Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wilcox of Newport) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025
(2 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lord, these regulations use powers contained within the Agriculture Act 2020 which enable the Government to address power imbalances within agricultural markets. These fair dealing powers allow for regulations that impose obligations in relation to the contracts of those businesses—usually larger businesses—that purchase from smaller producers. The fair dealing powers in the Agriculture Act, and their first use in the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, have previously been debated in this House, with important contributions made. I therefore know that many noble Lords will agree that these powers can play a significant role in promoting fairness in this sector and beyond.
I should first say that the pig sector is a British success story, characterised by effective relationships between producers and processors. It is a sector that delivers high-quality products, enjoyed across the UK and around the world. However, where power imbalances exist, relationships are not always as fair as they should be. As a result, farmers have too often felt that they bear a disproportionate share of the risk when market challenges arise.
A public consultation in 2022, seeking views on contractual practices in the sector, highlighted several challenges faced by producers. Defra has developed these proposals in response to the concerns raised and in close collaboration with industry, aiming to ensure fairness for producers while taking account of the practical concerns of processors. I am pleased to report that many stakeholders believe we have struck the right balance—protecting farmers while supporting existing good practice.
There will be opportunity for detailed discussion, but I would like to begin by outlining some key provisions. First, I will say a word on existing structures that already serve to protect farmers. We heard from many producers that the collective negotiation undertaken through marketing groups is highly valued. These regulations preserve this arrangement, allowing collective sellers, who purchase pigs from more than one farmer without processing them, the same protections as individual sellers.
At the heart of the regulations is the principle that written contracts should be the norm. While many transactions already use written agreements, this is not consistent across the sector. Establishing written contracts as the default provides a vital safeguard for farmers’ rights and promotes greater transparency in commercial relationships. Although industry supported this approach, it was also clear that not every transaction requires a protected contract. The pig sector includes a functioning spot market, where pigs are traded off-contract, an important mechanism for managing supply. In these cases, and others, the regulations allow producers to issue a notice to disapply the requirements for certain purchases. However, in most cases, both farmers and processors benefit from certainty. When no notice to disapply is given, farmers must be offered a fully compliant written contract, which cannot be varied without their consent. We heard clearly that farmers often felt that changes were imposed on them unilaterally, and this is not in the spirit of an open and balanced relationship.
One of the key priorities raised was the need for clarity around agreed volumes of supply. Clear terms in this area will support better planning and ensure that both parties fully understand their responsibilities and the consequences if those commitments are not met. In the pig sector, pricing is already often linked to published data or other shared information, offering a level of transparency that benefits both parties. The regulations encourage this approach by placing fewer obligations on processors who base their prices on such information.
At the same time, we were clear that flexibility must be preserved. It is for producers and processors to decide together how prices are calculated, reflecting what works best for their commercial relationship. However, when pricing mechanisms use data or factors which are not clearly accessible to producers, it is right that contracts include provisions to allow farmers to verify that pricing is fair and consistent with the agreed terms.
In addition to volumes and pricing, the regulations require that contracts clearly set out all terms relating to the purchase, as well as essential elements of the agreement that define how the relationship will operate in practice. These include matters such as payment terms, delivery arrangements, and how and when the contract can be terminated. While the specific details of these terms can be negotiated between the parties, this clarity helps protect farmers by reducing the risk of sudden or unfair changes, ensuring that both sides understand their rights and responsibilities throughout the contract. Importantly, all contracts must include a dispute resolution procedure. This will promote dialogue and help sustain the successful relationships already present in the sector.
The regulations extend the enforcement powers of the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. The ASCA will investigate complaints about compliance with these regulations, as it already does in the dairy sector, on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Before I conclude, I should note that these regulations make an amendment to the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024. After those regulations came into force, the Government were made aware of unintended consequences regarding tiered pricing in exclusive agreements. We received representations from businesses with shared ownership structures, explaining that exclusive supply is central to their model, and that the prohibition on tiered pricing was inadvertently penalising arrangements that actually benefit producers. These regulations therefore introduce a limited amendment to allow such practices in cases where a shared ownership structure is in place.
In summary, I hope I have demonstrated to noble Lords that these regulations represent a significant step forward for fairness in the UK pig sector. They respond directly to producer concerns, protect practices that work well, and will promote more balanced and transparent contractual arrangements. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the regulations before us this afternoon and thank the Minister for giving us the outline. It is an interesting backdrop, in the sense that pig prices seem to have been at their highest for a while now. I have come straight from a meeting with some Danish businesses—none of them farmers. While I am half-Danish, I wish to help only the British farmer, I should explain.
I am a big supporter of auction marts. How will this provision impact on sales through such marts? Will they be left pretty much as is allowed at the moment? Presumably, the regulations will come into their own at a different time, when the prices are particularly low and when the farmers, or pig producers, are not covering the full costs of their production.
Having been an MEP in an area with intensive pig farming and then having gone on to be an MP in another area with equally intensive pig farming, it was very sad to see the impact of foot and mouth disease on pig production. Many farmers will simply not go back into pig production again. Anything that we can do, like the content of these regulations, is very helpful indeed.
The Minister referred to the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and I pay tribute to it. I still believe that we should go further and allow the adjudicator to look at the market and at particular supplies off its own initiative. If there is an imbalanced relationship that it is there to resolve—and overwhelmingly it has worked well—there is no way that someone is going to jeopardise it. That perhaps relates more to different sectors than to pigs, such as the dairy sector and fruit production. If you are in a contract and you are being unfairly discriminated against, it is difficult for you to jeopardise that contract by being identified as a complainant with the adjudicator. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether the Government will continue, please, to keep that under review.
Mindful of the fact of movement—which I do not think is covered by the regulations, but perhaps the Minister could write to me about this—we have a number of agricultural shows coming up at this time of year, right through to the autumn, and they are immensely important to the agricultural sector. Again, this probably covers sheep and lambs—I have not seen too many pigs at the Great Yorkshire Show, I have to say. Will the department give advice on movement of animals? I know it is on the case as regards avian flu, but some imports have already been banned because of foot and mouth existing in parts of the European Union. Will she make sure that the department gives advice at the earliest possible opportunity, well in advance of the shows taking place? That would be very welcome indeed.
I cannot let this opportunity go without singing the praises of the Malton pig factory. Again, while not directly within this remit, we have a bed and breakfast for pigs in North Yorkshire, and they are just as well looked after as we are at the famous bed and breakfasts that many of us stay in. One of the outlets for the bed and breakfast pig industry is the Malton Bacon Factory. It exported a huge amount to China, which takes pig’s trotters and other parts of the anatomy that I will not go into, which we do not enjoy in this country. That was a multi-million pound contract, and that might have gone by the wayside. The regulations focus probably more on those that do not necessarily have an initial contract.
One thing that struck me in the regulations—I am very grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 21st report—is that it seems very odd in this day and age that many contracts are still not made in writing. Will the Government insist on that through the course of the regulation? The committee highlights in paragraph 44 that the requirements will
“include that all contracts are made in writing, contain clear pricing terms and set out how the price is determined”.
That relates to my initial question about how this will impact—presumably, the auction marts will be left alone and this will relate just to those contracts that are done individually. I would be very interested to know what proportion of the market is intended to be covered by the regulations. I welcome the regulations this afternoon and the opportunity to raise those issues.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, it is always instructive to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I thank the Minister for her persuasive, well-informed introduction. I do not quite know how George Orwell—Mr Blair—would view these regulations, because he had it in for Napoleon. But the Explanatory Memorandum is very helpful, and clearly Mr Andrew Powley has played a blinder in the department.
In another place, for some 31 years, I visited perhaps six farms a year, and one was hospitably received—bacon sandwiches were often on the farm menu. Indeed, I was once an Agriculture Minister in the lovely land of Wales. I cannot be the only one of your Lordships who regularly tunes in at 5.45 am to Radio 4’s informative farming programme. Pigs feature therein, and I am sure our Minister listens quite regularly to that programme—after prayers, of course.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support these regulations but I have a few questions about them.
First, I give credit to the Government for bringing them forward. The gestation period of a sow is three months, three weeks and three days. This issue was first raised with me as an MP back in 2021 and the announcement was made in 2023, so heaven knows how many piglets have been born while we have been getting to this stage.
I want to get a sense of aspects of the contract and enforcement. So that noble Lords know, this came about during the Covid times, when we started seeing a shrinkage in the number of abattoirs. Farmers were starting to be constricted in which abattoirs were open. It was largely the large abattoirs, although not exclusively. As a consequence, farmers saw that, all of a sudden, prices changed, and it was take it or leave it.
There were further issues, and I will ask a question about size. Contracts were being written in a different way about the size of the pig that was being taken into the abattoir and whether it was slightly over in weight—obviously, while you are waiting for the pigs to go into the abattoir, they keep being fed. Farmers I knew were getting 10% of what they had expected, never mind the cuts that were being brought in.
I am conscious that it is very difficult to write the contract; we can see how long this one SI is in trying to reach the principle. On the review that is set out in the regulations, will the Minister perhaps share with the Farming Minister some thoughts on how the contracts are formed at the moment, to see how we start to accommodate for that? If we are getting into a particular situation, we might end up with the cancellation of the receipt of the pig in a way that forces a different way in which farmers are not properly compensated.
The first person who brought this up with me was the marvellous Jimmy Butler of Blythburgh Pork. I see my noble friend Lord Deben is here—we both know Jimmy well. Of course, there are other great pig farmers. On the Suffolk coast, there is Dingley Dell, with the Hayward brothers, and there are many more around the country, as we have already heard. The threat of blacklisting was very real, and it is why we went to Victoria Prentis—who will soon be introduced to this House—which brought about the July 2022 consultation.
Who will undertake enforcement of the regulations set out today? The powers are attributed to the Secretary of State, but, as the Minister will know, we have seen, sadly, breaches of animal welfare just in the last month in an abattoir the name of which I have forgotten, and in other abattoirs as well. Often, these abattoirs want help from the Government, who are not always listening when we go to them for help for farmers. Will it be the Food Standards Agency, which probably has more interaction with abattoirs than any other part of government, bearing in mind the regulations and the listening? It would be useful to understand who is lined up to do that.
I am also quite keen to understand this: at one point, there was consideration around referring the number of abattoirs that were there to the Competition and Markets Authority. I am sure that this will have been considered, bearing in the mind the regulations laid out today. I appreciate that the Minister is not formally responsible for farming but, if she has anything on that, I would be grateful to hear from her now or by letter.
I have a final point. The concentration of abattoirs has happened, as I say, for a variety of reasons, and I do not want to get into the animal welfare issues in that regard. It meant that the previous Administration set up a small abattoir fund. That came to an end in September last year. I would be grateful to have an understanding of that. Again, I appreciate that this is not directly in the regulations, but it could inform in due course the review that is under way on effectiveness of the provision of that funding. I am conscious that it was a difficult decision for the Farming Minister today, in an announcement made in a Written Ministerial Statement, to reopen SFI 24 for farmers who had started their application. I think that, in the review, it would be useful to consider whether the expansion of abattoirs has actually happened. It is vital that, whether mobile or small, we try to make sure that there is a healthy market in this country.
As I say, I applaud the Government for finally bringing these regulations forward. They will be much welcomed, but there are still a few details on which I would be grateful to hear from the Minister.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, my thanks go to the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument, which we in the Liberal Democrats support. It represents a positive and necessary step towards addressing the deep-seated issues of fairness and transparency that have plagued our vital, world-leading pig sector. It is a welcome change in the wake of the painful crisis that gripped this industry from 2020 to the spring of 2023—a period marked by, as we have heard from other noble Lords, the Covid period, acute Brexit-induced labour shortages at processing plants, and soaring feed and Putin-induced energy costs outstripping farm gate prices and pushing producers to the brink. The statistics are stark, with losses exceeding £750 million collectively, as well as that awful period when more than 60,000 healthy animals were culled because they could not be processed.
Although the pig sector has a history of volatility, that particular crisis exposed a critical weakness at its heart: a risk/reward imbalance underpinned by commercially unclear and potentially harmful terms, especially for smaller producers, hindering their ability to budget, manage price fluctuation or invest for the future. These regulations are rightly designed to address this imbalance. They mandate written pig purchase contracts between buyers and sellers, setting out clear rules for pricing, contract duration and dealing with market fluctuations. This framework is crucial in rebuilding for them security, clarity and fairness.
The instrument makes necessary amendments to the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, addressing the unintended consequence described by the Minister that impacts on businesses with an internal democratic structure—typically co-operatives—and allowing for volume-based or tiered pricing in that specific context. We urge Defra and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, which will enforce these regulations, to monitor this amendment closely to ensure that it is applied in the true spirit of internal democratic structures. I thank the National Farmers’ Union’s dairy team and the National Pig Association for their valuable briefings on this issue, which have informed our understanding of it. They have asked for specific reassurances on this issue.
While these regulations are welcome and necessary for the pig sector, they highlight a broader need. The Groceries Code Adjudicator was introduced—we are very proud of this—by the coalition Government. It was taken directly from the Liberal Democrat 2010 manifesto, but we regret that its powers to enforce were not sufficiently established when we left Government in 2015, and it still comprises only a handful of people.
Given the clear and continuing power imbalance between producers, processors, supermarkets and the food service sector, does the Minister have any plans to enhance the enforcement powers and capacity of the GCA, given that it is the potential referee in the supply chain? Indeed, will she consider the need for the GCA to be able to intervene in deals between farmers and processers, not just those directly linking to retailers? Producers must be able to raise issues, and we believe that anonymity is vital, given the potential fear of repercussions. We believe that third parties such as the NFU should be empowered to raise concerns and truly hold the more powerful parts of the industry accountable, so the adjudicator therefore needs some more effective tools.
As ever, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its scrutiny of these matters. It would be interesting to get some clarification from the Minister on an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Pack, which was also in the committee’s report. It said:
“Defra has used a specific definition of what constitutes an electronic signature, rather than using or cross-referencing to what we understand is the more standard definition under section 7(2) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000”.
In other words, there is some kind of different use of electronic signature here. That is a technical query that it would be great to understand. The committee continued, saying that:
“The Department was unable to explain … the rationale”.
I am having a second go at that question, and I thank the Minister in advance for even struggling to find the answer.
Finally, we must avoid simply passing this SI and then moving on. Regulations such as these need to be subject to regular review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. The flexibility within this SI must not be abused, and the Government must ensure that these regulations genuinely work for an industry of which we can rightly be proud.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to these regulations, made under Section 29 of the Agriculture Act 2020, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, in particular as a dairy farmer and landowner. This is the second use of these powers following last year’s regulations in the dairy sector, and I am most grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI today.
These regulations represent a step towards rebalancing commercial relationships in the pig sector. For too long, small and independent producers have operated under contracts that lack clarity, fairness or enforceability. Many have found themselves at the mercy of buyers wielding considerable market power and facing reductions in volume, unilateral contract changes and dishonoured pricing agreements. These practices have created uncertainty and risk at the farm gate, and undermined confidence across the supply chain.
As the Minister outlined, the instrument requires that all contracts between qualifying sellers and business purchasers be in writing and include transparent pricing terms. It prohibits unilateral changes to contracts, mandates dispute resolution mechanisms and sets clearer parameters around termination clauses. These provisions will enable producers to request a written explanation of how prices are determined if not based on objective and accessible criteria. The Minister also highlighted the usefulness of the notice to disapply in agreed circumstances.
The need for such reforms has been well evidenced. Our previous Government’s 2022 consultation received 374 responses, of which 89% supported mandatory written contracts and 64% said existing agreements were not consistently honoured. These regulations reflect this feedback and follow a constructive sector-specific approach.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the broad support for the regulations and for the contributions that have been shared on this instrument. There seems to be consensus that, even in a market that often functions well, as we have heard, it is essential to protect the smaller producers in the supply chain, so I welcome the support.
The specific requirements that are set out in the regulations—on volumes of supply, pricing, contract variation and termination—represent a significant step forward for the pig sector. Dispute resolution provisions will also support continued dialogue and collaboration across the supply chain. At the same time, the regulations are designed to protect and support existing good practice. I am confident they will strengthen the many successful relationships that already characterise the industry.
I turn now to some of the specific points that were raised. Some noble Lords talked about the different flexibilities that we have built into the regulations. I want to be clear that we are confident that they will not be easily misused. The reforms deliver a real and meaningful improvement in transparency for pig producers, which has often been lacking in the past. If the reforms are to be effective, they have to be proportionate and reflect the realities of how the sector operates, which is why we have built in flexibility. That does not mean we are going to be hands off in the approach to it.
I assure noble Lords that implementation is going to be closely monitored. If we find that the flexibility is such that the notice to disapply is being abused, or if the behavioural changes we expect do not materialise, we will not hesitate to revisit our approach and take further actions. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked if we are going to be keeping an eye on it, and the answer is yes.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about auction marts. First of all, pig sales through auction marts are quite limited but they will not be impacted. This is one area where the notice to disapply may be appropriate to use. If a notice to disapply is given to the business purchaser by the producer, the regulations do not need to be complied with for that specific purchase. I hope that helps to clarify that.
The appalling pig crisis of 2021 and 2022 was mentioned, particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Grender. Everyone in the sector wants to make sure that that does not happen again. As we have heard, at the time, there were a number of related factors, including the Covid pandemic, a lack of skilled butchers and declining export demand, and we ended up with a backlog of pigs on the market, which is why we had the awful cull that we witnessed. That was quite unusual, though, and it was quite difficult to avoid what was almost the perfect storm that built up at that time. We need to learn from it, which is why these regulations will make sure that farmers do not bear any disproportionate levels of cost when market challenges come up in the future.
The regulations outline that both producers and processors need to be clear about the levels of supply that they can expect in advance. That will be subject to negotiation between the parties, to maintain flexibility, and those agreeing a contract would be able to agree any tolerances for over and under supply levels. The new rules outline that contracts should say in advance what the remedies would be for either party when agreed levels of supply are not met by the other party. This could be a financial remedy, a change in future volumes that would be supplied, or a suspension of existing penalties; we need to look at each individual situation. What is important is that it will be open for negotiation between the parties, written down in advance and subject to change only by mutual agreement of both the farmers and processors alike. The whole point is to ensure certainty and transparency across the marketplace.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to the Cranswick incident and the difficulties around animal welfare and the breaches at that particular abattoir. The Animal and Plant Health Agency is investigating—it investigates every allegation that is reported to it. Obviously, I cannot comment on that because it is ongoing, but I reassure the noble Baroness that APHA is looking at that.
Lord Deben (Con)
Should we not be extremely pleased at the immediate steps taken by supermarkets and others when they heard about this allegation? And it is an allegation at this stage. It shows that we now have a very much more acute understanding of how animals should be looked after and what welfare really matters, which is crucially important for those of us who believe that eating meat is a satisfactory and proper thing to do.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to draw attention to the work the supermarkets did. They do not always get the credit that they should. That swift reaction was really important. It shows the industry coming together, right across the board, when something really appalling happens that is breaching regulations. I absolutely agree.
There were a number of questions about the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Grender, and others mentioned that. For those covered by the groceries code, the GCA has prioritised communication of the statutory requirement to maintain supply confidentiality. The GCA has relaunched the Code Confident campaign, launched a confidential reporting platform called Tell the GCA, and published a code compliance officer commitment to confidentiality, which we hope will help. The GCA’s fourth statutory review is currently ongoing. That is being led by the Department for Business and Trade and will also allow for feedback to be provided in this area and in others.
For those covered by the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, a complaint does not need to be made from a producer for ASCA to investigate and perform enforcement functions where necessary. The current Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator has confirmed that it will always seek confirmation from the producer that they are content for a complaint to be formally investigated before contacting a purchaser and sharing any information. It has also recently launched the Contact ASCA in Confidence service, learning from the GCA’s Tell the GCA scheme; this allows producers and anyone else to raise issues with ASCA confidentially. Although ASCA will not be able to open a formal investigation without an actual complaint, the information provided will help inform its activities.
On who will enforce this, which a number of noble Lords asked about, the option to expand the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator was explored in a formal call for evidence back in 2016. This concluded that the extension of the GCA’s role further along the supply chain would not be appropriate. Part of this is because the Groceries Code Adjudicator has a very specific remit: regulating the relationships between the largest grocery retailers in the country and their direct suppliers. These regulations focus instead on the contracts that pig farmers hold directly, which are almost exclusively with the processing companies. We are therefore confident that the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator—obviously, it also handles enforcement for the dairy sector, as noble Lords will be aware—is the most appropriate means of enforcing these regulations. It will continue to focus on regulations made under Section 29 and this first important stage of the supply chain.
I mentioned dairy sector enforcement. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked whether this will be sector by sector. It will be introduced sector by sector going forward.
I was asked whether the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator has sufficient resources. ASCA was relatively recently established. Enforcement for the dairy regulations began only in July 2024—less than a year ago—and existing contracts are not being covered until July this year. Currently, the office is sufficiently resourced to fulfil its remit of enforcing the regulations in the dairy sector and, soon, in the pig sector. However, we will monitor resourcing requirements as the regulations take effect, so that we can respond accordingly if need be. Similarly, we will continue to do so as further reviews are conducted and as more sectors come into scope.
Why did we choose this route instead of reforming the GCA? We have talked about the fact that we did the consultation but, particularly for pig producers, this is a highly consolidated part of the supply chain. Just four processors account for the vast majority of pig purchases. We believe that, to deliver the greatest benefits in fairness and transparency, it is right that we focus on this primary relationship between producers and processors.
These regulations were developed with extensive engagement with industry, and stakeholders were invited to comment on detailed drafting—including the text of the statutory instrument itself—to confirm that they found the whole approach workable. We are committed to using the fair dealing powers wherever they are needed. We are now working with industry on the proposals for fresh produce and the egg sectors, which will be the next areas that we look to bring in. We will continue to work with stakeholders as we do that.
My noble friend Lord Jones asked about the size of the pig herd. We do not actually know how many pigs there are, but we know that the UK pig industry is worth £1.6 billion at the farm gate and £5 billion at retail. Considering food service, external sales and export values, we think it is worth over £14 billion in total. I hope that that helps him to understand the size of the industry.
Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025
(2 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, forensic science is an integral part of delivery of the criminal justice system in the 21st century. I am a devoted fan of television programmes on real crime in the evenings, and I can honestly say that I have not yet seen one where DNA, drug analysis, mobile phones, photos, messages, health apps or emails have not brought the criminals to justice. Bringing people to justice is absolutely central to what we do. I put on record my thanks to the police and forensic scientists in this country for all they do in delivering these crucial services.
The Government’s mission is to halve violent crime, halve violence against women and girls, and increase confidence in the police and criminal justice system. We are also consulting on a new national centre of policing to bring together crucial support services, including forensics, that local police forces can draw upon to raise standards and improve efficiency.
None of this can be done without access to high-quality and cost-effective forensic science. The Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 was a significant milestone for forensic science in England and Wales. It established the Forensic Science Regulator as a statutory officeholder, giving it power to take action when it has reason to believe that forensic science activities are being conducted in such a way as to create a substantial risk to the course of justice. More pertinent to this Committee’s work today, the Act requires the regulator to produce a statutory code of practice. This code will formally define which forensic science activities will be regulated and set out the standards that forensic practitioners must meet.
The very first version of that code came into force under the previous Government in October 2023 following parliamentary approval. It was the first such statutory code anywhere in the world. We recognised that, due to the novelty of those statutory requirements, the regulator would have to examine a second version of the code in due course.
We have undertaken a consultation on version 2 of the code, which was launched in early 2024. This resulted in 1,230 comments from 96 respondents from a range of organisations and sectors, including law enforcement, academia and commercial providers. Policing and wider law enforcement constituted 64 of the 96 respondents. The regulator also held extensive discussions with specialist groups from across the forensics community. The result is that version 2 of the code is laid before us today.
Most of the changes are minor or technical and clarify existing provisions. Some practical issues that arose only when the first version of the code was implemented have now been addressed and rectified. The most significant change in version 2 of the code relates to the regulation of incident scene examination. For some time, concerns had been raised with the regulator by policing concerning the effectiveness of the incident scene examination requirements set out in version 1 of the code. Version 2 streamlines that process and will now require a corporate approach by each police organisation, and eliminates the need for individual assessments across 149 different sites. The regulator believes that this will save significant police staffing hours and should therefore be welcomed.
The new requirements set out in version 2 of the code have widespread support among forensic practitioners, forensic leaders and chief police officers, and should lead to significant savings for the police. Overall, version 2 of the code has been designed to continue to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system and to help guard against miscarriages of justice.
Finally, I put on record my thanks to Gary Pugh, the Forensic Science Regulator, who will be retiring towards the end of this year. During his term he has overseen the transition of the role to that of a statutory officeholder and produced the code of practice before us today. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wilcox of Newport) (Lab)
My Lords, it is of note that the Minister, both opposition spokespeople and the chair are all Welsh, as we talk about forensic science. I wonder how often that happens.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, it seems as though the Taffia are taking over.
I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, in the chair of this Committee. This is the first time I have seen her in her new role, and I congratulate her and wish her well. I know she will bring the same high level of professionalism to this role that she does to every other role she holds.
I welcome very briefly these updated provisions, which offer much-needed clarity and a more streamlined approach to compliance in incident scene examination. A consistent corporate framework is a sensible step forward in reinforcing accountability across the sector. In a field that plays such a critical role in the justice system, clear standards and effective oversight are essential. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide further details on two points.
First, how many small and micro businesses are currently involved in commercial forensic work? Have they all been made aware of the need to comply with the updated code? How will their compliance be monitored to ensure that standards are met across the board? Secondly, the code mentions that it will be reviewed at regular intervals. Can the Minister clarify what that means in practical terms? Certainty around the timing and process of review would help build confidence in the regulatory framework. It is essential that we ensure that all providers, large and small, are held to the same high standards to maintain the integrity of forensic evidence and the public’s trust in our justice system. This statutory instrument has the support of these Benches.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, like the Minister, I too am a fan of forensic science. I well remember the introduction of DNA evidence during my police service in the mid-1980s, and of course some very challenging crimes have been solved by scientists using forensic science.
I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. This measure brings forward version 2 of the statutory code of practice, as required under the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021, legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Administration. These provisions marked a significant step forward, placing the regulator on a statutory footing for the first time and mandating the creation and upkeep of a code to govern forensic science activities across England and Wales.
Version 1 of the code, which came into force in October 2023, was the first statutory code of its kind anywhere in the world. It represented an important milestone in improving the quality and consistency of forensic science. Version 2, which we are considering today, introduces a series of technical and procedural amendments aimed at improving clarity, efficiency and regulatory consistency. Many of these changes respond directly to issues raised during the early implementation of the original code, such as simplifying the accreditation process and refining standards around scene examination and other forensic practices.
We welcome the introduction of a transitional period, extending to October 2025, to support providers, particularly small businesses, in adjusting to the updated requirements. We note that changes were made following a broad consultation process, which received strong support from across the forensic science community. We support efforts to strengthen forensic standards, particularly where they serve to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system. None the less, we believe that it is right to raise several points for consideration.
First, on the question of regulatory burden, have the Government undertaken a full and transparent assessment of whether these revised provisions meaningfully reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, especially for smaller providers? Will a formal post-implementation review be carried out to ensure that the intended efficiencies are being realised without compromising quality?
Secondly, we would welcome clarity on how the regulator intends to remain responsive to future developments. Forensic science is a rapidly evolving field and it is essential that the regulatory framework remains adaptable. Can the Minister confirm whether there is a rolling review process for ensuring that the code is kept up to date in a timely manner, rather than relying solely on periodic revisions?
Finally, on stakeholder engagement, while it is encouraging that the initial consultation involved a wide range of voices, can the Minister explain how the Government intend to maintain ongoing dialogue with front-line practitioners as the code is implemented in practice?
In conclusion, this revised code of practice represents a constructive step forward in refining and strengthening the regulatory regime for forensic science. While we support the direction of travel, we will continue to monitor implementation closely and encourage the Government to remain responsive to ongoing feedback from across the sector.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for their contributions. As a relative newcomer to the House, I had not realised that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, had not chaired the Grand Committee before. I wish her well. I note also that all of us speaking in the Committee today have been Welsh by election—if not in my case by birth.
Lord Deben (Con)
Just in case anybody misses me out, I am Welsh also, but I am not actually speaking in this debate.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My knowledge broadens daily. In all the years I have watched the noble Lord from a distance, I had never realised that—we learn something every day.
The points raised were valid points. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, I do not have a figure for the number of SMEs but there has been wide consultation. This is not a new requirement: version 1 has been in place and version 2 is a slight update with some slight tweaks. I hope noble Lords are aware of that. To minimise the impact of the requirements, including on small and micro businesses employing up to 50 people, the regulator is allowing a transitional period from the date that the version 2 code of practice comes into force until October 2025, for all providers to become compliant with version 2 of the code. There is a learning space for small businesses.
Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025
(2 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be here today to bring forward these regulations. The Government have published an Explanatory Memorandum alongside them, and I shall begin with some brief background as to how we have got to where we are.
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016, known as the IPA, provides a framework for the use and oversight of investigatory powers by the intelligence services, law enforcement and other public authorities. I recall it well, having served on the Bill, in both draft and original form. It never fails to surprise to me that it is almost 10 years ago since the Act came into being. It helps to safeguard people’s privacy by setting out stringent controls over the way in which the powers are authorised and overseen. The IPA is considered to be world-leading legislation that provides unprecedented transparency and substantial protections for privacy.
The IPA was intentionally drafted in a technologically neutral manner, to ensure that public authorities could continue to acquire operationally relevant data as technology evolved. While this approach has largely withstood the test of time, a combination of new communication technologies and the changing threat landscape continues to challenge the effective operation of the Act.
The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 was introduced by the previous Government and received Royal Assent in April last year. To ensure that the legislative regime remains fit for purpose, the 2024 Act made a series of targeted changes to the IPA to enable our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to tackle a range of evolving threats in the face of new technologies and increasingly sophisticated terrorist and criminal groups.
That gives rise to the purpose of these regulations. The regulations before us bring into force three new and five revised codes of practice, which provide operational guidance for public authorities to have regard to when exercising their functions under the IPA. As well as including minor updates and changes to ensure consistency, the codes of practice have been revised to reflect various changes made by the 2024 Act under the previous Government.
The new codes on bulk personal datasets with a low or no reasonable expectation of privacy and third-party bulk personal datasets relate to new regimes introduced by the 2024 Act. The new code on the notices regime consolidates guidance from various existing codes into one place. The regulations also contain several provisions relating to the IPA’s notices regime, including defining “relevant change” for the purpose of the new notification notices. They also introduce timelines for the review of technical capability, data retention and national security notices, and amend existing regulations in relation to membership of the technical advisory board.
The regulations and code of practice have been informed by a 12-week public consultation which closed in January 2025. The Government received responses from a range of stakeholders, including interest groups, public authorities, technology companies, trade associations and members of the public. We made several changes following that consultation, including stylistic changes, further clarity on processes and changes to the technology advisory board’s membership requirement. A copy of the Government’s response to the consultation has been published and, should Members wish to see it, is available online or it will be at a future date.
To sum up, these regulations are a crucial step in implementing the 2024 Act. They will ensure that the UK’s investigatory powers framework continues to protect our national security and to prevent, investigate, disrupt and prosecute the most serious crimes. I commend the SI to the Committee.
Lord Deben (Con)
I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough in his reply to give us some idea of the ongoing arrangements for the updating of this kind of material. He has shown that the constant need for this is because of the speedy change of the world outside. Who is responsible for it? How are they able to keep up to date and how regularly do we think we are likely to have statutory instruments updating the material that we have? We are dealing with an ever-changing scene which is changing ever more quickly. I would like to understand the government structure that enables us to make satisfactory changes rapidly enough to see that we are fully in control.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. These regulations implement key provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act 2024, which was passed by the previous Conservative Government. These regulations introduce three codes of practice and revise five existing ones.
The new codes provide a framework for two regimes introduced by the 2024 Act— the treatment of bulk personal datasets where there is a low or no reasonable expectation of privacy, and the authorisation of access to third-party datasets. A third new code consolidates guidance on the notices regime, including the operation of notification notices and what constitutes a relevant change—a key test for when telecoms operators must inform the Secretary of State of technical updates.
The revised codes also enhance oversight and safeguards by clarifying the conditions for lawful access to data, strengthening protection for journalistic material and requiring notification of serious data breaches where it is in the public interest. These regulations also make important structural updates to the technical advisory board, expanding its membership and adjusting its quorum rules to ensure it can operate effectively when dealing with complex or concurrent reviews.
We welcome these provisions and, with that in mind, I raise several broader points. First, on legislative responsiveness, these regulations reflect the speed at which both threats and the technologies behind them are evolving. The 2024 Act rightly introduced flexible tools for handling internet connection records and bulk data. But agile legislation should not rely solely on periodic amendments. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to conduct regular reviews of the framework and whether a structured timetable has been established to ensure that the legislation continues to meet operational needs?
Secondly, on stakeholder engagement, the Government’s consultation included contributions from technology companies, civil liberties organisations and public bodies. Although this engagement is welcome, several respondents raised concerns, particularly regarding the practical implications of notification notices and the definition of “relevant change”. Given that, can the Minister outline how the Government intend to maintain an open and ongoing dialogue with stakeholders as these codes are implemented?
Finally, on oversight and accountability, the powers under discussion are significant. Their legitimacy depends on effective safeguards; this is especially true for third-party bulk datasets, where individuals may not reasonably expect their data to be protected. Can the Minister confirm that the revised codes provide the Investigatory Powers Commissioner with the necessary clarity and authority to ensure that these powers are exercised lawfully and proportionately?
The 2024 Act was designed to safeguard national security in a rapidly evolving digital world. However, the use of investigatory powers must always be lawful, properly overseen and proportionate in its impact. Although these reforms offer practical steps to modernise the existing framework, we must ensure that these powers are used responsibly, reviewed regularly and held accountable, balancing security with our democratic values.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for those two contributions. First, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned again how the Government will keep these matters under review. He will know that, basically, the 2016 Act was passed on the basis of cross-party support. The 2024 Act was a review of whether the 2016 Act needed to be amended further, while the regulations before the Grand Committee today are the outcome of some of the changes to that 2024 Act.
The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act made a series of targeted changes to ensure that the regime was fit for purpose but, self-evidently, the Home Office will keep under examination the new technology and the need to make any further amendments. I cannot give the noble Lord an assurance as to when and how that will be done, but he can rest assured that if amendments to the 2016 Act, which was amended in 2024, are required, they will be brought to the House as a matter of some urgency.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, also mentioned public consultation; I very much welcome his welcome for of these regulations today. The responses that the Government received included various suggestions for amendments to the draft codes of practice and the regulations. We have made changes as a result; these are quite wide but include changes to the Technology Advisory Panel’s membership requirement. I know that he mentioned telecommunication companies in particular. Again, we are satisfied that there was sufficient input from them during the passage of the 2024 Act and that the points they raised were taken into consideration when preparing the codes. Obviously, again, we need to examine the wide space between telecommunications companies’ powers and responsibilities, including their responsibility to protect the individual and the consumer. I think that we have got the balance right here.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about oversight. Strong safeguards are in place to ensure that investigatory powers are used in a necessary and proportionate way. There is independent oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the right of redress via the Investigatory Powers Tribunal for anybody who believes they have been the victim of unlawful action by a public authority using covert investigative techniques. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner independently oversees the use of investigatory powers and will ensure that they are used in accordance with the law and in the public interest. Several other powers—I hope this also reassures the noble Lord—are subject to the double lock, where warrants must be signed by the Secretary of State and an independent judicial commissioner. These powers are deployed only in connection with the most serious of crimes or national security.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wilcox of Newport) (Lab)
My Lords, the Committee stands adjourned for a couple of minutes until we find the Opposition spokesperson.
Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 25 March 2025. If approved, they will make provision about the new procedure that must be followed by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and/or NHS England when preparing and publishing information standards. Information standards relate to the processing of health and adult social care information. They can facilitate information to be shared easily, in real time, between health and adult social care organisations, providing a common set of requirements that must be followed. They are fundamental to ensuring interoperability and delivering a more integrated system in health and social care.
Currently, the health and adult social care system lacks a joined-up approach to technology and data solutions. This is in part due to low compliance with information standards, which are not yet mandatory. This makes it hard to achieve change or deliver improvements that are consistent across health and adult social care. For the health and adult social care system to work effectively, data needs to be processed in a transparent and standardised way, using common specifications, so that it can be understood and used by health and care professionals across different settings. To be effective, standards should be mandatory, as they will be in the near future, following commencement of the relevant provisions in the Health and Care Act 2022.
Noble Lords will appreciate that this was legislation made under the previous Government. I would hope that the current Government, in taking this forward, indicate a degree of unanimity on the need for a good system of standards, which support interoperability. Existing standards have not undergone a standardised approach to their preparation or review. This inconsistency has contributed to low compliance with information standards, which has made it harder for health and adult social care providers to understand what they are being asked to do and for data to be easily shared between different services.
Building on the provision in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the Health and Social Care Act 2022 makes compliance with information standards mandatory. These procedural regulations that we are considering today set out a specific process that must be followed in developing and publishing all information standards going forward. Parliament permitting, once the Data (Use and Access) Bill becomes law, they will be mandatory for not just providers of health and adult social care services but the IT providers with which they contract.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the element of consultation that the regulations would require. This has also been part of the process of developing these regulations, as there has been a public consultation and extensive engagement with stakeholders to ensure that we get this right; an impact assessment has also been published. The procedures outlined in this instrument have therefore been carefully considered and developed, taking into account views from stakeholders across the health and care sector. They will ensure that information standards are fit for purpose, kept up to date and reviewed regularly as needed; and that they keep pace with technical developments and evolving priorities. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, although we recognise the ambition behind these regulations to foster better integration and data sharing across health and social care, we harbour some reservations regarding their scope. We are deeply concerned about their implementation, including the costs there, and the potential impact on individual liberties.
We understand that the need for seamless information flow to improve patient care and service delivery is undeniable. We as Liberal Democrats have long championed a more joined-up approach—one that empowers professionals with the right information at the right time. However, as always, the devil lies in the detail. This statutory instrument, while aiming for laudable goals, raises several critical questions that demand thorough scrutiny.
First, we are concerned about the breadth of the data being mandated for collection and sharing. Although the consultation response attempts to address concerns about proportionality, the regulations still appear to cast the net very wide. We must ensure that the data collected is strictly necessary and proportionate to the intended purposes; and that robust safeguards are in place to prevent mission creep and unwanted intrusion into individuals’ lives. The potential for sensitive personal information to be accessed and shared across numerous entities requires the highest level of scrutiny and ironclad guarantees against misuse.
Secondly, the consultation response highlights ongoing concerns regarding interoperability. It is worth noting at this point that there were only 132 responses to the public consultation. That is rather worrying considering that we are talking about nearly 2,000 private sector entities involved in providing the type of health and care about which we are talking.
There are real issues around the technical capability of various organisations, particularly in the social care sector, to implement these standards effectively. Many providers, especially smaller ones, lack the digital infrastructure and resources to integrate the new data systems seamlessly. Without adequate financial and practical support, these regulations risk exacerbating existing inequalities and placing undue burdens on already-stretched services. We need assurances that the implementation will be phased and adequately resourced, ensuring that no part of the health and social care system is left behind.
At this point, it is worth pointing out that, if the impact assessment were in a kitchen, it would be a colander: it has so many holes and assumptions that it is not worth the paper it is written on. I have read many impact assessments but never have I read one that says, basically, that, because we do not know the standards, we have not spoken to the IT suppliers and we do not really understand what it is we are asking to be implemented, we cannot make a real, positive determination of costs. In paragraph 24, it says:
“In brief, as future information standards remain an unknown, the costing has had to be based largely on a set of informed assumptions”.
However, when you read the informed assumptions, you see that they are not informed—they are just assumptions.
The impact assessment goes on to say that it has not really been appropriate to speak to IT suppliers as it is too early to have an indicator of the compliance costs. It also makes it very clear that the way in which small social care providers will potentially have the ability to implement this cannot be guaranteed; and that there could be market fragmentation. I have some questions for the Minister about the impact assessment and the robustness of the assumptions made. When the Minister read the impact assessment, what concerns were raised to her? What assurances have been given to her, particularly regarding small social care providers’ ability to implement what is being asked of them?
On costs, what assurance has the Minister been given with regards to the quantum of costs? The impact assessment makes it clear that these costs cannot in any way, shape or form be guaranteed to be the total cost, particularly for small to medium-sized enterprises. What assurances can the Minister give the Committee that, if certain costs go beyond a certain ceiling, the implementation period will be either extended or paused? This is an important point, particularly when many social care providers are already on the brink of financial instability; many talk about not being able to absorb further costs. If the Minister cannot give me assurances, I will probably raise this matter on the Floor of the House; it may be that, because of the details that I require, the Minister offers me a meeting to give me reassurance before this is discussed in the House.
We also note the continued ambiguity surrounding the explicit consent mechanisms and the rights of individuals to control how their data is used. Although the consultation touches on these matters, the regulations themselves lack the clarity and strength needed both to guarantee genuine informed consent and to provide individuals with meaningful choices regarding their data. We believe that individuals must have a clear understanding of what data is being shared, with whom and for what purpose; and that they must possess the right to object in appropriate circumstances.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I therefore wish to pose the following extra questions to the Minister. My first is on the timescale of and reasons for bringing this statutory instrument forward. Based on the fact that the impact assessment says that,
“despite best endeavours to collect and draw upon strong evidence, cost and benefit assumptions remain uncertain and based on limited evidence availability in places”,
why has this statutory instrument been brought forward? Why could it not have been brought forward when there was more certainty and understanding of the implications of its implementation?
Secondly, given the breadth of data mandated for collection, what specific purposes will the Government put in place to ensure strict proportionality and to prevent the collection and sharing of information that is not absolutely necessary for the stated purposes of these regulations? Also, how will the Government guarantee that these measures will be actively monitored and enforced?
Thirdly, acknowledging the significant disparities in digital infrastructure across the health and social care landscape—particularly in the social care sector—what concrete financial and practical support will the Government provide to ensure the equitable implementation of these standards? What is the projected timeline for achieving full interoperability across all relevant organisations? How will the cost implications of this implementation mean that that timescale could be flexible? Considering the fundamental importance of individual autonomy and data privacy, what further steps will the Government take to strengthen the explicit consent mechanisms in these regulations, ensuring that individuals have clear, accessible information and meaningful control over their own health and social care data when it is shared and used?
We believe in the transformative potential of data to improve health and social care. However, this transformation must be built on a foundation of trust, transparency and respect for individual rights. I therefore urge the Minister to carefully consider the concerns and ensure that these regulations truly serve the best interests of the individuals they are intended to benefit. I remind the Minister that it might be useful to meet before this goes to the Floor of the House, in particular with regard to some of the issues in the impact assessment.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a rather disrupted session, to say the least; I will do my very best to keep some continuity. I start by offering the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, reassurance that we are happy to meet, and we recognise the detail of issues that he has asked for. I will not be able to give a response now, but if he will bear with me, we will write to him to take the issues forward.
In summing up, I emphasise that the procedures set out in the instrument are a crucial pillar in the design of a robust information standards framework to cover health and adult social care. I believe they give a clear process for consulting to ensure that mandatory standards are appropriate, while avoiding cumbersome procedures. They will ensure that the appropriate procedural rigour is consistently applied—a major concern of the noble Lord—particularly while the information standard is being developed, and will make sure that the standards are all fit for purpose.
The noble Lord raised concerns about potential creep resulting from the regulations. I assure him that, where data is used for purposes beyond direct care, only data necessary to meet the specific purpose will be made available. Where data is used for purposes beyond direct care, it is normally anonymised, and patients are entitled to expect an obligation of confidence for the health and care services they receive. A number of safeguards ensure that data is used for the purposes for which it was shared. These include provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK general data protection regulation regarding limitation of purpose, the Caldicott principles, security standards and toolkits, independent advisory bodies and a national data opt-out. These ensure that health and care data is used in a safe, secure and legal way.
The noble Lord also raised concerns about the burden of these procedures, particularly on social care, and specifically referenced small providers. I know that he is very active in this space and will be talking to people out there.
We need to make sure that mandatory information standards introduced as part of the staged process beginning later this year focus initially on those that are critical or most beneficial to improving integration of care. We need to remember throughout the ultimate purpose of this: to bring a better service to patients or users of services.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I fully understand and respect that answer, but it does not answer the question that I asked. I did not at any point in my intervention undermine why this was needed, and I actually said that we on these Benches are supportive. I asked why it is coming now and why it could not be delayed until we have further information. The Government’s own impact assessment says that,
“despite best endeavours to collect and draw upon strong evidence, cost and benefit assumptions remain uncertain”.
It is not just the cost and benefits; the assumptions remain uncertain and based on limited evidence. My question was why this needs to come forward now. What is the key issue that means this has to be debated and go through Parliament now? Why can it not come forward when some of those assumptions, and the uncertainty about the assumptions, are stronger?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I must admit that I had hoped that I had answered the question on the sequence of the processes. All I can say, again, is that it is about the whole process going forward, and obviously the costs and benefits will depend on the information that is gathered as we move forward with these principles. If the noble Lord is still not satisfied, this can of course be part of the information that I share with him going forward.
Moving on, the regulations set the process that will be followed in preparing and publishing information standards. Following on from that, it is absolutely appropriate for the Government or the body that they designate—such as NHS England—to set information standards for the health and care system to ensure that we have interoperability. As I have said before, we have run a public consultation and published its findings. NHSE has undertaken extensive stakeholder engagement, which will be ongoing. The last thing anyone wants to do is make the changes opaque and difficult to understand. Of course, we have to keep all of this in proportion, given the amount of information we are talking about, and make sure that it is completely relevant and fit for purpose.
The overriding conclusion is that we need to create a modern health and adult social care service where systems are integrated and staff have quicker access to patient data, freeing up time that could be spent with patients. Ensuring that information flows between services in the NHS and social care is a prerequisite of a responsive and effective service that meets people’s needs. Mandated information standards will set the technical means to ensure that this happens. I hope the Committee as a whole will recognise that setting these standards to ensure that IT systems and services can share data easily is fundamental to delivering the most effective health and care systems, and will agree that these regulations are practical and proportionate.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(2 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
That the Grand Committee do consider the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations amend the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This instrument was laid on 23 April under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures in this instrument, subject to the “made affirmative” parliamentary procedure, entered into force on 24 April.
Sanctions are a powerful tool in our armoury. They play an important part in promoting peace and security abroad, upholding international rules and norms, and protecting our citizens at home. Since coming to power, this Government have ramped up action with our partners. This includes leading the way on targeting Russia’s revenues, bearing down on its military-industrial complex, and deterring and disrupting Iran’s support to Russia. Just last Friday, the Prime Minister announced a major package of sanctions to target the decrepit and dangerous shadow fleet carrying Russian oil. This is the largest package of sanctions against the shadow fleet, with 110 targets. According to some estimates, sanctions have crippled 200 ships—almost half of Putin’s dedicated fleet.
The Government’s support to Ukraine remains steadfast. Our total support for Ukraine now stands at £18 billion, including £3 billion a year of military aid, as well as our £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans scheme. Two-thirds of our extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme funding has now been disbursed and will support Ukraine to obtain vital military equipment. We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, and maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to securing this. That is why we are continuing to introduce sanctions.
The UK has now sanctioned over 2,400 entities and individuals under our Russia regime, and international sanctions have deprived Putin of $450 billion since the invasion began. UK sanctions have also frustrated Russian trade. Russian imports into the UK have fallen by more than 98% compared to pre-invasion levels, and UK exports to Russia are down by more than 80%. We will maintain this relentless pressure on Putin, alongside our allies, to force him to the table and ensure that he engages seriously in negotiations.
We reiterate our call on Russia to accept a full, unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine to create space for talks on a just and lasting peace. We commend President Zelensky’s commitment to peace by expressing his openness to direct talks with Putin. That is why the Foreign Secretary is hosting the Weimar+ meeting in London with partners from across Europe at what is a key moment for Ukraine and the collective security of our continent. The time is now for Putin to come to the table and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending this war or face the consequences.
The UK stands ready to ratchet up the pressure on Russia so that it ends its brutal war of aggression. This instrument allows us to go even further in our efforts to target Russia’s revenue streams and prevent the Kremlin from building its military and industrial capabilities. It introduces a package of over 150 new trade sanctions. This includes new, innovative measures that will prevent UK expertise being used in Russia’s defence and energy sectors. It will deny Russia sophisticated UK technology and software, and it will expand our prohibitions with the aim of further constraining Russia’s economic growth.
I now turn to each measure in this instrument. First, the instrument introduces new export prohibitions on a wide range of goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. These prohibitions will deny Russia the means to procure products that have military and industrial uses. Secondly, we are extending our prohibitions on the transfer of technology, applying the prohibitions to a broader set of technology related to goods that are important for Russia’s military-industrial sectors and for its economic development. Through these measures, we are removing UK expertise, whether that is contained in intellectual property, blueprints or industrial know-how, from critical supply chains.
Thirdly, the instrument will ban the transfer of software relating to business enterprise, industrial design and oil and gas exploration and production. Putin relies on energy production and exports to fuel his war economy. Therefore, the aim of these sanctions is to make key sectors of the Russian economy less productive.
Fourthly, we are banning the import of Russian synthetic diamonds that have been processed in third countries, and helium. These target future funding sources that Russia is developing, as well as potential circumvention routes.
Finally, this instrument clarifies the enforcement responsibilities for a small number of trade sanctions on Russia. This will enable DBT’s Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation to enforce certain trade sanctions offences and refer serious offences to HMRC for criminal enforcement consideration.
To conclude, the Government remain committed to European security, and committed to standing up for the values of democracy and the rule of law, values which continue to be attacked by Russia. Sanctions, including this trade package, are a key part of our efforts. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining in clear turns what the Government are doing. We support these measures. The Government are rightly continuously moving to ensure that any previous omissions are corrected, as these instruments do, that new and emerging technologies are covered, as these instruments do, and to ensure that there is a watching brief on the circumvention and operation of third countries, as these instruments also do. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions, but I think we all hope that the diplomatic work being done at the moment will bring about a ceasefire on terms that benefit Ukraine, its integrity and sovereignty.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the Minister to know that we on these Benches continue to support strong, targeted sanctions in response to Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine. Since 2022, the UK, alongside our allies, has imposed an unprecedented range of sanctions to weaken Russia’s war machine. There are clearly some concerns; we would like to see further action taken, with regard to enforcement and the shadow fleet, et cetera—I agree with the previous speaker.
Despite these efforts, Russia has continued its aggression, often working through third countries and illicit networks to bypass existing sanctions. The persistence of these efforts underlines the importance of closing loopholes, keeping sanctions up to date and aligning with our international partners.
As the Minister set out, these provisions aim to tighten and expand the existing sanctions framework. One key element is the expansion of export-related goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. It is clear that these have potential military applications, and we support their inclusion. Notably, even items such as video game controllers are now being restricted, due to their reported use in piloting drones. I suspect Russia probably will not have difficulty in obtaining those from other sources, but nevertheless it is important to make the effort. Can the Minister clarify how these additions were identified? How often is the department reviewing product categories to ensure that sanctions keep pace with technological adaptation?
The instrument also brings in new restrictions on the transfer of software and technology, not only physically, but through intangible means such as downloads and cloud access. This is an important evolution of the regime, particularly as cloud-based platforms become more central to global business and infrastructure. However, it does again prompt the question of how we are going to enforce such sanctions when there is no physical movement of goods. Does the Minister have confidence that our enforcement bodies have the technical capacity to monitor compliance with these intangible software restrictions? Are businesses being given clear guidance on what is now prohibited?
On import bans, we note the Government’s decision to sanction synthetic diamonds processed in third countries, building on the ban already in place for natural stones. While I suspect that Russia is not a major producer of synthetic diamonds, this appears aimed at closing a circumvention route. What evidence does the Government have that synthetic diamonds are being used to sidestep the existing sanctions on natural stones? How are we working with allies to enforce traceability and verification?
We also note the inclusion of helium and helium-3 in the list of banned imports. This, too, is framed as a pre-emptive step, anticipating the growth of helium as a potential revenue stream for Russia in future. Will the Minister please confirm whether there is current evidence of Russia scaling up helium exports, or is this purely a precautionary measure?
There are also some important technical clarifications in the SI, including the correction of omitted offences and clearer enforcement responsibilities across government departments. Although these may seem fairly minor, such details are vital to effective enforcement. Will the Minister please confirm whether further regulatory gaps are under review, particularly given the pace at which circumvention technology is evolving?
With those few questions, we support the intent behind these measures. They reflect an ongoing commitment to tightening the UK’s sanctions regime and maintaining pressure on the Russian Government. But sanctions can be only as effective as the enforcement and adaptation measures. As Russia continues to develop complex workarounds—from third-country trade to its unregulated shadow fleet—we, the sanctioning countries, have to be equally agile. That includes reviewing measures regularly, ensuring that departments have the capacity to act and strengthening international co-operation. In that spirit, will the Minister please say more about how the Government are assessing the real-world impact of sanctions—not just in terms of goods restricted but in terms of their broader economic and strategic effect on Russia’s capacity to wage war? We believe that these regulations are a step in the right direction, but they must be part of a broader, joined-up and rigorously enforced sanctions strategy.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and broad support for these measures. The measures introduced by this instrument show how the UK continues to use its powers to apply further pressure on Putin, to help secure an enduring peace and to show that we remain fully behind Ukraine.
This instrument is one part of a broader cross-government effort on sanctions. We are leading the way on sanctioning Russia’s shadow fleet and continue to target Russia’s military suppliers and kleptocrats. We are going after those who support Russia in circumventing UK and partner sanctions, using all the tools in our arsenal to stop the supply of critical military equipment to Russia. This has included designating bad actors re-exporting sanctioned Western goods to Russia and working with our allies to crack down on the illicit trade of advanced machine tools.
We will continue to engage with our financial institutions and businesses so that they have the information they need to comply with our sanctions. The Government are committed to ensuring robust sanctions enforcement. To this end, with the support of ministerial colleagues, we launched a cross-government review of sanctions at the first small ministerial group on enforcement in October. The review concluded in April and—I think this will be of interest to noble Lords opposite—Parliament will shortly be updated on the review conclusions, alongside publication. I think that will involve a Statement to Parliament; I am not completely sure but, if it does, perhaps we could get into those issues a bit more at that point.
On the issue of the OTSI and HMRC, and how that operates in practice, I am very happy to organise another briefing for any noble Lords who are interested; that is a really good suggestion. I expect that it will be quite in-depth and technical; I know the noble Lord would like nothing better than that, so we will make sure that it happens as soon as we can arrange it.
We work very closely with partners on the shadow fleet. The noble Lord alluded to diplomatic efforts. We raise these issues constantly; I myself have raised them with partners who have had vessels involved in this, and they have taken action as a consequence of that. Sanctions are an important tool that we have, but they are far from the only tool.
Both noble Lords were quite right to remind us how important enforcement is. Although we do not comment on future designations, clearly, we keep all of this under review. We are looking at any regulatory gaps that there may be, and we will continue to take further measures as and when we need to; I do not anticipate that this is the last time we will stand here introducing these sorts of measures. I thank both noble Lords for their consistent support on these issues. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said on the issues of the ceasefire and the behaviour of Putin. I thought that his remarks about Zelensky were well made, and I agree with them.
The UK has transformed its use of sanctions. The Government are committed to continuing to strengthen the effectiveness of our sanctions regimes, their implementation and enforcement; and to reviewing their ongoing appropriateness in changing foreign policy contexts. We will continue to put pressure on Russia, as it is now time for Putin to come to the table and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending the war—or face the consequences. Once again, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and for the continued cross-party support for the sanctions regimes.
Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(2 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
That the Grand Committee do consider the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations amend the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Five months after the fall of the brutal Assad regime, Syria stands at a crossroads. The country and its economy have been decimated by more than 13 years of conflict. Vital infrastructure has been destroyed. Some 90% of Syrians live below the poverty line. They desperately need support to recover and to rebuild their country.
On 24 April, this statutory instrument was laid, amending the Syria sanctions regulations, to promote and support Syria’s economic recovery. That instrument revoked specific UK sanctions measures on some sectors of the Syrian economy, including transport, trade, energy and finance. We have taken this action to help open up the Syrian financial system and to support the flow of essential investment in energy infrastructure—above all, in the electricity generation sector, which is vital for Syria’s recovery and reconstruction.
This is the latest step in a series of gradual actions designed to aid Syria’s recovery. On 12 February, the Treasury’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation issued a general licence allowing for payments to be made to support humanitarian delivery. The Statement made by the Minister for Europe in the other place on 13 February indicated the direction of travel for our Syria sanctions regulations. Following this, on 6 March, we announced the delisting of 24 Syrian entities that were previously used by the Assad regime to fund the oppression of the Syrian people, including the Central Bank of Syria, Syrian Arab Airlines and several energy companies.
Reflecting the momentous changes that have taken place in Syria since December, these amendments, as well as supporting the Syrian people in rebuilding their country and economy, bring the regulations up to date. In light of the fall of the Assad Government, the purposes of the regulations now prioritise the promotion of peace, stability and security in Syria, while encouraging respect for democracy and human rights. At the same time, they provide accountability for gross violations of human rights carried out by or on behalf of the Assad regime.
Alongside laying this instrument, we delisted a further 12 government and media entities that were previously sanctioned due to their links to Assad, and which we judge to no longer have an association with the former regime. These include the Syrian Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior. The Government remain determined to hold Bashar al-Assad and his associates accountable for their atrocious actions against the people of Syria. As such, we will ensure that sanctions imposed on 348 individuals and entities linked to the former regime remain in place.
A number of members have rightly raised deep concerns in the past about the horrific violence that erupted in coastal areas of Syria in early March, on which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Middle East updated the other place in his Statement on 10 March. We have also seen violence in southern Syria at the end of April. Members may ask why we are lifting sanctions at this time. I reassure noble Lords that we will keep all our sanctions regimes under close review to ensure that they are used as a responsive tool, targeting those who bear responsibility for repression and human rights abuses. The revised regulations give the UK scope to deploy future sanctions should that become necessary.
The violence we have seen has given us an image of Syria’s future if the new leadership chooses the wrong path. They must protect the rights of all Syrians, to ensure that they are included in the political transition taking place. Without meaningful representation of Syria’s diverse communities, there can be no lasting peace and ultimately no better future for the country. This is a message we consistently emphasise in all the UK’s engagement with interim President al-Sharaa and Foreign Minister al-Shaibani. But there have also been some positive developments that suggest Syria could choose the right path towards peace and stability. The president’s actions in the aftermath of the violence in March, announcing the formation of a fact-finding committee to investigate those found responsible for crimes committed during the violence, are welcome.
We also welcome the formation of a new Syrian Government on 29 March and the commitment of the president to hold free and fair elections. We expect those appointed to the new Government to demonstrate a commitment to the protection of human rights, unfettered access for humanitarian aid, safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles and combating terrorism and extremism.
Further, we welcome the provisions made in the constitutional declaration on 13 March on freedom of expression, freedom of belief and women’s rights. It will be vital to ensure that Syria’s diverse communities are consulted as future iterations of the draft constitution are developed, so we will continue to call on the Syrian Government to prioritise inclusivity and representation in the building of state institutions and in further appointments, including to the legislative committee, and to set out a clear timeline for the next phase of the transition.
We are encouraged too by the positive and constructive engagement Syria has demonstrated with the UN Human Rights Council’s new resolution on Syria, which the UK co-tabled, and which renewed the mandate of the commission of inquiry for a further 12 months. The UK will continue our commitment to supporting accountability and human rights in Syria, including the right to freedom of religion or belief, and to advocate for their foundational place at the centre of the transitional process in Syria.
The appearance of the Foreign Minister at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ executive council on 5 March was an historic moment, and we welcome commitments by the Syrian Government that they will protect chemical weapons sites and will not use chemical weapons under any circumstances. The OPCW’s two visits to Syria are also important steps forward. The OPCW reported that the Syrian Government extended all possible support and co-operation, including access to sites and people. We call on Syria to now move quickly towards declaration.
The agreement made by the president with the Syrian Democratic Forces on north-east Syria on 10 March was also a welcome development. We will continue to engage with all parties in support of an inclusive process as implementation of the agreement progresses.
Beyond our action on sanctions, we remain committed to helping meet Syria’s humanitarian needs. We have pledged up to £160 million of UK support in 2025, providing life-saving assistance to millions of Syrians inside Syria and across the region, as well as agriculture, livelihoods and education programmes to help Syrians to rebuild their lives.
To conclude, Syria’s transition remains delicately balanced. A step in the wrong direction could lead to instability and ultimately a collapse that would benefit Iran and Russia. It would have wider ramifications for our efforts to counter Daesh—we remain a member of the Global Coalition—and illegal migration, and risk destabilising the wider region. Promoting stability and prosperity in Syria through economic recovery is firmly in the UK’s national interest. It will bolster regional and UK security in line with the Government’s plan for change. The UK remains committed to the people of Syria and will continue to stand with them in building a more stable, free and prosperous future.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I thank the Minister for her balanced and nuanced tone on these measures. These measures, unlike the previous measures, give me a bit more concern. I agree with the Minister that we want to see a Syria at peace within its borders and beyond. There should be restraint from neighbouring countries in acting within its sovereign borders. The Minister was absolutely right that there are positive signals, signs and actions. But there are also those which have provided some worry in recent weeks.
When we previously debated measures that allowed humanitarian licences to be issued, my party supported them. That is fully justified; the humanitarian situation within Syria remains grave. The Government are to be commended for the humanitarian support that they are providing with our partners. That is especially the case when we are working with local civil society groups, which are working extremely hard. It is the best means by which we can avoid facilitating those who do not share the overall ambitions of the Government for civil rights, human rights and humanitarian needs.
This is one area where the structure of doing this through statutory instruments prevents, for example, probing amendments on areas we would like some further clarity on. The Minister referred to the recent attacks on the Druze and the concerns about the restrictions of rights for minorities. The Government were right to condemn these, and the Minister is right to do so. As she alluded to, this is the second set of incidents; it could highlight that these are not isolated incidents. There needs to be action as a result of the fact-finding inquiries to ensure that they are prevented from happening again.
The Minister will recall that I separately raised concerns in the Chamber about the work being done on the national curriculum. It seems to be reflecting sectarianism, continuing antisemitism, extremist language and violent content, and erasing women and minorities. This is in clear contradiction to the last bullet point in the Government’s ambitions for Syria, for
“the enjoyment of rights and freedoms in Syria without discrimination, including on the basis of a person’s sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion”.
The probing amendment I would seek to bring would ask for a report on the implementation of some of the policies and how they interact with the new liberties that the UK is providing, especially for financial services, financial markets and the operation of the private sector at the direction of those who, while they may not be part of the proscribed terrorist organisation, are working with them. The proscription in UK law is not only for the organisation itself, but those that facilitate, finance and support it. The catch-all is quite broad. I would hope that we would also have a report on what the ongoing assessment is on proscription. When will it be the time that there is a view that that proscription should be lifted overall?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this important statutory instrument. I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. The legislation before us amends the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to reflect the developments following the fall of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December last year. The stated intention is to support Syria’s recovery while maintaining pressure on those responsible for past atrocities.
As the Minister outlined, the instrument revokes several key sanctions that were originally imposed to constrain the Assad regime. These include restrictions on aircraft operated by Syrian Arab Airlines, prohibitions on investment in Syria’s energy sector and bans on trade involving aviation fuel, crude oil and related technologies. The rationale is that lifting restrictions will facilitate economic recovery. Crucially, prohibitions remain in place on military goods, chemical weapons and surveillance equipment, signalling continued vigilance on matters of security.
These are indeed sensitive and consequential decisions. Although I think we all recognise the goal of supporting Syria’s reconstruction, the question must be asked: on what grounds have the Government determined that the time is now right to lift these specific sanctions? Syria remains an unstable, fractured state, and many individuals and networks once aligned with the regime retain significant power—as, of course, do several elements of al-Qaeda.
Accountability must also remain at the forefront. The UK has rightly condemned the human rights violations committed under the Assad regime, which was truly awful, but how does this instrument ensure that those responsible are prevented from benefiting from sanctions relief? What mechanisms are in place to pursue justice and guard against the erosion of international human rights standards?
We also seek clarity on the broader strategic approach. The US and the EU have taken carefully calibrated steps in adjusting their sanctions—some temporary, some conditional. Have the Government engaged in consultation with our international partners? Are these measures aligned with a co-ordinated international effort, or do they mark a unilateral shift in approach?
Given that the instrument follows earlier amendments that eased restrictions to facilitate humanitarian aid and adjust financial services, will the Minister clarify whether we are now entering a broader phase of graduated sanctions relief? If so, what specific benchmarks have been put in place to justify this latest easing of measures, and under what conditions do the Government foresee making further changes?
There is also the role of Iran to consider. The Assad regime did not fall in isolation. Iranian military and financial support helped sustain it, and Iran continues to exert influence across Syria’s political and security landscape. Does this statutory instrument reflect a broader diplomatic position towards Iran’s activities in the region? What role does the UK intend to play in countering destabilising external actors?
Finally, we must ask who will benefit from these changes. If the goal, which I share, is to support ordinary Syrians—those who have borne the brunt of over a decade of war—how will the Government ensure that economic relief does not simply entrench new elites or resurrect old networks under new names?
If the sanctions regime is to evolve, it must do so with clarity, caution and accountability, guided by the principle that peace cannot come at the expense of justice. I am sure the Minister will tell us that these matters are always kept under review. I have sat in her chair in the past and have been passed notes by officials which tell me that everything in government is always up for review and kept under review, and can always be changed. That is a truism, so I hope the Minister will not revert to telling us that again in response to these questions.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
How can the noble Lord read from that distance?
I thank noble Lords for what they had to say; it is completely understandable, and both noble Lords are right to raise their questions and concerns. I accept that this is a judgment that we have made. Both noble Lords indicated that they understand that we made it because the best prospect for the people of Syria, and to deliver the stable peace and the inclusive and representative democracy that we wish to see, is through economic growth and stability. It is just not possible for the fledgling Government in Damascus to be able to deliver that while these sanctions remain in place.
Of course, we work closely with our international partners. I would not say that we co-ordinate as such, but we work very closely. As noble Lords said, the EU has eased some of its sanctions; we have gone one step further today. We think that this is the right approach. We have the flexibility to be able to keep this under review, as noble Lords knew I would say. It is perfectly right for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, to say, “Yes, but these are different, so there needs to be a different exercise of that constant reviewing as far as these sanctions are concerned”. I think that is right and I commit that we will do that.
As regards future opportunities to discuss this in the House, I do not know if I can instigate that—my Whip is sitting here thinking, “Don’t you dare”—but I think it would be a good thing to have a debate on Syria generally in the near future. I know that noble Lords are wily enough to figure out how they could bring about such a thing.
Some of the sanctions that we had were specifically tied to Assad, so, given that he is no longer there, we needed to take a fresh look at this. Now that we have that in these regulations, we are able to make further designations—although obviously we do not comment on that or make any predictions. However, that capability is there.
As noble Lords said, it is true that there are other states who wish to exert influence and bring about instability in Syria. That is our strong view and that of regional partners who are hosting a large number of Syrian refugees at the moment. They have some support from the international community but nevertheless, it imposes a huge strain on them. In Jordan, I met Syrian refugees who desperately want to go home and they asked us about our sanctions regime. They know that the only way that they are going to be able to safely return is if there is a stable Government in Syria, and that requires the ability to grow a stable economy. They know that cannot happen quickly. They know that their children’s education, their healthcare and their ability to support themselves depend on it, and they want to see the international community stepping up and being active in its support for the new Cabinet and Government in Syria.
That is not without qualification, and noble Lords must hold this Government to account on that—I am glad that the noble Lord has indicated that they will do so. It is a precarious time for Syria, but I believe this is the best hope and may be the only chance we get to build the stable country that the Syrian people need and so deserve. If we do not do everything we can to support them at this moment, we may well find ourselves looking at a bigger disaster than we have seen in the region for a very long time, and wishing that we had been a bit more proactive at this point. That is why the Government are taking those decisions, while accepting what noble Lords have said and the legitimate questions that they put to me.
To conclude, I thank the noble Lords for their insightful contributions, and for the continued cross-party support for the sanctions regime more generally. The Government are committed to keeping our sanctions up to date and supporting Syria as it takes steps towards a more peaceful, more prosperous and more hopeful future. I know many noble Lords will agree that this is the future that the Syrian people deserve. I beg to move.