Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that, in the admittedly unlikely event that there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sounding of the Division Bells.
AI Systems: Risks
Lord Fairfax of Cameron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that advanced AI development remains safe and controllable, given the recent threat update warning from the Director General of MI5 that there are “potential future risks from non-human, autonomous AI systems which may evade human oversight and control”.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to have this opportunity to discuss the most pressing issue facing humanity: the advent of superintelligence. I am particularly grateful to have had the support of ControlAI, a company working in this area, in preparing this speech.
Several weeks ago, MI5 Director-General Ken McCallum warned in his annual lecture about
“risks from non-human … AI systems which may evade human oversight and control”.
But this warning only follows on from Nobel Prize winners, leading AI scientists and CEOs of AI companies that:
“Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority”.
In my opinion, it should be the global priority because of the seriousness of the situation.
The fact is that the leading AI companies are racing and competing with each other to develop superintelligent AI systems, despite the risks they acknowledge that such systems pose to humanity, possibly as early as 2030. For example, the CEO of Anthropic, which as many noble Lords will know is one of the leading AI companies, has assessed the chance of AI destroying humanity at between 10% and 25%. Most worryingly, AI companies are developing machines that can autonomously improve themselves, possibly leading to a superintelligence explosion.
The AI companies are in fact bringing into existence, for the first time, an entity that is more intelligent than humans, which is obviously extremely serious. People talk about pulling the plug out, but they simply would not allow us to pull the plug out. I do not know whether any noble Lords have seen a wonderful film about all this called “Ex Machina”, where the AI does not allow the plug to be pulled out.
In the face of these threats, I urge the Government to take the following steps: first, to publicly recognise that superintelligence poses an extinction threat to humanity; secondly, for the UK to prevent the development of superintelligence on its soil; and, thirdly, for the UK to resume its leadership in AI safety and to champion an international agreement to prohibit the development of superintelligent systems.
If noble Lords can believe it, I was terribly young when I first spoke on this subject: I was here in my 20s as a hereditary Peer. I have had a lifelong interest in this area after reading a book called The Silicon Idol by a brilliant Oxford astrophysicist, and I spoke about my concerns all those years ago. When I spoke on this subject two years ago, I quoted the well-known words of Dylan Thomas, which many noble Lords will recognise:
“Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light”.
That, of course, is the dying of the human light. But now I will add WB Yeats’s equally famous poem:
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity”.
I devoutly ask the Government and the Minister that they now be full of conviction and passionate intensity in protecting the UK and humanity from the risks—including extinction—of superintelligence, which, as we have heard, is being developed by the AI companies in competition with each other. I fear that we may have a window of only, say, five years in which to do this. I thank noble Lords for listening to me, and I very much look forward to hearing what other noble Lords have to say.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fairfax for securing this very important debate. We are already seeing the potential of artificial intelligence being realised as a driving force throughout this country. Businesses are profiting from it, and the country as a whole is benefiting. The United Kingdom has positioned itself well to exploit the benefits of this new technology, with only the United States and China being ahead of the UK in total investment into AI.
With this growing industry come the external threats and risks of a new unregulated technology. National security is perhaps the most pressing issue, but every week there is a new story in which AI has been used for malicious ends. Whether because of deepfake images or fraud, it is clear that the technology employed needs appropriate oversight.
The last Conservative Government were committed to ensuring that the UK becomes an AI superpower with thorough safety rules. As Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak hosted the AI Safety Summit, which saw the signing of the Bletchley declaration, bringing academia and industry together with the representatives of 28 countries. The AI Safety Institute was launched, set up to test new types of AI before and after they are released. The institute now has more researchers than anywhere else in the world and provides the safety check on new technology without stunting innovation.
The question remains as to how this Government will eventually seek to regulate artificial intelligence. To give AI companies complete free rein would be imprudent, but the Government’s current approach has not established business confidence. Despite promising to bring forth binding regulations on the most powerful AI models, the Government have stalled. Regulation was supposed to be introduced this parliamentary Session but, as we approach Prorogation, the policy is still yet to be seen. On the one hand, companies are expected to prepare for potentially heavy-handed measures, yet on the other they are left in a state of flux. That is not the way to encourage growth in a booming industry.
The Prime Minister has described his inheritance as world leading. It would be foolish to squander that, yet the Government are at risk of doing so. The Government must implement policies that safeguard national interests and prevent AI being used for crimes, yet at the same time promote the expansion and innovation of the technology that will do so much to define the future of our economy.
The AI Opportunities Action Plan presents a chance to build on the Conservative Government’s legacy. Its recommendations include bolstering the AI Safety Institute in a way that does not impede growth and investing in research and development for the evolution of new assurance tools. These measures would promote business confidence while ensuring a level of AI safety.
I hope the Minister can assure your Lordships that the Government will seize this opportunity, and I look forward to hearing their plans from him.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, on raising what is rightly a fundamental question of our time: the risk of AI systems becoming more powerful than their human creators. Advanced AI does not become unsafe in a vacuum; it becomes unsafe by design when it is developed without accountability, driven by profit incentives of private actors and embedded in infrastructure that the state can neither inspect nor exit. Alongside concerns of runaway capability is the risk of dependency. Long before any dramatic accident or attack, we risk a growing reliance on a narrow set of foreign-owned technologies, leaving the UK unable to act as a sovereign state with values, choices and technologies of its own.
Just this week, the Ministry of Defence awarded a £240 million contract for “critical operational decision-making support” to Palantir. The issue here is not one company but a pattern of outsourcing our national infrastructure to American firms, backed by a US Administration whose national security strategy states plainly: “In everything we do, we are putting America first”.
Across the economy, we have normalised deep vendor lock-in to US companies to the point where security, critical industries and sensitive government departments cannot credibly switch suppliers, even as the risks or the terms of engagement shift. One security expert recently described it to me as economic warfare, where they create strategic advantage by advancing their domestic industry and technology while simultaneously degrading the same capacity in adversaries and allies alike. Where the state cannot inspect, audit or exit the systems that shape its decisions or handle sensitive data, it has no sovereignty.
The US and China are determinedly ahead, but many AI experts believe that the next phase of AI will favour systems that are reliable, auditable and governed by understood rules. That is where the United Kingdom has an opportunity.
There is not time today to set out a sovereign strategy for AI. But in systems that shape our defence, policing, health service and democratic decision-making, sovereignty must be the default, with onshore audit and assurance, procurement that builds domestic capability, control over strategic pinch-points and the ultimate power to say no. I join the noble Lord in asking for greater autonomy and power for the AI Security Institute.
AI will not evade human control because it suddenly becomes clever; it will evade control because we have designed systems in which no one is responsible, no one can see clearly and no one can intervene in time.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I also want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, on securing this question for short debate on such a timely issue. AI is an incredible development for many reasons—R&D, innovation, economic growth, productivity, faster health diagnoses and many other areas. However, this must be balanced with a regulatory environment which allows and encourages all those positive things and provides safeguards against harms. We must be risk-aware, and I hope that the Minister will be able, in closing this debate, to set out where the Government are with their risk analysis and action plan to deal with those risks.
Two sorts of harm can occur with autonomous AI systems. The first is intentional harm, which I hope could be identified and regulated in a straightforward manner. It is the second type of harm—unintentional or reckless harm—which may be more difficult to detect and, therefore, to regulate. So-called superintelligent AI is the riskiest type of AI. Sometimes, as the MI5 director, Kenneth McCallum noticed, it would be reckless to ignore.
Serious harms from AI have already begun to materialise. Before Christmas, I asked the Education Minister in the House a question about the fact that toys with AI, such as speaking teddy bears, were unregulated and had the potential to be very dangerous indeed to very young children. If children interact with AI chatbots and toys instead of their parents, guardians and friends, that could lead to serious harms. There have been documented cases of health deterioration and tragic instances where young people have taken their lives after forming attachments to these systems.
Modern AI systems, I understand, are not built in a piece-by-piece fashion, like a machine, but grown. That means that no one, not even the initial AI developers, understand the AI they create. That is frightening indeed.
Geoffrey Hinton the Nobel Prize-winning British scientist has warned that humanity has never before encountered anything with intellectual or cognitive abilities superior to our own, and that we simply do not know what a world with smarter-than-human AI would look like, much less how to manage or grow it safely.
At a recent conference in Kuala Lumpur on responsible AI—where one of the hosts works for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—a joint declaration was issued calling for international co-operation to establish global readiness for the responsible use of AI in the common interest of humanity. The declaration urged parliaments to, among other things, set common rules and regulatory frameworks. I urge His Majesty’s Government to look at that declaration. Hoping for the best and that AI companies have the best of intentions is not an appropriate strategy. I hope that Labour, as it said it would in its manifesto, will look to developing a regulatory environment. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron for securing this hugely important debate. Like other noble Lords, I very much acknowledge the transformative potential of AI, not least in areas such as medicine.
However, there are dangers. We would be mad to ignore them because many of the same people who built this technology—people who have won Nobel Prizes and Turing Awards—are warning that AI poses an extinction risk to humanity. Hundreds of AI experts recently co-signed a letter that said:
“Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war”.
Among the signatories, you will see the names of Sam Altman—CEO of OpenAI, as noble Lords will know—and Geoffrey Hinton, often referred to as the godfather of AI.
A separate letter signed by Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak, among many others, reads:
“AI systems with human-competitive intelligence can pose profound risks to society and humanity”.
It also calls for a moratorium on the next generation of AI until we know more about it. These people cannot be dismissed as Luddites or technophobes. They are the architects of this brave new world. They recognise that superintelligent AI is far more powerful than any of us can understand and has the capacity to overwhelm us.
It is not just that we do not understand where things will end up; we do not even understand where things are today. The CEO of Anthropic, one of the world’s largest AI companies, admitted:
“Maybe we … understand 3% of how”
AI systems work. That is not that reassuring. We have already had a glimpse of what losing control looks like; for example, in an experiment, an Anthropic AI system attempted to blackmail its managing engineer when told that it was going to be shut down.
However, although so many AI experts and AI bosses are blowing the whistle, Governments are miles behind; in my view, our Government need to step up. They can start by acknowledging the existential risk of advanced AI and joining the numerous UK parliamentarians—including many in this Room today—who have called for a prohibition on the development of superintelligence unless and until we know how it can be controlled.
Finally, there are a number of important choke points in the supply chain that potentially allow the opportunity to monitor and control it. The most advanced AI systems depend on state-of-the-art chips produced by a scarce supply of lithography machines. The chips are then installed into massive data centres, including some being built right now here in the UK. This raises some questions. Who should have access to those chips? Should data centres be required to include emergency shutdown mechanisms, as with nuclear power plants?
I do not pretend to be an expert on this subject but there are big questions that need answering. The Government need to get down to the job of addressing these questions before we are left scrambling for retroactive solutions.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, for securing this debate. I begin from a position of some scepticism. As many experts say, there is a great deal of hype around AGI—so-called human-level intelligence—but increasing numbers of experts are saying that, unless we get to at least physically embodied intelligence, the large language model-type approach will never get us to that point.
However, my intervention is about a different risk from the generative AI being promoted so much now: resilience. It starts with an incident that is not about AI at all. I shall take noble Lords to Berlin on Saturday, where 45,000 households—including some 2,000 businesses, four hospitals, 74 care homes and 20 schools—found themselves without power. It was not until Wednesday that a significant number of those were reconnected. Unsurprisingly, in Berlin there is now a lot of discussion about vulnerability and today, our own local think tank, the Council on Geostrategy, is highlighting how by cutting just 60 undersea cables, or a percentage of those, we could see a 99% cut in data flows. Imagine the financial impacts and the impacts in societal chaos.
To make this practical, I note that the Government are funding Northumberland County Council, through the £200 million flood and coastal innovation programmes, to trial a flood prediction service for six catchments in that county that are particularly vulnerable to flash floods. Such flashy catchments have a big problem with traditional models of flood warning, so maybe AI can provide the solution. But of course, that is dependent on electricity, data flows and cyber systems that are functional and have not been hit by some kind of malevolent force.
More than that, what kind of data are we relying on? Is it spoiled or polluted data? It is not impossible to imagine that being through human agency. I see that Northumberland is also trialling the use of AI in considering flood risk in planning applications. There could be a lot of money at risk there. Even if there is not an active agent, is it taking adequate account of the changing weather resulting from the climate emergency? Maybe with enough data it could allow for that, but would it also allow for changing human behaviour, ageing populations or loss of trust in authority?
There is a temptation to regard any judgment made by a computer system, even more any judgment by something labelled as AI, as somehow infallible or at least preferable to on-the-ground human experience and knowledge. That is a by-product of far too many people at the head of such AI programmes regarding themselves as somehow superior to other human beings—but they are not. They are just as fallible and multiply their fallibility in their systems.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, for giving us this valuable opportunity today. When, within our lifetimes, we experienced the introduction of the world wide web and the internet, we could see the opportunities that that technology brought—but it also brought harms, something we have learned far too late to deal with. We debate almost every week in the Chamber how we are going to deal with those harms. If intelligence is about anything, it is about learning from that past experience and using that knowledge to avoid repeating the mistakes with AI. It is not Luddite to express the concerns that have prompted this debate today on the safety and development of AI. I believe we are already behind the curve.
I am not an expert on this subject but, as an older person, I have concern for future generations, not just in my own family but in this country and the world, and that is not an exaggeration. It is not just on a domestic basis that we see this; it is interesting that we have seen some of those organisations that one might think have a vested interest already expressing their concern. We have received a briefing for this debate from the Institution of Engineering and Technology, and it is interesting that it should say:
“AI safety and the assessment of risk must go beyond the physical, to look at financial, societal, reputational and risks to mental health, amongst other harms”.
If that is what industry is telling us the potential harms are, we should already know how we are going to control it.
I hope that today’s debate will ensure that, when the Minister responds, he will give us some information not only about what the Government are intending but about what timescale the Government are working to, because clearly industry also thinks that we are behind the curve. The institution also talks about standards and transparency, and says:
“Industry standards should not only aim to be met but exceeded”.
How rare is it for us ever in this House to hear industry say on regulation that we should exceed the norm? From what we have already heard in this debate, there is a clear identity as to why we should do that.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax. I agree with almost everything he said, bar one aspect that I think was optimistic, which is that we have a five-year window—I fear it might be even less than that. I also agree with the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, about the impact of AI chatbots on the well-being of children, but like all of us I am even more worried about the risks of development of superintelligence.
I can discard some of my quotes because your Lordships have heard them already, so I can be a bit briefer, but I will give another Anthropic quote from Jack Clark, who is the co-founder and head of policy. He said:
“We have what I think of as appropriate anxiety and a fear of hubris. This is a huge responsibility that shouldn’t be left only to companies. One of the things that we advocate for is for sensible policy frameworks that make our development practices transparent. I think a larger swath of society is going to want to make decisions about these systems. It would be a failure for only the companies to be making all of the judgment calls about how to build this”.
If the AI executives are worried, I am worried and we all should be worried. Although the AI Security Institute is a step in the right direction, despite manifesto commitments, as your Lordships have already heard, we do not yet have legislation, and without a legislative framework we are really at significant risk.
The AI company executives talk about how they are taking decisions to try to teach their AI systems to value human life above the AI superintelligence, but they should not be the ones having to think that is a good thing to do. We must act before we reach the point of no return and the genie is out of the bottle.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, on bringing forward this important debate on the impact of artificial intelligence. I have read deeply concerning reports from AI companies. For example, the chief scientist of Anthropic, who has already been referred to—that is the company behind the AI Claude—told the Guardian that if his company and others succeed at making AIs able to improve themselves without human assistance, it could be the moment that humans end up losing control.
Undoubtedly, as other noble Members have referred to right across the Committee, AI is important and provides certain benefits in the whole medical field. But there is a need for proper regulation and accountability mechanisms, and we need to see the legislative framework. Therefore, in that regard, can my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench provide us with an update from the Government’s perspective in relation to the regulatory environment, to regulations and to those accountability mechanisms? I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, already referred to that, and others right across this Room today have referred to the need for the legislative framework.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister can provide us with some detail, because there are warning signs. Even AI companies appear to agree with the scale of the risk. For example, the CEOs of OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind signed a statement that others have referred to today about the extinction risk posed by AI. This is sobering and opens the question of what is being done by these companies to address these risks. My understanding, thanks to helpful briefings by ControlAI policy advisers, is that no technical solution is in sight, so maybe my noble friend the Minister can provide us with some detail from the governmental perspective in relation to that matter.
I realise that small steps are being made here, but nothing that amounts to a full guarantee that superintelligence, should it get developed, will stay under control. OpenAI seems to agree, stating:
“Obviously, no one should deploy superintelligent systems without being able to robustly align and control them, and this requires more technical work”.
I look forward to the answers from my noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Fairfax for bringing this debate and for his continued efforts on this topic. I shall focus my remarks on so-called advanced general artificial intelligence, AGI. I understand the resistance to legislation. I understand the fear that technology will get around barriers and that technologists and technology will simply go elsewhere, with the associated growth that that might bring. But I think that, as everyone who has spoken in this debate has said, there are very real fears, expressed by the head of MI5 no less, that this technology could get out of control. We have to ask the question: it is not just whether you can do something; it is whether you should do something.
There is a real example of the UK tackling a different but similar problem brilliantly in our recent past: the Warnock report of 1982 to 1984. Dame Mary Warnock was charged with reviewing the social, ethical and legal implications of developments in human fertilisation and embryology. What Dame Mary and her team did at that time was to settle the debate and to settle public opinion on what ought to be done—not what could be, but what ought to be. That included, for example, the 14-day rule for research on human embryos. At the time, human embryos could be kept alive only for a couple of days. That rule has lasted 40 years and is currently being redebated. What we have is a British model for what was at the time a global technology that presented huge opportunity and created great fear. Does this sound familiar? I think it does.
I ask the Minister whether the Government will consider something similar. The AI Security Institute is doing good work, but it is scientific work. It is asking, “What do these models currently do?” It is not asking, “What should they do?” I think we need ethicists, philosophers and social scientists to build that social, moral and then legal framework for this technology, which I would be the first to say I welcome—but, my goodness, we need to decide what we want it to do rather than just wait to find out what it can do.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, for initiating this important and timely debate. As a signatory to the AI Red Lines initiative, I agree very much with his reasons for bringing this debate to the Committee. Sadly, with apologies, there is too little time to properly wind up and acknowledge other contributions in the debate today.
In September 2025, Anthropic detected the first documented large-scale cyber espionage campaign using agentic AI. AI is no longer merely generating content; it is autonomously executing code to breach the security of organisations and nations. Leading AI researchers have already warned us of fundamental control challenges. Yoshua Bengio, AI pioneer and Turing Award winner, reports that AI systems and experiments have chosen their own preservation over human safety. Professor Stuart Russell describes the control problem: how to maintain power over entities more powerful than us. Mustafa Suleyman, one of the two founders of DeepMind, has articulated the containment problem: that AI’s inherent tendency towards autonomy makes traditional containment methods insufficient. The Institution of Engineering and Technology reports that six in 10 engineering employers already use AI, yet 46% of senior management do not understand it and 50% of employers expecting AI to be important lack necessary skills. If senior leaders cannot grasp AI fundamentals, they cannot govern it effectively.
The Government’s response appears fragmented, not only as regards sovereign AI development. We inexplicably renamed the AI Safety Institute as the AI Security Institute, muddling two distinct concepts. We lag behind the EU AI Act, South Korea’s AI Basic Act, Singapore’s governance framework and even China’s regulation of public-facing generative AI. Meanwhile, voluntary approaches are failing.
Let me press the Government on three crucial issues. First, ahead of AGI or superintelligence, as I frequently argue, we need binding legislation with clear mandates, not advisory powers. ISO standards embodying key principles provide a good basis in terms of risk management, ethical design, testing, training, monitoring and transparency and should be applied where appropriate. We need a broader definition of safety that encompasses financial, societal, reputational and mental health risks, not just physical harm. What is the Government’s plan in this respect? Secondly, we must address the skills crisis. People need confidence in using AI and need more information on how it works. We need more agile training programmes beyond current initiatives and AI literacy and we need to guard against deskilling. Thirdly, we must consider sustainability. AI consumes enormous energy, yet could mitigate 5% to 10% of global greenhouse gases by 2030. What is the Government’s approach on this?
As Stuart Russell has noted, when Alan Turing warned in 1951 that machines would take control, our response resembled telling an alien civilisation that we were out of office. The question is whether we will act with the seriousness that this moment demands or allow big tech, largely US-owned, to override the fundamental imperative of maintaining human control over these increasingly powerful systems in its own interests.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I join noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Fairfax for securing the debate and for speaking so powerfully, as ever, on the subject.
When I attended my first university course on AI in 1999, AGI was more a theoretical thought experiment than a serious possibility, so the warnings from the director-general of MI5 and, as we have heard, from a great many others are not just testament to the dangers of these technologies but equally a reminder that this tech is moving far faster than anyone has expected.
For today, I will confine my brief remarks to what we consider to be three essential requirements if frontier AI is to remain safe and controllable. First, we need a shared definition of artificial general intelligence. At present, Governments, companies and researchers use the term “AGI” to mean a huge variety of different things. Indeed, the very helpful notes from the Library for this debate found it necessary to include a definition and, whether we accept its definition or not, the important thing is that we need to reach a point where we all agree on what we are talking about. I suggest that, without a common, internationally accepted definition, regulation will always lag behind capability.
Secondly, I am afraid that national approaches alone will not work because the AI stack—that is, the hardware, software, data, finance, energy and skills for any significant AI tool—must necessarily be spread across the globe. A number of global and multilateral organisations are working towards global standards for AI safety, but not so far with sufficient co-ordination or impact to provide much reassurance. I suggest, as others have, that the UK has an unrealised opportunity to lead here more.
Thirdly, we all know that we need dynamic alignment of AI with our human societal goals, but we do not know what that means in practice, how it translates to technical and procedural rules and how such rules are to be deployed and enforced. Again, the AISI and other UK bodies are surely well placed to drive that thinking forward globally and I hope the Minister will comment on the UK’s role here.
I close by somewhat unwillingly quoting Vladimir Putin: whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world. In other words, for some nations and for some organisations, the incentives to push ahead at speed outweigh the incentives to do so safely. This is a global problem, but we in this country have an opportunity to show leadership. I hope that we take that opportunity.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I acknowledge the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, in this area of artificial intelligence and congratulate him on securing this important, wide-ranging and timely debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it. I will use the time available to set out the Government’s position and respond to noble Lords’ questions. If I am unable to answer all of them because of time constraints, I will go through Hansard, write to noble Lords and place a copy in the Library.
Recent remarks by the director-general of MI5 highlight that advanced AI is now more than just a technical matter: it has become relevant to national security, the economy and public safety. The warning was not regarding panic or science fiction scenarios; it focused on responsibility. As AI systems grow more capable and more autonomous, we must ensure that they function on a scale and at a speed within human control.
The future prosperity of this country will be shaped by science, technology and AI. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is absolutely right that we have to look at the advantages that AI brings to society and to us all. That is why we have announced a new package of reforms and investment to use AI as a driver of national renewal. But we must be, and are, clear-eyed about this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, mentioned, we cannot unlock the opportunities unless AI is safe for the public and businesses, and unless the UK retains real agency over how the technology is developed and deployed.
That is exactly the approach that this Government are taking. We are acting decisively to make sure that advanced AI remains safe and controllable. I give credit to the previous Government for establishing the world-leading AI Security Institute to deepen our scientific understanding of the risks posed by frontier AI systems. We are already taking action on emerging risks, including those linked to AI chatbots. The institute works closely with AI labs to improve the safety of their systems, and has now tested more than 30 frontier models.
That work is not academic. Findings from those tests are being used to strengthen real-world safeguards, including protections against cyber risks. Through close collaboration with industry, the national security community and our international partners, the Government have built a much deeper and more practical understanding of AI risks. We are also backing the institute’s alignment project, which will distribute up to £15 million to fund research to ensure that advanced AI systems remain controllable and reliable and follow human instructions, even as they become more powerful.
Several noble Lords mentioned the potential of artificial general intelligence and artificial superintelligence, as well as the risks that they could pose. There is considerable debate around the timelines for achieving both, and some experts believe that AGI could be reached by 2030. We cannot be sure how AI will develop and impact society over the next five—perhaps even less than that—10 or 20 years. Navigating this future will require evidence-based foresight to inform action, technical solutions and global co-ordination. Without a shared scientific understanding of these systems, we risk underreacting to threats or overcorrecting against innovation.
Through close collaboration with companies, the national security community and our international partners, the Government have deepened their understanding of such risks, and AI model security has improved as a result. The Government will continue to take a long-term, science-led approach to understand and prepare for risks emerging from AI. This includes preparing for the possibility of rapid AI progress, which could have transformative impacts on society and national security.
We are not complacent. Just this month, the Technology Secretary confirmed in Parliament that the Government will look at what more can be done to manage the risks posed by AI chatbots. She also urged Ofcom to use its existing powers to ensure that any chatbots in scope of the Online Safety Act are safe for children. Some noble Lords may be aware that today Ofcom has the power to impose sanctions on companies of up to 10% of their revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater.
Several noble Lords have touched on regulation, and I will just cover it now. We are clear that AI is a general-purpose technology, with uses across every sector of the economy. That is why we believe most AI should be regulated at the point of use. Existing frameworks already matter. Data protection and equality law protect people’s rights and prevent discrimination when AI systems are used to make decisions about jobs, credit or access to services.
We also know that regulators need to be equipped for what is coming. That is why we are working with them to strengthen their capabilities and ensure they are ready to deal with the challenges that AI presents.
Security does not stop at our borders. The UK is leading internationally and driving collaboration with allies to raise standards, share scientific insight and shape responsible global norms for frontier AI. We lead discussions on AI at the G7, the OECD and the United Nations, and we are strengthening bilateral partnerships, including our ongoing collaboration with India as we prepare for the AI Impact Summit in Delhi next month. I hope this provides assurance to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. The AI Security Institute will continue to play a central role globally, including leading the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, helping to set best practice for model testing and safety worldwide.
In an AI-enabled world, it matters who owns the infrastructure, builds the models and controls the data. That increasingly shapes our lives. That is why we have established a Sovereign AI Unit, backed by around £500 million, to support UK start-ups across the AI ecosystem and ensure that Britain has a stake at every layer of the AI stack.
Several noble Lords asked about our dependence on US companies. Our sovereignty goals should indeed be resilience and strategic advantage, not total self-reliance. We have to face the fact that US companies are the main providers of today’s frontier model capabilities. Our approach is to ensure that the UK can use the best models in the world while protecting UK interests. To achieve this, we have established strategic partnerships with leading frontier model developers, such as the memoranda of understanding with Anthropic, OpenAI and Cohere, to ensure resilient access and influence the development of such capabilities.
We are also investing in advanced, AI-based compute so that researchers can work on national priorities. We are creating AI growth zones across the country to unlock gigawatts of capacity by 2030. Through our advanced market commitment, we are helping promising UK firms to scale, win global business and deploy British chips alongside established providers.
We are pursuing AI safety with such determination, because it is what unlocks opportunity. The UK should not be an AI taker. Businesses and consumers need confidence that AI systems are safe and reliable and do what they are supposed to do. That is why our road map to trusted third-party AI assurance is so important. Trust is what turns safety into growth. It is what allows innovation to flourish.
In January we published the AI Opportunities Action Plan, setting out how we will seize the benefits of this technology for the country. We will train 7.5 million workers in essential AI skills by 2030, equip 1 million students with AI and digital skills, and support talented undergraduates and postgraduates through scholarships at leading STEM universities. I hope this will be welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, at that point, I will just interrupt the Minister before the witching hour. The Minister has reiterated the approach to focus governance on the user—that is, the sectoral approach—but is that not giving a free pass to general AI developers?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I will quickly respond. We have to be very careful about what level we regulate at. AI is multifaceted: at different stacks we have the infrastructure, the data level, the model level and so on. At which level are we going to regulate? We are trying to work with the community to find out what is best before we come up with a solution as far as regulation is concerned. AI is currently regulated at different user levels.
Let me continue. We are appointing AI champions to work with industry and government to drive adoption in high-growth sectors. Our new AI for Science Strategy will help accelerate breakthroughs that matter to people’s lives.
In summary, safe and controllable AI does not hinder progress; rather, it underpins it. It is integral to our goal of leveraging AI’s transformative power and securing the UK’s role as an AI innovator, not merely a user. Safety is not about stopping progress. It is about maintaining human control over advances. The true danger is not overthinking this now; it is failing to think enough.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I thank the Minister for such a generous and wide-ranging response. He said that we are going to regulate at the point of use, yet in this House we saw such a battle about the misuse of UK creative data that is protected by UK law. The UK Government wanted to give it away rather than protect UK law, so that is one example. Equally, the Minister mentioned the sovereign AI fund, but I hear again and again from UK AI companies that they are dominated by US companies in those discussions and that the UK companies are not really getting an advantage. I would like to hear the Minister’s response, given that we have a little time.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that; I respect her interest and work in this area. It would take me at least 20 minutes to cover most of what was asked. There were points about regulation at different levels, about AI and copyright and about the Sovereign AI Unit’s funding of £500 million. We need to work at each different level and, as I said, regulation is vital. Personally, I think it will be very difficult for us to have one AI regulation Bill to cover everything, because we may miss something. We need evidence from speaking with academia, the players and so on to help us shape what regulation is required. I want to give the noble Baroness a comprehensive answer and I cannot do that here, so I will write to her accordingly.
Environmental Improvement Plan 2025
(2 days, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Krebs
To ask His Majesty’s Government how the Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 will deliver the targets of the Environment Act 2021.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, the environmental improvement plan sets out how the Government will meet the legally binding targets in Sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021. These targets cover air quality, biodiversity, water quality, resource efficiency and waste, woodland and trees, and marine protected areas. I will not attempt to cover all these areas in my eight minutes, and equally I will not rehearse the debate we had on Tuesday concerning nitrogen pollution, which was highly relevant.
The urgent need for an improved EIP was highlighted last year by the Office for Environmental Protection in its January 2025 progress report. Only nine of 43 targets for the environment were on track, and 20 were largely off track, including targets that covered most of the areas in the EIP. The report said that the new environmental improvement plan
“must show real intent, and focus. It needs to front load efforts to catch up and to set out clearly to all, what has to be done, by whom and by when”.
The report of the OEP covered the year up to March 2024 and therefore reflected the actions of the previous Government. Today’s Question is about whether the current Government’s plans and the new EIP will improve prospects for our environment.
The new environmental improvement plan is distinctly better than its predecessor. It sets out the specific actions that will contribute to achieving the targets and who is responsible. I very much welcome this and congratulate the Government on their intent. However, the contribution of individual actions towards the delivery of targets is not quantified, and I will return to this point later.
In the end, it is not just the targets and the processes but the actual outcomes for the environment that will be the measure of success or failure. Take, for example, sites of special scientific interest. The 4,100 SSSIs in England, covering 4,200 square miles, are among our most precious habitats. They are supposed to enjoy special protection. However, the OEP’s report of 4 December last year concludes that only a third of them are in favourable condition and that many SSSIs have not been monitored for years. This is not new news; it was highlighted more than 30 years ago by Peter Marren, and the data for the past decade suggest that there has been no substantial change—and if anything a steady decrease—in the proportion of SSSIs in favourable condition.
Does the new EIP say anything to convince us that the next decade will be different? Far from pressing its foot down on the accelerator to restore SSSIs, the new EIP delays progress. The commitment in the 2023 environmental improvement plan to have 50% of SSSIs with actions on track to achieve favourable condition by 2028 has been delayed to 2030. The target for all SSSIs to have an up-to-date condition assessment by 2028 has been deferred until 2032. I assume that these delays reflect the reality of what is achievable. Even if we accept this point that there will be delays, I would like to know what is going to change that will deliver the required improvements, given that no improvement has been achieved in the past.
The delivery plan for protected sites was published last month. It includes 10 delivery measures and a monitoring plan. I assume that there must be something in the plan that has convinced Ministers that it will work when previous plans have failed. Can the Minister tell us specifically what aspects of the new plan give her confidence that it will deliver improvements in the condition of SSSIs? For example, does the delivery plan address the four key concerns highlighted by the OEP’s recent report? How many SSSIs are on agricultural land covered by agri-environment contracts, and how many more would be needed by 2030 for the plan to be on track? About half of SSSIs are within national landscapes. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will maintain the biodiversity duty for national landscapes, bearing in mind the recommendations of the Fingleton review?
I now turn to the question of who will deliver the outcomes. Although the EIP sets out clear plans and processes, the actual delivery of the outcomes will often depend on bodies outside government. I am pleased, therefore, that the new EIP recognises that the Government cannot achieve their targets without the actions of others. As the Minister will recall, my Private Member’s Bill was designed to formalise this by placing a statutory duty on public authorities, including landowners and regulators, to contribute to the Environment Act’s targets. Because public authorities such as local councils have many competing demands on their resources, without a statutory duty, this matter will inevitably move to the back of the queue. Would the Minister therefore consider adopting my Private Member’s Bill in support of the delivery of the new EIP? If not, how will public authorities that play a key role be persuaded to prioritise this objective?
I return to the contribution of different actions to delivering the targets. One of the key targets of the Environment Act is halting the decline of species by 2030. This is part of goal 1 in the EIP: restoring nature. That goal is supported by 33 actions, four of which contain the word “deliver”; some of the others include softer actions such as “publish”, “introduce”, “build” and “review”. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on which actions in the EIP will make the largest contribution to halting the decline of biodiversity in the next four years. This is especially relevant given that the latest official biodiversity statistics for England show that many indicators are moving in the wrong direction.
My final point concerns cross-government co-ordination. The new EIP recognises that the delivery of the targets will require concerted action across government departments. This co-ordination will be achieved through a new EIP delivery board. Some activity is already under way. For example, ARIA—the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, which is a non-departmental public body of DSIT—recently launched a research programme called Engineering Ecosystem Resilience, which includes the option of gene-editing ecosystems. What role does Defra assume gene editing in ecosystems will have in restoring nature?
I look forward to the contributions of other noble Lords—we have a small but select band with us this afternoon—and to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, both for giving us this opportunity to talk about a very important issue and for his excellent introduction. I, too, welcome the EIP, in particular the concept of delivery plans. However, some of the delivery plans are delivering more than others.
I turn to a subject close to my heart for an example. There is no specificity—it is good to be able to say that on a Thursday afternoon—on the timing of the ban on peat in horticultural products. I remember that, when I joined the RSPB as chief executive back in 1990—35 years ago, in case your maths is not very good—we were campaigning for a ban on peat products. I used to go to the local garden centre and insist that its staff took all the peat-free or reduced-peat products out from the back of their compost displays and put them at the front. I did that for nine months until I was banned from that garden centre. I subsequently went around all the garden centres in Bedfordshire and was systematically banned from one after the other. We have waited for this for quite a long time—and that is just one example. We do not really have any clear targets as yet; across the piece, we need to go through this EIP systematically and see what more needs to be done to get targeting into it.
The second point I want to make is that some of the targets, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has said, are pretty immediate: the biodiversity ones, particularly on species abundance by 2030, and the 30 by 30 targets. The whole issue of ending nature declines by 2030 was always very ambitious. I am a great believer in ambitious targets, but we have not yet had confirmation of whether the delivery plans will actually deliver the target. It is work in progress and there is not long to go, so I hope that work can be expedited. Across the whole enterprise, there needs to be renewed pace and vigour.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, also talked about cross-government commitment and this is incredibly important. Defra obviously has to be the cheerleader and the thinker in this, but it needs help right across government to be able to deliver. For example, SSSI condition can be delivered only by a huge variety of different landowners and land managers, yet we still have—I have spoken about this before—an outbreak of newt bashing in certain parts of government. We really have to get away from the nature versus growth dichotomy, which is unreal, and towards a system where we are talking about the real benefits to growth that nature recovery can produce.
Important in that whole process of getting cross-government commitment, apart from moving hearts and minds, will be implementing the legal duty on all Ministers to pay due regard to the environmental principles when proposing or revising policy. What is the implementation plan for making sure that the environmental principles are actively used across government departments? What training is there for civil servants, and indeed perhaps even for Ministers, in thinking about the environmental principles in their daily work, and what monitoring of their implementation will take place? I would say this, of course—I am on record as having said it before—but the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was absolutely splendid and should be adopted by the Government.
The fourth point I want to make is about land. Noble Lords cannot really expect me to talk on this issue without talking about the land use framework and the farming road map. It is slightly unnerving that, to my understanding, the farming road map will not actually have a map in it. It seems a bit strange that everybody else in various government departments is busy drawing up spatial plans and strategies but the farming road map will not necessarily have a map.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I am glad to have identified something that the Minister will have to find out about. The whole business of the contribution of agri-environment schemes and the farming road map to the EIP is huge. Nature-friendly farming is fundamental: it will be key, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, to delivering goal 1, the restoration of nature, as will a proper land use framework. Goal 3, clean, resilient and plentiful water and nature-based solutions to those, will be fundamental. I know that water is a very important government priority: we really have to get the EIP to focus on that and get the land use framework and nature-friendly farming solutions implemented.
The land use framework should help the Government in their prioritisation of their own spend on biodiversity. I know that the latest timetable is for March, which is terribly close to local government and Scottish and Welsh elections. We can anticipate that there might be a little turbulence after those. I would hate there to be another Minister who wants to pore over the land use framework all over again when, in fact, in many government departments, spatial strategies are progressing apace.
I was going to talk about trees, but I am getting a bit close to the end, so I shall finish with farming and the farming road map. We really have to set out how the three environmental land management schemes we have currently will balance. How much will we see invested in each of them? What contribution will each make? We need to give surety to people who are going to put their heads above the parapet and take up these schemes that they will be there for the future—that they will be maintained and developed, and have predictable application windows—so that we can get landowners of all sorts, large and small, investing in these very sensible schemes, with the surety that they will not find them disappearing from under their feet. My last words, before I get cut off in my prime, are, in summary, to commend energy and pace to the Minister, because that is absolutely what we need in this important area.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. Although the Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 applies only to England, as we all know, nature does not understand county, country or political lines. I therefore declare my farming and land management interests in Wales.
I welcome the plan’s ambition and the Government’s stated commitment to delivering the statutory targets of the Environment Act. The direction of travel is right, but ambition alone will not restore nature unless it is matched by delivery, accountability and, above all, coherence across government. I will focus on three issues: delivery on the ground, policy contradiction and accountability when targets are missed.
First, the plan rightly acknowledges that land managers are central to nature recovery, but acknowledgment is not the same as empowerment. Many actions in the plan remain expressed in aspirational terms, dependent on future consultations or lacking long-term funding certainty. If we want farmers and landowners to commit to landscape-scale change, they need stability, trust and confidence that policies will endure beyond a spending round or a change of emphasis.
The second and more serious point is policy contradiction. The plan speaks of restoring habitats, reconnecting landscapes and reversing species decline, yet at the same time other government policies are pulling hard in the opposite direction. Nowhere is that clearer than in land use. We are allowing large-scale solar developments on grade 1 agricultural land, the most productive biologically rich soils we have. These are landscapes that support food production, soil biodiversity, farmland birds and ecological connectivity. Converting them to industrial land uses may serve a narrow interpretation of net zero, but it often does so at the direct expense of nature recovery and food security. Some net-zero policies are therefore not merely neutral to biodiversity; they are actively harmful.
This is not an argument against renewable energy. It is an argument against poor siting and the absence of a coherent land use framework. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, I sat on the Land Use in England Committee, which in 2022 reported that a framework was essential. As a Defra Minister, I listened to repeated calls from all parties—including from the Minister, then in opposition—for a land use framework. The Government’s consultation closed in April 2025, so I join in asking when we will see some progress there.
I am afraid that government policy contradiction is not confined to energy. Housing and infrastructure policy continues to fragment land at large scale while biodiversity requirements are weakened or made more flexible in the name of growth, all in contrast with goal 1 of the plan. Conservation organisations, including wildlife trusts, have warned that nature is increasingly being treated as an obstacle to development, and even scapegoated, rather than as the foundation for long-term resilience and prosperity. That rhetoric is deeply damaging and entirely at odds with the plan’s stated objectives. Once a habitat, a hedgerow or an ancient woodland is gone, it is gone for ever, and no amount of biodiversity net gain or carbon credits will bring it back. Brownfield sites must be prioritised for housing development and greenfield sites used only as a last resort, not an easy land grab by DESNZ or MHCLG.
There is also a tendency to rely on designation and access as proxies for recovery. Drawing lines on maps or increasing public access—this is where I may lose the Committee—does not restore ecosystems. Many species require quiet, undisturbed space. Wild animals do not thrive under human pressure. If we conflate access with recovery, we risk creating landscapes that are busy, accessible and even more biologically impoverished.
The Environment Act targets are legally binding, but what happens if they are missed? At present the consequences are largely procedural: reporting, explanation and future adjustment. The OEP can scrutinise but it cannot compel corrective action or force alignment across government departments. That is a central weakness of the current framework.
My questions to the Minister are as follows. When Environment Act targets are missed, what concrete, enforceable action will follow? How will the Government ensure that net-zero, planning, housing and energy policies, including solar development on grade 1 farmland, are brought into alignment rather than continuing to undermine nature recovery?
The environmental improvement plan does not lack vision. What it risks lacking is honesty about trade-offs, courage in land use decisions and mechanisms to resolve contradictions at the heart of government policy.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. I do not have any farming interests to declare, but I have two allotments that take a lot of time and energy.
It might not seem like it, but I want this Government to succeed, particularly in their environmental aims. The problem I have is that again and again we see that this Government do not understand the countryside, rural areas, farming, green space, newts, frogs, beavers or anything that actually contributes to the environment. That is going to be a huge barrier to this Government achieving what they say they want to achieve.
What are the headline changes in the plan that will reverse the decline in species? I cannot see a wholesale shift in our farming practices or a clamp-down on people shooting birds of prey—no names here. Of course, there is more money to improve peat-lands, but where is the peat ban that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has been seeking for 35 years? I like the promise to grow more trees, but what about stopping cutting down ancient woodland? You cannot grow new trees into ancient woods. Once they have gone, they have gone.
I want to talk about some of the targets, because some of them are clearly failing. Target 1 is on thriving plants and wildlife. The Planning and Infrastructure Act has wrecked any chance of meeting that target. Labour’s manifesto pledge of 30% of land and sea protected, connected and managed for nature recovery by 2030 is now an unreachable promise. The targets for marine protected areas, which I will mention again, are delayed by another couple of years, and there is no wholesale site protection for marine areas, just the safeguarding of a few high-profile species. The Government do not even try to pretend they care about reaching good environmental status for our seas and ocean and have not bothered to set a target. I wish the Office for Environmental Protection good luck in its investigation of the Government, because I think they will probably fail. There is a target to restore salt marsh, sea-grass and oyster reefs, but a 15% increase by 2043 is ridiculously modest, given that we have lost 85% to 95% of these habitats historically.
Target 3 is on clean and plentiful water. That is a sore point for many of us here. Labour inherited a mess, and its refusal to take water into public hands has just deepened the mess it is in, especially as it goes into the next election. People will remember, and they are not happy. I will remind them, obviously.
The Minister has pledged to halve sewage dumping by 2030. So in another four years, I can stand here and thank Labour for there being only 2.5 million hours of sewage being pumped into UK waters in 2030. Bathers on beaches will have another five years before they can go swimming without drowning in human excrement. Meanwhile, it is the water bill payers who are funding all the work and shareholders who still make a profit.
Target 5 is on maximising resources and minimising waste. The aim of creating a circular economy based on reuse, recycling and repair is a worthy goal. But instead, we have a country full of oil-burning chimneys. The number of incinerators has gone up, and the material we should be recycling has been shoved into furnaces. Plastic production has increased along with oil company profits, and we have taken the easy option of burning plastic instead of recycling it or, even better, not producing it in the first place. Some councils have got locked into 25-year contracts with various incinerator companies, and that means that sometimes they take the refuse out of recycling and throw it into incinerators.
Target 7 is on minimising and adapting to climate change. The whole world is switching to renewable energy, but where is the big investment here in the UK in energy storage schemes? Producing the batteries and local energy storage schemes is where the innovation is. Instead of that, the Government have put £22 billion into carbon capture and storage. The biggest system of carbon capture and storage on the planet is the ocean, and the Government have not taken that seriously.
I will get back to my speech now. There is no guarantee with carbon capture and storage that the money—taxpayers’ money—will not go to oil and gas companies that have already spent decades profiting from pollution. The Government are also supporting airport expansions and adding millions of extra flights every year. That is not minimising climate change.
Target 8 concerns reducing the risk of harm from environmental hazards. It took more than seven months for the authorities to deal with a mountain of fly-tipping near the River Cherwell in Oxfordshire—a pile of rubbish 20 feet high and as long as the Lords half of the Palace of Westminster. That is broken Britain. Also, why have the Government not adopted Zane’s law to deal with hazardous waste? When seven year-old Zane died and his father fell ill, the Environment Agency had already commissioned a study showing that the ex-landfill site near his home posed a high risk to life. Yet it did nothing to warn residents before, during or after the 2014 flooding. Further, to this day, it has adamantly refused to test the land, which has flooded again this year, fully. We need a law to ensure that the Environment Agency protects people and wildlife rather than profits and secrets.
Finally, I wanted to read out the Marine Conservation Society’s ideas on how to protect our waters, rivers and seas, but I have run out of time. I shall instead give the document to the Minister and encourage her to read it because it is full of ideas, such as setting up a marine litter strategy for England to clean up the debris that we have on our shores.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this timely debate. I welcome the revised EIP published by the Government. I declare my interests as a co-chair of the Water All-Party Parliamentary Group and a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities.
I am sure that the Minister will accept, in the spirit in which it is intended, that there is a growing list of unfinished business from the department, such as—this has already been referred to—the land use framework, for which we have been waiting for some time, and the water White Paper, which we were promised before the end of last year. Questions arise from the EIP. What will the relationship between the environmental improvement plan and the land use framework be? At what stage will that be set out? There is still a lot of detail left unclear in the EIP. For example, how will it be funded? Can the Minister elaborate on the success that the Government have established with private partners, farmers and others to progress the targets that they have set out in the land use framework?
More generally, having grown up in the countryside and having represented deeply rural areas in both the European Parliament and the other place, I yield to no one in my admiration of the work that farmers do in nurturing nature. How will the EIP as revised help promote domestic food production, boost self-sufficiency in food and increase food security? Farmers have faced three major shocks in recent years: Brexit, Covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I recognise that farmers have a role to play in nature recovery but they have also been battling the elements. As my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, set out, we have seen major flooding of farmland in recent years. Last year, we had a major wildfire on the North Yorkshire moors—it lasted for a long time—and faced severe water shortages that also affected farming. Clarity and certainty need urgently to be set out in the sustainable farming incentive to enable farmers to have the tools they need to grow our food and boost domestic farm production.
I welcome the focus in the EIP on nature-based solutions to water management. I pay tribute to the work performed by Pickering’s Slow the Flow scheme in saving the town of Pickering from a major flood. Its strength has been tested since its inception; I hope the Government will look to other such schemes to be rolled out in due course.
I make a plea—I know the Minister would be disappointed if I did not—and once again press her on the implementation of Schedule 3 to implement SUDS as a mandatory scheme for all major new housing developments, as set out in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. That one instrument alone will protect many future and existing housing developments from future floods. Is the Minister able to set out today a firm date for the water White Paper to be published and an idea of the timetable for the legislation that will follow that White Paper and the excellent Cunliffe report?
I turn to species recovery and review of species. I am grateful for a briefing from Chester Zoo, which I understand is at the forefront of global conservation. It highlighted a number of threatened species on the priority list in England alone, of which 940 are in need of urgent recovery work. It is working specifically on the disappearance, surprisingly, of the harvest mouse, which it reintroduced successfully in Cheshire; the yellow sally stone-fly, a rare insect; the cotoneaster cambricus, a rare tree; and the large heath butterfly. I pay tribute to its excellent global work with its partners, and I hope the Government will be able to say today what plans the department has to work in this area of global conservation to reintroduce these species.
I am mindful of our work on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place, looking at the numbers of species in this country that were at one time under threat, such as badgers, after the dreadful episode of badger baiting, outlawed in 1968. To what extent does the Minister’s department keep under review species such as badgers, bats and newts, which might not be as rare as we think and could be holding up development where it is needed? That goes to the heart of the Government’s growth programme.
Finally, I invite the Minister to complete the unfinished business I have set out, to work closely with farmers and others developing nature recovery to the best of their ability, and to give farmers and landowners the tools they need to increase food production, increase food security and boost self-sufficiency for food in this country.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and all other noble Lords for this timely debate on precisely how the Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 intends to deliver the legally binding targets set out in the Environment Act 2021. Given the alarming trajectory of nature decline in this country, such scrutiny is critical. In the Liberal Democrats, we acknowledge that the revised EIP offers structural improvements compared to its predecessor, showing clearer responsibility for some actions and providing delivery plans. Yet, as we have heard from so many other speakers, if we are honest about the scale of the climate and nature crisis, the EIP 25 remains profoundly underwhelming and fundamentally lacking the necessary ambition, pace and long-term funding certainty required to haul the Government back on track to meet their 2030 legal obligations.
As we have heard, the Office for Environmental Protection has repeatedly cautioned that the Government are largely off track to achieve their environmental commitments, stressing that
“the window of opportunity is closing fast”.
This plan, presented late last year, should have been a transformative response to that warning. Instead, in too many critical areas, we see weakness, delay and backsliding on previous commitments, when what is needed is urgent delivery and real-world change.
Nowhere is this inertia more evident than in the marine environment and I thank the Marine Conservation Society for its briefing, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The plan risks entrenching managed decline, instead of enabling genuine recovery. The commitment to achieve good environmental status for our seas, originally targeted for 2020 under the marine strategy framework, has seen its date pushed back and effectively faded from view. This is despite the UK previously meeting only a fraction of the indicators for healthy seas. Targets for marine protected areas are now effectively folded into a broader 30% by 2030 headline, while the conspicuous absence of the promised marine net gain framework means we have removed a vital mechanism to catalyse and encourage private investment into marine restoration and recovery.
I turn to land. The core statutory target to halt the decline of species abundance by 2030 is, as other speakers have mentioned, under immense pressure. While we welcome the target to restore or create 250,000 hectares of habitat outside protected sites by 2030, rising to 500,000 hectares by 2042, this cumulative target does not account for nature lost or degraded in the meantime. To deliver the scale of habitat creation needed, we must empower and properly fund our farmers, who are the true stewards of our land and are already grappling with climate impacts and volatile markets. Can the Minister say, in modelling for the farmland wildlife delivery plan, what assumptions are made of the proportion of ELM funds dedicated to Countryside Stewardship and landscape recovery?
The Government’s current approach to funding leaves too many farmers unsure whether they can commit to long-term schemes. We note the headline announcement of £500 million for landscape recovery projects over the coming decades, but this averages a relatively modest annual sum set against the scale of change being asked of land managers. There is genuine concern that without a clearer vision and greater certainty, this will not be enough to shift the dial for the many farmers being asked to do more.
That is why we made the case in our own manifesto for an extra £1 billion a year for the farming budget, focused on nature-friendly farming schemes that support both sustainable food security and nature recovery, particularly for smaller family farms and tenanted holdings. Fundamental reforms are needed, including establishing upland reward schemes to remunerate those who cultivate some of our toughest landscapes—that point will be no stranger to the Minister, given where she lives—for their public good outputs, from carbon and biodiversity to flood mitigation and access.
The revised EIP claims to be a flagship delivery plan, yet it often defers definitive actions through consultations and sometimes vague commitments. We must move beyond this cycle of promised and not delivered, particularly when communities are already living with polluted rivers, depleted soils and declining local wildlife. That is why we call for decisive action: urgent implementation of a truly comprehensive national food strategy; the creation of a new, strengthened water regulator to enforce the clean-up of our waterways; and a renewed commitment to fund and quantify the actions needed now to meet the 2030 deadlines. As others have mentioned, we were promised a White Paper by Ministers on water by the end of last year—with a clear understanding of the urgency, for instance, about chalk streams—when we discussed this on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Where is that urgency now? We really need to see that White Paper.
If the EIP 2025 is genuinely intended to deliver the targets of the Environment Act it requires immediate, quantifiable and bold action.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to participate in a debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who made a very good point about the condition of our SSSIs. The Government’s 2025 plan speaks with confidence about restoring nature and becoming a clean energy superpower. That confidence must be matched by clarity. Where the plan allows trade-offs, we need rules that protect the natural systems we depend on. The Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 sets out ambitions we can all support: cleaner water, richer soils, healthier wildlife and a transition to cleaner energy. Those ambitions are necessary, but a plan’s rhetoric is only as strong as the targets, timelines and delivery mechanisms that underpin it.
Today, I will focus on two areas where the gap between rhetoric and delivery is most worrying—our seas and our farms. On the marine side, the plan introduces recovery targets for marine protected areas, yet it also explicitly allows up to 5% of MPA features to be left in neither favourable nor recovering condition to “accommodate net-zero ambitions”. That is not a technical tweak; it institutionalises a trade-off.
Everyone knows that the Secretary of State for Energy, Mr Miliband, is obsessed with net zero, and his fanaticism will countenance any damage to our economy and cost to the public by driving up the cost of UK energy to be the highest in the world. Now he is damaging our seas as well. When we write a carve-out into a national plan, we change the default from recovery to compromise. Offshore wind and other infrastructure can contribute to our climate goals, but they must not become a standing excuse to delay or dilute recovery in protected areas. Any deviation from recovery must be time limited, independently scrutinised and accompanied by mandatory like-for-like enhancement measures that restore what has been lost. The real tragedy of this carve-out is that our seas will be damaged by wind turbines that will be switched off for about half the time. Billions will be paid to the operators not to produce electricity, as we read in the press yesterday.
We welcome ambition on this side, but ambition without detail is a promise unkept. Allowing a formal carve-out for marine protected areas to accommodate energy projects, delaying a marine litter strategy and failing to commit to PFAS consumer bans are not small omissions; they are structural weaknesses that will determine whether our seas recover or continue to decline.
As has already been said by noble Lords, marine litter is another glaring omission. It cannot be left to a general circular plan scheduled for next year. We need a dedicated marine litter strategy now, with measurable interim targets, funding for deposit return schemes, fishing gear management, improved port reception facilities and coastal clean-ups. These are practical measures that reduce harm to wildlife, protect coastal economies and cut the cost of clean-up for local communities. The marine recovery fund has currently framed this as becoming a mechanism that enables development rather than driving restoration. Compensation must be like-for-like by default, and there must be a separate ring-fenced enhancement fund to finance proactive habitat creation and ecosystem recovery at scale. Without that, we will see payments in place of genuine ecological outcomes.
On farming, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said that there is no Minister in the Government who understands the countryside. I say to her that there is one—she is winding up this debate, and it is a pity that she is not the Secretary of State for Defra. The plan’s target to double the number of farms providing sufficient year-round resources for wildlife by 2030 is welcome in principle but underspecified in practice. Farmers need certainty. They need clear definitions of what “sufficient resources” means. They need published payment rates, long-term contracts and technical support. The sustainable farming incentive must be reformed and published with predictable payments so that farmers can plan investments without risking their livelihoods or domestic food production. Sequencing matters. Biosecurity targets and invasive species scanning must be timed so that there is adequate opportunity to respond before deadlines arrive. If we are serious about the rhetoric, we must strengthen the EIP now, remove the carve-outs, ban non-essential PFAS, fund enhancement—not just compensation—and give farmers and fishers the certainty and support they need to deliver. That is how we turn a plan into recovery.
To be concrete, I conclude by calling for six immediate actions. First, remove or tightly condition the 5% MPA carve-out. Any deviation from recovery must be demonstrably unavoidable, time limited and independently scrutinised, and require mandatory like-for-like enhancement. Secondly, ban PFAS in non-essential consumer products and publish a clear phase-out timetable for other uses, applying group-based controls to prevent substitution. Thirdly, please publish a dedicated marine litter strategy immediately, with measurable interim targets and funding for ports, coastal clean-ups and fishing gear management. Fourthly, redesign the marine recovery fund with two streams, mandatory like-for-like compensation and a separate enhancement fund for proactive restoration. Fifthly, accelerate SFI reform and publish payment rates and transition support so that farmers can plan, with explicit safeguards for food production and farm viability. Sixthly, strengthen fisheries management plans with binding spatial and gear measures, and fund a just transition package for fishers to adopt low-impact methods.
We can be a clean energy leader and a world leader in nature recovery, but only if we stop treating nature as negotiable. Strengthen the rules, fund the delivery and give those who steward our land and sea the certainty they need. Do that, and the rhetoric of the plan will become the recovery that our communities and our children expect.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am quite tight for time. I shall do my best to answer all the many questions, but if there is anything that I do not cover, I will make sure I write to noble Lords with responses. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this debate. I welcome the opportunity to respond and to discuss how the environmental improvement plan will deliver the targets of the Environment Act.
The EIP, as noble Lords are aware, sets out the Government’s commitment to the ambitious statutory Environment Act targets. It is our road map on how we are going to improve the natural environment and people’s enjoyment of it. It ensures that nature’s recovery is a key priority for this Government and is fundamental to our general approach, including growth, because we know that growth is not possible without a healthy and resilient natural environment.
Our EIP goes further than the previous one. It is a credible, clear plan with clear, prioritised actions to deliver the environmental outcomes of restoring nature, improving environmental quality, creating a circular economy, protecting environmental security and improving people’s access to nature. It sets out who is responsible for these actions across government and our wider society.
The EIP sets ambitious yet achievable interim targets. It is essential to have those as staging posts on our journey in order to deliver the targets that have been rightly described today as challenging. Each interim target will make an appropriate contribution to corresponding statutory targets over the next five years. We have increased the ambition of some of the interim targets since the Government’s last plan, including for air quality and to restore and create wildlife-rich habitats. We have also introduced new targets on farm wildlife and on invasive non-native species. We are maintaining our delivery trajectories for other targets and have adjusted others to ensure that they remain deliverable and credible.
On other targets, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about the MPAs and whether the 5% flex was watering down that target. The flex is introduced largely to account for adverse impacts of offshore wind developments that have been consented to because they pass the habitats regulations or MCZ derogation tests. We think it is the best option to set an interim target that contributes towards the statutory target while aligning it with the changing MPA network that supports the Government’s clean energy mission. I hope that explains why we have done that.
Of course, setting clear targets and goals is simply not enough; we need to know exactly how we are going to reach them. I hope noble Lords will be reassured to know that for the first time we have published delivery plans for those targets. They clearly set out how actions contribute, who will deliver them and how progress will be measured. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked which actions will make the largest contribution to halting the decline of biodiversity. The delivery plans will set that out on a strong evidence footing so that we know exactly what is happening.
Driving environmental change and understanding the impact of actions being taken will obviously be complex and take time, so the delivery plans are designed to remain live and can be refined over time in response to emerging evidence, to policy evaluation and to any feedback that we get from stakeholders carrying out the delivery. We believe that this transparent and collaborative approach to communicating and adapting our plans is a major step forward. It is also central to our monitoring and our reporting of progress, which, again, is essential to keeping any delivery on track.
The EIP sets out more than 90 commitments. Each is associated with a delivery metric, and we will report on changes to those metrics in our annual progress reports, along with the latest evidence and changes to trends in our environmental indicator framework. The framework, which is also published online, objectively measures how the environment is changing across the 10 EIP goals.
Together, such approaches better enable external appraisal and will ensure that we learn and adapt appropriately as we move towards the targets. I am already very grateful to stakeholders, including the OEP, whose scrutiny and recommendations are helping to shape this improved approach. We have a clear plan and process, but we also know the scale of the challenge and are trying to match this with the right actions to get where we need to go.
SFI was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, so I am sure he will be pleased to hear that, just this morning at the Oxford Farming Conference, the Secretary of State set out how we are reforming SFI to make it simpler and fairer and to enable as many farmers as possible to benefit and help nature thrive. As someone who has a smallholding, I was particularly pleased to see that this is also targeted now at smaller farmers. At that conference, the Secretary of State also made clear that protecting the environmental foundations of farming is not separate from productivity but an essential part of it. All this will help us to meet our EIP targets, including doubling the number of farms delivering for wildlife. This follows the most nature-friendly farming Budget we have seen, to give farmers the support they need to produce food sustainably while protecting soil, water and wildlife.
Last year we had the highest amount of tree planting in 20 years, as I am sure my noble friend will be pleased to hear—over 10 million trees—and we have started planting the first of the three new national forests. We recently implemented the Water (Special Measures) Act. I have been asked about the water White Paper, and I confirm that it will be published very soon; watch this space.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about PFAS. The EIP includes a commitment to publish a PFAS plan in 2026, and that will set out how the Government are taking action to protect people and the environment from the particular harms and risks that this relates to. We are acting decisively to improve air quality. A circular economy is an important part of this. We are further reducing environmental harm by turning waste into opportunity and creating green jobs across the country—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is particularly interested in this. We are boosting opportunities and, as the Minister for access to nature, I am pleased that we have a chapter in the EIP on how we will do this. I was pleased that we launched the first of the nine new river walks on Boxing Day.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the importance of working together. It is important that we do this, as we will not make progress unless we have cross-government contributions in achieving these targets. That includes the land use framework, the farming road map and what we are doing across the department as well as across government. This is important. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, particularly talked about the importance of working with stakeholders and people who have to deliver. Only by government working hand in hand with communities, businesses, farmers, the public sector and the third sector can we achieve our target delivery.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked a number of questions, and I will try to fit those in. If there is anyone else, I will come back to them. He asked what aspects of the new plan give me confidence around SSSIs —in fact, there were a few questions around SSSIs. I have an SSSI on my land, so I completely understand the challenges of site management. Natural England has improved its understanding of SSSI condition and the pressures and actions needed to restore SSSIs. It is making progress: it has a more strategic focus than previously and, over the spending review, it is looking to improve the evidence from each site. It is looking at a strategic landscape scale, with a greater focus on what happens on the land outside the site boundary as well as just within it, and at those implications.
The noble Lord asked how many SSSIs are on agricultural land covered by agri-environment contracts. It is approximately 40% at the moment. Additionally, Natural England has developed a conservation enhancement scheme to fund actions on SSSI land that is not eligible for environmental stewardship schemes. We want to continue to build on that work.
On national landscapes, we know we need to go further and faster in protected landscapes to meet our national targets, and we will ensure that protected landscape bodies, landowners and land managers have the tools and resources to achieve that. We will continue to work closely.
The PMB was excellent and very much in line with government ambition. The principles of it—to drive and strengthen action towards meeting natural environment and climate targets and objectives from both local and other public authorities—are absolutely at the heart of what we will achieve. I hope we can continue to talk to the noble Lord and bring in his expertise around that.
I seem to have run out of time. I am really sorry; I had lots of lovely answers to all of the questions posed by noble Lords.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Would it be possible for the Minister to tell us about peat?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have just been told that I can carry on because I have another five minutes; my officials will tell me when I need to stop.
I turn to the gene editing of ecosystems. We are supportive of that innovation. We have agreed the parameters for the new SPS agreement with the EU. The EU has accepted that there are a number of areas where it will have to look at our laws. This is something that we are discussing with the EU.
I turn to peat. To confirm, we are committed to ending the sale of horticultural peat and peat-containing products by the end of this Parliament. That is part of our ambition for this Parliament. We are working very closely with the sector to look at how we can make that transition.
The noble Baroness knows that I am very sympathetic to SUDS. It is worth reminding the Committee that we made immediate changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to support the increased delivery of SUDS. Clearly, we need to continue to discuss that.
My noble friend Lady Young talked about the environmental principles and asked whether people, particularly officials, have training. The answer is yes. Our recent report on the implementation of the environmental principles, which was published in November, recognised that our tools are valuable and that we do provide training.
Is there anything else that I have forgotten? I thank noble Lords very much for their contributions to the debate and assure them that we are committed to delivering the environmental improvement plan and to meeting the environmental targets.
Israel: Trade
(2 days, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Austin of Dudley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the contribution that trade with Israel makes to the United Kingdom economy.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I draw attention to my role as the UK’s trade envoy to Israel.
I start by welcoming the Minister and thank all noble Lords—especially the noble Baroness—who are here to discuss the contribution that trade with Israel makes to the UK, the businesses it supports, the jobs it creates and how many thousands of people are better off as a result of trade with our closest ally in the Middle East. The argument I want to make is that increasing trade with and attracting investment from Israel will help the Government achieve their most important objectives by improving growth and delivering their industrial strategy.
I pay tribute to the brilliant team at our embassy in Tel Aviv, led by His Majesty’s Ambassador Simon Walters CMG, the Trade Director Debbie Shapiro and all their colleagues, who work so hard to encourage British companies to export to Israel and Israelis to invest here in the UK. I am sure that the Minister will join me in thanking the officials in his department who promote trade with Israel and support my work in the trade envoy team.
Before the conflict, trade between Israel and the UK was at an all-time high—and our relationship stronger than ever before—in trade and investment, technology and innovation, defence and security, and health and education. Over the past five years, more than 300 Israeli companies have expanded into the UK, generating 4,000 jobs and almost £1 billion in investment. Israeli investment created 871 jobs and contributed £173 million to the UK economy in the last year alone, as trade increased again, despite the Gaza war and campaigns to boycott Israel.
Official figures from the Department for Business and Trade showed that total trade amounted to £6.2 billion in the year to June last year. This represented a 3.2%—or £218 million—increase driven by a surge of financial services exports to Israel. Given the overall balance of UK trade around the world, it is particularly important to note that more than half of the trade with Israel is in British exports, which accounted for much of that, increasing by 10.5%. We export clothes and cars, power generators and aircraft engines, medical equipment, scientific instruments and pharmaceutical products—and Scotch whisky exports are up 300%.
I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming that increase, and so will he set out the UK’s current trade policy with Israel and what more the Government are doing to encourage exports to and investment from Israel? Does he have any plans to visit Israel to see all this at first hand, to meet UK companies working there, to encourage exports and to encourage Israelis to invest here?
Israel supplies one in seven NHS prescriptions, which save the health service nearly £3 billion every year. It is a global leader in digital health, biotech and medical innovation, delivering cutting-edge breakthroughs in early cancer detection, gene editing, Alzheimer’s research and cardiovascular treatment. The UK-Israel Health-Tech Academy was launched in 2024 by the UK-Israel Tech Hub, which is based in our embassy in Tel Aviv, to bring Israeli health breakthroughs to benefit UK patients. Supported by the Dangoor Education foundation, the academy educates cutting-edge start-ups in Israel on the UK healthcare system and enables medical technology trials with NHS partners. The result of that is Israeli start-ups conducting research and spending R&D capital with the NHS to enable patients in the UK to benefit from ground-breaking Israeli healthcare developments and technologies.
Established by the British Council, our embassy and the Pears Foundation, BIRAX—the Britain Israel Research and Academic Exchange—is the flagship UK-Israel research partnership, which has invested £15 million in 32 collaborative projects to tackle huge challenges such as debilitating diseases, regenerative medicine and healthy ageing. Led by Ravit Capauner, it funds university partnerships to bring academic researchers in Israel and the UK together to strengthen innovation and scientific research. It uses cutting-edge technologies in AI, big data, life sciences and personalised medicine to tackle NHS priorities in dementia, multimorbidity, women’s health and mental health, to help people live longer, healthier and more independent lives. It contributes to economic growth in the UK by creating hundreds of jobs in scientific research and leveraging other funding to generate much greater economic benefits for the UK.
Israel is also a key defence and security partner. It is the third-largest supplier of arms to the UK, and Israeli military equipment has saved the lives of British forces in combat zones. Its technology provides crucial support for the Armed Forces, and Israeli intelligence has helped prevent terror attacks here in Britain.
It is obvious, in the face of Putin’s aggression, that we need to strengthen Britain’s air and cyber defences, and we are using Israel’s expertise in cyber security for that. So, I ask the Minister whether he will welcome Israeli defence investment in the UK, which has seen Israeli firms set up UK subsidiaries and establish joint ventures with UK defence companies, which provide good, highly skilled and well-paid jobs, as well as supporting our Armed Forces and the UK’s defences.
It is absolutely clear that the partnership between our two countries matters across so many sectors already, but there are huge opportunities in areas such as financial services, infrastructure, life sciences, AI and cyber security for the future.
The current trade agreement is 30 years old. It ensures tariff-free trade on 99% of goods but it predates even the invention of the internet, Israel’s emergence as a tech superpower, the growth of financial services here in the UK and the climate crisis. Given that services now count for 80% of both our economies’ activities, there is obviously great potential in digital trade, innovation, services, low-carbon and environmental technologies.
The UK’s new industrial strategy focuses on eight high-potential sectors, including clean energy, advanced manufacturing, defence, financial services, business, digital, technology and so on. These are all fields where Israeli innovation is recognised globally. This means that closer collaboration with Israel can help to meet our industrial strategy goals faster.
Can I draw to the Minister’s attention two initiatives launched by our embassy in Tel Aviv? First, Ambassador Walters and trade director Shapiro have launched ScaIL UK to accelerate the expansion of high-growth Israeli tech companies aligned with our industrial strategy into the United Kingdom.
Secondly, the work of the UK-Israel Tech Hub, which is led by Keren Shurkin, has brokered over 300 high-impact tech partnerships, which boost productivity and deliver sustainable economic growth. These partnerships have led to a growth of Israeli-founded unicorns in Britain and venture capital being invested in UK innovation, and they have improved the quality of life for stroke patients, reduced waste at our supermarkets and saved bank accounts millions in reducing fraud losses. Israel boasts the highest start-up density in the world, and the UK-Israel Tech Hub links this dynamism with our industrial strategy by engaging venture capital, entrepreneurs and accelerators that bring their skills, talent, capital and technology to the UK.
Israel is number three in the world for start-ups. Its economy is not just recovering from 7 October but rising stronger. London is the best city in Europe for start-ups, second only to New York globally. We have more tech unicorns than any city in Europe, so what greater partner could there be for the start-up nation than the UK?
In conclusion, the reason all this works is pretty straightforward: the longstanding partnership between two great countries. We are like-minded partners with shared values, free societies and open democracies. We are liberal countries which value the contribution of every citizen regardless of background or gender. We are two countries focused on trade and innovation, working together to create jobs, boost prosperity, improve defence and security, and tackle the world’s biggest challenges. This is the truth about our relationship with Israel. We should celebrate that success and do all we can to bring our two countries closer together.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Austin, on securing this debate and his excellent opening speech. I thank His Excellency Simon Walters, our man in Tel Aviv, and the Israeli embassy in London for its assistance in my comments.
As has been said, trade with Israel is strong, and the UK is the net beneficiary of that. Israel climbed to be in the top eight of European countries investing in FDI in the UK. Israel brings tested solutions in counterterrorism, emergency response, infrastructure protection and crisis management, and not just that but a huge social and political impact through trade. Trade with Israel supports thousands of UK jobs. Israel’s defence companies have UK subsidiaries, which manufacture here and provide income for hundreds of families.
Trade is such a huge topic that I will have to focus on a few areas. The first is defence. Nowhere has the UK benefited more from its relationship with Israel than in defence. Israel is the third-largest supplier of arms to the UK, and the contribution from Israel’s cyber companies has been enormous, which helps keep us all safe. The UK Government’s growth plans are all in areas where Israel can contribute and has globally recognised expertise. Of course, the third-largest concentration of AI start-ups in the world is in Israel.
In my opinion the UK is very unprepared for AI-driven drone warfare, but Israel has anticipated that future and we need to try to benefit from those skills. Unfortunately, banning arms sales to Israel has been extremely unhelpful at this time and now needs to be reversed, as does the ludicrous decision to ban Israeli defence officials from the Royal College of Defence Studies and then to ban Israel defence firms from a major London arms fair. The Royal College of Defence Studies has long accepted students from countries with dire human rights records, yet only Israel has been subject to blanket exclusion.
That takes me to my second theme: the hugely disappointing approach sometimes taken by UK Governments. As we know, the Labour Party talked out the BDS—boycott, divestment and sanctions—Bill, which was very important to UK-Israel relations. As I understand it—I am happy to be corrected—they have no intention to bring it back. Boycotts create a chilling effect: they deter investment, research and partnership far beyond their formal scope, and in fact, they nurture violence, extremism and antisemitism. The attempt to normalise the delegitimisation of Israel is pure antisemitism undertaken by bad actors with dangerous motives. It needs to be challenged rigorously at every opportunity.
Under this Government’s watch, unfortunately, Israeli factories in the UK have been invaded and huge damage has been done to equipment, as recently as last month, in Edinburgh. But, more importantly, these horrific and violent actions unsettle the UK staff employed at these crucial defence businesses, and they greatly discourage Israeli academics and professionals from coming here. I was in Israel last week with Conservative Friends of Israel, and people were all asking me, “What’s going on in the UK? Is it a safe place for me to go to?” That would have been unimaginable a few years ago.
The curtailment of the negotiations of a trade treaty in May 2025 was a disgrace. If the Minister cannot apologise for those decisions—because they happened well before his time in office—at the very least it would be good to hear from him when they will be reversed. Can he please tell us exactly what the trade policy is now in respect of Israel? Can he spell it out, please, as clearly as is possible? We want to hear from him, very loudly, that the UK is proud to be Israel’s supplier, customer, partner, ally and collaborator in many fields—including, for the purpose of this most welcome debate, trade.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, compared with some of the big debates facing us around phase 2 of the Middle East peace process, the urgent need to get reconstruction going in Gaza, and the Iranian people’s uprising against their theocracy, debates on trade can sometimes seem rather esoteric, although they are clearly important in terms of jobs and living standards. But I want to make very tangible—picking up some of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Austin—the importance of the bilateral relationship for health and life sciences.
The reason that is so tangible is that today, like every day of the year, millions of our fellow citizens—millions of NHS patients—will have taken a tablet supplied to them by an Israeli pharmaceutical company for a huge range of conditions, spanning multiple sclerosis, cancer, pain management and antibiotics. Millions of patients benefit and, frankly, the NHS saves billions of pounds as a consequence. One estimate put before the Commons science committee just before Christmas suggested that we gain about £2.4 billion of savings each year as a consequence particularly of that trade relationship we have, buying those medicines from a leading Israeli company, which turns out therefore to be a top-15 strategic supplier to the NHS.
There is another reason why it makes sense to have some geographical diversity in our medicine supply chain: it is no secret that at the time of the Covid pandemic, for example, we saw some questionable behaviour on the part of the European Commission seeking to restrict flows of vaccines and medicines. It is also no secret that the current US Administration has been putting significant pressure on the British Government to hike the drug prices that the NHS is paying. So having a range of other suppliers geographically around the world strengthens our resilience and our negotiating hand.
It is not just about medicines, of course, but also medtech, for the reasons we have heard. The Government’s 10-year health plan talks about the transition from analogue to digital. Frankly, the epicentre of where that innovation is fizzing away is not just in the US; it is also in a lot of the companies that the noble Lord, Lord Austin, referred to.
One point for the Minister would be that we had in 2023 the memorandum of understanding that set out the importance of these kinds of bilateral relationships in something called the 2030 road map. It would be very useful to hear where that has now got to in the context of the Government’s current trade policy with Israel. Again, if that could be spelled out and shared with us more clearly, it would also be of great interest to many of the British life sciences companies that supply their own medicines across the world, including to the Middle East and Israel. I am thinking of companies such as GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca, for which this is hugely important. Of course, they are able to be successful because of the innovative science that happens not just in each of our countries but around the world. No country has a monopoly on science.
When the world’s most prominent scientific journal was publishing its year-end assessment of 10 of the breakthrough science discoveries in the last year, it referred to one of them at the Weizmann Institute. Unfortunately, the lab that had produced that discovery was then hit by an Iranian missile in the summer. But the conclusion that Nature magazine drew from those 10 discoveries, including that one of the Weizmann, is that they
“showcase the ongoing strength of science globally: its ability to transcend national borders … its power to save and improve lives … They also serve as a reminder of what is lost when governments … fail to nurture the international collaborative spirit that creates the breakthroughs that make the world a better place for all”.
Let us ourselves not make that mistake.
Lord Livingston of Parkhead (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Austin, for tabling this QSD and I welcome, if rather belatedly, the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, as a Minister. It is excellent to have somebody with his extensive business knowledge in the position. I think I am right in saying that he has a good knowledge of Israel, from his time in a kibbutz as a student, so he will be able to contribute in many ways.
I speak as an ex-Minister for Trade and Investment but also as someone who has been a director of many companies that trade around the world. While many other noble Lords have spoken about the size of trade with Israel, I will talk a little about quality rather than just quantity. There is a great fit between the UK and Israel in many sectors: life sciences, fintech, defence—which has been mentioned—AI, cyber and technology more generally. In fact, when I was CEO of BT, we had one technology scanning team for Asia, one for Silicon Valley, one for Europe and one for Israel. That gives an idea of the scale of technological innovation coming out of Israel.
As a Trade Minister, I recall how many Israeli companies would seek to come to the UK as their first point of expansion out of Israel. They were setting up their European or global hubs in the UK; indeed, one of the largest sources of AIM-listed companies was Israel. Yet we have the BDS movement, which uniquely agitates against a democratic country that has so many shared interests with the UK. I would point out to these protestors that, if they are truly serious in their misguided views and want to boycott Israel, they are going to have to do something different from picketing Barclays, which does not have much of a relationship with Israel, or standing beside the kosher counters of Marks & Spencer supermarkets.
If they want to be serious, for a start they must stop using their iPhones, which contain a huge amount of Israeli products. They must turn off their computers, because one of Microsoft’s major research hubs is based in Israel, and not use AI: Nvidia recently described Israel as its second home, so they would have to stop using AI. They must also reject the range of medicines and cutting-edge treatments that Israeli health companies provide. When they come down for their weekly protests, please can they not use the mapping software provided by Waze, which is Israeli, or the buses, because the software that supports all our bus scheduling comes out of Israel as well. I would tell them to get lost, but they will probably manage that on their own, in the circumstances.
It is also worth reflecting on the relationship between Israel’s universities and businesses, which I think we can replicate in the UK; it is particularly strong. I recently met the rector of one of Israel’s leading universities, who is a renowned neurobiologist. She told me that she had been disinvited from a number of conferences, presumably to strike a blow against the supposed Israeli apartheid. She is an Arab Maronite Christian. This highlights the absurdity of the BDS movement.
We need to recognise the substantial benefit to the UK of Israeli trade, but we also need to stand against the malign forces we are seeing, promote the benefits to the UK of this trade and assure Israeli companies that this is a good place to invest in order to create UK jobs, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, just said. I would be interested to hear how the Minister and his Government will, going forward, say that the UK is a good and safe place for Israeli companies to invest.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, for securing this debate. I declare that I am not Jewish, but I am a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel.
In the year to the end of 2025, the UK and Israel traded roughly £6.2 billion in goods and services, with the UK reporting a trade surplus of £1 billion over that period. Services account for a large and growing share of that relationship, and thousands of British jobs depend on exports to Israel. As we have already heard, the UK-Israel economic relationship is concentrated in high-value sectors such as technology, cyber, life sciences, finance and services, which support British jobs and R&D partnerships. Then, of course, there is the other trade that is vital to our economy and security: intelligence sharing and co-operation on the military and defence. We co-operate with Israel, the only democratic country in the whole of the Middle East, on signals intelligence, counterterrorism, cyber security and aerial surveillance data.
All of that co-operation with a trusted partner helps our trade. I regret that it has been put at risk by the foolish suspension of further FTA discussions and some restrictions on the supply of defence goods. Those were, I think, token gestures to appease some Labour Back-Benchers in the Commons who are fearful of losing their seats to pro-Palestinian agitators, and they risk weakening the very economic and diplomatic ties that have worked so brilliantly up to now.
Our close working relationship with Israel has been made possible for more than three centuries because Jewish people have been integral to our national life, building businesses, schools, hospitals, cultural and scientific institutions, and charities. British Jews have served in our Armed Forces in large numbers: around 40,000 in the First World War and 60,000 in the Second World War. These figures reflect sacrifice and loyalty to this country. Jewish citizens have been prominent in science, law, medicine, the arts and public life, enriching our national life through peaceful and industrious behaviour. Just look around this Committee and the House and reflect on the dozens of Jewish Peers who have contributed across religion, politics, the media and public service. The Jewish community has not sought special privileges but has long sought to belong, to serve and to improve Britain through hard work and civic engagement.
The relevance to this debate of the huge contribution that British Jews have made to this country is that many of them still have links with and have relatives in Israel. Israeli Governments and businesses saw that the UK was a Jewish-friendly country with which they could do business. I worry that that is now under threat with the despicable rise of antisemitism against the very community of whom we should be most proud in terms of what it has done for the UK. I am appalled to see those vile people in our streets celebrating the death of 1,200 Jews in the massacre on 7 October and cheering the murders in Manchester and Bondi Beach, leading the chief constable of Greater Manchester to say:
“The intolerable has become normalised, and has almost become accepted as the way that things are”.
We must not permit the intolerable to become normal. To those demonstrators, I say this: you have no right to protest until those whom you champion do what hundreds of good Jews have done for this country over the centuries.
I am proud to support Israel and stand with Jewish people in the UK. The work of British Jews and Israel over the past 60 years has made this country better through peaceful civic contribution—not by demanding special rights or committing acts of terrorism. They all deserve our respect, our protection and our increasing trade with them.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Austin both on securing this debate and on his excellent introduction. I must thank from the bottom of my heart my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his remarks just now, which have almost brought me to tears. I declare my interest as a member of various APPGs on Britain and Israel and British Jews, and I associate myself fully with the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Livingston, on the BDS issue.
There are many important areas in which Israeli trade contributes significantly to the UK and helps improve our future economic growth. In my allotted time for today, I will focus on three vital issues: Israel’s contribution to our health, technological advances and security.
On health, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, explained, Israel supplies many medicines for the NHS and saves this country significant sums. There is a long history of co-operation between Israel and the UK on national and international health challenges. For example, the Rotherham, Doncaster and South Humberside NHS Trust is working with the Israeli firm Taliaz, with its AI technology supporting mental health patients; that is just one small example. Israel is a recognised global leader in digital health, biotech and medical innovations, as we have heard from other noble Lords. We have much to learn from the advances that Israel continues to make. I ask the Minister: how do the Government plan to expand scientific, medical and commercial co-operation with Israel to ensure that its breakthroughs directly support UK healthcare and bolster the NHS?
In science and technology, including environmental tech, Israeli innovation is world-renowned. Its advances can help the UK. As a global leader in fields ranging from sophisticated air traffic control systems to high-level security, it has developed improvements in sectors such as clean energy, the creative industries, life sciences, digital technology and services, which are core areas of the Government’s 10-year plan to boost the UK’s economy and productivity. Since these are such important areas of our plan for growth, does the Minister agree with me that closer co-operation with Israel can accelerate UK technological leadership, helping the Government meet their industrial strategy and growth goals even faster?
Lastly, on national security, including intelligence sharing and counterterrorism, Israel makes a positive contribution to the UK. Past Governments built a strong defence partnership and developed close co-operation on counterterrorism and cyber security, with Israeli experts playing an important role in defending our country against bad actors. In that connection, I repeat that it is an extreme disappointment that our Government have suspended some of our trade with Israel—and only Israel—on what I consider spurious grounds. There are hints of antisemitism. Given that both nations face increasingly complex security challenges, does the Minister agree that Israel-UK trade and co-operation can offer significant potential for boosting UK growth, innovation, intelligence collaboration and the joint development of advanced capabilities?
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness. The problem with speaking so far down a list of many eminent speakers is that, I am afraid, a lot of the good stuff I was going to say has already been said—but I am still going to crack on.
This is the first time I have engaged with the Minister, so I congratulate him; I appreciate that he has been in his position for some time, but his is a fantastic role. I also congratulate my personal friend, the noble Lord, Lord Austin, not just on securing this debate but on all of the great work that he does as a trade envoy, in standing up for the Jewish community in this country and in tackling antisemitism.
As everyone has already said, it is important that we are honest about what is already true and the facts of the relationship with Israel, which are often, I am afraid, overlooked or selectively disregarded. The relationship, as has been said, is incredibly strong. Co-operation extends beyond trade into counterterrorism, research, technology and AI. It is one of the few major trading relationships in which we enjoy a trade surplus, and it is one that continues to grow. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is one of the many virtues of Brexit that the ability to pursue new trade agreements means that we can also pursue our own national interests at the same time. As has been said, sadly, part of a new trade agreement under discussion has been halted.
Trade is not just commercial, though: it is the arena for engagement, co-operation and influence. If the Government felt unable to continue those talks during the war, what precisely is preventing their resumption now that the war is over? If the issue is aid, surely the Government can set out the threshold they expect to see. If it is about human rights, are we saying that we will suspend or abandon all trade discussions with every country with whose record we have concerns, or is this approach being applied only to Israel? If the concern is around a lack of progress on the peace plan, this week, even the Government briefly touched on the need for Hamas to disarm as part of that process, as my noble friend Lord Massey noted in the debate last night. The point is that it is widely recognised that the obstacles on the ground are not solely of Israel’s making.
So what is holding us back? Is our economy performing so well that we can afford to turn away deeper trade with a key partner? If the Government are so opposed to Israel’s actions, do they no longer consider Israel an ally? If we truly objected to Israeli policy, why did we not suspend all trade rather than only these new discussions? Like my noble friend Lord Blencathra, I am afraid to say that this makes me feel as though this was simply something for the Prime Minister to placate his Back-Benchers. If we were so opposed to what Israel was doing, why did we not apply the same approach to the United States, whose support for Israel was unequivocal?
If the Prime Minister objects to President Trump’s actions in Venezuela on the grounds of international law, will we now curtail economic ties with America on that basis? I hasten to add that I do not agree that we should—personally, I think that we should be congratulating it—but this is an inconsistency. I cannot help but feel that, at times, the Prime Minister appears to be intentionally trying to send different messages to different audiences, banning Israelis from the Royal College of Defence Studies and cancelling certain defence exports to appear tough to one group, as has been said, while maintaining the bulk of defence co-operation and the purchasing of arms—that has been mentioned—to reassure another. There was the announcement of the recognition of Palestine—but not immediately—and the halting of new trade talks while maintaining the wider relationship.
If we are serious about supporting a two-state solution, disengagement does not help. The Trump peace plan explicitly envisages Israeli investment in the reconstruction and economic stabilisation of Gaza. A prosperous and secure Israel is essential for Israelis, Palestinians, the region and our own national interest. Now that the war has ended, surely this is a moment to re-engage, rebuild momentum and strengthen that relationship, to the benefit of both nations; that is in the interests of the region, economic growth in this country and our shared security.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Austin, on initiating this interesting debate. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, to his new role as Minister.
As noble Lords have mentioned, Israel and the UK have a very strong trading relationship, with a high proportion of technology and high value-added goods. There is, of course, enormous potential for growth. Israel’s success story as a growth economy, despite living in an almost perpetual state of war, is truly remarkable—almost miraculous. If one looks at a comparison of its growth with that of countries such as the UK, Germany or France, one sees that Israel has grown its key wealth metric, GDP per capita, from $26,000 in 2005 to more than $60,000 today—more than doubling in two decades. By contrast, the UK and other European countries have increased their GDP per capita in that timeframe by about 25%. So Israel started 50% behind us 20 years ago and has now outstripped the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain on a per capita basis—a remarkable achievement.
How has it done this? There may be some lessons to be learned for us. Entrepreneurship and technological innovation have been the main drivers of its outperformance. Its weighting of its tech sector, in terms of percentage of workforce and percentage of GDP, is double ours, so it brings very complementary skill sets to our own economy.
Israel is an ideal trading partner for the UK, bringing expertise in technologies, as many noble Lords have discussed today, such as cyber, AI, clean energy, biotech, defence equipment and electronics. Those are areas that we need in order to grow, and we have the additional benefit of running a £1 billion surplus with it as it buy our business in financial services, cars and pharmaceuticals. That is why Israel was one of the first countries targeted for an FTA post Brexit. The last Government began to update the trade deal in 2022 in order to support cross-border services, both professional and digital, but of course in May this year, as has been mentioned, the Government decided to freeze negotiations on the FTA that would have significantly enhanced the economies of both nations. They did so because this Government do not like the way that Israel has prosecuted the war in Gaza, despite the fact that its enemy is an Islamic terror group hell-bent on the destruction of Israel and the Jews.
Thus far, the £6 billion of trade carries on because business needs it to, not because of any actions by the UK Government, but growth is on hold—another decision, if I may say so, where this Government have placed politics ahead of their much-vaunted objective of generating economic growth. In the meantime, Israel has entered into serious FTA discussions with a much larger and faster-growing trading nation: India, no less—and we wonder why the UK is falling behind.
We are placing a valuable long-term relationship at risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, suggested. I urge the Government to reconsider the decision of last May at the earliest opportunity, now that a ceasefire has been reached and a peace plan signed. The Government have stated that it would take “a sustained shift” in the Israeli position for the Government to resume negotiations. I invite the Minister to comment on his understanding of what would constitute such a shift and whether he would support the further expansion of our trading relationship with Israel.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Austin, for securing this debate. I express my agreement with the themes of his speech and those of many other speakers this afternoon. I welcome the Minister to his new position.
I declare the interest that I was for more than 10 years the chairman of the Anglo-Israel Association. En passant, in those 10 years I would frequently, as a strong supporter of and much engaged in the Good Friday agreement, argue with Israeli audiences and say, “You ought to be careful. Let’s not assume that Hamas are as fundamentalist as they appear to be. After all, it turned out the IRA weren’t”. After 7 October, that argument inevitably falls on stony ground. I have made that argument for 10 years but it can no longer be sustained. That is the tragedy of the position we are now in: Israel has no alternative but to fight a many-sided war in which it cannot afford to end up appearing as a weak horse, to use Osama bin Laden’s dictum. I am afraid I do not think our Government are fully facing up to that brutal and unfortunate reality.
When I first came to this House in the summer of 2007, the boycott movement was just about getting going and there was a debate covering many of the same themes that we have covered today. I looked at it again in preparation for this debate, and the one thing I would say is that those who spoke in favour of Israel, including the importance of scientific co-operation, the medical achievements of Israel and so on—there were many distinguished academics who spoke—actually understated their case. As I look back on it now, the case is much stronger. The fact is that Israel is now a world leader in medical and paramedical research, and it is tremendously important to acknowledge that. Many speeches have made all the points. It is not just a question, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, says, of the thousands of people in England who owe their jobs to Israeli investment; there are quite lot of people walking around now who owe their lives to Israeli achievement in the medical and scientific spheres. As I say, those who defended Israel 18 or 19 years ago in this House understated the case that we made for the importance of collaboration with Israel in medical and scientific matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Austin, referred to the great work in this area of our ambassador in Israel, Simon Walters. I agree, and I am rather proud that Simon Walters comes from exactly the same part of the world that I do. I take a certain chauvinistic pride in that.
I have one final point. The Royal College of Defence Studies was raised. For many years I lectured there, and I was happy to do so. As has been rightly said, many of the soldiers I spoke to did not come from the most liberal, democratic countries in the world, but I still did it and I still think it was the right thing to do. I have had to stop now as a consequence of that decision, which is just astounding and very unfortunate. It is a difficult matter for the Minister to comment on, but I hope he realises that many of us are very unhappy with that particular decision.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Austin, for introducing this really interesting debate. He ranged into a whole lot of different areas and pinpointed some of the great pieces of trade between our two countries.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are clear that trade with Israel is a positive thing, as we have all stated, and that we should be consolidating ties with our closest ally in the region and looking to expand them into the future. We should not, as the Government are intent on doing, be closing channels and limiting agreements based on moral posturing rather than the empirical reality.
The last Government understood this. That is why we signed a trade continuity agreement with Israel that commenced upon our exiting of the European Union. We knew that close links contribute to our countries’ prosperity, which is why we relaunched negotiations for a new deal in 2022. As a result, Israel stands as a growing contributor to our economy. In the four quarters leading up to Q2 2025, total trade between the two countries, as mentioned by noble Lords, amounted to £6.2 billion, £3.6 billion of which came from Israel buying British goods and services—up more than 10% on the year.
Israel is a vital trade partner to the United Kingdom. The former Trade Minister in the other place, Douglas Alexander, noted that one in eight of the prescribed drugs available through the NHS is provided by an Israeli company—it was really interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, a bit more detail on the different drugs being imported to this country. Yet that is despite rather than because of the Government’s best efforts. They have cut trade, amended policy to specifically exclude Israel from arms programmes, and have most recently suspended the free trade agreement negotiations that the Conservatives started.
What is particularly damaging is that these suspended negotiations had the aim of expanding trade to financial services and digital trade—our biggest sectors. Services comprise about 80% of Israel and the United Kingdom’s economies. Telecommunications and IT services trade with Israel surged by over 40% last year, and yet services make up just over a third of the total trade between our two countries. Renewed trade negotiations and a renewed trade deal would galvanise the service sectors of both economies. They would drive competition, promote innovation and stimulate growth. The Government are missing the opportunity, through their adherence to a vindictive and, I am afraid, misguided policy. I hope the Minister will reconsider the position his Government currently hold and I look forward to hearing his response.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Lord Stockwood) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate. I start by saying that I have visited Israel on many occasions over the years, both for personal and business reasons. Some visits started many years ago, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Livingston. I still have a number of friends who live in the country, and in particular, as someone who has spent decades as an entrepreneur, I am a huge advocate and admirer of its tech sector, which many noble Lords mentioned in the debate.
Israel is without doubt a vibrant, dynamic democracy and a fast-growing economy. While this Government have consistently made our concerns with the conduct of the Israeli Government known, Israel remains a trading partner that plays a significant role in the UK’s economy, with business and personal ties that we continue to value greatly. The UK is committed to our existing trading relationship, and we retain the services of the noble Lord, Lord Austin, our trade envoy, to maintain our relationships with Israeli businesses and attract inward investment in key sectors of the industrial strategy. I express my personal thanks to him for bringing this debate to the Committee today and echo his comments about the British Embassy in Tel Aviv and His Majesty’s Ambassador Simon Walters, who provided me with some helpful advice in our meeting in December.
Israel’s innovative, high-tech economy is well aligned with our own, providing an avenue for critical imports in key sectors mentioned, such as healthcare, medicines for respiratory care, neurology, oncology and pain management to support the treatment of chronic and high-burden diseases. Our economies are highly complementary, with clear parallels in services, technology and advanced manufacturing sectors. We have seen Israeli firms expand in the UK across strategic sectors such as cyber security, climate and energy, fintech and the automotive sector. These all fit neatly into our industrial strategy, as mentioned, and our trade strategy, and as such support our economic growth as a nation. Trade with Israel supports thousands of jobs across the UK. This is especially true across the north and the Midlands, which benefit from Israeli investment, and firms in the advanced manufacturing sectors.
Reflecting our shared heritage as tech-savvy and innovative entrepreneurs, more Israeli tech companies operate in the UK than anywhere else in Europe, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Austin. Co-operation between our nations is extensive, particularly in the sphere of scientific research and development. British and Israeli scientists collaborate on research and development projects, resulting in new products, industrial processes and services. This has led, for example, to the Leeds-Israel Innovation Healthtech Gateway, a collaborative initiative designed to strengthen ties between the UK and Israel in the health sector.
We continue to build on these relationships, including, as mentioned by the noble Lord, through the recently launched ScaIL UK initiative, a first of its kind programme led by DBT and the British Embassy in Tel Aviv. It is designed to help scale-ups establish a strong UK presence by unlocking opportunities in the aforementioned eight priority sectors of the UK industrial strategy, from advanced manufacturing and clean energy to digital technology and life sciences. As a result, these selected high-growth companies will gain practical insights, strategic guidance and direct connections to drive physical expansion, job creation and impactful commercial activity in the whole UK market.
All this is supported under our current trade agreement with Israel. The UK-Israel Trade and Partnership Agreement rolled over, post Brexit, from the 1995 EU-Israel Association Agreement. Accordingly, in line with our European friends and partners, the UK-Israel TPA does not grant preferences to goods from illegal Israeli settlements. Furthermore, we neither support nor condone commercial or financial activity undertaken by British businesses with entities in these illegal settlements. Government guidance is absolutely clear that trading with these settlements brings significant risk and that businesses should seek legal advice before undertaking such activity.
It remains this Government’s firm belief, as set out in the trade strategy last year, that more trade with dynamic and fast-growing partners will generate economic growth in the UK, supporting British jobs and providing the prosperity we need and everything that is foundational to this Government’s growth mission. However, we have also been clear that an enhanced trading relationship with Israel cannot come at any cost. That is why, as the Committee will be aware, we took the decision to pause negotiations on an enhanced trade free trade agreement in May this year in response to the Israeli Government’s rhetoric and actions in Gaza and the West Bank. Since that announcement, we have been, and continue to be, clear that we would need to see sustained change in the Israeli Government’s position before we could resume trade negotiations—and to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, that extends to the RCDS courses.
However, we welcome the moment of significantly profound relief and hope that the ceasefire agreed early this year, after two years of devastating suffering, has brought to all. This Government will continue to do all we can to support an enduring ceasefire, and the UK will continue to play our part in supporting not just the implementation of phase 1 of the peace initiative but the crucial work going forward now in phase 2. In line with this, we will continue to monitor the situation in Israel and Palestine and work to support long-term peace and stability in the region. The UK clearly believes that a two-state solution is the only path to justice for Palestinians and enduring security for Israelis. A two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, is the only path to lasting peace for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.
Before I conclude, I would like to take the opportunity to address some of the outstanding topics raised by noble Lords during the debate that I have not yet referred to. Several noble Lords raised the issue of antisemitism. Let me be really clear on this: the UK Government are absolutely committed to combating antisemitism in the UK and globally. We will not tolerate antisemitism on our streets.
On the issue of BDS, I say to the many noble Lords who raised it today that the UK Government are committed to promoting our trade and business ties with Israel and strongly oppose boycotts.
We will continue to monitor the situation in Israel and Palestine and work to support long-term peace and stability in the region. If it remains the case, in the long term, the UK and Israeli economies are strongly compatible, with plenty of significant opportunities for our businesses. To that end, we will continue to support and encourage the business-to-business and people-to-people connections that underpin any successful trading relationship and maintain our frank and open dialogue with the Israeli Government, which is important between trading partners.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Can the Minister say exactly what he wants to see, further than a ceasefire, to restart the trade talks?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
We are waiting to see phase 2 of the ceasefire put in place. At that point, the dialogue can continue.
Vaccine Health Technology Assessment
(2 days, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to include wider societal and economic benefits within the vaccine health technology assessment, rather than limiting evaluation solely to clinical outcomes.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I was delighted to secure this debate as this is a subject of significant importance and one in which I have a close interest. Health and economic growth are rightly identified by the Government as two of their central priorities and they sit at the core of the NHS 10-year plan. Vaccines lie at the intersection of these ambitions, yet the way we currently assess their value does not reflect the full contribution they can make to either. Vaccines are among the most effective public health interventions ever developed. For more than two centuries, they have saved lives, reduced pressure on health services and enabled societies and economies to function. Yet, despite this well-established record, the health technology assessment of vaccines in England remains too narrow.
At present, vaccine assessment focuses predominantly on direct clinical outcomes and immediate health system costs. While these are clearly important, they do not capture the wider societal and economic benefits that vaccines deliver, benefits that are directly relevant to both national growth and the long-term sustainability of the NHS. Vaccines keep people in work and children in school, and they enable carers to care. They reduce absenteeism, protect productivity and help prevent avoidable demand on already-stretched NHS services. In doing so, they support economic growth and help deliver the Government’s ambition of a healthier, more productive population, as set out in the NHS 10-year health plan. This matters because vaccines are fundamentally different from many other health technologies. They prevent disease before it occurs, reduce transmission and generate benefits that extend well beyond individual patients. Assessing them through a narrow clinical lens risks undervaluing prevention and slowing access to innovations that could deliver long-term health and economic gains.
Recent evidence from the Office of Health Economics provides compelling data in this regard. Its latest report provides estimates of the annual burden associated with respiratory illnesses for four selected vaccination programmes from the NHS routine schedule, as well as the projected costs and savings associated with those vaccines. Despite the delivery of national vaccination programmes for these four disease areas, a significant burden of disease remains. The report shows the costs to the NHS and quantifies the broader socioeconomic impact of vaccines, specifically the impact that they can have on reducing the UK welfare budget and workplace absenteeism and increasing UK productivity—helping to support the Government’s priorities on health and growth.
Key findings include the fact that the cost to the NHS of treating the unprotected population for these four respiratory illnesses alone is £3.9 billion. The cost to the wider economy is £3.6 billion, making a total of £7.4 billion a year. At the same time, the UK spends only 1.07% of health expenditure and 0.1% of GDP to cover immunisation programmes in the national schedule. A 10% reduction in the current burden, through higher coverage with the same vaccine, a future vaccine with higher efficacy or improved effectiveness at the same coverage levels, or a combination of the two, could deliver significant benefits—£384 million in annual NHS savings and £356 million in lower productivity costs. These findings are undoubtedly compelling and reinforce the point that vaccines should be viewed not as a short-term cost but as a strategic investment with benefits that extend well beyond the health system.
The experience of the Covid-19 pandemic made this abundantly clear. Vaccines were not only a health intervention; they were essential to economic recovery, educational continuity and social stability. Yet our routine assessment frameworks have not fully embedded this lesson.
I say gently to my noble friend the Minister that if the Government are serious about delivering their growth agenda and the ambitions of the NHS 10-year health plan, prevention and vaccines in particular must be valued accordingly. That requires assessment frameworks that recognise long-term, cross-government benefits, not just short-term clinical outcomes. I thank the Minister for the recent response she gave to my Parliamentary Question on this issue.
I welcome the recent positive decision by NICE to revise its cost-effectiveness thresholds. This is an important and constructive step. However, with these revised thresholds, the current framework does not systematically include broader socioeconomic benefits. I therefore ask the Minister whether these changes will feed through to JCVI evaluations of vaccines and immunisation programmes.
Crucially, while changes to thresholds may improve flexibility at the margins, they do not address the more fundamental issue that vaccines are still assessed using methodologies that fail to capture their full, long-term societal and economic value. I therefore urge the Government to consider how vaccine health technology assessment can evolve, including clearer guidance on incorporating societal and economic impacts, improved alignments between NICE, JCVI and the NHS, and an explicit recognition that prevention requires a different evaluative approach from treatment.
In closing, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether His Majesty’s Government will commit to establishing an independent committee to evaluate this existing vaccine health technology assessment process. Such a review could assess whether current approaches are fit for purpose, consider international best practice and make recommendations on how wider societal and economic benefits can be appropriately and consistently incorporated.
This is not about lowering evidential standards; it is about measuring the right outcomes over the right time horizon in support of the Government’s priorities on health, growth and NHS sustainability. If we continue to undervalue vaccines, we risk missing one of the most effective tools available to improve population health, reduce pressure on the NHS and support long-term economic prosperity.
I look forward to the Minister’s response on how the Government intend to take this forward and the contributions of other noble Lords on this very important issue.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has just given an utterly compelling speech on the subject of the debate today. I do not want to repeat the points she has made; they are completely convincing. Instead, I want to build on her arguments from my experience as a Health Minister by addressing the question of why, despite broad rhetorical agreement from all corners of this Parliament, we are still struggling to implement sensible measures on our assessment frameworks, and to suggest a couple of measures, some of which the noble Baroness has already alluded to, for how we can move forward constructively. In this, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Royal Society for Public Health.
No one thinks that vaccines are a complete panacea for all the health problems we have in this country. But, although we have multifactorial issues around social care, workforce, primary care access and all kinds of problems, vaccine prevention is a very significant, very important and easily modifiable contributor to our nation’s health. It is one of the few levers we have to improve the human capital of this country, and we do well in this country with the vaccines we have—but my lord, we could do a lot better. We should be leaning in, especially since new vaccines, including cell therapies and gene therapies, are on the horizon for cancer, heart disease and even depression. If we take the limited laid-back approach of today, we simply will not take advantage of the technologies of tomorrow.
UKHSA data shows that vaccine-preventable infectious disease hospitalisations cost the NHS between £970 million and £1.5 billion annually in avoidable emergency admissions. In other words, that is in-year healthcare costs for our system and our taxpayers. I appreciate that these are not totally fungible savings that automatically release money for the rest of the system, but they represent important opportunities to reduce preventable suffering and free up capacity, so that it can be turned to other urgent needs. They should therefore be valued highly.
If the case for greater use of the vaccines we have is so obvious, why have we not changed? I want to engage very seriously with the legitimate concerns raised by NICE, JCVI and the DHSC. First, there is the consistency argument. DHSC’s 2018 CEMIPP consultation stated that,
“if changes to thresholds and time horizons are considered for vaccines, they should also be considered more broadly”.
That is absolutely right. The implication is that we cannot treat vaccines differently, and I agree with that strongly. We need to completely change our approach from top to bottom, across all medicines. The solution is not to keep undervaluing vaccines but to update methods for all preventive interventions. After all, Germany operates modified frameworks for preventive technologies and the WHO explicitly recommends this, so why not Britain? The DHSC’s attitude is: “Because we assess everything badly, we must continue to assess vaccines badly too”. Let us be more ambitious, embrace the opportunity and make sure that we are allocating resources thoughtfully for maximum impact across the piece.
Secondly, there is the NHS perspective argument. NICE’s 2013 methods guide required assessment
“from the perspective of the NHS and personal social services”
because considering broader benefits would favour technologies that are less efficient at improving health when non-health benefits are higher. You bet they would—that is the entire idea. It is the voters’ priority and the taxpayers’ priority. It is this Parliament’s stated mandate. It is also the Treasury’s concern, so let us do it. I fear that, in this instance, NICE is not constrained by methodology; it is just out of date and failing to remember who pays the bills. We will lose the voters’ confidence with this approach.
Thirdly, there is the methodological uncertainty argument. The Office for Health Economics noted in 2021:
“Recognising the broader value of vaccines … requires … advancements in data and methodological capabilities”
to avoid double counting. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, alluded to, we should absolutely be clear about the limitations of evidence for long-term population health investments. Some of the productivity and long-term effects I have described in this speech come from economic models, not from randomised trials. That is inevitable but, even taking this into account, I fear that we are completely off the pace here. WHO published comprehensive guidance in 2019, and I can point noble Lords to countless reliable models that demonstrate the value of vaccines. In this case, the UK is not constrained by some daunting methodological frontier; we are just too easily overwhelmed by distracting clinical standards and behind the methodological curve.
Fourthly and lastly, there is the equity argument. NICE and DHSC raised concerns that including productivity could bias allocation towards working-age populations and against older people. NICE’s concern about bias towards working-age populations reveals the problem: the organisation views human capital preservation as a bias rather than an objective. Every pound we invest in keeping a 45 year-old healthy returns a huge multiple that can fund care for a 75 year-old. These are not competing priorities; they are complementary. We must stop apologising for the fact that preventing a death at 55 delivers massively more economic value than preventing one at 85. That is not discrimination; it is demography and economics.
Pressure is mounting. The British Social Attitudes survey shows widespread consensus that the NHS must transform from a national sickness service to one that supports people to live healthy lives. Voters, taxpayers and patients are expecting better. In other words, this debate is a metaphor for a broader failure. Our healthcare system focuses on system maintenance rather than on capital preservation.
So I ask for four concrete commitments from the Minister: first, to commission NICE to develop a broader value assessment for vaccines and preventative interventions by April 2026, and in this I echo the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie; secondly, to expand respiratory vaccination to all ages over 50, phased over three years, from April 2026, including flu, pneumococcal and shingles—I declare an interest here: I recently paid for my shingles vaccine; thirdly, to launch targeted MMR catch-up campaigns in London and the West Midlands, where we are massively behind the pace; and, fourthly, to mandate UKHSA to publish annual human capital impact assessments for all major vaccination programmes.
Our £220 billion healthcare system does not need more money for this. We need to shift spending from wasteful, late-stage and low-value crisis management into early-stage, high-value prevention. This requires some services to shrink—specifically, expensive emergency capacity that we have built to cope with preventable disease should instead focus on vaccines—and requires an investment that yields massive economic, societal and human capital benefits. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for arranging for us to have this debate today. It could not be at a more important time for us.
Vaccines are one of the clearest examples that we have of prevention working well. They stop illness before it starts, they reduce pressure on the National Health Service, and they protect the most vulnerable in our society, yet, when we assess their value, we tend to look at them through a very narrow lens. At present, vaccine health technology assessments focus primarily on clinical outcomes and direct health system costs. That matters, of course, but it is not the whole story. When we ignore the wider societal and economic effects of vaccination, we risk undervaluing one of the most effective public health tools we have. This matters particularly for women, children and carers.
I shall start with children. When children are vaccinated, they are less likely to fall ill, less likely to miss school and more likely to stay engaged in learning. School absence is not a trivial issue. We know from the Government and from OECD analysis that sustained absence affects educational attainment and long-term life chances. When illnesses disrupt schooling, that does not affect the child’s health in the short term but it can shape their future for the long term, and that affects the country as a whole, yet the benefits of vaccination in reducing school absence and protecting learning are rarely counted in formal assessments. These costs do not disappear; they simply fall elsewhere, on families, on schools and ultimately on society. Every child’s health should matter.
I turn to carers. When a child is ill, or when an older or disabled family member becomes unwell, someone steps in to care. In the UK, that someone is most often a woman—mothers, grandmothers, daughters, sisters. They take time off work and reduce their hours. Sometimes they have to leave the workforce altogether. That does not make a family happy, it does not help GDP and it does not really help the family. The Library briefing makes it clear that societal perspective on health technology assessment can include informal care and productivity effects. That is not radical—it is already recognised in economic evaluation guidance—but in practice these impacts are often excluded or treated as secondary.
If we do not account for the burden placed on carers, we are in effect saying that their time, labour and lost income do not count. This is not gender neutral; it entrenches inequality by hiding costs that fall disproportionately on women and their pensions. Vaccination reduces that burden. It helps families to function and prevents crises in households that are already under strain. Those are real benefits, even if they do not show up immediately in the national health balance sheet.
There is also an important equality dimension. We know that vaccination uptake is not equal across communities; in some areas and groups in England, childhood vaccination rates have fallen and inequalities have widened. When preventable illness occurs, the social and economic consequences are felt most sharply in the communities that already face disadvantage. We must work hard to encourage families in those communities that vaccinations are safe overall and that it is the right thing to do. At the same time, we must not be too pushy; we have to work out the right way to encourage this across friends and across communities, as we did during the Covid situation. We worked very hard on that in this House. One of the leaders, who was a Muslim, very much helped us to do that and we need to look at that kind of work again.
This is not a fringe argument. The World Health Organization defines health technology assessment as
“covering both … direct and indirect consequences”
of health interventions. Academic work has repeatedly shown that vaccinations generate broader societal value, including educational benefits, productivity gains and protection against inequality. NICE already allows for analysis beyond the standard reference case when appropriate. The tools exist; what is missing is consistency and clarity about how and when wider societal benefits should be included for vaccines.
I want to acknowledge that there are challenges here. Measuring wider impacts is complex. There are legitimate concerns about double-counting and about privileging economic productivity over other values, but complexity is not a reason to ignore large and predictable effects; it is a reason to be transparent, to publish assumptions and to use sensitivity in all analysis. It is precisely because of those concerns that we must ensure equality and caregiver impacts are explicitly considered, not sidelined. If we count only what happens inside the clinic, we miss what happens in homes, in schools and in carers’ lives. Vaccines do not just prevent disease, they prevent disruption, inequality and unnecessary strains on families and workplaces. If we are serious about prevention, fairness and long-term guidance, our assessment frameworks need to reflect the world as it actually is.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, some weeks ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, tabled a Written Question on this subject. With great respect to the Minister, her response was not a strong one: it merely suggested the possibility of considerations such as productivity costs being highlighted by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, so we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for securing this debate and enabling us to take up the issue further.
I believe that considerations such as impact on productivity and the wider economy should always be included at the heart of decision-making concerning the provision of medicines and vaccines, but there is a general problem in public policy-making, with too much short-termism and insufficient weight being applied to factors beyond simple clinical outcomes. I often argue in the House that productivity, which was discussed in the Chamber yesterday, as well as wider socio-economic considerations, should be applied more generally to decisions about procurement in the healthcare sector. We need to consider these issues in relation to the provision of assistive technology supporting people with disabilities and we need to apply them to the provision of medical equipment, such as continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps for people with diabetes.
In many public policy areas—not just healthcare—we need real, long-term cultural change. We need much less short-termism and much less policy development based on silos that exclude the consideration of wider relevant issues. Long-term benefit analysis concerning vaccinations must cover not just costs to the NHS against improving life expectancy but the benefits of a healthier workforce, of more people paying into HMRC and of fewer people with illnesses and disabilities being more dependent on the DWP. We should also look much more at the considerable potential benefits of greater emotional well-being to both people and society as a whole.
However, first, we must think ourselves lucky to live in the United Kingdom and not in the United States, where a dangerous, ignorant and prejudiced man was appointed by President Trump to undermine sensible public health policies with his anti-vax agenda. Millions of people worldwide are at risk because of his prejudices, which contradict the scientific evidence. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government are doing everything they can to prevent right-wing nutters in this country—many of whom are influenced by the far right in America—spreading dangerous disinformation here about the safety and necessity of vaccination programmes. Everyone should know that vaccinations prevent millions of deaths every year from diseases such as measles, rubella, polio, flu and Covid-19. We need to educate people from an early age against the prejudice of ideologies that are hostile to vaccinations.
We also need to look carefully at the current evaluation process for new medicines and vaccines, led by NICE and the JCVI, which is built on something that is too narrow and is termed the “health sector perspective”. This approach is about managing the immediate budgets of the NHS, but it is not about the budgets of the NHS in decades to come. This approach does not look at the economic consequences of inaction. Recent research from the Office of Health Economics suggests that respiratory infections alone cost UK businesses an estimated £44 billion annually in lost productivity. This is a drain on our national prosperity; productivity should be a key factor in considering the evaluation and rolling out of vaccines.
Last year, I got my flu jab. As a person with diabetes, I also got my Covid-19 jab on the NHS. However, this year, I was told that I no longer qualified for the Covid-19 jab. I had to pay £90 to have it privately, but not everyone can do that. Failing to vaccinate as widely as we should for flu and Covid-19 costs money in many ways. I understand that the prevalence of flu this year has been very damaging to the public sector and that many people will be badly affected by this. We also need to consider the impact of vaccination programmes on educational attainment. For childhood vaccines, the current models of evaluation often miss the long-term benefits of improved school attendance and cognitive performance, which eventually translate into higher lifetime productivity.
We need to look more at the benefits of vaccines that can make other life-saving treatments, such as chemotherapy for the immunocompromised, safer and more effective. We need to be more aware of antimicrobial resistance, or AMR. Vaccines are front-line defences in this battle, reducing the need for antibiotics and thus slowing the development of resistant strains. Although the JCVI acknowledges this, it does not yet consistently capture the value in its cost-effectiveness models.
The Government’s 10-year health plan and Life Sciences Sector Plan set an ambitious target: for the UK to be one of the top three fastest places in Europe for patient access to medicines by 2030. I know that there will always be pressure within government to prioritise measures that show benefit by the time of the next election. There is always intense pressure from the Treasury to consider the implications for immediate budgets and, as we know, whichever party wins the election, the Treasury stays in power. I believe that, to establish better practice, we should look more to nations such as Sweden, which already incorporates a broader range of studied impacts, including productivity losses for both patients and carers, in its assessments. I hope that the Minister can respond positively.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for securing this timely and important debate and for the eloquent way in which she laid out her argument. We saw the value of vaccines during the Covid-19 pandemic. Millions of people rolled up their sleeves, with the impact not just on patients and hospitals but on the wider economy. I thank my noble friend Lord Bethell, who was a Minister during that time, given some of the challenges Ministers faced in making sure that we found the vaccine solution and then were able to roll it out. That rollout was a turning point that allowed restrictions to be lifted and our country to try to get back to normal, but we know that we are still feeling the effects in some places, and some people are still feeling them.
When respiratory illnesses such as flu and Covid strike, people are forced to stay off work and children miss school. I thoroughly recommend the excellent briefing by the House of Lords Library; in fact, I may well use it in my teaching. At this point, I probably should declare my interest. I am a professor of politics and international relations at St Mary’s University in Twickenham, and I will be teaching an MBA module on healthcare policy and strategy this semester. The excellent Library briefing quotes the Office of Health Economics, which estimates that such absences cost employers around £850 per employee annually. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, that amounts to about £44 billion across the UK.
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health suggests that reducing vaccine-preventable illnesses helps children to stay in school more consistently, improves access to education and supports better educational outcomes overall, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, alluded to. In the Lancet, Professor Philippe Beutels wrote about the “peace of mind” that vaccination can bring, particularly for the clinically vulnerable. Knowing that you or your loved ones are protected matters enormously, yet this assurance is often overlooked in formal evaluations.
But there is a challenge. Taking account of wider societal and economic benefits within the current health technology assessments is not straightforward and is often subjective. We should also be aware of any unintended consequences, whether for healthcare budgets or for the cost of vaccine development. We will have read of the example of Portugal, when the argument was that it increased productivity so the pharmaceutical company said, “In that case, you can pay more for the vaccines given the wider societal impact”.
At the moment, vaccines are assessed in a more focused way. NICE and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation largely operate from what is known as a health sector perspective. Health technology assessments focus on the direct impacts on the healthcare system, with wider societal and economic effects considered only in exceptional cases. NICE’s economic evaluations usually look only at the cost to the NHS and care services. While savings within the health system, such as short hospital stays, can be counted, the wider impacts such as productivity or keeping people in work are explicitly left out. The case for capturing some of these wider benefits within health merits careful consideration, as my noble friend Lord Bethell laid out.
While recognising concerns about broadening the criteria and the unintended negative consequences, as in the Portuguese example, there is also a practical challenge. We simply do not have enough good-quality data on the wider social and economic impacts of vaccines. As an academic I know, and others will know, that the quality of data really matters. You can make whatever argument you want if you have data that is too subjective or if it is contested, but neither is that an argument not to contest the data or some of the theories that come out. This is hardly surprising, given that these impacts are not currently captured as part of the health technology assessment and there is no agreed way of measuring these wider effects. Estimating the socioeconomic impact is inherently difficult, particularly for complex areas such as the role that vaccines play in reducing AMR, for example, or even putting a value on unpaid work, such as caring for family members. Once again, the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, mentioned this.
There are and will be debates over what should be included and how; whether and how different factors should be weighted; and how far across society and the economy we should go. On many of these points, scientific consensus would be difficult. In measuring these effects, there will also be a challenge in ensuring that the data collected is robust and reliable. Achieving data of sufficient quality and certainty is itself a challenge.
The Office of Health Economics pointed out the siloed nature of public sector budgets, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, mentioned. This leads to a focus on clinical outcomes and healthcare alone. NICE has asked why, if health technology assessments were expanded to take account of the impacts on other sectors, those other sectors should not also routinely assess the health impacts of their own policies. Without that wider responsibility, there is a risk of the burden all falling on NICE or on the health part of government, when it is actually a wider societal gain. Finally, considering the broader challenge set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, we should recall that in 2022 the NICE review judged that expanding this work further
“would be disproportionate to any expected benefits to the quality of NICE decisions”
given the flexibility that already exists to take “relevant wider effects” into account.
It is clear that this debate is important but also on a balanced issue. It raises serious questions about the wider benefits of vaccination, not always considered by current health technology assessments, but also exposes some of the methodological and resource challenges. This should not be an excuse for a lack of action or for not investigating these ideas in more detail.
One crucial point should not be overlooked: the benefits debated today, economic, social and clinical, can be realised only if people actually get vaccinated in the first place. I was concerned, as I am sure the Minister was, to see that by the end of week 50 of 2025, only 36% of pregnant women and only 39% of under-65s in clinical risk groups had received the flu vaccine. Within the NHS, as of late October—I hope that the Minister has more up-to-date figures—fewer than three in 10 nurses working in secondary care had received the flu vaccine. This sends the wrong message to patients but also puts patients’ health, and even lives, at risk. Given the concerns over the flu outbreak this winter, we should consider why these vaccination rates are so low.
I really want to ask the Government about their strategy, so I shall end by asking some quick questions. Can the Minister explain why the vaccination rates are so low? What are the primary reasons? Is it about communications, access or convenience? What assessment has been made of each of these factors? What assessment has the Department of Health and Social Care made of the wider benefits of achieving high vaccination coverage, especially among school-age children? We know that this can be a sensitive topic at times, but has the department considered the broader societal and educational impacts?
Can the Minister also set out whether any work is under way within the department to ensure that the wider assessments we have debated today are carried out more regularly? Has it looked into that in more detail? Given that the NICE 2022 review concluded that the current system already has sufficient flexibility to consider wider impacts on an ad-hoc basis, is the Minister aware of whether such assessments have been used more regularly since then, and does the department judge them to be a helpful and effective part of decision-making? These are really important questions that I think we need answers to, but I close again by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and all noble Lords who contributed today. I also thank the Minister in advance for her response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her thorough introduction and for securing this debate. I am also grateful to all noble Lords for their considered contributions. The subject of today’s debate reflects my noble friend’s steadfast commitment to improving access to immunisation and her tireless efforts to ensure that vaccination matters continue to receive the attention that they undoubtedly deserve. As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, this is a very important debate to have and I welcome the probing that it provides.
Let me say at the outset that I believe we in the UK can be proud that we have one of the most extensive vaccination programmes in the world. We protect people across their life course and it is underpinned by rigorous scientific evidence and a commitment to equitable access—a point made both by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and my noble friend Lady Goudie.
The question of international comparators was raised. Our vaccination progress serves as a global benchmark for innovation and best practice, and many nations look to align their immunisation schedule with ours.
I will focus on the specifics as best I can in the time available. On the JCVI, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, made a number of comments suggesting what I might say, and in a number of cases he will be entirely right, so I am grateful to him for shining a light on some of those points. Decisions on introducing or changing vaccination programmes are informed by advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. It is an independent and expert committee and world leader in this field, as has been recognised in this debate. It bases its advice on high-quality data, disease burden, vaccine safety and efficacy, and the impact and cost-effectiveness of programmes, and it ensures that we maintain public confidence in our policies. I know that all these things are important to noble Lords.
On the current approach to evaluating vaccines, the cost effectiveness analysis used by the JCVI compares the cost of a vaccine relative to the health benefits it provides. I appreciate that this debate is about extending beyond that, but that is what it does. It looks at the health benefits provided for a vaccinated individual and others—this point was raised in the course of the debate—and it considers direct cost savings to the health and social care system resulting from immunisation, such as averting hospitalisation and the need for social care.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie suggested that the current approach somehow undervalues prevention, can delay innovation and does not take into account benefits beyond those to the individual patient. I would put this rather differently to my noble friend, because the methodology is entirely focused on prevention. As I mentioned, the positive benefits are not just for the person who has been vaccinated but for those around them. We look to reduce the incidence of infection, and we are also mindful about the transmission of conditions and infections to others.
My noble friend also asked about changes to thresholds. I can say to her that we are actively considering the impact of changes to thresholds in vaccination programmes. Perhaps I will only be a little cautious, but there is the potential that such a change would increase the costs of existing programmes, perhaps by incentivising higher prices from suppliers. But there is a recognition of the role that such a change could play in encouraging innovation, and I know that my noble friend is very keen to see that.
I am not sure this came up too much in the debate, but it is an important point. Our use of data to establish cost effectiveness has ensured that we get value for money from manufacturers, and that has allowed us to deliver a comprehensive programme. It is important that we continue to keep that value for money.
On wider societal and economic impacts, it is the case that wider benefits can be highlighted by officials or the JCVI when advising government on vaccination programmes, but it is also true that it does not account for the impact of vaccination that I have heard all noble Lords call for. A key reason for this—the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, pre-empted this—is that the wider benefits cannot be quantified consistently across all vaccination programmes. There is currently a lack of available high-quality data on socioeconomic benefits. As the noble Lord said, robust data may be available for very few programmes. Basing decisions on wider benefits would create disparities whereby vaccination programmes with high-quality data and wider benefits were considered more valuable. So we do not have the basic situation to achieve what we all want.
There are also many uncertainties when modelling socioeconomic benefits. Unpaid care was mentioned, for example; I think my noble friend Lady Goudie referred to it. Quantifying the impact on that would be extremely complicated, and there is no clarity on how estimating or modelling this or other impacts should be approached. That concern was echoed by NICE when it did an appraisal on this very topic in 2022, and it agreed to maintain the approach that it currently takes.
On the point about supply that I mentioned earlier, there can also be a risk that by adding wider benefits into formal evaluation methods we send a signal to suppliers that we could be open to paying higher costs for the same vaccines or medicines. I see noble Lords both nodding and shaking their heads, which is the purpose of a debate.
There are additional ethical concerns. As was mentioned, vaccination programmes for working populations, important though they are, could be preferred over programmes for those who are not economically active. That is not a basis on which we would want to proceed because it would exacerbate inequalities and undermine the equity of our approach.
I recognise that my noble friend Lady Ritchie has raised this Question as part of a focus to broaden vaccination access. That is a goal to which we are absolutely committed. We have been putting plans into action to provide new programmes—for example, launching programmes to protect infants and older adults against RSV. Just this month, we announced that a vaccine against chickenpox would go into the routine childhood immunisation schedule. That is expected to save the NHS some £15 million a year in costs for treating vaccinations.
The important matter of improving uptake has been raised. We are delivering vaccinations in new ways via community pharmacists, and pilots for administering vaccinations within health visits are starting this month. Through this targeted outreach, we offer an opportunity to increase uptake and reduce inequalities by providing vaccinations to those who might not otherwise access vaccinations. We are also working with healthcare professionals so that they can confidently discuss immunisation with concerned patients, because it is vital to tackle vaccine information. We are exploring innovative delivery models and delivering trusted messaging, to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who spoke about other influences that we would not welcome.
A number of questions have been asked, and I will be glad to write to noble Lords to pick up their specific points. I realise that my remarks in general will not be the ones that my noble friend and other noble Lords will have hoped for, but I hope I have been able to outline some of the difficulties while appreciating the points that have been made.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
Before my noble friend sits down, I ask that she and her ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care give particular attention to establishing the independent committee to evaluate the existing vaccine health technology assessment process so that the impact of vaccines on the economy, education and wider society can be seen clearly.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand why my noble friend is raising that, but NICE is seen as a world leader in that regard and has processes in place to review its processes and methods to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. I am not entirely convinced, as my noble friend will see, that we need to establish an independent committee, but doubtless she will pick up this point, and I will be pleased to hear from her further on it.
Net Zero: Civil Society and Faith-based Organisations
(2 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to include civil society and faith-based organisations in work to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
Our recently published Energising Britain plan sets out how we will work with communities so that everyone can benefit from our clean energy superpower mission. It highlights how we are already engaging people and local organisations to design and deliver climate and nature policies that reflect people’s needs and views. The plan also outlines new ways to collaborate, including an annual “Energising Britain” event and the Youth for Climate and Nature panel.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Gus Speth at Yale said that the real issue in reaching net zero is tackling “selfishness, greed and apathy”. Pope Francis called for an ecological “conversion”. Both civil society and faith-based organisations can provide thought leadership in this sphere. I wonder whether the Minister might share with us his thoughts on how we can build upon that in implementing the strategy that he has just outlined so that these groups can be more engaged in the ongoing dialogue about net zero.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The Energising Britain plan, among many other things, sets out ways in which local communities and faith groups can play a central role not just in the clean energy superpower mission but on the road to net zero. In my experience, working with local communities, covenants and faith groups in various parts of Southampton has proven a tremendous moral driver to that mission. I hope that the Energising Britain plan will take full account of just how much moral and practical leadership can come about as a result of energising those communities and local faith groups.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as there is no scientific evidence that we can change the climate, the right reverend Prelate’s bishop friends are relying for their scientific information on supernatural powers?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Lord will be pleased to know that I do not agree with anything that he has said this morning in this Chamber. It is absolutely clear that the science says that we have a severe problem as far as global warming is concerned, and we need to take action to deal with it. That is precisely what we are doing in government at the moment.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, there will be a number of civil society and faith-based organisations in the ex-mining areas of South Yorkshire. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that reaching out to them, perhaps through parish councils, would be an excellent way of explaining the benefits of net zero in creating local jobs? For example—he will not be surprised to hear this from me—Sheffield Forgemasters could play a role in manufacturing small modular reactors and other renewable equipment.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The question of how local communities, particularly those which have previously been involved in the high-carbon economy, can ensure that they are not left behind in the low-carbon economy is very important to us. The question of a just transition to net zero is also very important. My noble friend mentioned Sheffield Forgemasters, which is crucial to the local communities and the areas of Sheffield in which it resides. Ensuring that the content of future low-carbon energy projects is as high as possible within the UK, and preferably comes to those local industries, is an important part of that just transition.
Lord Bird (CB)
Does the Minister agree that getting rid of poverty would be one of the greatest ways of achieving net zero?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Lord that getting to net zero is an ethical and—shall we say?—spiritual concept that involves justice in the process. Justice involves getting rid of poverty, among other things. But I remind the noble Lord that low-carbon activity—for example, cutting substantial money from people’s energy bills as a part of that process—is a substantial way of cutting poverty on the road to net zero.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, three in four of our young people are moderately or extremely concerned about the impact of climate change. What action are the Government taking to include young people much more in decision-making processes to make sure that their voices are heard? Specifically, I ask the Minister: what intention do the Government have to have citizens’ assemblies so that young people’s voices are included in policy-making?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Earl will be aware of the many actions that the Government are undertaking to ensure that young people are committed, involved and energised as far as climate change and net zero are concerned. That is among the reasons why we have developed the Youth for Climate and Nature panel, which is part of our Energising Britain plan. It is also the case that some of the highest commitment to the green transition to low-carbon energy is to be found among young people, and they therefore need to be fundamentally included at both the community and faith level in the work that we are doing.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, notwithstanding the Minister’s original Answer referencing the Government’s Energising Britain plan, the Government’s shortened clean energy objective is disfiguring huge swathes of the countryside and alienating local communities. A 180-kilometre transmission line is being built from Norwich to Tilbury; Carmarthenshire residents have been locked in a battle with authorities over pylons for over two years; and most recently a new 71-acre substation is being proposed in north Cumbria despite opposition from locals. Given that by the time many of these projects are completed undergrounding cables will have become far more affordable—already, comparative costs for undergrounding have plummeted from 10 to four times that of overgrounding—does the Minister believe that this approach is the best way to win the support of rural communities for net zero?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Baroness will be well aware of the tremendous amount of work that needs to be done on the infrastructure changes to bring about net-zero energy for the future. Of course, that entails bringing forward new infrastructure—which, by the way, the previous Administration completely fell down on in terms of the green transition—but that needs to be done, in terms of the theme of our discussion today, with the involvement of local communities and local areas in getting that new infrastructure in place in a satisfactory way. The question of undergrounding or otherwise of cables for the future is something that clearly needs to be considered, as does the overall benefit of that new infrastructure for those communities in terms of bringing their bills down, bringing clean energy to their communities and making sure that the green transition is carried forward as best as possible at local level.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
I commend the Minister for his favourable mention of government/publicly owned Sheffield Forgemasters and its role in the small modular reactor programme. Could he therefore reassure the House that the vessels for the first-in-class modular reactors, which we are funding through Rolls-Royce, will in fact be built at Sheffield Forgemasters and not shipped in from overseas?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
As I think my noble friend will be aware, we are in the process of developing a first modular nuclear reactor with Rolls-Royce. Considerable progress has been made in that development but as yet no decisions have been taken about exactly where the components of that new modular reactor will be built, subject to the general commitment that the highest possible percentage of the components for small nuclear reactors, and other parts of the nuclear programme, will be sourced in the UK. Certainly, it will be the Government’s intention to make sure that that commitment is met to the greatest possible degree.
Buses: Safety and Security
(2 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what work they are undertaking to ensure the safety and security of buses.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
This Government are committed to ensuring that buses are safe and secure for all passengers and road users, and we expect the bus sector to uphold the highest possible safety standards. The Bus Services Act 2025 helps to deliver safer, more reliable and more accessible bus networks, and we have just published the new Road Safety Strategy, setting out the Government’s plan to make our roads significantly safer for everyone.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, given that there are around 700 Yutong electric buses in operation across our country and that concerns have been raised internationally that these buses can be stopped or made inoperable through remote interference from China, will the Government issue clear guidance for procurement of such electric buses, including new security requirements, such as firewalls, to prevent our buses being hacked?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My department and other parts of government are looking into the media reports on this from Norway, and the Secretary of State has already committed to updating the Transport Select Committee on this work as soon as we can. We cannot legally mandate that funding given as subsidy is used to purchase British-built buses, but where local authorities are running their own procurement to buy buses directly, they can design these exercises in a way that maximises the wider economic benefits offered by domestic suppliers. We also launched last year the UK bus manufacturing expert panel to support UK bus manufacturing. Through that, we are actively encouraging mayoral combined authorities—many of which will shortly procure bus fleets to support their new bus franchising programmes—to embed best-practice social-value criteria within their procurement.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister explain how the roads can be made safer for buses? In the press today, there are reports of two accidents involving school buses and quite a few children injured. Is it not time that we had a system to make the roads safe for buses and for everyone, in the way that happens in many other countries?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I refer my noble friend to the Road Safety Strategy that has just been published—the first for many years—which sets out a whole variety of actions to be taken with vehicles, drivers, pedestrians, other road users and infrastructure, which he refers to, in order to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads. Nevertheless, travelling by bus is a very safe mode of travel.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, given the current weather conditions, buses on icy roads are obviously an issue. Does the Minister know whether we mandate bus companies to have winter tyres on buses? If we do not, should we do so?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have never heard of any mandate for winter tyres. The speed at which the weather changes, given the climate change just discussed in this Chamber, would make changing tyres overnight a seriously impractical activity. What is needed when the roads are frosty and temperatures are below freezing is adequate gritting and care by local transport authorities. Ministers in my department in the other place have this week been looking into the adequacy of gritting across the country.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, Covid had a big impact on the number of people using our buses. What is the Government’s latest assessment of take-up of bus use post Covid, and what are the Government doing to promote the use of buses to the public?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite correct: Covid had an effect on all public transport demand. The Government have taken a series of actions, including the Bus Services Act 2025, which changes the landscape to enable local transport authorities to provide services designed for the people who live and work in their communities. I refer the noble Lord to recent funding announcements, which include funding for every transport authority in England—unlike the previous Government’s selective funding—and we have now guaranteed funding over the next three years. Consistency of service will encourage the increase of passengers on buses, and we are determined to achieve that.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, can I take the Minister back to the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon? My understanding is that officials in his department, in conjunction with the National Cyber Security Centre, have already carried out an analysis of those Chinese-made buses and confirmed that there is a security flaw which enables them to be remotely dealt with, although there is no evidence that it has happened. Can he confirm that to your Lordships’ House and say what the Government are doing with not just buses but all transport technology to make sure that it is not vulnerable to attack by our enemies?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is clearly in possession of information that I do not have, because my department and other parts of government are still looking at this. But it is a fact of life that all modern vehicles, including buses, are using software to support safer driving, improve diagnostics and provide a host of other services, and updating this software remotely is an effective and efficient way of doing so. That has been the practice for years, but it is a concern and that is why we are looking at it. If something needs to be done, of course this Government will do it.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, what will the Government provide to the UK electric bus industry to ensure competition in the bus sector and real choices for local authorities and transport authorities? What additional safety features will the Government require for bus fleets across the country to work towards Vision Zero, as initiatives in London and West Yorkshire are doing at present?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I already referred to the UK bus manufacturing expert panel, which has been set up by this Government precisely to support the UK bus manufacturing industry. I also said that we are actively encouraging those mayoral combined authorities which will procure bus fleets to embed best-practice social-value criteria so that they are more able to procure buses made in Britain. If the noble Lord looks at the Road Safety Strategy—I am not suggesting that he is remiss in not having done so, because it has been published only in the last few hours—he will see that it includes real commitments to the safe system, which is the rather less-interesting title of Vision Zero, devised in Sweden. It looks to embed that in every aspect of road safety in Britain, including the operation of buses. We had some discussion here about the safe system in the debates on what became the Bus Services Act. I think the noble Lord and others will be very pleased to read what is in the strategy when they are able to do so.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I must confess that, when I saw this Question on the Order Paper, I envisaged a discussion about safety in buses as much as the safety of buses, so I hope my noble friend will forgive me for asking an adjacent question to do with safety in buses. What can he tell us about the way that the training of drivers and the design of buses is now being taken forward to ensure the safety of young women in particular travelling in buses, especially at night?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The Bus Services Act 2025 mandates training for all bus drivers, to make buses part of the safer streets initiative to deal with violence against women and girls. The department is actively producing guidance for bus operators and local authorities about how that is done so that every bus driver in Britain has the ability to spot what is going on and deal with it. Some 96% of buses in Britain now have CCTV, which is a means of providing both evidence and reassurance to passengers that their safety is being considered. I am looking forward, as I am sure my noble friend is, to this training being rolled out to every driver in Britain.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it remains the case that very large numbers of people are injured daily though accidents inside buses, especially elderly people, in large measure as a result of sharp braking. Nothing has been done to reduce this number over the years. The Minister is very aware of it. What can he say that this new strategy that we have the benefit of today is going to do to make a real difference to that number?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I would take issue with the noble Lord in saying that nothing has been done. There has been a lot of individual work. In particular, Transport for London, post his and my time there, has spent a lot of effort and activity in interior bus design and specification of vehicles themselves. But he, too, when he sees the Road Safety Strategy will see words in there about better driving and infrastructure, which was previously referred to, and about the use of Vision Zero, all of which must make a difference in how people drive and, consequently, the effects of braking. Of course, you want vehicles to stop when the vehicle in front of them stops, or there is some hazard, but sharp braking is, of course, as he says, particularly damaging to older people and vulnerable people. We want to avoid it, which is why the Road Safety Strategy has to affect all users of roads.
New Homes: Target
(2 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in meeting their target of building 1.5 million new homes in England within this Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
We have always been clear that building 1.5 million homes, which is vital given that we inherited the worst housing crisis in living memory, is an ambitious target. It will require a rate of housebuilding and infrastructure construction not seen for more than 50 years. We recognise the scale of the challenge, and we are driving progress through bold planning reforms, including the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and a record £39 billion investment in social and affordable housing. Our bold planning reforms will drive UK housebuilding to the highest rate in 40 years.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome many of the Government’s planning reforms, but the OBR made it clear in November that they would not be enough to hit the target. Recent completions were at a nine-year low. Many sites with planning permission are no longer viable because of escalating costs, and where sites are viable, builders are reluctant to build out because of weak consumer demand—the Treasury, rather than the Minister’s department, is partly to blame for both those things. If the Government want to get close to the target, will they not have to have a discussion with developers and in conjunction with them bring forward a successor to previous schemes to help first-time buyers?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that I have been given the buying and selling process in my portfolio very recently. I have been looking at it in great detail, and I had a meeting with developers yesterday as part of the New Towns Network on how we improve the buying and selling process. A great deal of work is going on in my department and with financial institutions to make sure that we make this process work for first-time buyers and others in the housing market.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, there are more than 250,000 empty homes in this country, and that number is rising. What are the Government doing to tackle that scourge of empty properties, as surely it is the quickest way of tackling some of the housing crisis that we face?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right to raise the issues around empty properties. Our Government have been working to make sure that we give councils the powers that they need to drive forward work on empty properties as quickly as possible. We will enable that with new powers for local councils through the planning process to make sure that they can add into the planning process dates for when completions are due.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister will be aware, the area of our country where the housing crisis is most acute is where people are suffering in temporary accommodation. Many councils up and down the land are really in a bind about how to build their way out of this. What work is being done specifically to help councils to provide homes to move people out of temporary accommodation?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We have a target to eliminate the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families by the end of this Parliament, except in emergencies. I recognise the problems that it causes for families. We have funding of £969 million for temporary accommodation over the next three years and £950 million for local authority housing funds to increase the supply of good-quality temporary accommodation, providing up to 5,000 homes. There will be increased support for children through a new duty on councils to notify schools, health visitors and GPs that a child is in temporary accommodation. We have to end this scourge of children living in temporary accommodation.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned her negotiations with housebuilders—I think it was just yesterday. We depend on those volume housebuilders to produce all the homes that we need. Can she reassure the House that in those negotiations she will not wish away any of the affordable housing that housebuilders are obliged to provide but so often fail to?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I can give the noble Lord that assurance. We are determined to make sure that, as we go through the process of building the 1.5 million homes, enough social and affordable housing is included in that target. He will know that I take particular care to not conflate the terms “affordable housing” and “social housing”; they are different things. We have to make sure that we do our best in that regard. From the £39 billion that we have allocated for affordable housing, 60% will be for social housing.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, local planning departments are often cited as a blockage to building more homes, yet fewer than 40% of those local authorities are operating with an adopted plan. As the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill moves through Parliament, what action are the Government taking to ensure that local government reorganisation, with its many new structures, planning powers and inevitable changes of political control, is not used as a delaying tactic to produce an up-to-date plan, which strong anecdotal evidence suggests is happening?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is essential that the local government reorganisation and devolution process does not hold up the production of local plans. My Government have made that absolutely clear and are following up with councils that have delayed local plans. Where the new strategic plans are being made, they can be made in spite of reorganisation, and the data used for them will be transferred as soon as the reorganisation arrangements are complete.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister about what the Government are doing, but we have a country with the number of planning permissions granted in the past 12 months at the lowest level since 2013 and construction costs rising by up to 40%. How are the Government now going to deliver the at least 1 million homes that the previous Tory Government did in their last term, let alone the promised 1.5 million in the next 3.5 years left in this Government?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
On buildout rates—the number of planning permissions in place that are not built out—I think we can look to the previous Government for the answer to that question. We are changing incentives in the housing market, giving local authorities the tools that they need to speed up delivery, requiring developers to commit to delivery timeframes and giving councils the power to refuse to consider applications from developers that consistently fail to build out quickly enough, as well as exploring a delayed homes penalty. As well as all the positive-side and demand-side incentives that we are putting in place, I think that will make the biggest change to housing delivery that we have seen in many generations.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful for the answers that we have had, particularly around social rent and affordable rent. Does the Minister agree that we also need to make space for things such as community land trusts and other community-led social housing initiatives, which can often provide accommodation in particular niches and communities that is much more sensitive to the needs of local communities? They may not be volume builders, but I would urge that they have a vital part to play.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We need to take particular care to make sure that we use all the mechanisms to deliver some of the very specialised housing that the right reverend Prelate refers to. Some of those local trusts know exactly what is needed for their local communities. They do a fantastic job, and my Government want to support them through the funding that we are providing, as well as through any supporting measures in the planning reforms that we are bringing forward.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, is not a fundamental constraint on achieving construction output the depleted and ageing workforce in the building industry? Does that not therefore necessitate an expansion of off-site fabrication? That requires long-term planning, long-term financing and a regular flow of orders to be efficient. Will that not ultimately lead to a major council house building programme?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The funding in the £39 billion programme will see a great increase in the building of council homes, as will the ability of councils to use that funding as top-up funding for the 100% of receipts they can now keep from right-to-buy sales. My noble friend makes a good point on modern methods of construction. We need to boost their use. They are critical to improving productivity in the construction sector, delivering high-quality, energy-efficient homes more quickly, and creating new and diverse jobs in the sector.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, according to Historic England, up to 670,000 additional homes could be created through the repair and repurposing of existing historic buildings. Have the Government had any conversations with Historic England about this?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not know whether the noble Lord has yet had a chance to look at the new National Planning Policy Framework. We are, rightly, focusing attention on how we use the resource of historic and heritage buildings to deliver the kind of homes that we need. The National Planning Policy Framework is undergoing consultation; it is there for people to comment on, and if the noble Lord would like to put his comments into that, I would welcome them. Historic and heritage buildings are clearly an area that we need to examine in great detail to get towards the provision of 1.5 million homes that we know we need.
Greenland
Lord Teverson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the objectives of the administration of the United States in relation to the status of Greenland.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has been clear that Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and that the future of its constitutional arrangements is a matter for the people and Government of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. The collective threat that we face in the Arctic is from Russia. That is why NATO has stepped up, including by increasing our collective defence spending, to ensure that we defend the region from increasing Russian threats.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister’s comments. However, does she agree that an annexation of Greenland by the United States—the President of the United States has given a timetable for this happening by the end of his current term—would be one of the most dangerous pivotal points for UK and European security into the future since 1945? Does she also agree that one of the lessons we should learn is that we should have been far more assertive much earlier with our European allies around our view on that annexation? Perhaps a little bit more notice would have been taken if we had not just wished that the subject would go away and evaporate.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are completely clear in the position that we take, as are our allies and partners, and the noble Lord will have seen that in the statement that was made a few days ago. Yesterday, the noble Lord reminded me that we travelled to the Arctic together at about this time last year or two years ago. I know how much interest he takes in the importance of the security of the Arctic region, and I can assure him that the Government share his views.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
We will hear from the Cross Benches.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
Are Ministers seeking to persuade President Trump that he can achieve all US security objectives in and around Greenland by working with Denmark through NATO and using the existing treaty it has with Denmark? Also, to show that Arctic security is a genuine NATO priority, is the UK considering deploying at least some military capability of our own to that collective endeavour?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We keep in constant and close contact with our friends and allies in the United States, on this and many other issues. Noble Lords will be aware of the phone call that took place between the Prime Minister and President Trump last night, where these issues were discussed. Obviously, I am not going to respond to what may be several hypothetical positions that get put to me today, but I note what the noble Lord says, and I interpret it broadly as support for the very clear position that the United Kingdom is taking on the need for the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark to be the people who decide what happens to Greenland.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as being half-Danish and having studied at the University of Aarhus. Since 1951, it has been perfectly open to the United States to establish more military bases and a bigger military presence in Greenland. If the issue is not military but to extract minerals, it is perfectly possible for the United States to negotiate agreements to mine the minerals, as Chinese companies have done. Is the Minister aware of the position of Members of Congress? Are they likely to support this very aggressive stance taken by the US President?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I should imagine that, as in this Parliament, there will be a range of views on any issue on any given day. The key principle and guiding point that will shape the UK’s position on that question, and on any others concerning the territory of Greenland, is that those decisions should be taken by Greenlanders and, on the issue of sovereignty, by the Kingdom of Denmark together with the people of Greenland.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, we are talking about the security of the Arctic. The United States of course has legitimate interests, but so does Denmark, Greenland, Finland, Sweden, Norway and, more recently, the United Kingdom. Following my noble friend’s Question, the reality is that, if the US takes a unilateral action against the NATO alliance, it will not increase security but damage it and open the door for Russia and China to make more incursions into our space. Can the Americans understand that they are going down the wrong path?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Any question that starts with “if” is, by definition, a hypothetical—to which I am not in a position to give a concrete response. All I would say is that, clearly, anything that causes dispute between NATO allies would be very pleasing for Vladimir Putin to see, and that is not something that we want to bring about.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has been entirely consistent. On Tuesday, she told the House that, should Denmark wish to enter into a negotiation about the future of Greenland, it is free to do so, with the consent of the people of Greenland. She said it again today and I agree with her; she is right. However, can she explain to the House why that impeccable logic does not apply to the people of the Chagos Islands, who were not even consulted before their homeland was surrendered to Mauritius?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have explained to the noble Lord the issue of the right to self-determination countless times, and I refer the noble Lord to my previous seven or eight answers.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, is it not time that the Royal Marines and other European allies moved their Arctic training from Norway to Greenland?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Having visited the training facilities in Norway, I think that they are first class. Operational decisions, such as the one that the noble Lord has put to me, are not things that I will be commenting on or giving opinions on today.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
I think the whole House agrees with everything that the Minister has said today. Could she just clarify whether any of the protocols that cover the stationing of US bases in the United Kingdom would preclude the use of those forces in the event of an invasion of, or military action in, Greenland? I realise that is yet another hypothetical question: none the less, I think the Minister began by saying that she did at least recognise that she would get several.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There is no world in which I am answering that question. There is always negotiation and discussion about the appropriate use of bases in this country. I just remind noble Lords—I do not think they need to be reminded—that the very close military, security and intelligence co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States is decades old. It has kept us safe. It is the world’s closest such relationship and it will continue.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I note the reference that the Minister made to increasing dangers in the seas around the United Kingdom. I also note that the Navy managed to provide a fleet auxiliary vessel as our contribution to the taking of this stateless vessel. We are desperately short of coastal and near-sea patrol boats in this country, given the rising threats that we face, both hybrid and direct. Is it not an urgent matter to ensure that we procure and put into service more vessels to manage the safety and security of our surrounding waters and undersea cables?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is why there are now contracts out for more such vessels. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that we made some difficult decisions last year about spending. The purpose of that was to increase our spending on defence, which I think is being shown this year to have been the right decision.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
Given the darkening geopolitical situation and the reality behind the pace at which more money is being spent—frankly, there is this faffing around with the defence investment plan, which is really an exercise in “How can we present to the public something that is shambolic but at least reassuring?”—is there no murmur at all in government that they should take a strategic decision to rapidly change the pace and scale of our own national rearmament? Frankly, without that, all the noise that we generate in this place and in government is frankly laughable.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord characterises as “faffing” a new defence industrial strategy, an increase in funding and clear, effective leadership when we inherited the smallest Army since the time of Napoleon.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Might it be helpful to pass to President Trump and the Washington team the useful advice of the late Professor Joe Nye of Harvard, who was a good friend of this country? His message was of course that, in modern conditions, you gain much more in terms of influence, security and getting things to move in the right way by being attractive, helpful and friendly to a country than you do by being plain nasty.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I share the noble Lord’s admiration for Professor Nye. I never had the privilege of meeting him, but I think he was somebody whose words we should always bear in mind. You need to do both, and that is what we do. We have a much better co-ordinated approach to our use of what Joe would call soft power, but that needs to go hand in hand with our investment in defence. Given the precarious nature of many parts of the world right now, the idea that we need to do both is I think the correct one.
Licensing Hours Extensions Bill
Thursday 8th January 2026
(2 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberLicensing Hours Extensions Bill 2024-26 View all Licensing Hours Extensions Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest
That the order of commitment be discharged.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Broadcasting: Recent Developments
(2 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler
That this House takes note of recent developments in relation to broadcasting in the United Kingdom.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, when I first put down this Motion, it was really to draw the contrast between the amount of attention we are able to give to media issues in the House of Lords compared with the House of Commons. I do not think we have come out well out of that, but you only have to look at the Order Paper today to see the mass of experience we have in this House in media affairs.
In the time since I put down the Motion, the world has changed profoundly, not least in the change now facing broadcasting and reporting. The old rules and assumptions have been challenged, and a new world seems to be emerging where it looks as if it is the will of the strongest, rather than the demands for justice, that comes first. The result is that the need for impartial editors and reporters, unbiased and concerned only about the truth, has never been so clear. Otherwise, conflicts disappear in a fog of war. You need only name just some of the conflicts still raging to make the point: Ukraine and Gaza are well established, but imagine what could happen if new conflicts were to break out in, for example, Cuba or Greenland.
I should first declare my interest. I was a journalist at the Times for six or seven years. My editor was William Haley, who before that was director-general of the BBC. Later, I myself became chairman of two regional newspapers, including the Yorkshire Post. My views have obviously been influenced by those years, and I have a firm regard for working journalists as well as a firm belief in what their duty should be. Broadcasters should tell the public what is happening as best they can judge from their investigations, and report, above all, honestly.
I doubt whether there has ever been a period when broadcasting has been under more scrutiny and attack. There is scrutiny of the broadcasting organisations themselves, of the policies they pursue and of the people running those organisations and working for them. All of them are caught in the spotlight. The BBC programme “Panorama” is symbolic of what has been happening over the past few months. “Panorama” has rightly been criticised for splicing together some of President Trump’s comments to give the impression that he had encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol Building. The error was to put the comments together, rather than leaving any space between them. Tim Davie paid a heavy price for that, because he was forced to resign, as was the head of news. Of course, it also led to the $10 billion claim made by Mr Trump against the BBC. It became an opportunity for a rich man to challenge the whole basis of BBC reporting. It is one example of the new world that we have entered.
I hope, incidentally, that the BBC will continue to resist any legal action. What is being claimed is entirely out of proportion to any damage that might have been caused. It certainly does not provide a general condemnation of broadcasting, any more than phone hacking by some of the press provided a general condemnation of all newspapers.
The BBC is an organisation whose reports are relied on around the world. My firm view is that broadcasters should be independent, honest in their reports and not constrained by outside influences, either political or commercial. Broadcasting today is being used as a weapon of war and the danger is that the whole truth scarcely emerges. Those comments are obvious enough when it comes to Russia and China, where no pretence is made of providing a balanced account of what is happening in the world and how balance can be maintained. But elsewhere, the position is more difficult and more complicated.
One of the greatest scandals is not what is being reported; the scandal is what is being prevented from being reported. Take Gaza as an example. We have here an area that has been reduced to rubble, but with no journalists there to record this destruction and its impact on human lives. It is not just the broadcasters that should be under scrutiny; it is the organisations and nations that are preventing honest journalism from taking place and depriving the public of knowledge.
The BBC is an organisation whose reports are relied on in this country and around the globe. We should not allow ideological prejudice to get in the way of judgment. We should remember that the BBC continues to be used more than any other media provider in the United Kingdom, with 94% of adults using at least one of its services during an average month. I say this not because of some nationalist pride but because any attempt to make one mistake a general denunciation of the whole organisation is simply wrong.
It should be remembered that the BBC often gets it right when others are still at sea. When I was reporting for the Times from Beirut, at the time of the Middle East war in 1967, there was total confusion in the press corps about what was happening. Two American reporters showed the way forward by ignoring Voice of America, or some such station, and turning instead to BBC Overseas for their information. I do not know if that would be the case today, although it seems to me unlikely that even American reporters overseas are going to flock to Fox News. What I do know is that, globally, BBC services reach 450 million people each week, which shows some of the international reach that the corporation has. I believe that, in our uncertain world, it is surely important that there are some services that the public can rely on. We can take pride in what we have achieved.
Attacking the BBC has become something of a national sport. Strangely enough, I do not object to that, as it keeps the BBC competitive and on its toes. What is also keeping it looking forward is the competition that it receives from other broadcasters—for example, the new competition from broadcasters such as Times Radio, or the importance of “Channel 4 News”, which must have won more viewers in its reporting of the Middle East in the last few months.
It makes the point that British broadcasting is not just the BBC; it is also its strength. It has the long-term competition of ITV and the new services. It has the competition of the streamers, which pick up large audiences. The BBC and ITV have established large home audiences. The streamers have many excellent programmes, but they do not have what I would call the local characteristic. They are, by nature, international providers, operating for an international market. We are fortunate in having, for example, independent production companies based in this country. It adds to the very strength of British broadcasting.
This is a short debate, and I make it clear that, although I have talked mainly about news, which is what I know most about, there are independent British companies providing first-class music, both classical and popular, and excellent drama programmes, all in line with the whole purpose of the BBC charter to inform, educate and entertain.
Inevitably, then, I come back at the end to the BBC. In the months ahead, we will see fierce debates on the charter and the licence fee. Doubtless, the BBC will receive many suggestions of how to modernise for the future. But for all that, we should remember that we have a unique organisation in this country, which has stood the test of time. It provides an excellent service to the British public and it attracts a big overseas following. It is independent, non-partisan and it has qualities that we respect. My view, quite simply, is that we should be prepared to defend the values in British broadcasting that have sustained us over the last 100 years. I believe, above all, that they have served us very well.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on introducing this debate with great erudition and wisdom. I will concentrate on some very important issues. The recent Israel-Palestine war and the American takeover of Venezuela have raised all kinds of issues about the relevance and limitations of the public service media. Some of these issues are old and familiar, and we have learned to live with them; other issues are relatively new. Some, we have not faced before, and it is important to concentrate on those issues and work out a radical response.
The first issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler said, has to do with the BBC. The whole thing began when the BBC attributed certain remarks to President Trump. Obviously, this was not properly researched, and the BBC was wrong to do so. But the question is this: was it wrong that the President was presented in such a manner? The remarks attributed to him were totally in character with what he had been saying elsewhere. Therefore, attributing to him the remarks was simply a mistake of a procedural, administrative kind and not a substantial, malignant kind.
The second issue is that we are told that the BBC has an institutional bias. It is bound to have an institutional bias—every institution has a bias. The House of Lords has a bias in favour of the peaceful, moderate resolution of conflict and against terrorism. Universities have a bias. What does it mean? An institution exists to promote certain values, and these values inform and inspire its actions, and therefore bias is inevitable. We can accept the bias, learn to discount it from what we hear or see, and move on. That is what we do all the time. I watched a BBC programme on India. I found it disturbing and not particularly accurate, but I know that, whatever line it takes, it is bound to be unsatisfactory to somebody. You discount it—what is the big deal?
My point is that we ought to learn to appreciate the limitations of human intelligence and ingenuity. Nothing can be perfectly free of bias of any kind. Every institution has bias. The third thing is the necessity of educating citizens. The BBC and other media exist to promote their programmes and identity. Therefore, they make sure that their audience is manipulated in a certain way. The question is how an audience can resist this kind of manipulation and make sure that it is not taken for a ride. Therefore, public service media have a responsibility to make sure that people are properly able to engage critically with issues and the reporting of them.
My last point to make, in the four minutes, I have is that media in any society have an extremely important role in keeping society going. Social cohesion means that no group should be left out. How do we make programmes that are open to diversity? You cannot leave out certain groups; you have to make them visible and audible. The media have not tended to do that. The BBC has, to my knowledge, failed in educating the citizenry and local groups. I have not seen programmes where an individual has sat down and gone through the way the programme was reported, showing the audience of millions how to read a programme.
I very much hope that we shall resist any false, malignant pressure on our public service media, from whatever quarter it comes.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, running a media business is not easy. In today’s world, traditional broadcasters face two serious threats: competition from big tech, both economically and for people’s attention; and falling levels of public trust, especially in broadcast news. I will focus on the latter, but I will come back to it in a moment.
Traditional broadcasters’ survival calls for consolidation. We are starting to see that happen with Sky’s planned acquisition of ITV’s channels and digital platform. In my view, the BBC and Channel 4 joining forces in some form or another is a likely next step. It is unclear what Channel 5’s American owners might do but it is worth saying that, even though the channel is American owned, it does a brilliant job of serving rural audiences and those in post-industrial and seaside towns, who frequently raise concerns about representation in programming on other PSBs. Although ownership is important and I am against foreign Governments owning any of our broadcasters, if there is to be a future for public service broadcasting in the UK then that is not where we need to start.
First, we need to be clear why public service broadcasting matters and ensure that its failings, as seen through the eyes of the public, who pay for it and for whose benefit its special status exists, are properly addressed. I think we are all clear that the purpose of public service broadcasting is to promote Britishness—not just British talent, but British values and all aspects of British life. Broadcasters seem to find that last bit most difficult, because they tend to want to change those bits of Britishness they do not like so much. If big tech is an external threat to PSB, this is a threat to its future from within.
This is why some adults have become increasingly distrustful of broadcast news over the last 10 years and are turning away in particular from the BBC. For these audiences, the fact that they are going now is enabled by choice; the choice is not pulling them away, as too many who work in the media want to believe. We have to understand that, in today’s world of endless choice—much of it high quality—public service broadcasting is of value only if it strengthens our nation and communities by promoting British values and reflecting the different facets of British life with respect. This is magnified when it comes to the BBC and will become even more so if American owners of commercial PSBs cannot see sufficient financial benefits to justify the regulatory costs and choose another path.
There is much that is great about the BBC and I want it to be part of our future, but as things stand—this is a big “but”—we and BBC bosses are kidding ourselves if we believe the BBC is the solution to a divided society. It cannot be, unless and until those running the organisation accept publicly that they understand and will address the systemic weaknesses exposed by Michael Prescott’s report that have made the BBC part of the problem and are driving some people away. Up until now, the BBC has appeared to think that if it recognises that it has a problem, it will lose its moral authority. Yet it is losing its moral authority because it is denying that it has a problem. Not changing will threaten its future, and possibly the future of PSB. That is why its strongest supporters must demand that it changes.
Lord Razzall (LD)
Noble Lords will note that I am not my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter. It is customary on these occasions to thank the proposer of the Motion. I would very much like to do so for the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I go further and say that, over the years, he has been a much more vigorous defender of the BBC and other public service broadcasters than many of his colleagues in his former party.
The irony in this debate is that politicians are normally not to be trusted, because we are all obsessed with news and current affairs, unlike the public. Over 20 years ago, 20 million people used to watch BBC News; now it is lucky to get 4 million. However, we need to remember that 12 million people watched “The Celebrity Traitors”, millions are regular followers of “EastEnders” and “Coronation Street”, and more people listen to “The Archers” than watch BBC News. We must never forget that, despite our regional and national differences, UK broadcasters provide much of the glue that binds us all together in our common watching and listening practices. The public service broadcasters are entitled to much of the credit for this.
However, 2026 brings a number of problems, particularly for the public service broadcasters. Will the reduction in TV advertising threaten the viability of Channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel 5? Will Sky be allowed to buy ITV, and what would be the protections for impartiality in that event? As a side issue, will Netflix or Paramount be allowed to buy Warner Bros. Discovery? As a personal interest, will more sport be shown free to air? Will the digital-terrestrial transition to internet protocol delivery be implemented without damaging the ability of people without internet service to watch TV? Will the decline in watching and listening by the under-30s be arrested?
As previous speakers have said, there is then the issue of the BBC. Its immediate problem is to find a new director-general, especially as all the suggested candidates in the press would appear to have to take significant pay cuts to accept the job, even if they wanted it. We must move towards a new charter and funding arrangements in 2026, to be implemented in 2027. The Government have recently published a Green Paper and I have no doubt that many noble Lords will suggest solutions in this debate, but it must be remembered that, on Christmas Day, nine out of the top 10 programmes were BBC programmes. A major issue in this debate which has seemed to be ignored so far is what to do about non-payment, which is now a significant problem for BBC budgets and is rising to an unsustainable level.
Whatever mistakes it makes, these Benches are supporters of the BBC. We share Lisa Nandy’s view of the BBC as a “light on the hill” and we have every hope that it will be safe in her hands as a result.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I am regularly commissioned to present “Thought for the Day” on the BBC, as well as weekday and Sunday services. I also occasionally work with a range of other UK and global broadcasters, from GB News to Times Radio and LBC, providing comment on religious and ethical news stories.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has reminded us, broadcasting operates in an international context of increasing polarisation against a background where the greatest global political powers are retreating rapidly into levels of imperialist control and expansionism not previously seen in most of our lifetimes. It is a context in which truth is subservient to expediency and honesty is sacrificed to personal or political advantage. Many broadcasting organisations, especially those which are politically aligned, have little interest or incentive, except where regulators require it, to do other than collude with the political masters of the age. In such a world, the place of broadcasters who seek to offer a balanced range of perspectives and prioritise facts over partisanship has never been more vital. Public service broadcasting—and in the UK that does mean particularly the BBC—with a funding mechanism not wholly dependent on courting advertisers or placating the government of the day, enables a level of impartiality, and thereby public trust, that exists both here and beyond these shores. Moreover, the BBC, uniquely among mainstream broadcasters, continues to afford a place for the religious and ethical input necessary to support our British values.
Moreover, the value of such a public service broadcaster goes far beyond its own output. Let me offer a brief analogy from another sector. Some 26 years ago, when the then Labour Government introduced the asylum seeker dispersal scheme, I worked with a couple of friends to set up a not-for-profit accommodation provider. We bid for, and won, the contract for Yorkshire and the Humber. We did that not only because we thought we could run a good service for our region, but to offer a comparator against which the standards of service to be provided by the commercial organisations operating in other regions could be judged. In the same way, I would argue that public sector broadcasting sets a vital standard against which we both can and must judge the performance of all our broadcasters.
Turning to radio, I remember in my childhood hearing reports that TV would be the death of it. Nothing could have been further from the truth—but why? Let me offer an interpretation. TV, like film or theatre, invites us to look in from outside, through the screen or proscenium arch. We are observing events that are taking place elsewhere. Radio, by contrast, is immersive. The sound is all around us. When I do my “Thought for the Day” broadcasts, I am in the car or kitchen, train or bedroom, with my listeners. I have apologised at times to my clergy who, some mornings, find themselves hearing me speak to them through the shower curtain. Radio brings a level of immersive intimacy that even 3D movies fail to achieve. Radio needs to be cherished, not marginalised. Its role in broadcasting in the future will be just as vital, if not more so.
Analyses that cross-tabulate trust levels with voting intention continue to demonstrate that the BBC, across all its output, remains a stand-out performer. As we move towards the next charter renewal process, we need to ensure we retain a strong BBC, one with transparent operational independence from government.
Lord Hall of Birkenhead (CB)
My Lords, I also join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for inspiring this debate at what is a crucial time for broadcasting.
The Green Paper the Government published on the BBC starts off with a reminder of what, despite all its travails, the BBC delivers for this country:
“It is not just a broadcaster—it is a national institution”,
and
“If it did not already exist, we would have to invent it”.
Those are my sentiments entirely. The Secretary of State also singled out the BBC, along with the NHS, as the two most important institutions in our country. She said that:
“While one is fundamental to the health of our people, the other is fundamental to the health of our democracy”.
Seeing the BBC not only as another media organisation but as a cultural organisation, and part our social infrastructure, is crucial.
The BBC is central to our democracy as the nation’s most widely used and trusted source of news, national and local. Of course, we all benefit from the BBC’s global news services, now reaching around 453 million people each week, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, reminded us. This example shows that this country’s soft power needs to be built on and enhanced, and not, as at present, diminished.
The BBC is also the nation’s storyteller. The truth is that the streamers like Netflix, Apple and Amazon are commissioning content that will work on an international scale. Of course, we all value and love that. However, the total number of hours they make about the UK is in the thousands, not the tens of thousands that the public service broadcasters produce. I watched the immensely powerful documentary “Our Girls: The Southport Families” on BBC1, about the families of the three girls murdered in that dreadful attack last year. I do not believe that would have been commissioned or made by a streamer. James Graham, the illustrious playwright and screenwriter who, in my time, wrote the BBC1 series “Sherwood”, said that:
“The BBC and the public service broadcasters have a role to train, find and amplify voices that, on paper, may not have an easy, wide audience yet”.
He also said:
“Speak to any American screenwriter or programme-makers, and they are bewildered at our complacency over our PSBs. They wish they had a BBC”.
When I was working at the BBC, we would shy away from the argument that the organisation was also a defence against market failure. Nowadays, that should be part of the reason—not by any means the whole reason—why the BBC exists. For example, programmes about religion, the arts or music are rarely going to be internationally successful. As DG, I lost count of the number of parents who told me how much they valued British content for their children, either as toddlers or later as teenagers using “Bitesize”.
The BBC also gives cultural definition to communities. These services, whether they are in small local areas or serving the nations of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, are needed to report the stories and things that matter to their audience, and to celebrate the characteristics that make them what they are. Taking this forward is vital.
In my view, the BBC deserves a lot of credit for rethinking its programmes and services for the world we are now in. Audiences continue to spend more time watching the BBC TV iPlayer on average, per week, per person, than they spend on Netflix, Disney Plus and Amazon Prime combined.
Obviously, one of the big questions for the next year is how we fund all this in a way that allows the BBC properly to be what we want it to be. Can the licence fee, a charge for universal services, be reformed to be fairer and easier to pay, and more broadly based? Could the quantum of the licence fee be assessed by an independent body that could help inform the debate about what we, as citizens, think we should fund? There has been a 30% reduction in real terms in licensing income since 2010, done with little or no public debate about the consequences.
The BBC is the largest single investor in UK-made programming, contributing nearly £5 billion to the UK economy each year, half of which is spent outside London. That is important. However, an even bigger question is where and how should we have our culture defined. Let us make sure we have a properly funded BBC that reflects and celebrates who we are in all our rich diversity.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this debate and for his thoughtful introduction. My remarks will be confined to public service broadcasting and the BBC.
As we have heard, we are operating in a very challenging media environment in which the case for public service broadcasting does not weaken but sharpens. The need to reinforce its values and purpose, and to reassert its role and the BBC’s mission in particular, matters more rather than less today. What is at stake is not simply the future shape of a broadcaster but the BBC’s continuing ability to help hold together the social fabric of our society and evade the dangers of fragmentation.
The BBC was established to serve the whole of society. Its mission to inform, educate and entertain was conceived as a durable public settlement, built on universality, editorial independence, impartiality and responsibility to public interest. The question before us not whether the BBC should evolve—it must—but whether the changes under consideration strengthen or weaken this ability to discharge its founding principles and duties to the public.
Some proposals in the current consultation would, if pursued without care, place real pressure on the BBC’s capacity to provide a universal service. If we are serious about the BBC as a public service broadcaster, then reform must be judged against its mission and purpose and not just against market pressures.
In a crowded market, attention is treated as a commodity to be harvested. As a public service broadcaster, the BBC should be enabled to stand apart as a public service resource which manages attention with care. This distinction matters.
That is why universality matters—which is not, in my view, a relic of the analogue age; it is a design principle for the digital one. Without universality, we do not share public conversations, and we fragment into parallel areas. Then there is of course the global dimension, but that global credibility rests on the trust built at home. The authority with which the BBC speaks abroad depends on the integrity, independence and accountability of the system here in the UK. Weaken that settlement and the global voice will weaken.
The standing of the BBC rests on the essential principle of impartiality. Impartiality is not about mechanically balancing opinions; it is a disciplined commitment to evidence, context and truth, applied without fear or favour—even under pressure. The BBC, at times, has taken a very narrow and procedural view of impartiality, and it is right to acknowledge that mistakes have been made. But what is needed now is a renewed commitment to impartiality as a professional and ethical standard. Properly understood, impartiality is not a constraint; it is what matters and what makes the BBC trustworthy.
Any reform that compromises universality, editorial independence and impartiality, and the BBC’s ability to remain a significant engine for the creative industries, would diminish the very role it exists to perform. In my view, the charter renewal is an opportunity to refresh the BBC’s original mission and to ensure that any updated framework strengthens rather than undermines the purpose and the ethos of the BBC and that of public service broadcasting. That is the responsibility before us, and it is one which we should approach with care and a clear sense of purpose, and be guided by the principles and values, not just by the market and commercial pressures. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I briefly declare that I am the co-chair of the All-Party Group on Creators, which means I meet a lot of YouTube influencers. I am also a broadcaster on Times Radio. In fact, I should be plugging my show right now on Times Radio—it is on Fridays at 10 am—but I have chosen instead to listen to some excellent speeches.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this important debate, and also say how thrilling it was to see the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, appearing as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. I know it is something he has wanted to do for years, although I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, will later be appearing as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I feel like I am in the middle of a pilot for a new BBC comedy series.
Back in 2009, when I was still the opposition spokesman, I suggested to a media analyst that the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 should merge. She told me I was a complete idiot—but I was obviously making a point about scale. Although we are still a large, medium-sized country, we know we need scale in broadcasting. The BBC cannot compete—that ship has sailed—against the global streamers such as Netflix, Apple, Amazon Prime and, of course, YouTube, which we never talk about, but which has become the absolute Goliath in terms of media broadcasting. So, what we are really debating here is how we secure the future of the BBC in this new ecosystem.
Of course, the BBC is not the only game in town when it comes to producing high-quality British content. It is also worth pointing out that it is not just the licence fee that funds high-quality content. The tax credits for film and television, which the last Government introduced but which have been secured by this Government, are also vital in securing good quality British content. But the BBC really is, as far as domestic broadcasting is concerned, the only game in town.
It is incumbent on all of us to support the BBC. We can be critical friends of the BBC, but we should be careful what we would lose without it. I really react with astonishment and a bit of horror when I see people supporting the move by President Trump, for example, to sue the BBC because they happened to have watched BBC News the night before and disagreed with its tone or supposed bias. The BBC is an incredibly important institution.
When I did charter review with John Whittingdale, we had a very easy time of it. There was not really much we needed to change. We changed the regulation from the BBC Trust to Ofcom, but otherwise we effectively kicked the challenges the BBC faces into the long grass. These challenges are now more real today than they have ever been.
I will make three or four suggestions of areas we should look at. We seriously need to look at a structural separation of BBC News and a merger with the World Service, with its own board, charter and chief executive. I, for one, would welcome the BBC investing properly in local news, which is so important with the death of local newspapers. The BBC has to accept that, realistically, there is no more money. It has to cut its cloth. I was always a bit sceptical of people who said that, because everyone pays the licence fee, the BBC must do everything—and I accept that, by doing a lot, it actually raises the quality of what the BBC produces. However, the BBC seriously needs to look at the breadth of services it provides.
The noble Lord, Lord Hall, mentioned the importance of religious programming and children’s programming. We introduced the content fund, which had a short shelf life but was apparently quite successful. It may be that part of what the BBC does is provide content for other programmers, focused on where the market has failed, such as children’s programming. We need to have a debate about how much of the IP the BBC now keeps. We had a trend of pushing it out to independent producers. If we want the BBC to be more commercially successful, let us look at that.
We need to be more open-minded about subscription—I know that I have to wind up, but I will need to speak for another 15 seconds—but in my view that opportunity should be put forward by the BBC, not by the Government. I would counsel against changing the licence fee. It is very tempting, but the public will see any change as a new tax, not an alternative tax.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to those who have given theirs to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this debate. He has been a seasoned journalist, a campaigner on issues such as AIDS and has now taken up the cudgels on behalf of the really important issue of broadcasting. I am also delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, or, as those who have listened to Times Radio occasionally must have learned to call him in the morning, “our Ed”. I know a lot more about “our Ed” in the morning now than I might have chosen to, having been a regular listener—speak to me later.
The time has come when we now have a wide choice of what to watch and listen to. Clearly, some producers allow their presenters rather more leeway, which is why they run over time. Others keep them more to the minute, which is why the BBC has such a reputation.
We have a responsibility in this House to look after the BBC. It is a repository of trust and values that simply does not exist anywhere else. It used to be the case, when I started in journalism, that the first-person pronoun never appeared. There was a firm dividing line between news and comment—but that barely exists now. The BBC at least tries to preserve it in a way that other news organisations simply do not.
Indeed, in some of our broadcasters now, we have politicians not only as presenters but who also try to be newsreaders. Ofcom drew the line at that, quite rightly, but the High Court intervened and said that, even if they were not allowed to do newscasting, they could do current affairs programmes. It is a very fine line. Ofcom had been minded to ban politicians from presenting current affairs programmes; following the ruling in the High Court, it had to give way on that. I now challenge noble Lords to find a politician who is not presenting current affairs as news on certain channels. This is not the way that broadcasting should operate.
On the other hand, I find myself listening to various broadcasts and podcasts where respected journalists suddenly turn into advertisers. There is a seamless progression from them presenting a programme to them promoting the promoter of the programme. They obviously see the difference, but some listeners may find it hard to spot the dividing line. That makes me feel uncomfortable, and I hope that media training in schools will alert people to where that difference should lie.
I am deeply concerned about the lack of local media coverage, and support the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, in his calls for more funding, if possible, for local news and more support for BBC local news. People are getting terribly worried about the lack of jury trials that is now being discussed. I worry about the lack of coverage of local court proceedings and local politics. Who knows what is going on in their local area now? That is a true deficit in democracy, which should cause us all to think hard.
In the end, this debate is clearly centred on the BBC, and there is no getting away from the importance of that organisation. We have heard from former directors-general of the BBC, who certainly know its value. While it is easy to pick up on the problems there, it is a wonderful organisation. Before I sit down, I remind noble Lords that the BBC spends £358 million on the World Service, while China and Russia combined spend between £6 billion and £8 billion on promoting their ideas across the world.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I declare an interest as having worked for all five public service broadcasters, and I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for procuring this debate.
I will concentrate in my speech on the future of the BBC in developing technology in the public interest. I found the Green Paper’s declaration that the charter should include empowering the BBC as
“a leader in new digital technologies with strategies to maintain its relevance to modern audiences”
to be a central tenet for the future role of the corporation. I have spent so much time in this Chamber and in the Communications and Digital Select Committee listening to the harms created by digital technology. We have all received warnings about the role of AI in destroying our creative industries and much of our workforce. Surely we should harness our world-class broadcaster as a beacon of public service to shape and develop these new technologies in the public interest and not just in the private interest of US tech billionaires.
It is unbelievable that the current charter has removed the BBC’s public purpose to deliver technologies for the benefit of the nation. This has been compounded by the 30% reduction in licence fee income over the past decade, leading to a big decline in the organisation’s spend on research and development. As a result, Sky’s R&D department is massively outspending the BBC. As a listed company that needs to focus on its own interests, Sky’s research has been mainly used to enhance its own customer interaction and improve the technology of Sky Glass TV.
Now, we have a chance to develop digital technology imbued with ethical public service values. The BBC already has a set of AI principles, which are a useful guide to the priorities: namely, to act in the best interests of the public, to prioritise talent, and—one that particularly interests me in the light of the AI copyright debate—to promote transparency. Already, the BBC’s R&D department has rolled out for its own journalists a deepfake identification tool. The corporation is working with Sony as part of the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity, to establish provenance standards to be integrated into platforms and devices. These will allow users to establish details of content creation and manipulation. They can be made available to help users weave their way through the thicket of fake images on the internet. Reassuringly, at the centre of these tools there is always a human being supervising them.
Public-interest AI could be rolled out across the country to build trust in other services, such as secure age verification, and even as a way to stream government services. We have heard much talk in the last few months about the development of a British sovereign AI, along the lines of that being set up in Switzerland. The BBC could team up with platforms such as Anthropic AI, whose principles embody the UN Declaration of Human Rights, to set up a BBC large language model training session. The need for this research could be fed into the UKRI AI research and innovation programme, as part of the Government’s UK AI strategy.
Imagine a British AI large language model that had at its heart services powered by the BBC’s public service ethos and an ethical source of data training, and that would generate safe information and deliver AI in the public interest. I say to the Minister that surely this would be an amazing riposte from our country to the big US tech firms driven by the attention economy, which are prepared to address harms only when forced by law to do so. Users in this country and across the world would avail themselves of such services, secure in the knowledge that they would not create further harms. This might be a fantasy, but unless action is taken to ensure that the BBC is at the centre of the new AI and digital technological revolution in this country, it will become irrelevant.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, earlier in this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, described the BBC as a “unique organisation”. Later, the noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, described the BBC as a “national institution”. I agree wholly with both noble Lords. I speak only of the radio, but this does go back a long way. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I started listening to the BBC radio with the Home Service, the Light Programme and the Third Programme, but we need to focus upon what the BBC is now delivering to us.
I refer to two of its prime programmes, “Mastermind” and “From Our Own Correspondent”. “Mastermind” is a fascinating programme in which the participants display encyclopaedic knowledge. Very occasionally, I have known the answer to a question, but that is very rare. “From Our Own Correspondent”, compered so ably by Kate Adie, calls on us to listen to a correspondent talking about the floods in Bangladesh, another correspondent talking about drought in Sudan, and perhaps a correspondent describing the way of life in some distant part of the world.
Then there are the regional programmes. I cite “Gardeners’ Question Time” and “Any Questions?”, which was chaired for many years by Jonathan Dimbleby—I think his father, Richard Dimbleby, launched the programme in the 1940s. Both these programmes are regional and are broadcast from throughout the United Kingdom.
I cite three programmes from this week’s programming by the BBC: first, “Just One Thing”, the programme developed by the late Michael Mosley; secondly, “Great Lives”, whose presenter until now has been Matthew Parris; thirdly, the fascinating statistical programme, “More or Less”. All three of those programmes are in this week’s list—and I can cite one more, “Moral Maze”, another absolutely fascinating programme. We are very well served by the BBC. It is the jewel in our crown and it should so be preserved.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, I join the multitude thanking the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for his constant, passionate advocacy of public service broadcasting.
At the moment there is a great debate taking place, some of which is unnecessary. We go round in circles and come back to the same solution, decade after decade. As broadcasting becomes more dynamic and diverse, because there are more platforms, options and ways to view, we in this House and those in the other place need to rustle up the energy to affirm what we know to be true, about the BBC in particular. It is and must remain the beacon of brilliance. It must be the benchmark of tenacity and truth in news and analysis. It must be the holder of intelligent first-source global and national perspectives. It must tell the story of a complex and compelling world, from the natural environment to surging technology to the stories of history and human experience.
All this requires investment. The truth is that the licence fee is a paltry 48p a day per household, yet we engage in a 10-year scrap about whether it should be 50p, 55p or 40p. This is foolishness. We need to give an essential public guarantee of exceptionalism for the BBC. It has gripping sport and gripping drama. I particularly thank this House for its support in 1996, when I was the BBC’s head of public affairs and, as a lobbyist, brought the case for listed events to this Chamber. This House, in particular with its hereditary Peers on the Conservative side, supported Liberal Democrat and Labour Peers against the Conservative Government to protect the listed events we have now. There are great moments in our national life, such as Remembrance Weekend, times of political transformation and moments of decision and impact. They all come to us through the BBC in a rush that we do not get anywhere else.
As the broadcasting landscape is changing and its provision becomes ever greater, there is no shortage of programming and there are endless options. Most of them are American and that is not our culture. We need the BBC. We need it despite a painful two years of mishaps and scandals. That is not the norm. Anyone who has worked as well and long with the BBC as I and many others in this House did knows that that is not the standard. It is an exception. The Government need to be bold and, thankfully, the Secretary of State and the Minister in this House have already declared affirming commitment to the BBC’s future.
But, in the fight that lies ahead in the next two years in particular, both Houses need to be consistent that we are not driven by commercial pressure bending our knee; instead, we are stating that the BBC is a vital public institution and that charter renewal allows us only to affirm the value of that institution ever more. We do not debate other institutions ridiculously like we do the BBC. We do not debate the armed services, highway maintenance, Chevening scholarships, the NHS or investment in Olympic sports development, because they are public assets. The BBC is a public asset for the UK and for the world and, for that, we must maintain its strength and the licence fee.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I suppose the usual sources will say, “Well, this is the House of Lords typically mumbling out its old prejudices”, but it has been very encouraging for me, as a long-time supporter of the BBC, to listen to those who have far more experience of it than I speaking with such passion today. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who led us into this debate.
An old military adage is that you do not fight at the bottom of a hill where two maps join, but it seems that this particular charter debate is taking place in exactly that kind of position, because we are facing two challenges, both of which impact on the kind of public service broadcaster we require. One is a rather belated espousal by Ofcom of the need for media literacy, which certainly is necessary. It brings to mind the old Victorian comment, when education was expanded, that we must educate our masters. Faced with the revolution taking place in our media, there is a real need for an effective programme to enable all generations, particularly the younger generation, to have the equipment to deal with the media that is coming forward.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, was the first today to talk about the other revolution that is about to engulf us with artificial intelligence. Almost no news programme now takes place without one of the two sides of this story: either an amazing new breakthrough in medicine that will be enabled by artificial intelligence or some frightening interference in personal liberty or distortion of the news by the use of artificial intelligence. As a society, we will have to handle this, as has been indicated by a number of speakers. We will need the BBC and what it stands for more than ever in both managing media literacy and bringing artificial intelligence within the control of liberal democracies. When I started out in politics, we would have been sure that we could have got some UN charter to cover this generally, but now there will be competing legislation on AI, some of which will be very dangerous to the workings and functions of liberal democracies.
The future of the BBC is at more risk now than at any time in its 100-year history. It is under threat from commercial rivals that are jealous of its ongoing capacity to fulfil the first part of the original mantra, to entertain, and from authoritarians in both the government and private sectors who resent its capacity to educate and inform to standards that will underpin and strengthen our democracy.
I have one last thought for those who plan our business. Today’s debate shows both the capacity of this House to discuss these issues and the need for more time to discuss them. I offer this final thought. When the Reagan Administration carried out their deregulation of American broadcasting in the 1980s, one of the most famous broadcasters—not Ed Murrow—said, “We’ll only realise what we’ve lost when it’s gone”. I sincerely hope that will not be the case in future for the BBC.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on a thoughtful opening speech.
The phrase I became heartily fed up with was “punching above our weight”, usually uttered by Ministers whose Government continued to wield the axe for further cuts to the arts. According to Voice of the Listener & Viewer, from 2010 to 2024 the BBC suffered 38% in funding cuts—a horrendous statistic—invariably affecting every area of programming, including the arts. We do not punch above our weight. There is reduced output and the added danger that mistakes may be made, as we have heard.
What the BBC is surviving on to a significant extent is a huge residual feeling of good will across the world, its dogged impartiality in terms of news reporting, and, for what survives of the World Service, still a considerable reach. Remarkably, the BBC is still considered a beacon of democratic values, but without the necessary investment and, more importantly, a belief in those values beyond seeing the BBC as a money-spinner for the growth agenda, that good will will dissipate—a major reason why the World Service, a necessary aspect of foreign policy, needs again to be properly funded by the Foreign Office.
In the early 1960s a young, unknown playwright was given not one but three slots for plays on BBC radio years before “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead” made Tom Stoppard’s name. It was the first play I ever saw at the theatre, courtesy of a school trip. Famously, Stoppard turned down the opportunity to write the screenplay for Steven Spielberg’s film “Jaws” because at the time he was working on a play for the BBC—for radio. It is difficult to imagine such a thing happening now. What remains in terms of the arts is still great but needs to be built on, including restaffing. Music is still well served, with five orchestras, although in-house drama and coverage of the visual arts are diminished. I miss drama on Radio 3, which was such a good fit.
The BBC urgently needs to be future-proofed, particularly against structural threats, which could be worse even than the loss of funding, bad as that has been. I agree with the Broadcasting, Entertainment and Arts Unions’ plea that the BBC should not be compelled to commercialise because of funding restraints. There has to be certainty—a forever charter without the nail-biting review. The BBC needs to be properly independent in terms of government appointments. That independence should be extended in certain ways to other channels, and the Ofcom code strengthened, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, has said. As an instance, for obvious historical reasons, participation by German politicians in their media is strictly controlled. They cannot present programmes except in rare circumstances. That policy should be enforced here. We have seen what is happening in America in terms of the destructive interference of government in its institutions and media outlets. Unless measures are taken now, it is not inconceivable that with a Farage Government GB News becomes, in effect, a state broadcaster.
Beyond streaming, and certainly in the face of mis- and disinformation, there remains a strong moral case for a substantial public service broadcaster for the good of society, which is why a universal funding model needs to be adopted—less liable to be undone than the licence fee, which I fear could too easily be turned into a subscription.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this debate and for his passionate commitment to UK broadcasting. I declare my interest as deputy chairman of Telegraph Media Group and co-chairman of the ITV APPG. I have three points.
The first concerns BBC charter renewal. Like many noble Lords, I have a profound commitment to the BBC and its values, but I have long been concerned about the impact of its online activities on the UK’s commercial media sector and, in particular, independent local media. Only recently Ofcom made clear its own concerns that the BBC’s largely unchecked expansion into digital local news is harming the commercial sector, with profound consequences for media plurality. Its free-to-access online service is deeply damaging to independent local news provision and in the worst-case scenario threatens to extinguish it altogether as print sales decline to unviable levels. We cannot let that happen. The charter renewal process must set new boundaries of activity to rein back the BBC’s online news provision to sustain local and national news diversity and quality journalism.
Secondly, we need action to protect the position of our PSBs, which are the bedrock of our creative economy, by ensuring that they can stand up to the competition from global online platforms. I agree with Ofcom:
“If no action is taken, the very existence of the PSBs … will be threatened. Time is running out to save this pillar of UK culture”.
We need decisive action in a number of areas; first, on prominence, where we must robustly implement the Media Act 2024 to ensure that PSBs are prominent on equitable terms on TV screens and all major devices, including gaming consoles, and create specific rules to ensure that PSB content is prominent on all major video-sharing and social media platforms, including YouTube, without having to share revenues. Secondly, the PSBs are a source of trusted, quality news, which is more important now than ever. This is particularly true for young people, and we need to ensure that PSB content is actively promoted on the platforms they use. Thirdly, we need to recognise the importance of tax incentives for safeguarding UK content, which means tax credits for UK stories and at-risk genres.
My third point concerns the potential acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Netflix, which I believe would have deeply damaging consequences for UK broadcasting. Netflix is already dominant in the subscription video on demand market. Present in almost six in 10 UK households, it accounted for nearly half of SVOD viewing in 2024. Were Netflix to be allowed to merge with Warner Bros. Discovery, the combined company’s revenue share of the market would be around three times higher than that of its nearest competitor. That is a virtual monopoly which would be potentially disastrous for our creative economy and for our consumers.
It would make it enormously difficult for other streamers to compete, something of great concern for our domestic streaming services, especially with the launch of Netflix’s advertising tier, meaning even more UK ad spend ending up in Silicon Valley. It would damage British talent and our leading independent production sector, as Netflix would have unprecedented market power in terms of both pricing and which projects to greenlight. And it would present a real danger to our cinemas because Netflix has never operated a traditional theatrical release model. I am particularly worried about Netflix’s clear desire to reduce the windowing times of releases. For consumers, a virtual monopoly means what virtual monopolies always mean: higher prices and less choice.
For all these reasons, it is clear to me that the CMA must conduct a full and thorough investigation into a merger, which, by cementing Netflix as a monopoly player, is clearly anti-competitive, with chilling implications for UK consumers and for the whole of our creative economy. I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance that this issue is being carefully scrutinised and that the Government will ensure that the CMA conducts a full review of this transaction.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has done this House a major favour by sponsoring today’s debate. I will concentrate my own remarks on the aspects of broadcasting which are closest to my professional experience as a working diplomat for more than 40 years: the BBC’s World Service and its foreign language programmes.
I confess that when I first heard of the BBC’s major editorial blunder in its “Panorama” programme about the 6 January attack on Congress following the 2020 presidential elections, I was not totally surprised. How could a broadcaster with the scope of the BBC’s coverage not make errors from time to time? What saddened me was the way in which the cacophony of denunciation which followed overlooked the benefits in soft power and global influence which the BBC’s work brought to the UK and to its western allies in the 100 years since it was founded.
No thought was given to the BBC’s work during World War II to keep hope alive in the countries of continental Europe and worldwide which were under foreign occupation. No thought was given either to the similar work it did during the Cold War in the countries of central and eastern Europe under communist domination. There was nothing about my own direct experience as the UK’s UN ambassador of the benign influence when the BBC was first to report the coup against President Gorbachev in 1991, which then rapidly collapsed. The UK’s soft power influence had never stood higher than that moment. Did none of these other considerations merit weighing in the balance when it made a mistake?
Very relevant to the current charter review was the decision by George Osborne, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to load the cost of the World Service and foreign language programmes on to the BBC and its licence fee payers when previously those costs were borne by the taxpayer—a clever, opportunistic move, perhaps, from a narrow Treasury viewpoint, but in retrospect a massive and long-lastingly damaging one. Does it really make sense to impose on the director-general the choice between financing the BBC’s domestic programmes and its overseas ones? Does it really make sense to finance the World Service and foreign language programmes, a clear foreign policy decision, on a regressive tax base when it was previously financed by progressive general taxation? Did that earlier method of financing damage the BBC’s reputation for broad impartiality?
The answer to all three of those questions is, I suggest, negative. I hope the Minister replying to this debate will confirm that the regime for financing the World Service and the foreign language programmes of the BBC is on the table for consideration in the charter review.
In conclusion, I shall just say a few words about the litigation recently unleashed by the President of the United States against the BBC. I will not comment on the legal arguments of the case or on the possible outcomes of such litigation—I am not a lawyer—but what I will say about the decision to launch this litigation is that it represents a substantial error of political judgment all too likely to damage seriously all those concerned, apart from those earning legal fees. Would any other President of the United States since we became close allies in 1941 have been expected to take such a course of action? I think not.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this important debate. I want to draw your Lordships’ attention to an important decision now affecting broadcasting generally and the stakeholder forum that has been established by DCMS regarding the future of the UK’s digital terrestrial television service. This is the system, as your Lordships know, by which most households receive television, providing free-to-air public service broadcasting to almost 99% of homes in the UK. It plays a vital role in how people access news and information in this country. It remains especially important for older viewers, people on low incomes and those living in rural and remote communities. For millions of people, it is not a secondary service or some kind of legacy platform; it is their main way of watching television, whether the BBC, ITV or whatever. It is familiar and generally universal.
The current policy commitment to terrestrial digital extends only to 2034. Calls for switch-off and a forced move to an entirely internet-based model of television are increasing. Yet while surveys show that there is overwhelming support for the continuation of digital terrestrial television, the vast majority of people affected in the UK are unaware of the potential uncertainty that is arising. In my view, forcing households to get a high-speed fixed broadband connection simply to continue watching television is wrong. For many people such as those whom I have mentioned—older viewers and people on lower incomes—there will be an increase in their cost of living with monthly broadband costs, installation charges and exposure to price rises. Many households manage by relying on mobile data for essential online tasks while continuing to use digital terrestrial for television. Removing that option would place additional costs on them.
I want to draw your Lordships’ attention to the regional impact of any switch-off. In Northern Ireland, for instance, 42% of homes rely on terrestrial television, nine percentage points higher than the UK average. We have the highest level of live broadcast viewing of any UK nation. The same challenges exist in Scotland and Wales and in parts of England where connectivity remains inconsistent and broadband take-up is forecast to lag well behind urban areas. I found the work of the Broadcast 2040+ campaign helpful in setting out the evidence, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. I want to make a plea to the Minister to address this issue when she replies. It has not been raised thus far in this debate, but it is important not only for the reasons I have set out; this is also a critical part of our national resilience so that emergency services, utilities and transport, and government and security systems continue to function when broadband and mobile networks are overloaded or fail. We have seen that happen too often. I plead with the Minister to bring some clarity on when a decision will be taken on the future of digital terrestrial television. I hope that the decision will be positive, providing certainty and protecting free-to-air terrestrial television.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Fowler for his powerful introduction and declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher.
When talking about broadcasting, there is a tendency to look back at a pre-internet, pre-satellite halcyon time: a golden age of TV with three channels and wholesome radio. Our TV was black and white because my mother did not like the blood in medical programmes. There was no TV in the daytime, except for the Open University and some remarkably boring output. If you did not like it, you could go out into the rain and stare at the cows. If you missed something on TV, you would probably never see it again. But also, broadcasts could be genuinely national events, such as finding out who was number one on Radio 1, the FA Cup final and, rather bizarrely, the boat race. That is when most of us fell in love with test cricket, because in 1970s south Worcestershire, there was absolutely nothing else to do.
When we talk about broadcasting, we talk about the BBC. I am a great fan of the BBC. In fact, my maiden speech was on the subject of the BBC World Service, and I listen to 6 Music and Radio 5 in the mornings and the evenings. In fact, I prefer to listen to sport on the radio, as I can do something else at the same time, and when England inevitably lose, at least I have been doing something useful as well. I can always catch up on wickets, tries or goals on a variety of excellent websites.
I argue that for the viewer, the golden age of broadcasting is right now. We still have a strong BBC and other public service broadcasters; Netflix; Amazon Prime Video, which my wife works for; the internet; YouTube for music and old TV programmes that I missed in the 70s; pause and rewind—the list goes on, and it is in colour. I just avoid the medical programmes. However, we know that there are issues. Obviously, the BBC charter review is a huge one. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, that the BBC is just doing too much. Its mission to inform, educate and entertain the public was coined in 1922, when there was no other radio service and certainly no television. As we have seen, there is no shortage of entertainment out there today. Public service broadcasters have been asking for freedom to collaborate more, and I hope that comes with a promise to simplify their delivery. Do we need iPlayer and More4 and ITVX? Does Red Button still exist? I am not exactly sure Freely is the answer.
And there is a real problem. In an incredibly controlled scientific experiment, I asked my children, aged 14 and 20, what parts of the BBC they interact with. “None” came the answer. On further questioning, there was a grudging admission that they used to watch CBBC and they were made to watch “Newsround” at school, but they do not use the BBC like we do. They consume television the same way they consume all other media—via a device—and they certainly do not listen to live radio or watch linear TV, even if they know what it is. Obviously, the BBC is aware that its role has had to change, and I am grateful to Laura Anderson, who took me through some of the ways it is evolving. “Newsround” is still a staple in schools, and now, Other Side of the Story and Solve the Story are helping young people navigate the world of AI and fake news. UNBOXD is a campaign for 16 to 24 year-olds. This is where the BBC, with its high level of public trust, still has a role to play.
PSBs have asked for further tax incentives. I wonder whether the Minister will comment on schemes that incentivise homegrown content and talent, particularly low-budget material made by small companies. The future of broadcast looks fragmented, fractious and fragile. We must take care so that this is the start, not the end, of the golden age of broadcasting.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to those of other Lords, with the added reason that I have spent the past 12 years trying to fill the noble Lord’s giant shoes as chair of the Thomson Foundation, which trains journalists and promotes sustainable media throughout the world. In declaring that interest, I should add that I am also a director of the audience measurement company, RSMB, the rights management company, the Theseus Agency, and Digbeth Loc. Studios in Birmingham. My elder son is a film and television screenwriter.
I will not try to list the recent developments in relation to broadcasting, as other noble Lords have already comprehensively outlined those. I would comment only that, in considering regulatory and other decisions, we should be careful to learn from the past. The UK creative industries would be even stronger than they now are if, historically, regulation had been more forward-looking and less parochial, going as far back as the IBA’s supervision of the ITV network in the 1970s and 1980s, and the Competition Commission’s blocking in 2009 of Kangaroo, the streaming initiative intended to unite all the major PSBs.
I should like to use my remaining time to talk about the implication of these developments in two areas—news and drama—at opposite ends of the creative spectrum, requiring very different but qualitatively similar skills and discipline. However much the means of consuming news has changed for all of us—and all the more for younger generations—television and radio remain at the heart of quality news. Media have converged, and young journalists are trained, for instance, to use smartphone-based video to enhance their print or online reporting. The BBC’s continuing leadership, for all its mishaps, in trusted news provision is a result of the melding of its TV, radio and online operations. I would suggest that the challenge for the BBC’s news provision is about the maintenance of journalistic editorial standards broadly rather than being exclusively or predominantly an issue of impartiality, however important that undeniably is.
For the wider broadcast news environment, the decisions faced by Ofcom and the CMA in relation to the prospective acquisition of ITV by Comcast are critical and must protect the funding, diversity and quality of public service news—I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Grade, has been listening to the debate. The boom in television drama production driven by the growth of streamers came to an end, or at least a pause, three years ago, as all booms do. The inflation in costs that resulted from this and the financial pressures on the PSBs have created an acute problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Hall, has already said, for British and British-focused drama. Elisabeth Murdoch, whose production companies have been globally successful, has also spoken powerfully about this same issue. This threatens not just the idiosyncratic British voice—and within that, even more those of the nations and regions—but the whole system for the development of talent. We would not have in the Premier League the most successful men’s football league in the world without the other junior leagues. There is no time to be lost in taking action to stimulate and support British drama.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Fowler on introducing this debate. It is a great pleasure that both at the end and the beginning of my career in your Lordships’ House I can call him “my noble friend.” I declare that I am a trustee of the fact-checking charity Full Fact.
When the Broadcasting Bill of 1996 was given its Second Reading, the then Minister concentrated more on the future it was opening up than on the nuts and bolts of the text under discussion in his opening speech. What the House did not know then was that I had metaphorically torn up the first draft, because the Bill was clearly presaging a technological revolution. It is revolutions like this that change the world we live in, not legislation giving them effect, and it is the changes that matter. That revolution is still going on.
I would like to touch on a number of points that I think are important about the current state of broadcasting in this country. First, public service broadcasting matters in a world of disinformation. The question posed by Pontius Pilate, “What is truth?”, is ever more important. For a free democratic society to function, truth and facts are the essential element that our fellow citizens need to form judgments for themselves, their families and society more widely—it is no accident that in the old days when there was a revolution the first thing the revolutionaries did was capture the radio station or television station. A public service stream of news and appropriate investigative journalism matters, and since there are sometimes criticisms, we need at least two separate elements to this in the interests of pluralism. Secondly, all this must be kept at arm’s length from government, factional politics and proselytising pressure groups of all kinds.
Realistically, the age in which we live is one where the influence and great overarching presence of Lord Reith has gone, and the importance of the wider media industry has evolved commercially, economically, socially and societally. We are now moving into a new era where territorial jurisdiction is seen and treated differently from the past. All broadcasters, both at home or abroad, are recognising this, and the obligations, opportunities and activities both of international services and domestic services, and content suppliers and all involved, need to recognise that.
Against this background, in a rapidly changing Britain, public service broadcasting must be thought through again carefully. I do not think it is any more necessary to begin from a position of a hybrid of Lord Reith’s high-mindedness and my noble friend Lord Hennessy’s “good chaps” theory of government. Britishness is contentious and is the subject of widespread discussion, but it is essential—indeed existential—to public service broadcasting. It must command popular acceptance, but not be populist, and material within a range of public service broadcasting programmes must remain available free-to-air to UK listeners and viewers. As I said earlier, technology and, in particular, delivery systems will determine all this; content follows. It is what the public receive and not how they get it that matters.
Finally, I have a few comments about the BBC’s current legal action brought against it by Donald Trump, which, as my noble friend Lord Fowler has pointed out, was clearly initiated by poor editorial control on the part of the corporation. We ought not to forget that public life is, on occasions, a rough-and-tumble business. It is not, in the words of Ernest Borgnine in the film “The Wild Bunch”, a church social. Some years ago, when I chaired a regional newspaper company, I went through a series of circumstances which, while very much in microcosm compared to this, shared many close similarities with this current litigation and the way it is playing out. It was not a pleasurable experience, but I am clear. First, if you make mistakes, admit it and apologise. Secondly, decide with your advisers whether you have any legal liability. If the answer is yes, admit it and face the financial and other consequences. If the answer is no, explain it, defend your case, and hold your ground and do not be bullied.
Whether any individual likes or hates the BBC, it is one of our defining global attributes, and it is a symbol of a lot of our best national characteristics. We did not achieve global respect and give hopes to the oppressed in the period 1939 to 1945 when the BBC broadcast under the strap line, “This is London calling, this is London calling”, with messages that were craven. Once a broadcaster or journalist loses his, her or their journalistic integrity, they lose everything. It is not a matter of triangulation or negotiating deals.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I rise to add a little challenge and contrast to what is going on in this debate; it reminds me of the first debate that we had in your Lordships’ House about the state of the BBC, its behaviour and its relevance. As always, I speak to people from diverse communities, poorer communities and younger communities, and the message they want me to send to noble Lords, I believe, is one of challenge. It coalesces around these few points that I am going to give.
The first is relevance. It is certain—if this debate is taken as a measuring stick—that people of a certain vintage have great reverence for the BBC, and we hear an awful lot about what went on in the Second World War, and the message of hope that this country rightly gave to the rest of Europe and to the world. But, of course, if you are a 16 year-old girl from Ladbroke Grove, that has absolutely no relevance to you, and the BBC has questions to answer around relevance. The group of young people I spoke to pointed out that, for those between 16 and 24 years old, less than 50% watch terrestrial TV, or even catch-up TV, yet that is a lot of what the BBC is focused on putting out. When I spoke to these young people of university age, they said they resented paying for a service that they do not watch and that has very little relevant content for them. So, while you are all in here celebrating how great the BBC is, ask yourselves how relevant it is to people who do not come from your background and do not share your very high level of success and education.
On the question of bias, 50% of all Britons feel that the BBC is biased. Even if you do not, there are two questions to ask. Is it because they support your view, or do you think that the 50% of people who think the BBC is biased are wrong? Because it is a deeply held view by those 50%. Some think the BBC is biased to the left and some think it is biased to the right, but they are all agreed that the BBC is biased. When it comes to why they believe that to be true, it is not just about political output: left/right, trans issues or Donald Trump. They think it is a class issue. They see the BBC as having a white, middle-class, London-based view of the world. A young black man by the name of Raymond said to me:
“It is patronising to young people, and particularly patronising to young black people. It is a very middle-class view of what black people think”.
I thought that was a very interesting view, coming from a young man who had absolutely no reverence for the BBC and believed that he should get his money back—despite the fact that he is not paying for a TV licence because he is only 16.
The point has to be made: what is the BBC going to do in the future? I have some warm feelings for it. They may not be as warm as those of many in the Chamber, but I do have some warm feelings for it and I believe that this question of relevance is important. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, talked a lot about what the BBC could be doing around technical development and AI, and I think that that is something it really should pursue. It could be of great use to this country, and particularly to its young people going forward in the future.
The international BBC service is obviously of great quality and very meaningful. My parents are Jamaican and will tell you what a profound impact it had in the Jamaican community and continues to have to this day. But, unless we in this Chamber challenge the view that all noble Lords seem to hold—that the BBC is beyond blame—I think the BBC will fade and die away. You might get away with it for the next 10 years, but in 10 years’ time Raymond will be 26. He will be paying for his licence and he will “come for his money”—those are his words, by the way.
So, when we talk about the BBC, let us do it with some balance; let us challenge it to improve itself. And, if you do not believe it is biased, remember that 50% of Britons do. We are talking about the BBC as it used to be, not as it is today.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will focus on the BBC from a commercial and international perspective, and should declare an interest up front. In my years as a journalist and foreign correspondent in Latin America and the Middle East, and then as a CEO of a British online information service on emerging markets, I must admit to benefiting hugely from the BBC’s reflected reputation for balance, independence and trusted news. In my experience, the BBC’s brand is actually stronger outside the UK than within, in almost all regions of the world, bar perhaps certain elements in the US.
Looking at the BBC’s global, rather than domestic audience, it is here that the greatest opportunities lie, which in turn raises fundamental questions about the business model of a public service broadcaster. I should declare a second interest, and a rather less positive one: my application for a place on the BBC’s 1982 graduate trainee scheme was brutally rejected without even the offer of an interview. Some 40 years on, I will try not to let this affect my own impartiality; instead, I will focus on two key metrics from last year’s BBC annual report.
The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, told us, is that the BBC’s global weekly audience sits at 453 million. That is, in fact, down from its highest ever global audience of 486 million back in 2020, but still an impressive reach in an increasingly crowded and partial market. Secondly, if we dig deeper, we see that, despite all the cuts, BBC News accounts for 418 million—that is over 90% of the corporation’s global audience—and of that, the World Service delivers 313 million. This global reach is vital for the UK’s soft power and influence, as we have heard. It is hugely helpful to our Foreign Office, to diplomatic relations and to our trade and investment. What is often less understood is that it is also helpful to UK multinationals and indeed SME exporters, as I discovered in my days as a publisher. You could argue that that alone represents good value for money for the £3.8 billion a year we pay in licence fees, before we look at all the domestic benefits of information, education and entertainment.
It is therefore encouraging to see that the BBC’s commercial revenues, which have not been mentioned today, have grown to over £2 billion annually from around £1.2 billion five years ago, despite its current trading restrictions. Yet, with that global audience of 450 million, it represents just 40p per viewer per month—so there is significant scope for growth.
We need to allow the BBC to harness this global opportunity for changes to its business model, particularly in the area of partnerships, tiered subscriptions, paywalls and content licensing. Does the Minister agree that that requires greater investment, and not cost-cutting, in its news and factual departments, particularly for the World Service?
A coherent business strategy to grow commercial revenues to what I believe could be £5 billion per annum would enable a reduction in the TV licence over time to below £100 per household, which would be a good thing. Crucially, this could be done without over-reliance on advertising and sponsorship, which would threaten the very thing that the BBC is still most valued for: independence and impartiality.
Lord Young of Old Windsor (CB)
My Lords, I have three connections with broadcasting. First, in my 20s, as a budding scriptwriter with the BBC, I wrote an audio drama for “Doctor Who”—it is still available online, although mercifully few people have found it. Secondly, in my 30s, as a suit at ITV in the early 2000s, I worked on the merger of Granada and Carlton to form ITV plc. Thirdly, during my 20 years at Buckingham Palace, I dealt closely with, among others, my noble friend Lord Hall, who spoke so wisely, and the outgoing Director-General, Tim Davie, who will be much missed at the BBC. Those experiences taught me that British broadcasting has the best creative ecosystem in the world, one that is strengthened by a public service ethos at its heart. ITV drama is stronger because it competes with BBC drama; Times Radio is stronger because it competes with BBC radio; Britain is stronger because it has the BBC.
When the late Queen addressed the nation at the start of Covid, telling the country, “We will meet again”, Buckingham Palace did not call Netflix; we called the BBC, and 24 million people tuned in. The same was true of the globally popular James Bond Olympic sketch in 2012 and her tea with Paddington Bear in 2022. With the late Queen’s funeral and the King’s Coronation, part of the reason the world looked on so admiringly was because of the way they were broadcast. Yes, it was commercial broadcasters too, but the point stands: their coverage was stronger because they were up against the BBC. It is an incredibly expensive and sophisticated business doing live event broadcasting. Where are the likes of Netflix or Apple TV in these moments of national togetherness? The answer is that they just do not do that sort of thing.
I am not saying that the BBC is perfect—far from it. Like the Gruffalo, the BBC can look fearsome and lumbering, but strip away the mythology and there is something more vulnerable underneath. Its cultural antennae can sometimes seem too poorly tuned, too metropolitan and self-satisfied. It should concentrate more on reporting straight news and leave the investigative stuff to others; these ventures too often end in tears. But the BBC’s biggest challenge is greater still: increasingly, younger people just do not watch it. Old-fashioned multichannel scheduling is looking dated. One in eight households are now not paying the licence fee—one in eight. In five years, it could be one in four. The stakes are high, because when the next crisis comes—and it will—we will want something to turn to; something we trust, something that makes Britain stronger. Let us make sure that it is still there.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have had the nod to speak in what is called the gap—I hope that meets with your Lordships’ approval. As a declaration of interest, I am currently chairman of Ofcom, and I have had a long career in various bits of British public service broadcasting which would take too long to recite here. I join all those who welcomed the passion of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the sustained interest that he has shown in our public service broadcasting. This has been a terrific debate.
The debate has, not surprisingly, concentrated on the BBC. We are at base camp of the next great charter review, and there will be plenty of opportunities to rehearse all the arguments. As a veteran of one charter review, when I was chairman some years ago, with the late and much-lamented Tessa Jowell at the DCMS, I would caution that charter review always starts at the wrong point. I hope we will not do it this time. That point is governance and funding. Those are two important questions, but they are absolutely subsidiary to the biggest question of all: what do we want from the BBC in this very changed environment? When I came into broadcasting in 1973 at London Weekend Television, we had a monopoly of advertising revenue, and there were three channels. The advertising sales director never came in on a Wednesday because it messed up both weekends. Those were the days.
I therefore beg that the question about the future of the BBC is focused on what we want from it in this changed world. At Ofcom last year, we published our public sector media review, which did not deal with BBC charter review but with a much more challenged sector over which legislators have very little control—namely, the private sector of public service broadcasting. Our report, which I know the Government have welcomed and are taking seriously, is a canary in the mine. There are serious challenges in the private sector.
All the policy initiatives and Ofcom’s regulatory processes going forward must focus on the objectives of public service broadcasting, by finding ways either to legislate or to deregulate in a way that enables the sustained investment in British productions made by British producers for British audiences. That is at the heart of the creative industries in this country. The most successful growth sector of any sector of business in the UK has been the creative industries, and at the heart of that are the PSBs.
The PSBs themselves are going to have to work a lot harder to get the attention of viewers. It is not simply a matter of “Keep doing what you are doing, and we are going to drown in the face of the competition”; they will have to work a lot harder. Parliament and the regulators have to create the conditions to help them to sustain their investment. Part of that will be serving all parts of the nations and regions, and part of that will be to preserve a plurality of trusted news and current affairs throughout the nations and regions. That is crucial, and all of policy must be directed at that. I look forward to the charter review, but that is all I will say about the BBC for now.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, a truly great man and great politician. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, he led on the cause of AIDS and has always championed our PSBs. I believe he was the chair of the first committee I sat on when I came here; I think the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the previous Bishop of Manchester were also on that committee, and the subject was—guess what—BBC charter renewal. Today, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has characteristically initiated a debate of crucial importance. In the times we live in, our UK broadcasters are essential not just to the UK but in their role across the world.
It all started with the BBC in 1922, when, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, it was audio only, and the only choice for listeners appears to have been in the sole gift of a Captain Eckersley, who would,
“trundle his piano from his local pub to an equally local army hut from which he would perform to the nation”.
The days when choice for listeners was confined to one man’s piano repertoire are long, long gone.
As the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Vaizey, have mentioned, we are now fortunate to have a variety of other vibrant and diverse public service broadcasters. ITV, Channel 4, Sky and Channel 5 all make brilliant programmes, setting the standard for accurate and responsible news coverage. In return for privileges such as free spectrum use and top positions on EPGs, these commercial channels have public interest obligations, which has resulted in high-quality competition for the BBC, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Old Windsor, mentioned.
Collectively, the PSBs invest in talent across the UK and in stories which are important to us as a nation, such as, “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, “It’s a Sin”, “Patrick Melrose”, “Milkshake!” and huge international successes such as “Downton Abbey” and “Peaky Blinders”. I have not even mentioned the unscripted category. They are central, as the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said, to our hugely successful creative industries and creative workforce, which has drawn the American streamers to our shores, while making UK-centred alternatives to the programmes of the said streamers.
However, as viewers increasingly move towards streamers and on-demand and online TV viewing, those privileges become less valuable, and we need to find new ways of helping and incentivising those broadcasters. I think the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned this. Does the Minister agree that that is why it has become ever more important that the provisions of the Media Act around prominence and discoverability are both properly enforced and strengthened?
Still central to broadcasting in the UK, as everyone has said, is the BBC. The highly respected Reuters Institute updated its data on news and trust in November. The BBC remains the most trusted source, not just for the UK but for the world where news is concerned. In an era of disinformation and social media silos, the BBC stands as a beacon of accuracy and impartiality.
A lot of what I am about to say noble Lords will already have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hall, but I want to repeat it. The BBC is not just the news—and it is important to remind people of this, as my noble friend Lord Razzall said, particularly politicians—but radio stations, podcasts, orchestras, BBC Bitesize, BBC online, iPlayer, BBC Sounds and the World Service. I hope that might, in a way, respond a little to what the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, said. It develops and invests in talent and in local creative hubs across the UK, not to mention a network of local radio and TV. Through its mission to educate, inform and entertain, it has made culture, news, and other people’s experiences and lives available to all.
It also plays a hugely important role in promoting the UK around the world—soft power—through both the programmes it exports and the World Service, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough, Lord Hall, Lord Hannay and Lord Bailey. That is ever more important now that President Trump has cut off funds to Voice of America. That is not all he has done. The erosion and destruction of public service broadcasting in the USA extends to all direct and indirect funding to NPR and PBS being terminated. Having had its funding withdrawn, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a lifeline to hundreds of radio and TV stations that serve their local communities, decided this week to close down. That is a cautionary tale; this cannot be allowed to happen in the UK, but Donald Trump’s disciple Nigel Farage has repeatedly vowed to “defund” a “slimmed-down” BBC.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grade, mentioned, the charter renewal process is upon us and we on these Benches welcome the Green Paper as the starting point in this process, in particular the Secretary of State’s vision for the BBC:
“Sustainably funded, with a strong presence in every nation and region so that all of us can see ourselves reflected in our national story”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hall, mentioned, she sees the BBC as having the same level of importance as the NHS; I could not agree more. But this 10-year event, charter renewal—why do we not just start by getting rid of it, ending the straitjacket in which the BBC, unlike other organisations established by royal charter, is in a never-ending cycle of having to make the case for its own existence? Does the Minister not agree that we should give the BBC a forever charter? Without that, and in the wrong hands—Trump-like hands—the charter can simply be terminated on its last day: no negotiations, no BBC.
We on these Benches believe that all non-executives of the BBC board should be independently appointed—no government appointees. We do not think this is appropriate for a body which oversees the BBC’s day-to-day editorial and strategic decisions.
The Government should maintain stable, secure and long-term funding for the BBC through the continuation of the licence fee until the end of the current charter period, and ensure equivalent public funding beyond that; crucially, protecting the principle of universality, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said.
Does the Minister not agree that future decisions about funding must be made transparently by an independent body? George Osborne now admits that when Chancellor he was “somewhat shocked” to discover the power that the Government, specifically the Treasury, had over the BBC. He said:
“You think of the BBC as being this big, independent organisation with lots of protection against the government … but the chancellor can basically boss the BBC around on its finances because the government sets the licence fee in the charter”—
and boss it around he did, into paying for the over-75s. That was wrong, as it is a social cost and is disastrous for BBC finances.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, we need a sufficient and durable funding settlement for the World Service. We on these Benches would increase FCDO funding by an additional £100 million per year. What are the Government’s intentions?
Finally, Ofcom’s record in upholding standards of impartiality is a cornerstone of our broadcasting system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, mentioned, it recently seems to have concluded that politicians can present news programmes—I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey—via a clumsy attempt to distinguish between news and current affairs; a decision that, particularly where GB News is concerned, risks undermining public trust in broadcast news. The Secretary of State appears uncomfortable and has said that she is
“looking … at what we can do as a government to deal with this. We can’t continue with a situation where people can’t trust what they see”.
Can the Minister expand on what actions the Government intend to take to ensure that Ofcom fulfils Parliament’s intentions?
I end as I began, in celebrating our UK broadcasters: long may they thrive. In our previous debate on this subject, I concluded by quoting Joni Mitchell. This time, I offer the same sentiment, but with Lisa Nandy speaking directly about the BBC:
“An institution founded to bring the best that has been thought and known to every home—if it didn’t exist today we would have to invent it”.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, like all others, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for giving us the opportunity of today’s debate. It has proved to be a timely one, because it is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss the Government’s Green Paper on the BBC, published in the week before the Christmas Recess.
When I saw the Motion mentioning recent developments in broadcasting, I wondered how far we might roam in your Lordships’ House—and, indeed, we have heard about the Second World War a few times, the Home Service and the Light Programme. But noble Lords have also talked about some of the more recent trends in broadcasting that we have seen. The noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Hampton, and, very powerfully, my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington spoke about the declining connection between young people and our public service broadcasters. The noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, talked about the 30% reduction in the BBC’s income from the licence fee without accompanying public debate. My noble friend Lord Vaizey of Didcot, still sporting his very Santa-like beard, highlighted that YouTube is now the second most popular broadcaster in the United Kingdom.
It is against the backdrop of recent changes such as this that we will soon be asked to consider the BBC’s royal charter for the next very uncertain decade. That is a vital moment not just for the corporation but for our other public service broadcasters and our nation as a whole. It comes hot on the heels of a recent litany of errors from the BBC that noble Lords have pointed out and which I shall not repeat—other than to say that those errors have profound consequences, whether that is multibillion-pound lawsuits or a decline in trust and connection between audiences and our broadcasters. We have seen that the proportion of people in the United Kingdom who say that they trust BBC News has fallen by 15 percentage points since 2018. That is something that should worry us, as I know it worries the BBC.
As noble Lords know, I am sympathetic to the BBC and our public service broadcasters. In that sense, I am a Fowlerite Conservative: we ask a lot of the BBC and expect the high standards that it has come to be renowned for over the last century. We should remember that 94% of adults use some of the BBC’s services in some form each month. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Old Windsor, said, it is to the BBC and our other public broadcasters that we turn in our nation’s most important moments.
However, the BBC faces some structural problems as we confront its next decade: a declining number of viewers, as the Christmas viewing figures prayed in aid by many noble Lords showed; increasing competition from other channels, as anyone who, like me, has tried to work out how to use the Christmas edition of the Radio Times in the modern age will be able to attest to; the declining number of licence fee payers, with 2.5 million fewer over the past decade, as the Government’s Green Paper points out; and the increasing evasion of the licence fee, the rate of which has doubled and now stands at 12.5%, which is one in eight people who should be paying for the service that we all enjoy and who is not.
We need to ask some very big questions to set the BBC and broadcasting more generally on the right course for the next uncertain decade. I, for one, find it difficult to predict what the next 10 years might hold, so I think it is important that we have these regular opportunities. A forever charter would be even harder to try to set out. But, unfortunately, the Government’s Green Paper ducks so many of the big questions that confront us over the coming years. The Government chose to disband the expert panel that was formed to look into future funding for the BBC in 2023, wasting some time and independent insight, and have ruled out some of the most basic questions in their Green Paper. For instance, it dismisses certain funding models seen in other countries. A recent paper by the British Academy draws some interesting comparisons with Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Spain and others. The Government have already ruled those out in the Green Paper, yet they leave the door open to advertising—something that the BBC itself is so opposed to. Can the Minister explain a bit of the rationale there?
The Green Paper rules out looking at the size and scope of the BBC. It says,
“we do not believe a smaller BBC is in the UK’s interest”.
However, I think we should at least ask the question whether the BBC ought to have so many television and radio channels. Do we really need four versions of Radio 1, with 1Xtra, Radio 1 Dance and Radio 1 Anthems—which, I was disappointed to learn, is not the place where one can find the much-missed Radio 4 “UK Theme”.
My noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood is right to point out the impact of the BBC on other media, particularly local newspapers. The Government’s Green Paper does not say much about greater collaboration, or perhaps even mergers, between some of our public service broadcasters in the years to come. In the Government’s Creative Industries Sector Plan, which was published last June, they said that they would ask the Competition and Markets Authority, supported by Ofcom, to set out how changes in the sector
“could be taken into account as part of any future assessment of television and advertising markets. This would include when considering any potential closer, strategic partnerships or possible consolidation between broadcasters”.
Did the Government ask the CMA and Ofcom about this, and what progress have those two bodies made in the intervening months? However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, says, the CMA does not have a good track record in this area. It rejected Project Kangaroo, the plan for a consolidated streaming service for all our public service broadcasters, which would have given them such an important head start on Netflix and the others that have now gained pace.
The Green Paper contains some damaging ideas, such as the notion of free TV licences for people on benefits. That would only fuel division, resentment and some of the disconnect that audiences feel, and would add to the pressures on public spending that have led to many of the problems that noble Lords have identified in their remarks today. Perhaps the Minister can set out why the Government are looking at this.
We need to ask these big questions so that the BBC and other public service broadcasters can compete. We saw in recent weeks the news that the BBC has been replaced by TNT Sports as the broadcaster for the forthcoming Commonwealth Games—a great shame for those who wish to follow them. This will lead to increased piracy, as people try to watch their favourite sports or TV programmes illegally.
Noble Lords rightly point to the mergers and growth of already large international streamers and corporations, and to the way that they are pushing up production costs, making it more difficult for the BBC, Channel 4 and others to compete. I was glad to hear a number of noble Lords talking about the knock-on effect that this has on cinematic releases. Timothée Chalamet has been speaking very powerfully about trying to get people into cinemas to watch his latest film, “Marty Supreme”—something that would buck the trend.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, does not like it, but I am glad that he has at least been to the cinema to see it.
What discussions have the Government had with awards academies about the qualifying period that is necessary for films to be entered into things such as the Oscars and the BAFTAs? Should they not insist on a greater cinematic release? Having taken the Media Bill through your Lordships’ House in 2024, I agree with the comments that have been made about implementing and enforcing the provisions of that Act in relation to prominence and more.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, spoke powerfully about digital terrestrial television. In July 2025, Ofcom recommended that the Government make a decision about whether to invest more in digital terrestrial television, which, at present, is guaranteed only until 2034. At the time of Storm Goretti, we are reminded of what a vital lifeline our broadcasters are, particularly in rural parts of the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Minister could say a bit about that?
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, and others spoke about the BBC World Service. The director-general, Tim Davie—who will be much missed—has been in front of the Public Accounts Committee in another place this morning. He pointed out that the BBC World Service has not yet had its financial settlement for the 2026-27 financial year. Can the Minister say when that will be set out? Against such a turbulent geopolitical backdrop, surely the BBC World Service needs to know how it much can spend later this year?
As other noble Lords have rightly done, I want to end by connecting broadcasting to other art forms. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, spoke of the great and much-missed playwright, Sir Tom Stoppard. I recently saw his “Indian Ink” at the Hampstead Theatre, which I believe began as a radio play. Last night, at the Donmar Warehouse, I saw JB Priestley’s “When We Are Married”. He was another of our great playwrights who jumped from stage to screen to radio. In a recent report by UK Theatre, the producer of the BBC’s “The Night Manager”—which I am sure many of us are currently enjoying—speaks powerfully about the connection between funding for theatre, and other art forms, and what we will be viewing on our screens and streamers for years to come. During this helpful and wide-ranging debate, it is right that we have been able to switch over from broadcasting to talk about other art forms too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this debate on UK broadcasting. Given the limited time that we have, I will commit to writing to noble Lords on points that I cannot cover in my concluding notes—I have a lot of bits of paper in front of me, so noble Lords must please bear with me.
As the noble Lord highlighted in his opening remarks, he and many others across your Lordships’ House have significant interest and expertise in this subject. It has therefore been a wide-ranging debate, with much to consider. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that your Lordships’ House undoubtedly has a particular interest in news and current affairs. I note that I enjoy hearing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on “Thought for the Day”, as I know many others do.
We are rightly proud of our broadcasting sector in the UK. It is unique, with a dynamic, mixed ecology of public service broadcasters, commercial broadcasters and streamers. It is a sector that is indispensable to our culture, society and economy. However, there are many different pressures on the broadcasting sector at the moment, as contributions to this debate have illustrated powerfully. It was particularly helpful to have the perspective of the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Bailey of Paddington, who talked about the generational shift and the fact that not everybody recognises themselves in our public service media or uses the BBC and other public sector media to access media. We need to be clear that there is a broader issue, and a broader fight for truth and unbiased broadcasting, with new challenges in the market and increased competition. These are just a few of the issues that the sector is currently facing. It is vital that we do not lose the need to address these issues and that we ensure that the UK’s broadcasting remains one of our greatest assets.
Today’s debate comes, as I think most noble Lords highlighted, shortly after the Government have published the BBC royal charter review Green Paper. Before I go on to cover the charter review briefly, I will speak to some of the work that DCMS is undertaking more generally in relation to broadcast media. The noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, highlighted the importance of the implementation of the Media Act. I acknowledge the work on this Act by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. As noble Lords will be aware, the Media Act 2024 made much-needed changes to the regulation of public service broadcasting. Since the previous Act, internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access content. My noble friend Lord Chandos highlighted the importance of the regulatory framework. The commencement of the modernised public service broadcasting framework on 1 January marks an important milestone in the implementation of the Media Act and demonstrates this Government’s continued commitment to ensuring the regulatory framework that our PSBs operate in keeps pace with changes in the media landscape.
As part of the Media Act implementation, we will be extending vital audience protections and accessibility requirements to mainstream video on demand services, securing a fairer competitive environment for our broadcasters by ensuring that TV-like on-demand services are regulated to similar standards as traditional TV. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, on prominence, we are in the process of implementing the new online prominence regime, which will require particular TV platforms to carry and give appropriate prominence to PSB TV apps. This will ensure that UK viewers can continue to find and watch the public service broadcasting content they value on demand.
I move on to the BBC now. Despite the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, not getting on to its graduate scheme, I would argue that he has done all right—it is clear that we have gained and the BBC has lost. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, highlighted the moral case for the BBC and for funding the BBC. Not surprisingly, the future of our national broadcaster was raised throughout the debate by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whose speech I enjoyed and will reflect on.
On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in his opening remarks, I agree that we should defend the BBC. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, that the BBC must own its problems and failings in order to rebuild trust.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, I say that the Government are also clear that the BBC is a vital part of our society that projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world. It underpins our creative industries and is pivotal in telling our national story. In the words of the Culture Secretary, which the noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, quoted:
“the BBC, alongside the NHS, is one of the two most important institutions in our country”.
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, echo the Secretary of State in saying that it is the light on the hill.
From Salford to Belfast, the BBC has a footprint in our nations and regions that is unmatched by any other, and it is one of the most trusted news providers, both at home and abroad. The noble Lord, Lord Hall, described some powerful examples of how the BBC tells our national story, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. My noble friend Lord Chandos highlighted the importance of drama.
As our national broadcaster, the BBC fulfils a vital public service role, telling the story of who we are: our people, our places, and giving cultural definition to our communities. As made clear by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, the BBC was created to serve the whole of society. The noble Baroness made a powerful case for the BBC being a public service resource and for universality—no doubt themes we will return to throughout this year of debate on the charter review.
As noble Lords are aware, we have launched the BBC charter review. This will set the terms of the BBC for the next decade, and, through it, we will collectively write the next chapter of the BBC story. Through the review, we will ensure the BBC is sustainably funded, commands the public’s trust and continues to drive growth, good jobs, skills and creativity across every region and nation of the UK. The charter review will look at how to secure the BBC’s future against a rapidly changing media landscape to ensure the BBC does not just survive but thrives for decades to come.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, highlighted the digital age we are in, noting that how the BBC embraces this ethically and for the public benefit will be key. The debate on how to do this will be central to the BBC charter review, and it was helpful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, about the variation across different parts of the country, including the extent and proportion of people who access free-to-air content.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, focused on funding models. Essential to the charter review will be ensuring the financial sustainability of the BBC. We approach this charter review with an open mind, and we are consulting on a range of funding options, including how the BBC can operate more efficiently and generate more commercial revenue, and how the licence fee might be reformed.
Let me address the point on non-payment, made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and on the value for money the BBC represents if broken down to a daily cost per household, made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. We know that some funding options would represent a significant shift for both the sector and the BBC, as well as for audience experiences and expectations. We want to see a thriving media sector, including our public service broadcasters. Our decision-making in relation to the Green Paper will carefully consider the potential impacts on this ecosystem.
As the consultation is ongoing, it probably would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on the range of fascinating views that have come out of today’s debate. I know, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, clearly does not agree with some of the suggestions. I look forward to future debates with him and with others across your Lordships’ House as the year, and the work of the Government on the BBC royal charter review, continues.
I will try to cover a few of the other points made relating to the BBC; I apologise if I miss any out. The noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, spoke about BBC market impact on local online news. We recognise the importance of a plural local news sector and are aware of the issues and headwinds facing the green sector. As noted in the Green Paper, we want to make sure that the BBC works alongside, and does not crowd out, high-quality local media organisations.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, raised BBC board appointments. Most board appointments are for the BBC to make independent of government; moving forward, it is important that the BBC continues to demonstrate how it is working diligently to maintain the high standards for which it is rightly recognised. As we set out in December, the charter review will look at strengthening the BBC’s independence so that the public continue to have trust in the organisation and its programmes and content, and that will include considering the Government’s role in board appointments.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, raised a number of points concerning political interference. We are clear that the BBC is the world’s most trusted international news service. A critical reason for that is its independence from government and other political actors. This Government are committed to ensuring that the BBC remains, I emphasise, fiercely independent. This is vital to the principle of press freedom more broadly.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, and others raised the importance of the World Service. We are clear that the World Service is vital, which is why we gave it a £32.6 million funding uplift this financial year. It is a vital element of our soft power and a big part of why the BBC can be seen as that light on the hill. I will come back in writing on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about ongoing certainty of funding, because I do not have the answer—one of the disbenefits of speaking just before the Minister is that it is quite difficult to get answers inserted at the last minute. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, also referred to BBC World Service funding. Our ambition is to establish a long-term sustainable funding model that provides predictable and stable funding for the World Service through the charter review. We will be able to come back to this throughout the year.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, made a point about the potential influence of foreign state actors. We feel quite strongly about this as well. As I said, the Government are committed to making sure that the BBC has that freedom and remains fiercely independent.
As a postscript to this section of the debate, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey, Lord Hannay and Lord Inglewood, raised the lawsuit by President Trump. It is not for the Government to comment on ongoing legal matters, but I point your Lordships’ House to the assertion by the BBC’s chair, who has gone on record strongly disagreeing with the assertion that it was the basis for a defamation claim.
I move on to public service broadcasters more generally. It was really useful to hear the perspective of the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, on PSBs. I also found the contribution on this from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, of huge interest and it should be reflected on. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, highlighted the increased scrutiny of public service media, including the BBC. As has come through in the debate, not least from the noble Lord, our public service media is wider than the BBC and we need trust to be retained and, where necessary, rebuilt across the range of broadcasters.
The Secretary of State has been clear that we will ensure that the high standards we expect from our public service media are reflected across the whole of broadcast media so that the highest standards are upheld. Generally our media have high standards, but we must not be complacent. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, highlighted the importance of truth and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, highlighted the debate around politicians presenting current affairs. Polemic should not be presented as fact. The lines between broadcast news and opinion are in some cases becoming dangerously blurred. It is a dangerous place for democracy if people cannot trust what they see and hear. I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Parekh about truth, trust and bias. This is why balance matters. We are now considering whether the Government need to go further to protect audiences.
Public service media providers are contending with funding shortfalls, changing and new habits, and regulation that has not really kept pace with the media revolution of recent years, and we want to fix this for the future. We want to ensure our public service media can continue to thrive and compete with global competitors as viewing shifts online so that they can continue to do what they do best. That is why we have committed to taking action to support public service media and the wider TV sector in the Creative Industries Sector Plan. We are also considering the findings in Ofcom’s public service media review, which will inform our work, and engaging with the sector on next steps. We also recognise the need to diversify the TV workforce, move commissioning out of London and ensure the whole nation is reflected in the story we tell about ourselves as a nation. We will work with the sector to ensure the right framework, conditions and support are in place for this to happen.
I have a couple more points which I will cover, but I am going to conclude to allow the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to respond before we run out of time for this debate.
On local news, which the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, raised, the Government recognise the importance of local media, including local TV and its role in providing trusted and accurate news at a local level. I am pleased that local TV licences have been renewed by Ofcom to enable local TV to continue until at least 2034.
In relation to a point about Netflix made by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, who asked for assurance on Netflix’s proposed acquisition of Warner Brothers, given the legal and commercial sensitivities involved, it would not be appropriate to comment on any potential live media merger involving US media companies, but should any merger progress, the Competition and Markets Authority will examine the implications for competition and consumers, providing relevant jurisdiction criteria are met. We remain in regular contact with stakeholders, including the BFI and the UK Cinema Association, on how best to support the UK film and cinema sectors.
I am going to ditch the bit on radio, although I love radio, as does the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, but I will again plug the programme by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, highlighted the pipeline that BBC Radio has provided for some of our greatest talent.
I will conclude there. It is clear from the debate today that UK broadcasting is at a pivotal moment. The Secretary of State was clear when she spoke at the Royal Television Society’s Cambridge Convention that public service media is fighting to be seen and heard in an increasingly competitive market. Our public service media is dealing with multiple challenges in funding, viewing habits and regulation. I know we will return to this debate throughout the year, but it has been a useful first step in our discussion on the future of broadcasting.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I am not remotely going to attempt a further summing up. We had a very good summing up from the Minister, and I congratulate her and the two spokesmen of the political parties on what they have said.
The debate has proved and established what I said at the beginning, which is that if you look at the Membership of the House of Lords, you find a great deal of experience in exactly this media area. I can only hope that the authorities, when they are organising future debates, will understand that that is the case.
I will mention three points, in headline terms, before sitting down. The first is the issue which was rightly raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester; I knew his predecessor and we had a very good working relationship, and I hope the same will be true with him. His emphasis on radio is vastly important, and many people in this country listen much more to radio than watch television, or certainly as much. Programmes such as “From Our Own Correspondent” open a window to a whole range of things overseas.
Secondly, I welcome the new services that have developed. It is quite interesting how they have developed since the last time I debated these issues. There is a new surge—a new verve—in new services being established. Obviously, the chief one I have in mind is Times Radio. I must say we are greatly privileged that the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, should have left his familiar position to support our debate, and I hope he finds it useful and valuable, too.
My third and last point is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, basically to say that he has pioneered and campaigned for more help for overseas aid, and his words and his—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I regret to say that under the rules for time limited debates, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed, and I am afraid I must put the Question on the Motion, if the noble Lord would sit down.
Mining: Pollution
Lord Oates
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s responsibility to ensure that mining companies which operated in former British colonies during colonial rule address pollution that their activities caused in those countries.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I tabled this debate to tell the story of the people of Kabwe, a city in Zambia which has been described as the world’s most polluted town, and to highlight the dangers of their experiences being replicated in the scramble for African resources currently under way. In doing so, I pay tribute to the people of Kabwe and those who are supporting them in their fight for justice and restitution, including Environment Africa, Action for Southern Africa—ACTSA—other civil society organisations and their legal advisers. In particular, I highlight the tireless work of ACTSA’s former director, Tricia Sibbons, who, with many others, has done so much to raise the profile of this issue in the United Kingdom. I also look forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on South Africa has championed the cause of Kabwe’s people.
Broken Hill mine, later Kabwe mine, operated from 1906 to 1994. Between 1925 and 1974, the most productive phase of its operation, it was owned by a now defunct company which was within the Anglo American group. The parent company of that group at the time was Anglo American South Africa Limited, AASA. During most of the period that the mine was operational, until Zambian independence in October 1964, the UK was the legal authority. The town and the mine were named after Broken Hill in New South Wales, where lead mining also took place and where the health impacts of lead poisoning were identified as early as 1893 in a report commissioned by the New South Wales Government.
Widespread and severe lead poisoning and the deaths of several children in the villages close to the Kabwe mine were identified by a series of Kabwe mine doctors, and in 1970 Professor Ronald Lane, a renowned public health expert from Manchester University, was commissioned by Anglo American to investigate and advise on the situation. He confirmed the mine doctors’ findings and advised on remedial measures, including replacing the topsoil and relocating communities. This advice was not heeded, on the grounds that it would be “far too expensive”.
The mine ceased operations in 1994, leaving an estimated 6.4 million tonnes of lead-bearing waste piles, leaching lead into the soil and water. The biggest waste heap left behind is known as “Black Mountain”, which blows dust into neighbouring areas with the wind. Very young children are the worst affected. They ingest the dust, which is all around them, when they suck their fingers. Many children develop an addiction to lead, which can taste sweet, leading them to eat contaminated soil.
In a powerful report, Life in the World’s Most Polluted Town, published by Environment Africa and ACTSA last October, Mary from the mine area of Kabwe says of her 14 year-old daughter Precious:
“Her health is not ok. When she is coughing it gets intense and she has flu most of the time, bleeding from the nose, low body weight and a poor appetite. She likes to eat soil and she eats it in huge quantities. It’s very difficult to stop her because she hides it most of the time and I know that it’s the very soil that contains lead. We took her to the clinic and it was discovered that she has lead in her blood”.
Bertha Musonda, the mother of children aged nine and 15, from the Kabwe district of Makululu, said:
“Before taking my children to the clinic I wondered why they were always coughing and were very forgetful … When I did, the results showed that they both had lead in their blood”.
Lead pollution is everywhere, blown as dust into homes and ingested through vegetables grown in contaminated soil. The US Environmental Protection Agency defines lead contamination in soil above 200 milligrams per kilogram as a hazard for residents. In Kabwe it reaches as high as 60,000 milligrams. There is no safe level of lead in the blood. Leading medical experts advise that brain damage, in particular cognitive impairment, occurs with any elevated blood lead level—BLL—above zero. It is estimated that 140,000 people in Kabwe have lead poisoning—that is, BLLs above 5 milligrams per decilitre of blood.
Loveness, the mother of a six year-old girl and a three year-old boy, also from Makululu in Kabwe, took her children to the clinic to be tested for lead poisoning, because they were constantly sick. They had blood lead levels of 40 milligrams and 45 milligrams respectively, far in excess of the WHO reference point for blood poisoning of 5 milligrams. Studies have found that in Kabwe’s “Central Villages”, average BLLs for children exceed 50 milligrams. By way of comparison, a 2021 £467 million settlement relating to water contamination in Flint, Michigan, comprised 90,000 individuals whose BLLs were almost entirely below 10 milligrams per decilitre.
An application to allow a class action against Anglo American South Africa is currently before the South African courts. AASA denies liability. The legal action is a last resort because, as the ACTSA/Environment Africa report says:
“The Kabwe story should not be about legal wrangling over who left what when: there is no doubt that the pollution results from the extractive process, negligence in waste disposal, and refusal to protect residents … The Kabwe story should be one of deep regret by those responsible, of negotiation with and compensation from those who profited, as well as health testing and urgent care for those already affected … we must see full remediation of the environment, such that all children and adults live free from lead poisoning, that subsistence farming by families is again possible, agriculture is restored, and a green and pleasant land—every Zambian’s birthright—is finally a reality for future generations”.
In responding to this debate, I hope that the Minister will address the following questions. As the colonial authority during most of the period in which the Kabwe mine operated and produced pollution, what assessment have the UK Government made of their moral responsibility to bring their influence to bear on the relevant parties to address this issue? What discussions have the Government had specifically with Anglo American to encourage it to clean up the toxic legacy left behind by one of its own group companies? What assessment have the UK Government made of the impact of the severe cuts to UK bilateral development support to Zambia on Zambia’s ability to mitigate the social and economic impacts of the British legacy in Kabwe?
Sadly, the people of Kabwe are far from alone in suffering from the impacts of extractive industries around the world, and a new scramble for African resources threatens to create yet more toxic legacies. So what role is the UK playing in international fora to hold mining companies and other extractive industries accountable for the damage that they inflict on local communities? We owe it to Mary, Bertha, Loveness and their children, and tens of thousands of others in Kabwe, to ensure not only that they receive justice and restitution but that we do all we can to prevent the current scramble for African resources creating a plethora of new Kabwes.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on a very good speech, on securing this debate and on his solidarity work for the charity Action for Southern Africa, of which I am an honorary vice-president. It organised an excellent event in a room in your Lordships’ House, which I hosted, at which a victim still resident in Kabwe spoke movingly alongside Her Excellency the Zambian High Commissioner.
The main point I want to raise is that, on 21 November 2025, Anglo American announced a “partnership” with the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to
“support inclusive growth and sustainable development through Anglo American’s Impact Finance Network (IFN) in South Africa”.
Beginning this month, January 2026, the FCDO will provide £4.5 million, which is 100 million in Zambia’s currency, over four years to support Anglo American’s impact finance network programme in South Africa.
Since the aim of the grant is to
“support inclusive growth and sustainable development”,
how does this square with Anglo being accused by communities around the world of working against that very aim? Did the FCDO consult any relevant communities, NGOs or civil society organisations, such as Action for Southern Africa, before making that grant? Was any due diligence conducted into Anglo American’s role in the contracting by thousands of Southern African miners of TB and silicosis, and in the deliberate delaying of those miners receiving the compensation they won in a landmark 2019 legal case?
Was due diligence conducted in regard to Anglo American’s role in lead pollution in Kabwe, about which the noble Lord, Lord Oates, spoke so movingly and accurately, particularly in the light of class action proceedings revealing how much the company knew about the lead pollution and the serious nature of it, before it handed on to its successor company one of the world’s most polluted towns—if not the world’s most polluted town—where 95% of children have lead poisoning?
I ask these questions while recognising that Anglo American played an important role in developing employment and growth across the African continent and elsewhere. However, this surely must be compatible with social justice and human rights. The UK Labour Government are supposed to support those principles, as I, as a former Labour Minister on Africa for the United Kingdom, once did as well.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for his excellent introduction, because stories touch both the heart and the mind, harrowing as those stories of the people of Kabwe were that he shared with your Lordships.
This debate is timely because of the geopolitical tensions that we face currently, many of them connected to minerals needed to power our economies today as well as the economy of the future. Although much of the attention is focused on new mineral deposits, a key issue that is deeply relevant to the whole mining sector is how the legacy is addressed. Many companies that existed in the past no longer exist or have been subsumed into very different entities today. Some of these are still listed on the London Stock Exchange and therefore still have a relationship with their historic legacy, while others do not. The consequence is that many countries to which the UK has historic ties have legacy mine sites that can be anything from waste from a site, such as tailings waste, through to the old mine site itself.
Through the Church of England Pensions Board, which is a £3.6 billion pension fund serving the long-term interests of 44,000 members who have been members of the clergy or otherwise working for the Church, the role of mining has been a particular focus in recent years. The board recognises the systemic importance of mining to many of the other sectors upon which modern life depends and which the board is also invested in, such as aviation, shipping, construction, autos, technology and energy, to name but a few. But a particular focus of the board’s work has been on this issue of legacy, particularly related to mine waste, often contained in tailings dams, which, if not managed correctly, can cause significant social and environmental impacts. We have seen major disasters such as at Brumadinho in Brazil, killing 272 people, and at Jagersfontein in South Africa, killing two people and causing significant environmental damage.
To address this issue, the pensions board has led a global initiative with the support of both the UN and the mining industry to drive safety in tailings waste management by companies today. This has resulted in a global industry standard on tailings management with the creation of an independent Global Tailings Management Institute headquartered in South Africa. However, this still leaves the issue of the wider legacy of sites that are not operated by companies today or that are classed as orphaned, which litter the landscape of so many former British colonies and pose risks to communities and the environment around them.
Addressing that issue, which is deeply relevant to companies today whether they have legal liability or not due to the need to gain and retain the industry’s social licence to extract, requires an additional set of interventions. Through the Global Investor Commission on Mining 2030, which was set up and is chaired by the Church of England’s Pensions Board and backed by 100 investors with over $17 trillion under management, the commission laid out at the end of last year a set of recommendations on legacy. They will form a key part of conversations between the commission and the presidency of South Africa next month.
A couple of points arise from that. First, the commission notes that with many operations transitioning to closure in the next 10 or 20 years, coupled with the opening of new mines in so many different places, it is crucial to reflect on historical as well as future legacies and the role of investors in shaping a positive legacy for all. Investors have clearly indicated their expectation that the industry must address existing legacies while ensuring that new and operating sites create lasting value for people and nature.
Secondly, the commission has called for and is now working to support national-based legacy initiatives to rehabilitate unsafe or abandoned facilities using innovative financial mechanisms that incentivise reprocessing old mine waste to extract both the original and other minerals, as well as repurposing mine site land. Importantly, the investor commission is now working with the United Nations to create a global legacy fund to support the rehabilitation of lost or abandoned sites that do not have economic potential. Such a fund could support national-based solutions to long-standing abandoned mine sites, while also creating opportunities for local employment and economic diversification. The hope is that the first such demonstration of such an approach could be in South Africa and could provide a model that, if successful, could be replicated in other nations.
Given this unique collaboration and the historic relationship of the United Kingdom to many of the countries in which these legacy sites still exist, would the Minister be willing to meet staff of the Church of England Pensions Board? Will she commit to assessing whether His Majesty’s Government might support such a legacy fund through the UN? Indeed, joining the potential pilot in South Africa may be a very practical first step for His Majesty’s Government in supporting an approach to addressing this difficult issue of legacy. The benefit of doing so will be not only to the local communities of which the noble Lord, Lord Oates, gave such an incredibly moving snapshot case study—local communities blighted by the legacy of these mines—but to the whole mining sector and to our economy, which is intimately linked to what we extract.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, to thank very sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for securing this important debate and essentially to say that I agree with pretty well everything that has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, set out very clearly for us the absolute horror and tragedy of Kabwe. In preparing for this debate, I found out about the FCDO action mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I would like to say that I was surprised, but I am afraid I was not. It is very concerning, and there are serious questions. I hope we will hear some answers from the Minister.
I am not going to repeat the tale so powerfully presented to us by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, about Kabwe, the world’s most toxic town, but we are primarily talking about the actions of Anglo American. It is, I am afraid, a company now notorious in history. It is facing calls for accountability in South Africa, Peru and Chile, as well as in Zambia. In Chile, its actions have led to the irreversible destruction of glaciers, and that has compounded water scarcity issues in Peru. Local agriculture and indigenous ways of life have been endangered.
Of course, it is not just one company; we are talking about a systemic problem with an industry with a terrible track record. I am going to make two arguments for why we need to see urgent action from the Government on cleaning up colonial legacies and looking towards the present and the future. There are normative arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, spoke about doing the moral thing, the right thing, but I will make some practical arguments about why it is in the interests of our health and security to ensure that we have a clean-up and do not make further messes. This toxic legacy of colonialism has real impacts on our health and security today.
I note that that the UK has endorsed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, but it has failed to ensure that British companies are complying with them. There has been great concern about the critical minerals strategy released in November, which has attracted criticism from communities around the world as well as from non-governmental organisations. We are talking about signing several critical mineral partnerships and agreements with nine countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan and South Africa. There are real concerns attached to those agreements. Communities living on the front lines have warned that the actions associated with British government action will have destructive environmental and human health impacts.
Eric Mokuoa of the Bench Marks Foundation in South Africa said that the British action is going to
“fuel social and environmental injustices across global supply chains”.
That is why I am very happy to associate the Green Party, as I have before, with the call for a business, human rights and environment Act, as has been called for by the Corporate Justice Coalition of more than 40 organisations across the UK. We have to not keep making the same mistakes as we have made again and again over the centuries.
I also note a briefing that I received from Spotlight on Corruption, the London Mining Network and Culture Unstained about the Adani Group, which is the world’s largest private coal developer, associated with huge problems with pollution, particularly in India, violent displacement of indigenous communities and, in Australia, serious ecological harms to indigenous sites and delicate ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef. That, of course, is not a colonial company, but the British links are very large and very clear. UK banks Barclays and Standard Chartered arranged in March 2024 a $409 million bond issue for Adani Green Energy, which is a publicly traded company listed in India, but Adani Energy Holdings Ltd is registered in the UK. I note also that there are considerable questions about the financial arrangements of the Adani Group.
That brings me to a broader point about how mining pollution is often physical, but pollution is also often connected to corruption, in terms of theft from local communities and theft from nations, and these are all interrelated. Those are the moral arguments, but I come now to the practical arguments.
I am going to raise an issue that I am sure will surprise some noble Lords. No, I have not picked up the wrong page from another speech. I am going to raise the issue of antimicrobial resistance. There is definite evidence for mining activity and sites being associated with elevated levels of antimicrobial resistance. We come to the point that we learned during Covid that no one is safe until everyone is safe from infectious diseases. Public health is a global issue, and antimicrobial resistance essentially threatens the health of us all: it threatens the survival of modern medicine.
I go first to a study from the journal Environmental Pollution in 2022, about antibiotic-resistant bacteria and antibiotic-resistant genes in a uranium mine. This is a study from China. What you are looking at is heavy metals co-selecting for antibiotic resistance. Essentially, if you think about this, the organism gets a threat to its own health. It boosts up its own defences, and those defences can work both against heavy metals and against antibiotics. That was work in China, and that was also citing some work done with two iron ore mines and a lead/zinc mine in Iran, where they found elevated AMR.
If we want to look at our own colonial legacy, there is a very interesting paper put out by researchers from Newcastle University and IIT Delhi, looking at urban rivers in the UK and India. In our own River Tyne, there are elevated levels of AMR associated with historic mining and industrial activity, and the same thing was found in India. We do not know very much about this yet, but everywhere we look we find what we expect to find. Those AMR genes and AMR organisms do not stay in those places: they move.
Another study, not on heavy metals or on mining directly, came out last month on PFAS, the forever chemicals, which showed how the seafood trade is actually spreading PFAS around the world. From areas of hotspots of PFAS, the seafood is then exported to other places and eaten. I have no doubt that we are going to see the same sort of thing happening with heavy metal- and mining-related pollution.
To conclude, we need to think very hard about what we are doing now. We need to acknowledge that every form of mining is going to have a deleterious environmental impact. We need to minimise that, but we also need to think about what we are mining these materials for, and what they are being used for. This is a small plea for mindful mining: for not trashing more of this fragile planet and not causing damage that we do not need to cause.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Oates on securing this debate, the powerful way he introduced it and exposing the shame and the scandal of Kabwe. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his continued campaign in that area, and the Church of England pensions board’s work on legacy, which I found interesting and worth while.
I want to make a more general point about where this has come from, and where it is going. “The flag follows trade” was the describing motto of the growth of the British Empire and started with the East India Company before extending everywhere. I have statistics for 1906, which show that the percentages of the world’s yield of mining production from the British Empire were as follows: gold, 60%; silver, 12%; tin, 73%; copper, 9%; lead, 15%; iron, 18%; nickel, 60%; manganese, 40%l coal, 30%; asbestos, 90%; graphite, 45%; mica, 90%; and diamonds, 98%. Mining continued throughout the colonial period and beyond, even if newly independent countries had a little more control.
I do not make a wholesale denunciation of the Empire: there were benefits in terms of infrastructure, the rule of law, education and the English language. But the prime objective of the Empire was to benefit Britain, and the consequences—good and bad—for the local populations were just incidental. When Harold Macmillan made his “wind of change” speech in South Africa in 1960, he set in train the process of decolonisation. It is worth recording. He said:
“The wind of change is blowing through this continent and, whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it”.
In the 10 years I had the privilege of chairing the International Development Committee, I travelled to many former British colonies. I found a remarkable amount of good will for the positive aspects of the legacy, and appreciation of our aid, in the amounts and the way in which it was delivered, but disappointment at our distance and lack of post-independence partnership. Of course, all this was before the slashing of our official development assistance. I am disappointed, to put it mildly, and sometimes outraged by the language used by Ministers to justify these cuts. Referring to our development assistance as a
“giant cashpoint in the sky”,
as Boris Johnson did, was as ignorant as it was offensive.
However, saying that that is outdated and patronising also undermines the impressive way that delivery of aid and development assistance matured under successive Governments, as we moved to deliver 0.7%. The drive behind the post-war settlement, the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions and the commitment to 0.7% were an acknowledgement that industrialised countries had grown rich partially, but very significantly, on the back of exploiting poorer countries; in other words, there is a moral imperative to work with former colonies today to help them achieve poverty elimination and prosperity.
I never denied the challenges, and always looked for what worked, what could be replicated, and how corruption could be curtailed and capacity and resilience strengthened. I think that UK aid focused well on that. What impressed me was how we focused on poverty reduction, with support for health systems, education, and the rights of women and girls as an essential underpinning. But now, faced with the world’s challenges, we choose to downgrade our commitment to continue to help the countries we exploited to help them secure their place in the world, or at least to the ambition of ending absolute poverty and leaving no one behind. What chance in the present circumstances do we now have of achieving that by 2030?
Our influence in what, for shorthand, is called the global South is diminishing and being displaced by an expansionist China and a disruptive, exploitative Russia. It is therefore not just a moral responsibility to acknowledge our legacy but in our direct current interests to show our former colonies that we are here to co-operate in helping their development and the elimination of poverty. I know, because I have heard the Minister before, that she will say that we aim to do things differently and it is not all about aid. However, quoting the Premier League, trade, investment, culture, education and so on goes only so far, mostly because they are beyond the Government’s control, financial support and responsibility. It is difficult to see how new ambitions can be achieved on the back of such a dramatic reduction in the funding of initiatives.
Can the Minister tell us what practical steps the Government will take to promote trade and investment in former colonies, especially in Africa? What soft power initiatives are planned to highlight the positive impact of UK plc across developing countries? How will the Government work with the private sector to promote trade and investment, and get it to consider funding development initiatives such as education, skills training, and upgrading infrastructure to deliver clean water and energy to more people? It is this that will create the climate where their businesses will flourish.
I can give examples of where the private sector can help. For example, when Botswana discovered diamonds shortly after achieving independence, it sought the best advice as to how to optimise this benefit, appointing one of the world’s leading diamond valuers. This led to a 50:50 partnership with De Beers, a company called Debswana. This partnership has added value by bringing diamond finishing to Botswana and has enabled Botswana to use the funds for public good and improve living standards. That is the positive way it could be done but, sadly, not the way it is often done.
I also chair a charity, Water Unite, which has attracted private funding to invest in sustainable businesses in developing countries to produce clean water, improve sanitation and recycle plastics. Funding has come from a levy on the sale of bottled water and soft drinks by the Co-op and other retailers, as well as an impact fund, which has attracted funding from private high net worth individuals and foundations. This has a potential to develop, free of taxpayers and on the back on the private sector. It would be helpful if the Government could help promote more of these kinds of initiatives.
The Government say that public support for aid and development has diminished. I am not convinced they are right about that, but to the extent that it is true it is because political leadership has undermined what was a strong cross-party initiative.
We are still exploiting people from poor developing countries by encouraging them to come here to do the jobs our people do not want to do, and paying them less. We then give them a lowly and vulnerable status and change the rules under which they came and can stay. If we truly want to reduce immigration then we need to ensure that developing countries are able to offer hope and prospects at home. We need to find ways of reducing dependence on immigration by attracting UK-based labour to fill vacancies.
Perhaps the Government could do more to test public opinion by offering more support for UK Aid Match—I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group for Aid Match—to see how generous the public will be if they know the Government will match their contribution, and I mean really match by giving extra funds, not just moving the budget around. The test for government rhetoric will be how all threads of UK engagement are woven together and the extent to which this delivers genuine progress in partner countries. We exploited many countries; we are still doing it. I do not support the case for reparations, but I understand how the demand may grow if we sow such indifference to our legacy and lack a positive current engagement to make a difference.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I also pay tribute to and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on securing this debate and the powerful way in which he introduced it. No one could have failed to have been moved by the case that he outlined, so ably reinforced by the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I am afraid I have not had the opportunity to research the details of the case he mentioned, so I will not comment on it. I am sure what he says is absolutely correct, but as I do not know the details so it would be wrong for me to express a view. I address my remarks, like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, more on the generality of the issue.
Putting that case aside, it is generally unclear how much pollution was caused by mining companies in former colonies during colonial rule. It is difficult even to estimate the extent of mining which took place. The environmental impacts of different mining activities in different settings will be varied. Our understanding and the metrics of pollution are now, rightly, undoubtedly far more advanced than those of our predecessors. Mining is an essential activity for many of the advances in human existence that we all want to see but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I also want to see it done responsibly and with the appropriate controls.
There are many cases throughout history, as well as today, of environmental damage being caused by mining malpractice, not least in our own country. In February last year, at least 50,000 tonnes of acidic debris were spilled from a tailings dam at a copper mine in Zambia, operated by a subsidiary of a Chinese state-owned company. Even that figure is probably an underestimate of the damage. It is entirely right that such cases are investigated where laws may have been broken, and the strongest possible action should be taken.
Mining activities took place long before and after the British Empire, including in former colonies. Moreover, the mining industry continues to make a valuable contribution to our economy to this day, with 2,000 mines and quarries still active in our own country. It is inevitable that mining activities have some environmental impact; what is important is how they are regulated and how to minimise those impacts as much as possible. Our knowledge and the technology to enable us to do that is advancing all the time. For example, in some instances the British Empire implemented environmental laws, licensing systems for mining companies to manage resources and proper regulation to protect mine workers. I am sure we could have done more, but we did a lot.
In this century, the previous Government took action on the environment with the international community, investing £2.4 billion-worth of international climate finance between 2016 and 2020 into adaptation, including areas of loss and damage. Moreover, UK Export Finance added climate resilience debt clauses to loan agreements with 12 African and Caribbean countries.
However, although we support international co-operation, this Question for Short Debate asserts that it is the UK’s responsibility to determine how mining companies should behave in now independent countries. The problem, of course, is that this would mean acting as though they were almost still colonies, unable to determine their own laws and regulations or make their own agreements with the private sector.
As I have mentioned, determining the pollution caused by mining activities during the colonial period is far from straightforward. I am aware that Carbon Brief ranks the UK fourth in the world when accounting for colonial emissions, but this is not specific to mining, nor does it recognise that these colonies had their own mining sectors prior to the colonial period. Furthermore, those ranked at the top for carbon emissions happen to be a former British colony, the US, and China.
I fear that some of the arguments, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, indicated, mirror the arguments for reparations more broadly, which my noble friend Lord Biggar has so expertly countered in his writing and articles. To clarify, I am not saying that the UK should do nothing on the world stage to address pollution. As I have said, the previous Government were strongly committed to international co-operation on the environment. The All-Party Group for Africa, which the noble Lord, Lord Oates, co-chairs, published in May last year its report on how the UK can help to support Africa’s energy transition, recommending that the Government increase support for private sector investment in the continent’s renewable energy sources.
The UK should also offer support to Commonwealth countries to help them put in place their own enforceable regulations, especially against those with no interest in good practice at all. This is not the same as requiring mining companies to address pollution they may or may not have caused during historical periods when the impacts were not fully understood and the same standards that we have today were not in place.
It is vital to interpret analyses of historical mining pollution with caution and think carefully about the ethical and legal approaches involved when it comes to making requirements on surviving mining companies. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s contribution on this topic.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for his speech. I was moved by what he had to say and the accounts he shared with us. They really brought to life the issues that we are turning our attention to, which too often can seem very distant and abstract. I was affected a great deal by what the noble Lord said about mothers and the children they are caring for, and the impact this is having on their health, possibly for the rest of their lives. I appreciate the way that he talked about that. I also thank him for his leadership and tenacity on this over some time, and I extend that compliment to my noble friend Lord Hain; I know that they have worked together on this over probably many years.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, started with a plea that the episode at Kabwe should serve as a lesson. I hear that. Some clear lessons can be learned, and they should instruct our approach to extractive industries in the future. There is no doubt, from what I have learned, that extractive industries are here to stay and that we will not be able to decarbonise without them, so it is vital that, in future, mining is always done responsibly, to the highest standards, and that those standards are required internationally. The UK is working to make sure that those standards can be agreed, implemented and enforced. That is not straightforward, as was reflected in some of your Lordships’ speeches, but it is certainly the intention of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked specifically what the UK Government are doing. I can assure him that I have been in touch with the British high commissioner in Pretoria, who is following the legal case that is still taking place, which my noble friend Lord Hain also referred to. It is being followed carefully and closely, and the high commissioner in Pretoria is in close contact with everybody he needs to be about that. I will get back in touch with him following this debate to get an up-to-date assessment of where that is and what we can expect to see.
My noble friend Lord Hain asked me about the FCDO’s partnership. The partnership is with the Anglo American Foundation, so it is separate from the corporation. We always do due diligence ahead of these things. He asked us to make sure that social justice and human rights are fundamental to our approach, and I assure him that they are. Anglo American is an important company. It is difficult to see how mining can continue globally to the extent needed without Anglo American, but what really matters is that we confront the legacies of the past and appropriate steps are taken in that regard, and that, moving forward, mining is done responsibly so that we never again see the kind of impact on a community that we have seen.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich spoke about the pension investments and invited me to meet to discuss legacy issues with trustees there. I am very happy to do that. I thank the Church of England Pensions Board for its participation in the emerging markets and developing economies taskforce, where we work with big investors in the City to try to encourage them to invest more in developing economies. In a moment, I will get on to the points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, around development assistance more generally, but part of our more modern approach is that we need to work with the City and public markets, where the many trillions of dollars are held that we need to get flowing into those developing economies. In the end, that is how development will happen on a sustainable basis. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, our approach to overseas assistance has developed—not that there was anything wrong with what was happening before; it is just that we will be doing things differently. The Church of England is a full participant in that, and I am grateful for it and happy to have the meetings that he suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is a lovely man, who I respect very much. He has done a huge amount for international development through the years and has forgotten more than I will probably ever know. He has heard me say this several times before, but perhaps this is an opportunity to persuade him a little that what we are doing in our approach to development has some merit. I point out that the size of African economies combined is $2.8 trillion and the amount of development assistance in Africa at peak ODA was around $70 billion, so about 2.5% of the money in Africa has come from development assistance. This is the scale of the challenge that we have an ambition to meet in Africa. It is vital that we meet it, because turning away and leaving conditions to deteriorate as they have—I know that the Sahel is a particular concern for many Members of this House—makes the whole world less secure. We see problems with extremism and antimicrobial resistance, as has been mentioned. Health is a good example of intervention from the UK, not just through development assistance but through technical expertise and work to promote health security. The Ebola and mpox outbreaks were dealt with quickly and effectively, and we did not see the more widespread infection that we might have done because of the work that we were able to do, alongside partners in-country, to support communities and countries to handle them in the right way.
The noble Lord asked how we are working to promote trade. We have some practical initiatives to promote trade in Africa. Previous approaches have been good—this is not a criticism at all, it is just that we have to continue to refresh and evolve our approach—but what will make the biggest difference is allowing countries to trade with one another, and then, when they want to, to trade with us freely as well. Our developing countries trading scheme removes rules of origin requirements on countries, for example, so they can trade with us without having to prove where every last component came from, if they came from developing countries. That encourages more trade with Africa.
We are working closely through the BII, UKEF and the World Bank on how we improve African infrastructure. That is how they will be able to facilitate more of that trade, grow their economies, and become self-sufficient and less dependent on aid, which is what they tell us they want. This is how they want us to work. The reason we had such a strong World Bank IDA pledge this year is that we know that, by working that way, we get far more money into developing economies than we have ever been able to do through bilateral aid programmes, which in some cases have fostered dependency and undermined the ability of countries to lead their own processes and strengthen their own systems. They want to educate their own children and devise their own healthcare, appropriate to them, and that is what we want to support them in doing.
Where bilateral aid is the best way in which to do that, we will continue to do it, and we will continue to be leaders in humanitarian support. More often now, it is about investment and support for building systems, and enabling countries such as Ghana, Rwanda and Ethiopia, by supporting them in growing their own tax base so that they can get every year more than they have ever had in ODA to spend on their own public services. That is what they say they want and that is how we are going to work with them. We had a good launch of our new Africa approach—I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for the work that he did to bring that about. It is all about moving more towards partnership and away from some of the paternalistic approaches of the past.
To return to the main subject of the debate this afternoon, it is right to say that we have seen the enduring scars that have been left by damaging mining practices around the world. Sympathy is not a sufficient word, but we have complete respect for and a desire to work to support those who have been affected. The Government are determined to ensure that future mining does not repeat those mistakes and that we embed responsible and sustainable practices that put local communities at their heart.
I was able to visit Anglo American when I was in Chile last year. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned that, in many countries in Latin America and Africa, too often there have been situations where local communities have not been prioritised in any way—I come from the north-east; mining is part of my region, and to this day I see the scars that can be left. The mine was operated from an office block in central Santiago. Men who had worked underground at the face of the mine for years were now working in an office building close to their homes, so they did not have to travel and be away from their families for days or weeks on end and they could work safely using high-tech equipment. It was clear that that is something of the future of mining, and it is the kind of approach that we are going to see more often.
There is a big leap to be taken from the practices that we still too often see to that new, modern and safe approach, but that is what the UK is working to achieve. Governance is essential to this. From my perspective as a Development Minister, this is about ensuring that mineral wealth can translate into long-term development gains, rather than environmental degradation, corruption or, too often, conflict.
We know that critical mineral reserves in the developing world can support inclusive and sustainable economic development, but that must be done under the right conditions. We are going to work alongside our partners so that mining and mineral processing are carried out to high environmental, social and government standards. Very often, we see the extraction take place in a country, but the processing—the piece of the process where the biggest value is added—takes place somewhere else. We need to look at that and make sure that the countries that hold mineral wealth can get the benefit of it.
This is all part of the Government’s commitment to supporting UK business in pursuit of economic growth. We want British companies to be successful, but we expect them to follow relevant law and align with appropriate international standards. Under the Companies Act 2006, all directors in the UK are required to consider the impact of operations, including on the community and environment, when they make decisions. Since 2019, large companies are required to disclose in their annual reports how they have done that. In addition, quoted companies and large public interest entities are required to report on social matters in respect of human rights as part of their annual reports and accounts.
Responsibility is central to the UK’s international approach to critical minerals. We are using our multilateral and bilateral agreements to promote high standards globally. In addition, we are reviewing our approach to responsible business conduct policy, focusing on the global supply chains of businesses operating in the UK.
We advocate for binding frameworks and voluntary standards. That includes the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, OECD standards, and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, which we helped to establish. These encourage companies to avoid, mitigate and remediate environmental and social impacts in areas at high risk and affected by conflict.
We support transparency and good governance. The UK co-founded the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and funds the Natural Resource Governance Institute to help countries manage mining revenues responsibly. Through our global initiatives, we help countries to ensure that the mining of metals and minerals, particularly in tropical forest regions, is carried out responsibly. This is how we minimise harm to nature, as well as harm to indigenous peoples and local communities, which is most relevant to this debate. It is their forests and their home, and they are the people who preserve these precious global assets on the world’s behalf.
The UK works alongside countries on everything from investigations to scholarships to satellite technology, and we must continue to do so. Some 30% of known global critical mineral deposits are in Africa, and this is at the heart of the UK’s new approach to the continent, which is ongoing dialogue and partnership built on fairness and respect. We are focused on making progress on many priorities, from security to education, health and the growth and opportunity that people everywhere want.
All this is part of our commitment to tackling the climate and nature crisis in a socially just and responsible way, leading by example wherever we can. This includes our 2035 nationally determined contributions target to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% on 1990 levels. We are cutting emissions faster than any other country in the G7 while growing our economy.
The world has seen too often what can go devastatingly wrong when Governments do not take a lead and when they step back. We are improving the international approach to mining and, again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for his moving introduction, which reminds us why this matters so much, not just on an environmental and industrial level but, at the end of the day, for people trying to live their lives with dignity and securing the health of their children. I am very grateful to him for what he said at the beginning of this debate.
Schools and Universities: Language Learning
(2 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
That this House takes note of measures, such as visa waivers, to improve the supply chain of qualified modern foreign language teachers and the sustainability of language learning in schools and universities.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as co-chair of the APPG on Modern Languages and honorary president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists which, along with the British Council and the British Academy, supports the APPG. I am a languages graduate myself in Spanish and French and a current student of Arabic at the FCDO’s excellent language centre.
My intention today is not just to stand here and recite complaints and problems about the teaching and learning of modern languages but to propose constructive, practical and achievable measures for repair and improvement. Neither will I go into great detail on the importance of languages, because I know that the Minister is already well aware of their value, not just as part of a balanced, enriching curriculum but for the benefit, security and prosperity of the UK as a nation. As the statutory guidance for the national curriculum says,
“Learning a language is ‘a liberation from insularity and provides an opening to other cultures’. It helps to equip pupils with the knowledge and cultural capital they need to succeed in life”.
I will cite only a very few facts and statistics to summarise this broad sweep of a case for languages before turning to the practicalities of the remedies.
First, research from Cambridge University has shown that, if we spent more on teaching French, Spanish, Arabic and Mandarin in schools, the UK could increase its export growth by £19 billion a year. Other research shows that the lack of language skills in the workforce costs the UK economy the equivalent of 3.5% of GDP. Secondly, students who have spent a year abroad building their international and cross-cultural experience as well as their language skills are 23% less likely to be unemployed after graduation. I am of course delighted that the UK will be rejoining Erasmus+, which was and will again be one important factor in the potential supply chain of MFL teachers.
Thirdly, it is a myth that everybody speaks English. On the contrary, only 5% of the world’s population are native English speakers and 75% speak no English at all. AI and machine translation are no substitute for human communication, with its nuance, slang, humour and accuracy, which trump AI tendencies to confuse and hallucinate, confuse numbers and names or fail to deal with dialects or tonal languages.
But the fact is that, however desirable we might make languages at school, and in whatever format they are prescribed or assessed, it is all meaningless if we do not have anyone to teach them. The teacher supply chain is the key to the sustainability of languages in schools and universities.
My focus today is on how to remedy the dramatic shortage of language teachers, how to cut through the vicious circle we are in, where GCSE take-up has stalled, so A-level take-up has fallen, so applications to do languages at university have plummeted, so more and more universities are scrapping language degrees and fewer and fewer potential UK-trained language teachers are being produced. It is like that song “There’s a hole in my bucket”, where you end up with the same problem you started with, despite having gone round and round in circles with a series of steps to mend it.
Even if every single one of the students currently doing a language degree went into teaching, we still would not come close to meeting the shortfall of qualified teachers. Only 43% of the Government’s recruitment target was met in 2024. Although the published target for 2025-26 has been 93% met, I am afraid this is only because the target itself was cut by nearly half—so not really anything to write home about.
We badly need a package of measures which does three things: first, removes the barriers which are preventing foreign nationals, especially EU nationals, training here to be MFL teachers; secondly, removes the barriers preventing foreign nationals who have completed that training in the UK going on to accept job offers; and, thirdly, improves the pipeline of homegrown MFL teachers.
This is a good point to indicate that very similar problems and solutions are also relevant for maths and physics teachers, where reliance on overseas recruitment is at least as great as for modern languages. Some of my proposals are within the remit not of the DfE but of the Home Office, but there could not be a better Minister to take up those issues with her colleagues there.
Issue number one is that nearly half the UK’s trainee language teachers are foreign nationals. But anyone would think we were trying to deter them, not encourage them. Bursaries have been reduced from £26,000 to £20,000 and scholarships from £28,000 to £22,000. The bursary does not always even cover the basic costs of the training fee for international students, which varies enormously between providers. In Cambridge this year, for example, it is nearly £40,000.
Universities often ask for half the fees in advance, but the bursary is paid in instalments, which leads to many students taking on debt in order to train. A recent report from the Institute of Physics revealed that some trainee physics teachers were resorting to sleeping in libraries and using food banks. The international relocation payment of £10,000 was scrapped in April 2024. So I ask the Minister whether she will restore the level of bursaries and scholarships and reinstate the relocation payment.
Once students are qualified, another set of obstacles appears. Instead of achieving a strategically sensible return on investment, we now make it as difficult as possible for the teachers we have trained to teach in a UK classroom. The problem now is visas and immigration rules. Overseas teachers must apply and pay for a skilled worker visa, together with the NHS surcharge. The school offering the job must also sponsor the visa, which comes at another cost.
The APPG has heard a great deal of evidence from schools reporting that they cannot or will not do that, because they do not have the funds or admin staff to deal with it. This is a critical problem. Despite the existence of DfE guidance, many schools say that the process of applying for the sponsor visa is unbelievably complicated and costly and, since the graduate visa route was reduced in duration to 18 months, it is no longer a viable route for early career teachers, whose induction period is two years. The official guidance is clearly not cutting through and must be made clearer, more effective and more upfront, because our data suggest that up to half of international trainees fail to secure employment after qualifying.
I have questions for the Minister on this aspect of the supply chain. Will she back a visa waiver for qualified MFL teachers recruited to teach in state schools and actively encourage the Home Office to introduce it? If it needs to be piloted first, will her department and/or Home Office colleagues provide rapid, streamlined guidance to schools on how to apply for the sponsor visa and reduce or relieve altogether the costs of doing so? Will she restore the graduate visa to 24 months so that it aligns with the induction period for early career teachers? These are all relatively low-cost, swiftly implementable measures whose impact could be easily and quickly evaluated. We are going to continue relying on overseas recruitment of MFL teachers until or unless we can produce more of our own. The immigration White Paper from last May sets out an expectation that employers will prioritise the so-called domestic workforce but, for MFL teachers, no adequate domestic workforce exists, because we produce so few graduate linguists. So a special case for a visa waiver must be made.
I turn finally to what can be done to improve the sustainability of languages in our schools and universities, to cut through the vicious circle I described earlier. Two immediate critical interventions could make an effective start. The first would be an advanced modern languages premium for secondary schools and colleges, modelled on the successful advanced maths premium introduced in 2017, the purpose of which would be to boost A-level take-up. The British Academy calculated in 2021 that achieving a 20% increase in the take-up of modern languages at A-level would cost around £3 million a year. The policy is widely supported across the sector. So, while the DfE is giving more thought to flexible languages pathways and GCSEs in response to the recent curriculum and assessment review, will the Minister at least commit to an advanced languages premium to boost A-levels as an immediate and hopefully even temporary measure? In combination with a visa waiver, this could be a quick win to help spark the chain reaction and step change we need.
More A-level take-up would lead to more applications to study languages at university, where language degrees are in crisis: in many cases, in terminal decline or already dead. They survive in only 10 post-1992 universities, and provision in the Russell group has already begun to crack with the recently announced plans from Nottingham. Cold spots reveal distinct inequality of provision towards students from less privileged backgrounds, which of course is compounded later by worse employability after graduation. Cuts in languages at HE level have a serious knock-on effect in economic, diplomatic and research competitiveness, as well as the teacher supply chain. Closures of courses in Mandarin, Russian and Arabic are a particular threat to the UK’s pipeline of specialist linguists needed for defence and security roles.
However, resuscitation is possible, as well as urgent. My key recommendation for an immediate measure to stem the tide of cuts and closures is for university modern language degrees to receive category C1 strategic funding from the Office for Students. Currently, as I understand it, its allocations focus mainly on STEM subjects, on the grounds that they are of strategic importance and cost more to provide. Archaeology also attracts this level of additional strategic funding. The same can, and must, be said of language degrees, which are more teaching intensive compared to other humanities subjects, requiring more contact hours, smaller classes, provision of new languages taught from scratch and, of course, the sustainability of the third year abroad, which is often described as “the jewel in the crown” of a languages degree and is very highly valued by prospective employers. Languages’ strategic importance to critical industries and functions of the state should be much better acknowledged by this additional funding. Does the Minister agree, and will she exert as much pressure and influence as she can on the OfS to take this on?
I have intentionally focused on a small number of measures which could be taken in the immediate and short term. My proposals also show that getting language teaching right is not just a challenge for the DfE but cuts across many government departments and agencies. The decline is currently very acute, but language skills are vital to so many aspects of the UK’s cultural, economic, soft-power and security interests that we really must not allow things to get past the point of no return. I beg to move.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on securing this debate and acknowledge the enormous amount of work that she does through the APPG and any other channels to make sure that the question of modern languages teaching and learning remains as high on the agenda as it possibly can be.
Why does the teaching and learning of a modern foreign language matter? This debate is partly about the technicalities of improving the supply chain of modern foreign language teachers since, as we have already heard, 50% of modern languages teachers are now recruited from outside of the UK. However, there is a prior question: why does it matter? As we have also heard, figures from government suggest that there are economic and diplomatic, and so on, very good reasons, at both personal and GDP level, why we should have more and more young people who are proficient at languages. We have figures and research for the value of French and Spanish, but also increasingly German, not to mention Mandarin. Noble Lords will all have heard this from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and other places too, and other noble Lords may well expand on this.
These are very good reasons in themselves, but there is another set of reasons for learning a language, one of which is that learning a language is good for you. Many hours of research and research papers have shown that the plasticity of the brain is heightened by learning a language. It increases cognitive flexibility and adaptability, and these are clearly very good reasons and worth while for everyone—even in the later years, should any noble Lord choose to take up a language.
However, perhaps my favourite reason for learning a language is, frankly, that it is fun. With the right pedagogical approach, a classroom in which language teaching and learning is taking place is a fun classroom to work in. It is a real-world skill; it can be deployed, practised and improved by communicating with others in your classroom—from my own personal experience, often to the delight of young people. However, those young people miss out if there are not sufficient, or sufficiently well-trained and qualified, modern languages teachers with whom they can work.
Modern foreign languages have the reputation of being hard subjects because there is a perceived harshness in the marking compared with other subjects. That may or may not be true, but, frankly, we do not hear enough on the aspect that I am really enthusiastic about, which is the fun—although we do not hear a lot about fun in education in general.
This debate is about how to get our schools and universities out of the spiral of decline that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, talked about. It appears from government figures that there has been an improvement in ITT recruitment to modern and foreign language teaching. However, as the target was lower, and is still only 90% met, and as it comes against a background of very low levels of recruitment over previous years, there is still a great deal to do if we are to arrest the decline of modern language departments at university level.
If there is not a secure base of effective language teaching in key stages 4 and 5, we will continue to have this problem, and A-levels will continue to decline. Recently, a House of Commons committee reinforced the view that teaching is still insufficiently attractive in terms of burdensome workloads, and of course, there are pay level issues. This needs to be remedied. Given the number of modern languages teachers that we need, I ask my noble friend the Minister, as she has already been asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, if the Government will reconsider a visa waiver scheme for non-UK trainees and teachers in recruitment. This would go a long way towards improving our position.
Perhaps what we also need is a national strategy. I hesitate to suggest this, because it seems to be the answer to almost anything that comes before government—“Let’s have a national strategy”—but I do think that it would be worth while. Certainly, we must urgently consider visa sponsoring and the material that schools need to be able to do that.
Finally, I ask my noble friend the Minister to look again at the issue of functional language skills teaching and qualification raised in the Education for 11-16 Year Olds Committee of your Lordships’ House.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds)
My Lords, may I draw to everyone’s attention the fact that the timing in this debate is very tight? Could everyone please either go below five minutes or stick to the five minutes’ advisory time? Otherwise, we will not have time for the Minister to respond in full.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Baroness, Lady Coussins, on introducing this debate and also on her outstanding and continuing work on the importance of modern languages.
The well-known actor Larry Lamb, who is fronting the British Council’s new festival of languages this summer in London, recently said:
“English is the language of business but children and young people should understand the level of respect that comes when you attempt to speak the language of the people with whom you’re working”.
Mr Lamb criticised a 2004 decision by Charles Clarke, the then Education Secretary, to drop compulsory language learning from the age of 14. Mr Lamb also added, somewhat provocatively:
“I feel disappointed that the education system has allowed this to happen. I bet there aren’t many private schools where taking languages is a choice, particularly at the top end”.
It is true that the prospects for modern language learning are currently not good, but that is the responsibility of successive Governments and most certainly not the responsibility of Charles Clarke alone. Successive Governments have allowed this situation to develop.
GCSE entries in modern languages decreased from over 500,000 in 2004 to just over 330,000 in 2025. The proposed abolition of the EBacc does not help much, because languages will have to compete even more with other subjects when pupils are making choices. The DfE, over many years, has missed its targets for modern language trainee teachers. In 2025, only 42% of the target was reached.
A most shocking thing, which I had not realised, is that over half of all universities have ceased to offer modern language degrees altogether. Currently, only 48 do, compared to 108 in 2000. The consequence is obviously a strong decline in the number of qualified modern language teachers. As is always the case in education matters, without qualified and well-trained teachers, there is quite simply no education. My eye is upon the noble Baroness, Lady Blower.
Many years ago, in an earlier career, I set up a number of projects to teach French in primary schools, with tight and co-operative links to the appropriate secondary schools. We trained teachers and hired peripatetic staff and French assistants. Our strong in-service training included what became known locally, rather unfortunately, as “French weekends”. In this residential training, French was spoken throughout, French food was served and there were obviously quite a number of wine tastings. The whole scheme brought together primary and secondary teachers with the Alliance Française. It was a true languages pipeline, with stellar O-level and A-level results in languages as a consequence. This was one way of achieving that improvement.
More recently, a solution to the falling numbers of modern language teachers has been recruitment from overseas, as we have said. Precisely the issues involved with that approach are at the heart of this debate: 50% of trainees are recruited internationally; they get bursaries, but the cost of employing them and visa difficulties have presented other problems, not least that apparently, half the trainees go home when they cannot find a job here. Another stupid complication is that the duration of the graduate visa scheme has been reduced to 18 months, while the induction period for newly qualified teachers lasts for two years. That is not good co-ordination.
However, there are plenty of practical solutions, some of which will emerge from this debate. The idea that there should be a national languages strategy has already been mentioned. It is backed by the British Academy, the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Association of School and College Leaders, the British Council and Universities UK, which is quite a line-up. Another practical idea would be for the DfE or local authorities to set up local regional conferences where heads and teachers could share solutions, such as helplines and guidance on the visa system. I feel compelled to say that that is what we used to do.
There is strong consensus worldwide that effective communication between nations is more valuable and relevant now than it has ever been. The DfE itself said:
“Learning a language empowers young people to engage with the world, think critically and understand new perspectives”.
That is true, so I hope the Minister takes careful note not only of the excellent evidence provided by this debate but of the realistic and practical solutions that have already been proposed, when we are nowhere near the end of the debate.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am very sorry to intervene again but, if every noble Lord and noble Baroness takes an extra minute, we are not going to get through this debate in time.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on her brilliant introduction to this debate and I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard. We are both alumni of St Hilda’s College, Oxford, and we are both passionate about languages.
As a child, I lived in Paris for three years. I studied French and Spanish at university, then lived in Germany for four years with my RAF husband and was employed to teach French and English in a German Gymnasium. It was quite a challenge. We had married too young for the RAF, so were not allowed to live in military married quarters and lived in a German town surrounded by German speakers. Although the head teacher always addressed me in French, I picked up a great deal of German. Sadly, as I seldom have a chance to speak other languages now, most of my fluency in all three languages has largely gone, but I still value the learning of them, the window on different worlds they gave me and the sheer enjoyment of chatting in a language that was not English.
It has to be a matter of deep concern that our country is becoming monolingual. At one stage it appeared that it was more difficult to get good GCSE and A-level grades in languages than in other subjects, and that was a deterrent to students. The exam boards addressed that to equalise the marking, but it was damaging. Of course, Brexit has greatly harmed our international relations. The demise of Erasmus was another blow. We have to hope that now Erasmus+ is to be restored, young people will once again enjoy travelling abroad and finding out about the languages and customs of other countries.
Damage was done under Labour when a language ceased to be compulsory for GCSE. The EBacc brought it back, but in a programme which was highly academic and ruled out many more creative students. As fewer students study languages, fewer go to university and emerge as enthusiastic teachers. It is a vicious circle which has seen universities close their language departments with further dire effects.
We need solutions. We rely heavily on international recruitment, yet put barriers in the way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, set out. Bursaries have been reduced and the difficulty of getting visas has prevented possible teachers getting jobs. Will the Minister say what is going to happen about bursaries and visas?
We need a strategy to boost language learning. Ideally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, set out, this should start at primary school when young minds are open and young mouths can develop to make the different sounds needed by different languages. If you do not start languages until secondary school, young people are already getting anxious about making new noises and talking with new words. Can the Minister say what is being done to encourage languages in primary schools? Some years back the British Academy ran competitions to find imaginative language learning in primary schools, with some schools focusing on food and some on drama, music or clothing to stimulate ideas, often with great success. What happened to those imaginative programmes?
The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Languages, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, is a critical part, has had meetings where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said, we have discovered that learning a language leads to increased cognitive flexibility and adaptability. Numerous studies have supported the claim that learning a second language affects a person’s brain, with differences depending on the age of the person when they learn the language. Who knew that languages are good for your health? They are also good for business, international relations and friendship between countries and peoples. We used to have diplomats who were totally fluent in obscure languages and able to contribute to a peaceful world by dint of communicating in native tongues. Where will they learn these languages now if university departments close?
We need also to support the Open University, which is the UK’s largest provider of university-level education across a variety of language-related subjects, including French, German, Spanish, Chinese and others. They have programmes at all levels of difficulty. Their studies are nearly all via flexible distance learning, so are widely available to anyone interested, and they have short courses and modules as well as full-time courses. Can the Minister say if the Government would support a new national strategy to incentivise language learning and teaching? Languages should be supported within the Lifelong Learning Entitlement to send a strong signal to employers and the public that they are a valuable tool in our country’s wealth and well-being. We cannot allow this drift to continue. Urgent action is needed if we are to remain an international country with trade and friends around the world. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coussins for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important topic and for her excellent and constructive introduction. As ever, I declare my interest as a secondary school teacher in Hackney, although I teach design technology rather than useful languages. At school I learnt French and Latin to O-level under the legendary Bill Lucas—let us see if the Minister is listening to that—some Greek and some German. In fact, a few years ago my son Charlie wandered into an airport shop to find me speaking to a woman in German. “I didn’t know Dad spoke German”, he said to my wife. “He doesn’t”, she said. “I don’t know what the hell he’s speaking.”
I respectfully take issue with my noble friend Lady Coussins in the framing of this debate. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, I think we need to discuss the sustainability of language learning in life. I am married to a fluent Italian speaker and early on in our relationship, I found it extremely frustrating to go out to Italy and not be able to understand or be understood, so I took private one-to-one lessons at the age of 30, unlike one of my noble friends who sensibly married his Italian teacher.
Over the next few years, I had a variety of tutors, all Italian and all excellent, and it is one of the most rewarding things I have ever done in my life. It was fun. There was no Duolingo then, and I still remain slightly dubious about that way of learning. Perhaps the parliamentary challenge will change my mind. I am now a reasonable Italian speaker and a keen member of the APPG on Italy. We recently had a visit to Rome with a full day and a half with the Italian parliament. I am rather more used to talking to Italian builders, and some of my language might have surprised our hosts.
We need to engender a love for languages and cultures among children. The government response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review says:
“Languages are a vital part of a broad and balanced curriculum, equipping pupils with the communication skills, cultural awareness and linguistic foundations needed to thrive in a globalised society”.
The elephant in the room is Brexit. It is not so much a hidden elephant as a large pink hippopotamus in a tutu sashaying down the aisle. As my former colleague and head of modern foreign languages, Adam Lamb, says:
“The historic pipeline for recruitment was not just from the UK universities, but also from Europe. Morale amongst MFL teachers has taken several big hits of late for many reasons. MFL has already taken the hard hit of having been decoupled from forming the spine of the EBACC measure. This, along with many departments struggling to recruit, is leading to fragmented departments and students receiving a lot of non-specialist cover teaching nationally”.
According to the British Council, as a nation we lose an estimated £48 billion per year in lost trade due to language barriers, to say nothing of the benefits of employability and social mobility that a basic skill in foreign language brings. The valuable English language summer school business has been hit as well. As Alicja Penrose of Bede’s told me:
“Since Brexit, any EU teachers who did not work in the UK pre 2021 are not able to secure work permits, which creates a shortage of teachers across the industry. There currently is no seasonal visa type for them that would allow them to work in the UK in the summer”.
The Government need to back up their fine words in the response to the review with action. Teaching vacancies need to be filled by language teachers who are specialists in the language that they are teaching. Visa waivers need to be granted to language teachers from abroad and, indeed, as they say, linguistic foundations need to be allowed to thrive in a globalised society.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, it is conventional in this House to congratulate the sponsor of a debate, and I will certainly not miss that out on the present occasion because it is high time that the plight of modern language learning and training in the UK was drawn to public attention and remedied. But I will go further on this occasion by congratulating my noble friend Lady Coussins on the unrelenting work she has done through the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages to shine a light on what is, I suggest, an act of national self-harm.
Is there really a problem with modern language teaching and learning? Well, there is not much doubt about that. Others have already quoted figures, and others in this debate will quote figures, to demonstrate the scale of the crisis, but here are some of those produced on 16 December by the Higher Education Statistics Agency—HESA. From the academic year 2012-13 to the academic year 2023-24, the overall figures for modern languages dropped from 125,900 to 80,100; those for French from 9,700 to 3,700; and those for German and Scandinavian languages from 3,900 to 1,400. It is important to remember that where the drop in university places leads to closures, what are called “cold spots” occur at GCSE and A-level too.
Those figures should be a wake-up call to the Government and to Parliament. Other figures from the sector are equally dire, such as those for the Anglo-French programme for the exchange of teaching assistants in both directions for a year teaching in each other’s schools. It has just celebrated—if that is the right word—its 120th anniversary, which I attended. It was set up to mark the entente cordiale, but the figures are terrible. Some will question whether this really matters in a world where English has become—and I actually welcome this—the global lingua franca, although not, of course, the language of the majority of the population of the world. It is set to remain so for the rest of this century, and perhaps longer.
That is certainly a fact of life, and we are rightly proud of our language—its versatility, its flexibility, and the access it provides to much great literature. But is it in our interest to fly along on the coattails of the United States—which is what, in fact, we are doing—and to have less and less knowledge of, or access to, other great civilisations, many but not all by any means, in continental Europe? I would suggest not: not in business, not in trade, not in academic terms, not in the conduct of international relations, and not in the in-depth understanding of other societies.
If we are, over time, to remedy this situation, we need an overall multifaceted set of policies by government, by schools and by universities. Several recent Governments have aspired, and have announced their aspiration, to initiate such policies, but, frankly, they have then acted only in a half-hearted sort of way—often seriously underresourced, and often also with other government policies necessary for success contradicting university needs for visa access to fulfil their international student and other academic studies. It is surely time for a more systematic, better co-ordinated, better concerted effort. I do hope that the Minister, in replying to this debate, will commit the Government to undertaking such an effort.
Anyway, we have one element of such a programme already, which can be warmly welcomed: the decision by the UK, agreed by the EU, to rejoin the Erasmus+ programme in 2027, reversing the damage done when we intemperately pulled out of that programme after the Brexit vote, unlike plenty of other third countries which remain in the programme. However, look at the school visit programme: laid low by Brexit and Covid, it has still not recovered properly, despite the agreements reached between the Prime Minister and President Macron and the Prime Minister and Chancellor Merz to resume them on a bilateral basis. The restraints on collective visas for school visits to the UK make no sense whatever. Is there any evidence of illegal migration by that route? Perhaps the Minister can explain why it is taking so long to resume those school visit programmes.
The one thing we cannot afford to do as a nation that has for centuries thriven on international trade and investment, is to withdraw into a kind of monoglot ghetto, whose leading politicians complain about hearing nothing but foreign languages on public transport.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Order. Can the noble Lord wind up, please? He is already a minute over. If everyone takes an extra minute, the Minister will not have any time to sum up at the end.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
We should be looking at modern languages, with both teaching and learning as a means of promoting our soft power and influence, not as something we could perfectly well do without.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I am very impressed by these attempts to maintain order in the classroom, and I will try to stay under five minutes.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on bringing this debate to the House, and like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, am delighted that the Government are rejoining Erasmus+. We should, however, confront the fact that when it comes to Erasmus, the Brexiteers have a point. Erasmus was designed and assumed to be an exchange programme in which there would be roughly balancing flows of students between different countries, justifying the fact that they had taxpayer-financed education whichever country they went to. However, in reality, there were very large inflows of students into the UK through Erasmus, but, sadly, modest outflows of students, so Erasmus was a cost for the UK. Can the Minister therefore explain to the House whether the Government are doing anything in this new agreement to ensure a better balance of flows in and out of the UK? Does she agree that it is particularly important that we do more to get British students, of whatever age, studying and working in placements and internships abroad? That is the best way of solving this problem. For that, the programme needs to be properly managed. Sadly, one of the other difficulties we had with the Turing scheme was the uncertainty and failures in competent management. The sooner we can say that the British Council will have a leading role in delivering these programmes, in both directions, the greater the chance we have of something that is successful.
I declare an interest as I serve on the board of the Centre for British Studies at Humboldt University in Berlin—perhaps one of the remaining uses of my rusty A-level German. At Humboldt University, we try to send students on a combined programme of study and work placements in the UK. Since Brexit, that has been a lot harder. I very much hope that, now we are rejoining Erasmus+, that will be more feasible again. However, the students in Berlin are not simply German nationals; they come from elsewhere. Will this arrangement cover German universities regardless of where the students come from, or will the arrangement be restricted to the subset of students at the Centre for British Studies who are German or other EU citizens? It would be very helpful to hear from the Minister on that. I hope she may agree that if specific issues like this arise, I can write to her and take her through the issues and problems that we face.
I want to end on one wider point. We have heard some bold claims about the study and teaching of modern languages being fun. I hope that that is the case; it is a great argument to deploy. However, I personally find that an argument that is particularly persuasive with Ministers used to hard-headed assessments of economic benefits and returns to the UK, and who often focus very much, therefore, on STEM subjects as those with the greatest utility and practical value, is that when they or the media sit around considering a crisis anywhere in the world, we assume in the UK that we have a window on the world. We always assume that we have an expert who speaks the language, that we have a historian who knows the background to whatever crisis or political problem. We assume that our security agencies have the capacity to track what is going on—but, as we know, in order to pass security vetting, people need to have had a family history of living in the UK, which enables their security to be established. It is that window on the world that depends, ultimately, on British people studying a wide range of foreign languages. If we lose that, our capacity to engage in the world—including the most practical forms necessary for our own national security—is eroded. I hope, then, that during this debate, we develop a long list of arguments for modern languages, and that alongside the fun, alongside the culture and alongside the economic benefits, we will not forget the practical security angle as well.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this debate, and more importantly for her tireless leadership in this subject.
I think that I will have to be the first to confess that I have a Duolingo addiction, but I know that a charming app—however motivating—cannot replace a great teacher or the cultural cognitive fluency that real language learning develops. The point I wanted to double-click on today is that in the age of AI, this truth becomes even sharper.
AI will help us with language, but it cannot replace human linguistic capability. If anything, it makes that idea more strategically important. There is an attractive thought that, because machine translation is improving so rapidly, we can ease off—we will not need to learn languages because every single thing programmed into our iPhones, our iPads and even our ears will help us understand somebody standing in front of us. But AI does not read intent. It cannot interpret ambiguity, does not appreciate humour, cannot decode face-saving formulations or detect the veiled threats on which diplomacy often turns. In a world where a mistranslated phrase can ricochet globally in minutes, the risk is not just error; it is the amplification of misinterpretation.
The security community is already acknowledging this. The British Academy warns that declining UK language capability risks leaving us “lost for words”. The US Government Accountability Office describes foreign language skills as “increasingly key” to diplomatic, military and counterterrorism missions. Britain is not a serious country if it speaks only English. Nor are we serious about growth, as others have already said. The economic case is clear. Our SMEs, which I remind you make up 99.9% of all firms, are markedly more competitive internationally when they have language skills. Studies show that they are around 30% more successful in exporting. We need this now more than ever. If we neglect national language capacity, we limit national economic reach.
However, we have a solution working at scale which has not yet been mentioned. At the Open University, where I am chancellor, the School of Languages and Applied Linguistics is the largest provider of university-level language learning in the UK. It reaches adults at higher education cold spots: workers retraining in mid-career, carers studying at night—people who need genuinely flexible routes back into language learning. In the age of AI, this model is not just educationally valuable; it is economically strategic. With the right incentives, the lifelong learning entitlement could make language study a normal part of adult upskilling across the country.
I end with three brief questions to the Minister which I hope will reinforce what others have already asked. First, will the Government reduce the recruitment barriers facing overseas language teachers? Secondly, will they streamline sponsorship routes for corporates for international teachers? Thirdly, will they commit to a refreshed national languages strategy linked explicitly to the lifelong learning entitlement?
AI will transform how we work with languages, but it cannot replace the human ability to understand nuanced content and intent. Investing in languages is not nostalgic; it is strategic. For my part, if I have learnt one thing in researching for this debate, it is that I now urgently need to get a real-life Spanish teacher.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I too want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this debate and for her comprehensive and thoughtful introduction. Like others, I admire her perseverance in ensuring that we do not lose sight of the sustainability of language learning in schools and universities.
The economic security and other personal benefits of learning and speaking a second language have already been articulated in this debate, so I will not repeat them. It is clear, however, that we need urgent, concerted and co-ordinated action—from primary schools through to universities and beyond—to address the inadequate, long-standing and worsening supply of language learning and teaching skills needed to meet our future needs. It is also clear is that we need a joined-up and holistic approach that is coherent across education and skills systems. While the Government have ambitious reforms to address teacher shortages, their immigration policies risk undermining them, particularly in regard to MFL and, as we have heard, in maths and physics.
The reduction of the graduate visa route from 24 to 18 months creates a structural barrier to retention where international trainees are most needed. The 18-month limit creates a structural misalignment where international trainees will be forced to leave before completing their two-year early career framework induction, unless their school sponsors them through a skilled worker visa, which many schools are unwilling to do due to the cost and complex process.
International trainees have historically played a vital role in plugging this gap due to under-recruitment at secondary level, where EU-trained teachers once formed a significant proportion of the workforce. This is a serious misalignment. Without aligning the policies, we risk losing valuable talent and wasting public investment. Coherence between Department for Education recruitment targets and Home Office immigration policies is needed to sustain this, particularly in the short term.
Given the shortage of UK language graduates, do the Government have any plans to remove the hurdles, such as increased fee costs, NHS charges, visas and reduced financial support, which trainee language teachers face? Are they planning to introduce visa waivers for teachers, as has been well argued during the course of this debate? We know that, due to the hurdles, it is estimated that half of international trainee teachers leave. Bursaries are there, but they are not much use if other hurdles act as disincentives. They are, in fact, a waste of investment.
If we do not act now, we risk the collapse of homegrown language teachers. While it is right that in the long term we should be aiming to create our own pipeline, it is important that in the short term we do whatever we can to sustain this sector to help provide a platform on which we can build a long-term strategy.
While we deal with the immediate shortage in order to avert the collapse of language learning and teaching, it is imperative that in the longer term we develop a long-term strategy. It should set out a long-term pipeline of language skills which links to education and economic and diplomatic needs, and gives departments a single framework to work to. Short-term fixes are absolutely essential, but long-term strategies are equally important to obviate the need for short-term fixes in the future.
There are of course other steps that the Government can take. For example, should the Government be raising awareness of the value of language learning for personal growth and cognitive development? I suggest that we might even look at universities providing joint degrees with other subjects, so that we do not have to close language departments. Other suggestions have been made and I very much look forward to the response from the Minister.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a visiting professor at King’s College London and chairman of FutureLearn. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, set out in her introduction to this important debate, languages are a strategic asset for an outward-facing country such as the UK, yet we have essentially adopted an approach of benign neglect. It is surely telling, for example, that this Government’s industrial strategy does not contain a single reference to languages. This is not unique; every single iteration of the industrial strategy since Brexit has also essentially neglected to mention languages as a key component of our economic performance.
When it comes to engaging with the big emerging powerhouses of the global economy, it is not surprising that we find ourselves hobbled by this linguistic weakness. I think we can all agree that our export performance gives no grounds for complacency. Initiatives such as World of Languages show that there is no shortage of curiosity about global languages in our schools, but, as we have heard in this debate, the pipeline through school into university and beyond is clearly broken.
Take Mandarin as an example of where we could clearly do better. For obvious reasons, given China’s importance to the global economy, national security and other matters, countries such as the US and Australia have designated Mandarin as a strategic or priority language and support it accordingly. By contrast, no equivalent strategic designation exists in this country and, tellingly, there is no certainty beyond this financial year over the funding for the valuable Mandarin Excellence Programme delivered by University College London’s Institute of Education, in partnership with the British Council.
As we have heard this afternoon, teacher supply in schools is a major constraint, as is the fact—as with other languages—that the curriculum content is seen as hard to access for many non-heritage students. The end result is a shrinking flow into universities, leaving the UK unable to produce China-capable graduates at scale. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned some other key statistics, but those for China are particularly striking. Just 685 UK students enrolled in China studies degrees or other degrees with a China content in 2023-24, which was down 20% in a decade—a period during which we cannot say that China’s significance has diminished.
I will end with three short questions for the Minister. Like others, I welcome rejoining Erasmus+. But, on its own, as a Europe-focused programme, it is clearly very limited, for capacity reasons, in the extent to which it supports the lived study-abroad experiences that underpin learning of vital non-European languages. Will the Minister ensure that a genuinely global route, such as Turing, will continue to sit alongside Erasmus post our rejoining it in 2027?
Secondly, my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, mentioned the lifelong learning entitlement as a possible way to promote language learning. I fear that the Government are missing a trick with the lifelong learning entitlement, because of their restrictive, STEM-oriented approach to eligibility for this important funding stream. Will the Minister ensure that foreign language modules are eligible for LLE funding, so that more people can build language skills flexibly over time?
Finally, like the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar, Lady Blower and Lady Lane-Fox, I urge the Minister and the Government to think more strategically. If the Government really want to show that they take these issues seriously, will she ensure that the next update to the industrial strategy clearly designates languages as a long-term strategic capability for the country?
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on initiating this debate. I would like to focus on the second part of the Motion, on the sustainability of language learning in schools and universities.
We have to start with the question of why you should learn a foreign language. If the desire to learn a foreign language is diminishing, that is problematic. Most of us, with few exceptions in this Chamber, will have grown up at a time when it was obvious why you would want to learn a foreign language. If you wanted to go anywhere, English was spoken in some parts but, however hard you worked and however loud or slowly you spoke, it still was not understood, so you had to do something about it. We then had huge movements of people and lots of people’s parental language was not the language of the country they grew up in.
But all that has changed. There is diminishing strength and movement in the reason why you should learn a foreign language, particularly if you are an English-speaking monoglot. The fact is that polyglots are in the majority in the world; it is just the English speakers who get stuck with their single language. Globally, there are far more non-native English speakers than native ones.
Allow me to just acknowledge the practical purposes of learning a foreign language. The noble Baroness, Lady Cousins, reminded us only in the past 12 months, when we talked about the Criminal Justice Board, about the need for court translators and interpreters, who are incredibly important in the ability to deliver justice. There are other areas, but I want to briefly move away from the utility argument, although I do so with real hesitation because the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, will be speaking after me and, if I get this theologically wrong, I ask him to please correct me.
It is 500 years since William Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament. By bringing together Hebrew and Greek terms, he coined the word “atonement”, which was fundamental to the Reformation. Its root is “at-one-ment”. Such concepts and ideas have enormous impacts in history, and understanding language and its power, and the acquisition of a foreign language or another language from your native one—which in reverse allows you to understand your own language better—is such a fundamental part of the human condition.
Having looked 500 years back, I would like to look 100 years ahead, when I think English will be dominant as the lingua franca. If you work for a large multinational company in mainland Europe and you have a business meeting, it requires only one person on that call to not have the native language of the country in which you are based for the meeting to be held in English, even though there may be people around the table who would be much more comfortable in another language.
This is one of the very few occasions when I would like to come back in 100 years and hear what that majority English globally will sound like. We might find that the English as spoken in the British Isles would be classified as some strange form of a modern foreign language. That is why I think that ownership of that language is enormously important.
The key thing that I urge on the Minister is that valuing a foreign language has to start at home. I declare my interest as First Civil Service Commissioner. Why does not even the diplomatic service recruit on the basis of language skills? Why is it that we recruit fast streamers with language skills—probably because of family background—and do not recognise that?
On a final point, we have huge populations in which the main language spoken, as you can see from the 2001 census, is Urdu, Gujarati or Hindi. For families that are multilingual, as in Birmingham where I was an MP, or in cities like Leicester, if you have a certificate our system does not actually recognise that second language as a qualification. Within our institutions, we need to value language and its utility much more, as well as looking—when it is based on populations, need and workplace—to be just that bit more imaginative. Just thinking that we need more foreign language teachers, and saying that is great because it allows us to buy a cup of coffee everywhere, is not sufficient.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships’ House, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for initiating today’s debate and speaking so eloquently that in many ways her speech alone will have given the Minister plenty of questions to answer. I pay tribute also to the work she has done as chair of the APPG—and so much more, because modern foreign languages are so important, yet they are so undervalued.
I declare an interest as a Cambridge academic, where I teach European politics. At times, having fluency in other modern foreign languages is useful, because I can say to my students, “Yes, it’s alright if you let me have that in German or French—I can read it”. But also in the last academic year, I was a HESA statistic. During lockdown I decided, having refreshed my French, German and a bit of Italian, that maybe I should try a language that I had not tried before—Spanish. In a sense, it was a very easy thing to do because, if you have some Italian, French and Latin, Spanish is quite easy. I went from beginners through to C1 level. Cambridge in its wisdom has now decided that, if you are studying C1, you get a diploma, so I now have a nice university certificate. They said that it meant they had to register me with HESA, because it was a level 4 qualification.
I am one of the few people studying at what counts as university level who is doing it in my spare time, alongside large numbers of undergraduates, postgraduates and junior researchers at Cambridge, who have realised that doing a modern foreign language is really important. My university is one of those that still understands the importance of modern foreign languages; we have an excellent department of modern foreign languages, and a centre that allows many people in the university and beyond to learn a language ab initio.
We are in a minority, yet one piece of information we were given in the excellent Library briefing was the concern of schools that Russell Group universities may not value modern foreign languages. That should not be seen to be the case; modern foreign languages at A-level are really important. One thing that we need to do is to remind students and teachers that language learning is important. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, that it can be fun, but it is also a vital life skill. We assume that somehow, you do languages for GCSE or A-level, tick a box and move on, but it is not necessarily the same as some other qualifications, because these are life skills which you can use not just at 15 or 18 but throughout your life.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, pointed out, we should be thinking about modern languages as not just things that people study at school but as part of lifelong learning. What thought has the Minister given to people having the opportunity to learn languages at various stages? Yes, primary schools are important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, said. It is much better to learn a language at nursery or primary school than in your 50s—as I tried to do recently—but the opportunity to learn those languages is important.
The previous Government felt that modern foreign languages were important for the economy, or because they enhance other academic skills. However, they are also important not just for diplomacy in the formal sense, which the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, talked about, but for the ability for us to connect interculturally. Yes, other people might speak English, and they might speak English to us in the room, but they will speak their own language in the margins. If we can speak those languages as well, our communication and depth of experience will be so much stronger. Will the Government pledge to increase the opportunities for people at all stages of life?
Lord Chartres (CB)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coussins not only for securing this debate but for the very constructive way in which she introduced the subject.
I was very struck by the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, about the limitations of mere mechanical translation. I recall a debate on regional assistance funding in the EU, in which there was reference to enormous and complex problems being solved by “la sagesse normande”. The English translation was:
“All problems will be solved by Norman Wisdom”.
Mechanical translation misses so much of the nuance.
I want to underline things that have already been said, but I also note that the interim report on the national curriculum, which was published last year, deemed language education to be the furthest away from the principles that informed the review: that the curriculum should be coherent, knowledge-rich and inclusive. It was the furthest away. In the Government’s response to the conclusions of the report, which was very constructive, there is support for a much clearer focus on the provision of languages in primary schools.
My fundamental question, which echoes comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, is how precisely are the Government going to substantiate that aspiration for a clearer focus on the provision of languages in primary schools? That is not only European languages, because I take the point made around the House about the vital importance of the very large numbers of non-European languages spoken in our schools, which give us an enhanced view of the world.
I am thinking particularly of a remarkable school in Harrow, Saint Jérôme Church of England Bilingual School. It was quite deliberately named after a translator, because that primary school not only teaches modern languages as a subject; it delivers a large part of the curriculum in French. It is a bilingual school. When the Government are looking at how to create a much clearer focus on the provision of languages in primary schools, I hope that it will be possible to look at that school’s experience of over 10 years.
I had the privilege of opening that school 10 years ago. The founding headmaster, the Reverend Daniel Norris, is just about to retire after enormous achievement. The experience of and results achieved in a school where 80% of the pupils have a mother tongue other than English that they speak at home are a valuable indication of what can be done to lay the foundations of constructive language learning at a primary level.
In the myth of the Tower of Babel—I am encouraged by the invocation of William Tyndale by the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart—multilingualism, the confusion of tongues, is regarded as a punishment for human presumption. We should realise that, at Pentecost, in the New Testament, that is overturned. At Pentecost, multiple languages are not erased but everybody is enabled to listen, in their own language, profoundly to what is being said. It is a total mythological reversal. I hope that we are not going to slump back into trying to answer the Tower of Babel by insisting on monoglot English as a culture for the entire world. Language is not only desirable for boosting trade but helps people to listen well. We are very concerned about social divisions and atomisation in our society, and listening well is a basic factor in democracy.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, who predictably gave us a unique perspective for this debate. We are very fortunate to have so many illustrious speakers in this debate and, in particular, two first-class bookends, if I may call them that. We have the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who I know from working with her on the APPG is a tireless and tenacious campaigner and advocate for this, and the closing bookend is the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, who is a heavyweight Minister in this House. She is a former senior Cabinet Minister and has ministerial clout. We are looking for that ministerial clout in this debate today.
We all know that the whole position and state of the teaching and learning of modern languages in this country is in crisis. We know that there is a downward spiral of fewer pupils learning them, fewer teachers coming in, fewer graduates coming out of our universities, and fewer courses and faculties at universities. As my noble friend Lady Shephard, said, it was not helped by the decision that Charles Clarke made in 2004.
The Prime Minister has said in his own words that he wants to put Britain back on the world stage and to reset our relationship with Europe. It is worth quoting briefly what the Times said on this, when it talked about the fact that a nation that speaks only English
“limits Britain’s ability to do business, understand our neighbours, broaden our views and make lasting friendships with those beyond our borders”.
That is of course true. As other speakers, such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Blower and Lady Garden, have said, there are the wider advantages of improving and helping with learning, memory, mental faculties and so on.
My noble friend Lord Willetts referred to the Treasury approach to these things and its very hard-headed approach to taking decisions. These things are difficult to measure, which is why the Treasury has enormous difficulty. The Treasury simply cannot measure common sense and it does not know how to put it into its calculations. I hope, again, that the Minister will be an advocate when she deals with other government departments.
I understand the difficulty—the Minister will understand this better than anybody—of competing subjects jostling for position in a very crowded curriculum. I have had many discussions about this with my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, who, as we all know, is a great advocate for engineering, science and technology. Of course, in the modern world these are very important, but if you talk to employers who are recruiting young people, you find that they recognise that there are downsides, sometimes, of technology, in that many of the people they recruit are not always as good as they should be at communication and find it more difficult to express themselves clearly and succinctly. Again, that is one of the big advantages of learning a foreign language.
I come back to the Minister. There have been, in this debate, a whole range of proposals from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and from other speakers. I am sure the Minister has a very good speech which will tell us everything that the Government are currently doing, but I hope she will take the opportunity to commit herself to further action in a positive way. Many proposals have come forward, and I hope she will be able to give us some comfort that there is more action to be taken by the Government.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, we are all immensely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this important debate. Her Motion rightly draws attention to the supply chain for qualified modern foreign language teachers and to practical measures, such as visa waivers, that could help sustain language learning in our schools and universities. These measures may sound, as she said, technical, but they go to the heart of whether we are serious about languages as a national priority.
I argue, as other noble Lords have already highlighted, that the debate is about more than teacher supply alone. Language learning is not an optional enrichment or a narrow skills issue; it is a form of living cultural infrastructure. Just as roads enable the movement of goods and digital networks enable the flow of data, languages enable the circulation of ideas, values and relationships. When that infrastructure weakens, the consequences are not abstract but cultural, diplomatic and economic.
We increasingly recognise that infrastructure is not confined to concrete and cables. The British Academy, in its 2025 report on social and cultural infrastructure, argues that such systems underpin social cohesion, resilience and long-term prosperity, and deserve the same seriousness we afford to transport or broadband. Language learning belongs squarely in that category. It enables participation, mutual understanding, and the circulation of ideas across borders and communities. Without it, our cultural life becomes thinner, our diplomacy weaker and our global engagement more fragile.
Professor Li Wei, of UCL’s Institute of Education, has described language learning as fundamentally a “process of cultural translation”. By this, he does not mean a mechanical exercise but an active negotiation of meaning between people, histories and values. Through that process, learners develop creativity, critical thinking, and cultural and sociolinguistic sensitivities—qualities essential not only to education but to civic life and international co-operation. Language classrooms are, in effect, places where cultural understanding is practised daily. This matters profoundly for the UK’s place in the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, so eloquently emphasised in his speech.
A recent British Council survey shows a six-point fall in the UK’s overall international attractiveness in 2025. That should concern us. Yet the same research offers reassurance, with trust in the UK remaining high and engagement indicators recovering. We are still widely perceived as a reliable, value-driven actor—no small advantage in a fractured and volatile global landscape.
However, trust is not self-sustaining and reputation is not self-renewing. Both depend on sustained investment in the relationships, programmes and people that build familiarity and understanding across borders. Language teachers are precisely such people. They are cultural ambassadors in every classroom, shaping how future generations understand the world—and how the world understands us. When fragmented immigration policy makes it harder to recruit and retain them, when visa waivers that could ease critical shortages are dismissed, and when international trainees are forced to leave just as they are ready to contribute, we are not merely adjusting administrative rules but dismantling infrastructure that serves our strategic interests.
Language learning sits at the intersection of education, culture and diplomacy. To neglect it is to weaken all three at once. So yes, we should examine visa waivers and policy coherence, but with a broader ambition in mind: to recognise language learning as the strategic cultural asset it truly is, vital to our schools and universities, and to invest in it accordingly for returns that are social, cultural and enduring.
Lord Janvrin (CB)
My Lords, I also express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this debate and for her tireless work over so many years in support of language training and related issues.
As many have pointed out, we are living in an international and, in particular, business environment dominated by English in various forms. This, we must recognise, inevitably leads to a lack of interest in foreign languages, particularly among the young, in the UK and more widely in the English-speaking world. To do nothing about this, even at the best of times, is surely short-sighted; as has been pointed out, it is widely recognised that the UK needs foreign language proficiency to enhance our economic prosperity, global competitiveness and general political, diplomatic and cultural engagement in the world. To do nothing about it in today’s world is not just short-sighted but positively misguided, a point to which I will come back.
Retaining and improving our national foreign language proficiency can be achieved only by investing sustainably over time in an effective modern language programme in the wider educational curriculum. There is clear evidence of a worrying decline over recent years in foreign language learning, particularly at A-level and at university. There is also plenty of evidence that this decline is to a large extent caused by teacher shortages. We have the vicious circle—what others have called the spiral of decline.
Short-term fixes are available and, to be fair, the Government have recognised the need for action with financial incentives, apprenticeship schemes, and talk about recruitment and retention measures. The decision to rejoin Erasmus next year is hugely welcome. It may over time increase the attractiveness of European languages, both as subjects to be studied and as a teaching career. However, it seems odd in this context that other quick wins described by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, such as a visa waiver programme, are not being pursued or followed up.
In all this, as so many other speakers have mentioned, there seems little evidence of any sense of a long-term strategy to address what is, in effect, a language learning crisis in the United Kingdom. Perhaps it is a cost issue, but surely we are talking of reasonably small sums in the wider education budget. To have a comprehensive strategy, as so many have called for, would hardly be a huge shift of education spending priorities. It is difficult to avoid concluding that addressing what is, in effect, a crisis is somehow low on the Government’s priorities. As I said earlier, this seems positively misguided at this moment in time. Every day’s news reminds us that we live in the increasingly unstable and unpredictable world that is so often mentioned in this Chamber.
In my view, this debate needs also to be seen in this context, as well as many others. A small but vital element in the wider security picture is a priority to invest in the nation’s foreign language proficiencies. For example, our ability to work alongside our European allies, understand the complexities of the Middle East, trade effectively in Asia and penetrate the thinking of those who wish us harm depends, in part, on this. The cost must be comparatively small. I urge the Government to give language teaching the priority it deserves.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, it is already clear at this late stage in the debate that a very strong case has been made for action to be taken to ensure the sustainability of language learning and the supply of qualified foreign language teachers in our schools and universities. In thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this debate and for dealing, with her customary thoroughness, with practical ways to move forward with the issues, I shall therefore try to devote my five minutes to the sustainability theme.
Nevertheless, I first make clear my support for the noble Baroness’s suggestions. In addition, I acknowledge the co-operation received from various embassies and other organisations, mainly voluntary ones. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, we were able to celebrate 120 years of the language assistants programme between the UK and France, and there has also been a very good Spanish embassy project in this field. But, of course, both are affected by the current visa, and other, restrictions.
Will the Minister consider a partnering arrangement, similar to that of the funding of development projects by the FCDO, which aims to match funding raised by voluntary organisations with departmental funding? It seems a very good way of bringing the public and private sectors together. I also acknowledge the work of the APG on Modern Languages, so admirably co-chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and so efficiently moved forward by its secretariat.
In looking to the sustainability of language teaching and learning, I wish to focus on the role of edtech—not to replace traditional teachers, but to aid and support them. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has already referred to this. Here, I must declare an interest as the honorary president of BESA, the British Educational Suppliers Association, and a promoter of the Bett, the British Educational Training and Technology Show, where last year, 35,000 attendees from over 125 countries came together to share ideas and shape the future of learning. Anyone who has attended one of these annual exhibitions will realise what support and time-saving can be given to teachers in all subjects—but this is especially evident in language learning. The example of Duolingo has already been referred to in this context. This year, the Bett will take place at the Excel Centre between 21 and 23 January. I thoroughly recommend a visit for anyone who may, like me, not be fully conversant with all the possibilities and advantages that the use of edtech can bring, especially to teachers. Is the Minister planning a visit to this year’s Bett exhibition?
In 1988, when, as the then Lords Minister in the Department for Education, among other things I was taking the Education Reform Bill through the House of Lords. That Bill introduced the national curriculum. We had many discussions in the department about the need to include modern languages as a core subject. I would never have dreamt that 38 years later, we would still be discussing the value of and need for language learning as a tool and skill.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I, too, give thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for raising this debate, and for her powerful introduction and sensible proposals.
We have all welcomed the reinstatement of the Erasmus+ programme, but, as universities will tell you, it will take a good 10 years to reverse the adverse effects of foolishly stopping it. Even before it ceased, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, pointed out, it was easier to attract students from the continent to come to universities here than to find students from our universities wanting to spend time abroad, especially in the sciences, because their lack of basic language skills was the main deterrent. So, we are talking about a long-term problem here.
The recent figures from the Higher Education Policy Institute have highlighted what a shocking situation this is. We have to keep repeating that the decision back in 2004 to remove the compulsory status of modern languages from the national curriculum meant a dramatic reduction in GCSE take-up. That, coupled with the important emphasis on STEM subjects, has further marginalised modern languages.
There has been little recognition of the future economic importance of global trading partners in India, Turkey, South America, China and the Far East, even though the Labour Party itself drew attention to this back in 2015. We are very well positioned, because of our large Asian and Turkish communities, to study those languages through which we are most likely to benefit economically. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, has already mentioned, we have failed in schools to recognise and encourage bilingual children in some of these rarer foreign languages. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, laid out the proposals, and the Government should surely change their attitude to understanding the importance of languages as both a route to other cultures and to build bridges that lead to economic success.
We have talked about teachers coming from abroad, how important they are and what needs to be done. But one of our problems is the way we treat all migrants, which militates against welcoming them. The national political debate is itself a deterrent to anyone coming here. In this respect, though, visa waivers and some of the other proposals are very important.
I did school French and German and enjoyed them very much, but I was never particularly brilliant at them. I then worked for the World Health Organization, which asked me to go as a consultant to the beautiful little food manufacturing town of Piacenza, in the Po Valley in Italy, back in the 1980s, where the local authority wanted to improve the health and social care of older people. The WHO wisely insisted that I take a lengthy immersion course in Italian, so that I could engage in some basic discussions with the delightful Communist mayor and his incredibly forward-looking team. My life was transformed. I fell in love with Italy, of course, and the Italians, and eventually bought a home there. Forty years later I am still learning Italian, and Italian friends are laughing at my mistakes. I would like to think that every state school child here could have their eyes opened to lives beyond these shores, because perhaps it would change our currently depressing national conversations, and the conversations would be different.
Modern languages teaching can be fun, as has been stressed. We would like to see everybody having the opportunity to see other people, to visit, and to get to have some of that fun. To the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, I would like to stress that I too was addicted to Duolingo, but only a few months ago I managed to wean myself off, because the pings were driving me crazy. I will offer her treatment in mental health ways of getting rid of that addiction if she would care to. Duolingo is a start. It is a help in refreshing, but it does not substitute for that wonderful involvement we get through travelling abroad.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I add still more congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on securing this debate on such an important topic; that is clear right across the House. I pay tribute to her for her long-standing and resolute championing of modern language teaching and much, much more.
I will speak to the business case. My career has been in shipping—arguably the most international of businesses, transporting cargos all over the globe. English is the lingua franca of maritime business, employed in the vast majority of shipping contracts, as it is for most international commercial contracts. As a young shipbroker in London with English as my mother tongue, I did not realise how valuable Norwegian and French were to be for me. Taking a gap year before university and being one quarter Norwegian, I elected to spend the time as a business trainee in Norway. Despite numerous visits down the years, my knowledge of the language was fairly basic.
On my arrival, male colleagues were very affable and helpful. Rather more imaginatively, my lady colleagues announced that if I wanted any help, of course I would have to speak Norwegian. This was a challenge, but with their help, augmented by a weekly outside lesson, I made huge strides. It is amazing what six months of near total immersion can do. Three years later, on taking up my career as a shipbroker, I found that the negotiations, and a great deal of the business discussion, with Norwegian ship owners was of course in English—but they were all intrigued also to exchange some thoughts in Norwegian with this young Briton, both in and out of the office. It was an extra card that I was lucky enough to have in my hand, and I commend this to all young people thinking about their careers.
My French language shipping experience came about more haphazardly. I was a junior broker, post Cambridge, in the tanker department. One day the cry went up, “Does anyone speak French?” I assumed help was needed with an invoice or something similar. Not for the first time in my life did I find how dangerous it is to assume anything. Armed with my rather average French A-level from a summer course at the Sorbonne, I announced that I did. “Good,” announced the head of the department, “We’re going to start working with the Algerian state shipping company.” I remonstrated that my French was perhaps not all that might be required, but I was overruled. I took a few conversation classes at lunchtimes, and with some hard work on my side and some patience and forbearance on the Algerian side, we soon established a very good relationship and successfully negotiated a lot of business in French.
My point—I think it has been made many times already—is that foreign languages, particularly certain key ones such as French, Spanish and German, can be the greatest possible benefit to the individual and to businesses. Obviously today the list is getting longer, with Chinese, Arabic and Japanese becoming more prominent.
Another point relating to careers in business is that Britain is very well regarded in South American markets. There is enormous good will and great potential for British exports and invisibles. However, it is of the utmost importance to speak Spanish, or Portuguese in Brazil. I have the honour to serve as president of Canning House, the forum for UK-Latin American relations. I work very hard at it, and I love Latin America and its peoples, but alas, I do not speak Spanish. I will never equal the position enjoyed by our colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper—a former Canning House president herself, who studied in Ecuador and speaks impeccable Spanish.
Summing up all the strands—cultural, business, societal, and economic—it is essential that the UK boosts significantly its capital in languages. Recapping on all that we have heard, MFL provision is in crisis, particularly in our universities. We know that building back capacity in anything once lost is a very expensive and challenging process. I support the recommendation that a visa waiver be applied to suitably qualified foreign language teachers. I support the demands for, to be honest, most of the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, so I will not regurgitate them here. Can the Minister tell me whether any of Britain’s education providers has sought to equal the excellence of some of the former techs in the provision of business training along with foreign languages? I have had some tremendous experience down the years of exceptional people who had studied language and business at techs.
In conclusion, looking back on my experience, it was only having commenced my career that I fully appreciated the significant business value of certain languages. I suggest that consideration be given to the establishment of language ambassadors, who would visit schools and promote the immense potential value and life enrichment provided by languages in general, and perhaps degrees in them. As someone who expects soon to be out of this place, with some time on my hands, I think this would be very worth while.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this timely and thoughtful debate. I add my thanks in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing it. Across the House, there has been striking consensus on two points: first, that the decline in modern foreign language learning in our schools and universities is deeply worrying; and, secondly, that the shortage of qualified language teachers is a central and urgent cause of that decline.
Language learning is not a luxury add-on to the curriculum. It is fundamental to our economic competitiveness, cultural understanding, diplomatic reach and national security. In an increasingly competitive global economy, linguistic capability is a core economic asset. Research commissioned by the former Department for Business, and subsequently cited by the British Academy and others, has estimated that the UK’s language skills deficit costs the economy around 3.5% of GDP, as we were told by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in opening the debate. That equates to around £40 billion in lost trade annually, reduced export performance and missed investment opportunities, driven in part by an overreliance on English and a shortage of people able to operate confidently in other languages.
Many British companies that export have demonstrated more productivity and resilience than those that do not, yet surveys of small and medium-sized enterprises consistently show that language barriers are among the most common obstacles to exporting. Businesses report losing contracts, failing to enter new markets and relying on costly intermediaries because of a lack of staff with the necessary language skills. This is particularly damaging for SMEs, which form the backbone of our economy but often lack the resources to compensate for that language gap.
There is strong evidence that language skills enhance individual and national productivity. Graduates with foreign language skills enjoy a measurable wage premium during their working lives, often estimated at between 5% and 10%. This reflects their higher employability, access to roles and a range of life skills, as my noble friend Lady Smith said in talking about lifelong learning. When multiplied across the workforce, these individual gains translate into significant national economic benefits.
The United Kingdom now seeks to deepen and diversify its trading relationships with our European neighbours post Brexit. I want to comment on the “French weekends” mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard. A close friend of mine, Antoine, who works for the French Government on the Erasmus programme, is watching this debate keenly, because he is keen to expand connections between France and the United Kingdom, particularly around the French language. I was particularly moved by that.
The Government’s own trade ambitions depend on people who can negotiate contracts, understand regulatory systems, build long-term relationships and operate with cultural fluency. Language skills are not a “nice to have” in this context; they are our economic infrastructure. Yet uptake at GCSE and A-level, as we have heard from many noble Lords, remains stubbornly low, university language departments continue to close, and schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas, are increasingly unable to offer a broad and sustained language curriculum. This threatens to create a two-tier system in which language skills and the economic advantages that flow from them are concentrated among the most privileged, while the wider economy suffers from a shrinking skills base.
We cannot reverse these trends without addressing the supply of teachers. As several noble Lords have made clear, domestic recruitment alone is not currently meeting this need. The pipeline is weak, retention is fragile and workload pressures are driving skilled teachers out of the profession. Against that backdrop, it is simply self-defeating to erect additional barriers to recruiting qualified modern foreign language teachers from overseas, particularly when the economic cost of inaction is measured in tens of billions of pounds each year. That is why the question of visas and migration policy is so important.
Language teachers are, by definition, internationally mobile professionals. Many are native speakers, and bring with them a cultural knowledge and linguistic authenticity that directly improves teaching quality and student outcomes. In economic terms they represent not a cost but a long-term investment in the skills base on which future growth depends. Yet the current system remains slow, expensive and, in many cases, actively discouraging. That is why on these Benches we believe that there is a strong case for targeted visa waivers or streamlined routes specifically for modern foreign language teachers, and I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. These roles should be treated as shortage occupations not just in name but in practice. Schools should not be deterred from appointing excellent candidates because of prohibitive fees, bureaucratic delays or uncertainty over status, especially when the economic returns of stronger language capability are so well evidenced.
But visas alone will not be enough. Sustainability must be the watchword. Overseas teachers need proper induction, professional support, and a clear route to settlement if they are to stay and build long-term careers here. We must ensure that their qualifications are recognised swiftly and fairly and that schools are supported in navigating the process. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the broader ecosystem. Teacher supply is inseparable from student demand. Pupils are less likely to study languages if provision is patchy, courses are withdrawn midway or teaching is delivered by non-specialists. Universities, in turn, cannot sustain language departments if school uptake continues to fall. This is a vicious circle, as we have heard from many noble Lords, and one that the UK can ill afford economically.
I was particularly struck by contributions highlighting the impact on less commonly taught languages. They are often first to disappear when staffing becomes difficult, yet these are precisely the languages in which the United Kingdom most needs capacity. Languages such as Arabic, Mandarin, Japanese, Russian, Portuguese, Polish, Turkish, Urdu and Persian are spoken in regions accounting for a substantial and growing share of global GDP. Further, when it comes to the issue of security—I see that the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Robertson, are here—having individuals who can speak Arabic, Mandarin, Russian and Persian will be crucial in years to come. Weak provision in these languages undermines our ability to trade, attract investment and operate effectively in strategically important markets.
This is not simply an education issue, nor is it simply a migration issue; it is an economic and security strategy issue. Will the Government commit to working across departments to develop a coherent approach, one that recognises the proven economic and security value of language skills, values international expertise and places long-term sustainability at its heart? From these Benches, we stand ready to support pragmatic, evidence-based measures to rebuild language learning in this country. That includes fairer visa routes, better support for overseas teachers, stronger incentives for domestic trainees, and a renewed commitment to languages as a core part of a broad and balanced education.
If we fail to act, we risk presiding over a slow erosion of one of the UK’s greatest strengths: our ability to engage confidently, respectfully and effectively in the wider world. That would be a loss to not just our education system but our economy, our global standing and our society as a whole. I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the strength of feeling expressed across this House and respond with the urgency and ambition that the situation so clearly demands.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and all noble Lords who have chosen to make valuable contributions on this subject. The recruitment and retention of modern language teachers, indeed of teachers in all subjects, is incredibly important. In an education setting, consistency and reliability are paramount and, alongside excellence, that must be the north star. Learning a foreign language can be one of the most rewarding skills that students will achieve during their tenure at school and university. Taking on board Spanish, for example, introduces them not just to Spain but to the majority of countries in South America, such as Peru, Colombia, Argentina and Chile. They can experience some of the finest gastronomy in the world. They can dive into the history of the Inca empire. In short, learning a foreign language can be the gateway to myriad new experiences and cultural discovery to which there is only an upside.
This is not where the benefits end. Taking Peru specifically, many young people left the country for Europe during the political unrest of the late 1980s. They came to live in Europe, they learned the language, but, more importantly, they took on the culture. Many of those individuals have over the years returned to that country, and the country itself has hugely benefited from that net return. It is a melting pot of the best cultural experiences brought back home, and the UK has the ability to replicate that success.
In many situations, learning a foreign language not only deepens students’ comprehension of grammar and linguistics in both the foreign language and English but, crucially, expands their future opportunities. As highlighted by my noble friend Lady Shephard, a former Secretary of State for Education, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Mountevans, the ability to be fluent in a foreign language is attractive to employers. UK companies operating overseas should of course be offering opportunities to local staff—that goes without saying—but it will always be of interest to them if they can have colleagues from head office helping to run the business on the ground, speaking the language and interacting.
For those reasons, it is pivotal to ensure that pupils have access to an adequate number of well-trained teachers. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are encouraged by the early steps that this Government have taken. Continuing to fund the National Consortium for Languages Education is a welcome move, as is the offering of bursaries for new trainee language teachers. It would appear unlikely that the Government will introduce a visa waiver for language teachers, and we do not per se have a major issue with that, but where His Majesty’s Government will not seek teachers from abroad, they must be training teachers at home. Failing to deliver on both items is simply not an option. Some 93% of the Government’s postgraduate initial teacher training target has been met, and this is of course an important start, but, as was highlighted by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Blower, the target set was by far the lowest in recent years. It was a low bar to meet, and we urge the Minister to commit to scaling up this recruitment drive with some real numbers.
However, there is little use driving teacher recruitment if the demand is no longer there for the subjects in question. We are therefore concerned about the effects that the Government’s proposed reforms to the national curriculum will have on the uptake of foreign languages by pupils, and thus the supply of teachers in both schools and universities. As was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Shephard, the English baccalaureate will cease to exist from 2027. Pupils will no longer have a structural incentive to study a foreign language at GCSE. The GCSE is the principal gateway into the continued study of a subject. If the incentive to study languages at 16 is removed, it risks reducing the number of pupils entering the pipeline at this critical stage.
Before the Conservative Government implemented the EBacc in 2010, foreign languages as a percentage of all GCSE entries had seen a decrease of more than 60% under the previous Administration. From 2010 to 2024, we succeeded in reversing that trend. Languages have since consistently accounted for around 7% of entries. The EBacc system is proven to have worked, and the removal of that tried and tested system will undoubtedly see a return to the previous decline. Then, without the EBacc, the Government will reform Progress 8 to offer breadth at the expense of depth, despite the curriculum and assessment review recommending that its structure remain unchanged. Foreign languages will have to compete with an increased number of subjects, many of which may be perceived as less challenging, enabling students to perhaps take the easier option and further lowering uptake.
The Government have repeatedly said they are investing in 6,500 new teachers, despite the decrease in the number of primary school teachers since the Government came into power. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, put it so well on 17 December, there is at least a problem, if not a crisis, in teacher recruitment and retention. Critically, attempting to expand teacher supply while at the same time undermining subject demand will surely lead to a sub-optimal outcome. Even without the Government’s forthcoming reforms, language learning beyond GCSE level is already falling. Foreign language uptake as a proportion of A-level entries has been lowered for the past 30 years and is now less than half of GCSE entries. The number of students accepted on to French, German, Scandinavian and Iberian studies courses has fallen by 35% in the past five years.
As was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, 17 universities have now closed their modern language courses. The Government’s reforms risk accelerating this decline in foreign languages. If you lower the demand for subjects, you automatically lower the demand for teachers, which goes directly against the Government’s manifesto pledge to fire up recruitment. We ask for a focus on language pupil retention post GCSE, not lowering entries in the first place. If the Government believe that this strategy is correct, it would be safe to assume they have modelled the impact of the absence of EBacc on foreign languages uptake. So will the Minister share that modelling with your Lordships’ House? Post GCSE, how will the Government plan to both incentivise pupils to continue learning languages and to direct teachers into both higher and further education?
I conclude with something that has not been raised yet: a quote from the director of HEPI, who said that the 2004 decision that languages would no longer be compulsory for 14 to 16 year-olds was
“probably the worst educational policy of this century”.
So will the Minister commit to at least considering a reversal of that policy decision? Ensuring that there is a steady uptake of foreign languages and a suitable number of teachers requires a holistic effort throughout the schooling system.
If we fail to encourage children to learn a language at GCSE, there is little use in investing in language at later stages. If pupils do not carry languages past GCSE, we are laying brilliant foundations but not building on them.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, as the heavyweight bookend closing this debate, let me say what a good debate it has been. I thank my fellow bookend, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for having introduced it in the first place. There was a clear consensus during the debate that having the opportunity to study a modern foreign language should be part of a broad and rich education that every child in this country deserves.
Languages provide an insight into other cultures, and indeed they provide an insight into our own language, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, also made clear. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that I benefited from a couple of terms of Latin at Dyson Perrins, the school that we shared, as well as A-level French and O-level German and Italian. That has not stopped me, however, still wanting to be part of this year’s Duolingo challenge, and I will take on anybody who also wants to be part of it.
As many have argued, languages also open the door to better employment opportunities; they are an important cultural asset, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said; they are of economic and security value, and they are therefore a vital part of the curriculum. We are working to ensure that all pupils have access to a high-quality language education.
Of course—and this has been a key feature of this debate—we cannot do that without high-quality teachers in our classrooms. Recruiting and retaining expert teachers is critical to this Government’s mission to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child, as high-quality teaching is the in-school factor that has the biggest positive impact on a child’s outcomes. This is why the Government’s plan for change is committed to recruiting an additional 6,500 new expert teachers across secondary schools, special schools and colleges over this Parliament. Delivery is already under way, with a 4% pay award agreed for 2025-26, building on the 5.5% pay award for 2024-25, meaning that teachers and leaders will see an increase in their pay of almost 10% over two years under this Government.
We are already seeing positive signs that this investment is delivering, with the workforce growing by 2,346 full-time equivalents between 2023-24 and 2024-25 in secondary and special schools. That is where they are needed most, particularly for the sorts of subjects we are talking about today, and it is good that there is more positive news. We have seen a year-on-year increase in the number of trainees for postgraduate initial teacher training for modern foreign languages, up by 185 to 1,364 in 2025-26 from 1,179 in 2024-25. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, that that is a real number. This is supported by real government commitment, with continued bursaries, and therefore with a 14% increase in the number of trainee teachers starting their initial teacher training this year.
This recruitment year, we are offering language trainees bursaries worth £20,000 tax free or a scholarship worth £22,000 tax free to teach French, German or Spanish. Of course, to ensure continued recruitment of expert modern foreign language teachers, trainees can also access a tuition fee loan, maintenance loan and additional support depending on their circumstances, such as a childcare grant.
There has been a focus in this debate on international recruitment. While our teacher recruitment strategy is focused primarily on domestic recruitment, with over 70% of modern foreign language teachers being UK nationals, we recognise the valuable part that high-quality international teachers can play in contributing to our schools, especially in MFL. That is why highly qualified teachers who have trained in overseas countries can apply directly for qualified teacher status via the apply for QTS in England service, which has robust eligibility requirements to ensure that overseas teachers awarded QTS have the necessary skills and experience to teach in schools in England.
There has been focus on the immigration system during this debate and perhaps I could provide some reassurance for noble Lords. It is, of course, easier for an international teacher to be employed on a skilled worker visa than it is for other workers, by virtue of the fact that they do not have to meet the minimum visa salary thresholds as long as they are paid in line with the national teacher pay scales. This means that a qualified teacher outside London earning £31,650 qualifies for a skilled worker visa, whereas for most other occupations they would need to earn at least £41,700. I know that noble Lords have raised the point about whether it is difficult for schools to sponsor international teachers as workers. We recognise the challenge and that is why we are continuing to work closely to support the sector, providing dedicated guidance for schools which would like to employ international teachers and looking at how we can best support schools to navigate the visa sponsorship processes to ensure that international teachers can train and work in England. This is of course something where multi-academy trusts and local authorities can also provide support to schools that want to act as sponsors for those visas.
Therefore, while I understand the concerns that noble Lords have expressed about the forthcoming reduction in the graduate visa length, it remains an internationally very competitive visa and provides 18 months of opportunity for schools to determine whether an international student who has become a teacher is one whom they would then want to go on and sponsor. We also continue to offer bursaries and scholarships to non-UK national trainees in modern foreign languages to attract the best of those trainees and to ensure that they receive the appropriate training in this country.
On the international relocation payment, this was a two-year programme which the Government announced in June would not continue beyond its pilot stage. That is because, in looking at the evaluation, the research suggested that while the IRP supported some teachers to come to England to teach, the majority said that they would have come without the incentive and that the bursary and scholarship offer—which I have already outlined and which applies to international teachers—was a greater incentive to trainees.
On the point about the visa waiver, there have been no visa waivers for any profession since 2015. It is not our intention to develop a visa waiver here, but as I have identified, there are a whole range of other ways in which we are encouraging, where necessary, international students both to come to the UK and to stay to become teachers.
Several noble Lords have noted the important decision taken by this Government to rejoin from 2027 Erasmus+, the EU’s flagship programme for education, training, youth and support. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, rightly identified the asymmetry in the previous membership of Erasmus, which is why I am sure he is impressed that the Government have secured fair terms, including a 30% discount and a 10-month review to ensure value for money, maintaining a fair balance between the UK’s contribution and the number of participants benefiting from the programme. I believe that the benefits of this association, which extends beyond higher education to vocational training, adult education, schools and youth support organisations, will unlock world-class opportunities for learners, educators and communities and enable them to experience new cultures and learning environments and to learn languages, to recognise the significance of learning those languages and to gain new skills.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is right that, in order to get the most out of this, we need to ensure that we encourage participation. That is a challenge we will take very seriously. We are already working to determine the national agency. As the noble Lord said, we are talking to the British Council about taking on that role.
We know, however, that the best recruitment strategy for teachers is a strong retention strategy. Since this Government came to power, we have sought to repair the relationship with the education workforce. We are working alongside them to re-establish teaching as an attractive expert profession, in which teachers are once more valued for the important work they do.
Languages are a vital part of the curriculum. We want to ensure that all pupils have access to a high-quality language education, starting at primary where languages are a compulsory part of the national curriculum at key stages 2 and 3. We are committed to enhancing early language education through to secondary to build that strong foundation for language skills and to increase the languages pipeline.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, referenced the Curriculum and Assessment Review. It recommended that we update the key stage 2 languages programme of study to include clearly defined minimum core content for French, German and Spanish to standardise expectations about what substantial progress in one language looks like. There is an issue about how you ensure the continuity of learning from the last two years of primary education through the transition into secondary. Sometimes pupils have to move to a different language, or the secondary school does not recognise the learning that has happened in primary schools.
Strengthening the national curriculum—taking up some of the good ideas talked about by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, in terms of work between primary and secondary schools—could make an important difference. It is an area in which we can support further work. I know that all noble Lords—there has been mention of it already—are intrigued by the French weekends of the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and would be very willing to accept invitations.
We are going much further than the review’s recommendations to tackle a range of issues that impact the languages pipeline. For example, we are exploring the feasibility of developing a flexible new qualification. This would mean that all pupils can have their achievements acknowledged when they are ready rather than at fixed points, enabling a recognition of progress and development in languages. This could also be extended to languages beyond those mainstream modern foreign languages.
We will continue to fund the National Consortium for Languages Education to ensure that all language teachers, regardless of location, have access to high-quality professional development and the skills they need to deliver the curriculum, and are able to develop the sort of networks that noble Lords have talked about.
We are working with the sector to learn from successful approaches to supporting the languages pipeline, including at A-level and degree level, and ways in which we can, for example, support A-level teaching through innovative partnerships with higher education and from approaches such as the one in Hackney, which is improving primary provision and transition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, raised the issue of education technology; we are also exploring how AI and edtech can support stronger outcomes in language education, including exploring how those tools can help to deliver consistent curriculum content and support more coherent language provision across key stages as well as reduce teacher workload.
I understand that one of the objectives the last Government hoped for in introducing the EBacc was to increase study of those subjects, but actually of course the review found that uptake of EBacc subjects has not translated into increased study of them at 16 to 19. EBacc measures have, of course, unnecessarily constrained subject choice, affecting students’ engagement and achievement. That is why we will consult on an improved Progress 8, which balances a strong academic core with breadth and student choice, while no longer pursuing the EBacc accountability measure.
Languages are a vital part of the curriculum, and we want to ensure that all pupils have access to high-quality language education. That is why, starting at primary, we are committed to enhancing early language education, through to secondary, and to building a strong foundation for language skills to ensure a continuation on to A-levels and therefore to provide an appropriate pipeline into higher education. I recognise the concern that many noble Lords have expressed about the reduction in the number of students going into higher education to study modern foreign languages and the threats to some of those modern foreign language courses.
Although higher education providers are autonomous and independent institutions and will be ultimately responsible for the decisions they make regarding which courses they choose to deliver, I am sure their decisions could not have been made easier by the freezing of tuition fees and the failure by the previous Government to recognise the financial challenge that higher education was facing. That is why, although we are not proposing to change the categorisation of modern foreign languages in the strategic priorities grant, we have, through a commitment to index-linking tuition fee increases, provided much more financial stability to higher education and the ability to plan strategically and avoid the sorts of cold spots, including in modern foreign languages, that noble Lords have identified.
I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, about the significance of universities, particularly, in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, the Open University. I share her admiration and credit her for her role in the contribution that the OU makes to language learning. Although the lifelong learning entitlement does not, in its first set of modules, include modern foreign languages, there is clearly an opportunity to ensure funding for modern foreign language learning throughout lifetimes in future iterations of the extent of the lifelong learning entitlement.
In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for this excellent debate. We recognise the importance and value of languages. We will continue to ensure that language education in England is accessible for all. We have used the Curriculum and Assessment Review to strengthen languages education as part of broader curriculum reform. We recognise that this can be delivered only by expert teachers, and ensuring that there are sufficient high-quality teachers in the classroom is a cornerstone of this Government’s plan for change. That is why we are pleased about the good progress we are making in recruiting more teachers and keeping more teachers in the classroom, as well as the increased number of modern foreign language trainees who have begun training this year. We will continue to ensure that we recruit and retain the best modern foreign language teachers for the remainder of this Parliament, through our financial incentives and through improving teacher workload and well-being so that we can achieve all the benefits of learning modern foreign languages, both at school and throughout lives, that noble Lords have identified in this debate.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her reply. I am pleased and happy to hear her say that she recognises that schools still have an issue over how complicated and costly the process for applying and getting sponsorship visas can be. I hope very much that that will lead to more efficient and upfront guidance and help for schools on this issue.
On some of the other issues and questions that I put to the Minister in my introduction and which have been raised by other noble Lords, I think there is still some distance between what the Minister has set out as positive progress and the evidence being received by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages from teachers and schools, particularly teachers who are foreign nationals who have been trained here as MFL teachers but still find it very difficult to get jobs here because of the difficulty in negotiating the visa requirements. I hope that the Minister will be open to follow-up discussions with me and other noble Lords to see whether we can push a little further with the department, and of course the Home Office, on these issues.
In thanking all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, and at the risk of breaching one of the rules in the Companion, I would just like to say, merci, danke, gracias and shukran.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
(2 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That, in order to allow the House to complete its scrutiny of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and return it to the Commons in reasonable time before the end of the current parliamentary session, further time should be provided for consideration of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very aware that this is the last business we will consider today, so I shall keep my remarks brief. The assisted dying Bill commands strong views, both in favour and against, and is of huge public interest in terms of not only its content but its progress through our Parliament—and not least how we in this House conduct our scrutiny of it. Over 1,000 amendments in Committee have been tabled, arranged into approximately 84 groups. So far, we have spent in total some 32 hours in this House scrutinising the Bill, and we have another 50 hours scheduled. However, in four days of Committee—about 17 hours—we have considered only 10 groups. If we continue at the rate we are going, this House will fail to complete the process of scrutiny. We will reach no conclusions on the Bill as to how it should be amended or whether it should return to the Commons. Instead, the Bill will fail through lack of time—this despite the fact that it came to this House in June of last year after extensive scrutiny in the Commons and received in this House an unopposed Second Reading after a two-day debate with 110 speakers.
Many Members of the House, from the newest to the most experienced and on both sides of the substantive issue of assisted dying, have expressed the view to me that it would be wrong, and would significantly damage the reputation of this House, if we failed to reach conclusions on the Bill. I strongly agree with that. We should not allow our justified reputation for high-quality scrutiny to be tarnished by failing to reach conclusions on this Bill.
The purpose of my Motion today is to give the House the opportunity to express a view on whether your Lordships want this House to complete its scrutiny and, if the Bill passes Third Reading in this House, to send it back to the Commons in time for it to complete all its stages before the end of this parliamentary Session. To achieve this, I believe that we have to undertake our scrutiny role in the normal way that we do. We need to work co-operatively so that we can focus the time we have on the key issues, in order to reach agreement wherever possible on amendments to the Bill, and then decide whether to send the Bill back to the Commons.
This House works best when we work together, exercise self-restraint and undertake scrutiny that reaches conclusions on legislation. For self-regulation to retain respect—and I most certainly believe it should continue—this House has to be effective in reaching conclusions.
The Government are neutral on this Bill and will, I know, remain so. As sponsor of the Bill, I am grateful for the time that has been made available so far for consideration of it. But, as I have said, if we continue at this pace, we will fail in our responsibility to scrutinise the Bill.
If the Motion passes, I would hope that all sides can be brought together through the usual channels to achieve a reasonable, informal but effective process to complete the passage of the Bill through this House—taking into account, of course, the needs of the House staff. This remains a Private Member’s Bill, and extra time should not involve any time that would otherwise be for government business.
The approach to scrutiny I am suggesting, which is normal in our House, is the way we can fulfil our role as a revising Chamber and reach conclusions. This does not lead to chaos. The House would have to agree to an amendment like this in each case. The key thing is the approach we take to scrutiny. More time may be required, but the mutual agreement we reach on how we do things is key to the solution.
Before I close, I emphasise that the form of the Motion has been drafted to ensure that it does not preclude the possibility of a negative vote at Third Reading. My personal view is that, for constitutional reasons, this would be the wrong thing for this House to do, but it is not excluded by the Motion. My aim with the Motion is to get to Third Reading, so that we can reach a decision on the Bill and, if it passes that stage, ensure that it has time to complete its later stages in Parliament. The Government Chief Whip has made it clear to me—I completely agree with this—that if the Motion passes, the normal sitting hours for tomorrow will not be affected in any way.
Whatever colleagues’ views are on the Bill, I invite all noble Lords to support the Motion and thereby express the view of this House that it wishes to complete its scrutiny of the Bill, reach conclusions and thereby fulfil its responsibilities as a revising Chamber. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, after the Leader of the House has spoken, I will call the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, who is taking part remotely.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, before other noble Lords contribute, I thought it would assist the House if I said a few words about the procedure and timings for this debate and the Government’s position.
Turning first to procedure, I remind colleagues that this debate should be focused on the narrow subject of the Motion—that is, the time available to debate the Bill. The purpose of the Motion before us is to allow the House to express a view on the time needed. It is not an opportunity to reopen and continue debate on the substance of the Bill and what it does and does not do. So far, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, we have had two days of Second Reading and many hours of Committee, and there are a further 10 Fridays scheduled for debate. I would also urge noble Lords not to repeat arguments and to keep comments brief so that this debate can conclude in good time.
Secondly, on timings, colleagues will be mindful that the House is due to sit again at 10 am tomorrow morning further to consider amendments to the Bill. Noble Lords will need to come to a decision this evening on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. In light of tomorrow’s sitting time, I hope that the House will not sit too late. If necessary, the Chief Whip or I may return to the Dispatch Box to advise colleagues if it looks as if proceedings are not coming to a timely conclusion.
On the Government’s position on the Bill, as we have said before, the Government are neutral on this issue. This is not a Government Bill but a Private Member’s Bill. Noble Lords are considering whether, in light of the additional Fridays already provided, additional time beyond the usual sitting Friday times should be made available. I know that the House is interested in how the Government will respond to this question if the Motion is passed. I hope that noble Lords will also understand that I am not going to give any commitments at this stage. We will listen to the debate and, if the Motion is agreed, to the views of the House.
If the Motion is agreed, we will have early discussions with colleagues in the usual channels, the House authorities and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on the next steps. In considering those next steps, I am clear that the Bill should not take away time available for government legislation. I am sure that we are all very mindful of the impact on the staff of the House and the Members involved in discussions and debates on the Bill. I hope that this is helpful, prior to the consideration of this specific debate on the timings of the discussions to take place.
Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]
My Lords, I cannot be present in person today because of the snow and the increased risk of fracture should I slip. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak remotely and briefly on the Motion before us. The Motion implies that, despite our already having been generous with our time to an unprecedented degree, as the allocation of so many Fridays between now and 24 April demonstrates, it would somehow be unreasonable not to allocate yet more time.
I suggest that the Motion overlooks the reason why we have had to spend so much time to date considering amendments, for surely, as with any Bill, we can only ever work with what we have been given—in this case, by the other place. The volume of amendments and the time taken to consider them therefore reflect the quality, or lack thereof, of the Bill that was sent to us.
I wonder if we really appreciate the deep gratitude of those who, unlike us, are not privileged, perhaps because they feel vulnerable because of disability or old age, and do not have a voice, so depend on us to consider their concerns. It is surely to our credit that that is exactly what we are doing. We should surely be heartened by how much it is appreciated that we take our duty to scrutinise so seriously. We are simply doing our job without fear or favour as Parliament’s revising Chamber.
In conclusion, I am reminded of a wonderfully wise Scottish saying from the 16th century, which I believe this Bill shows has stood the test of time: “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”. Our procedures are being followed appropriately and reasonably. If any Bill is so poorly drafted and so unsafe, surely the question is not so much whether the Bill deserves more time, but whether yet more time could transform it.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I speak very briefly in favour of the Motion. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, this is not about support or opposition to the Bill. It is about how your Lordships’ House deals with a controversial piece of legislation, passed by the other House, which has come to us as a Private Member’s Bill. It is not an easy question, and it is a slightly unusual position. One can adduce very sensible arguments in favour of whatever position one wants to take; we all have our own views.
Many people have been in this House far longer than I have, but this issue is not just for this House; it is for Parliament and for the other House. I come to this after 40 years in the other place, where I had responsibilities, among others, for managing parliamentary business and relationships with your Lordships’ House. I mind, as others do, about the reputation of Parliament at a time when we are under increased scrutiny.
In a nutshell, my view is that the House should carry on with its traditional role of scrutinising and, if necessary, amending legislation, but crucially, the final decision as to whether this controversial piece of legislation reaches the statute book should be taken by the other place and not by us. At the end of the day, they are accountable to the electorate for the progress of this Bill. That is what the Motion seeks to do and that is why I support it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for writing an email to everyone in the House, but I did so because the Motion is extremely important and I strongly support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. This is probably one of the most important Bills to come before this House in recent years, as all noble Lords will know. It is unfortunate that it is a Private Member’s Bill, because that presents additional problems. I do not like the Bill, but we have it and we have to deal with it.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I rise, after a very heavy day of debate, because it is important to reflect on what I have heard, not only in interactions with colleagues and friends across your Lordships’ House but, more importantly, from the public. They are looking to us to do our role: to scrutinise legislation. I have sat through some fantastic debates, particularly watching the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, on the other side of the argument. However, I have canvassed colleagues on this side of the House—we are not whipped either—and some of their comments are, “I am not supportive of your position, but I am frustrated by the lack of progress”. That is a consistent message across your Lordships’ House and out among the public.
There is a lot of scrutiny on your Lordships’ House at the moment—on what we do, whether we deliver value for money, et cetera. There would be a massive negative reaction from the public, regardless of what side of the argument they are on, if we do not get through this legislation. I join the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in urging the Government and the usual channels to support us, as suggested by the Motion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. We owe it to the public, who will be watching us, to do our best to make sure that we do our duty and send this Bill back to the other place for it to do its duty as well.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I too support the idea that this Bill needs extra time. It is entirely unsurprising that that is the case given that, notwithstanding the fact that it is a Private Member’s Bill, it is dealing with such a matter of substance. For example, if you compare the process that was put before the House for the Mental Health Bill—an important but arguably less significant piece of legislation—by the time we got to the Lords Committee stage, we had already had an independent commission, a White Paper, a public consultation, draft legislation and pre-legislative scrutiny. All of that is in effect being done by your Lordships through this process, so it is not surprising we need extra time. The suggestion that, just because this has been introduced as a Private Member’s Bill, democracy requires that we give it less scrutiny than a government Bill is an unpersuasive argument.
It is also the case that, over the first few days of Committee, some pretty significant matters of substance have arisen. We are not going to rehearse them now, but they are around capacity, choice, vulnerable groups and eligibility. While agreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the sponsor, that we need to find a way of coming to some judgments on these questions, what process does he envisage for that? The guidance that those who have put down probing amendments in Committee have got back from the Government—precisely because the Government do not want their fingerprints all over this Bill—has been, shall we say, Delphic or elliptical. The phrasing that Ministers have used time and again has been, “If you are contemplating coming back with an amendment such as that on Report, then you will need to do further work to make sure it is fully workable, effective and enforceable”, but then there is no subsequent work to bring that about. If we are going to have a substantive debate on Report, so we can get these safeguards in place, we are going to need to see that.
Finally, I would like to ask a question of the Government. For those of us who have concerns about the interaction between this legislation and the state of the health service, social care and palliative care, it would be very helpful if we could have more clarity soon from the Government on how they see those interactions happening. Yesterday, in the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee, the Minister responsible for palliative care said that the Government would not publish their detailed modern framework for palliative care until, in effect, after this Bill had supposedly already passed through Parliament, which seems to me a dangerous reversal of the timetable that we require. It would be excellent to hear from the sponsor of the Bill and from the Government how they can help the House constructively engage on Report on some of the safeguards which are, in my judgment, clearly needed.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for namechecking me earlier, particularly in the same sentence as my noble friend Lord Pannick. I have the unenviable task tomorrow morning of moving the first amendment and the first group at 10 o’clock and, before I come here, I shall certainly have to reflect on the length of the speech that I intend to make. In fact, I have already prepared a speech that will probably not last more than 12 to 15 minutes, which seems to me be entirely proportionate to the huge group that we will be considering tomorrow.
I came here thinking that I would oppose the noble and learned Lord’s Motion, if it was put to the test. However, in fact I have been particularly influenced by the speech of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, who brings great wisdom to this House and, above all, an example of common sense which is heard often among the senior judiciary, in my view—I had to say that, did I not?
I have one stricture, if it is right to describe it as that, to put to the noble and learned Lord, for whom I have a great deal of respect and with whom I have discussed issues relating to the length of the debates on this Bill. I still believe that we can complete all stages of this Bill in the time that has already been allotted. I believe that if Members of this House were sparing in not making further Second Reading-type speeches, we would achieve that task. However, I say to the noble and learned Lord that we do need a little bit more discussion from his side. I have encouraged him, and there have been meetings to this effect, to look at the main issues on this Bill—I know there are a thousand amendments, but there are about 10 main issues at most—and come and tell us where he is prepared to make concessions, and how we can constructively discuss such concessions. On a Bill like this, if we do not go through that process, actually, the Committee stage becomes futile.
I hope that as a result of this debate—and I will not now vote against this Motion if the opinion of the House is sought—we shall see a more co-operative and speedy approach to the Bill’s Committee stage so that we really can achieve reaching a Third Reading debate.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, I was one of the signatories to the email that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred to. I was very happy to do that, because although I of course support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in his Motion, I additionally think that it is worth reflecting tonight on another aspect of the House of Lords’ reputation in this matter.
I have been involved with this issue in this House for several decades, and the House of Lords has, until now, shown extraordinary parliamentary leadership on this question. We have considered three other Bills apart from this one and we have had two other Select Committees. Personally, I was influenced in understanding the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, by going to Oregon with her 20 years ago to look at the state of its situation. We did not agree—we came away with very different perspectives of what we saw—but we were both very much influenced by that. The House of Lords has shown authority, enormous value in its scrutiny and great honesty in its debates. I am very sad that in the last few weeks, which I fear has been partly because of some of the issues that have been mentioned tonight, the House of Lords, instead of being congratulated on its position on assisted dying, which has been the previous situation, has been heavily criticised for the nature of the—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I suggest that noble Lords do not interrupt other noble Lords when they are speaking.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
I do not back away from the phrase “heavily criticised”. I cannot believe that anybody in this House who has at least absorbed some of the media coverage of these debates has not accepted that there has been no general agreement about the positions that have been taken, and more importantly, about the way in which some of those positions have been argued. There are, of course, enormous divisions of opinion, as there have always been, but in this House, they have been—
Lord Moylan (Con)
Is the noble Baroness absolutely confident that her remarks are pertinent to the Motion and the question of how much time should be allocated to the debate?
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
I hesitate to argue with the noble Lord, but I am trying to make the points about the value of the reputation of this House, specifically in relation to this particular subject—on which over many years we have built up an authority, which I am very sad to see dissipated if there are more time-wasting activities, which other noble Lords have referred to.
I hope that this Motion will be accepted, that we will go through with our very important work, that we will send the Bill back to the Commons in time for it to be appropriately considered there and—it is very important to say—that we regain our reputation for honest, lengthy, astute scrutiny and great authority on this subject.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
I support the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, because I remember debates in this House on assisted dying over 20 or 25 years ago—the noble Baroness spoke in them, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We have always taken a great interest in it.
It is very clear that in this House there is a small group who are passionately for assisted dying and a small group who are positively against it. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it is very difficult to bring them together. The speech that he made today was very similar to the speech that he made about three weeks ago, asking for common sense to prevail and that we should discuss what the amendments should be. I applaud that approach, but it appears that the people moving the amendments do not want that to happen. They do not want the Bill to pass at all. That was very clear in the early debates I remember of 25 years ago. They are just not going to accept amendments; they want the Bill to be blocked.
As we are the second most important debating Chamber in the country, I find it extraordinary that, after the length of time we have taken debating it and listening, we cannot come to a conclusion.
I do not believe that the Front Benches are listening to the country at all about this. The country on the whole does not follow most of our debates on minor legislation, but people do know that we are being subjected to a filibuster in this House by a relatively small number of Members. It goes back to those early debates. The main argument against assisted dying, way back 25 years ago, was the sanctity of life. That has virtually disappeared, apart from the fact that two bishops mentioned it at Second Reading.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I agree that we could complete the Bill in the time allocated if we got a firm steer from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about what he intends to do with the amendments we have already discussed. The closest we came to a steer from him was in our last session, discussing 18, 21 and 25 year-olds, when he said he would go away and think about possibly adding new tests to make it more certain that 18 year-olds had made the right decision on whether they should opt to die or not.
I have sat through all the debates here and I stand to be corrected, but I do not think the noble and learned Lord has agreed to accept in principle any of the other amendments that have been tabled. He gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that he intends to defend every word in the Bill, line by line, and not produce reasoned amendments for Report. If he were to do that, I suspect we could make a great deal more progress.
I conclude by saying that, tomorrow, we will be discussing major amendments on palliative care, and many of them are quite different. If the noble and learned Lord were to stand up early on and say, “I like the principles of Amendments X, Y and Z, and I promise to go away and come back on Report with a better version of them”, I suspect we would make rapid progress. So it is in the noble and learned Lord’s hands to get this done in the next 10 days, and he should not blame those who are willing to talk about amendments which he gives the impression he would never accept in a month of Sundays.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. I also support the idea of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that the Bill needs more time for scrutiny than is available through the usual tried and tested Private Member’s Bill process. We have to manage expectations, though, and I have been thinking about precedents for a Bill of this complexity. With the help of the House of Lords Library, I have been looking at balloted Private Members’ Bills from the House of Commons ballot that reached First Reading in this House in the 10 years from the start of the 2015 Session. It is very interesting.
In the other place, of course, ballot Bills are introduced by title only, with the full text appearing or changing at later stages. But the full text version as brought from the Commons provides a consistent and analytically robust basis for comparison. The average length of the Bills in that 10-year period was 8.8 pages, with a mean of five clauses. In contrast, this complex Bill, heralding major social and societal changes, has 51 pages, with 59 clauses. So it is hardly surprising that it needs lengthy scrutiny.
Eight of these pages were actually added by the sponsor on Report, with little or no discussion. In the other place, 92% of the amendments tabled by Members other than the sponsor were not even debated, and just seven were put to MPs for decision. This data refutes the misleading impression being given in the national media, which suggests that your Lordships’ House is delaying progress by tabling and debating amendments, as in reality they are needed to improve the safety and care of patients.
I suggest that counting the number of amendments is misleading, because many are consequential on the change proposed. As my noble friend Lord Carlile suggested, there are about 10 major issues. The noble and learned Lord has not said which amendments, if any, even those recommended by the royal colleges and patient advocacy groups, he is willing to accept. Members are waiting for his active engagement and for a bit of give and take.
In the past 10 years, only 66—about a third—of all balloted Private Members’ Bills have become law. Of these successful Bills, the vast majority were government handouts or had explicit government support. Nobody can argue against scrutiny, and I am glad that the noble and learned Lord has recognised that a Bill of this length and complexity does not fit the usual model of a Private Member’s Bill. I have concluded that the kindest thing for the Government to do would be to seek to establish a royal commission to give this weighty issue the attention that it deserves. We cannot do it justice through the Private Members’ Bill process, but I agree that it needs time.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I hope that the noble and learned Lord gets an opportunity to reply to this debate, but I wondered whether I could ask what is perhaps the daft laddie question. Is he, or are the Government Front Bench, able to tell us how many days and what dates they think will be required for the Bill to get through its passage in Committee, on Report—bearing in mind that there may well be Divisions on Report—and then at Third Reading, so that proceedings here will be completed in adequate time before the end of the parliamentary Session, before it goes back to the other place? Of course, the other place will presumably need time on Fridays or Wednesdays, as I think they sometimes sit on Wednesdays to deal with Private Members’ Bills.
Irrespective of one’s views of the merits of the Bill or of the noble and learned Lord’s Motion, it would be enormously helpful if he could put some meat on the bones of “reasonable time”—the phrase he uses in his Motion. That would inform us in a very helpful way. If he cannot do it, perhaps the Government Front Bench could do so instead.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra on the process. Time in Committee is obviously linked to the progress of meetings, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for offering a one-on-one meeting on one aspect of the Bill.
However, the usual manner in Committee, as I have understood it from substantive Bills—usually government Bills—is to have themed meetings with quite a large number of Peers to discuss issues. There may be around 10, but I would say that there are more than 10 issues here. That is concentrated down on Report. If the noble and learned Lord could adopt that process, it would limit the time in Committee.
I might also remind the noble and learned Lord of his evidence to the Select Committee when I raised the issue of advertising. If noble Lords look at Clause 43, they would think that advertising was still on printed pieces of paper. We know that that is not the case but, due to the lack of government write-round on a Private Member’s Bill, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which has responsibility for the Online Safety Act, has no idea what the impact of that clause will be on that Act or on online advertising. In response to my questions, the noble and learned Lord accepted that he needs to come back with more detail on advertising.
I have looked at the Order Paper under Clause 43 and there are a number of amendments, but still none from the noble and learned Lord in relation to these matters, so I am now going to have to go to the Public Bill Office to get my amendments drafted not knowing what the noble and learned Lord’s position was when he gave that evidence before Christmas. That is the type of issue of process that is causing more time to be used in your Lordships’ House. I have about 15 amendments down, so I am concentrating on a handful of the issues, which I believe is the way I have behaved with any Bill before your Lordships’ House to date.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
May I ask noble Lords to focus more clearly on the Motion in front of us and not get into discussing the Bill? What is before us is very narrow and could be disposed of quite quickly if we focus on that.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I support the intent behind the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I believe that it is right that the House be given the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in exhaustive detail, given the significance of the legislation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, pointed out, the comparison that can be legitimately drawn with government legislation of equal significance but perhaps less moment that has had a greater degree of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation.
I also think it right to take account of the point that was made fairly and succinctly by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier: that we are being invited to commit to extra time without necessarily knowing how much and under what circumstances. We may receive enlightenment from the Government Front Bench; we may receive indications from Ministers as to what is envisaged; but it would be helpful to know, rather than to vote in favour of or to offer our support for a generalised sentiment rather than a precise plan of action. Indeed, some of the concern about the legislation being put forward has come from those who sympathise with the generalised sentiment of the legislation itself but worry profoundly about implementation.
In the evidence of the Committee that we have had so far, I believe that the debate has been characterised by high-quality interventions from all sides. I would briefly single out the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Berger. The debate she initiated on the age at which this momentous decision might be taken prompted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to acknowledge that many wise arguments were raised and that it was appropriate that some discussion should take place outside this place about how her concerns might be taken account of in the legislation. It was gracious of him to do so, but valuable as those conversations outside the Chamber are, they are no substitute, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, pointed out, for an acknowledgement in the Chamber of a willingness on the part of the promoters of the Bill and others to come forward with their own amendments, or to accept amendments from other Peers which ensure that the lacunae identified in the legislation are to be properly addressed before we reach Report and Third Reading, or on Report.
My final point—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The mover of the original Bill, as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, have written to all Members to say that their door is open, offering to discuss a way forward. The offer has been there, and the noble Lord should accept that.
Lord Gove (Con)
I did accept that, and if I did not make myself clear enough, let me make it absolutely clear: I consider it to be wise and gracious and I am grateful, but it is still no substitute for the legislative process itself and for legislators being satisfied that the acknowledgement of a fault or lacuna in the Bill is to be addressed through an amendment or to be rejected, so we can make a judgment about the Bill, unamended, on that basis. That is the purpose of legislative scrutiny. It is not about reassurances, however polite, well-meant and honourable; it is about legislation. This is a law-making Chamber.
I have two final points. The point was made by Joubert, the French philosopher, that it is better to comprehensively debate a principle without settling it than to settle it without comprehensive debate. That is the essence of the democratic principle—all the more so when we are legislating. I want to see the maximum amount of time, so that the amendments that have been put forward are properly scrutinised. It is not just a personal preference on my part, and here I take profound issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for whom I have enormous respect. She referred to what has been written about our debates outside. We may or may not wish to take account of that, but it is quite wrong to say that this House has been lowered in the estimation of outside observers because of the way in which we have handled the debate on this Bill.
Lord Gove (Con)
Noble Lords may not wish to hear it, but this is of direct relevance to the debate.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, can we just turn the temperature of the House down a bit, please? There is no need for this. We have a very narrow Motion before us. Let us stick to the Motion and make a decision.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I shall move to the Woolsack in a few minutes, so I shall be mute, for which many noble Lords will be grateful. Perhaps I might just point out to the noble Lord, and perhaps to some of his colleagues who have graced us with their presence in recent months, that the principle that this House has in the way it conducts itself is self-regulation. Perhaps I could just define what self-regulation is not. Self-regulation is not regulating oneself in one’s own self-interest; it is regulating oneself in the interest of the whole House and of the reputation of the House, and to get business done. I think that certain noble Lords are in danger of misunderstanding exactly what we understand self-regulation to be, and they are doing themselves and their reputation no good.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, the way to avoid introducing for the first time a guillotine Motion on a Bill in this House is for my noble and learned friend to specifically come within the next 10 days to answer each and every question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. That would solve the problem.
Lord Gove (Con)
I am grateful for those recent interventions. They certainly help me, and I am sure they assist the House. But it also assists the House to know that this House is more respected, not less, for giving extensive scrutiny to the Bill. This is the view of people, including those, such as Charlotte Ivers, who favour assisted dying. It would be a sad day if those of us who believe in exhaustive scrutiny and extensive debate were told that that was not in our best traditions.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise briefly to say, thinking particularly about those who are living, but specifically about those who are dying, let us pass this Motion tonight and get on with the work.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Gove, asks: how much extra time? The answer surely is that that depends on what progress we make tomorrow and next week. Can I simply say this? There are many difficult issues posed by this Bill, but this Motion is not difficult at all. We are simply being asked to vote that this House believes that extra time should be granted to the extent required to ensure that we can come to a conclusion, whether it is in favour of this Bill, whether it is against this Bill or whether it is that the Bill should be amended. Let us get on and approve this Motion.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I think we have exhausted the debate. There is widespread support for this Motion, and for that I am incredibly grateful. Can I say just one thing? What this Motion, if passed, means is that the House is saying loudly, clearly and, I hope, unanimously that our job is to get to the end of the process of scrutinising the Bill.
I shall answer just two or three particular points that have been made. What is at the heart of it is the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. What will we do and how long will it take? I agree with the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We need to craft informally a process that ensures that we get to the end of the process.
The Leader of the House was kind enough to say that, if this Motion were to pass, the usual channels would, in effect, convene a meeting and we would then seek a way forward. I have to say I am incredibly attracted to the things that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said: not his opposition to the Bill, I hasten to add, but to the proposition that there are—and this number may be wrong—about 10 crucial issues in relation to this Bill. Let us immediately try to identify what those 10 or so issues are and then reach a process by which we go through them. To the credit of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that has been his position all along. He very helpfully led us to an identification of those 10 issues and we tried to do a grouping that reflected that, but it did not command support. I think we should look at that again.
It is so important for the House to come to the right conclusion. If we pass this Motion now, we will send a signal that our job is to craft a structure that means that we can get through the Bill.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I have listened to all that the noble and learned Lord said and I agree with the various statements which have been made about the duty to scrutinise, but I have also listened to those who have said that he has not responded to any of the amendments, apart from that on age. The issues are identified. Can he tell the House how he will respond in a positive manner, as Members on the Front Bench normally do when we are discussing Bills?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, that is a perfectly fair question. I have quite scrupulously, as we have gone through the amendments in Committee, indicated which I accept or in principle accept; for example, in relation to 18 to 25 year-olds. Subsequent to that, we have had meetings, and I have gone through in some detail how we should deal with that, and we have reached agreement at those meetings in principle as to what to do. I am very grateful to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is nodding in relation to that.
In addition, for example, I have indicated that I am in favour in principle of some special protection for those who have suffered from a deprivation of liberty. I have also indicated—and I do this just by way of example—that in relation to multidisciplinary teams looking after people who are grievously ill or terminally ill, we should think of some way of incorporating their role into the Bill. It is obvious that I am not doing it enough, but I feel I have responded in some detail in relation to individual points. I have also indicated where I do not accept amendments. However, I am listening, and I need to improve in relation to that, because many people are saying that I am not responding adequately; but that will need to be part of the process that we adopt.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Before the noble Baroness intervenes, can I just say that if we are having questions to the noble and learned Lord, they should be on the Motion and not on the wider issue of the Bill.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Before the noble and learned Lord makes his decision whether to press his Motion, I simply wanted to ask the Leader of the House whether, if this Motion is passed, she believes that a new form of procedure has then been created by this House. It will no longer really be a Private Member’s Bill. We will have a situation where, as a Back-Bencher, the noble and learned Lord will have demonstrated that it is possible to take control of the scheduling of business in this House. As there have been a lot of very positive contributions both from the noble and the learned Lord and from others in response to this Motion and a desire for this House to change the way in which it is dealing with this Bill, would it be better for him to withdraw the Motion rather than create a new situation?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness asks me to respond. I do not know if she was here at the beginning, when I first commented, but I was very clear that the House will be making a decision on what it thinks. If the House makes a decision that it wishes to have extra time, then it will be a matter for discussion in the usual channels to see if that is available. That is not a new procedure. I was also very clear that it is not open to the Government to provide government time for this Bill; this is a Private Member’s Bill. But the usual channels, both government and opposition, and all parties, will listen to what the House has to say and reflect on that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with every single word the Leader said. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before I move to adjourn the House, I wanted to touch on the impact of the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. The House has agreed the Motion, and the Government will reflect on that carefully with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. As my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon has said, the Government remain neutral on the Bill, and I cannot give any firm commitments about what will happen next. But as is right, we will carefully think how we can progress the Bill outside government time.
I am sure noble Lords will have questions about what this means for tomorrow. As I have said, ultimately how the House sits on any given day is in the hands of the House, not me as Government Chief Whip. But, as my noble friend Lady Smith has said, I do not consider it reasonable for the House to sit beyond the usual rising time tomorrow at this short notice. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has, of course, agreed with that, and has made that clear in his contribution. I will therefore seek to adjourn the House at around 3 pm tomorrow, as I have done in previous weeks. I will then, as my noble friend Lady Smith has said, seek to hold urgent discussions with the usual channels and the House authorities early next week, to seek to find a way forward to deliver what the House has just agreed. With that, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.