Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Oral questions: Whether the learning from the results of the Better Start longitudinal programmes will become pregnancy and early years policy and be implemented

>> My Lord, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.

15:00

Baroness Merron (Labour)

- -

the Order Paper. >> My Lords, we welcome the valuable learning that is emerging from the five Better Start from the five Better Start partnerships, and we look forward to the National evaluation report in the spring. The programmes in the spring. The programmes provide important insights into early years support in highly disadvantaged areas, best start family hubs and healthy babies already deliver a place based, prevention focussed model we will consider Best Start evidence alongside other evaluations as we develop policy to deliver a new neighbourhood health service and raise the healthiest generation of children ever.

15:01

Baroness Thornton (Labour)

- -

I'd like to thank my noble >> I'd like to thank my noble friend, the Minister, for that, and I do need to declare an interest that my sister, Jill Thornton, is that my sister, Jill Thornton, is indeed the director of Better Start Bradford, which is one of the £215 million programme funded by the National Lottery, with local funding to. For the last ten years, the model placing children and family at the heart of service design, focusing on the first 1001 days, is critical because of the developmental window from conception to a child's second birthday.

I would like to hear how the government would integrate this into the government's Best Start for life programme.

15:02

Baroness Merron (Labour)

- -

Well, the work in Bradford is to >> Well, the work in Bradford is to be commended, and I can assure my noble friend that through the best start family hubs and healthy babies, local authorities will be expected to do exactly what the noble Lady is saying is happening in Bradford, and that is to establish very inclusive and diverse routes for parent and carer participation, because we do want families to shape how services are set out. And I absolutely agree that the focus on the first 1001 days of a child's life is a crucial and critical developmental window.

15:02

Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords. >> Minister may not have had the time that I have had to read the first report from this programme, which is called Exploring School which is called Exploring School Readiness. In five different areas, these projects have been going with 16 different programmes in going through all 16 programmes. Does she share with me the slight concern that there is only one mention at all of mobile phones and screen time? And that was in Nottingham, where adults were asked to leave their mobile phones outside an area where their children were learning how to play, in order that they could actually concentrate and pay attention to their children rather than pay attention to their phones.

Given the rising concern, there is generally in the country about the effect of screens and telephones not only on the very young, but actually on the ability of parents to be parents. Could that not be integrated and taken into account as this programme is taken forward?

15:03

Baroness Merron (Labour)

- -

Yes. important point. The noble Lord raises. This is being dealt with by the proposal of the government to have a three month consultation so that we we get it right in terms of acknowledging the concerns and challenges of screen time for children. So I do take the point that the noble Lord has has made. This is, of course, a matter for DSIT, and I will ensure that they are aware of the noble Lords comments, as well as the relevant departments, in respect of this programme that we're talking about, which is my department and also the Department for education.

15:04

Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, whilst I welcome today's announcement about today's announcement about protecting special educational needs funding, I would like to ask about support for very young children with special needs and those with physical disabilities. Parents often find it difficult to find an early years place or childcare suitable for these special children. So can the Minister point them towards any real, properly funded, properly resourced help in this respect, with people with the right training, looking after these special children.

15:04

Baroness Merron (Labour)

- -

Yes, I can, I hope, be helpful to the noble Lady in the best start for life strategy. We did commit that each Best Start family hub will have a children and family services practitioner to support children and families who do have additional needs, and I feel that this new offer will help parents to understand their child's development, to identify emerging needs sooner, and it will also importantly, support vital join up across the services, keeping children who have particular needs at the very centre.

at the very centre.

15:05

Baroness Rafferty (Labour)

- -

My Lord, my Lord. My care has taken from the work of better start to inform the maternity and baby strategy.

15:06

Baroness Merron (Labour)

- -

As my noble friend knows, we are >> As my noble friend knows, we are absolutely focussed on improving quality and consistency of care for women throughout pregnancy, birth women throughout pregnancy, birth and the critical months that do follow. That's the reason why we've taken action of appointing the noble Lady, Baroness Amos to lead an independent investigation, and why the Secretary of State will also chair Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce to address the recommendations of the investigation. But it is very much part of our work in terms of giving children, babies, the very best start in life.

15:06

Baroness Deech (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, the noble Lady, the >> My Lords, the noble Lady, the Minister has commendably expressed the ambition of raising the healthiest generation of young healthiest generation of young children ever. Yet why has the government done nothing to condemn, educate, if not prohibit, cousin marriage where the babies suffer twice the number of defects at birth as non cousin marriage?

15:07

Baroness Merron (Labour)

- -

My recollection on that point when we've had a debate on that previously, is that we are looking at the evidence and the best way to tackle what is the the issue that the noble Lady raises. In other words, what best supports children to have that healthy and best start in life. And so we are looking at it in the round. I'm sure that we will return to this, but I'll also be pleased to follow up in writing to the noble Lady.

15:07

Lord Kamall (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, many noble Lords would support the objectives of the Better Start longitudinal programme, with a focus on improving children's diet and nutrition, social and emotional development, and speech, language and communication skills. But can a noble Lady, the Minister, explain, rather than a sort of top down Whitehall or Westminster knows best attitude? How is it working with local civil society organisations such as Bright Box, that works with families and local communities to help them, to teach them to learn to cook healthier meals on a budget to improve their nutrition and wellbeing.

15:08

Baroness Merron (Labour)

- -

Well, this won't be a top down approach. What we're doing is ensuring that the best start family hubs and healthy babies are in every local authority area. That is a major development because it means that from April, it will reach more than half a million more children and will also help us transition to neighbourhood health services. But all of this, as ever, will be more successful by working together with other groups, including third sector organisations like Bright Box.

15:08

Lord Watts (Labour)

- -

Does the Minister agree with me? We could add much healthier children if the previous government wouldn't have shut down all the Sure Start centres and caused the poverty that it did.

15:09

Baroness Merron (Labour)

- -

I think I heard what my noble friend said. I have got the gist. What matters is that not just that we have a position where children's health and wellbeing is not where it should be, but that we are pulling together all of the best examples of practice, including surestart, including family hubs and that we are investing both in provision and services, but also in information. I think this will take us forward and it will take us to the situation where we do genuinely have the healthiest generation ever.

That is not something we have now, and particularly in the more disadvantaged areas. record.

15:10

Baroness Manzoor (Conservative)

- -

But may.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. What the. Government is. Doing to ensure that we retain the health.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ministers that we have and we retain the midwives that we have, because there aren't sufficient midwives or health.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

midwives or health. Visitors in the service, and they play a vital role in supporting young mothers and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting young mothers and fathers in the care of their babies and children. Well they do. I completely agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well they do. I completely agree with that, which is why they are very much part of our delivery plan.

15:10

Baroness Merron (Labour)

- -

It is part of the move from hospital to community. So it's part of the neighbourhood service model. of the neighbourhood service model. We will be publishing the workforce plan in in the spring that will plan in in the spring that will take account of it. This is a multidisciplinary approach. We are seeing more midwives. We're also seeing more midwives. We're also seeing more consultants in seeing more consultants in obstetrics. For example, whilst I know the noble Lady wasn't particularly referring to that and we are also developing stronger health visitor teams.

They all matter because they bring the care closer to home in a way that will make the greatest impact. Brinton.

15:11

Oral questions: Updating the Government website page on registering a death, with requirement to do so within five days

I beg leave to ask the question. Paper.

15:11

Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)

- -

The five day time frame in England and Wales to register a death starts once the medical examiner has sent the medical certificate of cause of Death to the registrar, while the guidance provided on Gov.uk is up to date, the General Register Office for England and Wales will continue to work with relevant departments to ensure this information best supports the bereaved. Civil registration is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

15:11

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Recently, my Lords, it took nine >> Recently, my Lords, it took nine days to register my sister's death instead of the five stated on the websites, the medical examiner's office and the registrar both told me that every day bereaved families are confused and distressed. They believe they are breaking the law because they think death triggers the five day clock, not the medical examiner signing the papers off. And Lady Hollins told me that her medical examiner was taking up to a month.

And there were also further delays in registering the death. So will the government update the website, adding the certifying hospital doctor, the first step that the public encounter ahead of the medical examiner's role to clarify the timeline? And can the government review the five day rule in the light of delays in some Me and registrar services?

15:12

Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)

- -

Can I offer my condolences to the lady on her loss? Can I also say she has a point? I've discussed this with officials. We are looking at how we can improve the website and make some changes to the website. This will be done and I will write to the noble Lady within a month. When that has been completed.

15:13

Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)

- -

Final. Has the noble Lords Minister seen the article in last week's times? Death certificates take twice as long after reforms choke system, with only 1 in 6 being delivered within a fortnight, adding to the costs for the funeral director and adding to the distress of relatives. So what action is the government taking to deal with that delay?

15:13

Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)

- -

Well, I think there are two points that the noble Lord. The median figure for the issues that he's raised is nine days at the moment. That is the median figure that we have assessed as nine days. The published data does not break down the journey between medical certificate of death and registration of deaths. But from the Home Office's perspective, the registration process is more or less on target at the five day period where there is a delay is on occasions between death occurring and the medical examiners certificate being issued.

That is an issue which I will be drawing to the attention of my noble friend, Baroness Merron, because it is a Department of Health issue, but it is one that, again, the government is committed to trying to resolve and improve performance on.

15:14

Viscount Stansgate (Labour)

- -

My Lords, on the 3rd of April >> My Lords, on the 3rd of April last year, my noble friend Baroness Barran from the Dispatch Box English Chamber said, and I quote, English Chamber said, and I quote, we are taking steps to reduce the time to register a death. Can I ask my noble friend, the Minister, what progress is being made?

15:14

Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)

- -

Well, as I say to to my noble >> Well, as I say to to my noble friend, nine days is the median. I confess to the house, the death certificates are not my specialist certificates are not my specialist subject, but I will do my best to investigate the issues about whether there are any delays on this issue, and I will write to my noble friend on it.

15:14

Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, sudden, unexpected >> My Lords, sudden, unexpected death of a child is a tragedy that affects around 40 children per year in the UK. But there are cases by Lords where in the event of a child's death, parents are waiting more than a year to find out what's happened, as if the pain of losing the child wasn't bad enough, they they then have to wait more than a year to to get closure around that. And this is all due to a shortage of paediatric pathologists in the system.

So can the can the noble Order, order Minister say what plans the government has to address this situation?

15:15

Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)

- -

Well, I'm grateful and self-evidently that level of delay self-evidently that level of delay is not acceptable and should not exist. The Home Office's responsibility in this area is for the period post. The medical examiner issuing the certificate and the death certificate being given to the registrar, and that is the five day period which we are broadly maintaining the issues which the noble Lord has raised in terms of paediatric support and assessment are ones for the Department of Health. If he will let me, I will note what he has said.

I will investigate the issue and I will write back to him, because that is not an area that I am overtly familiar with, because it's not within my direct competence.

15:16

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)

- -

But my Lord. >> But my Lord. >> My Lords, can I raise an issue with the Minister, particularly about a certain minority faith, particularly the Jewish and Muslim particularly the Jewish and Muslim community, who have upon the families of the deceased to bury as soon as possible? Example I will give you that. In Sheffield we worked up a system where we have on call registrars, etc. to be able to issue paperwork at weekends, but the bottleneck now has become this medical examiner in the sense that until they deal with it.

So I'm wondering whether you are able to speak to a, a group of people from Sheffield and elsewhere who are struggling with this issue to see how, you know, cross departments. We can look at opening up those opportunities to actually very quickly, because if the grave is ready, the council is ready to issue it, the burial certificate. But it's the medical examiner that's causing the trouble for many families. And it's not just a Sheffield issue, it's up and down the country.

Yeah.

15:17

Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)

- -

Well, again, I'm sympathetic to what the noble Lord has said. And again, my colleague Baroness Barran again, my colleague Baroness Barran has said that the Department of Health, particularly in an English context, is working very sympathetically with all communities that the noble Lord has mentioned. I will reflect again on what he said, the areas that he's raising. It's a very strange situation whereby the Home Office has a responsibility for part of the issues the noble Baroness Brinton has raised, and I am seeking to address those issues and will change the system that the noble Baroness has raised.

The issues that the noble Lord is raising are with a different department. But my noble friend Baroness Merron has heard these points, and we will look at the question sympathetically.

15:17

Lord Spellar (Labour)

- -

But, my Lords, following exactly on from that question isn't the most sensible approach to look at those coroner's areas that are operating efficiently and and at speed, and therefore to learn from those best practices and then to extend it to the rest, rest of the country. It's a straightforward business proposition. Isn't that really what the government should be doing?

15:18

Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)

- -

Well, I think the answer to that question is yes. And what I would say again to my noble friend, is the bit that the Home Office is responsible for has a five day target which is being met. There are challenges in the medical examination aspect of that for a whole range of reasons, which are not just administrative, but related to how, when, where and in what circumstances people have died. And there may be issues that we can look at. And my noble friend makes some important points on that.

And again, I will discuss post this question time with my noble friend Baroness Merryn, how we can best address those issues.

15:18

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)

- -

My Lords, it's worth remembering that medical examiners are introduced following the Harold Shipman disaster, and it is there to provide public safeguards. But there is some evidence that medical examiners are being somewhat risk averse, and that deaths which have occurred quite naturally are being held up. Perhaps, my Lords, in his discussions with my noble friend, it is time to just take an initial look at what medical examiners are doing to see if there can be some changes to the processes in order to speed up the whole death certification process.

15:19

Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)

- -

I mean, the issue is under constant review, and I can say to my noble friend that work continues towards the introduction of electronic registration of deaths in England and Wales to minimise the burden on bereaved families. Members had a difficult time and I think again, there, as my noble friend has said, the reason this system was introduced was for perfectly legitimate reasons to improve safeguards in the system. We need to make sure it works well. I have tried, in response to Baroness Brinton question, to make improvements in the bits I am directly responsible for, and I will reflect with my noble friend on other issues.

15:19

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, perhaps I could bring to the House my recent experience. to the House my recent experience. My father passed away on the 21st of December, which is not a, dare I say, a challenging time of year given that the nation stops work for about two weeks. I wasn't able to register the death until the 8th of January. But you know, considering the time of year, I have to say that the medical examiner's office were working throughout the Christmas period, and I was able to get an appointment in reasonable time.

So I just wanted to ask the Minister if he could pass on my thanks for a system that did work for me at a difficult time of year. Everybody behaved very professionally, very well, very sensitively, and I'd like to offer thanks for how it is working.

15:20

Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful for that. I will certainly pass it on to the appropriate authorities just for information. My own mother a long time ago died on Christmas Day and we had a very difficult time to deal with that with the same holiday period. But the service we provided in this case from Liverpool Region was exemplary, and I think it's important that we recognise good service when it happens. What we're trying to do is to improve the situation. As I said, I've tried to do it with the noble Baroness and reflect on the points the noble Lord has made.

15:21

Lord Pannick (Crossbench)

- -

The Minister also reflect on the fact that there are delays, not just in the registration of deaths, but also in the operation of coroner's inquest, very serious delays. And the outgoing chair of the Justice committee at the time of the last election, sir Bob Neill, said that the coroners service is chronically under-resourced and underfunded and this is leading to totally unacceptable delays. Can the Minister or Baroness Merron add this to the shopping list of matters they will look at?

15:21

Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> I feel today I'm answering for three departments, which is the Department of Health, Home Office. And now the Ministry of Justice has And now the Ministry of Justice has been thrown in. What I will do is I will reflect on and look at and share with my noble friend, Lord Timpson the points that the noble Lord Pannick has made. I can't answer for that today, but I will certainly make sure it is looked at.

15:22

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

Fourth Oral Question Lord Pack. >> To ask the question, standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, ambassadorial appointments go through an extensive process which includes national security vetting. This is national security vetting. This is a robust process to which thousands of civil servants are subject each year. As you would expect, this is nonetheless kept under continual review to ensure it remains fit for purpose and addresses any shortcomings. That is why yesterday we announced that direct ministerial appointments for senior ambassadorial roles must now pass security vetting before they are confirmed or announced.

15:22

Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for that answer. The other part of the process is the due diligence process that the Cabinet Office undertook for the ambassador to the US. So I wonder if the noble Lady, the Minister, can tell us how many other appointments has the government made following the same or substantially similar process as was used for the ambassador to the US? And does the government have confidence that the outcome of the process was correct in all of those other cases? Given the problems, we are now aware of how the process worked.

In the case of the ambassador.

15:23

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

Yeah. that there are any such other issues. I think we can all accept that this was an exceptional situation, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't review our processes and just make sure that any changes that ought to be made are made because, as he suggests, this may not be the only occasion upon which this kind of incident happens. We want to make sure that these processes are as strong as possible.

15:23

Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)

- -

Is it not the case that the overwhelming majority of overwhelming majority of ambassadors are appointed from within the service, and therefore, perhaps over several decades, their competence and loyalty has been tested? And the question therefore refers perhaps to the very, very few people appointed from outside the service. And of course, that process should be very rigorous.

15:24

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

Well, I think the process ought >> Well, I think the process ought to be rigorous in all cases. And there are occasions when I think there are occasions when I think the former head of mission in Cuba was a former conservative MP. There are members in this place who've been high commissioners in Australia, in South Africa and have done an incredibly good job, as I would say, the vast, vast majority of our ambassadorial appointees do. But it is right that we look at this extremely carefully in light of what has happened, and if there are changes that need to be made that we make them.

15:24

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)

- -

In terms of the process itself >> In terms of the process itself and having experienced it for many years, of course, even as Minister of state, you gave references, you of state, you gave references, you had views. Ultimately, it was a decision taken by the Foreign Secretary, then passed on to the Prime Minister. And that process is very much established. And I pay tribute to other permanent under-secretaries in your Lordships' House who I learn from in terms of what the process was.

Surely the fix here is that any political appointment, irrespective of what government, is also put through that very same process and vetting process and it will resolve many of the issues the government is now facing.

15:25

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

My understanding is that that is the case. I think the only difference that was made here is around the timing of the vetting and the announcing. But the actual vetting process was the same. But let's just I mean, there is a process now, another one about making sure that the documents that we all need to see in order to assure ourselves of this, because this is a public confidence issue as well, and they are available, and I hope that that can be done in, you know, in good time.

And the Esrc has taken responsibility for doing that. My Lord.

15:25

Lord Sikka (Labour)

- -

The Mandelson. >> The Mandelson. >> Episode shows that party and personal loyalties can obstruct personal loyalties can obstruct robust scrutiny to prevent repetition of this kind of debacle, Parliament must ratify all ambassadorial appointments. Does the Minister agree?

15:26

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

I mean. I am very much in favour of parliamentary oversight, but I of parliamentary oversight, but I think just the scale of that undertaking, I think, needs to be properly understood by any parliamentary body that may wish to undertake such a thing. This would it. I haven't heard anybody say that all of our ambassadorial appointments should be subject to such a process. I think I would need some persuading.

15:26

Lord Bellingham (Conservative)

- -

Can I just ask. >> A point? >> She mentioned that. >> Lord Mandelson. >> Went through that the due diligence. She then said I think I heard her right. He was appointed and then the vetting took place after that. Why was that the case?

15:26

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

No, sorry. I think what I said, I hope what I said is if it wasn't what I said, I will absolutely clarify it. It was an announcement. And I think it's important that the changes that were announced yesterday by the Cabinet Office are around making sure that that doesn't happen in future, because although it doesn't actually affect the vetting in substance, clearly it does create a perception and there is a risk there. So we wanted to remove that. So we've announced that already.

But when there are further changes that almost inevitably will arise as a result of the reviews that would be that are being undertaken, there will be subsequent changes as well.

15:27

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Minister, what you said about being in favour of public appointments, having a scrutiny from Parliament. We on these benches strongly support that and it sounds very welcoming, not necessarily for all ambassadors, but certainly for all senior public appointments. After all, we are supposed to be a parliamentary sovereignty, and the idea that these are entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister clashes with the myth, at least, of parliamentary sovereignty. Could you explain a little bit more whether this is now government policy? Yeah.

15:27

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

So government. has not changed. That's not to say it can't ever change or it won't. As a consequence of the considerations that are being made now. I mean, it is I should just say that it is possible for select committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, to summon an ambassador and to to want to hear from them, that is, that is available under existing arrangements. But I, I take the the comment that he makes that he wants to be, he feels Parliament should have greater input and greater oversight of many of those things.

And, and I think that is a welcome suggestion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, in his. Resignation letter, Morgan. McSweeney said, and I quote when asked, I advised the Prime Minister to make that appointment, and I take full responsibility for that advice. The responsibility for that advice. The interesting words there were when asked. So Mr. McSweeney did not originally suggest the appointment originally suggest the appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador. Perhaps the noble Lady can tell the House who did.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House who did. I honestly don't know who originally had the idea. I bet they wish they hadn't. So I'm afraid I can't enlighten the noble Lord. But as far as Morgan McSweeney goes, all I would say is that he has done great service over very many years to the Labour Party, by extension to this country, and he remains someone who many of us hold in high esteem, and we wish him all the very best.

15:29

Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My Lords, I realise that this is a very trying experience for the noble Baroness, the Minister and the benches opposite. But I don't think there's been really an issue over vetting. If we look historically at the appointments that have been made from the Foreign Office and for ambassadors of this country, the real issue is about the decision that was taken of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, knowingly appointed a person, i.e.

Lord Mandelson, as the ambassador to the United States of America, knowing, knowing, and admitted he knew that he was still in touch with a convicted paedophile. That is the nub of this question today. So will the noble Baroness, the Minister please acknowledge this? And in turn, when they are looking at the vetting process, make sure it's probably the right way round.

15:30

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

Well. >> I'll just correct the noble Lady. The question is specifically about vetting today, but all I would say vetting today, but all I would say to her is I would note the sharp difference that there is between the Prime Minister we have today who takes responsibility for the decision that he made. He has apologised for the decision that he made. He is taking measures to put it right, and the apology that he made was received and accepted by one of the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein.

Now, if it's good enough for her to go on to broadcast media and to say that it's good enough for me, I want to see measures put in place that will put this right, that mean that this can never happen in the future. That's what the Prime Minister is focussed on doing. And I think that is what the country wishes him to do. country wishes him to do.

15:31

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

Yes, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord. My Lord. I pray that this is a question about vetting, but behind it is potentially a question about political judgement. So could I ask the noble Lady whether, when choosing an ambassador for any country, rather than an elaborate problem of vetting, one might Google. Because when I googled, I found out that that particular potential ambassador was indeed friends with somebody running an international sex trafficking gang, of which young women were exploited and abused.

And therefore, although I want there to be good vetting, I would just suggest that maybe the problem isn't vetting. But what a political judgement. Would you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agree with me here? What I would agree with the noble Lady about, and I commend her noble Lady about, and I commend her for doing this, is to focus her question on those women and girls who were the victims of a heinous paedophile. That is the right thing to do, obviously. And the Prime to do, obviously. And the Prime Minister would be the very first person to say this. This was a bad decision, right? It's a bad decision, right? It's a bad decision now when you make a bad decision in life, especially when you're the Prime Minister, you've got a choice.

Some prime Ministers have stood at the despatch box and the other place and told barefaced

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lies about it. Yeah, I didn't, and I'm proud of him for that. Yes. My Lords.

15:32

Legislation: Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill – report stage

>> My Lords. >> That concludes. >> All the questions. >> For today. >> And members who wish to leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And members who wish to leave are invited. To. Do so. Now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I invite you to do so. Report Report of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill.

15:34

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I beg to move that this report be now received.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this report be now received, as many of them have been, say, content contrary, have been, say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment number one Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Richmond Hill. My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their extensive engagement between Committee and engagement between Committee and this report. Stage. Amendments one, two and four in my name will ensure the Secretary of State can only the Secretary of State can only enter into revenue certainty. Certainty contracts, whether supported SAF is produced at a facility in the United Kingdom. This will provide the industry with a clear signal of support. I hope this measure reassures noble Lords that I have considered the contents of the amendments tabled at committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, the noble noble Lord Earl Russell, and those tabled by the noble Lord Lord Grayling.

I would like like to thank noble Lords for their constructive engagement in reaching this position. I urge noble Lords to support their inclusion in this Bill, and I beg to move.

15:35

Lord Grayling (Conservative)

- -

My Lords. First of all, can I just apologise to the Minister in just apologise to the Minister in the House that I was unable to be here for Committee stage because of a family crisis? I'm very glad to be here today. I'm very glad to welcome these amendments, and I should say that I have no intention of moving my own amendment, since the Minister has very much addressed my concerns. The important thing was to ensure that nobody could game the system, that what we knew we were supporting was UK manufacturing, and not somebody pulling a fast one and shipping mostly complete fuel in the country, polishing it up a bit and claiming it was British.

So the Minister has done that with these amendments. I very much welcome them. I'm grateful to him and I support them.

15:36

Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I'm pleased to see >> My Lords, I'm pleased to see Lord Grayling back in his place. And on behalf of these benches, I And on behalf of these benches, I also want to thank the Minister and the government for bringing forward these amendments. These were important issues that were raised during Committee stage. The government has listened to the concerns that were raised and we we are extremely welcome for the amendments that have been brought forward. And we're grateful that the government has listened and we're delighted to accept them.

15:36

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I wish only to congratulate my noble friend Lord Grayling on his amendment and congratulate him further on having persuaded the government to table alternative amendments which have the same effect as his, and we have no objection to those amendments.

15:37

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Labour)

- -

I thank the noble Lord Lord Grayling for amendment five, which Grayling for amendment five, which will be debated in committee, and I further thank him for his for his intervention just now. And I'm very grateful to hear from all of the noble Lords that the amendments that the government have tabled deal with the issue that was raised deal with the issue that was raised in in committee. So I beg to move.

15:37

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

- -

15:46

Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)

- -

By laws. I'll let Lord >> By laws. I'll let Lord Ravensdale go first if he's planning to. >> Lord Watts. I start by reminding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Watts. I start by reminding noble Lords of my interest as a chief engineer working for Atkins chief engineer working for Atkins Wireless to briefly come to my amendments in this group. My amendment seven. My Lords, I've simply retabled my amendments from Committee stage and as a brief reminder, we we have targets in the in the SAF mandate. Coming back to what noble Lord Moylan said about power to liquids, an escalating percentage of sustainable aviation fuel needs to be power-to-liquid that's clearly set out in in the SAF mandates.

And really, what this amendment is trying to do is to ensure coherence between the SAF mandates and the projects that are given support under the the Revenue Certainty Mechanism. Also coming back to what the noble Lords the Minister set out in terms of support for UK production, because, of course, the percentages in the SAF mandate could simply be met by importing power-to-liquid fuel. So it's important that actually we set out the ambition for the industry to meet in terms of producing all of that fuel, which is already legally required under the SAF mandates in the UK, and aligning that with with the earlier

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government amendments. Now, I do up. In the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Face of the bill may be too far, but I would I would welcome comment from the the noble Lord, the from the the noble Lord, the Minister, on how this could perhaps be set out in in the allocation framework documents or or guidance really to give industry that steer really to give industry that steer on power-to-liquid fuel and the expectations for producing that in the UK. My amendments 14 and 16, again very similar to those I raised at Committee stage.

And I thank the noble Lord Lord Moylan for signing them. I did reflect upon the responses from the Minister at that point, but I didn't hear any compelling reasons why. HEFA products HEFA sustainable aviation fuel products should be included in the scope of the bill. And as the noble Lord Lord Moylan said, my amendments and his amendment 15 a very a very similar aim at the same thing. One is more dealing with the base product uses established definitions.

His more encompasses the totality of of HEFA products. Now I did I welcome meetings with the Minister, with the Minister's team of officials, and I think to say what the outcome of those meetings was. The main rationale for retaining HEFA in the Bill is that this recognising this is a fast developing market. It's important to retain that flexibility in primary legislation, which I do accept, but I still find it hard to imagine a scenario whereby government would want to subsidise HEFA using the revenue certainty mechanism.

The whole point of the legislation is to help pump prime those new industries, not not support the well-established industries that we have to provide HEFA fuel. So therefore, the government is taking broader powers than it needs under the legislation. There is a risk that that subsidies, as we go forward, could be given outside that intense. However, I, I do hope, I hope that the Minister will be able to say something substantive about this in his remarks, in terms of the exclusion of HEFA.

And I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in this regard.

15:50

Lord Grayling (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak in support, particularly of Lord Ravensdale amendments on crops, but also to share many of the concerns that have been raised about HEFA and also to declare my own interests on the register. So an adviser to Atkins release lots of us here today. My concerns are these. First of all, I don't believe we should be using crops to make fuel in a world that does not have enough food. In a world where biodiversity is under threat, where deforestation is happening in areas of the world that are providing extra land for agriculture, I really do not think there is any justification in growing food and turning it into fuel.

So I do say to the Minister, please exclude crops. The United States is permitting them. The European Union is not. I think we should fall on the side of avoiding the use of agricultural crops. Agricultural waste is a different thing. The the residue from crops is straw, corn husks and so forth is a very different thing. Agricultural waste is one thing, actual crops is another, and we should not be using them in terms of HEFA. I would say to the Minister, we are where we are with HEFA, but I think we have to exercise extreme care because the truth is, there is not enough used cooking oil in the world to fill the supposed need for that used cooking oil.

And all too often the suspicion is somebody dumping a chicken wing into a tub of virgin palm oil and saying it's HEFA. So I really do think that HEFA needs to be something we move away from as quickly as possible. And in any case, we dependent on imports from the Far East for it, which frankly may not be sustainable going forwards. So our focus really should be on biowaste, it should be on municipal waste, it should be on the technologies that offer a really good path for the future.

But let us not use crops and let us be extremely careful about what we do with HEFA. I have a lot of sympathy about what my noble friend Lord Moylan has said and what Lord Ravensdale has said. It is far from clear that this is a genuine product that has the full potential to do what's necessary.

15:52

Lord Harper (Conservative)

- -

Yeah, yeah. >> I'd like to. Before I start, I'd also like to draw attention to my entry in the Register as non-executive chair of Rvl Aviation, non-executive chair of Rvl Aviation, which is in the aviation sector but not involved in the production of sustainable aviation fuel. I strongly support this move to make sure we don't include food crops. I do have one caveat, which I raised at Committee stage, and I wonder if the Minister can update the House. And my noble friend Lord Grayling has drawn attention to the different position that the United States has taken about, including food crops.

Now, my starting point as his is that we should not include food crops. My only caveat I raised at committee was if in doing so, that enabled us to ensure that the United States continued to support the development of sustainable aviation fuel, given the importance of the United States in the international aviation sector, there might be a case for that. And I'd be interested to know whether the Minister can update your Lordships on any discussions that have taken place with the United States.

If if it's not necessary to do that, then I strongly support the amendments that are there to make sure we rule out food crops. Because, as my noble friend Lord Grayling said, growing using land to grow crops for food is what we should be doing. And we have seen in some in the renewable energy sector, we have seen what can happen when you have policy that then drives behaviours which you hadn't intended, which have outcomes that are environmentally not welcome. The second point I'd raise is to support the amendments to rule out the use of the revenue certainty mechanism for subsidising HEFA.

It's important, as my noble friend Lord Grayling said, that we move away from that and we develop the new technologies. As my noble friend Lord Moylan said from the front bench. The danger, if you allow subsidy of things that we're trying to get rid of, is that you never get rid of them. Any subsidy there is should be used for the development of new technologies and new processes. That is the rationale for having a subsidy regime in the first place. So I think setting that framework is very welcome.

The final point I would make is on power to liquid technology. My noble friend Lord Moylan set out his view that that technology is not at a point yet where this bill will probably be any use. My starting position as his is that you have to very carefully justify the need for subsidy. And so actually, I don't think it's a bad thing if that technology is some way away from development, that actually forcing government to come back to Parliament to justify subsidy for power to liquid actually would be very welcome.

If the Minister is able to update the House and to suggest that that technology is at a point where that providing subsidy to develop the technology to get it into production is a much nearer term outcome than my noble friend suggested. Then I might think again. But I think in the scenario that Lord Moylan set out, then I think his amendments are very sensible and I think are very helpful in testing and forcing the government to put on. Its on the record about the state of that technology.

15:55

Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lord, I rise. I respond to >> My Lord, I rise. I respond to the second group of amendments concerning different aspects of the operation and the scope of the operation and the scope of the revenue certainty contracts. I appreciate the good intentions. We appreciate the good intentions about to influence the mix of technologies and feedstock supported by the scheme, but we are unable to support the amendments in this group. Each amendment, in different ways introduces arbitrary restrictions at risk, upsetting the balance technological neutral framework that is central to the bill's success and imposing restrictions that, while well intended, remove flexibility and could have serious, unexpected consequences.

It is a technological framework itself that will attract the broad range of. In investments that will enable the rapid scaling of UK aviation fuel production. The creation of the revenue certainty mechanism itself that will attract investment, and the investment is literally the fuel that will bring the technologies we need to address each of the amendments in turn. Amendment three, in the name of noble Lord Moynihan, would increase a new subsection prohibiting revenue certainty contracts from providing payments for power PtL sustainable aviation fuel.

I understand the concern that PtL technologies are still maturing. Offering often come with higher upfront costs, but a statutory exclusion is too blunt. A guillotine instruments. It would deny Ministers any flexibility for supporting promising PtL projects as costs fall and technologies advance, sending unhelpful signal to developers and investors that this entire pathway is off limits for UK support. Such rigidity would involve diverting PtL investment to other jurisdictions. The bill, as drafted, already provides government with tools to to shape pathways through allocations, criteria and contract design without foreclosing future opportunities.

Amendment seven in the name of labour, noble Lord Ravensdale takes exactly the opposite approach, requiring the Secretary of State to direct the counterparty to offer minimum volumes of PtL contracts from 2028 onwards, increasing annually to 2040. While again, the objective of accelerating PtL development is commendable, setting the number of and strict time of stick sorry. Setting the number of strict time fixed statutory quotas on the face of the bill would be equally problematic. That would commit the government to contracting many time fixed volumes, whether or not sufficient viable PtL projects are ready, creating the risk of uneconomic awards or unfulfilled obligations.

On many occasions, as those involved in financing such large scale projects know, they are often delivered slightly behind times as supply chains are can be overrun. Building so many rigid volumetric obligations into the statute would create legal and commercial uncertainty, and could crowd out credible SAF pathways. The government's more flexible approach, using competitive tenders and market readiness to guide allocation, remains what we see as a more practical and adaptable route. Amendment 14, in the name of noble Lord Ravensdale, seeks to define relevant crops by relevant to starch rich sugar, oil and main crops, adapting the same definitions used in the renewable Fuel Obligations Order 2007, amendment 16, in a similar vein, would exclude from support any sustainable aviation fuel derived from such relevant crops.

I fully recognise the environmental concern to avoid diverting crops into fuel production, but legislation for this exclusion directly via statutory definition risks unintentional consequences. For example, capturing advanced biofuels that use mix of waste and feedstocks, or deterring innovation where crop residues are responsibly utilised. The same aims can we feel be better achieved through policy guidance, sustainable criteria and the certification process already envisaged under the bill, rather than through the statutory exclusion as drafted? These amendments are too overly prescriptive and constrain technological evolution, government flexibility and discourage investment.

Amendment 15 for the noble Lord Moylan Lord Moynihan would exclude mine, would exclude HEFA fuels from the scheme entirely. Yet HEFA remains the most immediately commercially viable pathway for scale SAF production in the next decade, removing it entirely from eligibility would effectively drain the early project pipeline for seed funding. Just as a revenue mechanism begins operation, weakening investor confidence and jeopardising early domestic delivery. We believe strongly that the bill must remain pathway neutral, allowing market competition and policy signals to shape the uptake over time.

As investment grows, companies and industries establish themselves and markets develop in some. While each of these amendments is well intentioned, taken together they would substitute flexibility with arbitrary constraint, either banning specific technologies or mandating others in a way that would freeze the policy framework in time. My Lords, we need a revenue certainty mechanisms that come back to best projects as they emerge, one that adapts with the market, not one constrained by today's assumptions about which technologies or feedstocks will win out.

Picking winners or losers on the face of the bill is a fool's game and would slow investment. Caused dispute and risk, leaving the UK the UK behind in a fast moving international market.

16:02

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Conservative)

- -

My Lords. >> Can I make my. Just say that I'm the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, so the House might believe that I'm immediately against all of this sort of thing, against all of this sort of thing, but that wouldn't actually be true. What I am certainly in favour of is proper CO2 accounting, and hence my rising in support of amendments 14 and 15, because we cannot have a situation where we we, we do another Drax, dare I say, where we end up with a situation which sounds very renewable and very sustainable, but when we actually peel the surface away, we're actually generating more CO2 in creating the final outcome than doing nothing.

And my, my concern if we allow crops, particularly if they're sustainable fuels from imported, imported sustainable fuels that are derived from crops, is that we do not have the CO2 accounting arising in the UK. And we had ourselves on the back and say how, how marvellous we are and virtuous, but the reality is that we've actually increased global CO2 on an undertaking that is is nothing but sustainable. So I would like an assurance from the the noble Lord, the Minister, that as we progress the sustainable aviation fuel future, that there is a proper mindfulness about the CO2 effects, about what we're doing.

And that is one of my grave concerns about the power to fuel ambitions is that they are so hugely energy requiring in actually creating the fuel that you're after at the end of the process, that you've actually created a lot more CO2 in the process of so doing. And I really hope that we've learned something about CO2 accounting, particularly on the back of the Drax experience, which allows virgin forest from North America to be cut down, presumably by power source, by by petrol, and then going to drying mills run by gas, and then put on a diesel powered train to a shipping port, and then coming across the Atlantic by a diesel powered ship, and then burnt in a power station in the UK.

And hey presto, we say that it's zero carbon. I think we've got to do better than that as we progress a net zero future, and I do not want to see us conned and and really just kidding ourselves and the public that we're doing something for the right reasons. We're actually we're creating more CO2. So I'd like that type of assurance from the Minister.

16:05

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Amendment three, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Moylan, seeks the noble Lord Lord Moylan, seeks to prevent the revenue certainty mechanism from supporting Power-to-liquid sustainable aviation projects. But as the noble Lord, Lord Earl Russell notes, amendment seven from the noble Lord Lord Ravensdale in fact produces the reverse, which is that it would require the Secretary of State to enter into at least one revenue certainty contract with the SAF producer that is using Power-to-liquid technology.

We believe that there is value in potentially supporting power to liquid fuels because they have a high greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential, lower competition for their feedstocks, and lower risks of wider environmental issues such as land use change. Adapt. Adopting either of these amendments would limit the government's negotiation flexibility by setting criteria in advance, which could ultimately reduce overall value for money in the contracts agreed, the government will establish a fair and transparent contract allocation process to assess each project's costs, benefits and risks, and it's important that the government government retains the flexibility to support a range of technologies if they can deliver cost effective greenhouse emission reductions and support the SAF mandate obligations, and to address the noble Lord Rowlands point whenever they are able to do so.

He can't any more than I can predict the future. And in any event, there is a sunset clause to the bill, which means that it can be extended in five yearly increments. We are currently developing our approach to allocation, and we will publish an allocation strategy, which will outline our approach to different SAF technologies and how the revenue, the the certainty mechanism will support mandate targets. Turning to amendments 14, 15 and 16. Our intention is for HEFA technology and feedstocks to be excluded from RCM contract because HEFA SAF.

I'm sorry about all these acronyms. Acronyms has already overcome many of the barriers to investment that the Revenue Certainty mechanism seeks to address. However, the SAF market is at an early stage and uncertain, so the legislation needs to remain flexible to allow for potential future changes in the market to which the revenue certainty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mechanism may need to respond. I hear our concerns on growing. Some important.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Some important. Could the noble Lord kindly repeat the beginning of that repeat the beginning of that statement where he said it was not the intention? I think it's important that the House. Here's important that the House. Here's exactly what the Minister is saying about the government's intentions on HEFA.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on HEFA. Of course, I'm very happy to repeat it. Our our intention is for HEFA technology and feedstocks to be excluded from RCM contracts, because HEFA SAF has already overcome many of the barriers to investment that the Revenue Certainty mechanism seeks to address. However, the SAF market is at an at an early stage and uncertain, so the legislation needs to remain flexible to allow for potential future changes in the market to which the revenue certainty mechanism may need to respond.

I hear our noble Lords concerns on growing crops for purposes other than food. The sustainability criteria and the revenue certainty mechanism will align with the sustainability criteria in the SAF mandate. This will be implemented through the eligibility criteria within the contract allocation process, and it will reflect the latest market and technological developments. We are actively monitoring trends to ensure the policy keeps pace with technical and commercial developments, and therefore, we have launched a call for evidence on the eligibility of crops in the SAF mandate and it will run until the 16th of March this year.

It asks for evidence on potential benefits, risks and trade offs of using crops in SAF in in SAF production. I am sure that the noble Lord McKinlay of Richborough, in his questions about carbon dioxide. The evidence on this will be provided as a consequence of of that call for evidence. The call for evidence does not propose any changes to the SAF mandate. Should there be a case to review the feedstock eligibility criteria, it would be subject to consultation and any changes would require amendments to the legislation.

We would not want to exclude specific feedstocks in the bill in case updated evidence proves that they meet the sustainability criteria for eligibility in in the SAF mandate. In answer to the noble Lord Harper points on the position of the United States. Of course we note that. But in fact, the we will we will run the consultation first to understand the questions, the answer, the evidence on the questions that that we've asked. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Ravensdale for tabling their amendments and ask that they don't press them based on the actions already being taken forward,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and to give the flexibility to ensure value for money down. Can I just press him a little on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just press him a little on the point that Lord Moylan made? So I listened very carefully both both times that he said it. If it's the times that he said it. If it's the government's intention, unless something changes to exclude HEFA, something changes to exclude HEFA, can I ask him to give a commitment that if it were the case that that intention changed and the government were to direct some contracts to be issued, which included HEFA, can I ask him that in those circumstances, a Minister would come to the Dispatch Box to set that out clearly and explicitly about what had changed and what the evidence evidence was that supported that change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Lord makes makes a fair point. I think one of the the reason why I mentioned the the the reason why I mentioned the call for evidence is precisely because actually it it would be because actually it it would be useful to have evidence from any party that cares to give it about about using crops, for example. I think I am happy to say that in those circumstances, I think those circumstances, I think somebody should come back and say something about about that, that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that position. My Lords, before the Minister, noble Lords Minister, sits down. I noble Lords Minister, sits down. I just want to thank him for, I think, making that that strong statement from the Dispatch Box on the from the Dispatch Box on the intention for HEFA technology and feedstocks to be excluded. That's further than the government has gone before in terms of its statements. And it does. It does set out clear direction of travel set out clear direction of travel for for the legislation, for the revenue mechanism.

So I thank him for that.

16:12

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, just to take the >> My Lords, just to take the separate issues separately. I mean, where you start, we in this House where you start, we in this House to government seeking powers much broader than it actually needs, broader indeed than it's actually intending to use, and quite explicitly broader than it's intending to use. So the government wants to seek power to offer a subsidy regime. Well, as I say to the character of the subsidy regime in the next group, but it wants powers to extend a subsidy regime to the production of something which requires no subsidy, because it's produced.

The technique for producing it is well established. In fact, Neste Oy, which is a Finnish company and came to see me a few weeks ago, are producing vast quantities of HEFA already in various European centres. There is no need for a subsidy for HEFA, but nonetheless the government and the government agrees that there's no need for a subsidy for HEFA. It says there's no intention of using the revenue certainty mechanism for HEFA, but nonetheless it wants to have the power.

And I think that's a bit shabby. Really, though, I do appreciate that it's willing. Now, thanks to the intervention of my noble friend Lord Harper, to come to the Dispatch Box and explain why it would want to do this, if ever it should want to do it. On power to liquid at the other end of the scale, obviously, while the noble Lord Lord Ravensdale and I were broadly in agreement on the question of HEFA and crop based fuels, we were not in agreement.

We were diametrically opposite on the question of power to liquid. I think it is. It is unfortunate that the government is giving itself the ability to launch a subsidy regime for a highly speculative fuel type of fuel, which I think should be subject to much closer parliamentary scrutiny at the time at which the government might want to offer such subsidies. But in the meantime, I'm I beg leave to withdraw. My amendment number three.

16:14

Deputy Lord Speaker.

Is it your Lordships pleasure >> Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Government amendment four move Government amendment four move formally, the question is this amendment be agreed as many of that opinion will say? Content contrary, not content, the contents have it. Amendment five Lord Grayling not moved. We come now to amendment six

16:14

Amendment:6 Lord Moylan (Conservative)

Lord Moylan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, amendment number six requires perhaps by way of introduction, a few words on, as I introduction, a few words on, as I said, the structure of the subsidy, how the subsidy actually works. Bear in mind that prior to all of Bear in mind that prior to all of this, there is, as I said earlier, a sustainable aviation fuel mandate a sustainable aviation fuel mandate put in place by a Statutory Instrument some 15 months ago, which, if you like, guarantees the demand for the product.

There is a guaranteed demand. It's like going out in simplistic terms and saying that everybody in the country has to eat half a pound of chocolate every day. Now, if that were to be the government's policy and they put that in place, then you would expect chocolate factories to spring up. Existing chocolate factories might expand, new chocolate factories would come into existence. So what is it? What is the problem? Why is it that putting the demand into place is not sufficient? Why do you need to go further? Why are factories investors not producing this stuff for which you have put in place a mandatory and growing demand over the years ahead? I don't know the answer to that, but the government has decided that putting the demand isn't in place isn't enough to satisfy our somewhat rapacious foreign investor friends.

They also need to be given a guaranteed price for the product. So not only is there going to be half a pound of chocolate eaten every day, but you're going to have to have the price, have to guarantee the price in order to get the chocolate factories to work. And that's what this bill does. This bill is not about putting the demand in place that exists. This bill is about guaranteeing the price. And the way to do that is to provide some form of subsidy.

Now, of course, a direct subsidy out of the coffers of the Treasury is almost unaffordable in our current circumstances. But it's also unnecessary because the government has, as we know, discovered in the field of wind farms and solar panels, the device of the of the contract for the difference, a contract for a difference was way of guaranteeing a price. And it's done by putting in place a counterparty separate from the government, but essentially a government glove puppet, a counterparty separate from the government, which will enter into contracts with these foreign investors to guarantee them a price.

They will negotiate the strike price. On what basis they will negotiate it, what skills they will bring to negotiating it, how they will be certain that they're not going to be given the run-around and and be sort of, you know, end up with a very adverse price. None of these things are put in place. None of these things are explained to us, and they will end up with a contract, and the contract will be in place for a number of years. And the effect of the contract will be if to increase the price of the fuel, and the increase in the price of the fuel is very likely to find its way through to tickets ticket prices.

So this is a bill which has a pretty an indirect but nonetheless fairly ineluctable consequence that it will increase airfares. And when you ask the government by how much the airfares will go up, and we're going to do that in Group five as we come later, then they say they've done an assessment and it will be per year, which I think means cumulatively every year £1.50 up or £1.50 down, they don't know. But it's a fairly small amount and fairly neutral.

But it's almost impossible to discern how they reach that conclusion or to find it very credible, because already airlines are complaining that the HEFA they have to buy already because the mandate is in place and because they've been buying it even before the mandate came in, the HEFA they're buying already is turning out to be very, very expensive indeed compared to the standard aviation fuel. Now, I think it's wrong that Parliament and the government should burden future generations for unnecessarily long periods with these additional costs of travel.

With these subsidies, and therefore, what I am proposing here is that any contract entered into by the counter, not strictly by the government, strictly by the counterparty, but under the direction of the government, any any contract entered into should have a term of no more than ten years. The Bill envisages, as I drew attention in the last group in paragraph one, subsection seven envisages a sunset clause after ten years, although it is under subsection eight, as the noble Lord, the Minister said extendable, but it has.

It has a it has a sunset clause in it, but that is not a limitation on the length of the contracts that might be entered into during that ten year period. You could quite lawfully enter into a contract with a life of 100 years within that ten year period, and I think there should be some limit put on that, because these costs will fall not on oldies like us who's flying days are sort of passing. It will fall on young people over the rest of their lives and their careers, and then there may well be no justification for it.

By then. We may well be, who knows, paying people to produce a fuel that where life has moved on, the fuel isn't necessary, but we will have to buy them out of that, and those that will be done in a way that falls on air passengers. So I think a ten year limit on the contract should be quite enough to for any foreign investor to start up this process and get it going. They have a guaranteed price for ten years, and after that they should be on their own.

And that's what the substance of this amendment is, which I beg to move.

16:21

Lord Berkeley (Labour)

- -

Proposed clause one, page two, >> Proposed clause one, page two, line 15, and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshalled List. I think this is a very interesting amendment, because a interesting amendment, because a revenue certainty contract is a noble Lord, Lord Marland said, it's wonderful for the suppliers and it presumably links in not just the price, but also the volumes, which are may change from year to year, but also the sources and and Lord, Lord opposite mentioned the issue of Drax and where that material comes from. Every year would there be a ten year guarantee price for that? And and also, if the noble Lord, Lord Harper said any, any old agricultural product which was edible, shall we say, could be covered as well, and we haven't actually we haven't ever discovered yet.

Discovered, discussed the the worry that many people have about the the amount of trees and everything else that is being cut down in the Amazon basis basin, which could also be covered by this. So I think a revenue certainty contract is is pretty difficult. And I think this amendment is a good start in at least limiting its its scope and time.

16:22

Lord Harper (Conservative)

- -

Is. My noble friend Lord Moylan set out, I think the the challenge set out, I think the the challenge or the thing you have to justify to put the revenue certainty mechanism in place in Tokyo. And it was certainly one of the things that I grappled with and challenged the industry on when I was the Secretary of State for transport, when we were developing the beginnings of this policy. As my noble friend said, the SAF mandate sets out some guaranteed demand for the industry, producing sustainable aviation fuel.

And the challenge I always had to to those thinking about investing in producing the technology, was exactly the challenge that Lord Moylan set out is if you've got guaranteed demand, what what is the barrier to producing that product? And and we discussed it a bit at committee. The logic is this it's for some of these products, it's new technology. It requires a significant upfront capital investment. And the judgement is that if you compare it to other similar sorts of investments that these investors are making, the risk is higher than those other investments.

And therefore, if you don't do something to close that gap, then you're not going to see the investment in the technology, particularly here in the United Kingdom, where we want to see the production take place, at least in part, if for no other reason than resilience. But you don't need to close. But what you're really dealing with is just closing that gap between the risks involved in producing SAF and the alternative products that those investors could invest in. And I don't think, therefore, you need an open ended contract.

You need to put some limits around it. And we can have and I'm sure the Minister will have some responses around what those limits should be, but it seems to me a very obvious one is to have a time limit on it so that investors have some certainty. They've got guaranteed demand, they've got a period when they're going to get a guaranteed price, and that should enable the risk premium to be reduced. And to see that investment, to see that production take place. If we start from the assumption that it certainly doesn't need to be an infinite period, it should therefore be fixed.

The debate is therefore just about what the length of that period should be. Now, it may be the Minister wants to come back and say the ten years proposed by my noble friend is the wrong number, the wrong limitation period. In which case I'd be very happy to listen to the arguments the noble Lord the Minister, might make about an alternative period, but I don't think the right answer is it can be any length at all, with no cap on it, and I would be much more comfortable if we put a cap on it and again at some point in the future, if it turned out that there was a clear justification for changing it, then there's nothing to stop a this government or a future government coming back to Parliament to change the position.

But I don't want to see open ended contracts in place, particularly since we have legislated for the to be guaranteed demand. So I strongly support my noble friend's amendment unless I hear a very, very good counter case from the noble Lord, the Minister.

16:25

Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lord, I respond to amendment >> My Lord, I respond to amendment six in this group, which seeks to cap the length of revenue certainty cap the length of revenue certainty contracts to a maximum of ten years. On the face of it, this might appear a neat and disciplined, but in practice we conclude it is both arbitrary and unduly restrictive. The noble Lord spoke about the need to control costs. We agree with that. I think it's also important for noble Lords, as we discuss this, to recognise that this is this.

This bill covers a range of technologies. It covers huge investments going into them, and it may also include technologies that are emerging. So ten years is not derived from any settled evidence about what different SAF projects will require. It's simply a round number written seeks to be written into this primary legislation. Some plants with high upfront capital costs and long asset lives may need longer term revenue support to be financed at all, particularly in the current high interest rate environment.

Others, especially later or more standard projects, could be perfectly viable on shorter contracts, and I'm sure that that is the government's intention for many of the projects that will be considered. But a single statutory ceiling takes no account of any of that diversity in these emerging markets. And I don't know that it's really for us to know better than what the government will know and what officials will deal with in the detail that they will, that we don't have. This amendment also seeks also is also restrictive because it removes one of the government key design levers, the ability to adjust contract length between technologies and over time in response to costs and market maturity is fundamental to achieving value for money.

If we fix ten years on the face of the bill, any future government who judges that 12 or 15 year terms is necessary to secure a first of a kind project would be unable to do so without further primary legislation. This rigidity could also play into commercial hands, encouraging developers to structure bids around fixed terms in ways that actually undermine the very affordability that is spoken about. While the intention is understandable, imposing an arbitrary timeline would remove the flexibility and pragmatism that any evidence led scheme requires.

It would, in effect, ask the government to negotiate with one hand tied behind its back. We do not believe that this amendment is helpful in this emerging market, but we do think that it is important that contracts are reviewed. And on that, I might just ask the Minister, in terms of reporting later on whether whether length of caps that are imposed under this bill is something that the Minister would be prepared to include in the reporting information that's made available.

16:29

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, amendment six seeks the Secretary of State must set a maximum contract term for revenue certainty contracts before exercising the regulation making power. In clause six, I would just draw the my noble's attention to the the overall intention of this bill, which is to generate a a new and growing United Kingdom industry, and hopefully, contrary to what the noble Lords Lord Moylan said, financed in the United Kingdom as well. We are currently consulting on the detailed design of the Revenue Certainty Mechanism.

The consultation provides the rationale behind the indicative heads of Terms, which sets out the framework for principal terms and conditions that could be included in a Revenue Certainty Mechanism contract, as highlighted in the government's continuing consultation, we are proposing a 15 year term for all contracts. This aligns with the expected 10 to 15 year debt repayment period that sack producers will encounter. It is important that this flexibility is retained and not restricted by detail and contract length. On the face of the bill, final decisions are subject to the continuing consultation, which will inform the detailed design of the full terms and condition of revenue.

Certainty certainty mechanism contracts. In response to noble Earl Russell, I'm sure that we can find a reporting mechanism which sets out the actual length of those contracts. In answer to his question, I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord Lord Brennan to withdraw amendment six.

16:30

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I'm disappointed by that answer. One can look at this issue in a number of ways, but the way I look at it is the responsibility we have to future generations and not to burden them with excessive costs. On on a speculative basis. The government is consulting its consulting, no doubt with the foreign investors who are considering making the investments in these plants. If they listen to the foreign investors. Of course, the longest possible term is what they will hear bid for.

I think we need to be tougher, and it's for us to put to put the case of those who are voiceless in this consultation, namely the people and in many cases the young people, because they'll be the ones paying in the future who are going to have to sustain this. So I'm afraid I'm not satisfied with the answer given by the noble Lord, the Minister. And I do wish to test the opinion of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House on my amendment. The question is that amendment six be agreed, as many of that opinion will say, content. Content opinion will say, content. Content to the contrary, not content. Not content. The question will be decided by a division. I will notify the House when voting is notify the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the

16:32

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is.

16:35

Legislation: Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill: Division:Amendment:6

16:44

Amendment:8 Lord Grayling (Conservative)

I hope he's going to be able to reassure me on these. Let me take these in turn. Amendment eight is simply to try and avoid the government pulling a fast one and raising money from air passengers and spending it on something completely unrelated. And what I'm looking for is cast iron on the record assurance from the Minister. That cannot happen under the terms of the bill. We know that government departments on occasions try and slip things under the counter. I'm just simply seeking absolute assurance that that will not happen in this particular case.

Amendment nine basically seeks to achieve the same thing. Amendment ten is, and this I think, is still the the crucial operational point for this legislation, which is where and how do you actually apply the levy now, the government, the Minister knows I have had serious misgivings, as have many people, about the plan to try and apply a mechanism that relates to market share in the previous year and to do it the year after, and the rest, which I think would be completely unworkable and of course, distorts the market.

If you have new entrants, if you have people leaving the market. And the one thing we do not want to do in this is to end up undermining the existing producers of aviation fuel who are carrying an extra cost. But we don't want to do is have them closing and going elsewhere, because we've not got this right. And I remain persuaded that the way to do this is to levy a charge at or around the time of delivery, the time which is delivered from the refinery to the airline or from the terminal to the airline.

Now, I appreciate that it may be something you do one month in arrears so that you look at the previous monthly invoice accordingly. I don't have a problem with that, but I have a problem with anything that is looser than that. So I'm really looking to the Minister to explain tonight how this is going to work. And I know the government are still working all the details, but what we can't do is have some mechanism that tries to refer back years in the past.

What we need is something that is current, relevant and reflects changes in the marketplace and applies the costs in a timely way to those who are producing the fuel. So there's fuel, so there's no distortion of the marketplace. And then if I take this on to amendments 17 and 18, and this is really about the timing of the legislation, we know that we are maybe 4 or 5 years away, hopefully slightly less from the first significant SAF plant being operational in this country.

What we can't do is have a situation where the levy starts to be applied now and is just piling up in the background with nothing to spend it on. So I'm looking for an explanation for the Minister is exactly how the commencement of this legislation will work. I have proposed in amendments that it should be six months before the first manufacturing facility comes on stream. The Minister may have an alternative suggestion to make to me, but we can't have a situation where commencement is imminent and the actual operation of the bill is years and years away.

So again, I'm looking for assurance and explanation for the Minister on this so that we know absolutely that we're not charging our passengers today for something that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is years in the future. Thank you. Wish to move amendment six.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wish to move amendment six. Amendment eight. I will, if I may, wait to see what the Minister says.

16:48

Deputy Lord Speaker. Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)

says. >> Amendment proposed clause six, page four, line 19 after. >> Contracts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Contracts. Insert the words as printed on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshalled List. I have one amendment in this group, which is amendment 11, and

16:48

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

- -

it's substantially coincides with amendment ten, in the name of my amendment ten, in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling. But perhaps I should just take a minute to explain in my perhaps rather to explain in my perhaps rather more simple terms, what what, what mischief these amendments are mischief these amendments are seeking to address. The question is the mechanism is going to work like the mechanism is going to work like this. I gave some idea of the mechanism when we spoke in the last group.

Contracts will be entered into by a counterparty. A fixed price will be guaranteed under a contract for the difference. That means if the prices are below a certain price, then the contract the counterparty will collect money by way of a levy, and if they're the other way round, he'll pay out. In order to ensure that the producer receives a fixed price. Who is going to be charged the levy? We know that economically, ultimately the levy will be paid by the passenger on the flight, but who is going to be charged the levy? And the government has decided, and we're not disputing this, that the charge should be levied at the levy should be charged at the highest point in the supply chain, which is the producer of aviation fuel, and that that is standard aviation fuel, kerosene, essentially, and that they should be the ones who have to mix in the they will mix in the, the SAF to the required amount, whichever type of SAF it is, but they will pay the levy if a levy is required, that is, if the prices are such that levy has to be paid.

And as I say, we don't object to them. To them being the levy payers. The question is how is the levy calculated and then applied to them? The government's proposal is that the levy should be calculated a year in arrears, and then applied to them as a charge, which they have to pay in arrears at that point, according to the market share that they had in that year. Now, that's all very well, you might say, and very convenient from the government's point of view, because it knows exactly at that point it will know exactly how much it has to charge.

And so there'll be no difficulty, no question of having the wrong charge paid and having to make up bits later, no question of the counterparty being out of funds by a penny. They will know exactly by the end of the year what should be charged, and they will distribute it to the producers according to their market share, which will also be known by that point their market share during that year. The difficulty for the producers is that they will not know during the year in which they are selling the fuel, what they should be charging the airlines to cover the cost of the levy.

And it's accepted that they should charge the airlines, because that's the way it trickles down to the passenger. So they won't know during that year how much levy they're going to have to pay at the end of the year, so they will not know how much they should be charging per litre of fuel that they sell. And they would prefer because it's more easy, it's easier for them. It avoids this complexity. They would prefer if they were told a price per litre, which they should charge, and it could even be apparent on their invoices that this was the charge that they were making in respect of the levy.

In addition to the the fuel, it's the base kerosene fuel itself. Now that of course, if the government were to do that, I do see this would expose the counterparty to some financial risk because they would have to work on the basis of estimates. They would have to estimate how much what what what the prices were going to be during that period, and therefore they'd be exposed to some financial risk, which I imagine, I imagine that behind the noble Lord, the Minister, there is a middle ranking official in the Treasury saying you cannot take any financial risk that will fall upon the government or any entity associated with the government, but the the what the government is proposing is fundamentally sort of unworkable, because the only way in which the producers can handle this is to protect themselves by charging, by overcharging, they will overcharge to compensate themselves for the levy.

And so that transparency of the levy travelling through the the chain of command, so to speak, down to the the ticket payer is going to be obscured and they've left one in no doubt when one speaks to them, this is the only mechanism they will have. So I think there is a real point of workability about the bill, which has not been addressed. Now, I know, I don't know this. I imagine the government, the noble Lord, the Minister, will respond by saying, oh, but we're having a consultation.

And it does seem to me that I just want to raise a futile protest. But I do want to raise this point of protest. Since I have the opportunity, wouldn't it have been better if the government had done the consultation and then brought forward the legislation? Why is it that we have to have the legislation before we know the results of a consultation with the industry, so that we don't actually know what is workable? So I suspect the noble Lord, the Minister will say that.

But but I'm afraid it's not a very satisfactory thing that we're asked to pass this legislation with that question, that important question of workability still outstanding. I may, of course, be wrong, and it may be that the government can explain that it is perfectly workable, but nobody has been able as yet to establish what what that workability, what that workable solution is.

16:54

Lord Harper (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I just wanted to speak >> My Lords, I just wanted to speak very briefly to support my noble friend Lord Moylan amendment. It's very important, I think, particularly when we come on to later groups and we're talking about the ultimate impact of this, which is it will have effectively fallen to the, as all taxes do, onto the end consumer, that we make sure this is as simple and straightforward process. So we can actually explain to people what we're doing, why we're doing it, and what the cost is.

And I think that's always to be welcomed in policy making. The second point is it should be workable and straightforward to aviation fuel producers. They're the ones that we've chosen to put the mandate on. So we're giving them the legal responsibility to produce sustainable aviation fuel and blend it with their regular fuel. And what the current structure does is it transfers the level of financial risk to them. And I agree with my noble friend Lord Moylan. I suspect what's behind this.

And the Minister can tell us we're wrong if we are, is that the Treasury wants to make sure, not entirely unreasonably, that there is no risk to the taxpayer. But of course, in doing so, all that's happened is the risk has been moved onto the fuel supplier. And as my noble friend Lord Moylan says, and I've thought about it as well and, and listened to the industry, it seems to me that what they're going to end up having to do to deal with the risk is increase what they charge the airlines.

And so rather than the the cost and the risk fall on the Treasury and the taxpayer, it effectively still falls on the taxpayer. But just in their guise as passenger on the airline, who's going to be facing a higher ticket price. And I don't think economically that's very sensible. The industry is very clear that the Treasury shouldn't be picking up the costs for this. The only thing that I think would be sensible is if we had a per unit price, there would be some risk in the short term for the Treasury, but that will be able to be smoothed out over time.

And the government is perfectly able to do that. And it seems to me that would be a much better solution. And I hope the Minister can at least indicate that that's where the government's thinking is. If he's not able to do that, then I suggest my noble friend Lord Moylan is correct, which is that perhaps we should have done the detail before doing the legislation rather than the other way round.

16:57

Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I speak to this group >> My Lords, I speak to this group of amendments that deal with the design and timings of the revenue certainty mechanisms and the levy. certainty mechanisms and the levy. While I recognise concerns that lie behind them around fiscal discipline, transparency and fairness, I do not believe that these amendments are the right way to address those concerns. We have spent considerable time talking with industry and talking with officials, and I'm thankful to the officials of the Minister for taking the time to talk to us.

We note that the consultation closed on the 8th of January. We have reflected concerns that industry have raised with us, with officials, and we are pleased that we've had the opportunity to do that. We do have confidence that Ministers, officials and industry are all working together in what is a complex space to find practical and workable solutions that balance a number of competing agendas. Added to this, I remind the House that these mechanisms will be subject to Statutory Instruments under the affirmative procedure.

Turning to the amendments, amendment eight, in the name of noble Lord Grayling would specify that the levy under clause six can only fund contracts in respect of sustainable aviation fuel manufactured in the United Kingdom. While we recognise the intention here and we have some sympathy for it, we believe that the concessions already granted by the Minister in Group one fundamentally deal with this with this issue and give greater assurances to the House that this the levy will be only used for those purposes.

Amendment nine, also in the name of noble Lord Grayling, would narrow the other costs that can be met from the levy to those associated with directly related administration. Obviously, my Lords, guarding against drift of levy funds into unrelated processes is absolutely right, but the formulation risks over tightening. In our opinion, it could exclude legitimate and necessary scheme related expenditures, such as certain forms of oversight, enforcement, market enabling activity and the reporting that will come onto in the final group.

And these would be unintended consequences. The bill already confines the levy to the purposes of the mechanism, and regulations can and should be scrutinised by Parliament. But we believe that these restrictions would be too tight. Amendment ten, also in the name of noble Lord Grayling, would mandate that the levy is applied to conventional aviation fuel at the point where it is drawn from the refinery, terminal or bulk storage facility for supply to the UK aviation market. The aim is to align the existing fuel duty system and provide a clear collection point is seemingly sensible, however, ensuring a single mandatory collection point in the bill reduces flexibility to adapt the levy design to supply chains, evolves as new fuels and blends enter the market, or, as experience suggests, a different point would be less problematic.

The bill deliberately leaves these detailed mechanisms of collection of regulations following consultation with industry and relevant authorities. Again, we believe that this consultation is a better means of dealing with these particular details. Amendment 11 from the noble Lord Lord Moylan would reduce the current drafting of the levy obligation, with the requirement for suppliers to pay a standard levy expressed in pence per litre and shown on invoices. Transparency, simplicity and a visible fence pence per litre rate are all attractive features, many of which we would like to see these principles in practice.

But writing this specific model into primary legislation at this stage, when active negotiations are ongoing on these matters, locks the government into one particular form of levy design and invoicing. Regardless of how fuel mix changes or whether in time a different basis, or perhaps reflecting energy emissions content would be more appropriate. These design choices, balancing in regulation and scheme rules where they can be fine tuned, fine tuned, are better there and not fixing them on the face of the bill.

We do, however, want to see further progress on these matters so that solutions can be found that work for both industry and government, and we reserve the right to challenge EAC should these continues, these issues continue to persist by that point. Finally, on amendments 17 and 18, in the name of noble Lord Grayling, these would alter commencement so that section six, and thus the levy cannot come into force until a domestic producer is judged to be within six months of operation, holding a revenue certainty contract, and the Secretary of State has laid a notice before Parliament.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the concern that underlines these amendments. No one wants money to be collected significantly in advance of there being any realistic prospects of payments following to producers. However, the proposed solution introduces a series of subjective and likely to be contested tests into the commencement provisions, where a producer is expected to operate within six months and where the conditions are met at a particular moment expected, is no more legally defined than the length of a piece of string.

Those are not straightforward or binary assessments, and can themselves lead to contested issues in the courts trying to start the levy, trying to start tying the starter levy to these judgements risks injecting uncertainty and legal issues into the bill. My Lords, the Bill as drafted give the government a clear, predictable route to bring the levy into force and the allocation contract under the transparency criteria. And we believe that this is the better course of action. Again, my Lords, reporting requirements secured in the last group will help to monitor all of these issues.

In the last group. Sorry, I share the aims of value for money, clarity and fairness and revenue around the revenue certainty mechanisms and we support the aims of these bills. But we we we are concerned that these amendments as drafted are too arbitrary and would actually, in many cases be have unknown consequences, reduce flexibility, and actually have serious consequences for the ability for this bill to go forward.

17:04

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)

- -

Thank you. for this debate. Amendments eight and nine, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Grayling seek to address how funds from the levy are used. I am happy to reassure the noble Lord from this Dispatch Box that monies raised through the levy will only be used to support eligible staff plants in the United Kingdom, and that this is already set out in the bill. Clause six restricts the costs incurred by the county party under the Revenue Certainty Contract and in carrying out its functions under the bill.

Under this clause, the levy funds will only be used to meet the cost of the Revenue Certainty Mechanism scheme. It is important that the counterparty is able to recover its costs, which include the cost of administering the contracts, the levy and the payment of surpluses. Amendment ten intends to ensure that the specific mandatory point at which the supplier becomes liable to pay the levy. The government agrees with the intention of the amendment, however, believes that it is unnecessary because because clause six, bracket seven of the bill already provides that a person becomes liable to pay the levy at the same point when they become liable to an obligation under the SAF mandate.

In regard to how individual levy contributions are calculated, it's important that the bill provides sufficient flexibility to ensure that final levy design decisions deliver our design principles, including simplicity, solvency, affordability and fairness. The government is currently reviewing responses to its recent consultation on the detailed design of the levy, and engaging with stakeholders to deliver these objectives. I remind noble Lords that the regulations made under clause six brackets one to set out how the levy will work, will be subject to scrutiny under the affirmative procedure, which will give Parliament the opportunity to continue to consider the approach.

Amendment 17 and 18, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Grayling. Excuse me, seek to prevent the levy from from being imposed until a domestic sustainable aviation fuel producer is approaching readiness to receive payments under the act. I would like to reassure the noble Lord that the purpose of the levy, as set out in clause six, is to meet the costs of payments made by the counterparty to producers and to cover the county party's administrative costs. The costs of payments under RCM contracts will only be ensured once eligible.

SAF is being produced and sold by producers who have entered into RCM contracts, which is the outcome sought by these amendments. Government is also currently reviewing responses to its recent consultation on levy design. Some stakeholders have expressed a desire to build up a reserve fund prior to the first producer payments, which could help smooth out costs of the scheme and help manage risks and under forecasting, required payments. As government considers its response to the consultation, it's important that the bill retains a degree of flexibility around levy design, which will be set out via secondary legislation and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

The noble Lord Lord Moynihan amendment 11 intends to introduce a standardised rate for the levy. We are currently reviewing responses to our recent consultation on the detailed design of the levy, and continue to engage with stakeholders to help inform the drafting of levy regulations. Within the consultation, we sought views on the publication of a forecast levy rate expressed in pence per litre, which could help provide greater transparency for the supply chain. The bill is drafted, does not specify a particular mechanism, and allows the Secretary of State to consider a range of options for calculating the levy paid by individual companies.

It is important that this bill retains a degree of flexibility around levy design, which will be set out via secondary legislation and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, I do not consider the amendment to be necessary to reassure noble Lords the government is alive to the potential impacts of different levy designs, and recognises industry's desire for certainty and transparency, whilst also ensuring fairness and affordability for the consumer. We recognise that the levy must be dynamic and responsive to the changing market, whilst also ensuring that the counterparty has funds to make payments under the scheme.

But to be clear, this levy will not be used to generate unnecessary funds and will only raise sufficient monies to cover the county party's costs under the Revenue Certainty Scheme. Whilst final decisions will be informed by the consultation, were exploring options that deliver this and many of the proposals and options set out in that consultation could help provide greater certainty and transparency. And as I have said, the levy regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will allow further parliamentary scrutiny.

I hope noble Lords will note the steps the government has taken in the levy design and that, therefore they will not press their amendments.

17:09

Lord Grayling (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I'm grateful to the >> My Lords, I'm grateful to the Minister for a detailed explanation of the situation. I'm greatly reassured by what he's said. What reassured by what he's said. What matters in all of this is that we provide the right balance. This is something the airlines are calling for, but we do not want it to unduly penalise fare payers, and we do not want it to end up with disinvestment in conventional aviation fuel. And so I would say to the Minister, I'm reassured by much of what he said, but I'm looking to him and his colleagues over the coming months to ensure that that balance is properly found, that we don't end up with a piece of legislation that has unintended consequences.

He made a point about reserve I. Absolutely. The reason I propose six months, I believe, is absolutely essential to have a short period of reserve building, but that must only be a short period. It can't be year after year after year. That was the the point of my amendment. I am reassured by what he said. I will watch with interest what the government does, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

17:10

Deputy Lord Speaker. Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Labour)

This amendment be withdrawn. The >> This amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments nine and ten Lord Amendments nine and ten Lord Grayling not moved. Not moved. Amendment 11 Lord Moylan not moved after clause 14. Amendment 12 Lord Moylan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, so excuse me. So we've worked our way through what all of

17:10

Amendment:12 Lord Moylan (Conservative)

worked our way through what all of this SAF is. We worked our way through the mechanism by which it's going to be subsidised and how it's going to fall upon the passenger, but how much is going to fall on but how much is going to fall on the passenger? What is it actually going to cost? How is it? How is it going to strike? How is it going to going to strike? How is it going to hit your pocket? Now, we are not completely in the dark on this subject.

We have a revenue certainty mechanism, cost benefit analysis produced by the department in May 2025 and in paragraph 423 4.23, it says that overall, the revenue certainty mechanism, it has a lot of hedging in it. But it comes down to saying the likely impact on ticket prices is between -£1.50 and plus £1.50 on average per year. I take it that the per year means that it will go up by one. In the worst case scenario, it would go up by £1.50 a year.

So over a ten year period it would be £15. But this is a highly speculative document. It has quite a large amount of numerical material attached to it, but it remains highly speculative nonetheless because effectively what it has to do is, is guess the price of standard kerosene fuel out into future years, and the cost of SAF under mechanisms which have yet to be negotiated. So we don't know what they are going to be. But nonetheless, that is the figure that the government is presenting to Parliament and to the public as being the cost and the pain of this particular measure.

And my amendment number 12, which I think is of capital importance, requires the government to ensure that this prediction of theirs is not lost in the mists of time, that this document and its does not become waste paper, and that the government therefore should be required periodically, I think annually, the amendment says, to produce a report showing what it is actually costing in terms of ticket price, which is not, of course, straightforward for the producers of the aviation fuel to calculate, because they are at the top end of the supply chain and they wouldn't be able to know how it worked out.

So they can tell you what the levy was, but they wouldn't tell you how it translated into ticket price. So that's what the amendment does. I think it's essential because in all of this, we we privilege the the discussions that we have with the foreign investors who are going to build these plants. And we privilege the discussions. We have to some extent with the fuel producers on whom the levy is going to fall. And it is very easy, as I say, to forget the voice of the consumer and the people who year after year are going to be paying more, more to travel.

That's a significant sum if you are a family of four going on holiday, and I think we should be reminded of that through the government, so to speak, putting its money where its mouth is and agreeing to report on these effects every year out into the future. So with that, I beg to move my amendment number 12.

17:14

Lord Harper (Conservative)

- -

Amendment proposed after clause >> Amendment proposed after clause 14, insert the new clause printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Marshalled List. Arise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Moylan amendment noble friend Lord Moylan amendment for all of the reasons that he set out. But I think it's also important because if you look at the public opinion polling on this, the public do want they they do support aviation and flying and they want to continue doing it. They do support it being made more sustainable. But I also think it's important that we're just very transparent about that.

We've seen in other areas, for example, in energy production, where it's not entirely clear the costs of decarbonising our energy production. And that leads to suspicion. It leads to people who are not in favour of decarbonising energy production, being able to make mischief. I think this is much better if we could be transparent about it. It also, by being transparent, keeps downward pressure on costs because it means the government will know when it's directing those negotiations and directing those revenue support contracts.

It will know one of the things it will have. Helping to keep the costs under control is knowing that the impact on the end consumer is going to be very transparent and have to be explained and justified, and I think that's very helpful in putting a counterweight to the pressure there will be from investors in delivering a revenue certainty mechanism and a higher price for sustainable aviation fuel. That transparency and the impact on consumers, I think, is a very useful counterweight to that.

It also means that government will have to keep under review the benefits of this policy and the extent to which it is or isn't delivering sustainable aviation fuel. And I think regularly having to just test that and have that exposed in public. And I think doing it once a year is not an unreasonable frequency. I think also has a real benefit to the development of public policy. So for both of those reasons, I support my noble friend's amendment, and I look forward to listening to the Minister in responding and frankly, can't see any good reason why having some transparency isn't a good idea.

So I sort of, perhaps more in optimism than than experience. I look forward to the Minister saying that the amendment is fantastic and he can accept it. And if he can't do that, accepting that perhaps it's not drafted as well as it might be. And he commits to coming forward at Third Reading with a better drafted amendment that does basically the same thing. And I look forward to hearing him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say just that in a moment. My Lord, I rise to speak to amendment 12. In this group tabled by the noble Lord Lord Moylan, concerning the potential impacts of concerning the potential impacts of this act on airline ticket prices. I entirely understand the motivation behind the amendment. Passengers and airlines alike deserve transparency about how the deserve transparency about how the levy costs flow through to fares. But what I do want to make clear is this transparency is in place already in the bill.

And actually, this amendment is not a particularly good way of improving upon that transparency on these on these benches, we accept that the will the will be. Reasonable and affordable costs involved in introducing a revenue certainty mechanism, costs that reflect the

17:17

Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)

- -

necessary investment to drive the transition to sustainable aviation fuel. However, we cannot support fuel. However, we cannot support this amendment for several practical reasons. Amendment 12 would require the Secretary of State within one year of Royal Assent, to publish a report assessing the impact of the Revenue Certainty mechanism on ticket prices, including whether the average increase exceeds £1.50 per average increase exceeds £1.50 per ticket per year, followed by further annual reports for as long as the mechanism operates.

The intention is fair, but the proposed process is largely unworkable. In our opinion, the mechanism itself would take time to design, consult on and implement. Contracts will not be allocated immediately and levy collection will ramp up gradually as supply chains mature within 12 months, there would be no meaningful data to analyse, only speculative modelling. A report produced on that basis was lack credibility and offer little value to Parliament or consumers. So in the early days, as required under this amendment, as it is drafted, it would provide very little value or information at all.

Moreover, the Bill and its associated frameworks already provide robust reporting obligations. So I say again, this is not a choice between this amendment to provide transparency or no transparency, that that is not the choice. The government will lay reports before Parliament on levy design, contracts allocation, production volumes and market development. These will give members regular insights into the performance and the cost trends associated with the bill. In addition, airlines who are best placed to assess the costs pass through to fares will report on the sustainable aviation fuel uptake and related costs under the SAF mandate and wider and wider aviation reporting requirements.

That industry driven data will provide a timelier and a more accurate picture of the real world price effects that than a separate government study could ever hope to achieve. There are also serious practical and cost concerns. Calculating per ticket impacts would require access to commercially sensitive data, such as flight occupancy levels, which the government do not hold and cannot compel airlines to divulge without imposing disruptive burdens. Establishing a separate perpetual reporting duty would therefore create unnecessary bureaucracy and expense without improving the transparency.

The government readily expects that airlines will report on the impact of this bill on air tickets. The practical solution is to build on existing reporting channels, refine them through guidance if needed, rather than introducing an additional obligation that cannot deliver meaningful insights at the required pace. My Lords, we share the desire for transparency and recognise that costs must be visible and fairly borne to for this market to work. But amendment 12 is not the right way to do that.

The information it seeks will already be available through integrated, industry based reporting mechanisms. Ministers and officials both expect that this will be reported. I therefore urge the House to reject this amendment and support the government's practical approach to these problems.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, bearing in mind the noble Lord Moylan diligent research noble Lord Moylan diligent research on sustainable aviation fuel, I've resisted repeating the general aims resisted repeating the general aims of this of this bill. But I do just want to say that the government is in respect of amendment 12. The government is committed to keeping government is committed to keeping air travel affordable for UK holidaymakers and UK air travellers, whilst fostering the development of whilst fostering the development of a United Kingdom sustainable aviation fuel industry.

As the noble Lord, Earl Russell said, it will take time for contract negotiations, it will take time for sustainable aviation fuel plants to be constructed, and it will take time for the fuel itself to be produced and sold before any meaningful effect on fares can be assessed. The government's cost benefit analysis, from which the noble Lord Moylan quoted of the revenue Certainty certainty mechanism that was published last year, is the most reliable estimate of its likely impact on passenger airfares over this period, given that little has changed since the since that cost benefit analysis was produced.

This amendment is unnecessary as it would merely produce the same answer. I hope my explanation is sufficient for the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

17:22

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, it was open to the noble Lord, the Minister, to take noble Lord, the Minister, to take up the offer of my noble friend Lord Harper, and suggest that any Lord Harper, and suggest that any infelicities in the drafting of the amendment, for example, the requirement that it should the requirement that it should the first report should happen in the first year, could be dealt with through his offering to bring forward an amendment himself at Third Reading that was drafted with the benefit of government legal advice, but he hasn't done so.

He has no difficulty with relying on speculative reports that claim to estimate the cost of this measure. But he doesn't want to have reports based on actual experience at due time in the future. As I say, there is a voice that is not being heard in this except from these benches, and that's the voice of the consumer. We will not give up on the consumer. And I wish, my Lords to test the opinion of the House on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my amendment number 12. Amendment 12 be agreed to. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 12 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content to the contrary, not content. Not content. The question will be decided by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be decided by a division. I will alert the House when voting is open. Voting is now

17:24

Division

>> There's one thing. >> There's one thing. Yes, >> There's one thing. Yes, yes.

17:24

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

- -

17:24

Division

17:36

Amendment: 13 Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)

of technology and production in the UK. That's why we on these benches feel it is important that we have full transparency so that we can understand how the revenue certainty mechanism is working, the impact on the sector and how we are developing this new sector in the UK. And this also helps the passenger to in terms of information. So my amendment 13 asks for a report covering a number of important areas, such as the volume of SAF produce supplied to and used in the UK.

The types of SAF, an estimate of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the production and uptake and use of SAF by air travel providers. So this is about ensuring the public and industry can see the impact of this policy and the revenue certainty mechanism, and this would ensure clarity about progress towards sustainable aviation fuel targets. This requirement for reporting is a simple measure that we believe would help with the understanding of this bill. Reporting on progress I would like to thank the civil servants who have met with my noble friend Earl Russell and myself over recent weeks, and have been listening to our concerns.

I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will see the amendment as adding value to the bill and look forward to his response. I beg to move amendment 13. Amendment proposed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 14, insert the new clause printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. Lords, I rise to support this amendment. We discussed it at some amendment. We discussed it at some length at the Report stage and the amendments that I put down then, amendments that I put down then, and other noble Lords supported was basically to cover the the basically to cover the the relationship between. The sustainable aviation fuel used for aeroplanes and the same fuel used for home heating, and I declare an interest as having a boiler in Cornwall, which survives very well

17:38

Lord Berkeley (Labour)

- -

on home heating. My Lords, what's on home heating. My Lords, what's interesting is that sustainable aviation fuel produced through the aviation fuel produced through the HEFA process generates hydrotreated vegetable oil HVO as a by-product vegetable oil HVO as a by-product and it accounts HVO accounts for approximately 30% of the output, which is a significant amount, and it should shouldn't be overlooked. And if you use HVO, it can play an essential role in helping to decarbonise the 1.7 million oil heated households who are off the gas grid.

And they can't well, they've got otherwise. They use electricity, which is of course, expensive. But last month we had a delegation from a village in Cornwall called Cahill and who've all been trying out HVO in their houses for about three years, and they travelled, left at two in the morning to meet the Minister of DESNZ to present their response to the consultation that we've discussed earlier. 500 mile round trip is, you know, they're pretty committed.

But I think what is interesting is that they described the, the, the, the experience of using the fuel, how highlighting that renewable, renewable liquid fuels can cut emissions from home heating by up to 88%, compared with kerosene 88%. My Lords, is is a figure worth having and they work simply as a drop in replacement. And the government's own consultation on this said that the this was the most cost effective option for off grid consumers. Of all the all those considered.

But my Lords the the consultation still questions the feedstock availability for the fuel which again we've discussed in earlier amendments today. It's puzzling that the DFT is confident that there's more than enough feedstock to boost SAF production by 22%, and the research done by the industry, the EU Commission and the Irish government all indicate that there is enough feedstock. Again, we've discussed that at length. So, my Lords, I was pleased to welcome the government's confirmation in a written answer that the targets under the SAF and the Rtfo mandates are set considering global availability of feedstocks and competing demands between transport and across sectors of the economy.

And I close quote. So which does seem to highlight there's enough material for both aviation and home heating. And I think it would be a great shame if we pitted one sector against the other, rather than try to have a bit more. You can call it cohabitation in between. So I would like to. I believe the solution to incentivise HVO production, a renewable liquid heating fuel obligation needs to be implemented. I think that's the solution triggering section 159 of the Energy Act, which would create the necessary market mechanism in a similar way to the SAF mandate and the Rtfo to give certainty to the industry to distribute HVO to households at an affordable price.

So I'd hope that I can persuade my noble friend when he responds to try and ensure that his department, Department of Transport and DESNZ are working hand in hand to ensure that we can scale up the production of sustainable aviation fuel and capture the benefits of HVO for home heating. So I mustn't keep on asking him for meetings every day, but it'll be very nice to have if he would accept a meeting between myself and the Minister for Energy Security.

A colleague, Lord Whitehead and himself, to discuss the benefits of this approach, and the consultation closes today. It

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seems to be the right time to to meet. HEFA.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

HEFA. My Lords, I have to confess to being a little perplexed when the being a little perplexed when the noble Lady Lady Pigeon moved this amendment or presented it to the amendment or presented it to the house, because having just listened to the speech of her colleague, the noble Earl Russell, in explaining noble Earl Russell, in explaining why what I thought was a perfectly reasonable proposal by my noble friend Lord Moylan simply to

17:43

Lord Harper (Conservative)

- -

publish and have some transparency about ticket prices. The noble Earl about ticket prices. The noble Earl Russell set out a whole raft of reasons why that was entirely unreasonable and incredibly difficult and completely unnecessary and bureaucratic and costly, and why we shouldn't bother ourselves with it, and then proceeded to not support my noble friend's amendment. And although I friend's amendment. And although I disagree with the noble Earl, he made, you know, some perfectly reasonable arguments, just not ones that I agree with.

And then I'm perplexed because his noble friend stands up and tables and puts down an amendment which he explains, which is actually really got very comprehensive, some really quite significant reporting requirements on the government, and seems to be completely at odds with the argument that Earl Russell just made. So let me just step through for the benefit of the House. So at the moment, the the bill, unless I've misread it as set out, doesn't have any significant reporting and transparency requirements in it, except it does require the registration and publication of contracts.

So in clause three, the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the designated counterparty to maintain a register of information in relation to the contracts. May doesn't make it compulsory and publish the revenue certainty contracts or details about them. So that's welcome because that means that we will know who the contracts are with the broad terms of those contracts. I suspect some of the information may not be able to be published because it's commercially confidential, but that is helpful. That doesn't, of course, enable us to work out the impact on ticket prices or the impact on the consumer, which is what my noble friend Lord Moylan previous amendment was trying to deliver.

The noble Lady, Lady Pigeon. What she wants to do is have, in respect of each reporting period, which is a period of a year beginning with January of this year, each subsequent period of a year. So the reason why I mention that is for each of those periods, she wants a report to be produced. Now, in his response to the previous amendment, Earl Russell said that was completely impractical because so much would. Nothing much would have happened straight away. And we're at a very early stage, and it would be very difficult for my noble the government to do what my noble friend Lord Moylan said.

But here, just a few moments later, his colleague on their front bench is suggesting that actually every year, starting from this year, when all of the same arguments I would have thought applied must produce this, this report. And it's not just a simple report like the one my noble friend Lord Moylan suggested, which just set out the impact on ticket prices, something which is presumably possible because, as the noble Lord, the Minister set out, the government has already produced an analysis of the impact on ticket prices, using the information at its disposal and its modelling.

And so it can't be that complicated to do the impact on ticket prices. The noble Lady, Lady Pigeon wants the report to include and, by the way, include but not limited to. So actually quite an expansive report. The total volume of sustainable aviation fuel produced, supplied to and used in the United Kingdom. So that's actually quite a significant amount of information. She also wants the types of sustainable aviation fuel involved, including the feedstocks and the production pathways used and the volume attributable to each type.

Now, that seems to me quite a significant amount of information to be required for multiple producers and not just producers in this country. This seems seems to suggest that it's also those supplied to the United Kingdom. So that's requiring information the government having to collect from producers of SAF overseas as well, and an assessment of the development and conversion of sites for SAF production within the United Kingdom. And it seems to me now that seems to be quite straightforward, but also an estimate of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the production and use of sustainable aviation fuel.

Now, that's that's quite difficult, because it means you've got to look at how much stuff has been produced, how it's been blended with existing aviation fuel, and how that then flows through to what is a global problem. And I'm not entirely sure how the government would, would carry out such an analysis, but it seems to me, again, very much more significant complexity than simply looking at the impact on ticket prices, which we were told just moments ago by the noble Ladies colleague.

That was all too difficult and very complicated and really quite unnecessary and not welcome for the government to produce. And then the final two areas is requiring information to be reported by air travel providers, in which I think she means airlines in relation to their uptake and use of sustainable aviation fuel, which again, moments ago, we were being told would be commercially confidential and very difficult for the government to require if it was wanting to set out the impact on ticket prices.

And then finally, the capsule is any other information the Secretary of State considers relevant to understanding the UK's SAF market capacity and trends. And then not only that, there's a requirement which is even tougher than what my noble friend Lord Moylan suggested in his amendment. That report has got to be produced within six months of the end of each reporting period, so it gives the government quite a tight timeline to gather all of this information, most of which it doesn't already have, from a range of providers, including companies based overseas, and then produce a report.

So the argument I would make to you, to your Lordships House is that doesn't seem to be very joined up approach is, on the one hand, Liberal Democrats are arguing that my noble friend Lord Moylan is quite modest. Amendment having transparent information in a very consumer friendly way about the impact on ticket prices is very difficult to do, very complicated. But then his colleague is suggesting a much more expansive form of reporting and suggesting that the government should do that. And it does seem to me there's perhaps been a bit of lack of joined up communication on the Liberal Democrat front bench, and I'm really confused, given the two different, diametrically opposed positions they've taken on this bill, which is not welcome, because broadly, I think just as we are broadly in favour of having more sustainable aviation.

But I do find it odd that they've taken two diametrically opposed positions on two different amendments, on two subsequent groups on this bill, and I fear that therefore I won't be able to support this amendment if the noble Lady presses it to a division and seeks to test the opinion of the House.

17:51

Lord Grayling (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I rise to both support what my noble friend Lord Harper has just said. But also to add a has just said. But also to add a caveat, I have great respect for Baroness Pidgeon. I have find a lot Baroness Pidgeon. I have find a lot of things we actually agree on, but it does worry me more broadly. And this is not specifically just about this is not specifically just about this amendment. But when one passes an amendment like this, what you actually create is a huge bureaucratic demand.

And if you look at the practicality of what would be needed, it's my noble friend Lord Harper has just described. You're talking about putting together effectively an inspectorate, because that's what this would entail, an inspectorate to talk to airlines and inspectorate to talk to producers, and inspectorate to have a pretty close watch on a flow of feedstuffs the supply chain of feedstuffs, the sourcing of feedstuffs. What we are looking to to achieve here is to build a UK industry so that we don't simply end up buying SAF from abroad.

And the truth is, right now, the limited amount SAF used in this country are coming from the United States and potentially elsewhere. We don't want that to happen. So therefore we want to create as investor friendly and environment as possible in the United Kingdom. And that's what this bill is all about. It's what the purpose of the revenue certainty mechanism is. And I'm very glad that this the principle behind this bill has attracted cross-party support. But to try and put together now a mini inspectorate, maybe not that many an inspectorate to look at all the things covered by this amendment, I think would both cost taxpayer money.

It would push up the cost of the revenue certainty mechanism, because we talked earlier about how the funds would be used. Well, certainly the funds would be eligible to be used for the monitoring of all of this. So that's an extra cost on the revenue certainty mechanism. That's an extra cost ultimately, therefore, to airline passengers, it's an extra level of complexity for investors. It's putting a whole range of bureaucratic requirements on them. And of course, what it also does for government is it opens the doors to judicial review because very, very often broad ranging amendment that seeks reports, that seeks clarifications actually ends up in the courts as being used by somebody who has a particular point to prove against government and opens the door to my mind to too much activity within the courts, and not enough for freedom for government to get on with the job.

So I think this would be a negative step for the legislation, given that we all want this to happen, we all want it to work well. We all want the investment to flow in the country. And I simply don't believe that creating a monitoring mechanism on this scale would be in any way the right thing to do. And as my noble friend Lord Harper rightly pointed out, simply monitoring the impact on the cost of an airline ticket is one thing. But but covering the range of activities, the range of dimensions of activity in this amendment to my mind would create too much extra cost, too much complexity and risks actually being a deterrent to investment in the UK.

And so with apologies to that, to the noble Lady, I can't support her amendment.

17:54

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, may I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, to this debate. She's much missed. Normally when there is legislative matter that calls the noble Lord Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill to the despatch box, there is a well established team that assembles opposite him, consisting of my myself in my humble capacity and the noble Baroness. And it's been a puzzle to me in the course of this afternoon why it is that she appears to have been elbowed aside by the doer, by the doer.

But noble Lord Earl Russell, Lord Russell, whose mantra appears to be Mr. No throughout. Whereas now that the noble Baroness Lady Pigeon has, has, has landed, if I may say that at this very late stage in the debate, we find she is here with her customary positivity and and proposals for something useful that the government might do. And her proposal is that the government might usefully produce a report which tells us what the effects of this measure in front of us actually are.

It would not be an easy report to assemble, and I'm sure the noble Lord, the Minister, will explain its impossibility. It would, however, be a great deal easier, no less easy, if I may put it that way, for the government to produce the report I was asking for, which said what the effect on fuel was on on ticket prices was going to be. But that was, as my noble friend Lord Harper so clearly explained, that was ruled out completely by Mr.

No. Sitting at the other end of the bench. So we really, you know, we've had the liberals, the Liberal Democrats this afternoon and it's been most entertaining and instructive listening to what they've had to say. But we are now in a position where splits within the Liberal Democrats are apparent. And and I say this in order to offer some consolation to noble colleagues on the other side of the chamber, to know that it isn't only the Labour Party that is riven by dissension and uncertainty about the future, that these qualities can be found amongst the Liberal Democrats as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well. I'm delighted. Talks about splits. Could you remind me which government signed remind me which government signed this country up to mandatory targets on net zero by 2050?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

targets on net zero by 2050? My Lords, I will go further than that and I will remind the noble that and I will remind the noble Lord which government it was that introduced this bill. And I will introduced this bill. And I will remind noble Lords that nobody on this side of the chamber has argued today that we should not have a mechanism for supporting the production of sustainable aviation fuel. So the efforts of the noble Lord to stir the pot and look for split ism on the part of the Conservative Party are completely misdirected, misguided and failed.

And it would be a great deal better if the noble Lord, given the opportunity, were to join in with dumping on the Liberal Democrats for 5 or 10 minutes, because we don't normally take that opportunity and relish it and seize it and run with it in the way that perhaps we should. Now, that said, I was going to go on and try to draw out some interesting points from the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who was always to be listened to.

I learnt much, but not enough from the noble Lord who's whose speech. I couldn't immediately tie to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, but he appeared to be saying that a by-product of HEFA was something called HVO, which also had a long name underneath that, and that this could be used for heating homes. If I understood him correctly, I may not have understood him correctly, but if I understood him correctly, that seemed to be the thrust of what he was saying, and he wished to see the government encourage this in some way or other with yet another form of subsidy.

Of course, it would be nice to think that beyond the level of the corner shop, there was some scope left for private enterprise and a non Stalinist non-directed economy in this country. But nonetheless the noble Lord has found a further opportunity where one might add another little crack in the economy that hasn't yet been subsidised, that he feels he should pursue. But what I wanted to know was if this HVO stuff exists and it does what I think, and I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, but if it's true that it can be used for home heating and it's a by-product, it presumably has a value, and that value is something that would be captured in market terms.

And where has that I'd like to know been included in the calculation of the levy. Does the counterparty take account of the economic value of the By-Products of HEFA that may be used in the market, and what is the government's position on that? And I think that quite apart from responding and I don't know which way he'll respond. No, I think I do know which way he'll respond to the noble Baroness May. He'll say no to it because it's it's his metier to say no to amendments from the opposition benches.

He will say no to it. But while he's saying no to it, I wonder if he could reflect on that very interesting question that surprisingly, until the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised it, we haven't actually discussed in the course of this bill as to whether there are By-Products to HEFA which might have a market value, and how that value could be calculated and accrued in the formulation of the levy. I would like to be able to support noble Baroness Amendment, because I'm generally in favour of transparency, but I'm so deflated by the negativity generated by her noble colleague, Lord Lord Russell, that I'm not entirely sure that I would have the strength or or vigour to go through the lobbies in her support were she to divide.

Anyway, I think we're coming now to the end of consideration of what is an important bill. I hope that the large, relatively large number of noble Lords who are here feel that they have benefited in some way from listening to this debate. It was it was a dull matter in committee, stuck in grand committee, just 3 or 4 of us. But it's nice to know that there are others taking an interest in it. Today I've started out knowing nothing at all about sustainable aviation fuel.

I feel I know a great deal more now, and if noble Lords feel the same, then I think that we will all have achieved something to our benefit.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the course of this Report stage. My Lords, I thought I might

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thought I might constrain myself to discussing the amendment before us. And in that respect, all I'll say is I offer my respect, all I'll say is I offer my thanks both to the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, and also the noble Lord Earl Russell, who have Lord Earl Russell, who have followed the course of the of the bill very closely. And and I've bill very closely. And and I've listened very carefully to everything that he said, and in particular in reporting.

I'm grateful that for their scrutiny on this particular subject, and I'm pleased to have the opportunity to address it in more detail. I recognise the need for transparent and accessible reporting to monitor the effectiveness of the RCM scheme, I will continue to explore options for reporting on the RCM scheme, including using existing reporting. For example, we're already publishing statistics on the volume of SAF supplied each year in the UK under the SAF mandate, and we will continue to do so. This covers the total volume of SAFs supplied to the UK fuel type and greenhouse gas savings of the SAF supplied the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation statistics and reports covering costs and fuel supplied into the UK are published regularly.

We are taking a similar approach for the SAF mandate. Additionally, a formal review has been incorporated into the SAF mandate legislation, with the initial review scheduled to occur by 2030. This process will facilitate an evaluation of the availability of SAF supply. We will consider further options for reporting, including interactions with the Emissions Trading Scheme, reporting on aircraft use of fuel. These existing publications will provide an extensive picture into the UK SAF market, as well as the Revenue Certainty Mechanism scheme.

We remain and are absolutely committed to transparent reporting that is comprehensive, regular and accessible in one location. Once the revenue certainty mechanism has contracts in place. In addition to the above, this could include requirements for producers to share information with the counterparty. This would be consistent with how the counterparty for the Department of Energy Security and net zero contracts of different schemes publishes information on contract terms and levy rates, and as and as raised earlier by the noble Lord Earl Russell.

We will include in our transparent reporting on the length of the length of contract terms of the RCM contracts. The current live consultation on indicative Heads of terms for the revenue control Mechanism. The Revenue Certainty Mechanism contracts proposes potential options. However, we will need to continue to seek views from industry on the mechanism for this reporting and so further work is required before we can finalise our approach. In response to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we do continue to work closely with my noble friend Lord Whitehead's department on the global availability of feedstock for sustainable fuels.

Whilst I can't commit my noble friend Lord Whitehead for a meeting since I sit opposite him in our palatial ministerial office upstairs, I will mention to my noble Lord, my noble friend, my noble friend, Lord Barclay's interest, and I will see what he says. I hope what I've said about reporting is sufficient reassurance. The noble Baroness lady pushing not to press amendment 13.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his response, and I'd like to thank the noble Lord Berkeley for his support for my amendment. And I think listening to the debate, I'm living in a the debate, I'm living in a different world to the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Moylan, who seem to have an unhealthy obsession seem to have an unhealthy obsession with these benches and my personal contributions, rather than the bill contributions, rather than the bill before us today, no matter how dry it might be, this amendment and the previous amendment that have been discussed are completely different, as has been recognised by the government, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, that he has listened and agreed to the intent of my amendment.

Looking at

18:06

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)

- -

the effectiveness of the RCM scheme, making sure we have some reporting making sure we have some reporting in a comprehensive reporting in one place so we can understand how effectively this scheme is working. effectively this scheme is working. So I thank the noble Lord for listening and responding to our suggestions in this area as both suggestions in this area as both mine and my noble friend Earl Russell, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment 13.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw. Amendment 13. Is it your Lordships. Amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn in clause 17, amendment 14 Lord Ravensdale not moved. Amendment 15 Lord Moylan.

18:06

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

- -

Lords. In the light of the assurances given by the noble Lord, the Minister at the despatch box, the Minister at the despatch box, and the further undertaking that he gave to my noble friend Lord Harper, that government policy on this that government policy on this matter would not change unless there were a statement by a there were a statement by a Minister in the House. I do not wish to move my amendment. Number 15.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your presence? Member. Withdrawn. Amendment by leave. Withdrawn. Amendment 16 Lord Withdrawn. Amendment 16 Lord Ravensdale not moved in clause 19 Lord Grayling amendment 17 and 18. Lord Grayling amendment 17 and 18. Lord Grayling amendment 17 and 18. Not moved. We'll now have a moment for frontbenchers to change. I don't think there's anything don't think there's anything further to say, sir. No there isn't. So we'll have a moment for frontbenchers to change before we frontbenchers to change before we

18:08

Statement: Update on standards on public life

Is Is everybody Is everybody happy? Is everybody happy? No. Is everybody happy? No. OK. Is everybody happy? No. OK. We Is everybody happy? No. OK. We now come to questions on a statement made in the House of Commons yesterday on standards in public life. And we'll start with the two frontbenchers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the problem with this statement is that it doesn't address the central question of why address the central question of why the Prime Minister chose a twice disgraced man, a known associate of a convicted criminal and one of the a convicted criminal and one of the most repellent paedophiles we've ever known to be His Majesty's ever known to be His Majesty's ambassador to Washington. Removing an absolutely outstanding career

18:09

Lord True (Conservative)

- -

diplomat to make way for a liar and a charlatan. Now, none of them extensive, if rather vague, measures set out in this statement would have had any impact on what happened. The Prime Minister knew of Mandelson's track record. He knew Mandelson was still in touch with Epstein. Yet the Prime Minister promoted Mandelson. This was a massive misjudgement, as I know the noble Baroness opposite would agree, which has brought disrepute not on this House, as the statement claimed, but on Mandelson and on those who appointed him.

It is also deeply embarrassed our country, my Lords. The statement talks about a duty of candour. And by the way, can the noble Baroness tell us what has happened to the Public Accountability Bill, and when will it be brought to your Lordships House? But in relation to candour, can I draw attention to two words in the resignation statement of Morgan McSweeney? The words I refer to are, when asked, I quote when asked. I advise the Prime Minister to make that appointment.

When asked. Mr. McSweeney didn't write that by accident. My Lords, who asked him about Mandelson? Was it Mr. Jonathan Powell or was it the Prime Minister? Who was it that questions today? The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, said she didn't know. The noble Baroness tell us. And if she doesn't know now, will she undertake to find out and let the House know? My Lords, a statement and much of the accompanying spin throughout. A lot of blame and a lot of political chaff.

We've had blame cast on the vetting system. I believe that's a disservice to the highly dedicated professionals involved. But who made the appointment? If the Prime Minister didn't have enough vetting information, heaven knows, my Lords, he's the Prime Minister. He, of all people could have asked the security services for more. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, told the House at questions that Mandelson was announced as ambassador before the vetting process was completed. Why was that, my Lords? Wasn't it considered important? There's talk in the statement of more rules on standards.

Now, we all want the highest standards in public life. But my Lords had the standards that already exist at been respected and enforced. We wouldn't find ourselves in this position at all. The problem before us is not absence of rules, but absence of judgement, and no amount of new bureaucratic architecture can compensate for such a basic failure. My Lords, the talk in the statement of lack of clarity in standards on the use of non-corporate communication channels. I think that's jargon for WhatsApp.

My goodness, my Lords, what would Mr. Streeting and the other eager contenders for the Labour leadership do without their whatsapps? Of course we all agree. We all agree with Mr. Streeting that the government has no growth strategy at all. But my Lords, the Cabinet Office published very detailed guidance on these matters in 2023. Was it not being followed by those involved? Can the noble Baroness tell us in what specific respects this guidance in relation to use of WhatsApp is unclear, and what steps are being taken to avoid the intentional deletion and auto deletion of electronic communications by any special adviser or person involved in these matters.

Has guidance been sent to departments? This talk of banning second jobs? My Lords, my personal view is that a politics made up only of professional politicians would be a politics deprived of many insights. So can I ask the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, to give the firmest possible assurance that there will be no extension of that into this house, which relies so much on outside experience. The statement says the government will ask your Lordships Conduct Committee to reinvestigate rules around the conduct of peers.

My Lords, with respect, that's a matter for this House and not for the government. The Conduct Committee carried out a major review of the Code of Conduct earlier this session, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness Baroness Manningham-Buller. It reached carefully considered conclusions published barely more than a year ago. Now, I understand that the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, has written to the committee seeking further consideration. No one can object to any code being kept under review. That is what we do and have done in this House over the years.

But, my Lords, I do hope the noble Baroness, the leader, will assure this House that there will be no pressure from the government on the Committee as it considers her letter simply on the basis that the Prime Minister wants to close a stable door. He should never have opened in the first place. My Lords, we welcome the fact that the statement reiterates that the ISC will be able to review all documents relevant to this scandal, but the Lord Bowness respond to a question asked last week by my noble friend Baroness Finn about the powers inherent in the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the potential influence of the Cabinet Office.

What steps are being taken to avoid conflicts of interest or undue pressure? In light of the ISC Secretariat being staffed by the Cabinet Office? My Lords, the statement says the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to liaise with the committee about the document. Buchanan Noble, Baroness, confirmed the astounding reports today that the Cabinet Secretary is now potentially being removed and may perhaps be a further scapegoat in this sorry affair. Is that true that he's leaving or not? And if there is to be legislation about titles which is alluded to and which we can certainly positively all consider in this House, will she give a clear assurance that there will be full and open consultation across party lines before any legislation is published? My Lord, certainly it will be a welcome thing if the likes of Mandelson are rooted out of public life, even if at the third time of asking.

But we shouldn't be stampeded, I submit, into ill thought through measures that may trench on the freedoms and privileges of Parliament. And will the noble Baroness agree that the answer is not necessarily to rebuild the system in haste after each failure, but exercise proper judgement at the point of appointment. That is what went wrong in this sorry affair.

18:16

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lord, I apologise for being a little late. The indicator was not operating properly in my room. I must also apologise that I'm speaking and not the Lord Purvis. speaking and not the Lord Purvis. He's been at the funeral for my name's sake in Kirkwall today. I wish to talk about the border issues in this statement and to quote the statement, what we need to do to rebuild trust in public life in the wake of the damaging revelations. Since the Prime Minister's statement last week.

We all face an enormous problem now of the longer term decline in public trust in politics in this country and what this will do to make it decline further. And I think all of us in all parties need to resist scoring too many points against each other and recognise that we have a common task to rebuild that public trust. And I hope in that sense, the government will take this opportunity to push through some of the reforms which the Labour Party and others have talked about, but haven't yet found the courage to pursue fully.

I note, incidentally, that Transparency International has just lowered the UK's rating in its Corruption Perception Index, which is now much closer to the American level than to the level of most European democracies. That's where we are. So I hope the government will take this opportunity to introduce significant reforms, which we hope will command cross-party support, parliamentary scrutiny for all senior public appointments. Baroness Chapman this afternoon hinted that Her Majesty's Government is already moving in this direction. Too much power and decision making is concentrated in Parliament in Downing Street.

We all recognise that the Prime Minister has too many decisions to take. Parliamentary sovereignty is the convenient myth which covers executive domination. Political decisions will be and appointments will be much more acceptable if government change were approved by Parliament, then we need to strengthen the guardians of ethics and public life. We need the Commissioner of Public Appointments, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, the independent Adviser on ministerial Interests to be strengthened in their role and perhaps given statutory basis.

We need to look at the status of the ministerial code and please, can we have the delayed publication of the revised Cabinet manual last revised far too long ago. We need to consider whether or not the business of taking office for the Prime Minister and for Ministers should be changed. Whether they should take an oath, perhaps before their House of Parliament as they take office on, maybe they should be receiving training and most immediately, the government, I hope, will now bring in a strong elections bill with caps on donations, defences against foreign, state and private donations and a properly independent electoral commission.

The reforms beyond that which Liberal Democrats would like to push to move away from the computational style of Westminster politics. Fewer Ministers, looser whips, stronger committees, acceptance that multi-party politics means a more collaborative style of politics. I heard Andy Burnham, the mayor of Manchester, say last week at the Institute for government that a change in the voting system would make our politics less adversarial. I hope there are those within the government who are considering that there are particular implications of this scandal for the Lords, on which the Labour government has not yet delivered half of the reforms which its manifesto promised.

This has damaged the reputation of the Lords, and that means that we have to take them further. We are a part time house, so the question of outside interests and second jobs, which the Lord Lord True touched on, is much more difficult for us. Prime ministerial patronage on appointments should also, I think, come into consideration. Donors should not be appointed to the Lords, which is a working chamber. There is a strong case for rules on outside interests, for retirement and participation limits, and we look forward to those to receiving.

Lastly, does the leader also agree that the widest lesson we have to take from this is not only politicians that need to regain public trust, but also those who run international finance banks in New York and London, and multinational companies and high tech. Most of these are based in America. But I note that the CEO of the bank which I served, which paid for my education and which my father worked for 40 years, is one of those names in the Epstein files.

And we should not underestimate the scale of the potential public reaction against financial as well as political elites. Will the government therefore discuss with the City of London how they, too, need to react to what is now coming out, and which will no doubt continue to come out for some weeks to come?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear. My Lords, I'm grateful to both Lords for their questions. I Lords for their questions. I understand why the Lords, unusually, was able to contribute from being late, because it was. He was, and late, because it was. He was, and he was only a couple of seconds late. Thank you. And I understand, late. Thank you. And I understand, obviously the Lord Purvis is at the funeral today in Orkney. My Lords, the Prime Minister has said this the Prime Minister has said this was a wrong decision and he has been clear and he's been honest about that and he has apologised and he has apologised and been clear that he was lied to in this regard by Peter Mandelson.

And when the questions were asked, and I have to say that the Prime Minister knows that he was lied to, and that sense of betrayal that a number of people feel about the answers that were given and about the trust that was broken. But probably more important, when the Prime Minister apologised to Parliament, he also

18:22

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

apologised to the women and girls who were victims of Jeffrey Epstein. And if we don't keep that at the And if we don't keep that at the forefront of our minds, we don't learn any lessons and we do a learn any lessons and we do a disservice to those who, because of what's happened with Peter Mandelson, they have they've Mandelson, they have they've relived this and the impact that has had on their lives going forward and continues to have is something I think we just have to be very much aware of.

But my Lords, this was a betrayal on an almost industrial scale. And I don't think, as those of us who've read some of the messages, I doubt many of us have read all of the messages, the betrayal, when messages were being sent in real time to Jeffrey Epstein on sometimes very sensitive matters of public policy as well. That is a betrayal not just of friends and colleagues. That is a betrayal of government, and it's a betrayal of the country. And I think, my Lords, is something we all take seriously.

The other thing I would say, just generally about that friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, it's not just this isn't just about Peter Mandelson, but this was rich, influential, powerful people, mostly men, mostly men who used their power to use and abuse young girls. And they did it often, almost in plain sight. And that's what I find just sort of unsettling and deeply shocking. This scandal went on for so long, and yet again, those who abused were not believed.

And there's lessons I think we learned from that. Very much so. The. Both the Lords have raised about what happens next. The noble Lord. True. Asked about the public accountability bill, and that is being worked on at pace to get things right on that bill, and the Prime Minister has made his personal commitment to that clear. He also asked about the vetting system and said that blame was being pushed on to the vetting system. No, but if we think the vetting system can't be improved and the Prime Minister has said it was a wrong decision, his responsibility for that and has apologised.

But if we stay in the vetting system can't be improved. The vetting system was the same vetting system that had been used in every other case, although clearly there were lies given to the Prime Minister. But it does seem to me that the system whereby it is after an appointment has been undertaken, that the full vetting system, as opposed to due diligence, is undertaken. There are changes being made already to that for now and for Noble Lord seems to think that communications channels are WhatsApp.

Can I tell him this has been something that's been visited by numerous governments over years? Non-corporate communication channels are anything that isn't the approved channel. Now he will know being in government, he would have had a particular email and a particular device he could use to use any other email or any other device. And I'm told that back in the day, it was quite common for people to share emails on their email addresses. That is wrong. So continually over the years that has been updated, guidance has been given and will continue to do so.

The noble Lord also asked about second jobs for MPs. Yes, of course, it's a completely different issue. Anyone in this House who's been a member of Parliament and I see several will know that it is a full time job being an MP, and this is something that's been looked at in the past. We've looked at again, I think it is different for your Lordships House in that members do have outside interests they pursue. But there is also the issue and this is mentioned, about transparency and lobbying, where members cannot profit from the membership of this House.

And so there is no issue at all about members having outside interests and outside employment. There is an issue if the two become conflated and members use membership of this House in order to profit from it. So lobbying members have employed by lobbying firm and those kinds of issues. I think the ones the House would like to address, and I'm glad he indicated his scent on that one. He also asked about I'm trying to read my own writing here because he was speaking quickly.

The ISC, the and the relevant documents, I think. I'm not quite sure the point I was getting at. I wasn't sure if he was. He was trying to suggest, I think, that because the ISC is serviced by the Cabinet Office that somehow they didn't have independence. I think the members and the chair of the ISC may feel very differently about the independence and how they operate, and I hope he wasn't suggesting that wasn't the case. I can't give any further information on the Cabinet secretary.

I don't have that information. But we'll, you know, if there is any information to update members, I will of course do that. The noble Lord asked that about legislation to remove peerages. Would there be full and open consultation? I was very clear about that in this House last week, that there would be. And the noble Lord and I have discussed this privately as well, and I've assured him of that. I don't know if he's uncertain about that, but I think something that will have a impact beyond the current circumstances.

I would want to ensure that this House was content with what it did, but also that we were content that it would deal with any circumstances in the future with the House may think it appropriate through someone's behaviour that they should not. If they were expelled from this House, for example, there would not be entitled to continue to have a peerage. The noble Lord also asked about the. He did say I know he's been Lord True said we should not be stampeded into changing the laws.

Of course no one's going to be stampeded. We have a proper process in this House. It's called legislation, and that's how we take things forward. And in terms of the conduct committee, I shared my letter I sent to Lord Kakkar with a noble Lord True. And of course, you know, there's not a undue influence, but I think the whole House would want to be assured that we are confident that our rules and processes and procedures do the job they're supposed to do, to give members of this House guidance and confidence and give the public confidence in our work as well.

Noble Lord asked a number of questions, a bit of a shopping list. I'm afraid of various things that can be done, which is probably to two different sides of the argument I was receiving here. I think this house knows the number of things should be done in order in our processes. The Prime Minister has already updated the ministerial code, and so the independent adviser has can make decisions on his own, whether or not to investigate an issue. There are a number of things that have to be done.

But at the bottom of this is that we have to ensure that we are above reproach, and we give confidence in the public that we do the work that we're here to do without fear or favour, and with a spirit of the country's interests at heart.

18:30

Lord Harper (Conservative)

- -

Yes. >> Yes. >> My Lords, on the 27th of December, 2025, the Sunday Times December, 2025, the Sunday Times reported that the now Lord Doyle had campaigned for Sean Morton after he was charged with child sex offences. The letters patent were not sealed until the 13th of January this year, so for 17 days the Prime Minister supported the process of conferring a peerage on someone who'd continued an association with a known paedophile. That process of backing Lord Doyle continued until today, when the whip was removed and an investigation has commenced.

Does the Leader of the House support the removal of Lord Doyle's peerage, as the Prime Minister has suggested, Lord Mandelson should be removed as well?

18:31

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I think in all of these things there needs to be a proper process. There is an issue, I think, about party due diligence on issues of members being nominated from all parties. So we all have to ensure we have the right processes in place. He was approved by on the information they had available at that time. He has now no longer has the Labour whip and there will be an investigation. I don't really want to get into speculating, and I don't know enough about the details of whether an individual should have the whip removed or have the peerage removed, but I do think that we have to ensure we've got the ability to do that, which we don't at the moment.

So as we bring forward legislation on that issue, I will consult with noble Lords about the circumstances which we think is appropriate, that someone should remain not be a member of this House. But I do not have a peerage either, my Lord.

18:32

Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Crossbench)

- -

The noble Lady is quite right >> The noble Lady is quite right about the importance of the public having confidence in this house in both houses, with particularly we're concerned with this house and and I support her endeavours to achieve that on the point just raised and on Holak. We've discussed vetting procedures as well in the review. Is there going to be an attempt to find out what measures need strengthening with Holak, so that impropriety can be brought to the attention of Holak? And what I'm specifically referring to here is that Holak might have a name.

The names get published by number ten, and then information comes to light. Can that preliminary announcement be exactly that, just preliminary with the ability of Holak to withdraw its consent once further information comes to light? And will you please look at that?

18:33

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

I'm not aware that is the case at the moment, because once Holak at the moment, because once Holak has made a recommendation, the information they have, it isn't normally reopened. But I take the point she makes and I think all of these things are in the mix to look at, to make sure that we in this House can be confident of appointments that are made to this House, and how those appointments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reflect on this House. I'm so sorry. I have to apologise to the House. I needed to apologise to the House. I needed to have declared an interest and because I spoke in a debate last Wednesday on think tanks, a Wednesday on think tanks, a question on think tanks, and I didn't declare that on Monday. That didn't declare that on Monday. That week I had become a fellow of the think tank Policy Exchange. So I've apologised to the Minister who's sitting on the bench and the government Chief Whip and I apologise to the House for that error.

18:34

Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)

- -

Press the Leader of the House. >> Legislation concerning your Lordships House. >> I welcome what she's just said about full consultation and the about full consultation and the legislation not being rushed through, but in column 573 yesterday, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, referring to this legislation, said we will bring the legislation forward very, very shortly. Now, is that compatible with what the noble Lady has just said about full consultation? And is it her intention to try and get this legislation through all stages before the end of this session?

18:34

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

No, it's not in this session of >> No, it's not in this session of Parliament. I don't think that's appropriate for the kind of legislation we're talking about. I think what the Chief Secretary was think what the Chief Secretary was saying, that he wants the chief secretary now, whatever title the noble Lord, the chief secretary to the Prime Minister, we do want to move a pace at this and have something members can look at. It's not something we want to delay unduly, but it will go through the normal processes of Parliament.

But I've already given assurances to the noble Lord True and to other noble Lords that we will consult on this one. There's not going to be a consultation that goes on for months and months and months. I think we want to ensure we have the legislation in place in good time, but we do want it's it's that balance between working at pace and getting it right. I think there can be too many cases. Nobody's smiling at me, but I can just tell him there is an urgency about this matter.

And I think that's reflected in Darren Jones's comments about the urgency of it. And I hope we have a draft very soon that we can begin talking to noble Lords about.

18:35

Lord Watts (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I think the whole House will welcome the leader's statement and the message that she's done it. But however it's there are still scandals in this, not just Peter Mandelson. There is a Baroness in this House that has ripped off the taxpayer by millions of pounds, and she's still a member of this House. We need to find a way to remove her.

18:36

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

My Lords, noble Lord is referring to Baroness Mone on that case. And I think that comes back to the point I'm making that the House wants to ensure it's got the processes in place. I think the noble Lady at present is on a leave of absence, which I don't think is a satisfactory position, but I don't want to rush to judgement on any individual. But I think we do need to have processes in place, because then we can act when there are any cases that are brought to the attention of this House, or we wish to do so.

At the moment, there is no process in place at all for a member to have a peerage removed, and the processes by which members can be suspended are so expelled from this House are rather limited. I can only think of one case in my time in this House where it's felt that a member should be expelled, so I just think we need to look at our processes. I think we also need to be clear that I am confident that overwhelming majority of members in this House behave absolutely property with due diligence to their own affairs, and are only here because they want to serve the public and play a role in public life.

I think we need to emphasise that. But where people fall short of those standards, are we confident that we have got the right processes in place to take action where it's needed?

18:37

Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Conservative)

- -

So the the whole House will undoubtedly agree with what the Leader of the House has just said, Leader of the House has just said, and will welcome her commitment to transparency and candour. When we discussed these matters here in the chamber on Thursday of last week, I chamber on Thursday of last week, I had the opportunity to ask the noble Lady about the letter, which had been written to the Prime Minister by his predecessor, Gordon Brown, one year ago, when he was asking about the veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers regarding the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr.

Epstein. I asked the hon. Lady, then, did the Prime Minister know that his predecessor had made that request of the Cabinet Secretary? If he didn't know, why wasn't he told? And if he did know, why did he not instruct the Cabinet Secretary to undertake the investigation? The noble Lady at that point last week very politely answered me that she didn't have those answers. She said, I do not know at this stage what the former Prime Minister asked for, and whether the Prime Minister was informed.

But I will find out. I appreciate it was only on Thursday and this is Tuesday, but I wonder if she's had the opportunity to find out and if she can now answer the question.

18:38

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

Can I show the noble Lady as >> Can I show the noble Lady as soon as I know, she will know I have known to get an answer in the short space of time, she says, we short space of time, she says, we have asked the question. I'm not actually clear. It was a letter from Gordon Brown to the Prime Minister or what form that request take, but we're looking at pace at that to see if we can get an answer,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I assure her we will do so. My Lords, I. Hesitate to rise because I was slightly late, but as the noble

18:39

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)

- -

slightly late, but as the noble Lord opposite was late on my whip saying, no, I can't. >> I'm so sorry. He was a few

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm so sorry. He was a few seconds late, so he was within the time to thank you. My Lords. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords. Can I thank my noble friend? Coming back to the issue of legislation and the need to ensure that there can be expulsion of members in these circumstances, which you also accept that, of course, the expulsion of a member is a very serious matter indeed, and that clearly they do need to be safeguards to ensure that this is not used in a perverse way by any future government. My Lords, in that regard, and given the need for urgency, I would ask that there is an opportunity during the consultation process for members of your Lordships' House to actually debate the question.

So hopefully we could reach a consensus on this.

18:40

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

Yeah, I'm grateful, my friend. Can I say that we're not bringing forward legislation for the expulsion of members from your Lordships House? That is a metaphor. Our code of conduct and that of which I've asked the I've seen Lord Kakkar this week, and I wrote to him about that particular point, and we will consult with members, but there will be the normal process of legislation going through. What the legislation I've spoken about is, is in terms of if somebody, for example, had been expelled for this House, what are the circumstances in which somebody would not retain the peerage? And that's what the legislation is about, not expulsion from this House.

That is a matter for the code of conduct. And I think, you know, we do have to say, are we satisfied in all cases that we've got the code of conduct. Right? I take the noble Lord Trees point. It has been reviewed. I see no problem if other matters are brought to the House's attention, why they cannot look at certain specific issues. I've had several representations more recently on other issues where members have felt that the code of conduct hasn't fully been implemented in the sense that if you look at the code of conduct, often the commissioners wait until a complaint is made to them.

And I think members have to be aware of what is in the code of conduct. And do we at all times have that awareness in our mind and ensure that at all times we are behaving with absolute integrity in relation to that? So there's a number of things I think we can review, but the legislation is specifically on removing a period from somebody's not expulsion from this House.

18:41

Baroness Andrews (Labour)

- -

Now, I thank the lady for the way in which she introduced this very serious situation. Could I pick up a point made by Lord Wallace in his raft of suggestions? He made one which I think is particularly important, which is the revision of the Cabinet manual, which is well out of date. And this attention has been drawn by the Constitution Committee to the delays in updating the Cabinet Office manual, which I think would address many of the issues of protocol and procedures actually, which would tighten the whole situation, I think, within the Cabinet Office.

So perhaps my hon. Friend could pay particular attention to where that process has got to and try to in the notion of urgency which he has addressed. See whether that could be expedited. Yeah, yeah.

18:42

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful to my noble friend. >> I'm grateful to my noble friend. I think it was last updated in 2011. And my recollection is that even And my recollection is that even then the introduction to it was all mainly about Brexit, which it does seem rather dated at this time. I can't give any guarantees that it's an urgent issue at the moment, but I take on board what she has to say, and I think there is a need in all of these codes to ensure they are updated and reviewed, because they are a point of guidance that does help us navigate our way forward.

When there are difficult issues.

18:43

Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords. >> I just want again to thank the Leader of the House for the way she's conducting this conversation. she's conducting this conversation. I'm also grateful to our noble Lord True for his penetrating questions, because he's only actually by tough questions. Do you get the answers? And those answers, of course, need to be questioned still. So I'm very grateful. The country that I was born in, Uganda, we got a saying that a very badly misbehaved child brings disrepute to the parents.

First their brothers, their sisters and the whole of the household. But what you mustn't do is to think there is a transference of that behaviour of a naughty child to everybody in the household. What? We need to watch out. Yes, certainly. We must be vigilant is not to drive ourselves into thinking because of the bad behaviour. Somebody's. Everybody's just like that. The people that I've met here since I joined the House in 2025, 20 2005 and mostly honourable people, they do their work, they carry out really of all hours, particularly of late when we've been sitting till very late in the morning and none of them is actually doing it out of self-interest.

And so the thing I want to suggest is that we've just had our conduct reviewed by Baroness Manningham-Buller. Those are very robust. Please do not reinvent a similar thing as if we haven't got it. And we need to tell everybody out there that we've got it. And then finally. Lord saltire, I think you are right. May we begin in all our debates, however heated they are, try and be polite to each other and ask questions that we are part of the same household.

18:45

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

I was when I first came into this house. I was told pretty much, you can say anything you want as long as you're polite about it. And that's actually quite a serious point, because I think sometimes the tone of our debate and the politeness that we deploy when speaking actually does lower the tone, so we don't lower the tone in terms of temperature rather than tone lowers the temperature. So we don't get the rudeness that we see in some other political form.

He's right about trust in public life, in that it's a bad Apple syndrome, isn't it? One person does something wrong and we're all tarred with the same brush and people think, oh, you know, you're in it for yourselves. You don't believe in what you're saying. And yet we know that most people, the overwhelming majority of people in this Lord Foulkes house, as I said earlier, are here because of public service, and they believe in what they do. And the noble Lord Wallace mentioned this about trust in public life.

And we do have a duty. So he's right. We do have a code of conduct, and we should stick with that code of conduct. But is he asking me, is there no area in which it can be reviewed and possibly improved then I think yes, we should say it can be reviewed and I think can always room for approval. There's one point I would take issue with the Lord Wallace when he was speaking earlier, though he described this as a part time house. My Lords, we are not a part time house.

We don't expect all members to be here full time. It's a full time house where members contribute when they can. But I always sort of wince slightly when we sit longer and later than the other end of the building that we should ever be called part time.

18:46

Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)

- -

Yes. final point, and I suspect many of us regard this as a full time house on, in addition to which we do lots of other things so that it becomes a double full time house. From that point of view, this has been this is a very wide ranging statement, and actually there's been a fairly eclectic range of questions that have been asked by your Lordships, but I would like to just pick up two points. The first is that. There's sometimes a collective desire to rush forward in judgement about individuals.

Sometimes those individuals perhaps deserve that judgement. But we must surely, and I hope the noble Lady, the Leader of the House, will confirm this. Make sure that there is proper due process about any decisions being taken about any individual in this context. And the second point I hope that she can confirm is she has expressed the desire that the Cabinet handbook and the guidance and so on is long due for an overhaul. And I think many, many of your Lordships would welcome that.

Could she also say what she thinks would be appropriate in terms of the appropriate level of core skills and training that should be given to Ministers and prospective Ministers?

18:48

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

On the due process point? And I think I've tried to come back to that several times during the answers I've been given this afternoon. It is important. That's why I declined to answer in detail Lord Harper's question as well. It has to be having a process in place for whatever the circumstances we know the route to take, and I think that he's absolutely right to say that. And that's why I wanted to comment on some of the questions or more thoroughly.

Core training's really interesting. Could I be put in charge of training for Ministers? But I think part of it is there is no core training for Ministers I've been aware of, and other noble Lords may think differently who have been Ministers. It can be a bit patchy sometimes. There's very good training. I remember having resilience training, crisis training in the past. I've had other issues as well where we've had to look in detail and looking at how you might react in certain circumstances, but it is one of those jobs at which there is no blueprint for.

And if Ministers do it differently depending on the job they have and the role they have. But I think one of the things I would advise any new Minister to do is talk to somebody who's done the job before, from either party,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because I think you would always get good advice from people who have experience. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, we've. Heard this. Evening a lot of talk about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Evening a lot of talk about trust in public life, but I think there are two aspects of trust that there are two aspects of trust that I'd be grateful if the noble Baroness could comment on. One is Baroness could comment on. One is obviously about the terrible betrayal of trust that we've seen

18:49

Baroness Garden of Frognal (Liberal Democrat)

- -

recently in the case of Lord Mandelson, but I would like her Mandelson, but I would like her view on a different kind of trust, the trust in our Prime Minister's judgement. We've had too many examples from the very early days in government of accepting gifts which any of us without process or training could have said was a poor choice, to the turnover in appointments within number ten. So what would she say to the general public who are questioning how long they can trust this Prime Minister's judgement, and whether saying sorry is enough? Yeah.

18:50

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

I Lords, I've worked with the Prime Minister for a long time now since he first came into Parliament

18:50

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

in 2015, and I see a man of integrity, of decency, of decency, a man who makes mistakes, owns those mistakes and seeks to make those mistakes and seeks to make them right, and a man that's not afraid to apologise. I haven't seen afraid to apologise. I haven't seen that in every Prime Minister. And my Lords, the reason why the entire my Lords, the reason why the entire Cabinet yesterday made it very clear, as if there should have ever been any doubt, that they supported the Prime Minister, because we see him day in and day out and see the judgements he makes day in, day out.

And if you look at what's happening in the world today, from what's happening in Ukraine and the Prime Minister's relationship with President Zelensky, of how he has to manage difficult situations across the world and how he has proved a leadership role across the world and how he's regarded utilise. He is absolutely the right man for the job, and he made the statement yesterday that he had a mandate from this country to deliver change and to deliver the policies that we fought the last election on, and I am impressed and I admire him that whatever happens, he will deliver on that mandate.

18:51

Deputy Lord Speaker. Baroness Garden of Frognal (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, the time is up for questions. I think possibly before we go on to the Scotland Act, it might be worth having a slightly might be worth having a slightly because not everybody might want to Have left. So we will now go. Except obviously for the Scotland Act people. We now come to the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule

18:53

Orders and regulations: Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026 - motion to approve

19:05

Baroness Smith of Cluny, The Advocate-General for Scotland (Labour)

- -

bill in question is only at stage two in the Scottish Parliament, and still requires to complete stage still requires to complete stage three. It can still be amended, and as such its final form cannot be as such its final form cannot be known. As we might expect in these circumstances. The Scottish Government have noted that the Government have noted that the details of what any future section 104 order might contain are still 104 order might contain are still being worked through.

Indeed, they have also indicated that consideration is being given to whether it might be possible to amend some of the provisions to limit the scope of the powers, so that they can be more clearly understood to be for purposes which are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. In all these circumstances, including these matters in the section 30 order, would have been firstly premature standing that the bill itself is still in a state of flux, and secondly, potentially unnecessary at all, given that it may be possible to deal with those matters in such a way that they remain within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, including these other matters would have extended the scope of the devolved settlement by devolving more powers than were required to allow MSPs to vote on a coherent scheme.

Of course, the order before the House today is the order the government has agreed to take forward with the Scottish Government on the matter of substances and devices. That is the matter that the government is seeking the approval of the House for. In seeking that, I recognise that there is interest in the existence of schemes across the UK in view of the legislation being considered by the UK and the Scottish Parliament's. This is a separate question from the one before the House today.

The question today is whether the House agrees that the proper functioning of the devolution settlement means the UK government should ensure that the Scottish Parliament can create an overall framework for medicines and devices to be used in an assisted dying regime, should they decide to do so. I beg to move.

19:07

Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)

- -

19:27

Deputy Lord Speaker. Viscount Stansgate (Labour)

My Lords. >> The original question. >> Was that the order laid before the House on the 17th of December, 2025 be approved, since when an 2025 be approved, since when an amendment has been moved by Lord Keen of Ely to leave out all the words after the word that, and insert the words as set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this amendment is agreed.

19:27

Baroness Coffey (Conservative)

- -

By Lord. I rise to have a few questions for the Minister. My noble friend Lord keen has set, I think pretty eloquently, the issue of the narrowness, and the House will be aware that, of course, the one of the elements of section 30 order is indeed a variety of this more subordinate legislation or secondary legislation is such that it cannot be amended, and, as has been already pointed out, one of the things that is not covered for in the section 30 order, but the government has indicated it will be in the section 104 order in order to enact the bill.

If if the members of the Scottish Parliament decide to go ahead with the Bill. But it's not clear. How, in effect that will happen. And instead there are actually a number of questions being raised. For example, I think it's the EFRA response has pointed out that if this does go ahead, the UK government wants this or the and the regulator wants this to basically be one process that would be happening throughout Great Britain. So I'm trying to understand in terms of this novel approach, and it is the first time this has happened where that if a Scottish Minister puts forward regulations in light of the section 30 order, it will require the specific agreement of the UK government Ministers, the Secretary of State for Scotland, I think it is.

And then, or the other way round, is that the Scottish Parliament hands over powers to the UK Parliament to decide how a bill they've asked for will be enacted. So we are in this novel situation, so I'd be quite interested to understand from the Minister how have they got to this point? I know that she set out a narrow trying to suggest not going beyond evolution. But if we think back when this I think it was in May 2025 when this was debated in the Scottish Parliament, it was at that point the Scottish Government Ministers said that they would start discussion with the UK government.

And it's my understanding that the Scottish Government wanted a far wider section 30 to cover the very specific issues that my noble friend Lord Keen has pointed out. If we put ourselves in the feet of the members of the Scottish Parliament, if this goes ahead today as they get to their stage three, they will start to remove lots of pieces of the bill that currently sit in that bill and then hand over. In effect, the decision on how any of this could be implemented to the UK government and and subsequently this UK Parliament, which would not be able to be amended by the UK Parliament.

But the UK government can do what they like. So it'd be useful to get an understanding of how the. Is there a memorandum of understanding that could be shared? Is there any correspondence that could be shared between the two governments, given that both governments say they are neutral on this bill, but if they are neutral on the bill, how do we know what process they're going to undertake to deploy this in the future? I don't think it's any coincidence that in June, in the Commons, in the Report stage, the amendment tabled by Kim Beta specifically amended clause 53 to extend to Scotland parts of the bill that's currently under consideration in this House to include aspects of medicines and Aspects of Employment Rights Act 1996, as specifically adjusting 31 eight and also advertising.

So I would be grateful to understand from the Minister, was it the government that proposed those changes in order to address the issue identified last May, last June, whenever that discussion and then further the noble and learned Lord Lord Falconer of Thoroton has tabled a further amendment 888 in in consideration of the Terminally Ill Adults Bill in this House, which extends clause 31 to all of all across 31 Scotland, not just the original 31, subsection eight. Now, for me, it feels that the noble and learned Lord, I don't I'm not going to.

Well, I'll speculate. I assume that the government is trying to fix a problem in Scotland by putting it into the Bill being considered in this House, a private member's bill. And is that really the right approach to be taking? Otherwise there is no reason for amendment 888, and there was no reason for amendment 77 in the Commons. So to that end, I'm trying to get to the bottom of, given the narrowness of what this is relating to in regard to assisted dying in Scotland, why it is that the government chose to not agree with the initial proposals of the Scottish Government to have a wider element in the section 30.

So I think on a lot of this, this, a lot of this is all about transparency and I don't know what the Scottish Parliament has decided to do on this order. I know at the other end today in Commons, in the consideration, only one Scottish MP was put on by the government, on the government side, and the consideration of this order in Council, it didn't even give a place to the chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee. But we'll see where that goes.

I'm sure with the government's majority it will certainly go through tomorrow. But to try and get a sense of kind of how this is being knitted together, the reason I say this is in consideration the other bill of the bill that that we're still considering as a private member's bill on which the government continues to insist it is neutral. The government so far has refused to give any indication of how it might take forward aspects of the bill. And yet it seems to have made a commitment to the Scottish Government that it would do that, or it would have a veto on how the Scottish Ministers might take forward parts of the other bill.

So I appreciate that the, the, the noble Baroness, the Minister has not been here on the Fridays. I wouldn't expect her to be. The bill by and large doesn't apply to Scotland, but actually it now does apply to Scotland or is intended to apply to Scotland, especially the Bill that was brought down from the Commons and further amendments being tabled by the noble and learned Lord Falconer. So, in the interests of genuine openness and transparency, I think it would be really helpful if the Minister may not want, may not be able to lay out every single element today, but could write to the house, write to people, write, place something in the library of the house is the best way to do it.

To try and get a sense of where the government is going next. In anticipating that the bill may go forward. It may say it's not anticipating, but it clearly has. If it wasn't anticipating, then it wouldn't have made the section 30 order quite so narrow. So a series of questions there for the Minister, which I hope she will be able to address before we can go further with this before we can go further with this

19:35

Baroness Smith of Cluny, The Advocate-General for Scotland (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my I'm grateful to my noble I'm grateful to my noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I will respond to the debate. I will respond to the specific points raised, but first, I would like to mention four overarching points that are important to hold in mind in this important to hold in mind in this debate. It is for the Scottish Parliament, not the UK government, to ensure that when they legislate, to ensure that when they legislate, they do so within their competence.

That means that our role in respect of their legislative competence is necessarily responsive and not proactive. Had we failed to respond to the request made by the Scottish Government, it is our view that MSPs would have been in the position of having to consider whether to vote for an assisted dying scheme, without knowing what fundamental parts of such a scheme would entail. In this case, the medicines and devices to be used. And whilst the government is neutral on the issue of assisted dying, it is not neutral on the issue of devolution.

We believe in the proper functioning of the devolution settlement. To have denied this order would have been to deny Scottish MSPs the opportunity to make law in a devolved area, with a clear understanding of how that law would operate. This is not a debate on the issue of assisted dying, but it is a debate on the devolution settlement and whether this House is prepared to afford the Scottish Parliament the respect of legislating in the devolved area of health in a coherent way.

I will now turn to address the specific issues raised, and I'll deal first with the noble and learned Lord Cairns, Lord Lord Cairns queries. The Lord told us that the A section 30 order had last been used in in with reference to the independence referendum. That is not quite right, although it's around about the same time it was last used for the reduction of the voting age in the Scottish elections to the age of 16. But I do not demur from the point that it is unusual.

There are not common. The 16 have been used since the devolution was introduced, and I don't shy away from that. He points out that it's never been used for a member's bill, and that's also right, and it reflects the particular and unusual circumstances that we find ourselves in. Our member's Bill two governments which are neutral on the issue. It has been a challenging process. Now, the noble Lord Lord Keen tells us that the act may not be competent, and if so, it's not law.

If it is passed without the two. Further matters of legislative competence questions that I referred to when I set out the three matters. These as I understood the noble Lord to identify them, as were the regulation of professions and employment matters. I think the difference of opinion really comes to an analysis as as the noble Lord puts it. What is the purpose of the bill when one is assessing whether or not it falls within competence? And that's that's quite right.

And it really comes down to an analysis of what you regard as fundamental to the assisted dying regime and what is not. And it is this government's analysis that the regulation of medicines and devices is fundamental to a scheme such that it would not be fair to ask members of the Scottish Parliament to vote on a scheme when they do not have certainty about how that matter will be dealt with, but it is also our assessment that questions of employment law protections and that questions of the regulation of professions, in terms of training, in terms of experience, are consequential matters to the regime.

They are not of the essence of the scheme. They are consequential matters which can be dealt with after the Bill has been passed and becomes an act. And that's just simply a difference of opinion, I think, on the analysis of what is fundamental to allow the regime to exist. The noble Lord also complains that the power given to the Secretary of State really is too great, and that this, and I think I understood the position to be that this is constitutionally novel and certainly constitutionally problematic.

We should remember this has been agreed to by the Scottish Government, and we should remember that the reason that they have done that is because they agree with us that there are some matters that are so fundamental that they should be regulated and dealt with on a UK wide basis for the benefit of all the citizens of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord also asks why we don't simply extend the bill proceeding through the UK Parliament, and I'm sure he will appreciate that the government's neutral stance means that they are not in a position to lay amendments on a member's bill.

Finally, for me, deal with the matters of eligibility for the scheme, the noble Lord raises the issue of what would happen if the Bill passing through the Scottish Parliament is passed. But the Bill passing through the UK Parliament is not passed. This is not a matter for consideration today and that is not what this debate is about. This debate is about a narrow Scotland Act order, order. And I would encourage the House to retain focus on that. This is a debate about the devolution settlement.

It is not a debate about assisted dying schemes. I also note the discussion that the noble Lord had with my the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I really would make the same point. This is not the forum for a discussion about the impact of assisted dying regimes. This is a devolution question. If I may now deal with some of the points raised by the noble Lady. Lady Coffee, and I do genuinely welcome the opportunity to respond to the thoughtful comments that she has made.

I think she talked about transparency and getting a sense of how it all knitted together. And if that is not clear, I'm delighted to have the opportunity to seek to make it more clear. She also raised the issue of the necessity to have the agreement of UK government Ministers, just as a point of detail, the noble Lady mentioned the Secretary of State for Scotland. In fact, the way the order is drafted, it simply says the Secretary of State, and that's deliberately drafted in such a wide way that it can be any Secretary of State of a UK government, whomever is the most appropriate person to do it in any given moment.

But in any event, the greater point is, is the measure of control. And this really just goes back to the issue of maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom's medicines regime. It's been made very clear to the government that this is important, and we share that view, and it is such a vital matter that, in our view, it justifies the measures that we have insisted upon and the measures that are contained within the order, and which, of course, the Scottish Government also agrees with.

Now the noble Lady asked if it was correct that the Scottish Government had actually made a wider request to have the matters contained within the draft section 30 order, and that is indeed the case. Just for the record, the initial request was simply for the narrow order that is before this House, with the proposal that the remaining matters might be dealt with under section 104 order. That request was made in September. In November, after some discussion and correspondence, the the request was made or the proposal was made that perhaps all matters could be included in a section 30 order.

And we did consider this carefully, but we simply did not agree with the analysis. For for the reasons that I have given, it was our view that the other matters were properly assessed to be consequential and therefore could be dealt with in a section 104 order. It was driven by, as I have set out, a general principle that we are not looking to extend the devolution settlement more than it needs to be. So therefore, if they can be dealt with in a section 104 order, it is our view that they ought to be.

But it also was about the lack of certainty that I referred to in my opening remarks. This is a bill that is still progressing through Parliament. It's still subject to amendment. We do not know its final form. So it's it's really rather challenging. I would suggest, to include those matters in the section 30 order, as it would have to be right now rather than wait to see what the actual end form of the bill is. However, I absolutely recognise the point that the noble Lady raises numerous parties from the MSPs who will be required to vote on this bill to other interested parties are keen to understand what the UK government's position is on these other matters.

As the noble Lady points out, it may well be that they are removed from the bill in order for it to remain within competence, and that does raise questions. This is why we have said that we expect to take forward a section 104 order on employment protections, and that we remain in discussions with the Scottish Government on their view on qualifications and experience. And as I alluded to earlier, there is thinking going on within the Scottish Government about how they plan to approach it.

So may I assure the noble Lady, and indeed the House, that there are constant and constructive and collaborative conversations going on between the two governments. We are respectful of their analysis, and we remain ready to respond to requests. But as I mentioned earlier, the position the UK government is in is one of being reactive to requests that are made. The Scottish Affairs Committee suggested that it might be helpful to publish a draft 104 order, and I am grateful to them for their scrutiny.

I am grateful to them for the searching and insightful questions that they asked as they considered this order. But it really all goes back to the key point that this is still a bill in flux, and the Scottish Government are still taking their own view on what sort of section 104 order might be required or might be desired. And in those circumstances, it's not appropriate for this government to start drafting orders that have not even been requested yet.

The remaining points that the noble, the noble Lady raised, I think I've dealt with the possibility of amendments to the UK Parliament Bill, but I think really, at the end of the noble Ladies comments, she suggested that it would be helpful to have something in writing. So I've dealt with why we don't have a draft 104 orders, and why that would just simply not be appropriate as requested by the committee. However, the committee, the Scottish Affairs Committee and the other place did as I say, ask some searching questions and our response to that.

Has been given to the Committee, and I sincerely hope that they will publish it and place it in the library. My Lords, the approach raised by the regret motion from the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen is one that, if followed, would, in the government's view, alter the devolution settlement more than is necessary or appropriate to deal with this matter. We believe we should be cautious about amendments to the Scotland Act, which could result in expectation of incremental adjustment to the constitutional arrangements, which is why the order is so narrowly time framed and so narrowly framed and time limited.

The approach we have taken is a sensible and proportionate action which protects the devolution settlement, retains the integrity of the UK wide medicines regime and enables MSPs to consider their Bill with clarity about how the matter of substances and devices that could be used for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assisted dying could be dealt with. Thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the Minister for giving way. And the Minister mentioned about the prospect of producing a about the prospect of producing a draft order, but seemed to indicate that the government wouldn't be that the government wouldn't be doing that until it got certainty from the Scottish Parliament as to what the final position was on what the final position was on those two issues. Is there not a danger that the government's position creates a sort of a catch 22 situation, because MSPs are then going to be voting, not knowing what the 104 orders will be.

And on the flip side of the coin, the government will produce those without knowing what the MSPs are going to settle on. So it creates a sort of a form of contradiction on both sides in that regard. And if part of the idea is to give as much certainty as possible, does that certainty as possible, does that not create a level of flaw within that? that? And I'm grateful to to the Lord for raising this issue, because I can see that it's it's creating confusion.

And I think that's reflects how complicated and difficult the matter has been. I think the first thing to say is that it is not for the UK government to draft any 104 orders. It is a matter for the Scottish Government to make sure that their legislation remains within the competence of their Parliament, and it is for them to request a section 104 order, and not for this government to propose it to them, so it would not be appropriate to be to be drafting it and publishing it, even if the other issues that I mentioned weren't present.

But I am very sympathetic to the position of of MSPs and others who would prefer to see a complete and neatly tied up regime before them before they voted on it. The fact is that it's complicated. It strays into reserved areas, and the Scottish Government and the UK government have sought to deal with that in the most efficient way, in the most respectful way towards MSPs and towards the devolution, settlement. And the comfort that I give today is that we are in very constructive and collaborative conversations with them and stand ready to receive any requests for 104 orders.

On that note, I think we should celebrate the co-operation of the two governments in what has been a very tricky issue. This is a member's bill, so it was not a straightforward issue between two governments that could be dealt with in the usual way. Both governments are neutral on the issue. It is also a high profile issue and indeed a highly emotive one as well. This is what a constructive, mature, respectful reset of the relationship with the devolved nations looks like.

I therefore commend this order to the House and beg to move it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To get. I think I asked if the government was the suggested to Kim government was the suggested to Kim Leadbeater that she tabled that amendment 77 back in June, which amendment 77 back in June, which was starting to extend parts of the Bill to Scotland. If I can always ask the noble and learned Lord ask the noble and learned Lord Rogan outside for his amendment. 888 but I'd be grateful if she has got an answer, if she could share got an answer, if she could share that with the house in some way at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some point. I'd be delighted to write to the noble Lady. I think it's important that we have precision on this issue, and I don't have that information immediately at hand, but I will do so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but I will do so. My Lords, I will be brief. I'm a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I will be brief. I'm a little puzzled by the proposition that the regulation of the

19:52

Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)

- -

that the regulation of the medicines to be employed in assisted dying is to be regarded as the central purpose of the Scottish Bill, while the regulation of those applying those medicines is merely consequential. I would have thought that the hand comes before the content rather than the content before the hand. But there we are. There appears to be a difference of legal opinion on that narrow point, and I accept the observation made by the noble Lady, the Minister, that there are aspects of this that are complicated and difficult.

I nevertheless am left with an abiding impression that this rather complex mechanism ultimately is designed to ensure that it is the Secretary of State who has the final say over the way in which this legislation is implemented, rather than the Scottish Parliament. But that is where we are. I've expressed my regret with regard to the scope of the section 30 order, and I leave matters there. Is it your Lordships amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn.

We move to the next business.

19:54

Deputy Lord Speaker. Viscount Stansgate (Labour)

Order. >> Order. >> Oh! The order! I beg your pardon? The question is that the order be agreed to. As many of their opinion content contrary not content. The contents have it. We now move to the next business. The questions on an oral statement made in the House of Commons on Tuesday the 3rd of

19:54

Statement: Separation centres review

February on separation centres.

19:54

Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)

- -

Thank you, my Lords. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the government's statement on separation Centres and the separation Centres and the independent review by Jonathan Hall KC while the review itself contains KC while the review itself contains important material, we must be frank about several critical issues that have been raised both in and that have been raised both in and out of Parliament. My Lords, first, on the fundamental question of what threat we're talking about when threat we're talking about when discussing the need for separation centres, the reality is clear Islamist extremism remains the predominant form of extremist offending within our prison estate.

As the shadow justice secretary pointed out. In the other place, Security service statistics showed that the Islamist related threats form the majority of counter-terrorism focus, and most terrorist prisoners in custody are convicted on Islamist related charges. This is not a matter of debate, but an acknowledgement of the practical threat that separation centres are designed to contain, and it must inform both policy and parliamentary scrutiny. Second, we have concerns about the government's stated intention to look at litigation based on article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.

While that may offer superficial reassurance, it is in fact article three of the convention that is the real legal barrier. Article three is absolute. There are no exceptions, no public order or national security carve outs and no limited derogations. It prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the strongest terms, as that may be interpreted. We have already seen its damaging consequences in our own courts. In the case of Abu and Secretary of State for justice, the High Court found that prolonged segregation of a convicted terrorist who was already in a separation centre amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment.

In breach of article three, it was found that Ministers had failed to account for his mental health needs adequately before imposing those conditions. My Lords, this was a binding judicial judgement, applying the European Convention directly to the operation of separation regimes in England and Wales. So let us be clear article three cannot be overridden or restricted by statute or ministerial policy. It is absolute. No amount of legislative tweaking proposed by the Justice Secretary will permit separation conditions that our courts find contravene article three.

If the government strong desire is to insulate separation centre management from litigation, they will find that article three presents the true legal limit far beyond anything provided by article eight, which is a qualified act. I would therefore ask the Minister to confirm precisely what steps the government intend to take in relation to article three, how, in practical and legal terms, do they plan to deal with the fact that the law, as it stands, prohibits what is interpreted to be interpreted to be inhuman or degrading treatment, even in the face of compelling public safety arguments? My Lords, in these circumstances, clearly, while we want to ensure that our prisons are safe, that our staff are protected, and that dangerous offenders cannot radicalise others or indeed cause greater mayhem, there is a fundamental problem with the legal constraints which are imposed by the convention, and the government does need to address these.

I'm obliged.

19:58

Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, when.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It comes to the basic question that's already been raised today, that is the Convention on Human that is the Convention on Human Rights. I'm afraid my bench is very much disagree with the noble Lord has just spoken. I think it's Churchill who said, it's the way you treat your prisoners that you treat your prisoners that defines you as civilised. So are we going to make sure that we do will define their rights, and also that define their rights, and also that if we look at this in practical terms, how are we going to balance this out if we're going to make sure that the prison officers in charge of this are safe, and that is surely one of the most important parts here.

When will the Minister be able to tell us, have we gone through the improved training programmes that are suggested? When will they have the equipment they need? These are two fundamental things. But secure centres do mean that we're not going to allow these very highly dangerous section, section prisoners into the main prison population, which is right. Radicalisation has always been a problem in prisons with doing something to stop it. Here. Not only Islamic terrorists but also far right extremists.

I think it was 60, 30 and then ten others, 10% of other groups. If I saw the figures are right, what are we doing to make sure these people are isolated and do not make the situation worse? And are we going to make sure that those who are containing it are properly equipped? Is the basic question here. I do appreciate that the government have moved under Jonathan Hall's recommendations, and the government have accepted them. Time frame is very important as we will know what we are going to expect from the government and will be able to judge how it has succeeded.

I would hope that the Minister will be able to answer these basic questions in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fairly short order. Noble Lords, I welcome the opportunity to discuss with noble opportunity to discuss with noble Lords this evening. Jonathan Hall cases, independent review of separation centres and the separation centres and the government's response to it. And I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord Keen and the noble Lord Addington for their contributions. On the 12th of April, 2025. Three prison officers in the 2025. Three prison officers in the Separation Centre at HMP Frankland were brutally attacked.

I want to first pay tribute to those brave officers and I am sure noble Lords will join me in wishing them well in their continued recovery. I visited separation centres and seen the brilliant work our staff do first hand. These are specialist high control units located within three high security prisons which hold the most pernicious, extremist and terrorist offenders. They are designed to protect other prisoners, staff and the public. I also visited HMP Frankland shortly after the attack last April and met the brave officers who served there.

I will say it again because it cannot

20:01

Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)

- -

be said enough times. These are dedicated professionals carrying out an absolutely essential public out an absolutely essential public service. Following the attack at HMP Frankland, the government acted immediately to strengthen immediately to strengthen protections for frontline staff. We also invested £15 million in prison security straight away, increasing security straight away, increasing the number of stab proof vests available for frontline officers from 750 to 10,000, as well as providing training for up to 500 staff in the use of tasers. The government also appointed Jonathan Hall KC to lead an independent review of sticking to separation centres, to learn from his findings and reduce the risk to reduce the risk of such an incident ever happening again.

We are grateful to Jonathan for his work. The findings are clear. The core principle behind separation centres remains sound, but the system must improve. Jonathan's report, which was published on the 3rd of February, makes 13 recommendations to strengthen safety, sharpen accountability and modernise how separation centres operate. The government has accepted all 13 recommendations and in some areas, committed to going even further. Full details can be found in the published government response. However, I would like to highlight some specific issues raised by Jonathan and the government's action in response to these.

First, the review identifies that some terrorist offenders present what are described as latent risks, a threat that may not always be visible but is no less dangerous to other prisoners, staff and the broader public. In response, we will continue to invest in the tools, training and support staff need to manage terrorist risk safely and confidently, and to give a bit more granular detail on that for the noble Lord. All staff already receive counter-terrorism training. They will now receive more as per our response to the review and Separation Centre.

Staff will receive specific modules on terrorist risk. The Home Office runs desistance and disengagement programmes and this operates in the prisons, and it helps individuals move away from terrorist ideology. Also, stab proof vests are mandatory in high risk areas from June last year. And we're training, as I said, up to 500 staff to carry the tape. These tasers and staff can access helmets, batons and shields. So the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is things like de-escalation training in those conflicts that actually would might keep those actually would might keep those officers safer. Could he just if he's got any figures about that,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could he let us know here or let us know later on by letter? I would be delighted to write to the noble Lord about the actual the noble Lord about the actual de-escalation training. But the noble Lord is right that human relationships are very important in these closed environments. In fact, these closed environments. In fact, in all prison and probation environments, human relations relationships are really what matters in training. What can be very difficult situations into safer situations? But we're also launching a comprehensive, expert led review of training for separation centre staff, tailored specifically to the uniquely dangerous environments in which they work.

Second, the review identifies a clear need to transform the way separation centres are governed and operated. That is why that the next spending review we will explore the creation of tougher supermax style units for the most violent and disruptive prisoners. These units would provide the highest level of control within a new tiered separation centre system, with movement between tiers only permitted following rigorous risk assessments. And we've already started the preliminary work on this. Third, the review found that outdated procedures and legal complexity of constrain the system.

We've already improved the defensibility of our Separation Centre policy framework, and we will go further to ensure it is robust and grounded in operational reality. This government remains committed to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, we recognise, as Jonathan highlights within his report, the challenges article eight can pose for separation centre decision making. That is why we are strengthening internal processes, developing a robust litigation strategy and will consider whether new legislation is needed to better protect decisions taken by experienced staff in separation centres from legal challenge.

We will explore the full range of options to deliver this, while being clear we remain compliant with our obligation under. And to be clear to the noble and learned Lord, we are appealing the Abu judgement and Jonathan Hall did not find that separation centres contravened article three. They found our process failed, which we are reforming. Fourth, the review found that current intelligence practices and separation centres are too bureaucratic and insufficiently focussed. We will improve collection practices so that higher quality, more relevant intelligence is gathered.

This will be supported by further training for specialist staff working with the security service. We will ensure that the most serious risks are managed using the full range of available tools, and high quality intelligence directly informs operational decisions. Noble, my noble Lords, our response to terror and extremism is decisive and determined, and this government will always stand with those who protect the public from danger. We will not shy away from reform, and we will never lose sight of our first duty to keep the British

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public safe. My Lords, I beg to move the House. Do now adjourn. House. Do now adjourn.

14:00

Introduction(s): Lord Nagaraju

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page