Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument makes consequential amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 following Parliament’s decision in the Employment Rights Act 2025 to create the Fair Work Agency, and brings together the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and HMRC’s national minimum wage enforcement teams. It ensures that officers performing the same GLAA-derived criminal enforcement functions will continue to have access to the same investigatory tools under the same statutory thresholds and safeguards once they sit within the new agency.
Where the GLAA is currently named in the Investigatory Powers Act, these regulations update that reference so that the Department for Business and Trade, in so far as it relates to the Fair Work Agency, is listed instead. All of the underlying safeguards in the IPA, including the statutory requiring purpose, the minimum 12-month sentence threshold and the requirement for necessity and proportionality, remain exactly as Parliament originally set them.
I fully appreciate that the powers to acquire communications data are intrusive and must be used only when necessary and proportionate. These powers concern the who, when and where of a communication—that is, subscriber details, timings and location data—but not the content of any call, message or email. They do not reveal what a person said or wrote. They remain significantly less intrusive than interception, yet they are vital tools in tackling the most serious forms of labour exploitation, where victims are often too frightened, too isolated or too controlled to come forward with evidence.
It may help the Committee if I explain the scope of these powers. Under the Investigatory Powers Act, communications data authorisations will be able to be given to the FWA only for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime. This is defined in primary legislation, and one of the key elements is that the offence must carry a sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment; that statutory threshold remains unchanged. We need to ensure that the Fair Work Agency can continue to investigate the same serious exploitation offences, including unlicensed gangmastering and modern slavery, that the GLAA handles today. Those offences already meet the existing statutory definition of serious crime, and therefore fall within the same communications data authorisation framework, applying the same necessity and proportionality tests and the same independent scrutiny as before. The threshold, authorisation process and full oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner remain exactly the same.
In transferring these functions to the Fair Work Agency, we have ensured that the safeguards that apply under the Investigatory Powers Act will continue in full. Communications data applications will remain subject to independent scrutiny by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, including routine inspections and case sampling. The established single-point-of-contact system will continue to play its gatekeeping role, with an accredited specialist assessing every request to ensure that it meets the statutory crime purpose and satisfies the stringent tests of necessity and proportionality. Requests will still require authorisation by a designated senior officer at the appropriate grade and will continue to be submitted for approval by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, with only limited provision for urgent internal authorisation.
The Fair Work Agency will operate in full compliance with the communications data code of practice, ensuring that standards of record-keeping, error reporting and handling of sensitive material remain exactly as they are today. In short, the framework of safeguards that Parliament has already put in place remains completely unchanged. The change made by this statutory instrument is the updating of the public authority’s name, ensuring continuity of capability following Parliament’s decision to transfer the GLAA’s enforcement functions to the Fair Work Agency.
The GLAA has always used these powers sparingly. Historically, the number of communications data applications has been modest and focused on a small number of the most serious investigations, often concerning organised criminal exploitation, threats of harm or potential trafficking. That discipline of “last resort” use and that culture of necessity and proportionality will continue in the Fair Work Agency.
On implementation, the Fair Work Agency will bring together three regulators into a single recognisable body, making the system easier for workers to navigate and clearer for responsible businesses. This consolidation will not dilute expertise. Existing GLAA specialists will continue to carry out GLAA-derived criminal enforcement with the same training, oversight and legal powers. Early operational arrangements, including access controls and internal governance structures, will ensure that only appropriate officers can apply for or authorise investigatory activity.
On transparency, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will continue to report annually on the use of these powers, providing Parliament with a clear overview of how these powers are exercised. In addition, I can confirm to the Committee today that the Fair Work Agency will report on its use of the Investigatory Powers Act powers in its annual report. This will allow Parliament to see clearly that use continues to be confined to GLAA-derived criminal investigations, just as today. We will reflect this commitment in the Fair Work Agency’s framework agreement and in its enforcement policy statement, in line with good practice.
This statutory instrument is essential housekeeping. It prevents an unintended and undesirable drop in capability during a period of organisational transition and ensures continuity in tackling serious labour exploitation while keeping all of the guardrails that Parliament put in place firmly intact.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the instrument before us is, on the face of it, a technical one. As the Minister explained, it ensures that enforcement officers of the new Fair Work Agency inherit the same communications data powers, under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, that officers of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority held before them. However, the creation of the Fair Work Agency is the moment at which this Committee confers covert investigatory powers on a body whose structure, resourcing and operating principles remain, to a troubling degree, undefined.
I turn first to what I regard as the most fundamental concern: the departure from the settled policy of targeted, sector-specific enforcement. The GLAA was created for a reason. It was designed to address the specific and acute vulnerabilities of workers in agriculture, food processing, shellfish gathering and related sectors—industries where the risk of exploitation and labour abuse was demonstrably high and where ordinary enforcement mechanisms were plainly insufficient.
The Fair Work Agency sweeps that away. It appears that it will have a broad mandate to inspect any business in any sector at any time. That is a significant departure; we were given no adequate explanation for it during Committee or Report on the Employment Rights Act 2025. On what evidential basis have the Government decided that the enforcement problems, which were previously confined to high-risk sectors, now require a body with universal reach? What assessment has been made of the risk that this broader mandate will dilute the quality and focus of enforcement, rather than improving it? The Minister just mentioned a framework agreement, but am I not right in saying that this Committee has not yet seen even a draft of it? Perhaps the Minister will clarify that aspect.
This matters acutely for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are already facing more than £600 million in costs flowing from the Employment Rights Act—costs that are, in large part, administrative in nature, such as in record-keeping, compliance processes and reporting obligations. These activities will now fall within the Fair Work Agency’s line of sight. These businesses, many of which are without dedicated human resources functions or legal support, will be exposed to an agency that is armed with powers of entry, powers to seize documents and electronic records, and now, through this instrument, powers to obtain communications data covertly. What guidance will be issued to ensure that enforcement action against small businesses is proportionate? What safeguards exist to distinguish a genuine, minor administrative error from deliberate wrongdoing? Will businesses that make honest mistakes face the prospect of document seizure, substantial financial penalties and the full weight of this agency’s investigatory apparatus?
Businesses have said that they want any action taken against them to be proportionate, and that the Fair Work Agency should function primarily as a compliance partner, not as a punitive instrument. The Minister has said that she shares that aspiration, and I invite her to say how that aspiration will be given legal and operational effect.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his series of questions on this matter. To come back to its core, the statutory instrument has a strictly limited purpose to ensure that the same investigatory powers currently applying to the GLAA transfer smoothly to the new Fair Work Agency. The Fair Work Agency will enforce the legislation listed in Schedule 7—not all employment legislation. On day one, the Fair Work Agency will take the same remit and powers of current regulators, subject to existing and enhanced safeguards, which will continue to apply.
On the noble Lord’s question about going wider, as I mentioned, this applies only to serious crimes under the legislation that have a minimum 12-month sentence threshold. This is a very limited series of offences—the most serious that we encounter in the labour market today. He also asked when the framework agreement will be published. It will be published on 7 April alongside the statutory instrument.
The noble Lord questioned the culture of and approach to enforcement and recalled that we have previously discussed the interests of small businesses and micro-businesses and the culture of enforcement more generally. We have thought about how the Fair Work Agency will go about its work. The idea of a single enforcement body will make it easier for small employers to understand their obligations and get the right guidance early. The agency is focused only on taking firm action against the small minority of rogue employers who exploit workers, and the idea is to ensure fair competition for responsible businesses. That is the approach we are taking. This statutory instrument is about transferring those legal powers that are currently housed within one agency to another.
On resourcing and funding, the budget for the Fair Work Agency will be set out in the usual way through the department’s allocation processes. Given that the Fair Work Agency will have additional areas of remit under the Employment Rights Act, it will have a larger budget than its predecessor organisations combined. We will communicate that budget when the organisation is set up. On the question of the transfer of employees, all staff will transfer under the Civil Service equivalent of TUPE—that is the model that will be used.
I reinforce that the protections will remain in place. This is about ensuring that the powers for very serious crimes are transferred to the Fair Work Agency, so that it has the means to pursue those limited but serious offences under the full oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. This SI is essential to enable that smooth transition, and I commend it to the Committee.
Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 March.
British Business Bank
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what criteria are used by the British Business Bank when investing in UK businesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, the British Business Bank’s investments are aligned with its strategic mandate, which is agreed with the Government and sets the bank’s overall strategic direction. It includes four objectives, the first of which is to support our most promising businesses in the industrial strategy priority sectors to scale and stay here. The bank is operationally independent and is responsible for undertaking its own due diligence and making investment decisions independently of government.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. The additional funding that has been given to the British Business Bank is welcome, but will it be encouraged to take higher risk stakes in some of our more innovative companies? Can we be assured that it has the expertise to make those critical judgments?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right to ask about mandate and risk appetite. This is the direction that the British Business Bank is taking, guided by its new strategic mandate. It is increasingly taking bigger bets to enable innovative British companies to scale and stay in the UK. The Government have provided a one-third uplift to the BBB’s financial capacity to help it to do so. It is able to leverage deep industry expertise across its investment activities, including both direct investments and investments made through funds.
Lord Fox (LD)
My lords, as has been alluded to, as well as operating on a commercial basis the British Business Bank is expected to fill structural gaps in the capital market. As the sponsor of the British Business Bank, how does the Minister see its role in scaling up the UK defence supply chain? How will the British Business Bank help us to deliver the defence industry that we absolutely need?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The British Business Bank’s new strategic mandate explicitly talks about supporting businesses in the industrial strategy priority sectors, which, as noble Lords will know, includes defence. One of the things that we will be doing is looking at where the financing gap is, whether that is for R&D intensive or deep-tech companies, and at investing behind specialist fund managers or investment strategies that specifically support particular sectors. Using its mandate, and with the increased financial capacity, the British Business Bank will be able to support our defence industry supply chain here in the UK.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, what are HMG doing to help the UK businesses affected by the present Gulf war?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
As was said earlier, we are monitoring the situation very carefully. It is unclear at present what exactly the long-term impact on energy prices and energy security will be. We are carefully looking at that. In the meantime, we have taken measures, including through the British energy-intensive industries scheme, to support energy prices for the most intensive users here in the UK.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, the development bank has some eye-catching five-year targets, including funding the creation of 370,000 new jobs and crowding in some £26 billion of additional private capital. I welcome that ambition, but, for perspective, can the Minister say how the bank has performed over the last five years, particularly in the areas of job creation and gross value added?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I may have to come back on those precise questions. The British Business Bank produces annual reports and has recently published an impact report which addresses some of the questions that the noble Lord specifically asks around job creation. That is an important aspect of its accountability for the funding it gets.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the creative industries is a priority sector for the modern industrial strategy but not for the National Wealth Fund, as business structures seem to be better fitted to investment from the British Business Bank. Can my noble friend provide reassurance that the bank has the expertise and criteria that fit businesses such as those in the creative industries whose value lies in intellectual property, particularly while its protection is currently uncertain? In due course, can she share the comparative levels of investment made in the last two years in the key growth sectors?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right to mention consistency with the industrial strategy. It was only in October last year that the Government gave the British Business Bank a new mandate, including to align with the industrial strategy’s priority sectors and making available £4 billion to support those areas. In setting out the priority sectors, the Government have outlined ways in which they expect the British Business Bank to meet that—for example, using specialist fund managers or tailored approaches for the specific financing and other requirements of those subsectors. Creative UK has committed to providing a single gateway to help those creative industries that need access to finance to navigate between the various sources of finance available from the Government.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I am a member of the Science and Technology Select Committee. We recently produced a report, Bleeding to Death, which I hope the Minister has seen, looking at the scale-up ecosystem of the UK and particularly the role of the British Business Bank. It concluded that we are in a doom loop. We do not have the scale or competitiveness, despite the extra investment in the British Business Bank. One of our recommendations was to bring different funds together, such as Innovate Finance, the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank. Have the Government looked at that recommendation?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
As I said, we are helping businesses navigate the way—for example, through the business growth service, which enables businesses to access all the types of finance and support that they need, including UK export finance and other facilities with the Government. For the creative industries, Creative UK has committed to taking that role to help those businesses navigate the way through. On supporting businesses and the VC ecosystem, there is a lot of activity with the new investor pathways programme to provide £400 million of cornerstone investments into VC funds.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, to follow up on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, I have the privilege of chairing the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, and we published a report recently on the financing and scaling of UK science and technology companies. To achieve real economic growth, our report recommended that the British Business Bank should work much more closely with the National Wealth Fund and Innovate UK, and that it should focus on priority sectors and companies in the direction set by the Government’s industrial strategy, which has already been referred to. It is good that the Minister has confirmed that that is the direction being taken. Is the British Business Bank actively implementing this in conjunction with the National Wealth Fund? Is it prioritising science and technology companies and the identified sectors of the industrial strategy?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The Government’s statement of strategic priorities had as its first objective to support our most promising businesses in the industrial strategy priority sectors, and the digital and technologies sector is among the industrial sectors identified. When the next annual report comes out in a year, we will be able to tell exactly how successful that has been. However, we have seen, in the light of some of the direct investments made, that the British Business Bank has taken seriously the mandate to invest directly and is pursuing that pathway.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me how grateful we are to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for introducing the subject of the British Business Bank, particularly at such a key time? Does she agree that, rather than setting demographic targets for investment, we and the British Business Bank should be focusing on backing the most investable opportunities in order to maximise productivity growth and returns for the taxpayer?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I could not agree more with the noble Lord’s first point: my noble friend has given us a good opportunity to talk about this important institution. The new mission set by the British Business Bank is to drive economic growth by helping smaller businesses to get the finance they need to start, scale and stay in the UK. That is how we will grow a more productive economy here in the United Kingdom.
International Women’s Day
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts(4 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House takes note of International Women’s Day.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open today’s International Women’s Day debate on behalf of the Government. As noble Lords will know, the theme of this year’s International Women’s Day is “Give to gain”. This day is about celebrating the power of solidarity and camaraderie; it is about adhering to the words proclaimed by Millicent Fawcett—the same words inscribed on her statue in Parliament Square just a stone’s throw away from here:
“Courage calls to courage everywhere”.
This day is about recognising that when women thrive, we all rise. I believe that is true of this place. Both Chambers are of very different composition to the ones I knew in the 1990s when I first started working in Westminster. Back then, around 10% of the seats in the other place were held by women; last year, that figure stood at roughly 40%. We have seen a similarly positive trend in this House: female membership has steadily risen from below 10% in the early 1990s to over 30% today. I am looking forward to hearing the maiden speeches today from my noble friends Lady Linforth, Lady MacLeod of Camusdarach, Lady Martin of Brockley, Lady Nargund and Lady Paul of Shepherd’s Bush. I am proud to serve in a Government where the positions of Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary are all occupied by brilliant women, as are the Secretaries of State for Wales, science and culture. Our representation has changed for the better.
Our economy has changed for the better, too. Top British companies are leading the way for gender equality in boardrooms. Women occupied over 43% of roles on FTSE 350 executive boards as of last year. Our society has also changed for the better. The UK ranks fourth in the global gender gap index. That is all cause for celebration and optimism, but noble Lords will know that there is still more to do.
That extends to the places where economic power lies today and the industries that are at the forefront of tomorrow’s economy. We have much more to do to further women’s rights and opportunities in the UK and around the world, which is why this Government are working to prioritise women’s health by working with the women’s health ambassador to deliver our 10-year health plan. At work, we are putting in stronger protections for pregnant women and new mothers and tackling maternity inequality. We are also improving the system of parental leave, and making flexible working more easily available through our plan to make work pay. Through the Employment Rights Act we are taking the first steps towards requiring employers to publish an action plan alongside their gender pay gap reporting. We are tackling violence against women and girls, with a focus on education and prevention, pursuing perpetrators and supporting victims through our landmark strategy.
I would like to take a moment to reflect on the achievements of Jill Saward as we mark 40 years since her harrowing attack in 1986. I pay tribute to a woman whose courage shifted the national conversation surrounding sexual violence. She transformed the horrific trauma she endured into a catalyst for systemic change. She became a pioneering voice, helping to dismantle the long-standing taboos around sexual violence that silenced countless victims, and she campaigned for essential reforms to our justice system that were so desperately required. We owe her, and the many who continue her vital work, a debt of profound gratitude, and our commitment is to continue to tackle violence against women and girls.
However, if noble Lords permit, I will use my remaining time to speak about some of the initiatives my ministerial portfolio covers: initiatives to strengthen the roles of women in the workplace, in our economy and in our society. I will start with digital inclusion and the tech sector. We know that the UK’s tech sector is a massive growth driver. We are one of only three countries in the world to have had a tech sector valued at over $1 trillion. But it is not working for all; not everyone can access its opportunities. Only 29% of UK tech employees are women.
One of the groups I work closely with in my role is the cyber security industry, which has a workforce of 143,000 people and only 17% are women. Worse still, every year we lose an estimated £2 billion to £3.5 billion in economic activity because women leave the tech sector or change jobs due to barriers that should not exist. We have our work cut out for us because, at the current pace, it will take 283 years before women make up an equal share of the tech workforce. We want to right this wrong, and our ambition is clear: we want to unlock the full potential of Britain’s tech sector. Why? Because diverse teams do not just create more equitable workplaces; they deliver better outcomes. Different perspectives drive breakthrough solutions and help technology serve all communities, not just some.
To deliver on our ambitions, we are backing initiatives such as Code First Girls and CAPSLOCK, which specialise in helping women to access cyber and tech roles. We also have the TechFirst programme, with £187 million of investment to strengthen our domestic tech skills pipeline. This is about recruiting and supporting high-potential individuals from across the UK, starting in schools through to university, then research and employment. At its core, TechFirst is about giving people access to brilliant tech jobs—the jobs of the future—with the programme acting as a significant driver to support women and girls.
We are keen to play our part with industry. This is not about government going it alone; it is about businesses stepping up, which is why I am glad that IBM took over from the Government on delivering the annual CyberFirst Girls Competition. Last year’s competition reached more than 10,000 girls between the ages of 12 and 13 across 500 secondary schools in the UK. It is a fantastic example of industry leading from the front.
We have set up the new Women in Tech Taskforce. Its mission is to dismantle barriers to education, training and career progression. It will deliver practical solutions for government and industry to implement together, shaping policy that levels the playing field, and it will help us to reverse those economic losses I mentioned a moment ago, which stem from women leaving the tech sector due to barriers that should not exist.
We are also taking action to fix the finance gap for women-led businesses. One of the ways we are doing this at DBT is through the Invest in Women Taskforce. This is about backing women-led businesses, ensuring they are front and centre of this Government’s growth mission. The Invest in Women Taskforce funding pool is the largest of any kind in the world, at an impressive £635 million of institutional capital, all grown since this Government came into office. This Government are putting our money where our mouths are, with £130 million invested by the British Business Bank.
This is not the only way we are supporting female entrepreneurship. The British Business Bank, which backs the taskforce, also runs a number of its own empowering initiatives. The bank’s £400 million Investor Pathways Capital programme is an example. It is reducing barriers to entry for new and emerging fund managers. We know that women are twice as likely to back women-led businesses than men, which is why 50% of this capital is ring-fenced for female fund managers. The bank’s diverse angel syndicate initiative also encourages a wide group of investors to back early-stage businesses. The figures from the programme’s pilot were impressive: 185 new angel investors were engaged, and 176 of them were female. This is a strong example of the British Business Bank channelling investment to women-led small businesses with big ambitions.
When those founders succeed, our economy and our country succeed, which is why the Government are shining a bright light on successful female founders at every possible opportunity. The Department for Business and Trade’s Venture Capital Unit runs an annual initiative, Wave, which does exactly that. It spotlights 10 innovative female-led businesses from across the UK and runs a programme of pitch days and workshops with them.
In sum, it is right that on this International Women’s Day we look back on what has been achieved, and that we acknowledge how attitudes have changed. In Britain we have the most gender-balanced Government in our nation’s history. But with that honour comes a responsibility; the onus is on us to drive further progress. I am looking forward to the debate that will follow. I have one final ask of this House: please help us champion the initiatives I have spoken about today. Help us inspire more women and girls to go as far in life as their talent and ambitions will take them. Let us give so all can gain.
Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving these regulations, which were laid on 13 January, I will speak also to the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
First, let me express my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent for successfully steering the Private Member’s Bill through this House to Royal Assent in 2024. I also thank the honourable Member for Bridgend, who was instrumental in guiding the Bill through the other place. I pay particular tribute to Aaron Horsey, who has campaigned with remarkable dedication on behalf of bereaved fathers following the tragic loss of his wife Bernadette shortly after the birth of their son, Tim; Aaron joins us here today.
The Parental Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 established a new statutory entitlement to bereaved partner’s paternity leave of up to 52 weeks for employed fathers and partners if the mother or primary adopter dies in the first year of a child’s life or adoption. The Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026 outline the details of this entitlement. The further two sets of regulations ensure that those having a baby through international adoption or surrogacy arrangements are in scope for leave.
Currently, fathers and partners in these tragic circumstances who do not qualify for paternity leave or shared parental leave must rely on the compassion of their employers to take adequate time off work to care for their child. Although the Employment Rights Act removes the continuity of service requirements for paternity leave, fathers and partners remain limited to a maximum of two weeks’ statutory leave. Bereaved partner’s paternity leave will plug this gap to ensure that bereaved partners are guaranteed a longer period off work to care for their child.
Thankfully, the number of people who face this situation is low. Each year, there are around 180 maternal deaths within 12 months of childbirth. We estimate that around half of those eligible will take up this leave, meaning that these regulations are likely to support about 90 bereaved partners each year. Some partners may be eligible for shared parental leave, which accounts for the reduced figure.
Bereaved partner’s paternity leave is a day one right, meaning that there is no continuity of service requirement. Bereaved fathers and partners will be able to start taking leave from the day after the death of the mother or primary adopter. The leave must end on the child’s first birthday or the first anniversary of their adoption, unless it is necessary to go beyond this date to ensure that an employee is always entitled to at least two weeks of leave.
To be eligible, the bereaved partner must be an employee rather than a worker or self-employed. They must be the child’s father or the mother’s or adopter’s spouse, civil partner or partner at the time of the mother’s or adopter’s death. They must also have main responsibility for the child’s upbringing and be taking the leave for the purpose of caring for the child. Together, these regulations will ensure that employees who lose their partner in the time surrounding childbirth or adoption will have access to a guaranteed period of leave to care for a new child.
The notice requirements reflect that an individual will be in a devastating and unforeseeable situation immediately after their partner’s death. Therefore, to start the leave in the first eight weeks after their partner’s death, they can give notice informally, any time before they are due to start work on their first day of absence. This could, for example, be a text message or a phone call to their employer. To take more than eight weeks after their partner has died, an employee must give one week’s notice in writing. This longer and more formal notice period balances the needs of employers with the flexibility needed by employees in these tragic circumstances.
Taking bereaved partner’s paternity leave will not affect a parent’s ability to take any other family leave entitlements they qualify for, such as shared parental leave. However, the entitlement must be taken in one continuous block. If an employee takes bereaved partner’s paternity leave to care for a child, and the child sadly passes away or an adoption placement ends, the bereaved partner will still be entitled to eight weeks of leave. This reflects that the leave is designed to support care responsibilities during an exceptionally difficult time. This approach is consistent with other forms of parental leave, such as adoption leave, helping to maintain a clear and coherent framework across family related entitlements.
Employees on bereaved partner’s paternity leave will be entitled to redundancy protections while on leave, regardless of how much leave they take. They will also be protected for 18 months from the birth or placement for adoption if they take six weeks or more continuous leave. This is equivalent to the protections given to those who take shared parental leave and neonatal care leave.
The Government have assessed the impact of bereaved partner’s paternity leave on businesses and found it to be minimal. We estimate an annual cost of approximately £0.9 million to businesses, mainly from reorganising work during employee absence. As the entitlement is unpaid, the cost is limited, and we considered the measures necessary and proportionate, given the tragic circumstances in which they will apply.
The Government appreciate the challenges businesses face in fulfilling their duties towards their employees. My officials are working with ACAS to ensure that guidance is available. The Government will also publish this guidance on 6 April on GOV.UK.
I take this moment to thank all those who have been involved in the development of the bereaved partner’s paternity leave. I hope they are as proud as I am of the difference this will make to families in one of the darkest periods of their lives.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, these Benches offer our wholehearted support for these regulations, and I know our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, if he were not involved in the Chamber on the Crime and Policing Bill, would join me in supporting them.
The sort of circumstances we are speaking of can be some of the most devastating circumstances and experiences. This is the sort of grief that does not pause, that does not observe working hours and that demands time, space and the presence of everyone in support. At least, then, the grief can be borne. I pay tribute, as has the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, to those who have secured—
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I pay tribute, as did the Minister, to those who have secured this important step forward. Of course, we on these Benches know this terrain. It was His Majesty’s Official Opposition when in government who laid the foundation upon which these regulations rest. The Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 was a measure of which I and my party are proud. It was one of the most humane pieces of legislation of recent decades; a recognition by the state that the law must sometimes speak not in the language of productivity or commerce but in the language of compassion. Fathers must not be left behind, and these regulations are a welcome step forwards to ensure they are not.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his compassion and understanding of the issue and his support for the regulations. They represent an important step forward and will ensure that fathers and partners who experience this unimaginable loss are afforded the protection, stability and support they need in an exceptionally difficult and unforeseeable period in their lives. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Superintelligent AI
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for initiating this important debate on an important topic, and all noble Lords from around the House for their contributions today. This Government believe that advanced AI has transformative potential for the UK: from scientific innovation and public service reform to economic growth, as many noble Lords have set out today. However, as we realise these benefits, we need to make sure that AI remains secure and controllable. New technologies bring with them novel risks, and we have heard today from many noble Lords the directions in which technology might take us.
As has been mentioned, the UK is committed to a context-based regulatory approach whereby most AI systems are regulated at the point of use and by our existing regulators, who are best placed to understand the risks and the context of AI deployment in their sectors. Regulators are already acting. The ICO has released guidance on AI and data protection, and last year Ofcom published its strategic approach to AI, which sets out how it is addressing AI-related risks. My noble friend asked about Ofcom’s expertise and resources. Ofcom has recruited expert online safety teams from various sectors, including regulation, tech platforms, law enforcement, civil society and academia, and is being resourced to step up and regulate in this area. The FCA has also announced a review into how advances in AI could transform financial services.
As my noble friend also mentioned, the Government are working proactively with regulators, through both the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum and the Regulatory Innovation Office, to ensure that regulators have the capabilities to regulate what we see today and anticipate regulations that may be needed in the future, both in respect of AI and of other scientific and technological developments in other areas that are coming towards us. We heard many suggestions today on how we might regulate further. The Government are prepared to step up to the challenges of AI and take further action. We will keep your Lordships’ House updated on any proposals in this area. However, I am unable to speculate on any further legislation ahead of parliamentary announcements.
We have heard a lot of testament to the abilities and expertise of the AI Security Institute. Equally, as other Lords have mentioned—the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, brought precision to the definitions here—we cannot be sure how AI will develop and impact society over the next five, 10 or 20 years. We need to navigate this future based on evidence-based foresight to inform action with technical solutions and global co-ordination.
We should be very proud of our world-leading AI Security Institute: it is the centre of UK expertise, advancing our scientific understanding of the capabilities and the associated risks. Close collaboration with AI labs has ensured that the institute has been able to test more than 30 models to understand their potentially harmful capabilities, and we think this is the best way to proceed. It is having a real-world impact. The institute’s testing is making models safer, with findings being used by industry to strengthen AI model safeguards. It is carrying out foundational research to discover methods for building AI systems that are beneficial, reliable and aligned with human values.
One of the AISI’s priorities is tracking the development of AI capabilities that would contribute to AI’s ability to evade human control, which has been raised many times in the debate today. It supports research in this field through the alignment project, a funding consortium distributing £15 million to accelerate research projects. To ensure that the Government act on these insights, the institute works with the Home Office, NCSC and other national security organisations to share its evidence for the most serious risks posed by AI.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Foster and Lady Neville-Jones, spoke about the risks associated with AI cyber capabilities. We are closely monitoring those, in terms of both the risks posed and the solutions for combating the cyber risks that AI can contribute. We have developed the AI Cyber Security Code of Practice to help secure AI systems and the organisations that develop and deploy them. That is another example of the UK setting standards that can be followed by others—another point made by noble Lords today, when they spoke about how the UK can contribute to the safe development of AI. The institute will continue to evaluate and scan the horizon to ensure we focus our research on the most critical risks.
As has been pointed out, AI is being developed in many nations and will also have impacts across borders and across societies, so international collaboration is essential. The Deputy Prime Minister set out to the UN Security Council last autumn the United Kingdom’s commitment to using AI responsibly, safely, legally and ethically. We continue to work with international partners to achieve this.
The AI Security Institute is world leading, with global impact. Since December it has assumed the role of co-ordinator for the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science. That brings together 10 countries, including Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia and Kenya, and the US, the EU and Singapore, to shape and advance the science of AI evaluations globally. That is important because boosting public trust in the technology is vital to AI adoption. It helps to unlock groundbreaking innovations, deliver new jobs and forge new opportunities for business innovators to scale up and succeed. The UK has shaped the passage of key international AI initiatives such as the Global Dialogue on AI Governance and the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI—both at the UN—and the framework convention on AI at the Council of Europe. The convention is the world’s first international agreement on AI and considers it with regard to the Council’s remit of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, seeking to establish a clear international baseline that grounds AI in our shared values.
I shall close by talking about the importance not only of the UK taking the risks of AI seriously, but of our conviction that it will be a driver of national renewal, and of our ambition to be a global leader in the development and deployment of AI. This is the way that will keep us safest of all. Our resilience and strategic advantage are based on our being competitive in an AI-enabled world. It matters who influences and builds the models, data and AI infrastructure.
That is why we are supporting a full plan, including our sovereign AI unit, which is investing over £500 million to help innovative UK start-ups expand and seed in the AI sector. It is why we are progressing the infrastructure level, including the announcement of five AI growth zones across the UK, accelerating the delivery of data centres. It is why we are expanding National Compute and why we are equipping all people—students and workers—with digital and AI skills. We want to benefit from AI’s transformative power, so we need to adopt it as well as manage its risks. That is why we have also committed to looking at the impact of AI on our workforce through the AI and future of work unit. We are working domestically and collaborating internationally to facilitate responsible innovation, ensuring that the UK stands to benefit from all that AI has to offer.
UK Start-up Companies
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare my interests as an adviser and investor in start-ups.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, the latest ONS figures highlight the continued resilience of UK entrepreneurship. One-year survival rates have also remained strong, holding at over 93% in recent years. Furthermore, the percentage of adults starting or running a new business in the UK in 2024 was 14%, as opposed to 12% in 2023, remaining above France, Germany and Italy. This underscores the ability of new British firms to establish themselves successfully.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
I thank the Minister for her response, but I think it is fair to say that key data on our start-ups is missing in action. Since the enterprise investment scheme was introduced 30 years ago, I have calculated that £40 billion has been invested in EIS start-ups, triggering £12 billion in tax credits. I declare an interest in that I am a beneficiary. And yet what has been the economic impact? What is a true success rate of these start-ups? How many permanent jobs have been created and sustained? What is their net contribution to GDP? And what is the return on investment of that £12 billion from the public purse? If the Minister is unable to answer these questions, can I suggest that her colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade knock heads with the ONS so that they can produce this data?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The evidence from HMRC’s 2022 evaluation shows that 75% of enterprise investment scheme companies strongly agreed that finance led their company to grow. As the noble Lord is aware, in the Budget the Government introduced an entrepreneurship tax package to support innovative young companies, doubling the eligibility of the EIS. At the same time, the Treasury is running a call for evidence to gather evidence on how well existing support is working, including the EIS, and on options for further support. The questions that the noble Lord asked will be addressed, at least in part, by the consultation that the Treasury is launching now.
Baroness Kingsmill (Lab)
My Lords, I too have been very much involved in start ups, including chairing a fintech. At the moment, the real issue for start-ups is scalability. I wonder what the Government can do to assist companies and the brilliant entrepreneurs that we produce in this country in scaling up their businesses.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend raises the equally important point that, as well as supporting start-ups, we need to support scale-ups. One initiative that the Government have taken is the entrepreneurship prospectus, which takes action on four important areas that create the ecosystem for companies not only to establish themselves but to thrive. That includes: on R&D, focusing public research firepower on priority sectors; changing the procurement rules and approach so that the Government are a better customer for innovative businesses, which is something that scale-ups often raise with us; the changes to tax reliefs, which I mentioned; and strengthening the ability of public finance institutions to invest at series B and beyond.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, many SMEs and start-up businesses are facing a challenging time, not just because of high taxation but because they are heavily regulated as well. To open a bank account can take as much as three months, registering VAT takes time and a contract with a lawyer could be as much as 60 pages. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will look into all this? We should genuinely be celebrating wealth creation and help our GDP.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The UK has an extremely strong track record as a vibrant ecosystem for start-ups and scale-ups, and that is something the Government are committed to building on—hence, as I mentioned, the entrepreneurship package. Specifically on regulation, we are not sitting still on that either. We have announced, as part of our regulation action plan, a commitment to reduce the administrative burden on all businesses by 25%. We have already announced several specific measures to ease the regulatory burden for smaller companies. For example, we announced in October 2025 that we would exempt tens of thousands of companies from producing strategic and directors’ reports. We are looking carefully across all departments at how we can optimise regulation. In addition, through the Regulatory Innovation Office, we are looking at how to regulate new technologies that perhaps do not fit within the existing regulatory purview, such as drones or novel foods.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to hear that the Government are going out and looking for evidence. I want to add another sector that has not really been mentioned here. From my meetings with businesses, there is a whole section of businesses—a large lump—with perhaps 100 employees, which are successful and are doing well, and are often family owned or privately owned, but they find it difficult to get the capital they need, not to turn themselves into unicorns but perhaps to double in size or get half the size again. Can the Minister take on board that sector? Can she discuss with colleagues how those firms can get access to the finance they need? That incremental growth would make a big difference to our economy.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
As noble Lords may know, we are supporting our public finance institutions. We are increasing the capitalisation of the British Business Bank, which can play a role in this area, complemented by the National Wealth Fund’s new mandate, which includes a focus on other sectors such as digital and technology. As the noble Lord is aware, we are also acting over the longer term, which may take a little longer, to increase the amount of capital that domestic pension funds can allocate to private assets, including through the Mansion House Accord and the Sterling 20 group, in order to continue to support businesses getting access to finance in the UK.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I am a member of the expert advisory council of the Government’s Help to Grow: Management scheme set up by Rishi Sunak when he was Chancellor, which this Government have happily continued. Some 10,000 businesses have graduated from this, but is the Minister aware that only businesses with five to 249 employees are eligible for the scheme? Micro-businesses, including start-ups, which make up 90% of SMEs in this country have fewer than five employees and so are not eligible for this programme. Will the Government consider expanding this very successful programme to include micro-businesses?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I am happy to take away that question and consult with colleagues on it. The noble Lord is right that businesses of all sizes make up the huge vibrancy of our economy and we must think about the right intervention from government and the private sector to help them to grow.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, if the Government are as keen on entrepreneurship as the Minister keeps suggesting, why did the Chancellor in her last Budget reduce the tax relief for venture capital trusts, which I set up in my last Budget in 1997 precisely to encourage the kind of investment she is so enthusiastic about?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. We expanded the eligibility for various schemes to support entrepreneurs and scale-up businesses such as the enterprise management incentives and the enterprise investment scheme. I will need to consult with Treasury colleagues specifically on venture capital trusts, because I believe that we increased the investment limits for venture capital trusts but the nature of his question suggests otherwise.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that an increasing number of entrepreneurs are saying that Britain is becoming an increasingly unattractive place to grow a business? Given that AI start-ups, in particular, depend on access to powerful data centres for success, the principal barrier that she could address is that we have the highest electricity prices in Europe. Will she now set out a clear strategy to reduce electricity costs so that AI companies can realistically build scale and remain in Britain?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Our approach to the AI opportunity is comprehensive. It includes the AI growth zones which are being announced and include full access to energy as part of the package as well as local skills packages of £5 million per area to ensure that local areas benefit from these AI growth zones.
TikTok: Bereaved British Parents
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
We are aware of the case brought in the United States. No parent should have to go through what these parents have. Our deepest sympathies are with those affected. We have commenced powers through the Online Safety Act to require information from services about a child’s online activity in the tragic event of their death. We have also established a data preservation process to ensure that services preserve relevant data. We are committed to making those powers work effectively.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. Ellen Roome is one of a number of bereaved British parents who are suing TikTok. Ellen had been fighting for four years to get access to her son Jools’s social media account after he died performing a TikTok challenge. Digital data that should be preserved as evidence in the critical early period following a child’s death is not being requested and is routinely being deleted or lost. Justice must prevail. Will the Government ensure that there is automatic digital data preservation for every one of these tragedies so that they can be fully investigated?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The Government are aware of calls to make the data preservation process faster. These are new powers and we are actively monitoring the effectiveness of the current process, working closely with Ofcom to do this. We are carefully considering any means that could allow relevant data to be preserved in a timely manner to ensure investigations are well informed and families get the answers they need.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the litigation alleges that TikTok’s algorithm deliberately promoted harmful content to children. That is exactly what we originally thought the Online Safety Act was going to help protect our children from, but that appears to be wrong. Will the Government, given their statement of strategic priorities, insert a statutory definition of safety by design and require Ofcom specifically to address addictive algorithms and compulsive design features?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware of the Statement that the Technology Secretary made last week to initiate a short consultation looking at further measures that could be taken, which responds to some of the questions that underlie his question about the nature of social media use and actions that could be taken in response to parental and other requests to deal with it—for example, looking at breaks to stop excessive doomscrolling, or further enforcement of the law. That consultation will take place swiftly before the summer.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness says—and I absolutely believe her—that she personally and the Government will do everything they can to address these issues. Is she aware that later today we will debate a group of amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill that would very simply close the gap and ensure that coroners and the police have access to the digital and social media data they need? Those amendments would put an end to the unimaginable pain that families are going through, waiting to find out how and why their children died.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Yes, we are aware of those calls and those measures that have been put forward. We are working closely with Ofcom and the Chief Coroner’s office to understand how those would work. We are closely monitoring this and actively considering options to strengthen the process.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Will the Minister please draw to the attention of her right honourable friend the Secretary of State the following facts about TikTok? In June 2025, TikTok announced that it would expand its investment and presence in the UK, proudly declaring:
“What underpins our continued growth is our deep commitment to safety”.
Two months later, in August, TikTok announced that it was going to fire almost all its content moderation team in the United Kingdom. One of those moderators said that, as part of their daily job, they were told to scrutinise 1,200 videos every working day. Does that give us confidence that TikTok is a company that can be trusted?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
All services operating in the United Kingdom must comply with the Online Safety Act. Ofcom is the regulator of online services and, when services fail to comply with the duties under the Act, it has enforcement powers to take action against them. We have made it very clear that Parliament has given those powers to Ofcom and the Government are backing Ofcom to use the measures in its remit to scrutinise the operation of services operating in the UK to provide the right environment for children and all users of social media here.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, as the mother of a tech-savvy 16 year-old, access to social media is a topic of discussion in our household and among her friends. They do not believe an outright ban will work. Parents who have suffered incredible loss have also voiced differing views on how we keep children safe online, which is why I believe a consultation is the best way to proceed. Can the Minister tell us how the Government will make sure that all views are considered in the consultation?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right to highlight the fact that we all share the objective of a safe online space, but one where children and others can benefit from the digital world and the digital economy. Navigating that and getting the right measures in place was the subject of some debate in this House last week, which showed exactly how defining these parameters and the way in which we proceed will take a short amount of time. On her question about how to ensure that we hear the voices of all, that is exactly what we intend to do during the course of this consultation, particularly the voice of young people.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, bereaved parents in this case say that they repeatedly warned platforms about dangerous content but were ignored until their children so tragically died. What assurance can the Minister give that victims’ families are now being listened to directly by regulators, rather than having to resort to the courts to be heard?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a point about the effectiveness of the regime as it stands and future developments. As I mentioned, we are looking carefully at how the regime is working currently, at the timeliness of the preservation of data, and at the communication of those steps. As she also knows, further measures will come into force over the coming year or so. Ofcom and others are consulting on measures that will take those further requirements forward for categorised services.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are being asked to introduce a legal compulsion to force big tech companies to preserve the relevant data. Why do we not just do it?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We have put in place powers under the Data (Use and Access) Act, which established the data preservation process, to require Ofcom, when notified by a coroner, to issue a data preservation notice to the specified online service companies. Since coming into force on 30 September, Ofcom has issued at least 12 data preservation notices. As I mentioned, we are looking carefully at how this is working, at the speed at which this is taken forward and at what more needs to be done.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, is the Minister confident that TikTok can be trusted when looking at the interests of children and young persons? Yes or no, please.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We have set a regime. This House passed the Online Safety Act. It is a regime supervised by Ofcom. We have given Ofcom the resources it needs to supervise against the Online Safety Act. We have made it clear that we back the use of those powers and, as we have seen recently, the Government are prepared to make it clear that they stand behind Ofcom in taking action where that is seen to be fitting.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that Australia has already instituted a ban. I welcome the consultation that was announced last week. Will we look at Australia’s experience and try to interpret the experience of other jurisdictions in carrying out the consultation?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right that there are other practices in other jurisdictions. We should absolutely learn from their experience of taking measures to protect children online and how they are enacted, and look at the effect on both the social media space and on children.