Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Lords Chamber

Wednesday 10th December 2025

(began 2 hours, 12 minutes ago)

Share Debate

Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution

15:06

Lord Farmer (Conservative)

- -

First First of First of all, First of all, question First of all, question Lord First of all, question Lord Farmer.

15:06

Oral questions: Impact on work incentives of lifting the two-child limit in Universal Credit

I beg leave to ask the question. Paper. determined to lift children out of poverty, and removing the two child limit is the fastest and most cost limit is the fastest and most cost effective way to do this. The benefit cap is still in place. Encouraging parents to take responsibility and work towards responsibility and work towards financial independence. Our approach balances fairness and provides a strong safety net without undermining the incentives to work.

15:07

Lord Farmer (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, a recent international evidence found unconditional cash transfers actually increase fertility. Families claiming health related benefits are not capped, so even these workless families will get UC for every child. Again affecting work incentives. Institute for Fiscal Studies Research found money per child tax credits increased births by 15% and decreased contraceptive use among beneficiaries. So has the government assessed if lifting the two child limit will incentivise more births in benefit dependent household, and if many of the 450,000 children this measure intends to lift out of poverty would not otherwise have been born.

15:08

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

The government has seen no evidence that the two child limit had an impact on family size. Let had an impact on family size. Let me give one example. Almost half of the households, 47% of households affected by the two child limit were not claiming Universal Credit when any of their children were born. In other words, things happen. People set out, they have children, and something happens. Maybe someone loses their job, maybe their bereaved, maybe their spouse leaves them. Maybe they get sick and can't work.

The welfare state should be there to support people, first of all, to support them into work and to support them in work. But it is also there to support them when they can't. We already know that over around 60% of households affected by this are in work by Lord Sewell. That's our strategy to make sure we do all we can to get people into work, get them to develop in work and support them. But we're there as a safety net for when they can't.

15:08

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Academic research has found that the two child limit had no positive employment effect, and that parents living in poverty are pushed further from the labour market because of stress, insecurity and the sheer hard work of struggling to get by. Does my noble friend therefore agree that a decent social security system can support effective job seeking and plays an important role in tackling child poverty? As a child poverty strategy recognised?

15:09

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

My Lords, my noble friend makes a really important point about the scarring effects of poverty. Our aim is to try to make sure that everyone who can work does with all the help that they need to do that, and that's what this government's been doing. We're investing heavily in child care to make it possible to work, making sure wages pay enough so that work is a good thing, and supporting children. But my Lords, the most important thing is we do know that where children grow up in poverty, things get worse for them.

They're less likely to work themselves adults. They earn 25% less at the age of 30. So, my Lords, even if the House, some parts of the House are not persuaded on the grounds of the importance of the individual child, this is an investment in the future of our country. No other G7 country has a policy like this, and there is a reason for it. We can't compete on the world stage, grow our economy or get prosperous future for our kids if we don't enable them to grow up thriving and healthy.

15:10

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)

- -

For Lib Dems. >> For Lib Dems. >> With an overlay. >> With with an overlay of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With with an overlay of the Minister, agree that this is not about getting people back to work, is about improving living standards, is about improving living standards, making sure children are safe. And this question, which tries to link people getting into work with this Yeah.

15:10

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

Well, I think I've made my, my, my views clear on on the impact of this policy. The thing this policy this policy. The thing this policy clearly does is we know that essentially it's a failed social experiment which has been pushing experiment which has been pushing 100 children a day into poverty because we simply can't allow that to happen. What we do want to do is to support families. Most parents want to work to support their kids. Already 84% of parents are in work. Some of those most parents.

That's what people do. They want to see that. I used to work with single parents who would say, even when it's really a struggle, I want my kids to see, this is what you do when you grow up. But so many people face barriers and it's our job to make that possible. If you can't afford childcare, how can you get to work if you can't afford when you get there, if you're not paid enough to be able to make life even bearable? How can you do that? That's what the Social Security system should be there to do to support those who can't work, but for those who can to make it possible and help them to have a decent standard of living when they do work.

15:11

Baroness Deech (Crossbench)

- -

The crossbench crossbench. >> The crossbench crossbench. >> £50 million is owed to the child maintenance service by absent fathers and some absent mothers. fathers and some absent mothers. 160,000 children would be lifted out of poverty if the defaulting parents paid what they owed to the child maintenance service. Does the Minister agree with me that it's not right for the taxpayer to pick up the burden which is owed by defaulting parents, and the Child maintenance Service must get that money from the parents?

15:11

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

Lord Mott the great advantage, of course, is not an either or. The of course, is not an either or. The really wonderful thing about child maintenance is that it doesn't impact on on, on on somebody's impact on on, on on somebody's social security. So if someone is getting working and getting some universal Credit maintenance tops that up further. The child maintenance service does an astonishing job in many, many, very, sometimes very challenging circumstances. But one simple statistic since the Child Maintenance Service was set up in 2012, it's collected 93% of all the maintenance owed.

But, my Lords, I'm sorry to say, there are some parents who simply don't want to pay for their children. The child maintenance has astonishing powers and it will go after them and it will keep after them. But we should be encouraging everybody to do the right thing. Pay for your children, go out there and make it possible for them to have a decent life.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's such a good idea. Why was the whip removed from seven Labour MPs in the other place when they

15:12

Lord Gove (Conservative)

- -

MPs in the other place when they voted in favour of it last year? >> My Lords, I think perhaps the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think perhaps the noble Lord knows more than I do about the state of the economy that this party inherited when we came

15:12

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

into government. What we have done is dealt with all of the challenges that his government left behind. And chief amongst us, if I may say And chief amongst us, if I may say so, was actually the state, if not not just of support for children. But if we look at the state of what happened to the welfare state, my Lords, we had huge numbers of people who had been abandoned. Who? Well, my Lord, do you want to know what happened? The last government, under the last government, the bill went up by £88 billion.

£88 billion by Lords. This government came in in the budget. We invested £1.5 billion in employment support. We reformed Motability, we've reformed Universal Credit. We are going to make a difference. We care about children.

15:13

Lord Winston (Labour)

- -

Can we come back to the. >> Fair enough. >> Maybe come back to the original question. We've had some very, some very spurious statistics about very spurious statistics about fertility and contraception. Well, the noble Lady not agree with me that contraception has been hugely important in getting women back to work in the workplace and earning money.

15:13

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful for my friend >> I'm grateful for my friend calling me back to order. What I would say is actually availability of contraception has been transformative for women and my Lords, and I think we should all recognise that being able to have control over one's fertility, it makes an enormous difference to the choices that women make. And for many of them, it means they can work and they can choose. They can manage family size most of the time. However, my Lords, what we do want to do is to enable parents, mothers and fathers both to have children and to be able to work.

That's the job of the state. Mother shouldn't have to choose between having kids and having a job. Family should never have to do that. The job of the state is to make both possible for the sake of those families, but also of those children.

15:14

Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)

- -

I know. >> Undoubtedly a serious issue, and a steep drop in the number of children being born in this country is perhaps even more serious. Last week, we learned that the average cost of raising a child has now risen to £249,000, according to research by Money Farm, which may explain why an increasing number of working parents are choosing to have just one child, or none at all, down the line. This means a shrinking workforce in an ageing population.

What's the minister's view on this?

15:15

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

My Lord Stone Lord Bates a really important point, which is really important point, which is that we need as a country to make sure that we prioritise the cost of living and enabling people to earn enough. It should be possible to go out to work and to earn enough to support your family. But that's one of the reasons we think it's really important to invest in appropriate levels of Social Security. And crucially, we have to help people to develop skills. We want people to get into work, but we don't want them stuck on the lowest paid work.

And when we do, we've increased the national minimum wage. We've invested in childcare and free school meals. We're doing all the things to make it possible to do the right thing, but we need to go further. We need to see people in this country in higher skilled, higher paid jobs that will help them. It will grow our economy and create opportunities for their children in due course.

15:15

Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, can I bring the House back to the original intention behind the two child limit, which was to make the benefit system fairer to taxpayers who support themselves and their families solely through work? It encouraged parents on benefit to make the same financial choices about family size as those not on benefits. With the government's poverty argument in mind, the IFS have said that reversing the two child limit is not a silver bullet. They said that the benefit cap will wipe out the gains for some children in the poorest families, as 70,000 more households are affected by the cap.

So surely supporting parents into work and into quality jobs is much more important for reducing child poverty. And finally, the IFS say that raising the employment rate to 80% from the current 75% would lift poverty.

15:16

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

And that is why this government has set that as its target. But can has set that as its target. But can I say to the to the noble Viscount, the whole point about this is this isn't a choice. It's not a question of either supporting children or helping parents to go into work. Supporting families makes work possible. Most parents want to work. Our job is to make that possible. So we have done that. We've invested in expanding free school meals to everyone on Universal Credit, including those in work.

We've raised the National Living wage. We've put more help for childcare 30 hours a week for parents of preschoolers, more help for childcare and universal Credit. Our job is to do both. Children deserve the best possible start in life, so do their parents deserve the best chance to have a decent life? We want to do both.

15:17

Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

Your second question Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. Jones of Moulsecoomb. >> Leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have read the report to which the noble Baroness refers with interest, and I think there are interest, and I think there are questions both for Drax and for the authors of the report. Compliance with biomass sustainability with biomass sustainability requirements under Drax existing subsidy arrangement is a matter for Ofgem, but we work closely with them to ensure these arrangements remain fit for purpose. Ofgems remain fit for purpose. Ofgems detailed investigation into Drax in 2024 did not find evidence that unsustainable biomass had been used by Drax, but shortcomings in data governance were identified and Ofgem has required Drax to commission a global supply chain audit, which is currently ongoing.

15:18

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)

- -

The noble Lord Minister for his reply, which goes a bit further than I expected, so thanks for that. than I expected, so thanks for that. Now, Drax specifically claims to have stopped sourcing from old growth deferral areas and old growth management areas in British Columbia, but the majority of old growth forests actually fall outside those designations. So will the noble Lord, the Minister and the government actually suggest Ofgem that they do not accept Drax's definition of old growth and perhaps exclude the majority of British Columbia old growth forests from subsidies? Yeah.

15:18

Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

Well, I think there are two. >> Well, I think there are two. There are, there are there are two points I think to make in response points I think to make in response to the noble Baroness. Firstly, the the report to which she refers only circumstantially talks about old growth forests and not from old growth forests directly in any way sourced by Drax. And as far as the new contract that the government has entered into with Drax CfD contract for the next four years, the criterion is now 100% sustainability, which obviously excludes old growth forests.

Lord Sewell.

15:19

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)

- -

The noble Lord. >> Side. >> Drax is sourcing sustainable wood from abroad when we now have a wood from abroad when we now have a very intensive tree planting growth policy in this country. And also Yorkshire farmers would benefit if we were to go back to sourcing fast growing willow coppice trees and miscanthus and sending them to Drax to use. Why did we stop doing that, please?

15:20

Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

Well, I think the noble Baroness >> Well, I think the noble Baroness will know that Drax is the largest single power producer in the UK and single power producer in the UK and is responsible for about 5% of UK power. That means it uses an enormous amount of biomass in its process. Having converted from coal some while ago. As the honourable, the noble Baroness will will know. The question then is where does Drax get its biomass from? Bearing in mind that the amount of biomass that is being grown in this country falls far short of what the Desideratum might suggest in terms of sourcing, particularly in view of the length of time that it is taken to grow that biomass.

So sourcing from abroad at the moment appears to make some sense, but not necessarily for the long term future.

15:21

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)

- -

The minister's own department is consulting on sustainability criteria for biomass as we speak, criteria for biomass as we speak, and that will inform future subsidy eligibility and reporting requirements for the rest of the market. And in addition, the Financial Conduct Authority is still investigating Drax biomass sourcing statements. So can I ask the Minister what safeguards have been built into the new Drax contract that covers the period of 2027 to 2031? And will the that ensure that the results of these two inquiries will actually produce changes in the terms of the recently signed Drax contract?

15:21

Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

I can't assure the Honourable Baroness that terms the noble Baroness that terms will be changed for the during the new contract. But what I can say is that the CCC will be responsible for making sure that the sustainability criteria that have been entered into with the new contract, that is 100% sustainability criteria, will be strictly observed, and that is a very substantial step forward from what the previous arrangements for oversight consisted of.

15:22

Lord Birt (Crossbench)

- -

The Minister is to be. >> It's time for both of you. Mr. >> The the Minister appears to be completely unaware that Panorama completely unaware that Panorama proved conclusively 2 or 3 years ago that Drax does indeed burn old growth forest. I note, however, the new agreement that the government has negotiated with Drax for the period 2027 to 2031, and this agreement will require Drax not to burn wood from primary or old growth forests, and to enhance the system for an independent audit to monitor compliance with that obligation.

Could the Minister say what the sanctions will be if Drax is non-compliant?

15:23

Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

If Drax is not compliant, the >> If Drax is not compliant, the subsidy goes up. There is no subsidy. If in the case of non-compliant organisation of any kind, and that will actually be the end of Drax if that happens.

15:23

Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)

- -

And. >> My Lords Drax is under investigation by the FCA on its past sustainability claims, and that is no small matter. Yet that is no small matter. Yet despite that, the government decided to put pen to paper to extend Drax contract. So can I ask the Minister why did the government choose not to wait until the FCA investigation had concluded? What legal advice was taken and what risk assessment was taken before the government chose to extend that contract? Yeah.

15:23

Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

Because the conclusion of a >> Because the conclusion of a contract for 2027 to 2031 ensures contract for 2027 to 2031 ensures that both Drax continues to produce a very large amount of energy, very important for the country that it does so under enhanced sustainability requirements, and also that it moves from being a baseline producer to a dispatchable producer with a top level 27% of of output within that contract. And indeed, the implied understanding that the contract will pave the way towards moving to CCC on the back of the contract, making it a net negative producer in the long term.

15:24

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Conservative)

- -

In 2021, Drax was axed. >> From the. >> SNP's green index over doubts that their practices were not carbon neutral, and this was decision seemed to be endorsed by decision seemed to be endorsed by that famous Panorama programme. Now I bow to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Morecambe, for her detailed knowledge of forestry. But it does appear that Drax have been importing wood pellets from old growth forests, and this is even before accounting for the emissions caused by transporting the biomass here from abroad.

So, given this is patently not a green company, would the noble Lord, the Minister, agree that the subsidies for 27% of Drax generation capacity are unwarranted and should be withdrawn? And further, if Drax is found to be non-compliant and closes down, wouldn't he also agree that the land and the extensive grid connections could be better used in the government's SMR programme?

15:25

Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

Well, no, I don't agree that the the various connections relating to Drax could be used better. Used in SMR program because of the particular location of Drax and its location within the cluster on the north east of the country, which is particularly important in terms of carbon capture and storage, and indeed hydrogen and Drax playing a part in that particular process in that particular area. But the, the, the noble Baroness perhaps ought to read this report that has, that has that is before us today very carefully, because the report itself does not actually say that Drax has sourced Old Forest timber.

It's it's is sourced from third parties, goes into the Drax pellet facility and indeed may or may not be and may or may not be to the knowledge of Drax, including old Forest material, which, by the way, is outlawed by the government of British Columbia. So there are a number of questions to answer, but not necessarily questions to answer. For Drax, there are a number of people perhaps have questions to answer as well.

15:26

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)

- -

My Lords. >> My Lords. >> My Lords, in terms of the questions, my Lords, in terms of the question to be answered, does the question to be answered, does my noble friend not think it surprising that Baroness Bloomfield intervene, given the fact it was the party opposite? The Conservatives in government signed contracts with Drax, and the scale of the subsidies as a result was very large indeed. I think my my

15:27

Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

noble friend makes a very sound noble friend makes a very sound point in that, in that if you look at the new the new contract has been signed, it actually costs the been signed, it actually costs the taxpayers half as much as the old contract did. And it is on terms contract did. And it is on terms that are more sustainable and it is on terms, as I have said, that makes make Drax go towards a dispatchable plant, which is much more in line with the power grid generally than any of the things that were done under the previous administration.

Yeah.

15:27

Oral questions: Priorities for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Baroness Miller Domer.

15:28

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing my name on the Order Paper. Order Paper. >> My Lords, before I answer the noble Baroness question, can I follow the Prime Minister earlier today in expressing our deepest today in expressing our deepest condolences to the family and loved ones of Lance Corporal George Hooley, who died yesterday in Ukraine? He served his country with honour in the cause of freedom. And all of us in your Lordships' House will want to affirm that his service will never be forgotten here.

My Lords, the NPT is the cornerstone of international peace and security and has been for over half a century. UK is working hard to strengthen the NPT to ensure its continued success. At this review conference, we will work across all three pillars of non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear energy. This will include supporting efforts to create the conditions for disarmament, upholding the IAEA and its safeguards, championing nuclear weapon free zones, countering attempts to weaken the non-proliferation architecture, and enabling access to nuclear technology for peaceful uses worldwide.

15:29

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I thank the Minister >> My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer and may I associate these benches with his tribute. As these benches with his tribute. As he is all too aware, the NPT is in a very fragile state, with nuclear armed states modernising and expanding their range of nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear weapons increase the risk of escalation, miscalculation and accidents. And it was stated in your Lordships' House a couple of weeks ago during questions, a nuclear war must never be fought and there will be no winners.

So can I ask the Minister if, as the UK is currently chair of the P5, he'll use that position to prepare the ground for the NPT next April? And meanwhile, will the government reconsider its refusal to join the UN panel on the physical and societal effects of nuclear war?

15:30

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

We will always consider any suggestions, but let me be clear. suggestions, but let me be clear. We chair the P5 as part of the NPT. We're very proud to do that. We established the process. And let's be clear, this country has as its goal a nuclear free world. But we also recognise the strategic realities of today. And to meet these challenges, we have to take the action that that that we do. As I say, we're very proud to be a part of the P5, very proud to be a part of the NPT.

But we also recognise in this strategic context in which we are the nuclear deterrent and the modernisation of that is absolutely essential to our security and that of the global world.

15:30

Lord Howell of Guildford (Conservative)

- -

Extremely seriously. And so he >> Extremely seriously. And so he should would he agree that, in fact, the NPT review now faces the worst the NPT review now faces the worst challenge for the last 50 years, since its inception in 1968? Would he assure us that our team, when we go into the review, presses on all three of the pillars he described extremely hard and brings home to people the extreme danger of the smaller countries all wanting to get in the act, already applying to see if they can break the existing five's monopoly, which of course is broken anyway a bit, and in fact bring to the public a much stronger understanding of the intense danger of the proliferation everywhere of nuclear bombs.

15:31

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

I strongly agree with the the noble Lord in the in the analysis that he makes. And the NPT is an essential cornerstone of global security. And I would suggest in many ways it's been particularly successful. I was looking at the figure earlier on in 1986, there were an estimated 70,300 nuclear warheads, according to the International Peace Research Institute. And the most recent figure I could find was 12,241. So although there are challenges, quite rightly, as the noble Lord points out, we've managed to, I think in many ways control the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to ensure that, as far as possible, the architecture of the post-war world remains the same.

But he's quite right to point out the challenges, and this country, along with our allies and friends, will do all we can to ensure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the NPT remains successful on all three pillars of pursuit. Endorse the comments that the

15:32

Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)

- -

>> Endorse the comments that the noble Lord, the Minister's, made about the. >> Tragic loss of. >> Corporal and expressed sympathy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the Lance corporal. Family and friends. What analysis has the government made. Of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the. Likely impact on non-proliferation. Efforts of the. Wholly inadequate. Response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wholly inadequate. Response. Of the international community to Russia's violation of the Budapest? Budapest Memorandum, through its annexation of Korea in 2000? I beg your pardon of Crimea in 2014 and its subsequent war of aggression in Ukraine.

15:33

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

I what I would say to the noble >> I what I would say to the noble and first of all, can I thank him for the comments, as I should have thanked the noble Baroness for the for the association with the remarks that I made about the tragic death of our service. Can can I can I just say, I'll tell you what lesson I think that that we should learn as a country is that it is important for us to reassert and re-establish the principle of deterrence, that part of of preventing war is is actually preparing for war.

And I think the whole success of the deterrence is the fact that the deterrent was there, the nuclear deterrent was there. And the theory of deterrence. I think the what happened following the Budapest arrangements, the withdrawal of of nuclear weapons, there is perhaps a lesson for us that sometimes a position of strength allows you to actually negotiate and pursue peace more effectively than in, than in the alternative way.

15:34

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

Firstly, may I, on behalf of these benches. >> Completely echo and endorse the sentiments of the noble Lords Minister. On the tragic death of Lance Corporal George Hooley of the Lance Corporal George Hooley of the Parachute Regiment in Ukraine, whilst observing Ukrainian forces defending a new defence capability. And we, of course, extend our condolences to his family on this very tragic, sad loss. On the subject of proliferation, can I please ask the noble Lord what is the government's current assessment of Iran's progress towards nuclear capability, and what work is ongoing to discourage Iran from further progress? And what steps is the UK taking in concert with our allies to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

15:34

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Well, can I can I first of all, thank very much the noble Lord for the comments that he made and the association with my remarks about the tragic death. It's obviously appreciated by everyone in this House and and beyond. The noble Lord will know there's no difference between all of us. We support the work of the IAEA in terms of ensuring that the that Iran's use of, of nuclear technology is not used for the the making or the establishment of a nuclear weapons facility.

We take action with respect to that. He will have seen the action that others have chosen to take. But the UK takes that very seriously, and we continue to press Iran to ensure that it abides by the provisions of the NPT and the government. And.

15:35

Lord Bruce of Bennachie (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords. challenge of the review next year is to prevent the escalation, never mind the reduction of nuclear weapons and to ensure that there is no worrying escalation by America, by China, by Russia for their threats, for example, to test nuclear weapons. How can we be sure that we actually put the process into reverse rather than see it escalate? Yeah, I.

15:35

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Think the noble Lord, the actual establishment and the existence of a of the NPT, which contains 191 countries, all of the countries or most of the countries that the noble Lord has mentioned, including Russia, including China, including the United States, provides a, a, a conference, a a venue in which many much of this can be discussed. And all I'm saying is that the NPT has been a successful vehicle. We need to continue to support it in order to try to to take this forward.

And he mentions the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. That has been another success. I know the point he's making about the re-establishment. Apparently, according to President Trump, about that. But let me say that's a matter for America. This country is not tested a nuclear weapon since the early 1990s. We we adhere to the provisions of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We adhere to the provisions of the NPT, and we ask them to call on other countries to do exactly the same.

15:37

Lord Swire (Conservative)

- -

Risk of repeating myself. The only thing I'm testing is my memory. only thing I'm testing is my memory. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, give us any reassurance that the international community is taking seriously both the increase in the production of nuclear weapons and capability by DPRK, and what action is being taken with some of DPRK influential neighbours about containing what is potentially a lethal situation?

15:37

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Well, the noble Lord would be pleased. I never repeat myself. So it's just but the but the serious it's just but the but the serious point about the DPRK, obviously we take that challenge seriously. The DPRK may be interested to know actually announced that it departed from the NPT in 2003, which is something that the UK and the international community dispute and we don't accept. And we call on the and the neighbours to which the noble Lord refers to put pressure on the on the DPRK to to adhere to its responsibilities that it accepted when it joined the NPT in the first place.

15:38

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

Baroness Pidgeon to ask the question, standing in my name on the Order Paper. >> We understand. >> Parents concerns. >> About the impact of social media

**** Possible New Speaker ****

About the impact of social media on children. We have taken some of the boldest steps globally to ensure online content is genuinely ensure online content is genuinely age appropriate. It is important we protect children while also letting them benefit safely from the digital world. We are closely monitoring Australia's approach to age restrictions when it comes to children's safety. Nothing is off the table, but any action must be based on robust evidence.

15:38

Baroness Berger (Labour)

- -

My Lords, our children and young people are living through an experiment imposed on them by experiment imposed on them by platforms that are profiting off their stress, their lack of sleep and their diminished self-worth. I welcome the Australian Government for taking action to address the urgency and gravity of this issue, and I listen closely to my noble friend, the Minister. The impact on teenagers in this country is getting worse, not improving. Will the UK follow? Australia, Norway, Denmark, Malaysia and the EU and do the same and impose the ban on under 16?

15:39

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

We we are taking serious action here in the UK through the Online here in the UK through the Online Safety Act, and we are also looking very carefully at the evidence that is available for the impacts of social media, screen time, media use and children's development. At the moment, we do not see a causal relationship between screen time, social media use and children's development, but we are committed to improving this evidence base and we are looking very closely at what other countries are doing, and particularly Australia, with whom we have an MoU.

15:39

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)

- -

My Lords. My Lords. >> Is that 16 year olds shouldn't see certain access. The noble Lady Baroness Berger, if I understand, thinks that they should be banned thinks that they should be banned from social media. Can I take it as read that both noble Ladies will oppose 16 year olds having the vote? oppose 16 year olds having the vote?

15:40

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

I don't follow that logic at all. And. Just coming back. I think that the issue of online content and what the fact that people have different views and are trying to balance the potential benefit that children can have from accessing the digital world with trying to protect them from the harms that they also see, is exactly what many joined, many together around this house, and exactly what we're trying to navigate through. The Online Safety Bill.

15:40

Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)

- -

Act Lord Watts. The social media >> Act Lord Watts. The social media ban on under 16 in Australia is well intentioned, but it's not the right solution to protect children right solution to protect children from harms. Does the noble Lady, the Minister, agree with the Molly Rose Molly Russell Foundation that the ban risks creating a cliff edge for young people who, at 16, will suddenly be exposed to a poorly regulated online space. Would she agree that there will be there should be strengthened regulation on social media platforms so there are safe for children, rather than excluding them altogether?

15:41

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

I think the noble Lord makes a really good point, and one I was trying to make, not as eloquently trying to make, not as eloquently earlier, which is that there are good reasons for children to be online. The children are of all ages, can benefit from being online, but there also need to be appropriate protections in place and protections which do not lead to unintended consequences. So the the approach that we have, which we're putting in step by step and backing Ofcom to enforce against that, I think is the right one at this stage.

But we are looking very carefully at the evidence as it emerges. We are looking very carefully at other people's other countries experience, and we are not taking things off the table. If direction.

15:42

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Lib dem what steps they are taking to ensure that parental controls and education initiatives controls and education initiatives are keeping pace with the ever evolving risks that social media posts to our young people right now? Yeah.

15:42

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

Well, the role of parents and >> Well, the role of parents and the role of media literacy is, of course, a very critical one. And course, a very critical one. And indeed, as technology evolves, as access changes and the department is going to be supporting parents and carers with media literacy from next year and with some pilot projects to support families navigate the online space, particularly in in critical thinking and in trying to understand misinformation, disinformation and so on.

We're also working very closely with the Department for education to establish some parental support and some parental hubs in order to support parents making those quite sometimes having some of those quite difficult conversations.

15:43

Baroness Penn (Conservative)

- -

The noble Lady, the Minister has talked about support for parents. Last week, the centre for Social Justice released new analysis showing almost 1 million pre-school children are active on social media, something that even the platforms I would say don't think is appropriate and that number is rising rapidly. What work is the government doing with platforms, Ofcom and parents and carers specifically to support those who care for pre-school children not to five year olds navigate this online world.

15:43

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

So as I was mentioning before, >> So as I was mentioning before, we do think it is incredibly important to support parents, navigate and support them. Having navigate and support them. Having the right being able to support their children's access to the online world. I mentioned the pilot awareness campaign, which is more targeted at 18 to 8 to 14 year olds, but the the resources that will be available with the Department of Education, I believe, are more extended. And we also support Ofcom's updated media literacy duties under the Online Safety Act.

And as part of that, Ofcom is delivering a three year media literacy strategy. That priorities

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prioritises support for children and families. My Lord Kerr.

15:44

Lord Patel (Crossbench)

- -

>> My Lord. >> That sorry. >> My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. In a lecture. That Doctor. Vivek Murthy, the Lord speaker's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Vivek Murthy, the Lord speaker's lecture that was given by Doctor Vivek Murthy, the US Surgeon Vivek Murthy, the US Surgeon General, quoted the evidence of the mental health effect on children, particularly children, using social media over three hours per day, causing higher degree of depression and anxiety as one of the evidence. Why there should be better control for children using using any kind of social media.

15:45

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord cites some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord cites some important evidence that evidence and other evidence about the the the links between social media use the links between social media use different cohorts of young people, young adults and so on is very important. It's something that the government and Ofcom are looking at very carefully. And as I said before, we continue to keep open all of the issues here to in order to protect children from unsafe content, whilst allowing them to participate actively in the digital world, which can provide many opportunities to young people and much education.

15:46

Viscount Camrose (Conservative)

- -

Lord Oates screen addiction is a growing problem for all ages, but growing problem for all ages, but but far more so for children. In July, Peter Kyle, former Secretary of State for DSIT, committed to bringing forward proposals in the autumn to restrict children's screen time. Since the reshuffles, we've not heard any more about these proposals. Can the noble Lady, the Minister today clarify this point? Will the government be point? Will the government be bringing forward a package along the lines set out by the former Secretary of State? Thank you.

15:46

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

We are focusing on implementation of the Online Safety Act, protecting children from from harmful content backing Ofcom as they go through the children's risk assessments of the platform operators, and ensuring that the duties that came in in July are very effective. That is the priority for the time being. As I said earlier, we are looking at the evidence, we are assessing what what other measures may be needed and if if we need to do so in due course, we will do so.

15:47

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)

- -

I absolutely. >> I absolutely. >> Agree. >> With the Minister that everything needs to be evidence based, and I agree with that point based, and I agree with that point of view. But can I suggest to the Minister, when she is looking at social media harms to children, that she also looks at AI chatbots, which can make harmful suggestions to children online? And I believe that it is something that the government should take very seriously. And I ask the Minister to look at this very harmful element, which is harming our young people.

15:47

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)

- -

The noble Baroness raises the importance of keeping up to speed importance of keeping up to speed with technological developments and looking at the potential impacts of those. So many of the AI services are already regulated under the Online Safety Act, including chatbots, and so would fall under the purview of the current regime, so that if there is risk of harm to users from illegal content or content that is harmful to children, that would already fall under the regime, and there will be duties that apply on that.

The Secretary of State did confirm to Parliament that she is looking to make sure that there aren't any gaps in the current legislation, and is both doing that and looking to make sure that Ofcom is using its existing powers to regulate those AI chatbots that currently fall within

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the regime. So little questions for today. Any member wishing to leave the Any member wishing to leave the My Lords, we now come to some instruments previously debated in Grand Committee Procurement Act Grand Committee Procurement Act 2023. (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) Amendment Regulations 2025. Amendment Regulations 2025. Baroness Sanderson of Stoke on Trent.

15:50

Business of the House

15:51

Urgent Question Repeat: Latest developments concerning AJAX and other army vehicles

to an urgent question asked in the House of Commons on Monday, the 8th of December on Ajax and other Army vehicles.

15:51

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

vehicles. >> My Lords, may I extend my personal sorrow to the family of the of of Lance Corporal George Hooley. I think his tragic death is a humbling reminder of the risks that we ask all those who serve with such honour to confront on a daily basis, my Lords, in relation to the matter of the urgent question, we have here a story of starkly, indeed darkly contrasting facts. In the summer, troops taken ill after using Ajax vehicles in late September, 31 soldiers falling ill after using the vehicles, forcing a two week suspension of Ajax use while a safety investigation is carried out and personnel have been limited to spending only 1.5 hours inside the vehicles.

Due to health concerns, the speed has been restricted because of instability and it cannot fire whilst moving. Meanwhile, in early November, Mr. Loophole of the Minister visited General Dynamics in Wales to mark the initial operating capability of Ajax. The November edition of De Sider, an internal Mod publication, lavished praise on Ajax as being a world class armoured fighting vehicle and a transformational capability. My Lords, given what we now know, may I ask the Minister, how on earth could the Mod accept initial operating capability? Who signed that off? And can the noble Lord, the Minister, confirm to the chamber that if this nightmare cannot be fixed, as looks increasingly likely, can the contract be terminated?

15:53

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Well, first of all, can I just thank the noble Baroness for her remarks about our British remarks about our British servicemen who was so tragically lost? The whole House will join in her remarks with respect to the position regarding Ajax, the Minister will be well aware of the all of the various reports that have been made, all of the various representations that have been made to various Ministers over a number of years and like all Ministers past and present, will want answers to the very questions that the noble Baroness is quite rightly put to us.

Sheila. All of us, therefore, will be waiting for the results of the various investigations that have been set up. And can I just reassure the noble Ministers? She will have heard my colleague in the other place say, pending the results of those investigations, when we get those results, then we will consider all of the options that are available to us in terms of how we move forward.

15:54

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)

- -

We in these benches also recognise the responsibilities that recognise the responsibilities that we have with troops now helping to train the Ukrainian army and extend our condolences there. We know that we are committed to Ukraine now that we're waiting for further comments on what's really happening with the Ajax vehicle, can I ask three quick, wider questions? First, the Minister and the Commons admitted that the number the Army has a number of vehicles that have been in service for a long period, which is, I think, saying both the fighting fleet and the logistics fleet are pretty outdated.

Does that mean that we should be putting much more investment in this much more dangerous period into the Army fleet than we currently plan? Second question, we we have the SDR saying we're now in a very different situation, but the Treasury and the budget have said that we'll do a little bit of extra investment in the next two years and then maybe a bit more in 3 or 4 years time. Should we not be now talking about a much more serious threat, which requires much more defence investment than we currently plan? And my third question is about strategic partnerships.

The Defence Industrial Strategy says, I quote, it is no longer affordable for NATO allies, especially within Europe, to develop their own exquisite capabilities at low production volumes. That means much closer cooperation and collaboration with others. And given what President Trump is currently saying about NATO alliance, that means hard negotiations with our European partners. Difficult though it is. Does the Minister agree?

15:56

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Quite a bit in that the. But the series just just to quickly deal with the points that the noble Lord made. First of all, thank him for the comments he made at the beginning about the bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces. He will know that we've paused all use of the Ajax vehicles pending the outcome of the investigations. As the safety of our armed forces comes, comes first. In terms of logistics. He will. I think he will be referring to the fact that large numbers of trucks are having to be repaired and they are being repaired, and we'll expect that to be completed in the, in the, in the new, in the new year.

In terms of the, the SDR and the money, he will see the budgets that have been made available in the increase over, over a period of time. And he refers to the the aspiration to move even further with that, particularly by 2035, on the point he makes about strategic partnerships. Of course, they're crucial. And we spend a large number of time, a large amount of time, negotiating with European friends and partners. He will have seen the recent Norway deal with respect to the frigates.

He will assume the arrangements we've made with France. He will sing with the arrangements we've made with Germany. He will see the arrangements we've made with Poland, and they're just some of the examples, and I hope demonstrates to the noble Lord that we take seriously the need to negotiate and work and cooperate with our European friends, most of whom are members of NATO as well. This scandal reminds me of a scandal I worked on when I was a very young man. The airborne early warning system of the 1980s started under

15:57

Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)

- -

labour and it was cancelled by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. It cost millions of pounds working cost millions of pounds working within that company. Ministers were deliberately deceived so that they could get payment for cost plus. So could get payment for cost plus. So my question to the noble Lord, the Minister who is a highly respected Minister in this place, can you Minister in this place, can you assure the House that Ministers haven't been deceived over this contract? And and is it possible contract? And and is it possible that we could have the decision to go for an off the shelf product by.

Yes, within a manufacturer in this country or indeed one of our allies? But my noble Lord made the difficult decision. And in the 1980s, we took an off the shelf product to replace airborne early warning failed contract, and we took Awacs, which still works to this day. First of all.

15:58

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Thank the noble Lord for the question. I mean, clearly Ministers of all governments make decisions on the basis of the advice that they receive. So let's see what the investigation tells us about about that advice. And he will know there are three, four actually investigated four different aspects to the investigations defence, army and ministerial. And then alongside that which I think the noble Lord would be would appreciate, is the fact we're also looking at people outside of the Mod, some independent consultants outside of the mod, to look at what's actually happening.

So we get that independent advice. I think that was something actually the Minister, James Cartlidge, MP and the Other place asked for. So maybe there's an answer to that, but I'd just say to the the noble Lord, when we get the result of those investigations, we will take the decisions that are necessary at that particular point. But we need to wait for the result of the investigations.

15:59

Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords. >> My Lords. My Lords, I declare my. >> Has any foreign request been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has any foreign request been expressed in purchasing Ajax at any stage? And if it is not going to be stage? And if it is not going to be purchased, will it really be only a UK only equipment?

16:00

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Aware of that? I'll check my facts on that and come back to the noble Lord. If I'm if I'm incorrect, noble Lord. If I'm if I'm incorrect, but I'm not aware of any foreign interest in that. But if I'm wrong, I'll come back to the noble, noble and gallant Lord.

16:00

Lord Gove (Conservative)

- -

Enormous sympathy for the Minister in the situation in which Minister in the situation in which he finds himself. More than £6 billion has been spent on a fighting vehicle which is more dangerous to our own troops than to the enemy. The company concerned General Dynamics, what steps are being taken in order to pursue Malefaction on its part, and permanent secretaries at the Ministry of Defence have been accounting officers responsible to Parliament for this expenditure. If we find that at the very highest level, Permanent Secretaries and Directors General in the Ministry of Defence have made mistakes which have endangered the lives of our fighting men and wasted millions, will we in this House have the opportunity to ensure that appropriate action is taken, to ensure that they cannot play a future role in public life here?

16:01

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

I don't know the the the absolute answer to the last point absolute answer to the last point that the noble Lord made, but I would have thought that at some point, not just one debate, but there will be significant number of debates, a significant number of questions that will explore in much more detail the the whole Ajax programme since 2014 up to the present day. But as I say, I think we are slightly in a difficult situation because we're waiting for the outcome of those investigations that I say to enable us to inform the way forward.

The only point I would make and the the budget of 6.3 billion was set in 2014 and is actually the same budget, same budget now. But, sir, I take the point that the noble Lord is making and let's come back to it. A future debate when we have the investigation results.

16:01

Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I declare my interest as the chief engineer working for Atkins. We do have a difficult history in this country of armoured fighting vehicle procurements. The tracer programme failed. Procurement, multi-role armoured vehicle, mRAP, another failed procurement. Now we've got issues with the Ajax programme. So what lessons learned are being brought forward from Ajax into future procurement such as Boxer and Challenger three?

16:02

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Well. >> If I, if I answer that question, let me let me without being flippant about it, I've fed up with flippant about it, I've fed up with lessons learned from various reports over a period of time. I think the bigger question is why is it that so often the lessons learned don't actually translate into something that that makes a fundamental difference? Because, I mean, the noble Baroness works in the mod, and the noble Lord works in in the way he suggested.

I don't actually think that the vast majority of people set out to do a bad job. I think they work with dynamism, principle and determination to do their best. But somewhere along the line, we don't seem to be able to procure the equipment that that we should at the pace we should and for the price that we should. What I hope is that the defence reform, which the Secretary of State has implemented, the establishment of a new armaments director with a new national armaments director at the top, directly accountable for what happens with respect to procurement is a reform that in a year or two years, or whenever, the noble Lord will be able to turn round and say, this is a reform that worked, lessons were learnt, actions were taken and they made a fundamental difference.

And I just finish with this point. The the real point about this is we have to get our defence industry, whether it be across Europe, but fundamentally in our own country, because the defence and security of our nation depends on the sovereign ability of our own industry to to produce and develop the goods and ammunition and munitions and war equipment to support our soldiers that we need. Yeah. Questions on an answer to an urgent question asked in the House of Commons on Monday 8th December of Commons on Monday 8th December on the restriction of jury trials.

on the restriction of jury trials.

16:04

Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, the Secretary of State for justice recently stated in the context of rape prosecution delays that 60% of victims pull out of their cases. And I quote, because the trauma of waiting is too hard, unquote, a claim that was repeated in government briefings. The overwhelming response from experienced criminal lawyers is that this figure is misleading. Or, as one leading King's counsel commented, the Justice Secretary's remarks were cynical or staggeringly gullible.

Given that the Crown Prosecution Services own figure for those who drop out of rape complaints due to delay is 8%. Will the noble Lady, the Minister, ask the Secretary of State for justice to correct Hansard and remove his inaccurate statement from the record?

16:05

Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)

- -

My Lords, of course, it is an >> My Lords, of course, it is an enormous pleasure to be facing the noble and learned Lord again after such a short time on pretty much such a short time on pretty much exactly the same topic. My Lords, the the statistic that was given by the my hon. and learned Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State, refers to, if you like, the journey that is taken by a victim from the moment of the decision being made to report an offence to the police, to the ultimate disposal of the case in the Crown Court, the statistic that over 60%, or roughly around 60%, drop out at that stage is entirely correct.

During that process, Pre-charge adult rape victim attrition is 58% and post-charge adult rape attrition is 10%. So the statistic is correct, and it's a terrible indictment upon the system that this is happening. Every single one of those figures is a person who did not see justice for what it is they say happened to them.

16:06

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Yes. >> Yes. >> I know that the noble Lord Lord Keen is right to point to the CPS Keen is right to point to the CPS figures and what was said and reported in the Sunday Times, because the important point is the post-charge attrition, and it's not the journey from a reported rape all the way through to prosecution, which is the one that the noble Lady relied upon. And the CPS figures do show that only 9%. I think the figure actually was of adult rape cases were lost through victim attrition after charge, which is when victim, which is when trial delays come into play.

And that was down from 11.4% last year. The remaining cases abandoned were dropped before charge. And I repeat, the noble and learned Lords question as to whether the Lord Chancellor shouldn't actually apologise for the misleading use of statistics. And could the noble Lady also explain why the government believes that the right to jury trial for either way, offences should depend only on the likely length of a prison sentence. So excluding juries for almost all offences of dishonesty, when even a minor conviction for dishonesty could for many defendants destroy their careers, livelihoods, reputations and families, even lives.

16:07

Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)

- -

I repeat what I, in a sense, >> I repeat what I, in a sense, what I said to the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen of Elie. It's a pleasure to see the noble It's a pleasure to see the noble Lord Lord Marks Henley on exactly the same topic as we dealt with a very short time ago. I don't understand why it's felt that for the from the victim's perspective, it makes any difference at all whether it's post-charge or pre-charge a victim dropping out as a victim, dropping out and not getting the case that they thought they wanted to see during the court process.

The fact is that there are all sorts of reasons why it is that victims decide they don't want to participate in the process anymore, but there seems to be some suggestion that in the pre-charge period, those victims are sort of living underneath some kind of a rock, and they're not actually hearing about the problems in the criminal justice system, including the amount of time that victims have to wait to hear that have their court, their cases heard. The fact is, in any event, actually even 9% dropping out post-charge is far too high.

What the statistics show is that the average wait in the Crown Court for victims of rape and serious sexual offences is 391 days. That's an awfully long time over a year for them to wait. Turning to the second of the noble Lords questions why the length of sentence? Well, the reason why the length of sentence is because cases that are that are ultimately result in sentences that are shorter tend to be shorter and less complicated cases to hear.

So they're much quicker. That's the reason. And it's never been the case, as noble Lords know that all cases in the criminal justice system are heard by juries. 90% of cases are heard in the magistrates court. What this government is proposing to do is simply move that line a little bit in order to ensure that those most cases that are most serious are going to get the longest sentences in the Crown Court, are dealt with more quickly.

16:10

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

HEFA does. >> The noble Lady, the Minister, not worry that so many rape victims, people waiting, suffering, hoping people waiting, suffering, hoping that they might have a case brought to trial or that their suffering is being weaponized in an attack on the jury system? One of the fundamental aspects of our democracy and of a free society and their pain is being used to attack something that matters to all of us. Is that not overly cynical and doing a real discredit to those women, particularly, who are waiting for justice in relation to rape accusations?

16:10

Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I hope and believe that the noble Lady is not referring to the noble Lady is not referring to the government that I'm part of when saying that the experiences of rape victims is being weaponised. This government didn't come into power with the objective of trying to remove jury trials from anybody. The point is that this system is not working for anyone, and some of those most severely affected by this are those who have made complaints of rape and serious sexual offences where the rape, whether whether the the length of time that they have to wait can have terrible effects on them.

I'm not suggesting that it's not a terrible effect on everybody, but the system recognises that it can be particularly difficult for people in those categories of cases. It's not a question of weaponisation. And the one thing that I have tried to be very careful not to do is to make party political points about this. This is something of an emergency. It's taken a long time to get to where we are. It's going to take time to alter it. We have to have a radical plan.

And this is the plan that was recommended by Sir Brian Leveson. It would be reckless of the government to commission an independent review and then not act on those recommendations.

16:12

Lord Gove (Conservative)

- -

Enormous sympathy for the noble Baroness, the Minister, in facing the the huge backlog that exists in our criminal justice system. And I also am grateful to her for laying out the thinking behind the Lord Chancellor's position more clearly than the Lord Chancellor himself has been able to do. But can she update us on work between police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service when it comes to making sure that rape and serious sexual offences are brought to court more quickly? And is it the case that some police forces have been resistant to the idea that the speed with which these cases are processed should be published so that we can hold accountable those police forces which are most reluctant to ensure speedy justice?

16:12

Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord makes an important point. There are delays between report of an offence and charge. The reasons for those can be very complicated. I used to work for the Crown Prosecution Service. I know how difficult it can be that an awful lot of investigation has to go on, and quite often those investigations are looking at events that took place an awfully long time ago. I think it's probably fair to say that everybody thinks that we could and should do better.

I don't have the Home Office, of course, deals with matters in relation to the police, but I will ensure that I write to the noble Lord and answer the question that he asks, which is, of course, a perfectly proper one.

16:13

Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)

- -

The noble Baroness, the Minister, >> The noble Baroness, the Minister, condemn the remarks of one of her colleagues in the other place, who colleagues in the other place, who smeared defenders of the right to trial by jury as men in suits defending a magna Carta myth. In fact, the right to trial by jury dates back to before the Magna Carta to Henry the Second, which, for the benefit of the Justice Secretary, I should point out, he came after Henry the First, not before.

16:13

Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)

- -

Oh, dear. I feel that I didn't >> Oh, dear. I feel that I didn't even respond to the noble Lord, the Lord Gove's point about me explaining it better than the explaining it better than the Deputy Prime Minister. I'm certainly not going to agree with that. And I'm not going to be giving the deputy Prime Minister any history lessons either. But what I will say is this government is completely committed to jury trial. There's absolutely no question of our doing away with jury trials.

All we are doing is moving some cases down to they will be dealt with in the magistrates court in order to free up space. We are not the only government to have done this. The 1988 Criminal Justice Act reclassified three groups of offences common assault, taking vehicles without consent and criminal damage that had previously been triable either way. They were all reclassified as summary only. Anybody want to take a history lesson on which government was in power?

16:14

Urgent Question Repeat: Latest publication from Operation Kenova and the Government's response to its findings

Questions on an answer to an urgent question asked in the House of Commons yesterday on Operation of Commons yesterday on Operation Kenova. My Lords, a 164.

16:15

Lord Caine (Conservative)

- -

Page report really. Should have. Parliament. My Lords, the report contains much uncomfortable reading and our sympathies are with those who lost loved ones. We also recognise again the immense role of the RUC, the armed Forces and the intelligence services in securing peace. So can the noble Baroness. The Minister reaffirm the government's commitment to the neither confirm nor deny doctrine as essential for the protection of national security. On legacy. The Irish government has now promised the fullest possible cooperation with the renamed Legacy Commission.

So what undertakings have they given that this will be? This will mean exactly the same levels of disclosure by them and their agencies, as is required of the UK government and its agencies.

16:16

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

My Lords, can I first put on record my sincere thanks to both John Boucher and Sir Ian Livingstone for an extraordinary piece of work. They have set the standard for both gaining trust with victims, but also for ensuring that we have an article two compliant investigation which has given us very sobering reading. Noble Lord is aware that yesterday we published a written ministerial statement, and he's also aware of the ongoing litigation about many of the issues that are in the report.

We will be discussing them in more detail once some of that litigation is completed. With regards to his points about our security services, I completely agree with him. Both our security services and all of those that wore uniforms during the troubles, as he knows, because I have said it from this Dispatch Box I agree they ran towards danger to keep us all safe. They continue to do so every single day, both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of GB. With regards to neither confirm nor deny the noble Lord is right.

The first duty of any government is to protect national security and we must therefore ensure sensitive information that is injurious to the public interest, including information which could damage national national security or present a real risk of harm to life, is not released. Ncnd is an important protection, in particular, where disclosure information might otherwise compromise the recruitment and retention of Cheers, but it is also covers a broad range of other sensitive national security activities. There will be no change and with regards to the Irish state, the roles of the Irish State noble Lords are aware that in September we published a joint framework about how we're going to work together on legacy, and we hope to see all of that delivered in full.

We expect to Lord Low.

16:17

Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)

- -

This is an important, very detailed report, which is a welcome detailed report, which is a welcome first step in trying to get to the truth of what happened. And like the noble Lady, the Minister, I commend its authors. Families have had to wait such a long time for truth and justice. Does the government accept the finding of serious organisational failure by MI5 as outlined in the report? And can the Minister say whether she is confident that the current legislative framework and oversight provisions will prevent similar lapses in future?

16:18

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

There is ongoing litigation regarding the first point, and so therefore I cannot comment. But I'd like to remind noble Lords that since the troubles, there has been a new legislative framework, which includes both the covert human intelligence sources act as both that Criminal Conduct Act 2021 and Ripa 2000, which means that many of the practices outlined in the report can never be repeated.

16:18

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

I acknowledge the debt of gratitude that we owe to the intelligence services, our armed forces, and the. >> There's time for both noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's time for both noble Lords if we go one and then second. Thank you. Does the noble Baroness Miller acknowledge the Baroness Miller acknowledge the Democrats, should we owe to the intelligence services, our armed forces, and the courageous members of the RUC? It was by their action many lives were saved, including my own, infiltrating the IRA right to the very top of the republican movement. However, when will her His Majesty's Government put the spotlight on previous governments of the Irish Republic and their role in arming and supporting the here?

16:19

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

I am very grateful to the to our security services for keeping many of members of your Lordships' House of members of your Lordships' House safe and saving their lives, including the noble Lords. Let's be very clear what we're talking about here. The provisional IRA were responsible for over 1700 murders, and we need to make sure that that is reflected in these conversations. And with regards to his comments on the Irish government, I've been clear there is a new framework. There is a new agreement.

This is historic. The first time we've been able to achieve such. And I look forward to working with the Irish government to make sure that they, as we bring forward new legislation.

16:20

Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)

- -

The steering group for Operation Kenova, my Lord. Kenova, my Lord. >> The Secretary of State, said yesterday. >> Of. >> The Ncnd policy that in a small number of cases it has been set aside for particular reasons. When Lord Jay MI5 knew about steak knives, recruitment from the outset knew his identity, his role within the IRA about his involvement in abduction, interrogation and murder that murders could have been prevented had his activities been terminated earlier and action taken by the state.

My Lords, families know that their loved ones were murdered by a man who is allowed to carry on murdering by agents of the state. He is now dead. His identity is known worldwide. It is running in newspapers across the world today. Does the noble Baroness, the Minister, agree that this situation constitutes particular reasons and that regardless of any judgements yet to come, Stakeknife should be named now?

16:21

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I first of all, I thank you for the work that she's done with Kenova. It is a truly sobering piece of work and incredibly important addition. But my Lords, when any agent, active, living or otherwise, is publicly identified by the state, that calls into question the whole premise of the government's neither confirm nor deny policy, which is vital for national security. On Operation Kenova request to the government to name Stakeknife, the Northern Ireland Secretary has set out in a letter to Sir Ian Livingston, which is available in the library, that the government will issue a substantive and final response to that request after the Supreme Court has issued its judgement in the Thomson case, which is relevant to Ncnd policy.

I want to make it clear that the alleged behaviour revealed in this report is deeply disturbing, and such activities would simply not be tolerated today.

16:22

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)

- -

My Lords, my Lords, my Lords, my >> My Lords, my Lords, my Lords, my Lords, I would like to thank John Barker and Sir Ian Livingstone for the report that they have brought the report that they have brought forward, and also to say that the Kenova report contains very disturbing findings. So in view of this good, my noble friend, the Minister highlight what are the government's intentions to address and those very serious findings and the fact that MI5 tried to restrict the investigation and conceal the truth of IRA crimes it knew all about?

16:22

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

I, my noble friend, is right that this report contains a range of recommendations, some outside of its original term of reference, which were in the interim report published last May, last March. Noble Lords would appreciate that many of the issues touched upon are subject to ongoing litigation, so there is only so far I can go in terms of their actions. But I would say to my noble friend, the Director general of MI5 again apologised to Kenova for the late discovery of the material in 2024.

The House will also note that MI5 itself has initiated an internal review of what happened, and the findings of the Helen Ball review, with relation to some of the points that she raised. My Lords, there is always more to learn, but as I said before, I will and I will repeat the legislative framework in which these alleged activities happened is not the same as the one that operates today.

16:23

Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)

- -

£47 million spent on the Kenova report, which was made in with the benefit of hindsight, makes no benefit of hindsight, makes no mention of the thousands of people who were actually saved from being murdered by the IRA terrorists precisely because of the action of the intelligence services and the action of brave servicemen and women. Will His Majesty's Government rule out immediately the ridiculous call made this morning on the BBC from the former Chief Constable, Sir George Hamilton, for a judicial inquiry into MI5 and its behaviour, and as a noble Lady, the Minister agree that despite the endless inquiries, our security forces acted always with the intention of saving lives and not, as was the IRA's intent to murder innocent men and women.

16:24

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

My Lords, the government has no intention to commission a public inquiry. The Kenova investigation inquiry. The Kenova investigation was conducted over nine years and was article two compliant, and we are satisfied that Kenova has completed a thorough and complete investigation. We do not believe there is any further requirement.

16:24

Lord Lexden (Conservative)

- -

My noble friend Lord Caine and others have referred to the uncomfortable reading in this uncomfortable reading in this report. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm unequivocally that the regime for handling agencies today completely different, utterly different to that which obtained when most of the events covered by the report took place?

16:25

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord is absolutely right. The use of covert human intelligence sources is now subject intelligence sources is now subject to strict regulation. Under Ripa. 2000 and cheers 2001 2021. 2000 and cheers 2001 2021. Compliance with this legislation and the related code of conduct is subject to rigorous ipco scrutiny. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal provides a forum for individuals to challenge the state if they believe Chiz has acted inappropriately or illegally. My Lords, this is a completely different world in which we live in, but we should also never forget the context of what we're talking about here.

16:25

Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill - consideration of Commons amendments

Consideration of a Commons amendment on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Baroness Taylor Infrastructure Bill Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons. Amendment be now considered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

considered. The question is that the Commons amendment be now considered, as many of that opinion will say, content. Contrary, not content. The content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it motion a Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do agree with the Commons in their amendment 33 C. My Lords, it is a pleasure to see the Planning and Infrastructure Bill return to this House for the final time after today's debate. The House will soon conclude its passage through Parliament and it will thereafter become law. It will drive investment productivity and

16:26

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

facilitate a step change in the delivery of the new homes and critical infrastructure our country critical infrastructure our country so desperately needs. This legislation will create certainty and speed up the process for and speed up the process for consenting, nationally significant infrastructure. It will create a new sustainable model for new sustainable model for development and nature recovery, and establish mechanisms for effective cross-boundary strategic effective cross-boundary strategic planning. We can and must do things differently, and this bill will enable us to do so.

That is why we have been so determined to ensure we can make use of its provisions as soon as possible, and why I am delighted that following today's debate, it will shortly become law. We have already debated at length the intention of the noble Lord Lord Lansley amendment 33, following our previous debate last week. The government tabled an amendment to give effect to this change, which will now see the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation, subject to the affirmative procedure.

I am pleased to say that on Monday, the Other place agreed to the government amendment which gives effect to that change, removing the unnecessary provisions in Lords Amendment 33, in respect of future regulations for which there are already powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I would like to thank Lord Lansley for his continued engagement. This change, alongside existing safeguards built into the legislation, will ensure that an appropriate amount of parliamentary scrutiny is able to take place on these provisions ahead of implementation.

Given this House has already confirmed its agreement with the noble Lord Lord Mance amendment, I trust it will now lend its support to motion. Aye. I move.

16:28

Lord Lansley (Conservative)

- -

The question is that motion A be agreed to? My Lords, as the mover agreed to? My Lords, as the mover of the original amendment 33. Can I just say how grateful I am to the government for accepting the substance of that amendment? And I also therefore agree with amendment motion a star in agreeing with the Commons in their further amendment. Can I just say I heartily endorse what Minister Pennycook said in the other place on Monday that now is is about getting on with using the powers that are available under this and previous legislation.

And I wish the government well in that endeavour.

16:29

Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lord, I all through the >> My Lord, I all through the debates on this bill we have on our benches, agreed with the principle of what the government was seeking of what the government was seeking to do, but did have concerns about the balance that was being created between the necessity to to improve construction times, especially with infrastructure, but also bearing in mind the needs of our environment and our heritage in particular. We don't think the balance is right at the minute, but we do agree that the bill must proceed.

And on the amendment in, in, in before us today, I wholeheartedly agree with the work done by the noble Lord Lansley, which we have supported throughout the Bill. And with that, I hope. Thank the Minister for all her helpful discussions on the Bill, and I hope it's the last we have to say about it.

16:30

Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)

- -

My Lords. Minister and the government for accepting the substance of my noble friend. Lord Mance amendment, an friend. Lord Mance amendment, an important step that these benches strongly support. We now look forward to scrutinising in full the regulations establishing a national scheme for the delegation of planning decisions through the affirmative resolution procedure. Sorry.

16:30

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)

- -

Congratulate the noble Lady for for the Minister for. >> Accepting such a sensible amendment. The noble Lady was kind enough to write to me about non-hazardous reservoirs. And she non-hazardous reservoirs. And she did say in that that the regulations and the guidance will be kept under review. Could I urge her to use her good offices to ensure that that both houses will be able to review that? I just once again record my huge disappointment that this non-hazardous reservoirs legislation will not come into effect before 2028, which I think is far too late given the impact reservoirs operating below capacity already, the deficit we will face over next year, especially in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yorkshire, is deeply regrettable. My Lords, I'd like to thank all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'd like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate in response to the noble Lady, Baroness McIntosh. the noble Lady, Baroness McIntosh. I would just say that I think possibly a question is out of scope possibly a question is out of scope of the motion that's before us today, but I'm always happy to meet with her and discuss this further. And she does have a detailed letter from me today explaining the government's position. I'm just very briefly address the points made by the noble Baroness Pinnock.

It's vital that exercising Democratic oversight planning committees operate as effectively as possible. As I know, she knows only too well not revisiting the

16:31

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

same decisions and focusing on applications which require member input. So the government wants to make sure that skilled planning make sure that skilled planning officers in local authorities have the right level of trust and empowerment, making sure they can resolve more applications more quickly in the service of residents and businesses, and to ensure that our planning professionals are our planning professionals are fully supported in their role and their skills and experience put to best use. But I know that she'll be best use.

But I know that she'll be more than familiar with all of those issues that I've spoken about. My Lords, this will be my final time at the despatch box. Speaking on this bill, I'm not going to say thank goodness, but we've had we've had some very long discussions and some very long sessions on the bill, and I would like to once again place on record my thanks to all noble Lords who have engaged with the Bill and the Department through its passage. The open and robust nature of our debates have undoubtedly strengthened this bill.

In particular, I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to Baroness Boycott, Lord Jamieson, Lord Roborough, Baroness Pinnock and Earl Russell for the time they have given to engage in so thoughtfully on this critical legislation to all of the civil servants and the staff in the House who've had to work very late sometimes on this bill. And I very much look forward to working with noble Lords as we take forward the implementation of this bill, which will be a major step in the government's reform programme.

The House should be under no doubt. We intend to move quickly over the coming months so we can realise the full benefits of this legislation. My Lords, I move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion A be agreed to, as many of that opinion agreed to, as many of that opinion will say, content, not content. The contents have it. Consideration of Commons amendments on the Commons amendments on the Employment Rights Bill Baroness

16:33

Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

Lloyd of Effra. >> My Lords, I beg to move motion A that this House do not insist on its insistence on Lords Amendment one. B in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement and do agree with the Commons in their amendments, one E and one F in lieu of Lords Amendment one B, I will also speak to motions B, b1, C, D, d1, E, and e1. Given the developments that have taken place since the bill was last debated by the House, I would also like to take some time to set

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out the. Apologies. The question is that the Commons amendments be now considered, as amendments be now considered, as many of that opinion will say. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it motion a The contents have it motion a Baroness Lloyd of EFRA.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So again. Apologies, my Lords, I beg to move motion A that this House do move motion A that this House do not insist on its insistence on Lords Amendment one b in respect of which the comments have insisted on their disagreement and do agree with the comments in their amendments, one E and one F in lieu of Lords Amendment one B, I will also speak to motions B, b1, C, D, d1, E, and e1. Given the developments that have taken place since the bill was last debated by the House, I would like to take some time to set out the context of those changes.

I therefore must ask for the indulgence of the House as regards the length of my speech, before turning to the specifics of the amendments. In the name of my noble Lord Lord Fox, I want to first provide a general update throughout the passage of this important bill, which delivers on multiple manifesto commitments. We have gone through careful deliberation, scrutiny and debate. Noble Lords will have seen my statement to your Lordships' House last week, where I outlined how the government had convened tripartite discussions with trade unions and business representative organisations.

These discussions were focussed on finding a way forward on unfair dismissal. This is an issue which business and many in your Lordships' House, including His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, told us was their number one priority. Solving it was the only means of breaking the current impasse between this House and the other place. I am glad to report that we have secured an agreement between trade unions and business representative organisations on that issue, which is now unlocked, a path to get the much needed bill on the statute book without further play.

This is acknowledged in the joint statement by business representative organisations involved in the negotiations, which accepts that any remaining concerns with the bill can be dealt with in the regulations to come, which will be informed by open and transparent consultations. This negotiated outcome has now been debated and agreed by the elected House. We will, of course, debate it in detail this afternoon, but I begin by asking your Lordships' House to endorse the agreement reached by worker and employer representatives. The success of these discussions sets a clear example of the benefits in working together in a tripartite manner.

This was a commitment that was front and centre of the Labour Party's plan to make work pay, and I am pleased to see it in action as part of these discussions. We must not delay. We must not stand in the way of further delaying these long promised improvements to workers rights. As the recent agreement centres on unfair dismissal, our speak first to Motion B and amendments 120 G, 120 H, 120 J to 120 M, tabled by the government in the other place, and motion B in the amendments to the Commons amendment tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom, relating to unfair dismissal, the government's amendments in you will reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protections from 24 months to six months, all while maintaining existing day one protections against discrimination and automatically unfair grounds for dismissal.

To further strengthen these protections, the government has also tabled amendments which will ensure that the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protections can only be varied by primary legislation, and that the compensation cap for claims be removed. That will remove both the 52 week and the £118,223 cap. In practice, few awards get anywhere close to these caps, with the median average award for unfair dismissal being £6,746 in 20 2324, and removing the cap will not impact the methodology for how an employment tribunal would calculate these awards.

The noble Lord Lordships amendments would change the government's amendments and would go against the negotiated outcome between the trade unions and business representatives. From discussions in November, my ministerial colleague, Minister Dearden, confirmed the outcomes of these negotiations in the Commons when debating this element of the bill on Monday. She said I was in the room as part of the negotiations with business representatives and trade unions. I can confirm that the compensation cap was discussed and agreed in the room. The government believes that the current compensatory award caps, caps, cap caps, incentivises claimants to construct complex cases which allege discrimination in order to access uncapped compensation.

These types of claims are more complex and take longer for the tribunal to handle. Therefore, by removing the compensation cap for ordinary unfair dismissal claims, this incentive will be lessened, making it easier for tribunals to reach a judgement more quickly and decreasing burdens on the system. Following a helpful meeting with the noble Lord Lord Vaux of Harrowden, I can confirm that we will publish an enactment Impact assessment for the bill as soon as possible once the Bill secures Royal Assent and prior to commencement regulations for the entire unfair dismissal package being presented to Parliament.

The new public. The new impact assessment will be publicly available and include an assessment of the impact of the removal of the compensation cap. We are aware of representations made by organisations including the British Retail Consortium and UK hospitality. The government stands ready to engage with those and similar organisations to hear their concerns and answer their questions. Our impact assessments will set out how we will review the bill and any secondary legislation that follows. Implementing this bill will take several years, and its full effects will not be realised until long, until long after Royal Assent.

That's why our monitoring and evaluation framework will ensure the real world impacts attract, and used to inform future policy decisions. We will also publish Post-implementation reviews to assess the impact of the implemented policies. These will typically occur five years after the legislation comes into force. Additionally, the Dispute Resolution Stakeholder Taskforce, which includes business representative organisations and trade unions, is looking at the likely impact of the full suite of measures in the Employment Rights Bill on employment Tribunals, including the removal of the compensation cap, and I can assure noble Lords that findings from the impact assessment on the removal of the compensation cap will be taken into consideration by the taskforce.

This taskforce will help the government to develop reform measures to ensure the current system, including Acas, is more efficient and resilient, so it is better equipped to respond to future changes. My Lords, turning now to motion A and the government amendments one E and one F, and to motion A1, and the amendments one G and one H, which were tabled by the noble Lord Lord Fox relating to zero hour contracts. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord Lord Fox for his contributions throughout the passage of the Bill.

Our conversations have been constructive and productive, while others have sought to oppose measures in this bill outright. We have appreciated his efforts to understand and accommodate our chosen policy approach, while ensuring the bill is workable and deliverable in a manner that works for employers and employees alike. We agree that the security of work is of the utmost importance, and it is clear that we align on the issue of needing to protect workers from precarious, precarious employment. We also agree that future arrangements must not place excessive burdens on employers.

We will do this by working with businesses and other stakeholders on the detail of the zero hours measures, which will be set out in future regulations. We have tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place, which will place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult before exercising powers to set the length of the initial and subsequent reference periods. This consultation will conform to best practice and ensure that all stakeholders can contribute and shape our reference periods are set in regulations.

The noble Lord Lord Vaux amendment seeks to set the subsequent reference period at no less than 26 weeks. I can reassure the noble Lord that our amendment places a statutory duty to consult on this detail. As part of the consultation, there will be adequate opportunity for himself and others to feed in their representations on the length of subsequent reference periods before the detail is set in regulations. We recognise there is a strong business interest in this issue, given the new responsibilities they will have under this part of the bill, and were committed to working with them.

Unions and stakeholders. Ahead of the necessary secondary legislation. It is important we get the detail right and we can't do that without consultation. It would not be appropriate for us to pre-empt that exercise, and therefore I cannot support the noble Lords Amendment. However, I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord says on the matter, and I hope he will agree that our proposed approach is fair, workable and balanced. Ensuring that government can implement its manifesto commitment with input of key stakeholders.

Now, my Lords, I speak on motions C and amendments 48 E and 48 F tabled by the government and the other place relating to seasonal work. The government is fully aware that for some employers, work fluctuates throughout the year. The consideration of seasonal work is built into the right to guaranteed hours, provisions and embedded into

Feed Live - Click to view video

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page