Europe: Youth Mobility

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

That this House takes note of the case for a new youth mobility scheme with European countries.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, youth mobility schemes are a topical subject in this Parliament at the moment. A Private Member’s Bill on this very subject is making its way through the other place, which yesterday held a debate on youth mobility schemes with the EU. In this Chamber, we had a Question on it from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, last week and a Question today from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. I am aware that a number of noble Lords have already asked supplementaries and I look forward to the opportunity for them to develop some of those points more fully in this debate. In particular, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moraes.

I believe that the need for closer ties with our European neighbours is more pressing now than it has been for some time. There are many reasons for that, but, with the Ukrainian war and increasing geopolitical instability likely to exacerbate existing migration issues, the need for international co-operation is all the more important, especially with those countries that are quite literally our neighbours. I hope this debate will provide an opportunity to think how we might maximise the opportunities for our young people to experience study, work, leisure, sport, music and so on in the wider world beyond our shores.

However, building mutual trust and respect with our European allies, both those in the EU and those that are not members, cannot be achieved simply in political fora or via policy decisions only. Indeed, sometimes they can be a source of much wrangling and entrenched resentments, which both led to and were a result of Brexit. That decision has been made, and I hope this debate is not about that. If we want to build trust and mutual understanding, we need a whole host of positive engagements and relationships at all levels in science and research, education, culture and sport, and, critically, opportunities for citizens to live and work together, both here and across mainland Europe.

Quite apart from the fact reintroducing youth mobility and cultural exchanges would be expedient for our foreign policy, there is the sheer demand for the restoration of these opportunities for our young people and the broader public. Polling in August 2024 found that 58% of the population think a youth mobility scheme is a good idea. There is a real demand for something like this. There has been a great loss to our young people just at the very time when they should be gaining new experiences and broadening their worldviews, making friends from people of other nations and cultures, with opportunities for travel, education and study abroad with our European partners. Those opportunities have gradually diminished and, where arrangements exist, they are usually more complicated and even more competitive.

There are broadly two strands of argument that I intend to cover when it comes to making the case for a new youth mobility scheme with European countries, although I also hope to touch on some of the challenges facing our creative industries, especially touring musicians. I have to confess that I feel rather daunted by the expertise of so many in your Lordships’ House on this topic. I come to this debate not as an expert but as someone who has greatly benefited from rich experiences in other cultures over extended periods and as someone who cares deeply about the opportunities for our young people to travel, learn languages and be exposed to the world and the cultural exchange of ideas and for our creative industries, one of the great success stories of our nation, to thrive. I look to listen and learn about the various challenges and opportunities that exist when it comes to negotiating youth mobility, and to better understand the position of His Majesty’s Government.

This Motion was deliberately worded to say “European countries” rather than “the EU” as I hope to avoid us becoming mired in old debates. However, the question of bilateral agreements with the EU versus individual approaches to EU member states is likely to be an integral part of this debate. In spite of that, I hope we can be open-minded as we think about how best to renew the rich landscape of cultural, educational and civic ties that we have shared with mainland Europe in the past, whether that be through rejoining the Erasmus scheme or by agreeing a new youth mobility scheme altogether.

Another point I would like to stress is that sometimes people conflate youth mobility schemes with freedom of movement. This has cropped up repeatedly, including in this House recently during Oral Questions. Will the Minister confirm that the Government understand that youth mobility schemes are not the same thing as freedom of movement? Indeed, the proposal for a new youth mobility scheme from the European Commission last year was both age limited and time limited. I appreciate that that scheme was rejected by the previous Government, and indeed the current one, but even had it been accepted, it would not have been a return to free movement.

I note that in these parliamentary exchanges His Majesty’s Government frequently point to the Turing scheme as the answer, which offers funding for UK students to go abroad on placements. The focus within this scheme of ensuring that disadvantaged students are able to access this funding is admirable, and I totally support it—indeed, it is appropriate. But still this does not make it a substitute for the Erasmus programme, which was much broader in scope and scale. For example, the Erasmus+ scheme includes specific partnerships and funding streams to promote sport and physical activity. The Turing scheme is also, critically, not an exchange programme.

His Majesty’s Government have committed to a reset in relations with the EU. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, led a debate on EU relations last October. The government spokesperson for that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said:

“This is about turning the page, reinvigorating alliances and forging new partnerships with our European friends, rather than reopening the divisions of the past”.—[Official Report, 10/10/24; col. 2210.]


In that spirit, His Majesty’s Government recently successfully negotiated the UK rejoining the Horizon programme post Brexit. There are positive examples here of how this can be done. The Erasmus scheme does not consist only of EU member states. Norway, for example, is a country which has developed extremely close and collaborative relationships with the EU despite not holding member status. If that is not going to work for us, let us at least propose something new, given that we have turned down the most recent proposal.

Like all Members of your Lordships’ House, I am acutely aware that the public purse is under strain and that one of the arguments against Erasmus was the cost, due to more students coming to the UK than UK students going to Europe. I for one am not sure that that is an argument against the Erasmus scheme, but rather the result of our embarrassingly poor foreign language learning and teaching here in the UK. If anything, it is an argument to encourage more of our young people to go abroad to study at European universities and improve their foreign language skills. Speaking a second or even a third language is a vital skill that is only becoming more and more important in our globalised world, yet the number of students and pupils taking language courses continues to decline.

I would like to pick up on a few points from the excellent debate on EU relations I mentioned. First, the facilitation of overseas school trips has been complicated by regulations on the UK-EU border post Brexit. Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, committed to:

“ensuring school visits and other opportunities for exchange”

and eradicating

“some of the challenges that have arisen”.—[Official Report, 20/1/25; col. 1479.]

Can the Minister update the House on whether there has been any progress on that issue? What specific takes are being considered or taken?

Secondly, there are challenges facing the creative sector, particularly musicians. This was raised this morning by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, in one of the Oral Questions. This is an issue that first came to my attention through the particular challenges facing choirs that have tried to arrange overseas tours. I understand that DCMS is working closely with representatives from the industry to try and find solutions to the challenges facing the sector after leaving the EU, and this is welcome news. Will His Majesty’s Government, in the short term, do their utmost to secure an EU-UK visa waiver agreement for performing artists and their staff? This is widely supported within the creative industries, and there is precedent for these kinds of agreements with the EU.

In the longer term, it is vital that some music performers are able to stay for periods of more than 90 days. It is particularly important for orchestras, choirs and the theatre sector, which generally have longer touring periods. Can the Minister tell us what steps His Majesty’s Government are taking towards negotiating such an agreement with the EU?

Finally, the Government have said that they do not want to commit to a specific programme regarding youth mobility in the UK at the moment. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to say much today in the light of future negotiating strategies, and that there are a number of obstacles we are seeking to resolve with the EU—for example, concerning Northern Ireland. However, as they enter the first EU-UK summit, I hope they will bear in mind how much the UK stands to gain from renegotiating a youth mobility scheme, which could be a real win-win and be of mutual benefit, in particular for our young people. Can the Minister confirm when we might expect an update on this issue?

I will conclude my opening remarks by reiterating that close ties with our neighbours are essential to UK interests in the current global climate. These have to be underpinned by a mutual understanding of and respect for other nations, cultures, languages and customs if they are going to be sustainable and resilient. There are so many difficulties facing our young people today. The opportunity to travel, live and work abroad has enriched the lives of so many in the past, as well as proving essential to their future success. I hope we will ensure that we are not depriving Britain’s young people of these experiences and those opportunities to thrive.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I thank all Members of your Lordships’ House for their contributions to this debate, which has been wide-ranging and fascinating. I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his excellent maiden speech. I am sure he is going to make many valuable contributions to the work of your Lordships’ House over the coming years.

It is clear to all of us that this is a subject which is going up the agenda; it is not going to go away. This is so important to our young people. We have all managed to resist, by and large, rerunning arguments about the EU or Brexit, because we need to try to find new ways forward. As always in a debate in your Lordships’ House, I find myself having learned a whole lot of new information. Some of the facts, for example, on university fees I was not aware of. I realise, as always when we look at the seemingly simple problems we want to solve, that often there are things we have not considered. That is certainly true for me.

However, there is a consensus that there is a real urgency to try to see how we can take this forward for some areas, particularly, for example, for musicians and artists, and how we can perhaps build and develop Turing and Horizon; how we can look to develop other bilateral agreements; and how, with the EU reset, we can take every opportunity to find as many win-win solutions as we can to provide as many opportunities as possible for our young people to be able to move into other cultures and to learn—whatever we call it; let us keep away from some of the phrases we have used. We just need to try to find movement on this.

I am hugely grateful for all the contributions and I look forward to working in the future with Members of your Lordships’ House as we try to develop this further, for the sake of our young people and our place in the world.

Motion agreed.

Climate Agenda

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for securing this important debate. I am looking forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady May, who I know will bring great insight and experience to your Lordships’ House. I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition.

We need to take climate change extremely seriously. I commend the previous Government, and indeed some of the plans of the present Administration, for the steps they have taken and are taking. I support the plea by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for open and transparent costs of net zero so that we can make informed choices; that seems fundamental to all that we do in every part of our work. Other noble Lords will be able to speak in a more informed way than I can about the positive impact that net zero can have on the economy, not least in terms of jobs in new and emerging sectors such as renewable energy. It will also offset the negative economic impacts that climate change brings with it, such as droughts, pollution and ill health.

I shall limit my comments to quite a focused area: the use of land and, in particular, working with our farmers. Farmers are acutely attuned to changes in weather and therefore to the impact of climate change. They do not have a choice; their whole livelihood depends on it. Some of the increasingly extreme weather that we have seen over recent years, with record windfall and subsequent flooding alongside periods of extreme heat, has hit farmers very hard. I outlined to your Lordships’ House a few weeks ago the devastation and economic costs dealt to farmers recently in the wake of extreme flooding. I remind the House that, last winter, parts of the UK experienced double the level of the monthly rainfall totals of the period that were experienced between 1991 and 2020.

Farmers, as stewards of so much of our land, are uniquely placed to play an important role in helping to achieve His Majesty’s Government’s climate change agenda through nature recovery, sustainable food production and clean energy supply. There is a real opportunity here to have our agricultural industry set a leading example of how economic growth, food security and new energy technologies can work together as a force for good in responding to the environmental challenges we face. I urge the Minister to ensure that farmers are treated as crucial partners in pursuing the climate change agenda; that they are listened to and supported as the burden of demands made on them continues to increase.

In one of the counties in which I am privileged to serve, Hertfordshire, we have some of the most innovative and forward-looking farmers in the whole world. They are right at the cutting edge of how we are going to face the challenges of food production, food security and net zero. What they are asking for, of course, is a level playing field in the international markets and, as any future trade agreements are brokered, their concern is that they should not be disadvantaged in any way. In light of the urgent need to safeguard our environment and to make the Government’s aims for food security, energy security and net zero a reality, the Government must provide a renewed and improved agricultural budget of at least £4 billion a year, which is what the NFU has been calling for, so that farmers can play their part in what is required.

British farmers already own or host about 70% of the UK’s total solar generation capacity, whether on the rooftops of farm buildings or in solar farms. Many food producers also host on-farm wind power. They have a clear role to play in the Government’s commitment to making the UK a clean energy superpower, but it is important that this is balanced with protecting the best agricultural land for food production. It was only a couple of years ago that we saw the invasion of Ukraine having an immediate impact on the cost of food and fertilisers. It was really impacting upon us, so food security is not some optional thing; it is absolutely fundamental to us as a nation.

While rooftop installations offer an ideal platform for renewables, I urge the Government to ensure that those, along with brownfield sites, are prioritised for mounting solar farms, rather than using the most productive agricultural land, which we must protect for our food production. I seek assurances from the Minister that he will do all he can on this front to ensure that these principles are enshrined in the forthcoming land use framework.

Electoral Commission: Data Breaches

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that point, not least since I raised it myself about 10 minutes ago when I was being briefed for this Question. There was some comfort to know, for today’s purposes, that it was not a cyber incident, but it was a very unfortunate security breach, linked, as she will know, to an FoI process error. We must learn from this. As I said in answer to the previous question, there is a combination of things that we must do to try to prevent this kind of thing ever happening again and to ensure that the impact is minimised, if and when there are breaches of the system. Obviously, that is what they are trying to do in relation to Northern Ireland.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, the stakes are very high when these data breaches take place, because they erode public confidence in allowing organisations to collect and use our private data. I am thinking in particular of the NHS, and its great reliance on data; if it can analyse and collect information, this could be of huge help in solving medical problems and curing diseases. To prevent these things in future, what is being done to ensure that the NHS computer system cannot be hacked and that people can have real confidence in it being allowed to collect their data?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I described the new, more resilient system that we have got. There is a big focus on cyber and cyberattacks; individual Government Ministers take that very seriously. We have set up a new system called GovAssure, which the Deputy Prime Minister announced in the spring, to make sure that different parts of the public sector are better prepared and able to deal with these points. The National Cyber Security Centre has been much strengthened—actually, it also does a very good job for outside organisations, as I remember from when I was involved in an NGO and on the Back Benches. We are making progress with these things. It is important that we use electronic data, as has already been said by several noble Lords. The key is to make people take the necessary steps—often personal steps—to ensure that systems are not opened up to hackers, attackers and hostile states.

House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL]

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, there have been a number of occasions in recent years when this House has debated its make-up, its processes of nomination and its role. The test of any Bill to reform aspects of the House of Lords is surely whether it will enhance the core functions of this House; namely, to revise, to scrutinise and to ensure that the membership retains significant independence and expertise. A further useful test is whether the proposed changes are simply a response to some current problems or whether they have the potential to enhance the work of the Lords in the long term. It seems to me that, unless we are going to go for something very radical and different, this Bill meets these tests. It is modest in its proposals but I believe it is worthy of support none the less. It comes in a long line of incremental but sensible and pragmatic changes to Lords procedure and practice. I suggest that the history of Lords reform shows that incremental change tends to be the most successful.

As your Lordships will all be aware, this year marks the 175th anniversary of the Bishoprics Act—I gather that little else has been discussed in the tea rooms and bars recently. That Act for the first time placed limitations on the royal prerogative to issue Writs of Summons to attend the House, by limiting to 26 the number of Church of England Bishops who could sit as Lords Spiritual. Back then, like now, any reform brought heated debate, and although the Act passed, a Motion was carried in the House that it set

“a dangerous precedent … contrary to the privileges of the Lords Temporal as well as Spiritual.”—[Official Report, 22/6/1847; col. 797.]

I think I can announce to the House that after a careful 175-year trial period, the principle of upper caps is one we on these Benches can get behind. Though the noble Lord’s Bill does not argue for a statutory cap, I certainly welcome the proposal that the Prime Minister ought to have regard to the commission’s advice on reducing numbers, and the aim of keeping the size of this House equal to or smaller than the elected Chamber.

The Bill also invites us to think whether membership of this House is primarily an honour or an occupation. Like many supporters of the Bill, I tend towards the latter, but I think in truth it is both and neither. Service in this House is best understood, if I dare say it, as a vocation. The more we move away from that, the harder it will be to sustain what is best about this place. I do not intend to go over the relationship of recent occupants of No. 10 with non-binding convention, except to say that we have lately seen a vivid example of what might happen to long-established norms if we rely on precedent.

The Bill seems to me to be a sensible way to go about reform, banking what is best about our current arrangements while moving us closer to firming up other norms that future Prime Ministers will find it hard to ignore. I hear the concerns of some about an unelected body curtailing prime ministerial powers, and of others that before long any commission may end up appointing in its own image, but it seems to me that the Bill skilfully navigates these concerns in such a way as to limit harms. I especially welcome the stipulation in Clause 7 that

“the Commission must have regard to the diversity of the United Kingdom”

when setting future criteria for non-political nominations, and I want to see that recognised in the area of religion as well as in many other areas. I look forward to hearing your Lordships’ contributions and hope we might be able to back the Bill as it makes its way through its various stages in this House.

Heatwave Response

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the reports were certainly shocking. At the moment, the data is provisional, but we expect there to be up to 100 damaged properties, with at least 41 damaged and destroyed in London alone. In the wildfire in Wennington, Essex, 88 properties were evacuated and 15 damaged and destroyed. Data is provisional at the moment, and we will have to watch that as it comes in.

As for what is done in individual cases, every one of those cases will vary, and I do not think that it is for me at the Dispatch Box to say what might or might not happen in the individual circumstances of a particular family whose house has been destroyed or damaged. I hope that all the authorities concerned will approach those families with the utmost sensitivity and understanding.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, it is right that we think about the effect on human beings, but these high temperatures have a huge effect on our agricultural sector, particularly on livestock. Extreme heat reduces milk yields from cattle, for example, and reduces fertility and increases the number of miscarriages. What work is being done by government scientists to prepare our agriculture industry if this continues, and what advice is being given in the short term to help our first-class British agriculture sector adapt and continue to provide the food as it does so well?

[Lord True (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate makes an important point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, earlier. I regret that I am not in possession of advice on that point at the moment, but I shall certainly pass on his comments to my colleagues in Defra, and will do so with some urgency, because he makes an extremely important point. The countryside suffers as well as the urban areas, and we need to be prudent and thoughtful custodians wherever we live.

Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes interesting suggestions, as he always does. The recent changes have potentially very much strengthened the role of the independent adviser. On the role of the Prime Minister, it was made very clear again this morning by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and, as I said, in the House previously, that normally the Prime Minister would accede. The exception referred to in the House is national security, which would be in certain cases a reasonable exception.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, at a time when public trust in the integrity of the Government and public life is being deeply damaged, would it not make sense for the successor of the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, to be appointed by an independent body rather than by the Prime Minister?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the role has a particular relationship to the Prime Minister in the conduct of a unique constitutional responsibility, which is the appointment of Ministers. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that standards in public life are essential—that is always my undertaking. As the Prime Minister set out in his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, only a few weeks ago, the seven principles of public life continue to be, as the Prime Minister put it,

“the bedrock of standards in our country and in”

this Government.

Veterans’ Strategy Action Plan: Gambling Addiction

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

There is a Gambling Act review, which I know that some noble Lords will feel is taking a little time. It will be, and is, the most thorough review of gambling law since the Labour Government’s Act and we need to get it right. We are continuing with that and have already taken interim action—for example, banning gambling on credit cards.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, it is absolutely right that we pay tribute to those veterans who have successfully transitioned back into civilian life, but nevertheless the research by the RAF Benevolent Fund is striking, with much higher levels of problem gambling and at-risk gambling among veterans, which we need to attend to. Are there any plans by Her Majesty’s Government to screen those transitioning back into civilian life, and to provide additional support where necessary?

[Lord True (Con)]

As I have already said, the Government are grateful to the RAF Benevolent Fund and are considering that research. The NHS long-term plan is addressing provision for those who have gambling problems, and we will continue to work to ensure that we detect and support problems where they arise. In that respect, I am on all fours with every noble Lord who has contributed so far.

Money Laundering

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

I would certainly defer to my noble friend as someone who is an expert in this area, which I am not. It is extremely difficult to get the right balance in these things, because what one person would consider an intrusion, another would consider a protection. We have to remain alert and sensitive to the different forces, but what is most important is that we have a coherent system which is clamping down on an extremely complex and fast-evolving crime.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, in last year’s parliamentary debate on the Church Action for Tax Justice report Tax for the Common Good, the Minister assured us that progress was being made on reducing money laundering and financial fraud in our British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies. Would he be able to update the House on this? If he cannot do so now, would he please write to me with information on the progress we are making?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

It is important to remind the House that the overseas territories are independent entities and that we cannot just force them to comply with our own regulations. But we have an ongoing dialogue with them. For example, we have a very useful exchange of information through the exchange of notes arrangements, and they have agreed to introduce publicly accessible registers of companies’ beneficial ownership. The discussions are very much ongoing and I respect the right reverend Prelate’s concern.

Money Laundering

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord tells only part of the story. A number of major fines have been imposed on financial institutions in the last few years: Deutsche Bank, £160 million in 2017; Standard Chartered, over £102 million in 2019; Commerce Bank, £37 million in 2020; and Goldman Sachs, £48 million in 2020. We have rigorous oversight and we continue to review it the whole time.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, earlier this year we held a debate on the Church Action for Tax Justice report Tax for the Common Good. When we discussed British Overseas Territories, we looked at the whole issue of tax havens and were assured that this was being addressed, yet the latest Pandora papers reveal that they are still used by shell companies to hide property sales and to avoid tax. Would the Minister agree that, since we are responsible for the defence of these territories, they have a duty to stop siphoning this money off from the UK?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to raise the issues in the Pandora papers and the jurisdictions he refers to, but we are making steady progress in closing the tax gap. Indeed, we have closed it by nearly a third in the last 15 years. In 2005-06 it was estimated at 7.5% and in the last year, 2019-20, it was down to 5.3%. In the last 10 years we have collected some £250 billion that would have been lost if these measures were not in place.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on Amendment 14, as I raised that issue at Second Reading and it was very good to see it today. It shows that the Government are listening, which is very welcome. I thank him for his kind opening remarks on a number of Peers’ appearances: it was very perceptive of him. I will not repeat the sorry tale that he heard last time around, which is the reason for this amendment. He will recall that it was in response to an attempt to commit a fraud by sending me a credit card I had not requested, and that I was unable to progress matters with FOS because I was not a customer of the credit card company concerned. I had a letter from FOS, which says the following:

“The Financial Ombudsman Service must follow the rules stipulated by the Financial Conduct Authority handbook. The relevant section concerns dispute resolution—DISP—and DISP states that there are limitations to when FOS may investigate a complaint.”


This is the rule that stipulates that FOS may look at complaints only from “an eligible complainant”, and DISP 2.7.3 states:

“An eligible complainant must be a person that is … a consumer”.


The regulations go on to say that FOS may investigate a complaint from a consumer or “a potential consumer”, and that this consumer or potential consumer must have a relationship with the regulated busines. There is a full explanation set out in DISP 2.7.3 and 2.7.6 of the FCA handbook. As I did not genuinely attempt to make a credit application, I did not fit the description of consumer or potential consumer in the handbook. In his reply to me at Second Reading, the Minister said that

“it is already the case that potential customers of a firm can seek redress through the FOS scheme under the FCA’s existing rules, notably the FCA dispute resolution handbook rule. The relevant rule states that, to be an eligible complainant, a consumer must be, or have previously been, a potential customer, payment service user or electronic money holder of the firm that they are raising a complaint against”.—[Official Report, 8/3/21; col. GC 552.]

This is completely contrary to the email sent by FOS, and there is clearly misunderstanding and confusion.

My noble friend the Minister was kind enough to suggest that I could report this matter to Action Fraud, and reports received by Action Fraud are then considered by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. Frankly, none of that need have been necessary or would be necessary in future if my Amendment 26, the only amendment I will speak to, were adopted. I seek for it to be adopted so that, from here on in, FOS can take action against credit card companies which do not seek to verify recipients of credit cards before they are sent out. At the moment, there is no redress for anyone who receives a credit card and no one for them to complain to. I do not think they can complain to Action Fraud because the fraud was never consummated, as it were. I very much look forward to listening to his remarks at the Dispatch Box later this afternoon, given that the Government are in listening and action mode.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 16 and then address my own Amendment 27. The introduction of a regulatory body to oversee the rules governing the behaviour of bailiffs would greatly strengthen complaints handling for the victims of practices that fall outside the national guidelines. The FCA reported in its Financial Lives 2020 Survey that 3.8 million people in the UK are currently experiencing “financial difficulty”. It is a terrible situation that takes a significant toll on people’s health and relationships. This amendment seeks to address an important concern: the fair treatment of people by enforcement agents who collect debts, often from vulnerable people who are in grave financial distress.

The absence of an independent regulator means that, when breaches of national standards occur, any complaints will be dealt with through the company or a trade association, before possibly being passed on to an ombudsman. This is an arduous process that prevents complaints from being adequately actioned. Furthermore, these national standards are not legally binding, which obscures the extent to which an individual can seek redress. No industry is exempt from poor practice. While most enforcement agents will probably abide by national standards, nevertheless we need to make sure that they are properly regulated.

Breaches do occur, and I will quote one example provided by the charity Christians Against Poverty of a single mother of two children. This woman was living under police protection and was a regular at a food bank, and her abusive former partner had taken out £20,000-worth of debt in her name. All of this was compounded by the fact that she was caring for her critically ill mother. When visited by a bailiff on account of a parking fine that had escalated, she attempted to contact CAP so that it could explain the situation to the bailiff. At this point the bailiff became intimidating, aggressive and threatening. That is a breach of rule 21 of the national guidelines, which states:

“Enforcement agents must not act in a threatening manner when visiting the debtor”.


We need to get a balance of powers that allows enforcement officers to undertake their tasks while also protecting debtors and ensuring they have significant mechanisms to air complaints impartially and without fear.

Debt charities are already reporting rising numbers of people in financial crisis and behind on household bills such as rent and council tax because of the Covid pandemic. Given the possible upturn in the number of individuals being referred to bailiffs in the near future, now is a suitable time to explore how we can introduce a regulatory body. I hope the Government will look closely at the content of this amendment and work to correct the current imbalance.

I now turn to Amendment 27 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who have also signed it. I tabled this amendment because I believe in the positive difference that gambling blockers can make in reducing gambling harms and empowering individuals to control their own addictions. The amendment would mandate the providers of debit and credit accounts to offer opt-in gambling blockers to block gambling transactions.

As things stand, gambling blockers have widened coverage over the past three years, currently reaching around 90% of current accounts and 40% of credit card accounts. This is an achievement in its own right and should be welcomed as a positive technological aid to reduce problem gambling. While there is a still a need to close that 10% in debit card coverage, the majority of which will come from smaller banks and building societies, it is of secondary concern to the far larger gap that exists in the credit account market, where 60% of accounts are not covered by blocking options.

In April 2020, the Gambling Commission banned the use of credit cards for gambling purposes, but this is only enforceable on licensed operators. The lack of gambling blockers on credit accounts is particularly problematic as it can provide a back door for individuals suffering from gambling-related harms to use credit cards on unlicensed sites. This undermines the Gambling Commission’s own rules and unfairly benefits unlicensed operators. Even more worryingly, this blind spot provides a direct avenue for the expansion of harmful and addictive behaviour, and the accumulation of gambling debt that would not ordinarily be allowed.

With the Government’s gambling review ongoing, the emphasis should be on preventing harm, and provisions for gambling blockers would be a welcome aid in achieving this goal. Admittedly, they are not perfect; they rely on accurate merchant categorisation codes to identify gambling transactions. But this should not discount the positive part they can play. Furthermore, through greater co-operation between account providers and payment processors, a robust and data-driven system of reporting could be developed to identify unlicensed operators hiding behind incorrect merchant categorisation codes to block future transactions. With no legal requirement to provide blockers and no obligation on payment processors to diligently review the merchant categorisation codes of unlicensed operators, gambling blockers will suffer from pitfalls that could be effectively remedied through either a legislative or regulatory approach.

There are also issues this amendment does not directly deal with but deserve highlighting. Due to the entirely optional provision of blockers, there are currently no minimum standards for functionality. This is an issue when it comes to the so-called “cooling-off” or “friction” period—the time between deactivating the blocker and once again being allowed to transact for gambling purposes. As a tool that assists those suffering from gambling addiction, the ability to activate and deactivate at will renders a blocker redundant.

Of the gambling blockers currently on offer, friction periods range from instant reactivation to 48 hours. The results offered by Monzo highlight the success of stricter cooling-off periods. Its blocker, with a 48-hour cooling-off period, block around 585,000 gambling transactions per month and is active on nearly 300,000 accounts. According to its data, once it is activated, fewer than 10% of customers deactivate it. Monzo, driven by its own success, has called upon the Government to mandate that banks provide blockers and would no doubt support this amendment. However, as I have shown, it is not merely their provision that renders them successful but their architecture. A minimum cooling-off period of 24 hours would make them far more effective tools to deal with addictions.

Finally, I will add that, in a data-driven world fuelled by digital payment systems rather than the cash we used in the past, individuals should have more autonomy over how they spend their money. Aside from their benefits in combating addiction and containing the unlicensed market, gambling blockers are an example of giving customers control over their own transactions. Actions and decisions are increasingly dictated by data that is controlled, analysed and dissected by global corporations and increasingly removed from the individual. Optional transaction blockers such as those related to gambling re-empower individuals and give them a stake in this new data-driven environment.

I thank the Government for their helpful work in encouraging the major banks to introduce gambling blockers—an endeavour that has been very successful in relation to debit cards. I know from discussions I have had with the Government that they see the benefits of blockers and continue to support a voluntary rollout. This is very encouraging and I hope that as they move forward with these efforts they will take on board some of the comments made here and find ways to promote greater data sharing between payment service providers and processors to tackle the unlicensed market. However, I remain of the opinion that for products as potentially harmful as gambling there should be not only a statutory obligation to provide opt-in blockers, as stated in this amendment, but minimum design requirements so that the positive results provided by Monzo can be emulated by other account providers.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley made a powerful case for his amendment, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for the two amendments to which he spoke.

I will speak to amendment 37C, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. It seeks to release child trust funds worth less than £5,000 held by children with learning disabilities, without the need to go through the daunting, lengthy and at times cumbersome Court of Protection process, while at the same time offering strict safeguards to prevent abuse.

Child trust funds were launched in January 2005, and 6.3 million children in the UK born between September 2002 and January 2011 were eligible to receive vouchers from the Government to invest in the scheme. Families with children who had a disability were offered additional payments to make it more attractive for them to join the scheme and to compensate them for the additional costs that they would face.