administration, to the values that I have just outlined.

The most egregious example, of course, was on January the 6th, 2021, when there was an assault on the Capitol building. The president's false allegations of voter fraud, and the pressure on the vice president effectively to overturn the result of the general election challenged the norm that barring any legal challenge, the result of free and fair elections would be accepted and that thereafter there would be a peaceful transition from one administration to another. And under this president, we have seen the politicisation of federal prosecutions to go after perceived political enemies, the flagrant misuse of presidential powers of pardon and the threats to journalists, and the freedom of the media.

And while federal judges would no doubt bristle at the suggestion that they allow political leanings

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Some considerations to colour their judgements. It is perhaps remarkable that in order to understand some of the judgements that made, it is thought relevant to question who was the president who made the appointment. And this gives rise to the cynicism and undermines the authority of the courts. In April 2026, just 43% of Americans supported the work of the Supreme Court, down by 11 points from a year before. These are, I believe, serious matters and. But I'm not one of those that believes that America is about to slip into a further authoritarian abyss. But I would suggest that what is happening in the United States is both a warning and a wake up call.

And in this country, we face challenges, which I think should be now addressed respect for the opinions of others has declined. Public discourse in this country has become coarser, more divided and more challenging. And the debate over Gaza and Palestine has at times descended into an ugly form of anti-Semitism. The language that is sometimes used to describe illegal migrants and asylum seekers is often degrading and dehumanising. Every human is entitled to be treated with dignity. We see threats to the safety and well-being of politicians and public figures that have increased. These will only serve to push good people out of public life.

And social media, of course, has played its part. We have also seen assaults on the independence of the judiciary that has been referred to by the noble Baroness Manningham-Buller. My Lord, these challenges to the unwritten parts of our Constitution, more particularly the values which bind us together, will, I fear, only increase. I have no great views on whether or not we should have a written constitution, but I rather suspect that the energy and time that would be involved in that process would be better expressed by addressing these fundamental issues. My Lords, I begin my remarks with two very quick points.

 Firstly, sharing my noble friend Lord Murphy's point that we came to the fray expecting to hear a very solid advocacy for a written constitution, and have prepared the
16:55
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Portrait Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Labour)
-
-
finest speeches against such a proposition imaginable, whereas it hasn't turned out that way at all. Secondly, I had not imagined that I'd be speaking at this point in the debate. After all those extraordinarily learned people with extraordinarily learned people with huge experience of of law immediately ahead of me. So you must regard my remarks as an entourage. A little bit of entertainment between now and when the great heavyweights come on again later. But I did want to make a point about written constitutions, whether of the kind that's in the head of the Noble and learned, Lord, Lord Anderson, as he brought the debate before us, or otherwise.

 I'll come from a theological angle. I can see your eyes glazing. I come with a consideration, for example, of the 500 years it took the Christian church after the death of Christ to formulate the Nicene Creed. It celebrated 17 hundredth anniversary just last year. In order to get that form of words that satisfied everybody. An attempt to bring an experience out of a Semitic world into a Hellenic world that itself is a is a challenge. But the Hellenic itself in Alexandria and Jerusalem, at Ephesus and other places was a. A variety of ways of speaking Greek that demanded only the best intellects put together in order to take out of all of that something that they could all live with.

It went on year after year, decade after decade and century after century. And in the end, the great force that brought it into being was a contingent of troops from the Pope in Rome who put a shotgun, or whatever its equivalent was in the fifth century, to the heads of all those gathered for the formulation of the creed. All those elements, going into the attempts to make a written constitution which would bind the Roman Empire, or what remained of it together 500 years later. I should have said that there were more people excluded from Christendom by the Creed than included by it.

But let me move on 500 years, because at that particular time, in the 11th century, there was a proposal to add one word to the Nicene Creed, one word in Latin filioque. And that itself proved so divisive with this written constitution that it divided the whole of Christendom between East and West, Orthodox and Latin written constitutions are for the birds. I do admire the Nicene Creed, its intellectual process that gave us that form of words and satisfied people for a long time. But it is a historic document. I've never used it. I can only say that now because the bishops aren't here.

But for all of that, that's my experience of a written constitution there. Now I'm a Methodist Minister. Every year I get a directory telling me about who's who in my church, together with a second volume that's called The Constitutional Practice and Discipline of the Methodist Church. It's fat. It's the accumulation of all the bits and pieces over 250 years that have allowed us to feel this is our constitutional position. It's fixed. In my early years as a Minister, when man, as we lived in, were furnished, we had a bed, my wife and I, which had one short leg on it.

The constitutional practice and discipline of the Methodist Church fitted perfectly under the fourth leg, and we slept happily ever after. Now, the trouble about that document is that when it was taken overseas to Methodist churches in Africa, Asia, and all over the world, that constitution became a substitute for the gospel. The people coming to meetings would come armed with that, and they'd say, but on page 230 it says X and you're doing Y. Written Constitution lend themselves to nitpicking opposition ism and uselessness. At the end of the day, I've just got half a minute left and I'll do my best, because I preached a sermon at Grey's Inn, and it was the Mulligan sermon, and it was all about the judgement of a man called Richard Atkin, who took all those precedents that constitute our common law and made what he called a kind of overarching statement for it.

It boiled down, in the end to a consideration of the Donoghue and Stevenson case, which all learned Lords know about, which, at the end of the day allowed him to say a duty of care and doing unto others what you would have them do unto you will undergird all our attempts, legally and constitutionally, to find the right way forward. So there you are. Let the lawyers get on with it now. I'll be here to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

listen. My Lord. Uncodified constitution

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. Uncodified constitution has four legs. Short or long? Common law, statutes, conventions Common law, statutes, conventions and practice. Our modern system of administrative law elicited from our well respected government legal our well respected government legal service. A measured guide. The judge over your shoulder. Now in a
17:01
Lord Mance Portrait Lord Mance (Crossbench)
-
-
judge over your shoulder. Now in a sixth edition, its witty acronym is joys. But I take this in the sense that it is a real joy and a huge privilege to live in a country which adheres to the rule of law. An important aspect to the court's role is to determine the legal limits of the powers conferred upon each branch of government. In the two Miller cases, in the second, in the first of which I sat. The Supreme Court acted to preserve the position of Parliament, not the executive, as our ultimate democratic institution, where our Uncodified Constitution stands out is in a certain lack of transparency, possibly accompanied with a degree of complacency in its inability to act as a salient feature of national identity.

It mystifies, and in its foundational principles of parliamentary sovereignty and privilege, the relationship of which, with the other Dyson principle of rule of law. We're discussing this evening as to transparency. There has been reference to the Cabinet Office manual in 2008 to 9, when I had the privilege of chairing the House's Sub-Committee on European Law and Institutions, on which the noble Lord Lord Kerr also served, we were interested to know the bases on which the government chose to consult the House in respect of European legislative initiatives in Brussels. Our information was that in at least one Nordic country, its Parliament was not merely consulted, but dictated the executive's line on such initiatives, which are, of course, a form of primary legislation in many cases.

The response to our inquiry was that the Cabinet Office guidelines were confidential. Only on the 5th of May 2009. Were we able to thank the then Minister for Europe, Caroline Flint, for a letter putting several of the guidelines for the first time into the public domain. Now, of course, we have the Cabinet manual, December 2010, but not even updated to reflect our leaving the EU, although about to be apparently reformulated as to the core constitutional principles of parliamentary supremacy and privilege. They operate well if in exercise, with restraint and respect. But can we in modern conditions, still feel quite the same complacency as Mr.

Podsnap in our Mutual Friend, when he declared that we Englishmen are very proud of our constitution, sir, it was bestowed upon us by Providence. No other country is so favoured as this country. Mr. Podsnap did not see beyond Hadrian's Wall or foresee devolution. He gloried in English exceptionalism without acknowledging any possible advantages in written constitutions. Today we do not have to look abroad to see that our Uncodified constitution has potential vulnerabilities. The supremacy of Parliament makes primary legislation immune to judicial review. Most written constitutions entrench fundamental individual rights. As an overlord, noble and learned Lord Lord Anderson has said a model upon which UK Supreme Court justices regularly adjudicate.

Sitting in the Privy Council, the UK's nearest equivalent cleverly constructed to respect parliamentary supremacy, is the entrenched Human Rights Act. But a government commanding a parliamentary majority can simply repeal repeal that at any time. With one exception, Parliament can do anything. The teasing exception already mentioned is that Parliament cannot bind itself. Nothing can be entrenched, although perhaps a way in the form of some sort of constitutional People's Convention or even a referendum, would lead courts to recognise entrenchment. The privileges of Parliament, combined with article nine of the Bill of rights, make the appropriateness of parliamentary procedures, procedures forbidden territory for UK courts.

This does not, however, mean that nothing needs doing to improve or change them. The problems are well known. The Institute of Government has described the government's eye and grip over the Commons timetable as unusual in international terms, and needing modification, the insufficiency of parliamentary scrutiny and the prevalence, breadth and vagueness of delegated legislation have been criticised robustly in and outside Parliament by very strongly worded title reports and one entitled dictator called to return power to Parliament and democracy, denied a written constitution would probably address Parliament's supremacy, although with respect to what the noble Lord said about the Netherlands, I believe actually that there is a law going through to give ex post facto jurisdictional power to strike down to the starts on similar lines to the Conseil d'Etat.

Sorry, the Conseil Constitutionnel in France. The Prime Minister has, and this had been mentioned, co-authored Head North looking with favour on the German Basic Law, which features both scrutiny of supremacy and scrutiny of internal procedural privileges of the German Parliament. Can I say a word about that? The German constitution and its court were, of course, part of an essential new start, but both of one continuing acceptance as core elements of Germany's legal and cultural identity. The court's involvement with parliamentary procedures has been in the interests of democracy. It has prescribed general principles to prevent the misuse of majoritarian power, to ensure that Parliament is given sufficient time to debate proposed legislation to ensure that minority parties have proper information and a proper say to ensure the precision of legislation, and to avoid excessive or vague delegation of legislative powers to the executive.

At the same time, the German Constitutional Court has remained very sensitive to the greater democratic legitimacy of the German parliament, and Germany is not governed by judges. The elective dictatorship of this country. In my suggestion, clearly needs to improve itself in less dramatic ways than a written constitution. There should be some new self-denying concordat by the executive, with government identifying and agreeing to observe certain basic principles governing Parliament and its procedures. The German model is an interesting parallel and precedent. Such changes. Changes would revivify Parliament as the place where the nation's concerns are debated and true political compromise occurs.
17:07
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> It is a privilege to follow so many distinguished speakers. The primary purpose of a constitution primary purpose of a constitution is to establish the fundamental legal framework for governing a state in the United Kingdom. Two key facets of this are protecting and strengthening our democracy, and providing a framework for effective government in accordance with the rule of law. I would measure the arguments for a written constitution against these two benchmarks. So would a written constitution be more or less democratic? Jonathan Sumption pointed out in his Telegraph article of the 9th of August this year that a written constitution would hand enormous political power to the courts, who would have the power to interpret it and overturn acts of Parliament if they did not measure up to the court's interpretations?

That's a point echoed by the noble Lord Lord Howard of Lympne just now. Extending the role of our unelected judges in this way would distort our finely balanced separation of powers, weakening parliamentary sovereignty and thereby our democracy. Parliamentary sovereignty provides the flexibility to reform and strengthen our democracy. One can point to many of our statutes, such as the European Communities Act, the Human Rights Act, the Constitutional Reform Act and the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, where Parliament has legislated in a constitutional way. The same is true of devolution in the United Kingdom, which the Prime Minister thinks should be extended throughout the country by a written constitution.

But the beauty of our current system is that parliamentary sovereignty has enabled these constitutional statutes to be enacted and then to be repealed or amended subsequently through a normal legislative process, as has happened in the case of every single one of them, a written constitution could not so easily have achieved this, since the whole point, as has been said, would be to entrench it and give it a higher status than primary legislation, deliberately making it harder to amend or repeal and transferring power from elected politicians to the judiciary in the process. There has, of course, been social and political angst in the debates, leading to the enactments and repeals I've mentioned.

But take a moment to imagine the discord which the nation would endure in trying to decide what a written constitution should contain. There would certainly be calls for it to go wider than the Cabinet manual. One only has to consider the recent heated debates on economic and social issues, such as whether a person is a man or a woman, which migrants should be allowed to stay in the United Kingdom, or the duties of the state to provide welfare and social care? The list goes on. And one could see some people arguing passionately for their inclusion in a written constitution, leading to fresh divisions in society.

Far better, in my view, to rely on Parliament to decide such issues as and when necessary, in line with manifesto and other policy commitments, and to override unintended judicial interpretations by fresh legislation. Turning to the second purpose of our Constitution, that is, to provide a framework for effective government. Advocates of a written constitution may point to the ineffectiveness of our current system. To get anything done, one is spoilt for choice. But just look at the seeming inability to deliver infrastructure projects like the Hammersmith Bridge, which has so far been closed for seven years and won't fully reopen until 2035.

The Chinese replaced their multi-lane Sanyuan bridge in 43 hours. Or look at the massive cost overruns and delays of HS2, the broken prison system and the lack of investment and procurement failures in UK defence. Tempting as it is in the face of these failures to seize on anything which might make things better, it's not the fault of our constitution that some governments over the last 15 or 20 years have failed to govern effectively or responsibly. A written constitution would make no difference. Ministerial accountability is already part of our unwritten constitution, for which the Prime Minister holds ultimate responsibility, and it can be enforced by means of the ministerial code and parliamentary scrutiny mechanisms such as select committees, the Public Office Accountability Bill, once implemented, may help to add statutory weight to the principle of ministerial accountability.

In addition, there is, of course, political pressure which at an election punishes ministerial incompetence or irresponsibility, or indeed earlier, if our leaders are forced to quit, seven prime Ministers in ten years speaks for itself. This, and other political dramas in recent years show how our Constitution can weather the fiercest storms. Some would say that a written constitution would be more transparent than our current convoluted statute book. They have a point. AI states that there are around 6000 statutes in force, many totally incomprehensible because of extensive amendments to previous acts. The representation of the people Bill is a case in point.

However, the answer is not a written constitution, but a programme of legislative consolidation, which would vastly improve everyone's understanding of what the law actually is. There's little hope of that. In conclusion, let's cherish the jewels in the crown of our unwritten constitution, parliamentary sovereignty, the separation of powers and ministerial accountability which have protected our democracy for so long, and which are the envy of written constitutions around the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

world. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich for securing this debate and so clearly and entertainingly introducing it, even though I profoundly disagree with his conclusions. And it probably his conclusions. And it probably won't surprise your Lordships House to say that I'm going to bring a very different perspective to any very different perspective to any thus far heard in this debate, and I thank the noble Lord also for giving me the opportunity to
17:13
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
explain the discussion I was forced to truncate back in 2020, when the respected commentator David Allen Green, took a letter I had written to the Financial Times in a manner that I hadn't intended. I was, in fact, agreeing with Mr. Green and an article he had written headlined the UK's Constitution is not Working, he responded on the social media site, then called Twitter feeling incorrectly that I had meant to slight him. The internet rule of not feeding the fire meant I didn't have a chance to fully explain then, but I can now. The newspaper had put the headline on my letter.

It's time the UK had a written constitution which was an accurate, although not complete, description of the letter's contents. What I called for was a modern, functional, democratic and written constitution. I described what we have now as a tangle of historical accident, held together by a gloss of tourist friendly ceremony. The Constitution is not democratic. We have a still massive Labour majority. If with a different leader, then then. Then there was 1 in 2024, with the support of 33% of the people who voted, about 25% of eligible voters. Now the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to our the extreme position we have of parliamentary sovereignty.

That's a Parliament that does not reflect the views of two thirds of the British people. The Constitution is not functional. There are so many examples I could give but an example. I'll point to the wide agreement around the House at the abject failure of scrutiny of legislation in the Commons Lord Rooker has taken to highlighting this to general House approval. The Constitution is not modern. Visit the FCDO Commonwealth offices and they're like a time machine. You return in a flash to the Victorian Empire as the report The World in 2040 renewing the UK's Approach to International Affairs in 2024 highlighted.

But back to 2020. My focus then and now was not primarily on the written aspect of the Constitution, although I think there is an argument going back to the law of the 12 tables in ancient Rome, the plebeians demanded and finally secured written down laws against which the actions of patrician judges and officials could be tested. If that basic safeguard of being written down is not there, insiders will always have the advantage. What I would have said to Mr. Green is that the existence of a written constitution, of course, does not ensure constitutional behaviour, something I'm all too concerned as a majority of Americans are.

We are about to see close up and serious in the US midterms and the next presidential election there. But would be an important Democratic step forward. Taken in Rome in about 450 BCE that the UK has yet to secure. But of course, it's not a panacea. No single step will solve all our problems, and anyone who tells you they have a cure all patent medicine should immediately be discounted. As a serious thinker, what would be really crucial now would be the process of creating a written constitution to debate, to consider. And here I respectfully disagree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Carter.

I believe we need to have that debate. We currently have toxically buried a huge amount of disagreement in our society. If we don't have that debate, that disagreement will continue to fester. In that process, what might we consider? What is the UK? What is its place in the world? Should there still be a UK, something that's now very seriously in question, and I note is challenged by the parties of both Scotland and Wales. Should we have such a massive dominance of Westminster over the rest of these islands? Should we get the big money out of politics?

Not all of us getting the politics the few pay for should we still have the last rotten borough, the City of London? After all, the position of the City of London as a global centre of financial corruption is a failure not just of governance but of government. What does the constitutional monarchy mean? What about the Crown Estate? Should who anyone's parents are determine their place in our Constitution? Should we have an elected upper house? The noble Lady Baroness Smith of Llanfaes will give us a chance to talk about that tomorrow, so I'll just leave that there.

These and many more are the questions that we need to consider that I would suggest we should have a People's Constitutional Convention that would be at the heart of a broad national debate. As Lord Anderson said, the Constitution is a matter for every citizen. I would say it's a matter for every resident of the UK. The status quo benefits the status quo. That is not a sustainable, a stable situation. It cannot continue. And I have to respectfully disagree with the noble and learned Lord Low Lord Burnett of Maldon that written constitutions arrive in a time of political upheaval and and change, and that that does not apply to the UK.

This after we've had seven Prime Ministers in ten years and we are known internationally now as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Westminster on the Tiber. My Lords, let me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, let me. Begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for providing the Lord Anderson, for providing the opportunity for this debate and indeed for his far reaching introduction. My Lords, this is a huge issue and we've had various
17:20
Baroness D'Souza Portrait Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)
-
-
views expressed on the pros and cons of a codified constitution, and I'm not entirely sure that I have much to add to what has already been expressed. But what I would like to do is to touch on the role that Parliament could play in ensuring scrutiny and monitoring constitutional bills to ensure that they receive the attention they deserve and indeed need. My premise in so doing is that it is the experience, my Lords, of this House, over many, many years, that incremental reform is more likely to succeed than, than than do sweeping changes in the last decade or so, constitutional issues have come into sharper focus, whether it be the Brexit process and prorogation, the successful rulings by the Supreme Court in 2017 and 2019, and the Gina Miller challenges, or on aspects of devolution.

There have two been repeated questions about the integrity and ethics of the government of the day. What emerges, my Lords, is the lack of clarity on exactly where power lies in our uncodified constitution. The centuries old chivvying between the monarch, the government, the courts and Parliament was eventually resolved by the adoption of supreme parliamentary sovereignty as the basis of the English settlement. Parliament, as we have heard, can make or break any law and in theory at least, this power is constrained by a set of checks and balances. The problem is that these checks and balances have proved weak, resulting in, among many other developments, public distrust in their influence, are creating a new global power, a new global order.

My Lord, I think there is an urgent need for action to reassert the UK's fundamental constitutional principles. However, a serious attempt to rewrite our Uncodified constitution would be a huge undertaking lasting several years, possibly with an uncertain outcome. Furthermore, it would require widespread consultation and efforts to educate the public on complex aspects of the law. That said, My Lords, no one denies that there is a case for action. So what kind of action would serve to educate and allay the concerns of the wider public, including the media? One of the main recommendations of the 2023 review of the UK Constitution, published by the Institute for government and the Bennett Institute for Public Policy, was the establishment of a new and possibly joint parliamentary committee on the Constitution.

This committee would have several functions, including scrutinising constitutional policy and monitoring adherence to norms and conventions. The review points out some of the weaknesses in the present arrangement, such as the tendency for the government to pass devolved legislation, often without the consent of respective devolved nations, or the reliance on a simple parliamentary majority for changes such as fixed term parliaments, only to have them abandoned by a similar simple majority. Or, again, the reversion to referendums on the, for example, the Scottish independence and Brexit by a public. That may not take into account the unintended consequences.

My Lords, this committee could usefully begin by listing existing constitutional acts and principles and new categories of constitutional acts, thereby formally recognising the importance of key legislation that underpins our system. The present constitutional arrangements are relatively unclear. A single, independent and authoritative source of constitutional knowledge would be of great help in clarifying the legitimacy of different party political views, which have no mechanism for resolving disagreements, and in due course, this committee could take on perhaps greater powers, such as the power to delay legislation unless and until the constitutional aspects are formally agreed. Following Pre-legislative scrutiny.

 The rationale for focusing on the Constitution is that we can no longer ignore the contradictions of the political instability that is emerging. The public needs reassurance, and the government needs to be prepared to deal with new challenges so as to underpin protections we already have, but do not adequately adhere to the recommendations in the review suggests a way forward that would significantly improve parliamentary oversight and promote public understanding and trust, and also serve to clarify our constitutional laws.
17:26
Lord Kakkar Portrait Lord Kakkar (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, it's a pleasure. Baroness D'Souza. In so doing, join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich for having secured this important debate and introduced it in such a thoughtful manner. I am one who is opposed to the idea of a written constitution, because I am deeply attached to the orthodox interpretation of parliamentary sovereignty. The ability for a Parliament to make and unmake laws, for an Act of Parliament to be recognised as the supreme legal authority, and for the clear convention that no Parliament can bind its successor to that. I would add the simple principle that ultimately the Other place enjoys primacy and as a result, because the Other place is composed of the representatives of the people, not their delegates, we have a situation where the people are ultimately sovereign.

However, there are circumstances under which we might need to consider a written constitution in the future. Those identified in the preamble of the 1911 Parliament Act, where if Parliament decided to compose a second chamber, not on a hereditary basis at that time, but one on composed on a popular basis, then the interim arrangements of the 1911 act, which governed effectively the relationship and powers between the two houses, would need to be reconsidered. And in defining the powers of effectively a second elected chamber, there would need to be some kind of constitutional document, and that ultimately would require interpretation, potentially by a different authority from 1 or 2 of the chambers of Parliament, potentially a constitutional court.

And that's why, in principle, I have been opposed to an elected second chamber. But, my Lords, I've had the privilege of serving in two positions that have been mentioned by other noble Lords, or two bodies that have been mentioned by other Lords. I chaired for some years the House of Lords Appointments Commission and thereafter the Judicial Appointments Commission, and they are two very different bodies. The House of Lords Appointments Commission, composed as a result of a written ministerial statement by the then Prime Minister in April of 2000, laying out the basis for appointment of the First Commission and indicating that in addition to making nominations for appointment to the Crossbenches, it would adopt the responsibilities of the then Political Honours Vetting Committee.

 The Judicial Appointments Commission, on the other hand, was established as a result of the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act came into being in April of 2006, and many of the regulations under which it makes appointments were brought into force in 2013. It's interesting that both bodies are subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. The chairman of the House of Lords Appointments Committee, appearing before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Other place and the chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission before the Justice Committee. In the other place, both bodies appeared before your Lordships Constitutional Committee. So there is an important degree of parliamentary scrutiny.

 It's suggested that the House of Lords Appointments Commission should be put onto a statutory basis. It's merely advisory at the moment, and there may well indeed be some arguments for that. I was always quite anxious about that proposition because in putting the body onto a statutory basis, one would then establish criteria for appointment in statute, and I always wondered whether, therefore, appointments could be challenged or subjected to judicial review. And that would put your Lordships House. Indeed, this Parliament in a difficult place where the judiciary might ultimately object to the appointment of somebody who had already taken their seat in your Lordships House, creating something of a crisis.

On the other hand, in the Judicial Appointments Commission, there are very clear statutory objectives. Duties of the Commission. There are only two to appoint on merit and to appoint individuals of good character, and the work of the Jack was often challenged because it failed to achieve quickly enough substantial and sufficient diversity of the different jurisdictions and benches. When those challenges were made, the statutory position was very clear and Lord Chancellor of the day was able to resist those calls and ensure that the jack continued to be supported to make appointment on the basis of merit only.

The reason I make these observations is because so many of the settlements that we enjoy, and that have been broadly discussed in this very interesting debate by other noble Lords, are dependent upon those who have the responsibility and privilege to act within our Constitution, to understand that envelope of responsibility and to act within it. If we are to consider a change, a move away from these current constitutional arrangements, we'll need to consider both positive and unintended consequences. And I believe for those reasons, the flexible, pragmatic approach that we've enjoyed to date is the appropriate approach to continue.

 However, the point has been made that for certain bodies that play a role in our Constitution, such as the House of Lords Appointments Commission and the Judicial Appointments Commission, there may be further thought to strengthening the way that Parliament itself can protect their work against excessive interference or indeed becoming subjective to particular mood not properly enjoyed by broad democratic consent. And that is something that I believe should be considered. But ultimately, I think we have to continue to believe that our constitutional settlement, as currently constructed, provides protection. And certainly the experience I have with regard to those two bodies confirms that with that, the arrangements are appropriate as long as we continue to understand that it is Parliament that has the ultimate responsibility for scrutiny, and therefore both the other place and your Lordships House must be able to affect their responsibilities with efficiency and determination and absolute confidence.
17:32
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
Up to a point, the Lord Kakkar, >> Up to a point, the Lord Kakkar, as evil in war might very nearly, said I, I. I agree with the general thesis, but I do think policy needs to be on a statutory basis and with a wider remit. I myself once tried to write a constitution for the European Union. I was a constitutional treaty, and I. Mine was merely the pen. The ideas came from representatives of 28 legislatures and 28 governments, including four active members of this House. Active, present members of this House. My treaty was a total failure.

It was accepted by 18 countries, but it was vetoed by two. And it would have been vetoed in this country, I think, if it had come that far. The. Are there any lessons that I can bring to the House? From my sad experience of having failed to write a Constitution, or having written a Constitution that failed? Well, I'm prepared to try, if you insist. I think we failed principally because Lord Anderson wasn't involved. He could have warned us not to be so ambitious as he warned three years ago in his famous lecture, and he's warned again tonight.

He. In his lecture he distinguished three kinds of Constitution writing. The. He warned against the revolutionary approach, starting from scratch, green gazettes he recommended for this country an authoritative restatement of constitutional arrangements, making them easy to grasp. And as again today he spoke of a program of modest renewal, dealing with problems that have thrown up by recent history. I think the whole case is a case in point. Excessive use of framework laws worries me greatly, and I think the independent adviser on ministerial interests and the the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which seems to me to be a revolving door committee, could both be be looked at.

All these defects, I think, are ones which most of us in this House would hope Mr. Burnham would address. The Anderson prescription is evolution, not revolution, and. I. I concur with my learned friend. I am uneasy about the suggestion. I don't know how valid it is that Mr. Burnham is still attracted to something like the German Basic Law. The. The EU constitutional treaty that failed was actually not far from the Anderson prescription. It was mainly restatement, but the provisions in it which attracted most opposition were in fact provisions that it was restating the. They were already operative when they attracted enormous opprobrium in France and a certain amount in this country, and they remained operative after the treaty was rejected.

The elements that were new, the new parts of the European Parliament, the European Councils enhanced status and presidency, and the bulwarks against competence creep were not in themselves revolutionary, and 95% of them were subsequently adopted in and are operative now. It was putting them all together in a single new compendium text that killed them in 2005. It looked an intimidatingly big package and a vanishingly small proportion of those who rejected it in France, in the Netherlands, and I suspect in the Netherlands, and I suspect in this country, had actually read it. My apologies. I draw two conclusions from that sad history.

 First, restatement and renewal should, as Lord Anderson prescribed, be entirely separate exercises. Second, renewal should be tackled seriatim in a rolling programme. Over time, every innovation will have an opponent, and the opposition to a compendium will amount to more than the sum of individual criticisms. So no German Basic law, please. It would need countrywide acceptance, presumably by referendum. It could easily suffer the same fate as my EU masterpiece, and a failure would do lasting damage, because it would be very hard to distinguish and disentangle the acceptable from the unaccepted. So. One final point. We shouldn't, in my view, just think about the relationship between executive and legislature.

I think we also need to think about the relationship between this legislature and those in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh, and the relationship between central and devolved governments. As Lord Murphy did. I hope that Mr. Burnham, when he preaches devolution, looks beyond England. As a Scottish Unionist, I strongly resented the way recent Union governments patronised and insulted Edinburgh. I was, and remain uneasy. That consultative intergovernmental mechanisms were so little used and inter-parliamentary consultation service. Did you? Lord Lord Burnett of Maldon commended conventions, but our elastic interpretation of the Seoul Convention. Seems to me to be dangerous and dishonourable.

 The convention, written into the Scotland Act 2016, says we won't normally legislate in devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. But my Lords, we never should, and the inclusion of the promise that we won't normally cheat is an open invitation to cheat, which is all too often been exercised. Devolved means devolved and we should bind ourselves never to claw back competencies. When it suits us. We Scots are great at grievances.

 Let's not create real grievances. Let's honour the constitutional settlement we've got and go in for some cautious reform and renewal along Anderson.
17:40
Viscount Stansgate Portrait Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> To make a. Contribution to this debate, not least because I. >> Welcome any opportunity to debate the Constitution. >> And being so. >> Low down in the list, at least

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Low down in the list, at least it gives me the opportunity to say what a wonderful debate it's been so far. And I commend the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for securing the debate and for his speech. I myself find myself rather missing my noble friend Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, who, if he were here, would be making a contribution. Now, may I say I've been very grateful to the library for the briefing. It's given. Setting out the arguments for and against a written constitution. And as we have heard, the noble Lady Baroness Manningham-Buller pay a tribute to the distinguished career of her father.

May I be allowed to thank the library for including in their briefing, a reference to the Commonwealth of Britain Bill, 1991, introduced by the then right hon. Member for Chesterfield. Now we know that we don't have a single document that contains our Constitution and we have a variety

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of laws and judicial decisions, customs, conventions and precedents. But we. Don't just have written documents. We also have pictorial documents. Earlier this year, I went to the British Museum to see the Bayeux Tapestry, and I the Bayeux Tapestry, and I recommend all members should do the same. And in a way, that tapestry same. And in a way, that tapestry is a foundational document of of our Constitution, because the events that followed the Battle of Hastings have laid the foundation for the system of government that we have today. Now, the Prime Minister has set out his case for greater devolution.

Number ten North is a symbol of his commitment, and in due course, it may well be that this will lead to new developments in our constitutional arrangements, but they will be evolutionary. That's not quite the same thing as saying that it will inevitably lead to a brand new written constitution for this country in a single document. Apart from anything else, my Lords, in my view, be remarkably difficult to create and agree a written constitutional document setting out all the relationship between the various branches of government and the individual rights of people, and the sovereignty of the people, and so on.

And that's not to mention the need for the way in which it might be ratified. Now, there may be members of this House and people present now who, as I have, have studied the founding of the United States and the Federalist Papers and the debates in Philadelphia, culminating in the document written in 1787, represented a great achievement at that time, and it does still remain one of the most robust and successful in modern political history, though I am bound to say that it is currently under strain, to say the least, and we have yet to see how stretched that constitution can be by current events.

Ask me some more after November the 3rd. But that's a debate for another day. Now, I don't think it is feasible or practicable for us to create a single written constitutional document today. Frankly, my Lords, we've had too much history to make that possible. Nor do I think it would be right or desirable, if I may gently say so, to the noble and learned Lord Sikka present to create a constitution that would inevitably confer on the judiciary a major responsibility for its interpretation. Call me old fashioned, but I'm a believer in parliamentary sovereignty, and I may as well add that I was brought up to be so.

And for those who argue that a written constitution is a vital bulwark against the abuse of power, I would argue that written constitutions are not immune to bad actors, a point made by many people so far. And of course, there are weaknesses in unwritten constitutions. I can think of a recent example. The attempt to prorogue Parliament for such a long time in 2019, though that did not eventually succeed. Some have raised other weaknesses. Recently, I saw the evidence given by the noble Lord Lord Case to the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House, and he gave us an argument for a written constitution that it was remarkable for a G7 country in a P5 member of the United Nations, and a nuclear power not to have a clear line of succession and not unreasonable question.

Well, my Lords, what would happen if our Prime Minister was run over by a bus today? The only thing I know for certain is that the passengers on that bus would have not paid more than £2 each for that journey. But seriously, my Lords, what would the line of succession be? I don't claim to know. We don't at the moment have a designated Deputy Prime Minister, though we've had at various times in the recent past. So some might claim that this is a fatal weakness, but I think the situation will be resolved. I'm sure we'd probably have an interim leader, an election of the Labour Party and events would then unfold in a familiar way.

But the underlying point I'm trying to make is that our unwritten constitution would, in effect, cope with such a situation as it has with others, because ultimately rests on the consent and the confidence of the people. And this concept of confidence is a central part of our unwritten constitution. After all, we have a system which the very definition of a Prime Minister is that she or he has the confidence of the House, and the political system has the confidence of the people. And after all, this year has seen a pretty classic example of what happens when a Prime Minister loses that confidence, and where there have been attempts made to import a rigidity into our Constitution.

The Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011, well, it failed because it didn't work and it was realised that we need to retain that flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, even if it means, as the country knows well enough, that this adaptation has meant six prime Ministers in seven years. Now, there's one thing I do want to raise. Others have mentioned it before me, but that's a disadvantage of being down the list. And that's the issue of the Cabinet manual. If there is one point on which I hope my noble friend, the Minister will reply, is to update the House with progress on the next edition.

The origins of the manual go back to what we call questions of procedures for Ministers in the 1970s, and then it was up, dated by the noble Lord Lord O'Donnell, who I'm glad to see is in his place, and Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield with the direct support and encouragement of the then Prime Minister, whose interest in architectural, architectural, the architecture of British politics is well known and to be respected. Now, I'm one of those who have long campaigned for a new edition of the Manual, and my time is up, so I just urge my noble friend to tell us how progress is going, what the process for approval might be, what consultations there will be in both houses, and when will it be published.

And following that, my Lord, I very much hope this House will have a debate upon it, because it would make a fitting sequel to the debate that we are having today.
17:47
Baroness Prashar Portrait Baroness Prashar (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I. >> Lord Lord Anderson. >> For securing this debate and his masterly introduction. But with light touch, my Lords, Andrew Brick and Peter Hennessy recently in their book The Bonfire of Decencies Repairing and Restoring the British Constitution, written following the Boris Premiership, highlighted how the experience of the Johnson Premiership demonstrated the fragility of our Uncodified constitution. They argued that muddling through is no longer feasible, although the system self-corrected itself. They said these exist. These excesses are a warning. And more recently, as you've heard, the Prime Minister Burnham has said the greater devolution of powers within UK strengthens the case for a written constitution and made reference to the German model.

And in the recent years UK constitution has been under pressure for reasons such as Brexit and Covid, among others, and calls for a written constitution are not new and arguments for and against are well rehearsed. But however, in my view, what is clear is that our uncodified constitution needs attention. But my view is that a fully blown written constitution where we move from parliamentary supremacy to judicial supremacy, is not the answer to the concerns expressed. We need evolution, not revolution. And I think the flexibility and the merits of our current arrangements were very well articulated by Lord Carter Carter of Hazlemere, and I agree with what he said, so I will not repeat them.

But the current constitutional arrangements need enhancement in areas such as violation of conventions, unlawful activities of a challenging nature, violation of criminal law by Ministers, breaking treaty obligations and international law, or compromising public institutions and values associated with it, and eroding any mechanism that exists to police or limit overriding rules, conventions and limitations. For example, parliament courts and oversight bodies, particularly those of constitutional nature. Our current arrangements depend on these structures and their robustness and respect for them. The underlying changes faced in the recent years necessitate a look at the problem as a whole, and not, in my view, piecemeal, piecemeal tinkering.

There had been a number of inquiries with recommendations and suggestions which need to be brought together and considered as a whole. We've had a number of inquiries, select committee recommendations, and indeed I was involved in one two years ago, two years ago, on the Governance Commission, which was chaired by Dominic Grieve. But what we need, I think, is a cross-party commission which considers the recommendations already made. Examine where the weaknesses are in our current arrangements, what needs to be strengthened and where we need harder enforcement. Such an exercise, in my view, would address the problems as a whole and their combined effect.

This process could be used to encourage public awareness and show wide respect for rules and conventions matters. And I think the hidden wiring of our Constitution, as described by Lord Hennessy, needs to be made more explicit in a document which is accessible, and then that can be underpinned by the recommendations made by the government to which Baroness D'Souza referred. I think those arrangements would work well. While I think these. Such an exercise is necessary, it's not sufficient because the environment within which it operates also need attention. No constitution can function satisfactorily without a strong political realm, addressing lack of trust and confidence in government and democratic institutions, tackling decline, of lack of participation in political processes and initiatives to restore confidence in democracy which have given rise to populism, authoritarianism and consequent social divisions are equally, if not more important.

And I think this is where. So what we do need is to strengthen and enhance our current constitutional arrangements and foster values, which bolster democratic behaviours and encourages engagement of citizens. There is. This is where I think devolution can help because properly implemented, it can bring decisions closer to communities, strengthen local leadership and enable greater public voice. It can, through deliberative engagement, foster social cohesion, through participation. True participation rests on the capacity to come together, build trust and have shared spaces for dialogue and collective problem solving. It is these which need to be woven into devolution, and not just a constitutional change, because devolution is not an administrative task or a rearrangement of constitutional or rearrangement of the Constitution, but it is also a genuine community building task.

And if you neglect this, we risk the devolution. That will be technical but socially brittle. Ultimately, constitutional success depends on human beings rather than just written documents. Our uncodified constitution needs to a refresh and a reform, and not the tearing down and replacement. So the question really is, is the government going to take a comprehensive look and not just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue to muddle on? Formulaic in this House about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Formulaic in this House about congratulating colleagues for obtaining a slot in for a topical obtaining a slot in for a topical debate. And I won't miss out today, but my noble friend A deserves more but my noble friend A deserves more than that, because subjecting to scrutiny Britain's lack of a written constitution is an
17:53
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Portrait Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)
-
-
written constitution is an essential exercise, not just something to be taken for granted, and for. It's simply to be assumed that because it's British and it's survived for centuries, it must be the best approach when most other countries many, but not all of them. Impeccable democracies do have written constitutions. Indeed, it is a trifle odd that despite not having a written constitution ourselves, we had no compunction about writing constitutions for parts of our colonial possessions as they achieved independence. Now, one reason for us to have a written constitution is that many of our fellow citizens believe we don't have a constitution at all, when in fact we have a collection of conventions and statutes which serve that purpose.

Such a fundamental

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A misunderstanding cannot be entirely satisfactory. And then our entirely satisfactory. And then our present unclear situation does leave a very large amount of scope for disagreement and recourse to for disagreement and recourse to the courts, including the Supreme Court, for interpretation. That, too, is not entirely satisfactory, too, is not entirely satisfactory, even rise quite recently to debate, which detracts from our respect for which detracts from our respect for the rule of law, which is fundamental to our freedoms. But such course cannot be entirely avoided, as we've heard this evening. It would arise very much so if we did have a written constitution.

And the absence of a written constitution does make the teaching of our constitutional practice in schools and universities far more complex and difficult than it would otherwise be, and harder to absorb. So quite a list of arguments for switching to a written constitution, and there are plenty more than those I've mentioned. Even leaving aside sloppy and self-serving ones drawn from the history of countries, including our nearest neighbours in the United States who have and treasure their written constitutions. But there are plenty of compelling arguments against switching in that direction. First, negotiating a written constitution would certainly be contentious, often opening up old wounds long since healed by time and patience.

You only have to look at the official opposition's policy of withdrawing from the you, withdrawing the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights and its application by our courts to see how that might play out, and writing a written constitution for the UK would be likely to throw up many difficult, perhaps insoluble, questions over devolution and the definition of devolved powers not to speak. And this is really important of the basic unity of the UK. It really is a little bit hard to see an SNP government in Edinburgh, a dual government in Belfast and applied Kumari government in Cardiff, easily agreeing to a text on what the United Kingdom consists of.

So, having seen the absence of clarity from the situation emerging from our recent efforts at devolution, it's not easy to sustain the argument that dealing with those issues in a written constitution would be easy or straightforward. It's also perhaps relevant that we don't seem to be terribly good at writing constitutions. Not only are there quite a few ex colonies which we endowed with written constitutions that didn't stand the test of time, but look at the mess we made of the EU's constitutional treaty, about which the noble Lord Rooker spoke, where we happily allowed the European Community's founding treaty, the Treaty of Rome, which made no provision for a Member state to leave, to have such a provision inserted and be retained in the Lisbon Treaty.

Surely a case of painting a target on your own back for a decision which is now rather widely considered to have been an egregious error of judgement? Would we not have been better off without that? But perhaps the most compelling argument against switching to a written constitution would be the massive amount of legislative time that would be required to reach a conclusion. This is time that would be at the expense of more mundane legislative tasks, which would risk those latter being neglected, rushed or fudged. We already promulgate too many imperfect laws without programming a lot more of them.

Now, I've left out of this list of arguments against switching the likelihood that the means of choosing the members of your Lordships House, and even more so, of defining its powers relevant to those of the House of Commons, could in itself prove just a trifle contentious and extremely hard to resolve. Now, I don't habitually come down to arguing against reform, but in this case I do so more for reasons of practicality than of principle. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's quite a useful ad age bequeathed to us by our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

transatlantic cousins. Very elegant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. I too wish to follow in that convention. But a very honourable and venerable convention of thanking the noble Lord, Lord of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for securing this important debate, particularly at a time when democracy in different countries is being so tested, both by economic and social strains, but
17:58
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
by economic and social strains, but also by authoritarians and extremists. And that makes this a good time to to consider how we might be able to strengthen or improve our democracy through the use of a written constitution. Now, that's an argument my party has long made. And having listened carefully to several noble Lords Express, I'm not sure if it was if it was happiness or disappointment that the case for written constitutions had not been made more. In this debate. Let me summon up my courage and join the noble Lady Baroness Bennett in setting out some of those points, and I think it's worth starting with particularly an emphasis that written constitutions can take many forms.

They take many forms in the degree to which they are embedded, and they take many forms in the degree to which they give power to judges. The USA's example scores very highly on both of those criteria, but it is by no means the only model available. And the German Basic Law has been mentioned a couple of times by noble Lords. It's worth emphasising. The German Basic Law has been amended over 60 times, including, perhaps most notably recently, to allow a policy decision by the German government to significantly increase defence spending. And I think that illustrates that it is possible to have a written constitution that brings benefits, but is sufficiently flexible that it does not require a religious schism or a civil war to be amended.

And one other thing that is, of course, common with written constitutions is just how widespread they are, other than New Zealand and Israel. I think I'm correct in saying that essentially every other modern democracy has a written constitution, and there is a risk, obviously not in this House, but sometimes in wider discussions on this topic, therefore, of a certain myopic insularity of talking about problems in theory, with written constitutions that are in fact problems that many other countries have found solutions to and are practically implemented written constitutions to address. And across those different models, though, there is that common, essential quality of the idea that a written constitution provides some grit in the system, some limitation on the ability to do whatever, whenever.

However, to whoever by the government. And I should say that perhaps that is in many ways something that we are a little bit more familiar with than we sometimes remember in these debates, because one example I would suggest of embedding such grit in the system are the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. They are to some extent embedded. They are to some extent, as indeed the plurality of the phrase Parliament acts illustrates, open to amendment, and. They have shown how a degree of embedding can be an extremely useful part of our Constitution. And there are particular reasons why such grit is useful, and indeed may become more useful in the near future.

Because while we have for the moment at least the first, past the post electoral system for the House of Commons, and we have a 5 or 6, or indeed in Scotland and Wales, perhaps one might more accurately at times say seven party system around the country. What that means is, in practice it is absolutely possible for a party to win a clear majority in the House of Commons on less than 30% of the vote. We could have a government elected where two thirds of those voting have voted against it, and as our current setup would give it, very extensive power, very extensive power indeed, that would flow from its majority in the House of Commons.

Now, obviously, when making this point, I believe it is one of our constitutional conventions that somebody has to make reference to Lord Hailsham, an elected dictatorship. But I think it is worth bearing in mind that that just how much the electoral system has changed, even since when his sorry, the electoral system has in practice changed since even when he made those comments, given how much lower the winning post now is for governments, and that grit in the system can be extremely helpful as a protection for the unfashionable, the unpopular, the minority, but also as an aid, in fact, to better decision making.

Because in many ways, what a written constitution could provide for our country is what the House of Lords provides for Parliament. We do not take away the democratic sovereignty of the House of Commons, but by adding a little more process, a little more grit, be able to occasionally enforce a little more reflection, one might even say on the House of Commons, we enable those democratic decisions to be better. There is also a benefit, as has been touched on by several noble Lords, of the sort of consolidation aspect, as one might call it, of a written constitution.

That ability to pull together different documents in a way that makes the way our rules operate clearer and more transparent. Noble Lords, I fear, are already slightly bored of hearing me talk about this in the context of election law, the many benefits that it brings from having the the clarity that comes from a robust, consolidated set of rules. But those benefits are by no means constrained simply to elections. They are benefits that can be taken much more broadly. Now, the noble Lord Lord Anderson quoted rather expressing it rather more poetically than I have Gavin Esler making this point, and I think it is an important, valuable one.

I have in the past made the comparison with how sometimes our attitude towards the statute book and other and other laws and rules that we have is a little bit like that of a teenager with a messy bedroom that, you know, you know, at one point sometime in the future, it's going to be worth tidying it up, but you always find an excuse to put it off, which is why my hopes have been raised by the fact that we have a Prime Minister who is now we now have a Prime Minister who has previously made such positive comments about the benefits of a written constitution.

So I very much look forward to hearing from the noble Lady, the Minister, in due course, what the government plans are to actually bring to life. Those previous comments by the Prime Minister. Plans. I'm sure we could all agree, whatever we might otherwise think about the merits of them, but plans that I'm sure we can all agree. We hope the government is planning a route that requires neither civil war nor religious schism to bring about what the Prime Minister has previously praised so much.
18:05
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I too thank the noble >> My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for bringing this debate to the House today in his Lord Bichard lecture today in his Lord Bichard lecture on a written constitution in 2023, the noble Lord said Our Constitution is sick, though the illness is chronic rather than acute. That diagnosis, combined with the Prime Minister's own interest in a written constitution, makes today's debate timely, and we have heard a range of thought provoking contributions from across the House. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, is constructive.

Introduction to this debate was especially helpful given the complexity of the issues and level of disagreement. On the right way forward. The noble Lord briefly argued for a stronger Cabinet manual and putting Holac and the Independent adviser, among others, on a statutory basis. That is separate from our debate today. But I would gently point out that our Constitution relies more on balances than checks. As such, the proposals would undermine the flexibility of our Constitution to its detriment. My Lords, the Constitution of the United Kingdom can be summarised in eight words. Whatever the crown in Parliament enacts is law.

Ministers are drawn from and accountable to Parliament, and the judiciary ensures that the government acts within the law as set by Parliament. In recent years, the Prime Minister has shown an interest in a written constitution for the United Kingdom. He argued in his book Head North that devolution will not work and I quote, unless we build the New Britain on a strong foundation of a written constitution. More recently, in June this year, he spoke of giving number ten North a mission to strive for equivalent equivalent living conditions in all parts of Britain. Borrowing from the German basic laws, many noble Lords have referenced today, the German Basic Law being the 1949 written constitution of the German state.

Although the Prime Minister was not specific about which part of the German basic law he was referring to, I think it is reasonable to assume that he was reflecting on the 2006 amendment to the German Basic Law, creating article 104 B, which established a mechanism through which the German Federation is able to provide financial assistance to the federal, States or lender of Germany with a purpose to one avert a disturbance of the overall economic equilibrium. Two equalise differing economic capacities within the Federal territory, or three promote economic growth. Successive governments have indeed adopted measures to tackle inequality of opportunity across the United Kingdom, and it is not clear to me why a basic law or written constitution is a necessary prerequisite for effective progress towards that objective.

Perhaps the noble Baroness, the Minister, would take the opportunity in her response to this debate today to confirm whether the Prime Minister was indeed referring to article 140 of the German Basic Law, and set out further details of the Prime Minister's plans for a written constitution. If she cannot provide that clarity today, perhaps she would commit to writing with that detail. My Lords, whatever the Prime Minister's plans in respect of a UK version of article 140, he should consider carefully whether it might not be simpler and no doubt much quicker to place that provision on the statute book in the normal way, with the full, inviolable authority of Parliament.

Rather than allowing his proposal to be bogged down in a more fundamental and extremely contentious debate about codified constitutions. As Lord Sumption argued in a recent UCL Constitution Unit blog, there is nothing that a written constitution could achieve that could not be achieved with equal efficacy by ordinary parliamentary legislation. Whatever the Prime Minister's view of written constitutions, the motion before us invites a much broader, broader consideration of the benefits and disadvantages of a written constitution. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has expressed his support for a codified constitution that is reflective of existing arrangements, rather than a vehicle for reform.

Others have expressed their own views in this debate. Whatever benefits may be gained from having a written constitution, whether that be a public understanding or clarity for lawmakers, we know constitutional flexibility would be a victim of a written constitution, whatever form it may take. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has himself previously quoted the late US Supreme Court Justice Scalia on this point, who argued the very objective of a basic law is to place certain matters beyond risk of change, except through the extraordinary democratic majorities. That constitutional amendment requires the whole purpose of a constitution, old or new, is to impede change or pejoratively put, obstruct modernity.

My Lords, we have never fallen victim to that sea anchor approach of constitutional to constitutional rules, instead adopting a consensual style system, a style and system of conventions and practices that allow effective government to be carried on, even in circumstances unforeseen by the draughters of a written constitution. We have also generally been spared the frustrations of legal deadlock between Parliament and the courts. That simple constitutional principle, the sovereignty of Parliament, underpins so many of the processes and practices, allowing the King's government to be carried on without the intrusion of overmighty justices as seen in the United States of America and elsewhere.

In his 2025 lecture on the Unwritten Constitution, Lord sales argued of our existing settlement and I quote in the historical record, its flexibility has, on balance, been an advantage, and I fully agree with him. The noble Lord. Lord Anderson's position is that a written constitution need not be a revolutionary document, nor need it be a vehicle for radical reform. But is it not the case that in all our examples, the Kingdom of the Netherlands codification of the Constitution has opened the door to judgements in the courts, striking down new legislation that is in conflict with the text of the codified Constitution.

Is that not a revolutionary change in our constitutional settlement in itself? Another major concern with any proposal for a codified constitution is the de facto obligation for judges to take political decisions. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, judges must, so far as possible, interpret legislation compatibly with convention rights. Where that is not possible, the higher courts may issue declarations of incompatibility. Such declarations do not invalidate acts of Parliament, but in order to make them, judges must undertake evaluative exercises that necessarily require them to balance competing public interests that should more properly be undertaken by Parliament.

An argument so eloquently advanced by my noble friend Lord Howard Lim under the former European Communities Act 1972, courts were required to disapply domestic legislation, which conflicted with directly effective European law. These arrangements forced judges to intrude into the political arena in a way that has been helpful neither to the judges themselves nor to our mode of democratic accountability. A codified constitution with the status of a high law would take this further by inviting courts to set aside acts of Parliament, which they judged inconsistent with it. That would be a fundamental change in the way our Constitution functions, and it is certainly not a step to be taken lightly.

There is no way of creating a higher form of law that does not lie. Dilute the principle of parliamentary accountability. If Parliament could amend or repeal it by ordinary legislation, it would have no higher status. If it could not, future future parliaments would be bound by rules. They could not change through the normal democratic process. What mandate, then, would be sufficient for the approval and amendment of a written constitution? If clarity is all that is sought, then perhaps a supermajority in both Houses of Parliament would suffice. Or if this is something that only those with a democratic mandate should decide, perhaps it ought to be approved by a supermajority in the House of Commons alone.

If the latter is the case, is there a risk that this new document is then used by the House of Commons to weaken the ancients rights, liberties and duties of your Lordships House, or indeed other parts of the Constitution, without recourse to the normal legislative process, perhaps a mandate from outside Parliament through referendums would be more appropriate. Both have their drawbacks. In the case of a parliamentary supermajority, this may be difficult to achieve, and it would likely never be achieved without the governing party voting for a constitution or any amendment to it. In effect, it would remain in the gift of the executive to create and amend constitutional rights.

If referendum referendums were to be the chosen mechanism, we might face costly national exercises in democracy even more frequently than we do now. I think we would need to see evidence that the electorate genuinely wanted to see more referendums. If we were to consider that mechanism. My Lords, in its basic shape and function, the Crown in Parliament has guided this nation through the Industrial Revolution. The creation, expansion and dismantling of an empire, the successful prosecution of war against Napoleon and of two world wars. The creation of a welfare state after the Second World War and the market turn into the philosophy of government brought about by the noble, noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.

It has proved remarkably flexible and durable, adapting to both pandemic and war, to changing needs and times, to evolving public, spiritual and moral values. We must, each of us ask ourselves, is there truly another country to which we can look and say we wish we were governed as they are? For my own part, I think not with all its advantages and compromises we have inherited from those who sat here before us the most stable constitutional settlement in the democratic world, of which we can and should be justly proud here.
18:15
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)
-
-
Excellent. Anderson of Ipswich, for securing this fascinating debate on the proposals for a written constitution and for his very thought provoking introduction. This is a vast and complex subject that has been long debated, including in your Lordships' House. We've heard many interesting contributions from across the House without picking out any particular favourites. I am going to. I'd like to say that I particularly enjoyed the contribution by my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, which was both entertaining and fascinating, but almost also demonstrated some of the challenges we face in this area of debate. The government warmly welcomes the opportunity to debate these issues in Parliament.

As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson made clear, this is of interest well beyond this chamber, including among students, not least those taught by my amazing and noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. And I think it was a noble Lord Lord Hannay of Chiswick, who said that a written constitution would make teaching students easier, which is one argument in favour of a written constitution, perhaps, though not necessarily a defining one. I thought it was helpful to hear alternative views put forward to noble Lords by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. Although I didn't necessarily agree with everything she said.

It was also interesting to hear the noble Lord Lord Kerr of Kinlochard account of a failed attempt on writing a constitution for the EU. I welcome the alternative view of the noble Lord Lord Pack, which significantly balanced out the debate in his support for a written constitution. As noble Lords are clearly aware, our constitutional system is somewhat unusual. Noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord Vallance, noted that it is Uncodified, and as my noble friend Viscount Stansgate said, it isn't in one document. It is indeed dispersed across many documents and sources. As the noble and learned Lord of Maldon said, it has evolved over time and is made up of convention statutes, judicial decisions, principles and practices.

And as the noble Lady Baroness Finn said in her remarks, it relies more on balances and checks. And like every constitution, my Lords, it is imperfect. However, it is also flexible and adaptable. This is a core feature of our Constitution, and it has served as well as many noble Lords, including the noble Lord. Lord Howard of Lympne made clear, it is not written down in a single place, yet it exists. And I would agree with my noble friend Lord Murphy, that it is strong. I would also agree that a written constitution does not in itself necessarily confer protection.

As the noble Lord, Lord Howard made clear, totalitarian regimes would not be deterred by written constitution per se, and as the noble Lord Lord Burnett said, all written constitutions are vulnerable to bad actors. The example given by the noble Lady Baroness Manningham-Buller of 1930s Germany demonstrates his powerfully and the many other examples given today and that exist, my Lords, it is the very features of the UK's Constitution. That means that it is not frozen in aspic, nor indeed should they be. If we want a political system that delivers for everyone, the noble Lady Baroness Prashar mentioned mentioned the need for trust and for us to rebuild trust.

And this is key. The government's priority, my Lords, is a politics that works for all people in all places, not just some people. In some places we are beginning the work of shifting power and resources away from Whitehall, as set out in the Rewiring the State Cabinet statement of 31st of July. We've already launched the biggest transfer of power from Westminster to a generation that includes the largest package of financial powers ever offered to English mayors, with a retained share of income tax revenues. For the first time, we will replace the current model of consultation by default with new, new and modern forms of public participation.

The noble Lord Lord Pack mentioned electoral reform, and as the Prime Minister has announced, the government intends to establish a new National Commission on Electoral Reform as he invited all political parties to be part of this work. We want everyone's vote to count and everyone's voice to be heard. The government is not afraid of going further and where there is a case for doing so, codifying elements of our constitutional arrangements, the noble Lady Baroness D'Souza referred to the Ifwg recommendation of a new joint Committee on the Constitution. The establishment of a joint committee is clearly a matter for Parliament rather than government.

I also note that the Lords Constitutional Committee has already undertaken an important inquiry into the UK constitutional safeguards, as mentioned by a number of noble Lords, and I look forward to reading the findings of this inquiry in due course. As the noble Lord Lord Anderson and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance highlighted, and as was referred to by my noble friend Viscount Stansgate, the government is currently drafting an update to the Cabinet Manual. The Cabinet Manual of noble Lords will be aware, serves as an authoritative guide to the UK's constitutional arrangement. Its executives view on the processes and rules around the operation of government, including the formation of a government following an election.

The Cabinet Manual is not intended to be a written constitution, but acts as a practical document to help Ministers, officials and the public understand how government works and its interaction with other parts of the Constitution. It was first published in 2011 and it has become significantly out of date. Most notably, as has been noted during the course of today's debate in its descriptions of the UK's relationship with EU of general elections and of the devolution settlement. An update will therefore restore the manual status as an authoritative guide. The government will seek feedback from parliamentary Select committees on proposed revisions.

This is intended to be a meaningful opportunities for MPs and peers to support the updating process, so that the manual continues to be a non-party political document that provides a record of fact. My noble friend Viscount Stansgate asked about progress and when this was likely to work, was likely to come to a conclusion. I'm pleased to be able to confirm to noble Lords that the update to the manual is well underway, and we intend to publish the updated manual early next year. The noble Lord Lord Anderson asked for the government's view on a written constitution.

The government welcomes feedback, continued discussion and debates like the one we are having today on the next steps on constitutional form that is different to converting the UK's uncodified constitutional arrangements into a single written document for its own sake. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd, the noble and learned Lord Lord Boyd, wisely cautioned us to consider the time and effort it would take to create a codified constitution and the noble Lord. Lord Anderson's own work on this subject shows constitutional reform is not a straightforward subject, and there are steps, well short of a written constitution that we can consider as time goes on and as society changes, as new issues emerge, constitutional arrangements need to adapt accordingly.

Indeed, one of the main issues with written constitutions is that they can become out of date very quickly, as the procedures and rules for amending them may often be cumbersome and difficult to satisfy. Before I conclude, there are another couple of points I did wish to cover, not least a number of noble, noble Lords, including Lord Anderson Lord Burnett and noble and learned Lord Boyd and the noble and learned Lord Carter of Haslemere referred to the role of the judiciary. We do believe and are very clear, that it is important that we have an independent judiciary and during the debate, the risk of creating an overpowerful judiciary under written constitution was also noted, not least by the noble Lord.

Lord Howard. An independent judiciary is, however, a cornerstone of our constitutional arrangements. The noble Lord Lord Callanan, the noble Lady Baroness Finn, also referred to parliamentary sovereignty, as did others, and I agree with the noble Lord Lord Kakkar on the importance of parliamentary sovereignty as a central tenet of our constitutional arrangements. In conclusion, my Lords, I'd like to once more thank the noble Lord Lord Anderson for leading a very thought provoking discussion on our constitutional arrangements. As the noble Lord Lord Pack said, it was timely, given what a testing time we live in. This government's priority is to establish a politics that works for all people in all places, not some people in some places.

We're serious about constitutional reform, and we will take bold steps where there is a case to do so.
18:25
Lord Anderson of Ipswich Portrait Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench)
-
-
I thank the noble Baroness, the >> I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her response, and I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this scintillating participated in this scintillating debate. I was reminded, as it went on, of Oliver Cromwell's speech to the first protectorate, Parliament of 1654, in which he famously said in every government there must be somewhat fundamental, somewhat like a Magna Carta, that should be standing and unalterable. That caused me to reflect on two things that we've been debating a written constitution in Westminster for almost 400 years without reaching a conclusion.

But also, this might be one of those issues where the journey, in terms of the scrutiny that it provokes, is more important than the destination. A formally binding, codified constitution was not generally thought to be on the horizon, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's recent words, and appeared to many to be a practical impossibility, not least given the current politics of devolution, but the predominant view that a written constitution is neither necessary nor feasible was vigorously challenged by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett and by the noble Lord Pack, who described the advantages of grit in the system.

 Their views, I suspect, will have resonance outside this chamber. As to the Prime Minister's views, it was impressive to see them analysed in forensic detail from the opposition frontbench. The Minister was perhaps a little more circumspect. But if she writes the letter tentatively requested by Baroness Finn and I wouldn't put a lot of money on that, I shall be fascinated to see it. The noble and learned Lord Mance warned us against the complacency of Mr. Podsnap, and suggested, as did the noble Lord Hannay, that we might have something to learn from what has been done in other places.

I feel sure, for my part, that Lord Mance praise for the German Constitution is more securely founded than was the favourable opinion referred to by the noble Lady Baroness Manningham-Buller of its 1930 predecessor. I could not agree more with the noble Lord Howard's deprecation of politically appointed judges, and would urge all who feel the same way to resist calls to abolish the Judicial Appointments Commission, which might not be a perfect institution, but is. I think when one looks at the alternatives, a very necessary one. Yeah. We had some constructive suggestions for Constitution renewal relating to the Sewel Convention.

Concordats Lord Polak, a stronger Cabinet manual and so on. Not all of them uncontroversial, but like much else we've heard this evening, they deserve further thought. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Question is that this motion be agreed to, as many of that opinion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to, as many of that opinion will say, content country not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to. Move the House. Do now adjourn.
10:30
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page