Lords Chamber

Wednesday 30th April 2025

(began 9 hours, 36 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
None Portrait Oral questions: Implementing the LGBT Veterans Financial Recognition Scheme
-

indeed Northern Ireland. My friend is right to point out there has to be a small and medium-sized industry
15:30
15:30
None Portrait Oral questions: Implementing the LGBT Veterans Financial Recognition Scheme
-

that those with smaller, medium- sized enterprises benefit from that. What I want to know is not why we
15:30
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:43
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
2024.. It is record breaking number of reports and is driven by a number of reports and is driven by a number of new threats, including the AI generated child sexual abuse extortion and the malicious sharing extortion and the malicious sharing of sexual imagery for the IWS says under 18s are now facing a crisis of under 18s are now facing a crisis of sexual excitation and risk online. I heard what the Minister said and I ask what the government is intending ask what the government is intending to do to protect children in the UK to do to protect children in the UK and around the world now? So that we can see a significant reduction of these crimes, continuing, to ensure that when the 2025 report comes out next year, but we do see a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

significant reduction. My Lords, through the Crime and Policing Bill, this government will introduce a new suite of measures to introduce a new suite of measures to tackle the growing threat of AI. This includes criminalising AI models, made or adapted to generate models, made or adapted to generate child sexual abuse imagery. In extending the existing paedophile extending the existing paedophile manuals offence, to cover AI generated child sexual abuse material. In addition, the Home Office will be bolstering the undercover online network of police officers that target online officers that target online offenders, and develop the cutting- edge AI tools and other new capabilities, to infiltrate live streams and chat rooms, where children are being groomed.

My Lords, the Home Office is developing options at pace, and potential device operating system levels safety controls, to prevent online exploitation and abuse of children. My Lords, I should just say, it is absolutely vital that we tackle the
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:48
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
depict child sexual abuse is deeply disturbing and the creation of the disturbing and the creation of the cemetery uses the faces or bodies are real children. Much of it falls into a category a material, into a category a material, depicting abuse of the most extreme depicting abuse of the most extreme kind. Can the noble Baroness the Minister explain the government's plans to crack down on those who share information specifically on share information specifically on how to use text to image-based generative AI tools which lead to the creation of this appalling material?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We already have, we are already taking steps to deal with this. I'm taking steps to deal with this. I'm just checking I've got the right bait. We are committed to making bait. We are committed to making sure our laws tackle child sexual abuse materials and keep up-to-date abuse materials and keep up-to-date with technological developments. In the Crime and Policing Bill we've the Crime and Policing Bill we've introduced AI models which are introduced AI models which are optimised -- we have introduced criminalisation of AI models which are optimised to create child sexual abuse imagery.

This is whether it is abuse imagery. This is whether it is real or whether it is a fake. And in the Data Use and Access capital, we have criminalised artificially generated materials. There are steps we are taking within the current legislation program to deal with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these incidents. A number of concerns have been raised about of come's recently raised about of come's recently released code of practice. Can the released code of practice. Can the Minister say what plans the government has to monitor the effectiveness of these codes of practice?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

practice? It's important to recognise that the measures Ofcom have set out in the measures Ofcom have set out in the Illegal Codes and Safety Codes the Illegal Codes and Safety Codes of Practice last week changed to protect users online. It is the first time platforms are legally required to tackle illegal content and content harmful to children. In section 47 of the act, Ofcom is required to keep this under review. Additionally, the act requires the Secretary of State to review the
15:51
15:51
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
emphasises the AIG child sexual emphasises the AIG child sexual abuse of children -- AIG child abuse of children -- AIG child sexual abuse images. Over 70% of the AIG sexual abuse images are hosted AIG sexual abuse images are hosted upon servers in Russia, Japan, the United States and in the United States and in the Netherlands. What is being done to solve the jurisdiction issues that allow arbitrators and disseminate as of this appalling abuse to act with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

impunity? My noble friend has raised a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend has raised a really important point. I should also stress if the service including file sharing and storage services file sharing and storage services hosts a material risk to users in hosts a material risk to users in the United Kingdom, they must abide by the Online Safety Act and the illegal content duties, no matter illegal content duties, no matter where they are based. Ofcom have recognised the importance of tackling this issue specifically and have identified it's an early parity have identified it's an early parity for enforcement.

Opening of the programme for assessing storage and sharing services which they are implementing to prevent their services from being able to be as. Noble Lord is right. A lot of these incidents are happening on international basis. We are working on an international basis with colleagues to make sure that we share information and we determine where the sources of some of these materials are coming from because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sometimes we need to take action on an international basis. Pack includes Oral Questions for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pack includes Oral Questions for today. -- That concludes Oral

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions for today. From the comments that they have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From the comments that they have passed the Public Authorities Fraud Bill for which they require the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreement of relatives. Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill. I beg to move that this bill been a red for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first time. This bill been a red for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This bill been a red for the first time. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Now, we will take a moment for the house to rearrange
15:54
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Child rape gang scandal
-

15:54
15:54
15:55
15:55
15:56
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
I would thank my note -- my lord for the question. In regards to the independent enquiry, my Lords, the former leader of his party, the noble Baroness lady may instituted national enquiry. 7000 victims gave evidence. There were 2 million pages of evidence to be considered. It took 99 months. It cost hundred £92.6 million. That enquiry and the recommendations by Professor Jay were delivered to the previous government in October 2022, and there was no response from the government.

Not a single recommendation was followed. In fact, the FT quoted a government veteran for the last government. Report just came out at the unfortunate time and it was maybe to some extent forgotten or de- prioritise. This government has sought to move as quickly as possible within our first nine months. We have acted on 17 of the recommendations made in the Excel

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report -- ICSA Report. My Lords, the we can's tragic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the we can's tragic news about the death of Virginia news about the death of Virginia Giuffre highlights the consequences of child sexual abuse. I should note of child sexual abuse. I should note that my children -- mice sister -- I that my children -- mice sister -- I should note that my sister suffered serious abuse as a child. She was serious abuse as a child. She was affected by mental illness for the rest of her life. On Monday, no minister mentioned men from the Asian subcontinent.

Public perception of a cover-up, of deeply misogynistic and racist crimes. Will the government admit this very serious national problem mainly involves men from a large UK minority or risk the democratic danger of appearing to pander to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

key section of their voter base? I'm so sorry to hear of the experiences of the noble Lord's experiences of the noble Lord's sister and I can only send my heartfelt support for her. One of the issues that we have sought to the issues that we have sought to do, the Home Office has doubled funding to support adult survivors. I think that is a very important part when we consider the genuine scale of the issue. The British crime survey last year said that crime survey last year said that 11.5% of women had experienced child sexual abuse under the age of 16.

These are figures which are horrendous. In regards to the question about perpetrators of crime. In January, the government announced Baroness Keeley's abuse. The audit will improve...
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:03
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:06
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
deepest sympathy for the victims, injured in this attack. We all hope for their full and quick recovery and indeed, I think in the last few hours, the second victim in the attack has been discharged from hospital. Communities in Headingley and across the country are feeling alarmed and fearful in the aftermath of this attack. So, can the noble Lord, the Minister, please update the House, on how the government and other agencies are coordinating efforts with the police to intervene early, and do their utmost to prevent another attack of a similar nature to this, from taking place.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

So, can I share the sentiments which the noble Lord has just expressed, I am pleased to hear that expressed, I am pleased to hear that the second victim has been discharged from hospital. What I can discharged from hospital. What I can say is that in the public domain already, which is that the police are investigating this matter very seriously, including counterterrorism police and that counterterrorism police and that there is a sustained policing effort in the area, to reassure the residents of that area, and that residents of that area, and that they have no particular calls for ongoing alarm, if I can phrase it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

like that. Is somebody who lives in Leeds,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is somebody who lives in Leeds, and I was actually in Headingley on Friday evening, can I add my own support and thanks to the police and the emergency services for the very the emergency services for the very swift response? Commend the bravery of those members of the public that intervene, in which the two women who were harmed a very speedy recovery, and I welcome the news that the second lady has now been discharged from hospital. Notwithstanding the deaths yesterday of the prime suspect, this is an of the prime suspect, this is an ongoing police investigation.

I understand that. But can the Minister confirm that the additional policing that has been announced will be in place in Headingley, for will be in place in Headingley, for as long as is absolutely necessary to ensure support and protect the community in that famous and very community in that famous and very vibrant part of my city.
16:08
16:10
16:11
16:12
16:12
16:13
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
should never be mistaken for art. In the other place, plaques commemorate MPs who were killed while doing their democratic duty. Behind every name on those plaques are devastated families who grieve. So, I would like to ask the noble Lady, the Minister, if she could explain why the government decided not to contest the case that would have stopped Kneecap from receiving grant funding. In the noble Lady the Minister also update the House on the conversations the government I have had with the Welsh government, with whom they are now working so closely with, and what steps they are taking from stopping Kneecap from performing at this year's Green Man Festival this year in August, to stop the violence that this incites.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think there is rightly widespread condemnation of I think widespread condemnation of I think two comments, one of the apparent support for Hamas, and one that appears to be incitement of violence against MPs, which could never, ever against MPs, which could never, ever be acceptable or allowed to happen. be acceptable or allowed to happen. When we see what has happened in recent years, two memos of recent years, two memos of Parliament -- To memos of Parliament, we saw Jo Cox and David Amess murdered.

We have seen others attacked, and others threatened, and people have gone to prison for threats to MPs. I think we shouldn't ever take lightly any language that would appear to incite violence. On would appear to incite violence. On the point of the funding. He is not quite accurate in his comments. In fact, that was an application that was made for funding, and awarded under the last government, and then withdrawn. Following it being withdrawn, the group took the government to court, very expensive court case I understand the government lost a court case, the court says it was unlawful and procedurally unfair.

This government took the decision not to go to the
16:15
16:15
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
seeking funding from the British Government. But that particular funding, where it was reported, the funding, where it was reported, the government withdrew it and lost the court case, that funding is being reviewed by this government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, from these benches we utterly condemn these remarks. Incitement to violence against our democratically elected MPs is never acceptable. We should also not underestimate the pain caused by underestimate the pain caused by these remarks to the families of so David Amess, and Jo Cox, as well as David Amess, and Jo Cox, as well as to the families. Does the noble Lady, the Leader of the House, agree with measures to promote social with measures to promote social cohesion must now be a key priority, can she see if the defending democracy taskforce will take the lead on this?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, my Lords, all these things have to be taken into account for the way forward and looking at the way forward is absolutely crucial. way forward is absolutely crucial. way forward is absolutely crucial. She is a bit younger than me, but she will recall, if you came home from school when you were younger people have been name-calling, it was six and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. That was wrong. That may be the case That was wrong.

That may be the case for the playground, it's not the case for real life, and words really do hurt. And I think the David Amess's family, for Jo Cox's family, Amess's family, for Jo Cox's family, the so-called apology isn't enough. And I have to say, any apology that also includes the words the statement coordinated smear campaign against those issuing the apology hasn't really understood what
16:17
16:17
16:18
16:19
16:21
16:22
16:22
16:22
16:23
16:23
16:24
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
It is important we work with partners in India and Pakistan to make sure that the fallout of this atrocious attack does not lead to a violent escalation and further, unnecessary suffering. With the Minister possibly update the house and what steps the government are taking alongside relevant parties in the region to try and reach a resolution? Also, I'm sure the Minister is aware of the extremely concerning video that shows a Pakistani diplomat making a throat slitting gesture towards Indian demonstrators outside the High Version -- high commission in London last week.

This is completely unacceptable on the streets of London, particularly from what appears to be an accredited diplomat. What actions are the government going to take against

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this individual? Can I start by sharing the noble Lords questions comments in relation Lords questions comments in relation to this despicable act. We express our condolences to all those our condolences to all those affected and the people of India. Certainly, the Prime Minister Certainly, the Prime Minister expressed that when he called the Indian Prime Minister on the on 24 Indian Prime Minister on the on 24 April. Noble Lord asks what steps we're taking to ensure that heightened tensions do not lead to the risk of escalation.

We encourage all to commit to effective channels of engagement to safeguard stability in the region, alongside international partners, the United Kingdom continues to engage in dialogue in pursuit of regional stability, long-term regional stability. On Sunday, the Foreign Secretary spoke to both the Indian foreign minister and Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister. We encourage all parties to take a measured approach and certainly the Foreign Secretary has spoken to secretary Rubio of the United States and will speak to the French Foreign Minister shortly to discuss the situation.

And, of course, the UK supported the UN press statement at the weekend which condemned the attack and reaffirmed that acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable. Certainly, I think in terms of all actions that create or escalate, unsettling communities in this country, we are working with all British Pakistani and British Indian communities to ensure that we stand with them at this difficult time in
16:27
16:28
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
diaspora communities. There are other elements of the Commonwealth other elements of the Commonwealth family that can be used to allow for there to be dialogue. The Minister will be fully aware that concerns will be fully aware that concerns about the potential closure of airspace, of the Indus water Treaty coming to an end could have wider humanitarian consequences, including impact on the UK diaspora communities. So what efforts are we making with the Commonwealth and making with the Commonwealth and also specifically with regards to the prevention of wider humanitarian concerns?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To answer the last question first, we are urging all first, we are urging all international organisations to urge de-escalation and proper engagement to de-escalate the situation. As the Minister said yesterday, we take this very seriously which is why the this very seriously which is why the Foreign Secretary has spoken to secretary Rubio and we are working through the UN and other international bodies to try and ensure that the means for dialogue are open and we focus on de- escalation.

And certainly we are aware that India and Pakistan have said that they will hold certain diplomatic treaties in abeyance and we are continuing to monitor this. It is critical for all actors and international partners to work to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Indus River system and we will continue to urge that. will continue to urge that.
16:29
16:30
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Pakistani High commission. I don't Pakistani High commission. I don't think I heard a response to the. It would be useful for the UK to send a would be useful for the UK to send a strong single -- signal that sending such gestures is not acceptable and such gestures is not acceptable and I would like to know what the UK government will do. I'm sure the noble Lord the Minister, who a treat as a good friend, would join me in condemning absolutely the incident that took place in Kashmir.

And I that took place in Kashmir. And I would like to say that from cities like mine, the communities have really come together from across all communities to condemn these atrocities that were witnessed last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

week. I very much welcome the noble Lady's final point that it's the responsibility of all of us to try and build community cohesion and and build community cohesion and Impacts. The purpose of these actions, of course, to divide communities, and that's why we've communities, and that's why we've got to respond in the positive way. I did answer the noble Lord's question because I did say that we condemn any incidents of vandalism and call for protesters to do so in a peaceful and law-abiding way.

And we urge all to de-escalate the situation. We will convey that at situation. We will convey that at all levels, diplomatically but also with local community leaders. I with local community leaders. I with local community leaders. I My Lords, while no words will strain the atrocity or sway the feelings of a country united in mourning, can I ask what was specifically meant when the Foreign Secretary said Britain stands shoulder to shoulder with India?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could he expand on that please? I think the Foreign Secretary has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the Foreign Secretary has made clear and I hope I have today, that we absolutely deplore such acts of terrorism, which are designed to divide communities and cause actual divide communities and cause actual tensions to rise. Not only between
16:32
16:32
16:33
16:33
16:34
16:35
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
We now move to our next business, consideration of comments reasons on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Great British Energy Bill. Lord Hunt. My Lords, I beg to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the comments recently now -- Comments recently now considered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recently now considered. The question is the Commons recently now considered. As many as recently now considered. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Motion, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. My Lords, I beg to move motion A's house to not insist on its A's house to not insist on its amendment number two, for which the House of Commons have disagreed for the reason to A, to propose member to B in lieu, as did a Marshalled list. Printed on a Marshalled list. My Lords, it is good to welcome the great British energy bill back to your worship chamber.

I thank again all members of this House for their continued scrutiny of this important bill. My Lords, we are here to discuss specifically the issue of forced labour, in Great British Energy supply chain, something which I have been adamant throughout the Bill's passage through your Lordships house that the Company will tackle. As I have stated in the previous debate, Great British Energy are expected to not only abide by, but be a first in class example of adherence to the U.K.'s existing legislation and guidance.

This is demonstrated by the commitments made by my colleague, the Minister for energy and the other place. Great British Energy Bill appoint a senior individual, dedicated to providing oversight to To confirm, Baroness O'Grady, one of Great British Energy's non-executive directors, will take on this role. In her role as Chair of the House of Lords Modern Slavery Act committee positions are -- Positions her well on this issue, for Great British Energy in tackling forced labour. Ensuring the statement of Patricio priorities outlined in the bill, which -- Strategic priorities outlined in the bill, will include an overarching expectation, that Great British Energy proactively works to deliver on these commitments.

The House will be pleased to hear that crust about mental ministerial meeting with my department, the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade, and the foreign Commonwealth and development office will be, for the first time in May, to accelerate work across government, to tackle it. Labour in supply chains across the whole economy. Finally, to underscore the governments commitment, a letter will be sent to all FTSE 100 companies following the all FTSE 100 companies following the a mentioned meeting, for our expectations regarding responsible business practices, including modern slavery.

If I then to the amendment, amendment to be tabled in my name, relates to clause 3, and makes it clear addressing forced labour in Great British Energy supply chains is within scope of the object of the company. I recognise the breadth of concern across Parliament on this issue. I pay tribute in particular, to the outstanding work of the noble Lord in this area. And in particular, how Great British Energy will tackle. Labour in its own supply chains. That is why the amendment has been table.

Makes it clear that Great British Energy is committed to adopting measures, so it can act on any evidence of false labour -- Forced labour in supply chains, and we would expect from any responsible company. The amendment will threaten our existing framework and demonstrate both Great British Energy's and the government commitment, to maintaining supply chains that are free from forced labour. Two issue of the effectiveness of this approach, GB will respond to and take action on any identified issues or concerns.

That arise relating to forced labour. Including any raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendment is in addition to the expectations of Great British Energy is in a sector leader, of attacking. Labour -- Forced labour as will be outlined in the statement for strategic priorities. These measures will ensure Great British Energy can and will prioritise and do everything in its power to remove instances of forced labour from its supply chains. If I then can turn to amendment to C, which the noble Lord will speak to any moment, first of all, let me thank him for taking the time and effort to develop and table is amendment.

And for the continued engagement I have been able to have with them over the week since this bill left your Lordships house. My Lords, let me say right away the government wholeheartedly agrees on the importance of tackling Modern Slavery Act energy supply chains, and is committed to tackling the issue. My Lords, the reason we have come with our own wording in relation to the amendment, is because I think they are very much in the same frame. I do recognise, my Lords, that the drafting skill of the noble Lord in bringing the original amendment, the wording of which is remarkably familiar to me, however, my Lords, officials looking at the language of his amendment have identified one or two issues.

First of all, the language suggesting the eradication of goods and services is unsuitable, because it may be interpreted as a physical destruction of goods or services. We think the focus should be on ensuring that Great British Energy takes all reasonable measures to develop energy supply chains free from. Labour. -- Forced labour. My Lords, I can assure the health following positive discussions with Lord Alton, we accept Great British Energy's role in tackling forced labour in its supply chains, could be made explicit in the bill's objectives.

And that is exactly why I table my own amendment. So, my Lords, I think in conclusion, I can say I am very grateful to noble Lords, who have taken part in this issue, I particularly would like to, again, acknowledge Lord Alton, noble Earl, Lord Russell full we have listened very carefully to what noble Lords said. I believe the noble Lords said. I believe the amendment I have brought accords with the principle of the debates we have had in your Lordships house.

And I beg to move.
16:41
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
The question is that motion A be agreed to. Motion letter A1, Lord My Lords, I beg to move motion letter A1, as amendment motion A, at end, insert 'leave out from proposed to amend' and insert amendment to C in lieu as printed on the Marshalled list. I arise, my Lords, to express my profound gratitude to the government, and especially to the noble Lord, the Minister, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for acting to address concerns, regarding forced labour in the renewable supply chain which will raise from all sides of your Lordships house during earlier stages.

I have now had the pleasure of working with the noble Lord on human rights issues, mainly around China, before and during his time in government. And I commend him and his bill team for the sincere and constructive way in which we have sought to grapple with this problem. I also strongly welcome the statement he has just made in your Lordships house about the role that will be taken by the redoubtable baroness, Baroness O'Grady, who I think will be a great champion for all of those subjected to modern day slavery.

The government amendment before us today stands testament to the worth of parliamentary engagement and that is the way it should be. And I thank the government again, for the progress made. And I include thanks to those members of both houses, who have been key to the amendment's progress. Especially, the frontbenchers of the two opposition parties. The commitment announced following our debate on the Great British Energy Bill, does present a significant and welcome shift in ensuring the United Kingdom's green transition is not built on the backs of broken slaves.

When I table my amendment, seeking to prevent goods made with forced labour from entering our renewable energy supply chains, it was with a heavy heart. As many colleagues know, mounting evidence, including from Professor Laura Murphy of the Hellenic Kennedy Centre, as well as detailed investigations by the Guardian newspaper, BBC, and others, shows that forced labour, particularly of the Muslim people in Shein jam, but also child labour, of the democratic public of Congo, is embedded as production is key in green technologies.

Ellis 35% of policy and can come from a region where state imposed labour transfer schemes of human rights violations are widespread. Sheffield's search, along with other corroborative studies has revealed that supply chains are often deeply compromised. We cannot, my Lords, in good conscience right out green transition by trampling on human rights. To do so would be to substitute one form of environmental degradation, with another form of human degradation. It is therefore a matter of great personal satisfaction and a tribute deal Lordships house and the other place that the governor has agreed to legislate and introduce new measures to cleanse our supply chains of bonds hurry.

It would be remiss, my Lords, of me to not pay tribute to the work, together with the support of Unison, the antislavery Commissioner, antislavery International, and Unseen. This move however must be seen as a beginning, and not the end. The Joint Committee on Human Rights is close to completing an inquiry, which will have a compressive overhaul of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We have had over 800 pages of written evidence. And moving oral evidence from witnesses such as Raheem and Mahmoud, of the world Congress, who raised it earlier this afternoon, during a constructive session of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, with the right honourable member of Parliament, and the justice secretary, Lord Chancellor.

As I have often pointed out, section 54, requiring mere transparency statements from companies has proved toothless. Baroness May, who pioneered the 2015 Modern Slavery Act, agrees the legislation must be So we should now look seriously at the model set by the United States the model set by the United States Uighur Force Prevention Aid. In forced labour endemic throughout the region and relied by -- relied on by an entity sanctioned by the United States.

Embedding a similar presumption into UK law which shift the burden away from the vulnerable victim and faces it on those who profit would close loopholes. We must not overlook the underutilised powers in side the Proceeds of Crime Act. It's clear that goods made from gross human rights abuses constitute criminal property, yet to date, enforcement has been patchy at best and more systematic use of those 2000 and use of those 2002 powers to seize tainted goods would deter bad actors and user purchasing -- and actors and user purchasing -- and use our purchasing power.

So the creation of great dish ages you -- the creation of Great British Energy... Its share said to me that GBE was entirely comfortable with this amendment and I'm talking about the government amendment before us today. It will put measures in place to prevent slavery. We are a publicly owned company and we have to live up to that. We are comfortable and committed to this amendment. We will have to allocate resources and we will do so. I also -- I am also deeply encouraged by his determination to bring technology to the UK which will enable battery manufacturer which is not dependent on lithium rare earth minerals.

As the Minister has said, this new entity can champion not only decarbonisation but also sovereignty, supply chain integrity and British manufacturing. GBE should not be divorced from the rest of UK industry. By investing in British Steel, and British roubles, we can support the future free from dependency on regimes and forced labour. We need, and I said again and again, we need resilience, not dependency. There is no contradiction between pursuing environmental sustainability and standing for human dignity full stop on the contrary, the two are indivisible.

Our new green economy must not only be carbon free but also cruelty free. We cannot pursue a greener economy without compromising on fundamental rights. If 35% is from Xinjiang, then by definition a 65% is not. There are alternative markets and we need to use the power -- purchasing power of GBE to ensure a clean supply. We've already announced a supply chain fund the purpose of each will be to fund the purpose of each will be to be clean.

The Minister should think it strange if I didn't try to extract the commitment before I sit down. The government amendment seems well constructed to me but I would value his reassurance that GBE would be failing in its duty to ensure that no slavery or trafficking is taking place in its business or supply chain if it relied upon criminal convictions for those offences in China or elsewhere. Such convictions are highly improbable and would render the amendment uses. I would welcome the opportunity to sit with his department and experts to discuss what measures could be deployed to achieve this.

I also share with the noble Lord Earl Russell about the importance of engaging with like-minded nations and ensuring a comprehensive approach to combating slavery in our supply chains, and using technology, a point made by Lord Rooker who is in his place, that has originated from slavery. This is in light of the solar stewardship initiative, giving JA Solar a clean bill of health. It will soon be reported that JA Solar is continuing to source from Xinjiang and on the basis that the SSI has serious questions to ask of its ability to verify human rights standards.

Enclosing, I thank the government for their willingness to engage, to listen and ultimately to act. I thank many colleagues across both houses who make common cause in defence of those who have no voice. Together, we've begun to lay the foundations for a green future that foundations for a green future that is truly just, for people as well as for the planet. With that, I can assure the house that I will not be assure the house that I will not be seeking a division on my amendment.

Although I beg to move with the appropriate moment comes, I will not seek to test the opinion of the seek to test the opinion of the house simply to support the government in this admirable amendment which has been delivered by the noble Lord. by the noble Lord.
16:52
16:53
16:53
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Baroness Pitkeathley (Labour)
-

strength of feeling across both houses. And thankful to Lord Alton
16:53
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
houses. And thankful to Lord Alton for bringing these issues and I'm also thankful to the Minister and also thankful to the Minister and his team for taking the time to meet with me and others and for their careful consideration and determination to find a way forward. determination to find a way forward. Compromising politics -- Compromising politics -- compromising politics is not a weakness. It is a strength and makes for better legislation. This for better legislation. This amendment has been widely welcomed in the industry.

On these benches we are clear. Are net zero ambitions cannot and must not be built on the back of slave labour. We have always argued that GB Energy needs to lead by example. Equally, we do not wish to see GB Energy operating at a disadvantage in comparison with other companies who are also in receipt of government funds in the form of contracts. Last week, the UK government hosted the International Atomic Energy Agency met on energy security -- International Atomic Energy summit.

It addressed restrictions on the trade, cyber- attacks and physical attacks on energy infrastructure. Our energy security is our national security. Our policies and our understanding of what energy security means in practice have not been fully... As the head of the international energy agency said last week, green energy should really be produced in a socially and environmentally acceptable way. It should be built, it should not be built on the backs of slave labour and exploitation. For far too long, we have allowed our supply chains to be tainted by credible evidence of modern slavery.

Yes, this has radically reduced the prices of solar panels, but at what human cost? This amendment, in my mind, marks a turning point of significance. This amendment forces a difficult balance between the need to speak towards are net zero ambitions and to avoid complicity in human rights abuses. We believe the ethical choice, the choice to stand against modern slavery must prevail. We must engage and cooperate where we can with China but equally we must start from a position of strength and from clear grounds.

Great British Energy will now be a sector leader in developing ethical supply chains and I welcome the recent appointment in this regard. However, we must ensure that this ban does not unfairly disadvantage GB Energy to other operators. I do ask the government to continue to look at this disparity. We must work to ensure this is not damage to rollout community energy programs. Critically, the real long-term solution is not simply in policing imports. It is in developing our own capacity.

We need a real concerted effort to develop and grow our fledgling domestic solar panel manufacturing capacity and I wonder how GB Energy could help that. We must also work with our European allies to build manufacturing capacity and resilient ethical supply chains. We urge the government to bring forward a comprehensive plan detailing how they will support domestic manufacturing and foster international collaboration to reduce our resilience and potentially tainted imports. Could the Minister outline in more detail what the relaunched Solar Task Force will correctly due to identify and develop these resilient, sustainable and forced labour free supply chains question surely, when can the house expect more detailed plans from the government on how this diversification and the domestic supply development will be achieved? This amendment is a vital step but it must be the beginning and not the end of our efforts.

We must ensure our clean energy future is built on a foundation of ethical sourcing, strong domestic industry and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

international cooperation. My Lords, we welcome the
16:57
Lord Offord of Garvel Portrait Lord Offord of Garvel (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we welcome the government was my decision to listen to constructive challenge from this house, and improve this bill by ensuring that Great British Energy supply chains are not associated with modern slavery in China. I want to give my thanks and gratitude to Lord Alton, without whose persistence in raising this issue, we would not have achieved such positive changes to this legislation. The amendment to the bill serves as a simple yet essential safeguard. It ensures that public funds will not support companies taking part in modern slavery.

The UK for many years stood against forced labour and exploitation. If this government is serious about the transition then we must ensure it operates by clear standards. The Modern Slavery Act has already referenced taking responsibility for supply chains. We know that this is an issue in the global energy sector, particularly in the sourcing of solar panels, batteries and raw materials. If there is credible evidence of modern slavery in the supply chain, then public funding must not flow to that company and that is a basic ethical standard.

Is also a matter of economic resilience. Reliance on unethical supply chains risks for businesses, investors and the public. This bill strengthens the integrity of our energy policy and aligns our economic ambitions with moral obligations and sends a clear message that Britain's energy future must be built on ethical foundations. To conclude, I once again thank Lord Alton of Liverpool and many noble Lords who supported this victory. This positive feature of the bill does serve as a testament to the integral role of this house and scrutinising and ultimately improving legislation.

ultimately improving legislation.
16:59
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
Could I thank the noble Lord Lord Alton, Lord Russell and Lord offered. I totally agree with this final point. I think we have reached what I call a strong consensus around this issue and I'm grateful to noble Lords from the opposition for supporting the process of reaching agreement across the house and in the other place. Can I also say I really want to reconfirm what the noble Lord Lord Alton has said. He has met the chair of Great British Energy and he has stated, as a publicly owned company, it is only right that GBE is an exemplar of moral supply chain.

I think that must be the answer to the noble Lord, Earl Russell, when he pondered whether we would put in GB -- put GBE at a disadvantage. GBE will be an exemplar and I believe it will an exemplar and I believe it will I am confident we will add the problem he has rightly, potentially, identified. I do pay tribute to the last government for the passage of the Modern Slavery Act. A very important piece of legislation.

Obviously, the landscape has changed since then, we are committed to improving our response to modern slavery, looking at the options at the moment, both legislative and transparency requirements. We will be setting out our conclusions and next steps in due course but we understand the importance of moving on, from the foundation of on, from the foundation of legislation that we had. On the supply chain, My Lords. Yes, of course, we understand, the point that noble Lords have made about developing UK supply chain.

We are already fast tracking investment in Supply chains. We are looking at other opportunities as well. My Lords, and of course, in relation to the issue he raised about criminal convictions, the taking of evidence of modern slavery. Of course I take the point he raises. Bylaws, the point is this, we expect UK businesses to do everything in their power, to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chain. That does not need to rely solely on convictions as evidence. And again I would just say new measures strengthen the rules on disregarding and excluding suppliers, where there is evidence of modern slavery.

This will apply, even in circumstances where there has not yet been a conviction, or breach of an international treaty. On the solar stewardship initiative, let me say this, the initiative has the power to deny subrogation and to businesses and supply chains, with credible links to forced labour and provoke the company's membership if
17:03
17:03
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Lord Geddes (Conservative)
-

Earl Lord Russell Reyes. Yes absolutely and we will of course continue to work with them, to build up a robust energy supply chain, around the world. In conclusion, can I thank noble Lords for their support, for the approach we are taking. Very grateful for the noble Lords and I beg to move move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do not need to say anything further than I withdraw the amendment that I tabled early on, amendment that I tabled early on, and thank the noble Lord for a response he is given to the House. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response he is given to the House. I commend it to the government, from the House. Motion A-1 to be withdrawn? As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion A-1 to be withdrawn? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The motion is by leave content". The motion is by leave withdrawn. The question is that motion a be agreed to? As many as motion a be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Loud and clear, thank you. Consideration of Commons Amendments to the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

etc) Bill, Baroness Smith. I beg to move the Commons Amendments at the now considered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments at the now considered. The question is, the question is that the Commons Amendments be now considered? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment one,
17:05
17:07
17:07
Lord Aberdare Portrait Lord Aberdare (Crossbench)
-
-
convention. This amendment makes no substantive change to the bill. I am grateful to this House and noble Lords of all their energy and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

collaboration, as this House has considered the bill and I beg to move move. The question is that the House do agree with the comments in their amendment one?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have no intention to oppose the amendment sent to us by the House of Commons. I do regret the removal of Commons. I do regret the removal of the soul amendment passed by this House, which in my view it would have given more time to Skills England to get its strategic work fully up and running, before taking fully up and running, before taking on the functions to be transferred on the functions to be transferred from IfATE. Having said that, I greatly welcome the establishment of the Skills England.

I am impressed by the leadership points and had by the leadership points and had been made, with the chair and vice chair. This body has a absolutely vital role in meeting the U.K.'s skills needs, which are fundamental to virtually every objective we and the government have a set for ourselves. I wish it every success. I do, I would like to restate my two major concerns. I should be more than happy if they prove unfounded. The first one is will Skills England be able to effectively coordinate the work of all the different bodies, which need to be involved, if we are going to deliver a successful skills system overall.

That is across government departments, it is regions and nations. It is across industries and sectors and it is across education and training institutions and I believe the Skills England will have to be a pretty effective and tough body with some teeth to make sure that all of that is fulfilled, particularly in the overall system. My second more specific question is how will that successful skills system be defined, how will it be monitored and assessed? What will the government come back to tell us in a few years time, to demonstrate that it has been successful.

In conclusion I very much welcome this bill as an important first step towards a successful skills system. I very much hope that it will prove to have been valued. to have been valued.
17:09
17:11
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
Firstly, please let me thank the noble Baroness the Minister and all noble Lords who have been involved in the passage of this bill. His Majesty's Official Opposition does remain concerned that the government have removed the amendments in the name of my noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Other noble Lords also expressed concerns that Skills England will be overly focused on administration, as a result would be unable to prioritise its central strategic task. By allowing a year to pass between the creation of Skills England and the abolition of IfATE, we would create sufficient time for the effective transfer of functions, in short Skills England can take on its role Skills England can take on its role successfully.

We would suggest it is a mistake for the government to ignore these concerns, as in both your lordships House and at the other place, there has been a cross-party support and we cannot hide our disappointment that the Government remain unconvinced on this vital point. On these benches, we are worried that this transition period, as currently planned will have a damaging impact on practices. At the same time, we do recognise that this is a manifesto commitment and we will, of course, while challenging constructively work with his Majesty's government to progress its skills program and we do not intend to push this issue any further.

We will continue to remain vigilant on the transition to Skills England and ensure it is working for the very people it aims to help, should our concerns increase we will endeavour to raise them in your Lordship's House. It is now up to the government to ensure that Skills England is able to run effectively and it does not become overwhelmed with the weight of the accreditation We are indeed grateful that his Majesty's government have listened to some of the key points that have been raised, across your Lordships' House and the bill is being strengthened accordingly.

A report on the exercise of functions conferred, or imposed on the Secretary of State has now been included, which is important for accountability. And the Government have listened with concerns regarding the Secretary of State,
17:14
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
regarding the Secretary of State, preparing apprenticeship plans and assessments and will, as such publish information about the relevant matters that have been relevant matters that have been taken into account. In conclusion, we thank the noble Baroness at the Minister for her engagement, Minister for her engagement, throughout this bill and thank all noble Lords who have made such noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions and work constructively with the scrutiny of this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for the support of noble lords and the continued noble lords and the continued challenge of those who have, I think made this bill better through the work of its passage through this work of its passage through this House. On the specific point about House. On the specific point about whether or not Skills England is ready, can I just reassure noble ready, can I just reassure noble Lords that Skills England is ready to take on the functions currently to take on the functions currently exercised by IfATE, where appropriate.

Detailed transition plans are in place and to ensure continuity, throughout the transition. Continuity in a staff and team structures which will ensure a smooth operational transition and maintain vital links to employers. Staff are eager to contribute their expertise and valuable insights, to feed into Skills England's broader purpose, from day one. The government has been clear that employers need a full informed Skills England now., They cannot wait. That is the reason why the Prime Minister announced this, within our first month, in government and while I'm pleased that we will meet the commitment, to ensuring that Skills England is up and fully operational, within 12 months of that announcement.

Skills gaps in our economy are holding back growth and opportunity. We need this bill to give Skills England some of the key skills it needs to tackle them now. Not 12 months in the future. And in response to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, this, of course, would have been a test of Skills England. Whether or not we can turn around the skills gaps can turn around the skills gaps which are currently preventing in a the growth we so desperately need.

I would remind noble Lords that Lord Effingham has touched on this. We did agree tour report to this House after six months on the operations and functions moved to the Secretary of State and Skills England, and of course I did make clear that Skills England will publish an annual report and through sponsoring minister myself will be accountable to this House. Skills England has been operating in shadow form since July of last year, due to that extensive transition planning, over recent months, it is ready to move fast to deliver the functions made possible through this bill.

I will just respond to the point made by the noble Lord Lord Aberdare about coordination. The appointment of the leadership team and Phil Smith, the chair, who noble Lords were able to meet and question, I think shows the quality of the leadership, and with Sir David Bell as the deputy check, this is an organisation which has enormous credibility and experience in terms of cross government work. Supported by the emphasis the promised has placed onto the significance of skills and Skills England, and I hope through the efforts of myself as a skills minister, we will ensure that Skills England takes its place as the authority voice for skills, not just across government, but across the country, in partnership with employers, trade unions, and in every region of the country.

So I would thank noble Lords for their contribution to this bill. As other noble Lords have, I would also thank the build team have worked enormously hard to get us to this point. I'm pleased that we have reached, if not quite an agreement, than an accommodation on the way forward and for the support of this forward and for the support of this House, in acknowledging the urgency of the task at hand. I thank noble of the task at hand.

I thank noble Lords once more for their efforts on Lords once more for their efforts on the bill. And I beg to move. the bill. And I beg to move.
17:19
17:21
None Portrait Amendment:1 Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-

whose interests are extremely important. And that is those who are
17:22
17:22
17:23
17:23
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Moment proposed, after law, insert the words as in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. I rise to attach my name to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to attach my name to amendment six. I rise briefly, the noble Lady has made the case very noble Lady has made the case very well. I just link this really to my amendment H, which we will get to later, which as Lord Coaker will later, which as Lord Coaker will well no, my concern is very much about 16 and 17-year-olds, or 15- year-olds, and recruited into the year-olds, and recruited into the Armed Forces. And I think the point no lady Baroness Smith spoke about, people in residential situations but if we think about a 15 year old, 16 or 17-year-olds, who has decided the whole future is the military, and then they find the assessment process operates in a way that is, we would hope this wouldn't happen but we need to consider the possibility, as abusive or inappropriate, it is important that those people have protection and I'm thinking of, although not solely, the 16 and 17-year-olds, who are vulnerable people, who are there pinning the whole future life on what's happened to them in these few days, this day, this test, and it's an important that they have the protection that we all want the Armed Forces Commissioner to be able to provide members of the military.

And these prospective members of the military should fall within an often used phrase, literally founding. -- used phrase, literally founding. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to oppose amendment one and six. While I have enormous sympathy with the intent, when I
17:25
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Portrait Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative)
-
-
sympathy with the intent, when I heard the noble Baroness a that this would expand the role of the Commissioner a little bit, I'm afraid it's anything but. If we consider that there are perhaps some 160, 108,000 members of the Armed Forces who, including reserves, would be able, because they are subject to service law, to have access to the Commissioner, when we consider that there are 100,000 applicants, she used the word applicants, to join British alone, never mind the two other services, we would effectively be doubling the aperture of those who could potentially submit a complaint to the Commissioner.

The Commissioner's office is already under enormous strength, the tiny office because of course much of the service complaints system is done through the single services stop the bill already suggests that the budget for the Commissioner is going to have to 44. I simply don't understand how the Commissioner can cope. I am sympathetic to watches trying to receive a top moment six is quietly confused because we established that the point at which somebody joins the Armed Forces as attestation and that is when the become subject to service law and yet when she seeks to extend to those engaged in training as well, those people why definition have been tested and if they are conducting monetary training have already joined the military, and so subject, and so will be subject to service law because they are training.

Whilst on my feet, if I may, I want to address a general point would the Minister, in my capacity and I declare my interest as director army reserve, where the test is for whether or not subject to service law. As a humble reservist I am subject to service law but only when I am claiming a reserved service date or wearing the uniform, for much of my time, I'm not subject to service law, as indeed are other reservists. The problem is that just because I and my fellow reserve lists are not subject to service law, that doesn't mean to say that the military are not doing things in my name, which may warrant a complaint.

For example, I could be subject to a promotions board, which I wish to contest. I could be on leave of absence which could then be interpreted as a long-term absence and I could be dismissed from the army reserve. All indeed I could be posted whilst I'm on leave of absence but not technically subject to service law at that point. If we look at this from a purely technical point of view, all those actions which are happening whilst I am not subject to service law, if we look at this bill precisely, I would not be able to submit a service complaint at that time.

I'm not suggesting that it need an amendment but I think what would be useful for the minister, if he could perhaps reassure your Lordship's House that the intent is that when it comes to the reserve, they will be able to submit a complaint to the Commissioner whether they are technically subject to the service

**** Possible New Speaker ****

law at that moment or not. My Lords, I would like to begin by reaffirming our support for this bill. And the creation of the Armed bill. And the creation of the Armed Forces Commissioner. There are no blades contained within its pages and we will always welcome efforts to improve the lives of our service to improve the lives of our service personnel. When the Jews this bill, the government were clear they intended the bill to focus on serving members of the Armed Forces.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Smith of Newnham would Baroness Lady Smith of Newnham would give access to the Commissioner to a recruit for that moment they turned an assessment centre, up to until the moment they are tested, after which they become subject to service law and will have access to the Commissioner anyway. I should say from the outset, I'm highly
17:30
17:30
17:30
17:31
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
of those who will have access to the Commissioner. As I have said, and as we Select Committee, we do have we Select Committee, we do have sympathy with proposals to include recruits and veterans but we also accept that the Commissioner must not be overburdened by having to not be overburdened by having to deal with an ever-growing number of people which may indeed limit the effectiveness of the Commissioner. Which would be regrettable. I look Which would be regrettable. I look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which would be regrettable. I look Can I thank all noble Lords who have come to the report stage of the bill and thank the noble Lord, Earl bill and thank the noble Lord, Earl Minto for the support again of... I know it is something from across the House as well. The general support, notwithstanding that, some interesting and important discussions around the application and clarifications which I think also are important. Let me just deal, if I might, with Lord Lancaster's point.

And the answer is yes and they are, as long as the complaint is related to them and in respect of the reserves. There is no time limit for that, but they can't be veterans. Hope that helps. Obviously there will be the particular circumstances. I think that does clarify in general terms, the point that Lord Lancaster is making.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It does apart from the clarification of what defines a veteran, on the basis that when a veteran, on the basis that when a regular member of the Armed Forces regular member of the Armed Forces leaves there is liability. We like to call them veterans, but they become part of the regular reserve and then subsequently the recall reserve. These things are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

complicated. They certainly are complicated. I hope there are some clarification hope there are some clarification with what I have said to the noble Lord. I have no doubt that conversation will continue. More generally on the point the old Minto made on recruitment. The government are very clear about trying to improve the recruitment and retention process. Various changes have been made, we honour the Armed Forces Pay Review Body board, the recommendations around pay. We have made some changes to childcare arrangements and to try to improve that.

Some of the recruitment process has been changed as well, into cyber, for example. Some of those issues, the change of contract, as well. We are trying to take on board some of the criticisms and some of the challenges to try to address at the more general point about recruitment, but also around retention as well. Let's see whether figures get to come over the next period of time. We ought to see recruitment improving into our Armed Forces and the retention as well.

Turning to amendments one and six. Can I take the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newham the her amendments and I know the support of a Baroness Bennett amendment six. Acknowledge the genuine and well-founded concerns about the experience of During the committee stage, we discussed the importance of the recruitment process, that is fit for purpose, as outlined to the noble Earl of Minto. It is easy to navigate. The process of enables as many people as possible to join their preferred service, in a timely fashion, providing sufficient perfections those going through the application process.

-- Protections. As a Lord Lancaster, the figure I have a 150,000 candidates applied to join the military at any one time. Bringing them into scope would vastly increase the workload of the Commissioner. I note the moment revised amendments have been suggested to narrow the numbers by defining at what point in the process and applicant would come under the Commissioner scope. When we discussed this, the noble lady made clear she wanted to understand as she has done in her remarks this afternoon.

How the process works and what we can do if people are unhappy with how they are treated. I'll make some remarks now and hopefully address some of the concerns she had. The Navy, Army and RAF have different requirements and processes for recruitment. These differ depending on whether the candidate is joining as an enlisted person, or an officer. Each service has a clear complaints process, for candidates, all complaints are dealt with by a qualified officer, including any medical complaints are being sent to trained medical staff.

To further reassure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords, there are also protections in place to ensure the welfare of candidates, completed in Armed Forces assessment or activities on defence establishments. The Armed Forces have in place appropriate safeguarding measures, which are regularly reviewed and updated, as appropriate, in support of these activities. These measures cover, but not limited to staff search, training, background checks, candidate accommodation, a point I think the noble Baroness particularly raised and I think
17:36
17:37
None Portrait Amendment: 2 Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-

Is it your Lordship's pleasure the amendment be the drawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Can I move amendment, government Amendment two, seven, nine and 11 and speak to Baroness Smith amendment 12, which will focus on the importance of the definition of the relevant family members in the context of the bill. Before explaining that the government amendments, can I address the noble Baroneseses amendment, and explain my why the government has decided not to include on the face of the bill and rather to create an affirmative delegated powers, so that the definition will going forward, in secondary legislation.

The definition of family members and the access to the Commissioner has been at the forefront of the governors mind throughout and it has always been our intention to future proof our inclusion of family members. Including the definition, in secondary legislation, allowing it to be updated quickly, to account for changes in society, without needing to create primary legislation. Our intent is to encompass all family units, and not prejudge this by containing a full definition, on the face of the bill. Although the definition she seeks to put on the face of goal, I have to say is very good, as it is our definition.

Although, of course as I made clear, and the other place, it can of course be changed, some form, or future point. As noble also be aware, definition regulations, covering the definition of family members, for the purposes of this bill has been distributed to all interested peers for consideration. The delegated powers of the regulated reform committee has also thoroughly scrutinised this power in the report. The government are members I have made a fully implement the delegated powers and reform committee is only recommendation, by changing the regulation making powers bill, to define relevant family members, from the negative to the affirmative procedure.

The proposed amendments would ensure that there is a debate on the government's definition of a relevant family member, in both houses, in the secondary legislation brought forward. I am sure, based on the discussions, so far would be welcomed by a noble Lords. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance, to the noble Baroness Smith, of the importance based on the definition of family members of the bill. And the opportunity the government is trying to give and to government is trying to give and to debate this further and in due course.

On this basis to me the government Amendment two, seven, nine and 11 I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments, Baroness to withdraw her amendments, placing the definition on the face of the bill. of the bill.
17:40
17:42
17:43
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Writing to speak to my amendment 12 and respond to the Government amendments. One of the issues that we raised at committee stage was precisely the need for a definition of family member and in particular concern that kinship care should be taken into consideration. We had between second reading and committee stage a government proposal of the sort of definition that his Majesty's government might bring forward, on a definition of family. On a different one of my amendments and that came forward, at committee stage.

The noble and gallant Lord pointed out that the size of the legislation was already far too volume is and needs to be reined back a bit. I am very happy to be corrected about the appropriateness of having long descriptions, on the face of the bill. I think the suggestion of moving to the affirmative procedure, for the definition of family, in secondary legislation is acceptable. I have one question though for the Minister. It might be a wider one for his Majesty's government.

And that is really we have talked about the definition and the fact that the government put forward some proposed wording, and committee stage, suggest that there is a need for such a definition. Yet, if we already have a 400 pages of legislation about the Armed Forces, do we not already have some definitions about what a family is? And do we need actually to go through the Armed Forces code, not on the Floor of the House today, but actually make sure that everything hangs together and we agree to a definition that we may not now when we're at the level of secondary legislation.

For the moment I'm legislation. For the moment I'm happy to say that at the appropriate point I will not be testing in the opinion of the House on amendment opinion of the House on amendment opinion of the House on amendment
17:45
Earl of Minto Portrait The Earl of Minto (Conservative)
-
-
May I thank the noble Lord the Minister for setting out the case. We are on these benches pleased that they have accepted the recommendation for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. That regulations should be subjugated to the procedure. During the second reading debate for this bill, the noble Lord the Minister said, it matters that this bill represents the first time that the families and service personnel will have a mechanism by which they can raise issues about how life upon member of the Armed Forces impacts their welfare.

This demonstrates that the government clearly envisages a significant role for the family members and service personnel. Therefore always seems slightly bizarre that not only were family members not defined in the bill, but that the regulations determines who would be included would not permit Parliamentary kidney. The government has rectified that issue with these amendments and they have published the draft regulations, having looked over those draft Regulations I do not have any objection to that post definition of relevant family member and did is to do a thorough job in capturing the complexities and that time vagaries of relationships and service life.

Amendment 12 from the noble Baroness Lady Smith of Newnham inserts the content of those draft Regulations into the bill itself, so that the primary legislation contains a definition of relevant family members. I do think it is a good principle that wherever good principle that wherever possible as much detail should lighten primary legislation and be left to delegated. Having listened to the noble Lord the Minister, and the deployment of the affirmative the deployment of the affirmative procedure for the delegated powers, I'm on this occasion satisfied with the government's response.
17:47
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
And I start by thinking the noble Lord for the support. And indeed also Lord Craig for the support as well that he gave. I don't want to restock the debate about defining a relevant family member, because I think it will be an interesting but long and complicated debate. Can I however start with a couple of just particular points, hoping not to generate the debate, I have just said we don't have. Can our engaged couples included, might noble friend five -- Viscount Stansgate has declared his interest with respect that.

He asked the same question our committee, and I'm glad it's the same question now a few weeks later at report, to say to manoeuvre from the Viscount, yes, that is our intention and we look forward to debating further other points that various noble Lords have raised, when it comes the secondary. Let me talk about in general terms the point Baroness Smith said about, and again this will be a debate that will take place when the secondary comes forward.

But why don't we just for example use the same definition, a covenant definition. And just let me read because I will get that section, it provides a definition of relevant family members but for the Armed Forces's, the principles of the covenant and the remit of the Commissioner will operate with similar remit, the welfare and effect of the person service on themselves and their families however they are backed by different pieces of vegetation, for example Commissioner scope slowly for current service personnel and their families while the covenants remit, as the noble Baroness goes, will also include veterans and their families, so in a sense we are trying to ensure that the definitions that we use are fit for the different policy objectives that they have.

But with those few remarks, can I thank noble Lords for the scrutiny of the amendments that we have put forward, and to restate the importance that we gave to fulfilling the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee that the delegated powerful the regulation be made affirmative. I think that is an important change to be made. And offers both Houses of Parliament and effective and important opportunity to debate the contents of the relevant family member definition. Without compromising on our ability to reflect changes in society into the future and with that I hope noble Lords can support the government's amendments.
17:50
None Portrait Amendment: 3 Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-

The question is that amendment two be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment three,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Goldie. I rise to move amendment three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment three and speak to amendment five. Both in the names of myself and my noble friend the elemental, on the issue friend the elemental, on the issue of whistleblowing. Close followers will know that I raised this matter at second reading and by amendment at second reading and by amendment at Committee. Let me put a little perspective around this. This is a good girl got the creation of such... Is my opinion every positive such... Is my opinion every positive development.

The powers and functions confirm the bill on the Commissioner are extremely important. The willingness by the noble Lord the Minister to engage throughout the bill's progress has been genuine and constructive and is much appreciated. To keep this as brief as possible, at Committee, I argued in essence that the Commissioner should be empowered to investigate any concern raised by whistleblower and should protect the anonymity of the whistleblower. I was grateful for the support which I received across different benches and there was a very useful discussion.

I infer that there was indeed a consensus around the broad thrust of what I was trying to achieve, but the divergence of view on the part of the government about how to achieve this. The government's response at Committee was of a comprehensive whistleblowing system for military and civilians alike, already exists, that it includes robust policy, procedural investigation teams and a confidential hotline, so the government's argument is the amendment is not required. This response of course refers to the improved complaint system which I do not deny is there an operating to improve effect.

The government was also concerned about the breadth of my management which the government felt could reach a range of issues beyond general service welfare matters. Dealing with the first response, I was not persuaded by the whistleblowing system already exists, nothing more is required argument, and let me explain why. Notwithstanding the creation of an Armed Forces Commissioner to deal with general welfare issues, many of these issues will consider -- continue to be addressed through the existing system but that is not an argument for locomotion.

This creation is an enhanced protection to service personnel and additional route for complainers of victims to use. As I argued at Committee whatever support and protection we can give, throughout service personnel, particularly women, we should provide it. Given the noble Lord the Minister's when Mr engage further I withdrew the amendment at Committee. And subsequently I had a constructive meeting with the noble Lord the Minister and his officials when we explored the issue further. The breadth of issues which will be encompassed by men amendment had sympathy.

I did not intend to extend beyond welfare and general welfare issues as defined in the bill, so amendments three and five have been drafted accordingly to reflect that. The whistleblower as defined in amendment five is all within the parameters of the bill. The noble Lord the Minister helpfully shared with me the further thinking of the MoD on the issue and the advice from his officials. Anticipating that he will wish to go that in his windup speech, let you dress what may arise.

I hope that will assist the noble Lord the Minister in his response. The government considers whistleblowing is not a legally recognised term and does not have a clear agreed meaning. I have no difficulty understanding what whistleblowing means and from the Contributions Act committee is clear that neither do your Lordships. Much more importantly service personnel will have no difficulty in understanding what whistleblowing means. The simplicity of being given a simple central point of access to the Armed Forces Commissioner under the widely understood umbrella of whistleblowing regardless of what service you're in, is manifestly interactive, that a friend services are relevant family member can do the same with anonymity will have a compelling view.

Given the reputational damage done to the MoD, with a catalogue of dreadful stories over a period of years, particularly in relation to service, while the MoD not want to do this? Indeed just this morning BBC Wiltshire reports on the horrific accounts of alleged rape and sexual assault from three women. One of whom served in the Navy, another in the RAF, and the third is still serving in the army. What a message this amendment would send to those women, women who feel they are being ignored and that their concerns are overlooked.

My amendment is specifically designed to offer such women a widely understood and simple route seeking out regardless of what other procedures exist. The government claims that were supplying is not legally recognised term however it features in section of the Armed Forces Act, the very act of Parliament this bill amends. It also features in the police reform of 2002. Both attacks confer the power to investigate whistleblowing complaints with regard to the service please complaints Commissioner and the independent office please conduct respectively.

In fact section 340Q is even entitled investigation of concerns raised by whistleblowers. And the Police Reform Act and entire part with that same title. It is therefore evident that there is statutory precedent for whistleblowing provisions. It appears that we are dancing in the head of the pin. I have reported the argument that whistleblowing is superfluous and that specific edition is not needed to this bill. The government therefore four came up with an imaginative diversion. Whereas my previous amendment was too wide, now I have confined it to the parameters of the bill, yes, government now argues the amendment is to restraining.

There is so much dancing on the head of a pin that the pin is about to buckle. I understand the government will undertake to give reassurance about anonymity and conventionality in respect of the Commissioner's activity and any report prepared by the Commissioner. That merely reaffirms what I think we all assumed was there ready regardless of any whistleblowing function, otherwise how could the Commissioner do the job without these protections? I understand further they will be undertaken to engage in a comprehensive communications campaign for the benefit of armed forces personnel and their families about the role of the Commissioner.

And what could be raised with the Commissioner. Again that is necessary but it's not a substitute for what I want to achieve. Indeed that communications campaign might wish to begin with ministers, the noble Lord the Minister recently repeated the written statement by his honourable friends minister for veterans and people in the other place. Laying before Parliament the service complaints ombudsman's and report for 2024. And in that statement, he says, the Armed Forces Commissioner will have the power to investigate any issues raised directly by serving personnel and their families.

That is not what the bill says. The noble Lord the Minister whom I respect greatly is the hapless intermedia. May I suggest the government gets its house in order before it takes issue with others. We have got to is that the government says with bells and whistles, adding enough. I save are not. My amendments will deliver more. I shall listen with great interest to the debate and in particular to the noble Lord the Minister's windup remarks. If the noble Lord the Minister can give me an undertaking that he will return at third reading with an amendment that specifically covers whistleblowing, and I will be content to withdraw these amendments so we can explore the proposal further.

If he is unable to do so and cannot go further than I will be left with no choice but to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
17:59
Lord Beamish Portrait Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-
Proposed, clause 1, page 1, line 15, insert the words as on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome this amendment, it is trying to get a point that we could not disagree with. You will see 4p not disagree with. You will see 4p to come forward and raise issues -- the ability to come forward and the ability to come forward and raise issues about things that affect not just them but also colleagues and members of their families. But I hear what the noble Baroness says in terms of the Baroness says in terms of the definition and she is right, it is another legislation and I think in was an issue was raised when I was was an issue was raised when I was in the 2006 at, but I'm not sure what it adds to the ability, the powers of the Commissioner because the Commissioner, quite wide powers under the Bill as drafted, including being able to do thematic enquiries.

So I'm sure if he or she received complaints, she mentioned issues around the appalling treatment of women in certain parts of the Armed Forces, that is an issue that without any interference from outside, the Commissioner could take it upon him or herself to conduct an investigation. So I would support this inclusion, if it added anything to what is already in the powers and I have to say, I'm a little bit strange to understand what additional powers it would give the Commissioner that is normally there now -- I am strained.

It would be down to the individual in terms of the tenacity of whoever is appointed, who will be to try to take up some of these individual take up some of these individual complaints. I hear what she says about limiting the scope of the Commissioner's work and I think possibly it could but I think that's a bit of a weak argument, personally, to knock her down because the bill already states of the things that the Commissioner can do as well so it's an additional thing, like she's arguing for.

I don't think is a game changer in terms of the way in which the Commissioner will be able to do his/her job, or a Wayne which individuals will be able to come forward with serious concerns about their saw other people's welfare or I certainly think I hear what she says about the publicity campaign. It is going to be one of the key points, I think, once this bill is enacted that the need to know what the address system is and also the powers.

We have this discussion at report. Let us be honest, this bill is, I think, the third attempt to try to get this right. I think, I think the proof in whether it works is whether people feel confident enough to come forward and the Commissioner, not only individual cases, but somatic reviews, which this bill allows -- thematic. The House of Commons select committee, the excellent work it did, with Sarah Atherton. Women in the armed Sarah Atherton.

Women in the armed forces. That is something that is an issue that is coming up time and time again. It should be a thing that the Commissioner wants to tackle. I do know where they are coming from, we want a system which is as open as possible, which allows individuals to come forward with complaints and ensure that the Commissioner takes those on board. That, I think is about the enactment and how the Commissioner will act, rather than the wording that is outlined in the bill.

outlined in the bill.
18:03
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Portrait Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Labour)
-
-
Can I start my by warmly commending the noble Lady, Baroness Goldie for her tenacious championing of the interests of Armed Forces personnel and I know that this commitment long predated my arrival, commitment long predated my arrival, in this House. I step with some trepidation on the noble Baroness's territory. Together with my noble friend, Lord English, I hope -- Lord Beamish, I hope that the noble Lady in her response can explain and help us understand better what the proposal in the two amendments add to the powers that the bill already gives between the Commissioner.

We are trying to approach this question from the point of view of the ordinary member of the Armed Forces, who is faced, as it is, with different channels to take concerns through. And when the Armed Forces Commissioner is in place, they will be yet another channel. It is very unclear to me, if I were put in that position, when I would consider myself to be, to somebody who is availing themselves of the existing channels and when I might be considering myself to be a whistleblower and what the difference would be.

I do confess that I myself am not totally clear about the array of roots and that somebody in that situation might be able to take. I do wonder how the average member of Armed Forces personnel already navigate their way through. As I understand it, the existing channels and forgive me if I've got this wrong, includes the Ministry of Defence raising a complaints procedure, which is a facility where people can report serious matters confidentially and in some cases anonymously.

So that is very similar to being a whistleblower. Another route appears to be the MoD serious concerns reporting facility, which is another confidential mechanism, for raising serious concerns, which can be done online, on the phone, or through an app. There also appear to be internal energy policies that are committed to protecting whistleblowers, already from detriments. The support available ensures the nominated officers outside the chain of demand and -- chain of command and 18. Noble Lady, Baroness Goldie referred to the introduction of the reform complaints system, which will introduce the new specialist service team, for taking the most serious complaints, bullying, discrimination, outside the single service chain of command.

And this has been welcomed, as I understand it, by the family of JC Beck, who always remains in our thoughts, when we are discussing these matters. The spokesman, from the family said that Need to be truly independent, properly trained and committed to real accountability and transparency. And that is all our aspirations, I would suggest, for the new Armed Forces Commissioner. On top of those channels that I've already mentioned will be added the Armed Forces Commissioner. And so, I would ask the noble Lady if she would take the opportunity to explain to us, again, so we better understand what adding a whistleblowing facility on top already exists, would add.

I would also like to invite my noble friend, the Minister, in his response to give us some further assurance that anybody, who in the future will be having recourse to the services of the Armed Forces Commissioner will be able to do so. Anonymously. In
18:09
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the same way that anybody who would be designated under any other system, as a whistleblower would be system, as a whistleblower would be able to do so. Because I think, if the Minister were able to give us the Minister were able to give us that reassurance, it may go a long that reassurance, it may go a long way to meeting the concerns that the noble Lady outlined, in moving the noble Lady outlined, in moving the First, my apologies for not taking part in this bill earlier, as in this House will no, this is not my usual territory, but am very grateful to Baroness Goldie and Barry Eunice Smith for drawing attention to the whistleblowing issue in this bill.

I support the amendments in Baroness Goldie and the elementary that had a whistleblowing function to this bill, to the role of the Commissioner. The amendment seeks to make it clear that someone who speaks out on the issues covered in the bill, essentially welfare issues, can take their concerns directly to the Commissioner, regardless of the service they are attached to and will have the status of a whistleblower, with the respect and protection is that, with that role, as established, under our current whistleblowing law, the Public interest disclosure act 1998.

And that includes confidentiality. The Commissioner will then be empowered to investigate again, if the issue and the criteria set out in this bill. An investigation as any serving whistleblower will tell you is more important to those who speak out there and even protection. Can I say there is a distinction between someone who is making a complaint and someone who chooses to blow the whistle. A complainant is someone who is looking for very specific redress. And quite rightly, nothing right wrong with that, that is entirely appropriate.

As whistleblows will know, from the whistleblows we have had generally somebody who is realised recognise, seen the potential for something going seriously wrong. They are not looking for personal redress. They'll raising the issue in order to achieve investigation. We still have to make that decision, but that is a very different process in a very different aspect from making a complaint about an experience that you, or a family member have directly had. You may end up doing both. But whistleblowing hazard to be recognised as a tool, which directs investigators.

I spent part of this morning, with the director of the Serious Fraud Office, who told an All-Party Parliamentary Group. Sort of underscored the fact that when you are an investigator, knowing where to investigate, requiring the flow of information. He said the biggest hope was to empower whistleblowers, because that is where he finds the information and the direction that guided the investigation that he needs to do. It seems to me that applies just as much in the armed services and even under the limited welfare umbrella, as well as anywhere else.

I will concede that the current whistleblowing law that frames protections, the public interest disclosure act, is a deficient law and many of us need to upgrade or replace it. It is all we have today and at the very least it's protection should exist extent of the armed services. The government has responded it can simply put protections into its policy document. Why does anybody think a policy document is a legal protection. The government also suggested as Baroness Goldie mentioned, it could introduce an anonymity clause, for the report that the commission has published and I cannot see that anything in this amendment rules that out.

I could suggest further changes, but I think we have something very , to enable a whistleblowing process, within the scope of this bill, for the Armed Forces. And this bill creates, would I understand to be something really quite exceptional and valuable and that is a truly independent commissioner, whose future career does not depend on any of the armed services, or the Civil Service. So he or she, in that role, has the potential to be a real game changer, when it comes to speaking out.

And again, if what we had in place was perfectly adequate, would we have had that report today from BBC Wiltshire, of three more members of the armed services coming forward, with the most extraordinary and shocking experiences. We have to recognise that what we have in place is not achieving what we wanted to do. And that is why this amendment and the change it proposes is so absolutely important. As we get legislative improvements and in this area and in other areas, over the issue of whistleblowing, protections will be a more effective.

We will avoid not just the scandals that we have seen within the services, we will see them in other areas. The post office is a good example. We have a real chance that then of wrongdoing being tackled. It seems to me, if we want to enhance at the morale of the armed services, they are genuinely valued. To encourage recruitment into the services. Making it absolutely clear that there is a simple channel to a trusted individual, to whom one can go, with what is a whistleblowing issue, not necessarily a personal complaint.

That is in order to make sure that someone with investigatory powers is aware of, has a detail and background, that will allow an investigation, it seems to me there are a few things we could do more that would encourage people to hold our services in the very high reputation that the servicemembers deserve.
18:15
18:16
18:17
18:18
Lord Wrottesley Portrait Lord Wrottesley (Conservative)
-
-
I briefly rise to support the amendments made by my noble friend Baroness Golding and the elephant and wish to congratulate the principal work on matters defence and in particular on this bill. I wholeheartedly wish to amend all noble Lords who have engaged with this legislation -- command. -- Amend. I have interest and I wish to add my support amendments three and five in this group, as the forefront of all of our minds is exactly this, supporting those in and women who serve and their families who support them.

It's both an honour and often a sacrifice to wear the uniform and precisely because they serve, the service personnel to serve, for Ahsan our freedoms, we enjoy these deeply cherished and freedoms. The very least we can do is strengthen protections around their welfare and well-being, safeguarding their voices and those of their nearest and dearest. Safeguarded from the under whistleblowing regulations, so that they are always heard and their welfare is never taken for granted. They were supplying provisions and clarification sought by several contributions to this debate, those provisions inherent in these amendments seeking to be on the face of this bill are in my view vital to provide further support and protection to our service personnel and their families.

As my noble friend mentioned, this bill is stronger because of cross-party collaboration and the shared respect that we all have with those who that we all have with those who serve. I would like to put on record my support for these amendments and I hope they will become part of this bill and I insanely commend the work done by all involved in bringing done by all involved in bringing this bill forward. -- I sincerely command. command.
18:20
18:22
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate and the ongoing discussion that we had at committee outside of the committee and now back in here at report stage. Let's be clear about some of this, there is no difference in the policy objective. There's nobody that wants to read the things that enable Baroness Goldie outlined, to hear about some of the things we have heard about some of the Armed Forces that we read about sexism and some of the behaviours that we see.

There is no difference between any of us about that. There's nobody here that supports that. We all want that to be exposed and we want everybody to feel able to come forward to tell, through the complaints procedure, or through this new body which we are setting up, so when people say, we still see today these things happening, of course that is true. And I will say to the noble Baroness Goldie, when the First Sea Lord went to recent Defence Select Committee, he talked about the numbers of Navy personnel that had been dismissed from the service, using the legislation the last government brought in.

And quite commendably, quite rightly brought in, to deal with some of those appalling and unacceptable behaviours. But in answering some of the questions does it go far enough, does more need to be done? Of course more needs to be done which is why we are having an Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. Which is why we have brought this forward. Because we understand and we know that it is still not sufficient, that's still more needs to be done. And therefore we are bringing forward the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill.

I understand perfectly the intention behind the amendments. It's for people to feel able to approach the Commissioner without fear of repercussions for their identity being made public. And I wholeheartedly agree with that. Who's going to disagree with that? There isn't anybody who is going to disagree with that. We'll want people to trust the process, Commissioner, feel confident that the issue will be addressed and they won't face any negative consequences from coming forward. But just to say to the chamber, the amendments that the noble Baroness has brought forward, quite commendably, and the arguments that have been made, as my noble friend Lord Beamish and Baroness Carberry in their remarks, all of that is available to those who come forward now.

As the bill is currently drafted, the various policy intentions are being met under the bill. Let me just go through again some of the technical reasons because they are important, if we are dealing with legislation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think Baroness Kramer raised the difference between an individual the difference between an individual complaint and whistleblowing. I accept there's a difference. As I read the it is only to stop a whistleblower going to the Commissioner and the Commissioner Commissioner and the Commissioner undertaking an investigation that under one of the thematic review.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

under one of the thematic review. No, there isn't anything that my noble friend is right to point out. Let me deal with the term whistleblower, is not universally recognised term in law. That may be of relevance to us in considering the debate but is relevant in terms of literature. There is nursing a meaning add it requires context to explain what it means in each case. The amendment seeks to define the term in reference to certain people and topics stop it doesn't create any additional protections for those people because as I've said the Commissioner and already investigate everything the amendment lists, as my noble friend Lord Beamish has pointed out, whether it is a whistleblowing type thing whether it be a person issue that somebody wants to raise about themselves individually.

The Commissioner can already investigate any general service welfare matters that they choose, and anyone can also pray such an issue with the Commissioner including the class of person defined in the proposed amendments. Once established the Armed Forces Commissioner and the office will automatically be bound by the data protection legislation. This means all individuals who contact the Commissioner with the information and the details they provide will be subject to stringent protections. From the existing legislation. That includes the principle of protecting the integrity and confidentiality of their personal data.

Nonetheless, as noble Lords and people in this chamber will know, in order to try and address the continuing concerns about that, the government considered what more it might do to actually deal with the concerns and to do something about it. I say this to this chamber, in considering this amendment. The holy Grail of all of this is anonymity. That is the holy Grail. People will not have the trust and confidence in the system if they don't believe, if they wish, there is an animal -- anonymity because they'll be frightened of the consequences.

Whether whistleblowing or a personal situation. We are looking, and in addition to substantial protections afforded by the data, protection legislation, we will undertake to bring forward an amendment at third reading which would go further in respect of reports prepared by the Commissioner to preserve the anonymity of individuals who make complaints. This would have the effect of preventing a complainant's details coming into the hands of the Secretary of State or the general public without the consent of the client.

Without interfering with the Commissioner's ability to use the information in connection with an investigation. In other words, the government has conceded that anonymity is an issue and we commit at third reading to bring forward an amendment that would the face of the amendment that would the face of the bill. In legislation. To ensure anonymity was protected. I say again and I repeat, trust and confidence is everything. He will come forward, whatever the legislation says, without trust and confidence in the without trust and confidence in the system? -- Who will come forward.

At the heart of that is anonymity and that is the proposal we would seek to do at third reading should we be in a position procedurally to do that. Secondly, and this is not legislative but secondly, the government has, I think Baroness Kramer or sorry, Baroness Goldie raised this, the government commits to update its current raising of concern policy which includes replicating the protections available to civilians under the public interest disclosed -- disclosure act. This will update the role of the Commissioner and provide similar protections for people.

This will include provisions relating to anonymity, confidentiality and ensuring that anyone who raises a genuine concern in line with the policy will be protected from unfair or negative treatment due to raising the concern.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just ask for clarification, all of those things, they will be in all of those things, they will be in a policy document as understand it? Could he explain the legal standing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the policy document? The legal standing works with respect to the way supplying policy respect to the way supplying policy works. If the noble Lady would like to have a look, the armed service to have a look, the armed service personnel are not covered by the public interest disclosure act now. So raising a concern policy is the way that the Ministry of Defence ensures that whistleblowers are protected. And what the government is seeking to do unless the noble Baroness feels that the there needs to be a member to the public disclosure act, which would include armed forces personnel within its remit then, what we are saying is that we can quickly look at the raising of concern policy document which exists with respect to the Ministry of Defence, and by looking at that quickly we can ensure the whistleblowers have the confidence to come forward.

I say again to that noble Baroness, my review, I may be wrong, and in a minute people will vote in the way they think, my own view is that anonymity and the belief that people have, that their concerns will be treated anonymously, that they have trust and confidence, that is the holy Grail. Whatever the legislation says, if they believe it's anonymous and they believe and have trust it is anonymous, they will have confidence. Which is why when we are debating how to respond to the noble Baroness 's points actually talked about the need to put anonymity on Government Government intends Government intends to Government intends to bring Government intends to bring forward.

No one knows anything about it. What would be helpful alongside the raising of the concern policy was to say that we ensure we communicate to Armed Forces personnel, so that they know that they are protected by the amendment that we wish to bring forward 1/3 reading, to give them that anonymity. We thought that that was a really positive and good way to respond to the challenges that have been raised in committee and indeed by the concerns and the continuing concerns that people raise.

With the remarks I've made, it may not satisfy the noble Baroness, Baroness Smith and Baroness Goldie, but I ask the House to reflect on whether an amendment which seeks to provide protections that are already there, or whether in a memo that says that at third reading the Government will bring an anonymity legislative proposal, alongside these two other non- legislative proposals. Can I thank the noble Baroness and noble Lords for their participation in this debate.
18:33
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
This has been a most useful and I hope it has been eight helpful debate. I want to thank all those that have contributed, whatever their point of view. Not least those who felt able to support my amendments. And of course I wish to thank the noble or the Minister his continued engagement and he's a sincere desire to control the possibility of a point of mutual agreement. It was clear from the contributions it was considered to be laws.

Let me try and deal with those first. You may express the noble Baroness, for her kind remarks. I also very much appreciate the vain in which she made the observations and asked questions. I think essentially, arising out of the points raised with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, Lord Carbery, Viscount Stansgate, not to mention the Minister, there was a theme running through. A theme I picked up on was the powers are already there, Lord Beamish said this is not a game changer.

The noble Baroness lady Carbery said it would help the House to understand better what the amendments achieve, on top of the existing routes which exist. And the noble Lord, Viscount Stansgate said the Commissioner has the power, so nothing conditional has been created by the amendments. That was very much, I think the total of the Minister's response. I think what I would say, in response to that is twofold. It really depends, through I think the lens, we can look at this through the lens of parliamentarians, technical legal draft persons and we can say no, no, you don't need these amendments, because everything we need is already in there.

I think that I, I think that I would tend to advocate, looking at this, through what I think is a lens of service personnel, not just servicewomen. That is why I am quite emphatic that it is not a question of, I think it is a question of reassurance to our Armed Forces, particularly our servicewomen that we are providing routes, the best way we can, because we want to give notice of that we care about them, that we want to do the best we can.

And indeed, I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer who said that what really matters is that there is confidence about the investigation part. I will come to her distinction between complete and whistleblowing, in a moment. If you look at it through the lens of what I think the service personnel is. I go back to the original argument used in my opening speech. I think we have to give something simple that is easy to understand and there may be a number of routes that people can follow.

I think if you say one of the reasons the Commissioner can investigate whistleblowing brigade. That sends a signal to an awful lot of people. They get that, they want to understand it. They know they can do that the process is untrustworthy and the investigation will be robust. The noble Lord the Minister said, more needs to be done, hence we have the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. I entirely agree with that. My response to him will be, I want more to be done too.

I want to improve the bill, in law. Not only policy, in law. Hence my amendments. The noble Lord very kindly indicated the government will confirm at third reading, introduced its own amendment, on the method of anonymity. I welcome that and depending on the text of it, I am sure this side of the House will be able to support it. Is that sufficient as a substitute, for me, for what I want to achieve, noble Lords I regret that it is not. If I make a deal with the other contributions that were made and maybe perhaps first with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

She is an acknowledged expert, her reputation goes before her. And indeed, I think as she is a woman, you would not regularly tangle with her. I am very grateful to her for her support. I thought her distinction, a complaint seeks redress, whistleblowing is not necessarily for redress, it is looking for investigation and action. It is an empowering action. It is an empowering function. And I felt that her contribution was very powerful, particularly when she explained how she perceive these amendments as improving morale, for our service personnel, in a simple way.

The personnel, in a simple way. The Bishop of Norwich, I thought made a very helpful contribution, when he referred to what is a safety valve. And he referred to the fear, from his experiences in Chaplin. The fear that people have of reporting. He feels that is assuaged by a whistleblowing function. Something others have intrinsically felt. The German Armed Forces Commissioner has fulfilled that function. Lord Gannett said very simply that there needs to be a way of challenging when something has gone wrong in the system.

That is exactly what I'm trying to achieve, with these amendments. My noble friend, Lord Rodgers Lee, whose support I welcome mentioned strengthening protections. That is at the heart of all this. We have a variety of routes, I said that earlier. If we felt it only had one way of doing things. We would be saying our fastly improved service complaints system is brilliant, let's leave it at that. We can tweak it, do bits and pieces as and when we require.

I think we all accept that absolutely is not an argument for not having an Armed Forces Commissioner. If you accept that, then I think you should also accept there is more than one way to provide confidence and access to our service personnel. I was very grateful to Ladysmith and Newnham her contribution, her support of her benches, associating herself with the powerful comments from her colleague, Baroness, Lady Kramer. I have done my best to address the main point that arose. In the debate.

And again I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his courtesy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and his personal endeavours... I'm so sorry to interrupter. I just don't want to mislead everyone. On third reading, the government bringing the Emma Ma back. It will have to be brought back, I cannot have to be brought back, I cannot bring it back at third reading. If we were defeated, I wouldn't be able we were defeated, I wouldn't be able to bring those moments back this up it would need to be changed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

elsewhere. I understand and I take the point
18:41
18:45
18:54
18:54
18:55
18:55
18:56
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
And I thank the noble Baroness for moving her amendment and indeed ill Minto for their comments that he has just made. Dealing with amendment four, and thanking the noble Baroness for bringing the important topic of the Armed Forces to our attention and for the valuable engagements we have had ahead of this. As we discussed during the committee stages, this amendment would place a requirement on the Commissioner to have due regard to the Armed Forces principles as part of their general functions.

It would require report and compliance with the covenant in all areas of the sensibilities. Can I say that on behalf the government, this government is fully supportive of the Armed Forces covenant. The Armed Forces nurses Gini obligations and sacrifices made by those who served in the Armed Forces with a regular or reserve, those who have served in the past and their families including the bereaved. Our election manifesto included a plan to paste this into law. However as the noble Lords are aware, I will stress again the covenant applies to both serving and former members of the Armed Forces.

The government believes there is a separate and pressing need to address the welfare matters affecting of our serving community and that this is the role of the Armed Forces Commissioner will have the powers to make a real impact. However stated before it will be perfectly proper that the Queen Commissioner considers covenant issues were those relate to serving members of the Armed Forces and their families and I would imagine that these issues would be within the remit of the Commissioner to investigate.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness and others as the Commissioner will be fully able to investigate covenant issues where they apply to the welfare of serving personnel and their families, it is neither necessary or appropriate to specify this on the face of the bill and with that I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
18:59
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat)
-

I look forward to the noble Lords for responding to this small amendment, it may be possible at the whistleblower will be able to bring matters that could link to the Armed Forces if the amendment has just been passed is kept in the other place but with that I beg to leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is by withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is by withdrawn. Amendment five mu family. The questions that this amendment be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment six, not contents have it. Amendment six, not made. -- Not move. Amendment seven, made. -- Not move. Amendment seven, Lord Coaker, moved formally. The Lord Coaker, moved formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. We now come to the group amendments beginning with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment eight. I rise to move amendment eight

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment eight that appears in my name and I'm aware of the desire of the House to progress and will be brief. This progress and will be brief. This raises an issue and I need to go back to what happened to what we back to what happened to what we discussed in committee, raising the issue of under 18's in the Armed Forces with the noble Lord the Minister nose is a particular concern of mine. At that point I jumped on the back of an amendment tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Smith of listing a number of areas of concern and I added under 18's to that list.

I think we were convinced I committee stage it was appropriate there wasn't a list on the face of the bill and that it was something that was to be left to the Commissioner but nonetheless when I was asking the noble Lord the Minister during the debate about how the Commissioner was going to deal with the very particular and specific concerns of other -- of under 18's, what the noble Lord the Minister said the noble Lords said, and I appreciated, that any abuse of anyone is unacceptable and needs to be dealt with quickly and forcefully.

He acknowledged there were unique aspects to one or more of the groups and that anyone should
19:01
None Portrait Amendment:8 Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-

be able to access the Commissioner. What the response at committee did not address essentially was the how. And as I said, we are talking about the under 18's who are of a specific As we have heard of this report stage. The new commissioner is going to be faced with a very serious number of issues. I think we should thank the noble Lady, Baroness Goldie, for drawing our attention to that frankly shocking BBC report from this morning about the situation. More reports of abuse of women within the Armed Forces.

I set out, in committee stage and in previous discussions, some of my concerns are the concerns that have been shared with me about some deeply shocking events, including events documented, at the Army foundation College. But we are to see the volume the commission is likely to address, the vast majority will be concerned with people over the age of 18 the under 18s will be a relatively small group of the work of this, as we have all agreed, very heavily loaded Armed Forces Commissioner.

And so, dealing with under 18 requires specialist skills and knowledge, specialist approaches, that had different to dealing with adults. That is why, and I should say at this point, it is not my intention to put this amendment to the vote, not least because it was drafted by the very because it was drafted by the very inner expert hands of myself. -- Non-expert hands of myself. The office was kind to accept it, but not going to write a law what should go in the statute books.

One of the ways in which the Commissioner could actually access specialist knowledge is very obviously from this, so that is why I possibly left it in, rather delicately, in the place where it talks about the Secretary of State cooperating with the Commissioner. I have sent the Commissioner should cooperate with the children's Commissioner and other relevant children's services. So, what I am hoping to hear from the Minister is an understanding that the Armed Forces Commissioner, we understand the Armed Forces in many ways a special case for stopped when it is talking about dealing with children, we'd be thinking about the people you have the special skills to deal with children and support the Armed Forces Commissioner and having those inquiries.

So, that is my case, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Close four, page 3, line 28, at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Close four, page 3, line 28, at end, insert the words as pretty Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I welcome the amendment, in the sense that what the Baroness is the sense that what the Baroness is trying to do is ensure those in the Armed Forces under 18 are protected, which I think would be all our which I think would be all our wishes. I may disagree with her, in terms of the issue around terms of the issue around recruitment for 18-year-olds, because I would suggest that certainly at Harrogate College, they do a fantastic job of helping and developing young people from some of
19:05
Lord Beamish Portrait Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-
those disadvantaged communities in those disadvantaged communities in the country. And as a minister the country. And as a minister there, it is quite emotional to see the changes some of those individuals have gone through, in individuals have gone through, in the time they were at Harrogate. Saying that, the noble Baroness is correct, in the sense there have been instances there, which shouldn't have happened. And shouldn't have happened. And etiquette is -- And I think it is important that the commission is able to look at those instances, and Harrogate particularly, coming Harrogate particularly, coming straight into under 18's.

I accept that as part of one part of what she is trying to get out with this is trying to get out with this amendment. That is why I think it is important to have the debate today. Whoever becomes the Commissioner I think should look at this and think that, one, when they are going to look at particular cases are even a thematic inquiry into under 18s provision, then drawing my expertise, as the Baroness says, quite right, it should be an important point.

As she quite rightly says, the Armed Forces Commissioner, no matter how good he or she is, will not have the specialist knowledge that things like the Armed Forces, sorry, the children's Commissioner do. I do welcome the debate, I think it is important, that if we are to attract people to our Armed Forces, it is going to be very important that the experience they have is of the most utmost quality and also doesn't lead to some of the issues that have sadly rose at Harrogate.
19:06
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett, for bringing this amendment. As you pointed out at committee stage, we have an amendment that listed a whole set of different groups. For whom we were suggesting the Armed Forces Commissioner should pay particular attention to. And this was not intended to be something that would ever be brought to a vote. But really, an opportunity to explore the need for, clearly, the clock doesn't want me to speak at all.

It keeps flashing to say after 12 seconds I had spoken for too long and another six, I should shut up! But I'm going to carry on briefly. That in light of things like the Lord Etherton report, it is important for the Commissioner to be thinking about groups who have been particularly facing problems within His Majesty's Armed Forces. So, exploring who the Commissioner should be taking into consideration, and where there might be a need for particular inquiries or reports seemed to be something worth discussing.

And while I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, potentially, recruiting the right teens are something that we accept. It is still, I think, an important idea to bear in mind. That people under 18 are still technically children. And in looking at their welfare, it is important the Commissioner does look to other bodies that would deal with the welfare of under 18's. I think particular, in this regard, mentioning family members is also important, because if we are talking about recruitment, as the noble Lord has just done, then for 16 or 17- year-olds, it is not simply whether they want to sign up, it is going to be whether their parents will come diplomat as well.

I think this is an important issue for us to be discussing. But of you say not to be put into a vote on this occasion. put into a vote on this occasion.
19:08
Earl of Minto Portrait The Earl of Minto (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raises an important point. The welfare of service personnel who are under 18 is a matter that all noble Lords wish to guarantee. I personally have funding -- Fond memories of training some, they were at times some of the most fearless individuals, certainly in relation to trying out new skills, but I had the honour of serving with. I think we are right therefore the government give consideration to young people in the Armed Forces, they are part of our future of the Armed Forces and it is in all of our interest to provide an environment that allows them both to thrive and flourish.

When we face retention issues, as discussed already, we cannot have a situation in which young people are deterred from joining upper encouraged to leave prematurely. I would be grateful of the noble Lord, the Minister, would update the House his covenant has taken to help deal with the concerns of young people serving in our Armed Forces. The amendment from the noble Baroness also mentioned the children of service personnel. They are impacted a new and unique way by their parents service. This can easily get forgotten or overlooked.

They are often required to move home in the military requires their family to relocate. And this can be different, disparate parts of the country, or indeed overseas. Moving so frequently, is by no means an easy thing to ask of anyone, let alone a child. Leaving their friends behind, losing their sense of normality, and never becoming accustomed to an entirely new way of living would be challenging for most living would be challenging for most of us. those who left the Armed Forces pointed to this as a core reason for leaving.

We must face this head-on. A direct response from the amendment from the noble Baroness, which mentions the children's Commissioner for would like to say that there must be clear
19:11
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
delineation of responsibility, for the welfare of service personnel. The Armed Forces Commissioner must be responsible for investigations regarding general service welfare matters, from a service personnel, matters, from a service personnel, regardless of age. The Children's Commissioner and the Armed Forces Commissioner are two very distinct roles. And for good reasons. To conflate the two could risk conflate the two could risk confusion as to responsibility. If a person under the age of 18 has an person under the age of 18 has an issue regarding their welfare, as part of their military service, then they should go to the Armed Forces

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commissioner only. My Lords, can I thank everyone for this discussion, about this for this discussion, about this important matter. And in particular, important matter. And in particular, can I thank the noble Baroness, Baroness Bennett, for her views on the bill. I just acknowledged the concerns about the protection of concerns about the protection of young soldiers. Which we would all young soldiers. Which we would all wish to see as Lord Beamish pointed out in his remarks. And Lord Mendoza out in his remarks.

And Lord Mendoza also come in what he said along with Baroness Smith also. As the Commissioner will be an independent body, it will be ultimately up to them to decide how they choose to exit eyes their -- Exercise their powers and for both parties to decide how best to work together effectively. It is likely, however, the Commissioner will implement a series of formal and informal working arrangements, with various groups, organisations, and committees. Including the Children's Commissioner's, from each nation in the UK.

I think again, it is distinctive, but I think it is important that the children's Commissioner would work where appropriate with the Armed Forces Commissioner, while respecting the difference between the two roles. My Lords, the officials that focus on the successful implementation of the Commissioner have already visited AFC Harrogate to understand the unique needs of our young soldiers. And are engaging with other interested groups, who are both internal and external to the MoD. But just to reiterate, the government is very supportive of the recruitment of young people under 18, whilst also recognising it does bring with it particular responsibilities.

Which we would wish to ensure properly considered as we go forward. I hope with that, this provides the necessary reassurance the noble Baroness. And with that, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just a very brief comment. We are
19:13
19:14
19:16
19:16
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment nine, moved formally? The question is amendment nine be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. We now come to the next group. Enclose for, amendment 10, Baroness Enclose for, amendment 10, Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move this amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move this amendment which was myself and Lord Stirrup which was myself and Lord Stirrup expressed concern. I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his positive engagement both at Committee and in the subsequent meeting with his officials. That led to a helpful letter dated 23rd April, 2025, from letter dated 23rd April, 2025, from the Minister clarifying the position and the overall authority of the commanding officer to refuse access on grounds of national security.

I tabled this amendment to keep the issue live pending clarification from the government as to the position. I have no desire to prolong proceedings and shall use this opportunity to put on the record that relevant part of the record that relevant part of the letter from -- to which I refer. The Secretary of State's power to restrict access is available in a particular case or more generally. We therefore anticipate that in practice the Secretary of State could provide the Commissioner and heads of establishment with information in advance regarding specific sites or parts of sites, activities or broader criteria to which they will be preventing or restricting access.

In addition to the military, the Secretary of State will consult the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary to ensure it matters which infringe upon security interests are assessed. This mechanism will be broad enough to cover instances where, for example, specific classified event is happening at a site that did not have any restricted areas. In these instances, should the Commissioner wish to visit, the head of establishment will still be able to prevent the Commissioner from entering either all or part of the site.

Although the bill provides that this power resides with the Secretary of State, the application of broader criteria provided by the Secretary of State in relation to these matters will also function to allow heads of establishment to assess concerns relating to national security or personal safety and restrict access on those grounds. Practice, heads of establishment and relevant security staff will therefore have the authority to conduct their own fact specific checks in line with these concerns comedy lying -- delaying access where necessary.

They will be able to escalate this to the Secretary of State. I shall listen with interest to other contributions. I shall seek to other contributions. I shall seek your Lordships leave to withdraw this amendment.
19:19
19:21
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
First of all, can I thank the noble Baroness Goldie for reading the letter out that I sent. I have placed a copy in the library and I will check that happened as well to ensure that is available to everyone. I'd like to thank Lord Craig for his remarks as well. I think the letter covers the point that he has raised as well. I think it would be helpful for further clarification to read a couple of remarks and set the record straight.

Can I thank the noble Baroness and noble Lords for the conversations we've had about the no notice power of the Commissioner and the authority of the commanding officer. Can I just say at this point that we will make sure that commanding officers are aware of this particular, that they are aware of what they are able to do under this bill. As highlighted in the letter I sent on 15 April, to fulfil their function, the Commissioner will have wide-ranging powers including access to certain defence sites.

The Commissioner must get the -- give the Secretary of State notice to visit these sites. Giving notice will help to ensure that no proper...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

April. Can I thank the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the noble Baroness for her brilliant observation, which for her brilliant observation, which I... I have been reliably informed that is the reliably informed that that is the reliably informed that is 23 April. Thank you very much. Is is 23 April. Thank you very much. Is highlighting... I'm going to start again. As highlighted in the letter again. As highlighted in the letter I sent on 23 April to fulfil their investigator function, the Commissioner will have wide-ranging powers including access to certain defence sites.

The Commissioner must give notice of intent to visit those sites, unless on full site in UK only, giving notice would defeat the objective of visiting those sites. The Secretary of State's power to restrict access is available in a particular case or more generally. We therefore anticipate and practice the Secretary of State could provide the Commissioner and heads of establishment with information in advance regarding specific sites or even parts of sites, activities or broader criteria to which they will be preventing or restricting access.

In addition to the military, the Secretary of State will consult with the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary to ensure all matters which infringe upon national security interests are assessed. This mechanism will be broad enough to cover instances where, for example, a specific classified event example, a specific classified event is happening at a site that did not have any restricted areas. In these instances, should the Commissioner wish to visit without notice, the head of establishment will still be able to prevent the Commissioner from entering either all or part of the site.

Although the bill provides that this power resides with the Secretary of State, the application of broader criteria provided by the Secretary of State in relation to these matters were also function so that heads of establishment can assess concerns related to national security or personal safety and restrict access on those grounds. And practice, heads of establishment and relevant security staff will
19:25
19:26
None Portrait Amendment:13 Lord Beamish (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

13, in schedule one, Lord Beamish. I rise to move amendment 13 which is an attempt to ensure there is is an attempt to ensure there is power to scrutiny over the individual who is appointed as the Armed Forces Commissioner. As I Armed Forces Commissioner. As I raised in committee, there has been a lot of play by government that the a lot of play by government that the Armed Forces Commissioner has been based on the German model, but I think because we had the debate in Committee, the parliamentary oversight in this bill is nothing like a German system.

The German system, the Commissioner is appointed by the Bundesrat and answers to the Bundesrat. The Secretary of State for defence is the individual who recognise the appointment to his Majesty the King. In Committee, I moved amendment three, giving powers to both houses to have a vote on the individual before they went to his Majesty. Therefore, it gives Parliament a direct say in scrutiny over who is appointed as Armed Forces Commissioner.

Even though in committee I raised a number of examples where this is already prior this in terms of appointments, the Committee sought to reject -- the government sought to reject my amendment. In the old tradition that God loves a trier, it is my second attempt to try and get some sort of scrutiny. Amendment 13 would not allow the Secretary of State to recommend to the king the individual before the individual had been before the defence select committee and the relevant committee in Your Lordships' House, which would be the International Relations and Defence Committee.

This is a watered-down version of my amendment number three. It would at least ensure that both Houses of Parliament were scrutinising whether the candidate was a fitter -- fit and proper person to be appointed as Commissioner. It will also offer some confidence that Parliamentary committees that oversee defence issues had an opportunity to look at the individual that was being put forward. Many people might say why is this important, why should government be involved? Parliament be involved? Over the years, we have seen scrambles -- scandals in our Armed Forces.

At second reading, we discussed many of those and we agreed this is the third attempt to try and get this right. In terms of oversight, complaints and other issues relating to the Armed Forces. issues relating to the Armed Forces. This is an attempt, I think, in this bill to ensure that Parliament has a say. The other issue, which I don't think we should ignore is that individuals who have been affected by complaints and scandals taking place and campaigners have very little respect or confidence in the MoD or chain of command.

I think given a parliamentary oversight of the Commissioner's appointment, it with I think help them now that it is not just the Secretary of State and MoD who are putting forward the necessary person. I think it is important for not just the right Amendment 14 is another of my second attempt. The issue here is to change the word 'me' to 'most' in the role of the Armed Forces Commissioner. Nothing anyone involved long enough means that if you control those strings, you control the effect of how the individual cooperate.

Example of it, in the last couple of terms on the way it the committee I Chair, the Intelligence and Security Committee, could limit its effects. And I am concerned that the use of the word may come and I'm not casting doubt on the integrity of the current occupants of the Ministry of defence. But a future time, some future government, could decide, and if the Armed Forces Commissioner is being too difficult, the way to do it would be to limit the other funds.

Or likewise, it couldn't be as Machiavellian as that, it could simply be a round of spending cuts, and this isn't seen as a priority for the MoD. Or the Treasury for that matter. I do think it's important to have this debate. To mark it down for this government, but I think for future governments, if this could properly work and be
19:33
19:34
Viscount Stansgate Portrait Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

one, page 8, line 16, and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled list. I shall not detain the House for long, my noble friend moved his amendment in committee and I strongly supported it and I support it again. Machiavelli I am sure will be pleased to know his name still comes up in discussions, centuries after his death. But the point I really want to make briefly is that when my noble friend, the minister, introduced this bill at second reading, he made a very good point that the whole purpose of this bill was to provide statutory authority for the new Armed Forces Commissioner which is something we haven't had before and is a new role.My noble friend is amendment -- And I regard my noble friend's amendment as authority, this time on behalf of Parliament, because she or he will have been confirmed by the relevant committee or committees of either house.

The other thing I would like to say is nothing to do with this bill. What my noble friend is suggesting a very good point of principle or all such appointments. And I think in the wider context of the relations between the executive and the legislature. An amendment like this, very strongly seeks to improve the authority of Parliament. I won't say against the executive but nevertheless, the importance and role of Parliament, otherwise what is the point of our being here Parliament doesn't play a role.

What I do very strongly support these and it is not going to be pressed to a vote, I don't want my noble friend the Minister will say in reply. I hope people will be able to say something that conveys an element of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreement with the arguments that is going to be made by my noble friend. My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord
19:35
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
name of the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, seek to do what amendments that I brought at committee stage, also sought to do in a rather less elegant way. And my amendment on having the parliamentary scrutiny for the Armed Forces Commissioner was the source of considerable consignment to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who said it was far too detailed to put on the face of the bill. Therefore, I am extremely glad for the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, has decided to bring back this amendment.

Because it is important we have a parliamentary role for stubborn and he has phrased it very eloquently, both in the formulation, as the amendment here, and what he has just said. My Lords, if we want to have an independent Armed Forces Commissioner, appointed by the Commissioner, appointed by the Secretary of State, it appears to be appropriate that that person to stand up to scrutiny, and would have both Houses of Parliament playing a role would be a very effective way of doing that.

So I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, the Minister, has to say about this and what role His Majesty's government feels able to grant to Parliament in this regard. And in regard to amendment 14, those minor words of 'may' to 'most' are just some thing important, unlike the legislation, if you haven't read the draft of the bill, 'me' to 'most' makes very little sense. And it has been pointed out in today's debate, but we are already looking at increasing the funding for the Armed Forces Commissioner, considerably, compared with the current ombudsperson.

But, my lord, if work needs to be done, then a vital that the role of the Armed Forces Commissioner be adequately resourced because if not, the Armed Forces Commissioner is unable to fully fulfil the job given to them, what message does that send to the Armed Forces and their families, if cases are brought under the Armed Forces Commissioner does not have time to deal with the complaints or to undertake the sort of reports that they need to do.

That is going to undermine the prestige and the credibility of the prestige and the credibility of the Armed Forces Commissioner. So if 'may' cannot be converted to 'most', can the noble Lord, the Minister, can the noble Lord, the Minister, confirmed the House funding will be provided, and in the long term, the Armed Forces Commissioner will be adequately resourced, because as his noble friend, Lord Beamish said, we are happy this government is going to give adequate resources, but we are not just legislating for this government.

We are legislating for future governments as well. future governments as well.
19:38
Earl of Minto Portrait The Earl of Minto (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, for his amendment, number 13. This addresses the highly significant matter of the appointment process and the independence of the Commissioner. My noble friend, the Earl of Courtown, in winding for the second reading debate raise the difference between a proposed Commissioner and the Armed Forces Commissioner as we have heard. One of the main differences between this proposed Commissioner and the German commission is a method of appointment, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, quite rightly raised.

Commissioner is elected, with nominations coming from different groups. That role establishes a significant role for the German parliament, in the appointment process. Obviously, this Commissioner shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, not elected by Parliament. The government have indicated that the successful candidate will, I believe, appear before the Defence Select Committee in the other place. I have two questions here. Firstly, how will the government ensure the person remains entirely independent. And secondly, with the noble Lord, the minister, be amenable to the commission also undergoing pre- appointments scrutiny before the International Relations and Defence International Relations and Defence Committee in this House as well.

One minute 14, briefly, I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, the Minister's views on financing what Minister's views on financing what we all agree is a most positive initiative.
19:40
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, thank you again, to all who participated in this important debate to Viscount Stansgate, Baroness Smith, and Lord Mendoza. Just to say to them, the question is will be answered as I go through the remarks I have to make. I also thank my noble friend, Lord Beamish, on his views on this bill. And his engagement on the subject today for as he knows from discussions he has had with myself and the Minister for the Armed Forces, I understand and appreciate fully his concerns and views about the scrutiny of the commissioners in appointment and the importance of properly funding the Commissioner.

We are confident they will be the right balance of independent scrutiny in place, in line with other similar public appointments. Parliament will have a clear and important role in the process. The public appointments process, the rigorous pre- appointments within, be the mechanism to address any concerns the House of Commons Defence Select Committee may have about a candidate. We may be able to fully take account of the Select Committee's views before making the recommendation to His Majesty for furthermore, as was clarified at committee stage, the House of Commons Defence Committee will be involved in the recruitment process and will consider the candidate before their appointments.

The Secretary of State will then carefully consider the view of the Chair of the House of Commons Select Committee. I can confirm, we have also discussed this issue with the Chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee, and with Lord de Mauley, the Chair of the International Relations and Defence International Relations and Defence Committee. And made clear, as to Baroness Smith's point and my mobile phone, Lord Beamish's point, on this amendment, making clear that should the IRD see provide a view on the appointment they will be very to do so.

As for the House of Commons defence committee opinion, any views provided by the international committee will be a matter of consideration by the Secretary of State. However, I hope that confirmation that the mechanism exists to feed in views from this place, should Parliament wish to do place, should Parliament wish to do so, will leave the -- Will alleviate the concerns expressed by my noble Lord, and I think this and it has caused us to further consider how the IRDC may be involved, just emphasise, because it can't be committed to Parliament if it chooses to do so.

Turning to amendment 14, I fully agree it is crucial the commission has the tools, including financial, that they need. The bill has been designed to ensure this is the case. I would like to thank again my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, for taking the time to meet with myself and the Minister for the Armed Forces to discuss this matter as well. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, that, and others, that this government, and I would clearly like to state and put this on the record, will commit to providing sufficient funding to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.

-- Office of the Commissioner. It is difficult to commit future governance to policies, but I would assume and expect, even if Baroness Smith was the Secretary of State for defence, the Baroness Smith, or Baroness Goldie was back in office, or myself, that all of us would ensure that the commissioners office was properly funded. And I believe that would be the case. But I think that Lord Beamish's amendment is particularly important because it forces us to put that on the record, that the funding of the Commissioner's office is crucial and fundamental to the successful delivery of this important reform.

I would also like to say if the Commissioner feels that funding was insufficient, to carry out their functions effectively, the bill is designed to ensure that they will have the opportunity to raise this in their annual reports and I would suggest that the Secretary of State of the other place and the Minister for here, whoever that is, would find it uncomfortable to defend themselves against the charges of an Armed Forces Commissioner, identified as a crucial reform, believes they have been insufficiently funded to undertake insufficiently funded to undertake the requirements legally expected of them.

But with that, can I thank my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, for amendments 13 and 14. I Beamish, for amendments 13 and 14. I hope I have been able to provide him at the noble Lords the necessary reassurances. And on those grounds, ask him to withdraw his amendments.
19:45
19:46
None Portrait Amendment:g15 Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-

amendment is by leave withdrawn. Management 14, not moved. We now come to give it amendment 15, come to give it amendment 15,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

come to give it amendment 15, This amendment is consequential on clause 3. As you will be aware on clause 3. As you will be aware from our discussions at committee from our discussions at committee stage, close three, section 340 B says that a specified person may say that a service complaint is permissible rather than that function having to be carried out by a specific goal -- specified officer. It's an administrative decision on whether to accept or exclude a complaint from the service complaint system.

The Commissioner will retain the power to review admissibility decisions and make a final decision about whether the complaint should be accepted into the system. To offer some reassurance that what we are discussing is simply administrative decision which does not require the dedicated attention of an officer, let me outline the factors that are considered as part of these decisions. When a complaint has been made within prescribed time limits, whether the complainant is currently serving, which includes current or reserve personal, whether the complaint is a duplicate or repeat complaint, and whether the subject matter of the complaint relates to the service -- to a service matter or not.

There are exclusions relating to, for example, to matters subject to legal proceedings or operational decisions in combat. We do not consider that this administrative decision requires military expertise, hence the military expertise, hence the inclusion of clause 3 in the bill, which allows a suitably qualified person, rather than an officer to make that decision. The Armed Forces services complaint regulations 2015 will set out in more detail what a specified person would be for these purposes as they currently do for a specified officer.

There Gail get -- the regulations will look forward in Thus the effect of clause 3 is to allow certain civilians, in addition to military personnel, to make assessments of whether a complaint made by a member of the Armed Forces is admissible in the service complaints system. However, section complaints system. However, section 340 N of the Armed Forces Act allocates an ombudsman to deal with this. We therefore also need the language in section 340 N of the act to be updated from officer to person in order that there isn't any inconsistency in the legislation.
19:49
19:50
19:50
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

two, line 27 at and, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. Noting that this is a
19:50
19:52
19:52
19:54
None Portrait Amendment:1 Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-

be now received. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Clause 1, amendment one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move the amendment in my name and speak to amendments to entry in this group. It's a pleasure entry in this group. It's a pleasure to open this report stage of the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill. I would also like to take a brief moment to thank all of those who got moment to thank all of those who got the bill to this stage, not least Professor Green and her team and the Professor Green and her team and the Law Commission.

Anyone who is involved in that special bill committee, particularly the clerk and his staff. And colleagues who have shown interest and engaged with the bill. There is extraordinary opportunity when it comes to digital assets and delivering clarity, consistency and certainty around their property classification. I 2030, it estimated that somewhere between 10 and 14% of GDP will come from digital assets. To put it another way, transactions in 2030 involving digital assets range involving digital assets range between 10 to 24 £10-£24 trillion.

A huge opportunity for the planet, a huge opportunity for the UK, not least because of the excellent financial services. Infant tech, financial technology. Crucially, because of the great good fortune of English common law. And what we see in this bill is the leading edge deployment of that great tradition in the most modern of context. It would take just one example. If we get effective dematerialisation of the capital markets, that will save 20 billion year on year and reduce costs by speeding up transactions.

Clarification around digital assets will not only help capital markets, it will assist with financial inclusion, it will assist with financial market infrastructure transformation, impacting positively our economy and through that our society. We should note that the world is watching when we pass this bill, following on as it does in a suite of bills from the Commissioner -- the Commissioner -- the Commissioner. This bill does a very simple task of enabling 1/3 category of property, taking things in possession and things in action and enabling a potential third category to accommodate digital assets which don't currently fit in property classes.

It's a good will. It's been through an excellent committee and special bill committee procedure. I believe it is worthy of stress test through these amendments this evening. Amendment one and two go to the heart of the bill to propose a suggestion that the presumption that digital asset cannot be fitted within the existing two categories of property is reversed. If we consider something such as an NFT, a non-fungible token. To put it in simple terms, it is largely a piece of electronic software on a hardware of a digital ledger.

But it has an existence beyond its legal form, but it's difficult to possess in the way that you would, say, for example, a bag of gold. And that since, the bill is structured to enable this third category. This amendment seeks to stress test that and reverse that presumption, as we've seen in some of the Australian and Singapore recent judgements. I'm not suggesting that this amendment is the right amendment. It's merely .2 stress test how the bill is set out.

And again, it stress test the claim by Professor Green that this amendment would take a bite out of
19:59
20:00
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

capable of. I'm a great admirer of the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm a great admirer of the noble Lord Holmes and his passion for all things digital. But this is a good things digital. But this is a good but very modest bill, and I'm not sure whether we really do need to stress test it at this point in the proceedings. The special public process that we have all been through over the last few months The task pretty hard on this bill already. We have taken evidence, we have had amendments at committee stage.

I'm going to be extremely brief and I'm going to disappoint the noble Lord perhaps by not being in favour of any of his amendments. A previous draft of the bill used the language is capable of being an object with this was amended later on to the current is not prevented from being in the core efforts of this bill is supported by the Law Commissioner -- Law Commission. It is not prevented from having legal status as an object of personal property rights simply because it falls outside digital category of things in action and things in possession.

I believe the current drafting achieves this, so I don't believe that we do need to change anything. As regards amendment number two, this proposes a narrower statutory definition of the thing in action in the bill. This consists of the general approach of the bill and the Law Commission's approach which is to avoid dictating categorisation or defining the boundaries of existing categories. Again, I'm afraid I don't think that is consistent with our deliberations After publication of guidance, the Law Commission deliberately chose not to include specific criteria for a category in the bill.

Or having explored this during consultation,
20:02
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
did we agree that was necessary, my Lords. So, requiring the Secretary of State to effectively create and publish such criteria or guidance publish such criteria or guidance through judicial consideration, through the complexities if you like, so I'm afraid I must disappoint the noble Lord, I do know that he was just being provocative really, by tabling these amendments. So he can make a jolly good speech So he can make a jolly good speech The English common law has recognised two forms of property.

Tangible things in possession and intangible things in action, like debts and shares. However, with the rise of digital assets, as we have heard, such as cryptocurrencies, tokens and NFTs, non-fungible tokens, we encounter items that do not fit neatly into either category. These assets are becoming essential in modern commerce, and it is vital remain at the forefront of international trade, safeguarding London's position as a legal and financial hub. The Law Commission looked at this and proposed 1/3 category of property to accommodate such digital innovations, allowing for legal evolution, without proposing rigid definitions that might exclude future technologies.

The commission emphasised that statutory intervention must not undermine the existing legal clarity, or introduce necessary convocations. -- Unnecessary complications. English law is a strength and has already adopted to address key questions in the digital sphere. The current regime offers a balance of particular ability and adaptability, making our jurisdiction well positioned to lead in the space. The bill which the commission drafted, which is now before us, does just that. We have tested thoroughly in committee. I have listened carefully to the concerns raised by my noble friend, Lord Holmes of Richmond.

Whilst I recognise his concerns, I believe this bill is carefully drafted and it is not necessary to amend it, save for amendment six, which will come to later. Addressing amendments one and two in a little more detail, it will be for the courts to develop a law in relation to the treatment of category. Or to widen existing categories. Whichever way one wishes to look at it. The proposed wording of amendment one goes too far. The bill's wording is elegant and encompasses digital assets which are not necessarily easily categorised in the conventional classifications.

It also encompasses other things, not yet contemplated or in our imagination. But which, when they are contemplated and come into existence, will be thought by the courts to deserve rights. That is what the bill is doing. It is expressly not limited by over definition. The bill achieves protection for these future as yet unimagined things. As well as making it clear that existing digital assets will be protected. We will be bold, suggest, to depart from the views of Professor Green, Chair of the Law Commission report, who is really very hostile to the sort of amendment.

When asked about one such suggested amendment, she said that would really take away the whole bite of the bill, and again, she said what it addresses is that we no longer have to be stuck with these categories. So we, for our part, cannot support amendments one and two. Turning to amendment three on codes of practice. We follow the reasoning which I have outlined. Any code of/6 -- Any code risks definitions, not entirely out of its scope, but which are in fact worthy of protection.

Equally, the code might suggest property rights be given to an activity, which after detailed investigation a trial can give. The court decides rightly, should not be so protected. It is should not be so protected. It is best left to the courts, which will receive evidence, receive arguments from competing parties and be able
20:07
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
to resolve those matters. Not least, I suggest, the six men. That is due soon. -- Six month period, that is too soon. It is contrary to the too soon. It is contrary to the tenor of its lengthy report. If the act would later come in five years act would later come in five years time whenever, benefit from amendment, it should be done with the benefit of hindsight and the benefit of hindsight and inexperience. Meanwhile, such amendment is premature. amendment is premature.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment is premature. My Lords, I would like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for raising these issues that get right to the heart of the bill. First whether there is a need to recognise a further category in statute, second, whether it is helpful to provide further guidance to the courts on the attributes to consider. On the first of these points, the government's view, the government's firm view, is that the government's firm view, is that the approach is the right one.

Some stakeholders hold to the two category view and say there can be no further category beyond things in action and things in possession. This view was understandable. But it has its roots in history, including an inch influential statement in a 19th-century case. That statement was made in a time when you assets like crypto-tokens simply could not have been conceived. The world has moved on and the law needs to move on with it. The Special Public Bill Committee, heard from stakeholders, who would prefer to see these emerging assets categorised as things in action, on the basis that their approach would give more legal certainty.

However, the need for new solutions is the result of unique features for these assets and not of their categorisation. For example, the existing rules on transfer of things in action, or one remedies for interference in things in action, are simply not adequate for assets like crypto-tokens. Either way, the law, through the courts, will have to respond to the new features. This bill is the result of a three-year project by the Law Commission, during which all arguments, including the arguments in favour of this amendment were considered in full.

A strong majority of consultees of both consultations undertaken by the commission expressed a preference for a further category. Most respondents to the bills, to the bill committee's call for evidence, also supported this approach. This approach came from a wide range of stakeholders, from legal professionals to industry bodies and academics. Another advantage of this bill's approach is that it is technologically neutral. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, excellently put it in the committee stage, the bill encompasses other things not yet contemplated in our imagination.

This bill future proofed our law in the way the other two categories do not. And as Professor Green put it in her evidence, and as quoted by Lord Holmes, Lord Clement-Jones, and Lord Sandhurst, the whole mischief that the bill addresses is that we no longer have to be stuck with these existing categories. By removing any uncertainty around a possible further category, we will give the courts the freedom to develop our common law. This approach allows them to consider and respond to the unique features of digital assets and other assets we cannot yet foresee.

This flexibility is also relevant to the question raised by amendment three. With the Secretary of State shall publish codes of practice about the attributes of digital things that conferred personal property rights. The government's view is that enquiring publication of codes of practice could undermine effectivity that the current drafting affords the courts. The Law Commission considered the features of assets that have characteristics of property, but do not fit into the existing categories. However, city law firms, senior barristers, financial industry groups, and cryptocurrency, crypto industry groups, have clear feedback that a more detailed statutory provision incorporating these features could be counter- productive.

The government is concerned the same issues could stem from publishing a code of. It could create unhelpful boundaries, boundary challenges, leading to undue complexity, and prevent the common law from being able to respond flexibly and dynamically to new technologies and unforeseen challenges. This feedback was reflected in some of the written evidence submitted to the bill committee. As noble Lords will run maybe, the bill committee was firmly in favour of maintaining the bill's current approach. The noble Lord, my noble friend, Viscount Stansgate to the heart of this matter, when he said the whole point of the bill is to set up something relatively simple, to take into account new technology, and to enable judges to develop common law.

And as the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst, so eloquently put it, the relative silence of the current bill is golden. My Lords, this bill doesn't currently try to define the types of assets that may full within its scope. Rather, it unblocks the common law and leaves it to the courts to develop the appropriate principles, building on centuries of world-renowned common- law development. By doing this, English, Welsh and Northern Irish law can remain dynamic, globally law can remain dynamic, globally competitive, and a useful tool for those in the digital asset market.

I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments. amendments.
20:12
20:12
20:13
20:15
20:15
20:16
Viscount Stansgate Portrait Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
Clement-Jones, I am also going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, because I don't think these amendments are necessary. On the other hand, I agree with many of the things he said, especially about the evidence we received. I have never been a member of a special committee before, I don't know how many of your Lordships in the chamber tonight have been, but it is a very interesting procedure for and when I consider the length of the bill, compared to the height of the amount of evidence we received both in writing and orally, I don't think there has ever been such a strong there has ever been such a strong I do want to say one thing about amendment for -- amendment number four and data centres.

If we were not bringing forward these amendments, we would not have had a report stage. The thing about data centres, the house is beginning to understand that they are used for nominal quantities of electricity. I mean staggering. I don't know how the future is going to unfold but when the noble Lord refers to them as the foundries of the 21st-century economy, I think he's got a very good point. I am a member of the UK's Engagement With Space committee and one of the interesting things emerging from that is that in the future, perhaps data centres will be put in space.

I will simply conclude by saying that when the noble Lord says the world is watching, I agree with that too because this bill is going to allow common law to develop in a way that common law has done for decades, and it's also going to entrench the position of London as a centre for the jurisdiction of disputes and arguments about digital disputes and arguments about digital assets, and I think and hope that assets, and I think and hope that London will continue to do that.

Therefore, there is that element in this bill, which I strongly support, but, obviously, I'm in favour of the noble Lord's amendment.
20:18
20:20
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
six months, that again is way too far. If they -- if bringing the far. If they -- if bringing the review is triggering digital assets being viewed as property, again being viewed as property, again suggests the bill suggests a suggests the bill suggests a property status. The noble Lord already knows all the arguments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

against his amendments or I shall carry on no further. An impact assessment is really not practical whether in six months time or three months time. We respectfully suggest. It would be premised on too many uncertainties. What we do know is that this bill do no harm and is likely to do good, no harm and is likely to do good, and we have if you like, the theoretical impact assessment of the Law Commission which looked at all the issues in great detail.

So I suggest that we don't need that amendment and we would not support it. As to amendment five, six months time again is with respect to short. time again is with respect to short. I would suggest in parenthesis that a review in five years time to see whether it is useful, whether it requires more amendment, and what the effect is on the London market and litigation in London, could well be of value, whether it needs a be of value, whether it needs a formal assessment or not is something which can be looked at in something which can be looked at in four years.

This is early days. We simply don't know enough. With simply don't know enough. With respect to my noble friend, a review in few months time will not help us at all. We do not support that amendment.
20:21
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, at the outset, I'd like to acknowledge the noble Lord homes long-standing advocacy for technological innovation -- -- Lord Holmes. These amendments would mandate reviews of the impacted digital assets being treated as property by virtue of the bill's provisions. One amendment requires the government to publish an economic impact assessment of the bill on the day the impact is passed. As noble Lords now, the government published an impact assessment when introducing the bill. I hope it will assist and reassure noble Lords if I highlight reassure noble Lords if I highlight some of the most salient points.

As the assessment sets out, the bill is expected to bring clarity to personal property law, reduce uncertainty for businesses and ensure England, Wales and Northern Ireland remain leading locations in which to innovate. Due to limited data, it is very hard if not impossible to quantify these benefits. However, we think this bill will help ensure our laws remain competitive on an international stage. The impact assessment did consider... This assessment did consider... This impact is highly debatable given the bill.

It is not expected or intended that the bill will cause a significant increase in uptake of digital assets. The same calls for an estimated demand for... The assessment will also have to cover datacentre power usage. Current datacentre power provision is designed to meet any increase in assets. This follows on from the point the noble Lord Lord Holmes made at committee stage. He mentioned he would like to hear the government is committed to datacentre is being fuelled through renewable energy and a discussion around where data centres would be located, given the value they can bring to the country.

While these are important points, they do sit outside the remit of the bill. I have to say to my noble friend Lord Stan skate whether a datacentre is in space are not is also outside the realm of this bill -- Lord Stansgate. It would be impossible to estimate the long-term effects of the bill on data centres. There are many influences on these areas, such as cloud computing, AI and general data storage. This will make an extremely difficult to assess the impact of this bill.

Therefore, such a review could result in speculative or misleading conclusions. I now turn to the other amendment, which calls for reviewing the need for further regulation of stable coins and to organise deposits within six months of the act passing. Here, I must reiterate the bill does not specify how the courts will treat these particular digital assets. If they were considered personal property under this well, then this will not affect the need or not for regulation. This bill only deals with the discrete matter of private law.

Therefore, the proposed review is unlikely to yield any meaningful conclusions. For over, issues around regulating stable coins and to organise deposits are already being addressed. The government's forthcoming financial services regulatory regime of crypto assets will include new regulated activity for stable coin issue in the UK. Overseas issued stable coin will be regulated in the UK in line with other crypto assets. This will ensure that the Financial Conduct Authority can properly manage stable coin specific risks. In addition, the Prudential regulation authority has published its view on the risk associated with to organise deposits and how it expects back -- banks to address these risks.

The PR Prudential regulatory framework deposit similarly to a traditional deposit. The PRA expects this to be done in a way that meets its rules for eligibility under the financial services compensation scheme. This bill takes a minimalist approach to achieve the specific aim of unlocking the common law of personal unlocking the common law of personal property. While I'm very pleased to debate these amendments, the government fears they could cause unnecessary bureaucracy and regulatory duplication. This could increase uncertainty rather than alleviate it.

As set out already, we think there are significant benefits in this bill, such as bringing clarity to English, Welsh and clarity to English, Welsh and Northern Irish law and keeping it world leading. We will of course benefits these -- monitor these benefits these -- monitor these benefits closely. Given that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments. amendments.
20:27
20:28
20:30
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-

intangible. But a potential digital
20:30
None Portrait Amendment:6 Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-

asset goldmine measured in the trillions. The property digital
20:30
20:30
20:31
20:32
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, we support the amendment for the reasons advanced by my noble friend, Lord Holmes. In doing so, I too would wish to add my thanks to the efforts of Lord Anderson of Ipswich for the hard work which he put in, and also our excellent clerk, but it is a pleasure now to see this bill reach a happy conclusion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this amendment seeks to restate the long title of the bill, and I have put my name to the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes said. The amendment was tabled by Lord Holmes but suggested by Adam Temple, a senior barrister who specialises in potential. When he gave evidence. This amendment he gave evidence. This amendment addresses a slight discrepancy on the wording in the long title and the wording in the long title and the bill's operative clause. This discrepancy and wording came about, following the Law Commission consultation on the draft bill.

This consultation led to clause 1 being amended, to address concerns that it could be read by -- As providing anything could be capable of being personal property. This is not the intended effect of the bill, therefore the wording changed from saying that a thing may be capable of being an object of property rights, to instead, saying that a thing is not prevented from being the object of personal property, merely because it does not fit into the Jessie Owen category of things in possession or action.

At the time of drafting, the Law Commission did not feel it was necessary to make a corresponding change to the long title, however, several noble Lords raise concerns about this discrepancy, during our committee debate, and asked the government to consider it further. Having reflected carefully, we are satisfied that making this change would not have any substantive effect. We are therefore content to accept this amendment so that the accept this amendment so that the long title is consistent with the operative clause of the bill.

I must operative clause of the bill. I must end by thanking the noble Lord for his constructive discussions on this point and as for thanking noble Lords, I will leave that with the Lords, I will leave that with the last date of the bill. -- Last stage of the bill.
20:34
None Portrait Orders and regulations: Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025 - motion to approve
-

Does the noble Lord Holmes which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this amendment... Moved formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moved formally. Question is the title be amended, as in amendment six, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents of it. -- The contents have contents of it. -- The contents have contents of it. -- The contents have it. My Lords, we now move on Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations (Reductions) (England) Regulations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to 2025, Baroness Hayman. My Lords, I beg to move that the House approves the draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025, which (England) Regulations 2025, which were laid before the House on 13 February. My Lords, I declare an interest, as I am in receipt of D- interest, as I am in receipt of D- Link payments. This instrument sets the reductions that will apply to the reductions that will apply to D-Link payments in England, into a 25 these reductions were a vital part of the transition to a more targeted public investment, supporting farmers to boost nature and sustainable food production.

My Lords, fatal motion has been tabled, which, if approved, would mean the agricultural transition would effectively go into reverse. As no reductions at all would be applied. I want to be clear that voting against this SI would not keep payments at the level they were for 2024. Instead, it would mean D-Link payments would go back -- D-Link payments would go back to the 2020 subsidy levels. The fatal motion also calls for the reinstatement of applications GSFI, but without the reductions set by this instrument, we cannot fund SFI.

Indeed, payments and many of our farming schemes would need to stop completely. There are great motion being tabled -- The regret motion being tabled expresses the impact on funding vulnerability. It recognises farmers run businesses that do need to profit and we understand the valuable role these businesses play in the wider rural community. We work to support farm businesses to be more profitable and address the underlying problems, so address the underlying problems, so they can thrive.

Delinked Payments do not achieve that, they do not and never have offer good value for money for the farmers or the taxpayer. They are part of the move away from the basic payments scheme, that saw 50% of money go to the top 10% of farms. While doing little for food production or nature. We are now in the fifth year of transition. That is the seven year transition. Away from these subsidies. The reductions to delinked payments in this instrument were announced last October.

These accelerate the end of the era of payments to large and wealthy landowners, simply for owning land. The government recognises the impact these changes may have on some farmers. Which is why we are trying to make them in the fairest way possible. We are applying the reductions in payment,
20:38
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
as in bands, like income tax bands, this means the those with the broadest shoulders will see the broadest shoulders will see the highest reductions. I can assure your lordships that every penny released from these payments is staying within the sector. The staying within the sector. The planned reductions are necessary to help fund investment in the Environmental Land Management Scheme's, and our other grants for Scheme's, and our other grants for farmers. Our support for farmers farmers. Our support for farmers does remain steadfast, and we have committed £5 billion to the farming budget over a two-year period, with 2.4 billion of this for 2025-26.

And this includes the largest ever budget directed at sustainable food production and nature's recovery in our country's history. We have our country's history. We have allocated 1.8 billion in 2025-26 for -- Environmental Land Management Scheme's, this will boost food security and accelerate transition is more resilient and sustainable for next sector that we want to see. And importantly, we are on track to spend the farming in full. There are record numbers of farmers in our Environmental Land Management Scheme's, 50,000 farm businesses, and more than half of all farm land in England.

That is over 4 million in England. That is over 4 million ha. This is now managed under these schemes. Figures for 1 March show this includes around 38,000 live multi-year Sustainable Farming Incentive agreements and we suspect to publish more information about our revamped SI, as of this summer, following the spending review. The new countryside stewardship hired here offer will open for applications for land managers later this year. Applications for stand- alone capital grants will also reopen this summer after a short pause and we are investing in around 50 landscape recovery projects that were awarded funding through rounds one and two.

In February, we announced increased payment rates for higher level stewardship, right across a range of options from this year. And we are also extending the farming and protected landscapes program, until March 2026. This extension will support farmers in protected landscapes, to transition towards profitable food production while at the same time delivering nature recovery and mitigating the impacts of climate change. And we are continuing to invest in farmers through our other grant offers, that is up to £110 million available, new grant competitions, that are starting this spring.

This includes up to £47 million, for filing equipment, technology fund grants. As well as up to £63 million available for farming innovation program grants. And these will help to improve productivity, they will trial new technologies and drive innovation in the sector. We are also expanding the animal health and welfare pathway, with more funding to vet visits now available to farmers. Plus, over 26,000 farmers have made use of free one-to-one business support, through the farming resilience fund, to help them through the agricultural transition.

By investing in healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water, the government is investing in the foundations that farm businesses rely on, to produce high crop yields and turnover of profit. Adopting the sustainable for practices rewarded in the rubber schemes, will also help farmers to produce input costs. Reducing these payments as planned enable us to make investments through our other schemes, and we believe this will serve the best long-term interests of farming. I would also like to welcome the recent appointment of welcome the recent appointment of
20:43
20:43
20:43
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-

cuts to the payments expected by our farmers. That's why on behalf of
20:43
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
farmers. That's why on behalf of these benches, I am asking the House these benches, I am asking the House decline these regulations. This is a fatal motion because these proposals represent a potentially fatal blow to the livelihoods of countless to the livelihoods of countless family farmers and small agricultural businesses across agricultural businesses across England. This dramatic acceleration England. This dramatic acceleration Payments for 2025 was always intended to be phased out gradually, for the agricultural period of 2021-27, however, these relations propose a staggering 26% reduction on the first 30,000 of farmers payments.

And a total reduction on any amount above that threshold. The vast majority of recipients, some 80% of the 82,000 pharmacy receive these payments, his entitlement is 30,000 or less. -- Whose entitlement is $30,000, the payment will be slashed by 36%, when we compare this to 2024, when it was half, this is significantly steeper cut applied, my Lords, in one brutal blow. The government claims these accelerated reductions were necessary. Can the Environmental Land Management Scheme's, which are meant to award farmers for delivering on environmental benefits.

My Lords, this principle of public money for public good is one Liberal Democrats have supported in line with many environmental organisations. But the government's handling of this transition has been nothing short of a disaster, with breathtaking overnight change, ditching an original promise of six weeks notice. Just last month in that overnight change, the Sustainable Farming Incentive, or SFI, was scrapped for new applications with just 30 minutes notice. The timing is particularly jarring, as these regulations propose cuts based on the assumption of increased demand for ELM schemes.

The NFU, and I thank them for their briefing, is clear. It is unacceptable for the government to remove both the old payments and the new schemes. They rightly ask that they SFI be reopened, or failing that, that these regulations to$$JOIN /2/Mac D-Link payments be withdrawn. To ensure these are successful the thousands of farmers in limbo, as my honourable friend has pointed out in the Commons debate on this legislation. The new schemes have favoured the large landowners incorporates who have the resources to navigate the system for top meanwhile, the typical farmer outside the scheme is isolated, struggling with the sheer workload, and unable to afford that kind of professional help.

The figures bear this out, before the SFI closure, a mere 40 entrants out of 6,100 recorded, were from moorland areas. This is not be a transition, is forcing families who form a generations of their land. The impact on farmer viability is absolutely devastating. A family from the Lake District has four members working full-time on their tentative farmers they will lose 42,000 this year. If this regulation is passed. To quote one of them, " We cannot stand this loss, we are preparing an SFI agreement, but that door has now been closed.

I am having sleepless nights." My Lords, this is having a huge impact on farmers well-being and mental farmers well-being and mental Dealing payments -- delink payments remain a huge part. This government accepted recommendations from the Baroness Rock review. Neither has Farmer confidence is at an all-time low, exacerbated by these cuts and other pressures, such as extreme as other pressures, such as extreme as their -- whether weather. Even before this card, farm income last year was lower for all but one type of farm.

Perhaps most shocking is the revolution -- revelation from Defra itself that 78 % of firms will not survive this process. We know exactly where these firms are most at risk, in the uplands. In places like the Lakes and Dales were farmers are already struggling. Currently, farm business income equates to 74% of minimum wage. Modelling predicts this is likely in two years time to plummet to a jawdropping 55%. These cuts will force farmers to sell up, often to corporate, requiring -- acquiring tax for tax -- acquiring large -- acquiring land for tax efficient processes.

The UK produces only 55% of the food we eat. Far too low. The government's actions are causing a loss of trust, leading farmers to consider opting out of environmental schemes altogether. Potentially undoing decades of good work. We are not being asked to create minor technical change. We are being asked to bring in large changes at the centre. The Minister Daniel Zeichner centre. The Minister Daniel Zeichner announced a new scheme in July. The first date is significant because if you look at the Defra website, it says the new SFI will only open for new qualifications in 2026.

There will be shortfalls of thousands of pounds for small firms. Small firms who we think may have to wait from
20:50
20:51
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
the amendment in the name of Lord Roper by way of prevention -- pre- emption. The question I now have to put is that the amendment in the name of Baroness Grender be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for a thorough introduction to this. I've put down this regret to this. I've put down this regret motion on behalf of my benches. In reality on behalf of all English reality on behalf of all English farmers. Regret is to gentle of word to describe the feeling among the farming community. Before address farming community. Before address address the issues -- before I address the issues, I must declare address the issues, I must declare an interest as a farmer and landowner.

I am sheltered by the SFI's I signed up to. When in government, we replace the basic payment scheme with payment based on historical claims. This was intended to be gradually phased out by 2028 in favour of Environmental Land Management Schemes were farmers and landowners only receive payments for public goods. The reductions that we put in place put these payments on a path to 0 x 20 28. This has accelerated the decline. This effectively ends the seven year transition.

English farmers were led to expect. The government promised that this abrupt reduction would release more funding for Sustainable Farming Incentive's, countryside stewardship scheme's and landscape recovery schemes. Despite a commitment to give up to six weeks noticed for planned closure of SFI applications cover the Secretary of State abruptly closed applications with 30 minutes notice at 6 o'clock on 11 March, as the noble Baroness lady grander hazard. This broke two commitments at once. Only a minority of farmers were precipitously -- previously receiving SFI's were signed up.

There bearing the brunt of this recessive reduction. The payments cut is painful for those who are unable to apply for SFI's as they were already in environmental schemes that were less profitable schemes that were less profitable schemes that were less profitable This. Those farmers were abandoned with no compassion for anyone. When the SFI's were closed to new applications, this but another cohort of farmers who are expecting to replace old environmental schemes and the payments with SFI's but had not yet completed the SFI applications.

These farmers are simply in despair. There is no transparency over the timing of payment with new SFI's or whether nature will be. There is no confidence that these will enable these farmers to continue delivering environmental goods as they have planned or even potentially to remain in business. The noble Baroness the Minister earlier stated the details of SFI is to be released this summer. Many businesses are in crisis after the payments were cut. Could the Minister indicate how much has been identified within the existing farming support budget for these new SFI's? Are actions in government demonstrated commit in stripping farmers with public money for the public goods they delivered.

As well as planning ahead financially with certainty. This government has acted in a way that allows no financial planning by farmers and has had created incentives for those farmers now so disadvantaged to compromise environmental principles and push for greater and in order to remain in business. Farming is a competitive industry. Food production is largely commoditised and are farmers compete not just against their neighbours but also farmers across our country, continent and the world. Well many other farmers are capable of competing effectively, smaller firms, particularly in lesser areas, find it hard to compete.

Is it any great surprise that the average age of farmers are 60 and there appears to be limited interest in the next generation? Farmers in Wales and Scotland and the rest of Europe continue to enjoy greater levels of financial support. Even the great Perry farmers of the US enjoy heavily surprise -- subsidised I ask the noble Baroness the Minister how does she expect a farmers to be able to provide competitively priced food, protected and enhanced environments and all the other public goods as well as supporting their families when the government such as support environmental payments at a moments notice? In answer to my question on Monday in Your Lordships' House, the noble Baroness the Minister said that diversification and improvements to the environment are two of the central pillars of the 25 year roadmap that the government are developing performing.

Cutting SFI seems a strange way to demonstrate that commitment. My question was that nature restoration efforts and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is drafted go to Natural England rather than farmers and landowners. It will be used for developing the environmental development plans. This is a prime opportunity for the government to help farmers diversify and supplement. Why does the Minister not want this opportunity to Beaufort to farmers? -- this opportunity to be offered to farmers? It is good to see noble Lords from many, if not all benches, working together to support a farming community.

As is the long- standing customer of this house, we will not be supporting the most. This will undermine the government's power to control farmers finances. power to control farmers finances. As the Minister pointed out,... I strongly urge the Minister to understand the terrible place this is putting farmers and. In the meantime, I beg to move and would intend also to test the opinion of the House.
20:58
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
I declare an interest in this matter as I have been involved in UK agriculture for my whole life. Normally, I try to be helpful and even occasionally to inject some humour into my remarks with varying degrees of success admittedly. I'm sorry to say that tonight I'm cross. Not with the Minister, for whom I have great respect and indeed affection. But the fatal motion and regret motion in the names of Baroness Grender and Lord Robathan which they have devastatingly put to us tonight highlight the frankly chaotic and opaque financial position for UK agriculture.

SFI, difference flagship scheme, ran out of money and slammed shut without any warning -- Defra's flagship scheme. This has been described as a cause for celebration. I wonder what would happen if DWP ran out of money and tried announcing something like that to the house. The Minister mentioned the existing high-level stewardship agreements, of which I hold one. These were acknowledged by the EFRA House of Commons Minister as having punitive rates and it was announced weeks ago that these would be updated before now -- Defra House of Commons Minister.

I'm afraid the Minister was wrong when she told us earlier that they have been increased. I just checked online on the Defra website and it says that we will be written to as agreement holders by April with increased rates. Well, my Lords, check your diaries. Today is 30 April. Nothing has been received. The next iteration of the SFI, we are told, will be after the Spending Review, which probably tells us all we need to know about it. Mean well, the accepted tapering down to zero overtime of payments under the bps scheme as a UK agriculture exited EU support has been cut by totally unexpected 76% by small farmers.

-- For small farmers. All of this well speaking about environmental schemes speaking about environmental schemes I'm sorry to say this but DEFRA's credibility, and I have been involved in agriculture my whole life, has never been lower in the eyes of the sector that is supposed to support. What little trust remainder has now evaporated. All , while these motions are both accurate and justified, I will given my involvement in the industry, with great sadness, abstain if they are put to the vote.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Roborough suggested there was broad support and I rise to was broad support and I rise to offer to broaden that support and offer the Green Party support for both of these motions. I have no personal interest to declare but the personal interest to declare but the Green Party I declare our interest, a great concern about the food a great concern about the food security the UK and the state of the countryside in one of the most nature depleted corners of this battered planet.

The background
21:02
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
battered planet. The background looking back over this is the Scheme are payments, the Green Party has always argued against them that they always argued against them that they were deeply flawed, that those with the broader shoulders got the biggest shovels of cash and smaller farmers and growers little, and too farmers and growers little, and too many cases failed to qualify at all. many cases failed to qualify at all. Our countryside was trapped in a world in which the message delivered by a series of government was, get or get out of farming and growing.

Yet we had the Agriculture Act which I took a substantial part in your I took a substantial part in your Lordships debates on, I am to focus on environmental improvements and indeed after the intervention of your Lordships house in acknowledgement of the importance of food production. The SFI was supposed to be the scheme that was delivering on the environmental side of that and as we body had at length I won't track over that ground, that was literally slammed shut, many different metaphors could apply but that seems to be a good one.

So many farmers are now clearly in a profoundly financially unsustainable position. They are being pounded continually by the dominance of the supermarkets and the multinational food companies and their position of being forced to produce commodities rather than being able to get a fair price for their products. My particular area of concern is horticulture, vegetables and fruit which in terms of public health is crucial for food security and in terms of public health. A couple of points to make, not sure anyone has referred to the National Audit Office which said the delay in the roll-out of new schemes has made it difficult for farmers to plan their businesses and create a widespread uncertainty and risk, I think this is true of many areas of our society but particularly for our farmers.

If there is not the possibility of planning for the future then it is essentially impossible to farm. I've got one constructive point to make and I hope the Minister will be able to agree with me on this or at least to accept my suggestion. The noble Lady may know there is a fast- growing campaign for a basic income for farmers as a way of supporting particularly small farmers and growers to be able to be agricultural producers. This is aiming to guarantee financial security, boost mental well-being and reduce stress, promote inclusive, innovation and ecological stewardship of the land and strengthen local food systems and public procurement.

Will the Minister agree to have a look at the basic income for farmers campaign and perhaps with me arrange a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meeting with the campaigners? A brief intervention, I got

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A brief intervention, I got absolutely no interest to declare. absolutely no interest to declare. And I got no criticism of either my noble friend the Minister here or noble friend the Minister here or the Minister in the other place, the member for Cambridge full stops in fact in 14 years in opposition he is fact in 14 years in opposition he is the only, only shadow minister that has ever contacted me to ask me to talk about my experience at DEFRA during the New Labour years of government.

And he listened, that was fine, it was good to do, I had no complaints about that at all. But I am reminded of a time when at that Dispatch Box in about early 2002 when I was on my third ministry, the first in this House, I actually said that in my experience to that date the Treasury had wrecked every good idea I come across in government. Obviously the Chancellor was not very happy about that. But the fact is three ministries later before I left government I was thoroughly justified.

And I think we got a classic example of this tonight. I'm in favour of the CAPD going, I have no problem about that. That's not the issue, with failure the reform of the CAPD. But to recognise the it takes the Treasury, I don't hold the ministers responsible for it at all. The factors the matter is, you go back... We used to talk about diversification, I can remember when I was at DEFRA and I left DEFRA in 2008 so going back a little bit now, but but I can remember a very senior official tank -- saying to me at the time that they didn't really pay much attention to a particular farmer in the Lake District because he wasn't a full-time farmer.

Because he had diversifying into writing. That was what was said to me, because he wasn't a full-time farmer. You obviously are aware who I am referring to. In fact it's only my respect for this House and our procedures that prevents me walking out because I have not the slightest
21:07
21:08
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
our farmers, the supply trades and the entire food chain in one of the most important industries and sectors in our economy. I declare my interest that I am involved in farming, more particularly in the agricultural Supply trade in the fertiliser industry. I know more than most the damage and the harm the government is doing to those people who live in the sticks. I listened carefully to Lord Rooker and he said he hadn't gotten interest but we all have an interest in the food industry.

We have to eat every day and food in your belly is more important than the food of your head and the treaties these regulations are harming a sector that needs finance in order to be sustained, to invest and grow, and I don't know what rural Britain has done to deserve this metropolitan base government that has turned an understandable and instinctive investments -- indifference to outright hostility for top like Lord Brooke I don't blame the noble Baroness the Minister, the truth the fault does lie elsewhere, she has always been most courteous and honourable and act with integrity in the south and we thank her for that.

But the truth is this government must be held to account because their actions are harming today's farming profitability which drives tomorrow's corporation tax revenues, there damaging the long-term capital underpinning of the industry which harms investment, innovation and growth, and it's collapsing the cash flow that financial lifeblood that makes it all happen. I want to talk to each of those three elements in term, profitability. It's a shame Baroness Batters he was supposed to be leaving for the government in a review isn't in her place, but she would have told us had she been here that farmers are already under terrible tremendous financial pressure, caught in the pincer movement between low grain prices and elevated input costs.

Tighter margins are pressured by the national insurance writers and now there are inextricable plans to persevere with a fertiliser tax that could add a porter to the cost of , , flipping , flipping even , flipping even breakeven , flipping even breakeven businesses into loss. On the balance sheet the effect of the agricultural property relief element of the inheritance tax has been well ventilated and I won't dwell on that now. Save that is the effect on the business property relief slightly different, that particularly harms the self starting innovative and entrepreneurial tenant farmers who live by their wits because they didn't have the good fortune to inherit the land free of charge upon which they make their living.

The effect of all of these in combination is to remove the long- term generational incentives to invest in the farm, to develop the countryside and the landscape, protect nature and yes in doing so doing sustain wealth in our islands. And particularly in the shires well lets not forget 90% of businesses employ 10 people or less, I have heard the arguments that the IHT can take 10 years to pay. But those 10 year annual instalments over 10 years will be more than would be paid by the rent, it's just in cloud cookie land.

-- Kutlu land. Landed estates of audience in one form or another or transferred distrusts so another or transferred distrusts so once again those farmers left behind, smaller farmers totally contrary to what the honourable lady minister said, Labour is targeting with these facts the little guys, the sole traders, the family partnerships, particularly in the less favoured areas while allowing those larger more corporate farmers the ones with the broader shoulders off the hook. The summary cancellation of slurry lagoon grants that more than anything can help solve the problem of river pollution, though cancellation of the twin truck cabs on the pickup vehicles and let's be clear, these pickups are tools of trade, they are as good as a tractor.

The sort of thing that a man in a factory would have as a crucible, they are part of the planting machinery involved in the business. It underplays how, it's spiteful really understanding of how investment in plant and machinery works. All of these contribute to the £80,000 per year profit limit on aspiration which is the number that through eBay targets you to the million quid upon which APR and BPR pick kick in. By stopping that aspiration how we going to get an economy.

I take sympathy with what Lord Rooker said, this is the Treasury holding the economy down not letting it flourish. As cash flow is concerned and we mentioned these dealing payments, I do want to put a number on this. Because, I don't know what the number is but I got in front of me, specimen 680 hectare farm that me, specimen 680 hectare farm that would have received a £160,000 in 2020 will receive just 7,200 this year. Over and above all those other financial headwinds that I have mentioned.

The black zero is the back many farmers can now expect. How does that help everyone? I don't want to dwell too much and repeat the point by Lord neighbour -- Lord Roborough made from the Frontbench but there is the interplay between the dealing payments in the SFI, by taking one away the contract between government, Defra, farming, the food industry as well as the supply trades has been broken. Knock onto machinery dealers, contractors, auction professionals and family businesses disproportionately affected in the countryside.

In summary no wonder people living outside the M25 and the urban conurbations think they are under attack from the community and the facts of all these proposals in a concerted war on the countryside. The effect is also astonishingly to undermine the government's environmental objectives, because the effect of all of these is that if land is put under the plough it must be pushed aside as possible to get a return -- as hard. I suppose that leave small and not planned for other environmental schemes.

But in essence it proves that Labour doesn't understand the countryside. I tell you the countryside now understands Labour. The industry that is more than anything others meet the most basic human need, food in your belly, is being made unviable and rural communities are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paying the price. Rise to speak in support of the fatal motion tabled by my noble friend Baroness Grender. This fatal
21:14
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
friend Baroness Grender. This fatal motion rightly calls upon this House to decline to approve these draft agricultural Delinked Payments Regulations. On the grounds that they would excel eight the reduction of dealing without adequately establishing alternative funding schemes. I will not Peter the arguments made by Baroness Brenda and others -- repeat. We are all aware of the proposed dramatic acceleration in the reduction of dealing sport 2025. And how this has come on top of a complete withdrawal of SFI payments was these two factors are leaving thousands of farmers in the process of applying some 6,600 applications frozen out of the payment system and this is unacceptable.

The double blow, slashing established payments were closing down the door to the replacement scheme has frozen It creates severe cash flow crisis for farmers there is damage the bond of trust between farmers and this government. It is particularly for those who are yet to enter the agri-environmental schemes and it impacts particularly on Upland and small, family run farms who were still marginally excluded. The average England, less favoured area, livestock farm, could see its profits fall by almost half.

The government claims that the money saved from dealing payments will stay within the sector and I welcome the noble Baroness, the Minister, guaranteed to say that today. Turning to the arguments before us today. These procedures should be used rarely, should be reserved for the issues of the utmost importance. If the imminent collapse of so many of our family run farms are the backbone of our farming businesses, due to unhelpful bureaucracy that is causing them to literally go bankrupt does not meet these conditions, then I do not know what does.

The Conservative party have their own the motion of regret on the Order Paper today. The motion of regret is too little and too late to offer our family farmers any hope, or any real meaningful change. That will save their livelihoods, in time. A regret motion will not accomplish meaningful change we require. The Conservative benches will make various arguments and have done already that they do not support fatal motions by convention. A simple look at history shows that this is simply not correct. The House of Lords Library briefing that I asked for showed there had been a 21 divisions on fatal motions, since the start of the 2014/2015 parliamentary session.

Equally the Qualify on their own fatal motions is also historically incorrect. I remind the Conservative benches that they call to vote on a fatal motion and won it, by the way, in response to the Blair government's proposals to prevent nonlabour candidates from having an official election address, in the first London mayoral direction.... Lord Dixon Smith called one on the Executive arrangements. Baroness Miller of Hendon called a vote on rates and measures. The education act 2002. Put aside your current perceptions and stand behind our farmers in their hour of need.

Vote in favour of this fatal motion before us. As Lord Robathan himself said, the dire financial situation from a face undermines Britain's food security at further risk. It impacts our ability to fight climate change. It disproportionately affects smaller farmers, hill farmers and are vulnerable tenant farmers. Concerns have also been raised about the competitive advantages of our farmers against Scottish and Welsh counterparts. It is a shocking the Government perceived the impact assessment that looks at the collective effects of all of these changes and the impact on our farming communities.

Farmers are essential custodians of our land, producing our food and caring for our environment. They need certainty, stability, their financial support. The vital public goods they provide. The government's current approach offers none of this. Approving these regulations will endorse a flawed, damaged transition. I urge all noble Lords to support the fatal motion, to send a clear message to the government that this approach is unacceptable, that they must urgently change

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course and support our farmers. Before I preface my remarks, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I preface my remarks, I thank my noble friend, Lord Rooker
21:20
Lord Grantchester Portrait Lord Grantchester (Labour)
-
-
thank my noble friend, Lord Rooker for his comments and they resonate so much with me, in terms of how this government has approached the sector. It is to be regretted, I will go on to say much in support of my noble friend on the front bench. I always remember my father, he wasn't a farmer by the way, always used to say the Treasury does its best to strangle an initiative at birth. I very much concur with his comments. I would like to thank my noble friend the Minister for her explanation of the regulations before the committee today.

I also tanker for the answers to written questions on 3 April, when she laid out the government's plans ahead, for the reinterpretation of the sustainable farming incentive. I declare my interest from being in receipt of payments, regarding a dairy farm. However, in a submitting written questions to the office and having them separated into distinct questions, one became redrafted and reinterpreted and there by lost. However, I am grateful for the answers, "Every penny of the reductions to dealing payments are staying within the sector.

" I know that was one of the concerns at the time of the DSO closure. Regarding SFI were extremely useful. I have submitted a question and if I may ask my noble friend tonight to complete the picture, regarding the intentions of the government. This period of transition initiated on Brexit has been extremely long and arduous for farmers and growers. I was extremely critical of the previous Conservative government cutting back on support payments, over this transition period. Long before any clarity from government on environmental schemes ahead.

These have now been worked up and put forward by this government to be welcomed. Payment for environmental benefits will be made worthwhile and meaningful, compared to the cost of the enterprise to undertake them. This has been reflected in the successful uptake of the sustainable farming incentive. Leading to a full budget allocation, lack of uptake, in the previous Conservative government application. My noble friend and her colleagues, in the other place are to be congratulated. Now that there are meaningful programs for environmental improvements, I can understand and appreciate wanting to move ahead to these schemes and hasten the change from the legacy systems of bps and the transition.

There are these schemes, I can't support these regret motions. The timing of the progressive withdrawal does come inside with a pause in the success of the SFI scheme in bringing forward an oversupply of applications. It is imperative as a temporary pause is short lived and there is clarity on the way ahead, especially for the 3 to 6,000 applicants that were preparing to join the scheme. So my question, I would now like to ask the government, is that their intention to maintain, or continue with the universal scheme and farm types on an equal basis.

We cannot and must not lose sight of the role of all farms in hitting environmental and sustainability targets. My noble friend the Minister will assure the committee that any reinterpretation of SFI will continue to be available to all farms and continue to be work while bringing benefits to the UK land management. That cultural Kentish transition must continue and there has been a lot of complexity to navigate and the contemporary problems in that respect must not detract from fulfilling the promise.

Bringing forward a more sustainable agriculture. I commend the Department on how simple it is to enter the scheme. Many of those in the process of application may been subject to complex rules and transition, between the LS or mid transition, between the LS or mid tier country stew with Sid -- stewardship teams. Stewardship schemes. There are further dimensions around policies, which must be assessed as a Forthcoming must be assessed as a Forthcoming Rd, map and the land use framework.

To bring forward continuing and meaningful scheme as soon as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

possible. The financial crisis that farmers
21:25
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The financial crisis that farmers An inevitability the moment we voted for Brexit, I said so at the time. It was only a question of what it was going to happen, because HM was going to happen, because HM Treasury discovered that there was a budget, or they knew there was a budget incentive in Brussels and what they got the sticky mitts onto it, the farmers were going to be in trouble and in trouble they are. My noble friend Lord Fuller is noble friend Lord Fuller is absolutely right to say it is a much bigger issue than just SFI and basic bigger issue than just SFI and basic payment system.

It is, across the board and, Lord Cromwell said that Defra's reputation is at its lowest. That is a sad thing to have to say, in this House. For all the farmers. SFI was a victim of its own success, My Lords. It was too good to be true. And it was inevitable that it had to be ended, or changed. The way it was done was perhaps, could have been done much better. There should have been advanced warning. The way it was structured, it was inevitable that the benefits were not distributed evenly.

The basic payment system, for all its faults and here I will chide the noble Baroness, the Minister, betray the beneficiaries of the basic payment system. Her words were, "Large wealthy landowners. " It was every farmer business, there was a quality, it went right across the board. It is one of the faults of SFI. If you look at the figures for SFI, you will find that in the south-west there are 7,800 agreements and in the north-east and there are 1,000 agreements.

That is not an equal distribution across the country. And on top of that one needs to remember that over half of the land in this country, in England is a tenant farmed and they are not rich, wealthy landowners. The need for equal distribution is an important feature for the government to consider, when adapting the scheme. We have a great opportunity now for the government to come forward with a revised SFI scheme. But it does need to have two important changes, to the current scheme.

One, it must be available to scheme. One, it must be available to all on a fair basis. And the other, My Lords, it must benefit nature. That was one of its problems. And one of the problems of the existing SFI is it did not necessarily benefit nature. It benefited some farmers, who got in there early and made a lot of money, but if you look at the figures and either quoted for the distribution of SFI, there were patches when nature was going to be improved and there were patches where nature doesn't get any betterment at all.

That's perhaps the only thing I would add to my noble friend, Lord Roborough's regret motion is I am sad he did not add and nature and biodiversity. That was part of SFI. Yes, the farmers were going to benefit, but it was public money for public good and that was biodiversity. What we are, what I'm in favour of, but I think it's bound to happen. There is a whole lot of farmers who were signed up to countryside stewardship scheme, the middle tier, in 2020 and it lasted for five years.

I think about 14,000 farmers in this category, My Lords. The Minister might correct me if I'm wrong on that. But those people were the good farmers. They were ahead of the game. They took the difficult decision to go into some thing, which was a new idea, and new ideas to not to work terribly well to begin with. But they did that, in the expectation that at the end of the five years there would be another scheme for them to go into.

They are now going to go into the doors have slammed. There is no scheme for these people to go into. When you drive around the countryside which is looking particularly good in the spring sunshine at the moment and you hit those areas, birdseed, when the drills are gone down, you have got ladies, you have got areas set aside for nature, next year they are not going to be there. Those of farmers have got no option but to plough up all the good they have done in the last five years, put it down and put the combine in.

That would be a tragedy. The government have got a very short time to get this right. But there must be a scheme, for those farmers who are coming out of countryside stewardship, to go into, in the immediate future, farmers have to plan in advance. If it is not ready for them, by the end of this harvest, woe betide us and Iwobi tied in nature, in this Iwobi tied in nature, in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to this and the Minister knows how much I respect
21:31
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Minister knows how much I respect her and I also respect Daniel Zeichner in the other place. I know that Daniel in particular has spent many years in that portfolio and I am conscious that these may not have been the decisions, but that aside, that's the joy of collective Responsibility. If I think about the transition that has happened as a result of leaving the European Union was set out under Michael Gove as the Secretary of State he will shortly becoming might be coming to this place.

Not potential but pretending otherwise I was Secretary of State and inherited plan a lot of farmers found to be unpopular going from certainty of income to something that was a little bit more uncomfortable, but it was the right thing to do to have a transition that took us to recognising, as has been pointed out by the Minister, where I disagree with the noble friend who just spoke, it was just 10% of land cases who were receiving half of the funds. It was important that we make these changes into having a more positive environmental aspect to our agriculture recognising a lot of the harms that have been done, not deliberately, not intentionally, without that knowledge of understanding of some of the agricultural practices how to start doing by adversity right across the country including pollution in rivers.

I think that in particular because in 2018 when I was a minister in Defra I signed the farming laws for water in order to try make sure that we started to turn that circle so that we started to see improvements and indeed, pretty much every river across England we have seen improvements in the last five years, none of which necessarily by meeting the standards of fitting economic -- ecological or chemical but by the way neither Scotland or Northern Ireland or Wales adopted in terms of regulations but nevertheless there has been progress in things like the sorry grants are helped by payments more recently that will continue to have rewards.

I'm interested today, I do appreciate there are many peers here from the Liberal Democrats to support their fatal motion. I'm not getting to the constitutional rights, what I will gently point out to them is that when the Agriculture Act was debated in this House the Dick Liberal Democrats put forward an amendment to -- reduce the transition from seven years to five years so as to accelerate the transition because they wanted more money to go into the environment more quickly.

Really pleased they've had a Damascene conversion and was important how we support farmers, but I wish they hadn't put forward that suggestion back in 2020 during the design of the very schemes that we are discussing today. In terms of thinking through my time in Defra, I was concerned when I arrived we only had the first option was one on soil. Article by the way to future prosperity, productivity, not only for the farmer and what they could do to help the profitability of their farming, but also the prosperity of the planet.

Thinking about if we treat soil well and make that the fundamental keystone of how we make improvements in a variety of ways it was right that was the initial focus at Defra. One of the things that concerned me is that as we started to see the escalator, the seesaw if you like of moving from one to the other, why many farmers could participate in that actually there was a lot more that we needed to offer to farmers as their incomes would fall from bps and as we eventually transitioned to delinked payments to get away from EU rules but we needed to open up the number of options more quickly to allow more farmers to look at options and how it could help them achieve the outcomes they wanted to achieve in terms of the Environmental Land Management Scheme.

I can honestly say a lot of thought went into this I had been in the Department from 2016 to 2019 and when George Eustice was the agriculture minister and we started those discussions early on about how does this work and this is where we ended up with the seven years proposal. Not only that in the Agriculture Act, we did put in a power to be able to extend beyond the seven years, and when I was considering some of the options when I was Secretary of State I deliberately chose against the advice of officials who wanted to set the taper all the way to the end of the seven years because I was concerned even at that point it wasn't clear to the Department it wasn't clear to ministers, I'm afraid the analytical capabilities of our PA seemed to be not up to it but I was concerned and was considering extending the transition period for delinked payments to go beyond the seven years, to make sure that we weren't in the situation where the 10% of landowners and farmers who are getting the money were getting even more of this 50% and we wanted to make sure that farmers were still viable.

That's why we didn't set at a particular moment in time the final few years to give us that flexibility so we could see what was going on and see whether farmers were taking up the options, and as the ministers agree that my accurately reported we now have more farmers involved in these environmental schemes than ever before, ever before. In times where there was the UK moved its part to of the bps actually up to 15% the maximum allowed, we had even more and that was a good thing.

It was important we had that flexibility which is why am concerned that having got farmers looking into this we put money into this to allow people to be able to have a payment to get consultation from consultants to help them think about how they were going to consider how to use were going to consider how to use their land. We knew that couldn't come out of their own pocket that's why we initially put in £1000 payment and then £80,000 in order to access that, it's why we changed the rules you didn't have to receive bps before.

Many farmers around this country weren't getting any bps at all, they were actually doing environmentally friendly things and went getting substitution income. It's why I choose Suffolk as that's where I used to represent but many free farmers were not eligible for bps and we change the scheme, exactly the pig industry. The entire pig industry were not eligible and we change that rule because we recognised that if we wanted to reach the environmental targets that this House both houses have voted on, we needed to make sure as many farmers and landowners possible would get involved.

We can't expect them necessarily to do that for free, of course there are plenty of rich landowners who out of the goodness of their heart my will to do it but as The Earl of Caithness pointed out and I put that before, a sadness of where we are today, I've already seen this, farmers I visited myself we were discussing about how to make some of these things work and now busy ploughing up the cover crops that they had planted but are no longer viable to keep that family no longer viable to keep that family business going.

That's the huge sadness and I'm conscious that the Minister today will probably be sharing in that sadness. But it is a real regret that the government must take away that all the talk of food security and the rest of it, there will I'm sure made for -- more food be produced, but that will be at the harm of having a combination of what elms seeks to achieve. Candidly there has been a lot of talk about underspend. Says quite pathetic. We always knew that on this transition it would be a bit like a seesaw there will probably be a bit of underspend, not that much in terms of percentage of the overall budget, but as we open up more options we knew that more SFI money would be needed.

That's why it was carefully managed. It's wham concerned we are in the situation today where as has been pointed out, despite assuring farmers that they would get six weeks notice of when the scheme was going to close ideally we would actually move to a rolling option so it wouldn't) appreciate that's not been the actors of recent years was designed again to recognise different seasons, different demands on farms. But to suddenly shut it was really really poor. Really shabby.

That is why I have actually advised members of the NFU and farmers locally they should for a start complain to Defra and then go to the Parliamentary ombudsman because I've got no doubt this is maladministration. I'm also concerned in the Explanatory Memorandum or indeed on the SI that the Minister had stated there was no problem with ECHR, I have to say under A1 P1 getting grants is actually an asset and the expectation of receiving that I have no doubt that if people were to make a legal claim against that they would certainly get compensation as well.

In terms of where to head here, there is a real issue for farming. It's not just about the inheritance tax, it's actually about the agriculture APR, the BPR, all the things that farmers spend, thinking of the long-term, and yet all of that is being taken away. I did used to think that Labour did actually care about the countryside actually care about the countryside but it doesn't feel that's the case, doesn't feel they care about rural communities and I'm sure they will be looking at those Members of Parliament who voted for the SI at the other end.

There's a bit of a trend here happening, I was concerned to read in Hansard in the Commons when this was debated the impact assessment statements were not updated because they were done in 2020. With the Agriculture Act. Of course the plan was very clear then it was thousand the face of the bill that there would be seven years of transition, it was the expectations set by the government at the time, so I think it is a true matter of regret that no impact assessment was updated.

In terms of speaking to farmers I know that many of us will have spoken to them according to the transparency sadly the agriculture Minister did not meet any farmers in the time of October to December 24 when this change in policy would have been considered. As I said, I do respect Daniel and I know he has been a considered shadow minister and now Minister, but I do think that we should be not in a situation of where we are in a situation now where farmers are hitting a wall.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill itself will be killing off things like the bio diverse two as my noble friend refer to, we will see intensification -- biodiversity metrics. That's why support my party today in expressing regret I'm conscious that the elected house is a ready made this determination, that they should do that knowing not only that they do need, not only farmers and landowners to reduce food but without them we will not achieve the environment and climate targets that have been set and it's targets that have been set and it's for that reason I would support my noble friend today and emotion of noble friend today and emotion of regret.

-- A motion. regret. -- A motion.
21:44
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
I thank all noble Lords who have made valuable contributions to the debate this evening. As always I have listened very carefully to noble Lords concerns. As I mentioned at the start of my previous speech I am with my husband in receipt of delinked payments myself because for our small farm, but it means I am very aware of the kind of reductions that people are talking about in this debate. However, delinked payments do not address the long- term challenges that are faced by farmers.

The government is making the decisions to try to build a profitable and sustainable farming sector so that we can deliver Britain's food security. The reductions to the 2025 delinked payments as I mentioned earlier are necessary so that we can fund the spend that is both committed and projected under our other farming schemes. Which to support sustainable food production. We have seen increased uptake of the Environmental Land Management Schemes and an unprecedented demand Schemes and an unprecedented demand This payments in 2025/2026 would increase to £1.8 billion.

That would leave a £1.5 billion shortfall, in the farming budget. Meaning that we would need to stop funding the farmers, through many of our other schemes. This would go completely against, what seem to be the object terms of the fatal motion. The money released by dealing payments is being reinvested in full, through our other schemes for farmers and land managers. Every single penny is staying within the sector. And how the farming budget has been spent for the financial year 2023/2024 is set out in the latest farming and countryside program annual report we will publish our next annual report later this year as this is of course later this year as this is of course by the Agriculture Act 2020.

And in March we published a breakdown of how we plan to spend the £5 billion farming budget, this was on our 2425 and 26. I do understand the concerns of the House has raised, regarding farm viability. And there are a number of actions that we can support farmers with, to improve their profitability. As well as taking advantage of our existing offers, including grants that help support productivity, we can also help farmers reduce their input costs and also help to diversify their income, so businesses become more resilient.

At the NFU conference, the Secretary of State announced a raft of new policies. This includes using the government's own purchasing power to back British produce, wherever possible. And making £110 million available for new grant competitions to support research and innovation, technology and equipment for farmers. I would now like to try and cover a number of the questions that noble Lords have raised, during the debate. Firstly about the closure of SFI and the fact that this would be farms in I just wanted to confirm that every penny of the existing SFI payments are going to be paid to farmers.

And any outstanding eligible applications that had been submitted by 11 March will also be taken forward. I would also like to confirm the applications for SFI have only closed temporarily and we plan to reopen the scheme of applications, once the reformed SFI offer is in place. And a number of noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Grantchester for example have asked about what the reformed SFI offer could look like. We are working to align it with our work that we are carrying out on the land-use framework and the 25 year farming blowback, in order to protect the most productive land and boost food security, whilst also delivering for nature.

The reformed SFI will also build a more sophisticated budget And as the scheme is designed and evolving, we want to listen to farmers to get their feedback, to ensure that we learn from the past, to improve the scheme, for the future. It does need to be better targeted, than previously. And on small farms, the noble Baroness in particular asked about this. We are developing a new schemes, so that we work for as many different types of farm as possible. Including smaller farms.

For example there was no minimum amount of land that could be entered into the sustainable farming incentive, but we will continue to work closely, to make sure that the offer is properly accessible for small farms. And as someone who has a small farm, I do think that we can improve the area and we are working on that. Tenant farmers were also mentioned by a number of noble Lords. And also Baroness Grender mentioned the rock review. We do support the principles of the rock review and the department has already delivered many of the review's recommendations.

The joint Tenant farmers and advisers will continue to play an active role in feeding back issues from the tenanted sector, inter Defra. The joint Forum will help us to continue to evolve our schemes, to be accessible to tenants and to encourage collaboration, between landowners and tenants in relation to environmental schemes. And working with the farmer tenancy forum we are also looking to remove penalties for tenants who may have to exit the scheme early, if their tenancy ends unexpectedly.

And our survey data shows that over 1/3 of applications, for SFI came from mixed tenure and holy tenanted farms. Farm profitability has been farms. Farm profitability has been raised on a number of noble Lords. We do publish regular statistics on farmers income in England and other data related to farm businesses. For example, in March we published the average farm business income forecast and recently updated farm evidence plaque sets out in extensive range of data to provide an overview of agriculture in the UK and the contribution of farm payments to farm incomes.

That includes analysis by sector, by location and type of ant tenure. That kind of data is really important as we look forward to redesign the schemes. 2021/2022 and 20 and 2022/2023 did see a income at all levels. That was by higher prices. And while there will be differences, clearly farm to farm, we do expect the average farm was able to put some reserves to aid the ability to absorb the subsidy reductions that are coming in the transition period.

Transitioning from the legacy to new agreements was also mentioned. We are currently reviewing our approach to transitioning farmers from existing agreements to new schemes. We do expect to publish more information about this following the spending review. In the meantime, we have announced we will be increasing the payment rates for higher level stewardship agreement holders. And I would like to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. If letters was posted been sent out in April, it is clearly disappointing and there hasn't been a delay and I have checked, whether this has been delayed.

I will chase this up and bring this up with the Department as it is raised over here today. The noble Lord, Earl Russell and the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey talked about the impact assessment obviously aware that there hasn't As I said, we are publishing regular statistics on farming and data related to farm businesses. This includes the farm business income statistics published on the As I said, we are publishing regular statistics on farming and data includes the farm business income statistics published on 14 November last year.

We are looking very carefully at the income and from that we will understand the impact on businesses, as we go forward. We are also looking to ensure fair competition, across the supply chain, through contractual reform. Their competition was also mentioned and it is incredibly, incredibly important. We think farmers really need to have, or farmer should have a fair price for their products. The government is committed to tackling fairness in the supply chain, fairness in the supply chain, whether ever it is easiest.

Last year there were key reforms for contracts in the UK dairy sector, these included a mandatory written contracts to require greater transparency, in local pricing. New contract laws in the pig sector were introduced to Parliament, this month, which aim to ensure that terms are clearly set out, for changes that can only be made if agreed by both parties. Similar regulations for the fresh produce sectors will follow and the government is committed to intervening in any sectors where fairness issues exist. And the regulations are enforced by the agricultural supply chain adjudicator, on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Additionally as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, there is a review of farm profitability and this important work is being supported by the newlyformed profitability unit, in Defra. The noble Lady, Baroness Bennett mentioned the basic income pay and of course it would be very happy to meet with the noble Lady and any colleagues that she feels is appropriate to bring along, to such a meeting. In this instrument, we believe is the essential next step of the transition period.

The noble
21:56
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lady, Baroness Coffey pointed out the importance of the transition period. If we care about the future period. If we care about the future of farming and clearly everybody in of farming and clearly everybody in this room here, very much does. Feels very strongly about it, that has come across in the debate. We has come across in the debate. We The agriculture transition if we are going to move forwards, in farming. This instrument will enable us to invest in that long-term future for farming, whilst also delivering for nature.

I beg to move. Four being in this debate and providing their knowledge and experience, on this issue. This is a crucial issue which deserves our full attention. I thank, in particular the noble Lady the Minister for her response. I know that she, better than most, will be aware of the outcry this sudden and unexpected cut has caused, for so many in our farming communities. It will not surprise noble members that I agree with Lord Rooker, on this issue.

And that if something like an SI falls, then it goes back to a department and a new way ideally is found and like him, I believe all pathways lead to the Treasury, when these things go wrong. I would also particularly pick out the point that the noble Lord Cromwell made about HLS. I too have been in touch, today, with farmers who are deeply disappointed that they have not received. They have literally been expecting a letter by today. Those letters have not been received, across the farming community and I thank her for taking up that.

It is very significant, in addition to this regulation. My noble friend, Earl Russell described the times that the Conservative benches have chosen to dispense with their aversion to fatal motions. It is clearly a Pic N Mix tradition for them. I would say to them that there has never been a more important vote, for a chance to end this unfair cut to farmers. It is a test of their resolve and all they have of their resolve and all they have Room as us.

We all know a regret motion is not a sign of the greatest strength in these moments. A fatal motion to end this motion, for our farmers is a sign we have their backs and we will go down fighting for them. To do anything else is to I would ask all members of the House to support farmers who have been hit to support farmers who have been hit by these cruel cuts again and again. We urge them to stand for the Liberal Democrats and reject these regulations. And therefore, in light of what we have heard, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
21:59
22:09
22:10
22:10
22:27
22:27
None Portrait Division
-

22:27
22:27
None Portrait Division
-

22:27
22:28
22:29
22:30
22:31
22:32
22:33
22:33
22:34
22:34
22:35
22:36
22:36
22:37
None Portrait Oral questions: Internet Watch Foundation’s 'Annual Data and Insights Report 2024'
-

22:37
22:38
22:39
22:40
22:40
22:41
22:42
22:43
22:43
22:44
22:44
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page