Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction to these regulations. From these Benches we welcome them and very much welcome any measures to implement the recommendations contained in the important report by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, which we very much supported.

As the Minister will be aware, there remain a great many concerns about the Windsor Framework in Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, has illustrated very well. However, from these Benches we have always recognised that it is a pragmatic solution to a far from optimum situation stemming from the hard Brexit approach adopted by the previous Conservative Governments.

I have two quick questions for the Minister. Can she say whether there is a timetable for implementing the rest of the recommendations contained in the important report from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy? Can the Minister, to follow on from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, say whether there plans for a wider strategy on how to ensure parliamentary oversight here in Westminster for secondary legislation stemming from the Windsor Framework and other legislation resulting from dynamic alignment with the European Union?

The Minister will be aware that there are already lots of debates on regret Motions on regulations relating to the Windsor Framework. Indeed, I believe there is another one tomorrow evening from the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. She will be aware that even more will result from the EU Bill, so it will be very useful for us to understand the Government’s thinking about Westminster’s oversight role in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords in this regard.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, this instrument makes changes to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, which scrutinises EU law that is applicable in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework, implementing some of the recommendations made by the independent review of the Windsor Framework.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are of the strong opinion that the Government must explain why they are removing the safeguards introduced by the previous Government prohibiting the use of written procedure in the joint committee, which were meant to ensure full ministerial accountability for its decisions. This instrument removes Section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Explanatory Memorandum to this instrument says that this provision was being made:

“to facilitate decision making between the co-chairs on time-sensitive issues during the period in between formal meetings, noting the bulk of decisions at the Joint Committee relate to the Windsor Framework”.

However, the Explanatory Notes for the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which introduced Section 15C into the 2018 Act, stated that the prohibition on the use of written procedure in the joint committee by the UK’s co-chair was to ensure that,

“decisions made by the Joint Committee are made by a Minister in person. The purpose of this provision is to ensure there is full ministerial accountability … for all decisions made in the Joint Committee”.

That was well highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea.

Introducing the use of written procedure in the joint committee by the UK’s co-chair was not recommended by the independent review. In line with the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, we have one important question: will the Minister explain in more detail the rationale for allowing the written procedure? Is there a risk, as has already been discussed, that it would allow changes to slip through inadvertently without even the minimal scrutiny currently in operation?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. The instrument is a key element of the Government’s commitments made following the independent review, and I hope that it demonstrates that we continue to take action to ensure that the Windsor Framework works for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland, which is this Government’s intention for it to do.

In relation to a couple of the points that came up in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, raised an important point. I fully agree with him that Northern Ireland’s dual market access is a unique opportunity that has potential to drive real growth for Northern Ireland. The Government are committed to taking all necessary steps to protect the internal market while implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith, including having regard to all aspects of the Northern Ireland economy.

In relation to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Ritchie, I am happy to meet to discuss progress on the hub.

With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, the robust parliamentary oversight frameworks already in place remain entirely unchanged. I hope that provides him with some reassurance. The written procedure simply ensures that, when the UK’s interests depend on swift action between the scheduled meetings, bearing in mind that they might take place only once or twice a year, we can take that action and Parliament will continue to be provided with explanatory memoranda on decisions made in the joint committee. I clarify that, in our view, this does not weaken the accountability of the Government at the joint committee. The scrutiny process for joint committee decisions made by the Government is not changed by this SI. That includes the role for Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, as set down in law and in writing, which is very important.

Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, more than 3 million customers are now in energy debt or arrears, owing a total of around £6 billion, with an average debt of approximately £1,800 per household. No household should be trapped indefinitely by energy debt accumulated during an exponential national crisis. Non-targeted support, as we have seen in the past, has been prohibitively expensive and not terribly efficient. I have called for better information sharing to enable the better use of targeted support by government. The purpose of these regulations is therefore one that we support. They amend the Digital Economy Act 2017 to enable data sharing for Ofgem’s purposes of a proposed debt-relief scheme.

The Government estimate that this scheme could clear between £500 million and £1 billion of outstanding energy debt. This is a significant intervention, with the potential to help many households directly. It should reduce the burden of uncoverable debt that is ultimately socialised across all customers’ bills. We welcome the role of Ofgem. The principle of the common framework is sound. We further recognise that part of this instrument corrects an earlier administrative error. The addition of DESNZ is a necessary one. Adding DSIT may also be reasonable if it allows the Government to co-ordinate support more effectively.

These regulations authorise an important extension of data sharing. However, they must be fair, proportionate and accountable, and I note the assurances that the Minister has given. The first phase will target people receiving means-tested benefits, subject to other eligibility and engagement criteria. That may be administratively convenient, but it is not a true test of vulnerability. There are obviously, as the Minister knows, people just above the benefit threshold who still struggle to pay their energy bill, and there are those who are entitled to support but do not claim. There are older people, disabled people, carers and people and people with fluctuating incomes, and there are households which are not digitally confident or which have not been able, for numerous reasons, to claim in the past. We must ensure that the people who most need help are not excluded because they are the least able to complete administrative processes.

I ask the Minister: what is meant by engagement criteria within the SI? Does it mean customers must actively respond to gain this relief? If that is the case, it is still a serious obstacle to people being able to claim these benefits. The scheme should provide accessible routes through telephone and post, advice agencies, trusted intermediaries or, better still, an automated identification process, which I think is where this is ultimately going. Perhaps the Minister could say just a word on that. Where households are plainly eligible, the presumption should be that relief is delivered automatically wherever possible.

The Minister talked about limited and specifically defined information, but could she just say what that means in practice? I think she has been clear on that, but could she confirm that it does not mean it will be shared with any further agencies and will not be sent to debt collectors, or for credit scoring or marketing? The information should be collected solely for the purposes here and overseen by the Information Commissioner. These safeguards are really important, particularly in light of the Government’s wider ambition to link household data to further aims for targeted support.

The Explanatory Memorandum says that the Government will conduct an expanded annual assessment, but these regulations do not contain a statutory review clause. Given the sensitivity of the information involved and the scale of the proposed debt relief, is that felt to be sufficient? Regular information on the number of eligible households, the value of the debt cancelled, complaints, corrections, exclusions and any data breaches should be publicly available. We should know whether people who change supplier are protected and continue to receive the benefits that they are entitled to through that process.

It would also be useful if the Government published the operational rules. These regulations create a legal gateway, but many of the questions that matter most to households will be answered in the Ofgem requirements and the administrative guidance. I also feel that these documents should be available to both Parliament and the public.

These regulations address a genuine problem, and I welcome them. I have personally called for greater data sharing so that we can target this support, but that alone is not the sole solution to the problem. I will ask just one question about timing. Obviously, the cap rises by 4% on 1 October, and we are coming into winter. Is it expected that once this SI is passed, this process will move swiftly? Can the Minister give me some indication whether that will happen at all this winter for energy bill payers?

To conclude, targeted debt relief is necessary, but alone it is not sufficient. We still need further and broader work across government to bring down energy bills, to take levies off those bills and to fundamentally reform the energy markets, but we welcome these regulations as a step in the right direction. They do need some careful and firm controls of the data. I think the Information Commissioner has been clear, and we generally welcome these regulations.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations relate to the Digital Economy Act 2017, which enables data sharing between public authorities and energy suppliers. The regulations will permit the sharing of information to support the delivery of a debt relief scheme by allowing specified persons to disclose information to energy suppliers for the reduction or cancellation of customers’ debt. The Government have committed to delivering targeted support for households most affected by rising energy costs.

The state must help those in need—that is absolutely right—but the reality is that this commitment will do nothing to address the root cause of rising energy costs, which continue to appreciate in part by trying to meet impossible net-zero targets. The most recent contracts for difference allocation rounds held by the Government saw maximum strike prices for offshore wind of £113 per megawatt hour. That is higher than those agreed in previous allocation rounds, higher than the average cost of electricity in the years before and the highest prices in a decade. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have undertaken the work to tackle the root causes of high energy costs, proposing a cheap power plan to maximise extraction of our own oil and gas resources in the North Sea and to scrap the carbon tax on electricity generation from gas and the renewables obligation subsidy scheme, as well as removing VAT on domestic energy bills. These are constructive proposals endorsed by experts to help tackle the root causes of the cost of living crisis.

These regulations add the Department for Energy, Security and Net Zero and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to the list of specified persons that may share information. It may help your Lordships’ House if the Minister will clarify why these regulations make provision to share information with DSIT when the Government have, as far as we understand, abolished and dismantled that department. If these regulations help those in need, that is a good thing, but they are short-term and, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, quite rightly said, alone they are not sufficient. The only sustainable long-term solution is the one proposed by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition that I briefly outlined.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earls, Lord Russell and Lord Effingham, for their support for the importance of tackling poverty and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for recognising the centrality and importance of data sharing and the way in which that can improve efficiency and the way we can design administratively well-targeted schemes. The level of scrutiny that has been brought is very welcome.

The point of these regulations is to improve outcomes, enable government to identify the right households, target assistance more effectively and ensure that support reaches those who need it most. The debt that I mentioned has been building up over many years. It is very much an attribute of what people and households are experiencing, and that is the motivation for this.

Performing Artists and Musicians: Access to the EU

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I reject the term “festering” in relation to what this Government have done. Helping touring artists and addressing issues around co-operation with Europe remain a priority. I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding the House of why we ended up leaving the EU in the first place, which was not because of anything that this Government did but was down to the previous one.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, UK talent that performs overseas is nurtured via the music and dance scheme—a long-standing programme to help students overcome financial barriers and to support our next generation of brilliant performing artists and musicians. Can the Minister confirm that funding for this scheme will continue?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are hugely keen to make sure that creative careers are accessible for everyone. I do not have the detail of the exact scheme to which the noble Earl refers, but I will write to him.

World Cup Ticket Prices

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I mentioned in response to my noble friend’s questions, representations regarding the interests of fans fall to the respective football associations. My understanding is that the home nations’ football associations are raising matters. We are keen to make sure that all our fans travelling to the World Cup, which noble Lords will be aware goes across three host countries, have a good experience. But, above all, we hope that our home teams do well, and our wish is that they compete against each other in the final.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the World Cup brings together communities and breaks down barriers, but the reality is that not all UK football fans have reliable broadband or smart TVs for streaming. So will the Government act to fund libraries, community centres and jobcentres, which could be free streaming hubs, particularly in deprived areas of the country, and may encourage other beneficial engagement?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend Lady Hayman suggested that I get up and just repeat her response to the noble Earl, which was “Yes”, but I will not do that. As well as the World Cup being free to air on terrestrial channels—the BBC and ITV have agreed which matches will be screened and those are free to air, so not reliant on good broadband—there will be a number of fan zones up and down the country if people want that more communal approach. I suggest that it might be a distraction for an organisation such as a jobcentre, even if we want people to get through the door, to screen programmes when their staff are trying to work hard to get people back into work.

UK Streaming and Cinema Sector

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

In relation to the screen workforce and skills, we are investing across the skills pipeline: there is £10 million for the National Film and Television School expansion, and we are scaling up the British Film Institute Film Academy and delivering short stories through the growth and skills levy. We are keen that young people and people throughout their careers can access opportunities to be part of what we consider to be one of the jewels in Britain’s creative crown.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are considering a commercial research exception that would deny streamers the right to withhold consent for use of content when it is used in research and development, but all AI pretraining is technically R&D. Does the Minister accept that this would fatally undermine licensing markets, with payment only at a point of market entry after a leverage is lost? The best thing the Government could do is to rule out any such exception.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It would be a bit pre-emptive of me to rule out any exception before the reports I have mentioned are published. I would be very happy to return to your Lordships’ House to discuss this matter further once that has taken place.

Creative Industries: Freelance Champion

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government and particularly DCMS strongly welcomed our noble friend Lady Hodge’s review of Arts Council England. It is an excellent read, which I commend to any noble Lords who have not read it. We are planning to publish our full response later this year, but we are already looking in detail at how our noble friend’s recommendations could be worked through.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, Minister Murray in the other place is driving success for creative industries in Liverpool but relies on government funding. As we have just heard, the Arts Council has advised, quite rightly, that a mixed-economy model, which combines public funding and private investment, produces the optimum outcome. Is DCMS working with the Treasury to make it easy for companies to invest and give them some kind of tax break incentive, the net result being positive for the sector and economic growth?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

There are a number of tax incentives within the system currently. We are very clear that there is significant investment in creative industries in this country. I outlined some of those in relation to the rollout of the sector plan. We are very confident that we are working across government on the issues that the noble Earl raised.

In-game Purchases: Protections for Children

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness would expect, I regularly meet with the Gambling Commission and discuss its enforcement activity. I have also met with the Advertising Standards Authority, and, indeed, officials also meet with representatives of the ASA and the Gambling Commission on a range of matters. DCMS has previously raised concerns detailed by Members with the ASA, and I am happy to do so again. Although we are confident that the two regulators talk to each other, I will take steps to make sure that they are liaising very clearly and in detail on this particular point.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Gambling Commission report is clear: many children spend their money on gambling, and 31% of young people who saw gambling-related content on social media say influencers had advertised it. Whether it is loot boxes or social media, we now have a mountain of indisputable evidence. Children are addicted to smartphones, and gambling is a small part. Why are the Government not acting on the voices of parents and teachers across the country who are urgently asking for a formal smartphone ban in schools?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As the noble Earl will be aware, most schools—90% of secondary schools and 99.8% of primary schools—have a mobile phone policy limiting students’ use of mobile phones during school hours. We do not want to exclude children from services which are age appropriate. In relation to screen time, the Government are taking action, but it is important to recognise that screens are part of family life now. The question that parents are asking is not whether they should use them but how to use them well. The Government are going to issue their first guidance on screen use for under-fives in April. This will include tips on how it can be incorporated into activities such as talking, reading and playing safely.

UK and EU Trade: Arts and Creative Industries

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

All the questions today highlight the significant range of challenges. There are ongoing discussions at a variety of levels within government with the EU as part of the discussions following the EU reset. I will not give a running commentary on negotiations, but I am happy to meet the noble Baroness to talk about this in more detail.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear that barriers for touring artists are bad news for the UK’s £7 billion music industry and for an already squeezed economy. Over 20 EU member states have confirmed that they offer UK musicians visa and work permit-free short-term touring for UK musicians. However, the EU’s policies mean that there are still barriers. Can the Minister explain exactly how the Government are engaging with the remaining individual member states to remove these barriers, or will they commit to resolve this at an EU level? Please, can we have some detail?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I appreciate that this is a question for me from His Majesty’s Opposition, but these are things that presumably came up as part of the impact assessment when we withdrew from the EU.

Artificial Intelligence: News Media

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not sure there was a question there, but I note the noble Lord’s comments.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, earlier this year, 61 countries, including France, China, India, Japan, Australia and Canada, signed the landmark Paris AI declaration, led by President Macron, the remit of which was to ensure AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy. So why did this Government refuse to sign it?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Earl clearly raises some important points. We genuinely want to get this right and for AI to work for everyone. All our work so far has been on protecting existing rights. In that context, I am happy to write to the noble Earl on that question.

Arts Sector

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

Will the Government take the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, that the state is not the only source of money? Will they take the advice of the chairman of Arts Council England to follow France in offering incremental tax breaks to businesses that sponsor arts organisations, and thereby help alleviate the funding pressures that the sector is currently facing?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

DCMS is not suggesting that there should be one source of funding and that the arts’ only source of funding should be public funding—a mixed economy is really important. DCMS in particular is committed to championing philanthropy, which has a rich tradition in our country. It is key across the DCMS sector, supporting our most beloved institutions, such as our museums, heritage sites and performing arts venues.