Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Urgent Question Repeat: Government’s approach to redacting or withholding documents within scope of the Humble Address agreed by the House on 4th February 2026

of Commons today. The government's approach to redacting or withholding documents of the Humble Address. Baroness Sanderson of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stoke on Trent. Thank you. With leave of the House, I'll repeat the the

15:20

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

statement that was made in the other place. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I have set out to this House on As I have set out to this House on previous occasions, the government is working to comply with the motion passed in February. I can reassure the House that this reassure the House that this remains the case and can provide the following update. Today. The government confirmed before government confirmed before prorogation that it had referred over 300 documents to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which at the time represented all which at the time represented all the documents in scope of the motion where the government believed publication would be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations, the government has repeatedly assessed all of the documents it has collected to make sure all those that need to be referred to the ISC are referred to the committee.

As part of this quality control process, the government identified a small number of further documents that it felt should be reviewed by the ISC and immediately submitted these documents to the committee. As Friday statement from the committee set out, it has now considered all of these documents. As I have previously said to the House, the government will be publishing a second tranche of material. This is currently being finalised and will be one of the finalised and will be one of the largest government publications ever laid in this House.

This is reflective of the sentiment. It constitutes a very significant disclosure exercise involving sensitive material from across government. The government has taken its obligations to comply with the Humble Address in full, while also upholding other public interest issues such as duty of care to junior staff. The government has carried out this work according to a robust process, with assurances from an independent KC given the House is due to rise on Thursday, Mr. Speaker, and given the length of the publication, the second tranche will now be published after Whitsun recess to give the House sufficient time to review the material and to be able to ask me and the government questions, Mr.

Speaker, it could have been published this Thursday, Mr. Speaker, but I felt that the House would deem that to be inappropriate, given that it will be such a significant publication. Mr. speaker, I just refer back to my previous comments. This will be the largest publication, other than, I think, the Chilcot inquiry report ever published to the House. When the government publishes the second tranche of documents, we will also publish a methodology confirming the process we have followed, and it will be clear from the published information and the basis on which any content has been redacted.

The targeted redactions made to the material beyond those made to relevant to national security or international relations, have been made in line with clear precedent set out by previous administrations. In responding to humble addresses. As I set out to the House on 23rd of February, and again when we published the first tranche of material on the 11th of March, we have taken the normal approach to redacting junior officials names, contact details like telephone numbers and email addresses, the personal data of third parties, where this is not in scope of the motion and where relevant, legal professional privilege.

This has been done using the principles set out in the Freedom of Information Act, and in line with the Ministerial code and the resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both houses in 1997, which state that Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute. I am sure members from across the House will recognise there is no public interest in the government publishing the names and contact details of junior officials or their telephone numbers.

15:24

Baroness Finn (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, what the ISC has said today is profoundly troubling. Materials must not be redacted and withheld from Parliament in contravention of the Humble Address. The ISC has a specific role in this process, and the Humble Address does not allow for redaction of documents sent to the. Is. Indeed, there is no exemption for personal data and to the. To the extent that the government are withholding. On

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that basis, they are in clear breach of the humble Address. If there are legitimate reasons

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If there are legitimate reasons for the redaction of documents, the government must come to Parliament to amend the Humble Address. This is not just a matter of process. It is not just a matter of process. It is a matter of parliamentary sovereignty which must be. We have sovereignty which must be. We have consistently called for a list or overview of all the documents and whether they have been published. So can the noble Baroness. The So can the noble Baroness. The Minister, confirm that any documents that are currently being withheld, but which are not relevant to the police investigation, will be released in the next tranche? And will the government commit to briefing on Privy Council terms, opposition members, about the documents that are being withheld.

15:25

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

The noble Lady knows I have huge respect for her, but I do find it extraordinary given her previous roles at number ten, when she worked at number ten, when there were previous Humble Address addresses released that followed exactly the same precedent that we are doing now, which redacted personal information of junior officials. The noble Lady was part of that process. I find it extraordinary that she would be challenging us on following the precedent that her administration set in terms of next steps.

We are complying with the letter and spirit. Following previous precedent of protecting the issues we need to protect, of the Humble Address, and the full tranche of materials will be published after the Whitsun recess.

15:26

Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)

- -

In his comments on the controversy over the release of controversy over the release of documents, the noble Lord Lord Beamish also, I think, rightly raised concerns about the heavy raised concerns about the heavy reliance on WhatsApp for conversations between senior officials and Ministers and the resultant risks of the audit trail, that it is not always necessarily therefore clear who actually decided what and when. Now, the Cabinet Office's guidance on the use of WhatsApp states at the bottom quotes. This guidance will be reviewed on or before the 31st of December 2025.

When I've raised this missed deadline before, the government has neither given an explanation for missing that deadline nor committed to a new date for the review. So, in the light of the renewed controversy over the use of WhatsApp, I wonder if the noble Lady, the Minister, could both give us an explanation as to why that deadline was missed, and perhaps also give a commitment as to when the new deadline. What. I'd also give us a new deadline for when this review will actually finally be completed.

Yeah.

15:26

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord raises genuinely important points about both how we make decisions, how we talk to each other, and I share some of his concerns. The government plans to review the way that non-corporate communication channels are used in government, and to update the accompanying guidance to reflect the changes in which we use the technology. And I expect to be, before your Lordships' House imminently to discuss the.

15:27

Lord Beamish (Labour)

- -

My Lords my Lords. >> The ISC was given a clear task to look at documents that are going to be released on the Humble Address for national security and Address for national security and international relations. Harm, we've done that. We've spent many hours doing it. And can I credit pay credit to the committee for their hard work, in particular, my two noble friends, Lord West and Baroness Brown of Cambridge, for their diligence in that task. The point of our statement is very clear is the government need to justify why it is actually going to redact things other than on the grounds which we have decided.

The other one, the other situation is the fact that there is documentation, including the full background files of the vetting of Lord Mandelson, which we've not seen has been withheld. In our opinion, we understand the reasons why, because release that would actually lead to difficulty for the future vetting system. But it does fall within the Humble Address, and the government do need to come to Parliament to actually argue that point, a point that the ISC would agree with in that situation.

Can I finally just raise the points about WhatsApp? We are concerned about the use of WhatsApp, the use of low side systems for information, and the lack of audit trail, particularly in the Foreign Office of Decision Making and the. Ignoring or overriding of security concerns being raised by those agencies, which job it is to do. These are all issues that the last committee raised, both with the Johnson and Sunak government. But that culture is continuing, that culture cannot be allowed to continue.

Can I urge my hon. Friend to, as a matter of urgency, ensure that proper systems are put in place, are not just kick this can down the road.

15:29

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

Yeah. noble friend for the work that he and his committee are undertaking to do this work that is not normally in the scope of the work of the ISC? It's been a huge amount of work that we've asked as a Parliament for them to undertake, and we are grateful for the work that they are doing. As I've set out, the government will return to Parliament when it publishes the second tranche of material. We will set out the methodology that has been followed and the reasons for it.

And more generally, there are obvious reasons the government treats vetting material with exceptional sensitivity. There are many members of your Lordships' House who have held roles where they are, have been exposed to the importance of vetting, how the process works, and the fact that the number of people that have access to this material remains tightly controlled for a reason. But we will be publishing a full methodology alongside the materials. That's not my phone, so we're all good. With regards to the other points raised by the noble Lord, I've already answered the point on the inappropriate use of Triple C's, but the other points that he that he and his committee have raised in their correspondence of recent days, including the lack of proper records and inappropriate use of lower level IT systems.

I have to say, I have more than some sympathy with the comments made by the noble Lord and his committee, and we will be. We will be taking every measure to make sure that the culture. Both changes and the appropriate record keeping is done.

15:30

Lord Harper (Conservative)

- -

That's the Minister, the noble >> That's the Minister, the noble Lady, the Minister. A little on the timing point and the need for scrutiny. Presumably the government scrutiny. Presumably the government is planning on the Minister, both in the other place, in this place, making a statement when this information is published. I see she's nodding. She was careful to say this is going to be a big release information. Can I ask her, can we have a gap between the publication of the information and the statement the Minister makes to give members of the upper House and this House sufficient time to scrutinise what she says is a significant volume of information to be able to ask pertinent and relevant questions, dumping a huge number of documents and having a statement immediately afterwards is not going to enable proper scrutiny.

15:31

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord raises an >> The noble Lord raises an important point, but he will also know in government that some of those decisions are outside of my control. But convention in our control. But convention in our House is typical. That statements are not repeated on the same day typically. So I hope noble Lords will have the opportunity to discuss and I will make myself available as well, at any point to any member of your Lordships House who wants to have seen and has further questions, both in here and outside, to have to answer any questions they have about the release of the documentation.

15:32

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)

- -

Why has there. >> Been such a long. >> Delay in the publication? >> The Lord, with no disrespect to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Lord, with no disrespect to my noble friend Lord Beamish, would my noble friend the Minister, agree that when this is raised by the opposition as a Urgent Question, it makes it into an aggressive party political issue? Is this not better left to the all party independent? I ask?

15:32

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

As ever, my noble friend is exceptionally wise, but I exceptionally wise, but I understand why members across your Lordships House have questions about what comes next and the material. There is, as I have said, a significant volume of material to be released. We want to do this well and effectively so that we are not returning time after time with additional materials, which is why the reviews are by making sure the reviews are done effectively internally, it is one of the reasons why there are additional materials that were passed to the ISC after what we thought had been all of the materials, and we do need to do this on a cross-party way.

I'm aware that members of your Lordships' House have questions and we will be discussing in great detail. I am sure, when the next tranche of material is released,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the content of them. Conservative. Such a long delay in the publication of basic materials.

15:33

Lord Redwood (Conservative)

- -

>> Like Lord Mandelson's application. And his declaration of interests, which are of great interest to everyone, but surely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

interest to everyone, but surely cannot pose any difficulties. My Lords, as I just said, we are

15:33

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

>> My Lords, as I just said, we are looking to to only publish two key tranches. The first one has already been done, the second one will been done, the second one will follow shortly, the third one will. The third and final tranche will be after police investigations. Those are the materials that are being withheld because the met are using them for their work, rather than. Rather than repeatedly coming back to your Lordships House. We want to do this effectively in a way that Review.

15:34

Lord Rooker (Labour)

- -

The practical. >> Has raised. >> Would it be possible to at least give this house and the other house 24 hours or 48 hours notice of when the release is going to be? It's not. It won't be any good coming back after the recess on the Monday. And all of a sudden, we're told on the Monday with the statements this afternoon, I just think there ought to be a bit more warning about when it's going to happen.

15:34

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Labour)

- -

That, my noble friend, raises an interesting point, and I'll have to speak to colleagues. >> Lord Watts the time has elapsed for that question, I must call the next business, which is. Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Thursday, the 14th of May on the Dillon judgement.

15:34

Statement: Dillon judgment

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for making herself available today to make this statement repeat and to answer questions on the important

15:35

Lord Caine (Conservative)

- -

Supreme Court judgement. I do appreciate that she has a very busy portfolio, so I am grateful. But could the noble Baroness Stowell the House? What was the urgency that required the Secretary of that required the Secretary of State to make his statement in the other place last Thursday, when many of Northern Ireland's MPs, along with members of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, were attending the Balmoral Agricultural Show, one can only speculate as to Show, one can only speculate as to what would motivate the government to make a statement on a day when they would have known that a significant number of interested MPs would be unable to attend my Lords.

Turning to the judgement itself, the opposition welcomes the fact that the court found in favour of the government in respect of article two of the Windsor framework, I remind the House that this relates to measures introduced by the previous government, of which I was then a member, and the appeal in this area is a continuation of the one that we lodged following the High Court judgement of February 2024. We were always very clear that the human rights protections in the Windsor framework were intended to cover those specific to Northern Ireland, as set out in the Right Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity section of the 1998 Belfast Agreement.

It was never our intention that article two of the framework should apply more broadly than that and enable the courts to disapply primary legislation where they believe it engages provisions of EU law that no longer apply in Northern Ireland itself. Yet, as the statement points out, the judgements in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal did have implications for the effective implementation of government legislation on a UK wide basis, not just in areas of national security, as the statement refers, but also, for example, in tackling illegal migration.

We are naturally pleased, therefore, that the position we took has now been vindicated. Turning to the issue of conditional immunity, I regret that the statement continues. The current government's wilful mischaracterisation of what is contained in the 2023 act. There was never a general immunity to which I would emphatically have never agreed, but a conditional scheme in relation to specific cases where an individual cooperates fully with the Commission but with tough sanctions, including revocation, fines and possible prosecution, where somebody knowingly sought to mislead or hide hide the truth, the effects would have been to facilitate information recovery, helped to provide answers to victims and survivors while ensuring that individuals, including veterans, could speak freely without fear of further consequences.

Notwithstanding what it says about the EC, about ECHR compatibility, which is more nuanced than the statement implies, the court's judgement is also clear that the immunity provisions in the 2023 act do not breach article two of the Windsor framework, and that therefore they do not need to be disapplied. Can the noble Baroness confirm that this is the case and that, as the law currently stands, any veteran engaging fully with the Commission could apply for conditional immunity and that this could be granted.

Does it not also follow that the decision by the government to use the Human Rights Act to remove these provisions is a political choice, rather than a legal requirement, and one which will once again lead to the prospect of investigations and prosecutions. It is, my Lords, a political choice that will not be lost on so many of those who serve to keep people safe and secure from terrorism. During 30 years of Operation Banner. My Lords, the court also rules that the current Commission can carry out investigations to an article two and three standard and can operate independently of the Secretary of State, not least in part thanks to the amendments passed in your Lordships House.

Does this not render the sweeping changes in the government's own troubles Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place as far back as November, and has not yet had. Committee stage almost completely unnecessary. Of course, we all know that the reason for the delay has been the impasse between the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence over additional protections for veterans, after the ones announced last September were shown to be wholly inadequate, with all but one applying in equal measure to paramilitaries.

Can the noble Baroness tell the House whether these new protections have now been agreed, and if so, when will they be published? And have they been backed by the Dublin government, which has been seen by many as driving this process and over which it has effectively given itself a veto? My Lords, the commission that was established in 2024 has, from a standing start so far received requests from 290 individuals from all parts of the community is conducting 123 live investigations involving approximately 200 deaths, with its first response expected imminently.

Rather than burdening this House with yet more unnecessary legislation, the government should get behind the commission and ensure that it has the tools to do its job. Instead, they have made the political choice to embark on a course that will once again leave veterans exposed, will facilitate the Republican rewrite of history, and, regrettably, only delay the provision of answers for so many victims and survivors of the Troubles.

15:40

Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I too would like to thank the Minister for dealing with questions. Following the statement questions. Following the statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland last Thursday. The judgement is undoubtedly a complex one but does, we believe, firmly vindicate the many concerns which were raised at the time during the passage of the previous Conservative Government's Bill in your Lordships House, as well as elsewhere, about the immunity provisions contained in the 2023 act. From these benches, we consistently oppose the unacceptable equivalence that the immunity provisions gave between terrorists and those who had served the crown in Northern Ireland.

It was this position of equivalence that led to all political parties in Northern Ireland. We should not forget victims and survivors groups, as well as many veterans in Northern Ireland opposing it. Although those provisions never came into force and were not before the Supreme Court in this case, but as the noble Lady, the Minister is, I know, all too aware that there remain many concerns about both the remedial order and the Troubles Bill amongst veterans organisations. The Supreme Court's ruling makes getting those protections right more urgent and not less.

The court confirmed that the ICI design is not fatally flawed in principle, but only by deferring key questions to be resolved case by case. That approach is precisely the uncertainty veterans fear most of all, particularly given the inherent evidential disadvantage they face. Dylan has not resolved these questions. It has simply postponed them, which makes it even more important. We believe that the protections built into the Troubles bill are robust and clearly defined from the outset. Last week, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that protections for veterans will be published in advance of Committee stage in the House of Commons.

Can the Minister confirm that those provisions to protect our veterans will also be shared with noble Lords, and that our views and concerns will also be taken into consideration? Can the Minister also confirm that these will be real and substantial protections which recognise that there is not, and never should be, equivalence between those who serve our country and those who have committed terrorist atrocities. The judgement clearly has consequences beyond this case alone. Can the Minister say what she believes? The wider implications of the Supreme Court's ruling on article two of the Windsor framework will be both for Northern Ireland and for the government's ability to legislate going forward.

Finally, my Lords, does the Minister agree with me that in all the heat and fury surrounding these issues, it is vital not to forget the families, victims and survivors who simply want to know the truth of what happened to their loved ones, and to have some prospect of justice. I had the privilege of visiting the Wave Trauma Centre in Belfast recently. Speaking to a small group of victims and survivors was deeply, deeply moving. They just want to have hope that they might, after all these years of waiting, have answers and perhaps some sense of closure.

And also. Can the Minister. Does the Minister agree with me that it is equally important that this process does not lose sight of the objective of long term reconciliation, including measures to promote genuine cross-country understanding, such as measures to advance integrated education?

15:44

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I want to thank both >> My Lords, I want to thank both the noble Lord Lord Caine, the noble Baroness lady, for their contributions today. I will attempt to address their questions and concerns, considering both the time available to us and the complex nature of this judgement, which I'm sure both noble and noble and learned Lords will be taking time to digest. I also reflect on Hansard and will write, if I've missed any of the specific questions raised. I'd like to first of all, start by the one reference.

The final comment made by Baroness Sushi about the victory. The victims, the noble Lord Lord Caine, advised me when I took on this role, that every time I speak at the Dispatch Box, I should check for the anniversary dates. I think it should remind all of us about the actual consequences of what we're dealing with here, and why we're doing the work that we're doing. On the 17th of May 1973. Five British soldiers were killed by the provisional IRA.

On the 17th of May 1974. The Dublin and Monaghan bombings occurred by the UVF. 33 people were killed on the 15th of May 1977, captain Robert Nairac, known to members of your Lordships House, was disappeared. On the 19th of May 1981, five British soldiers were killed at Bessbrook by the provisional IRA. On the 18th of May 1984, three soldiers were murdered at Enniskillen. Two soldiers were murdered at Camberley by the provisional IRA. On the 20th of May 1985, four members of the RUC were murdered near killin by the IRA.

My Lord, this is within a week of the history of the Troubles. But there is always hope because on the 22nd of May 1998, we had the referendum on the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, where 71.2% of the residents of Northern Ireland voted for peace to take us forward. My Lords, everything that we do has to be within the spirit of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement and the spirit of the Belfast of the Stormont House agreement to take us from where we were to where we are.

There are members of your Lordships House that lived and breathed on all sides of the House. The reality of the Troubles and every murder I have just referenced. There were dozens of people who were hurt and live still today with the consequences of it. So when we talk about these issues, there are people that are still grieving every single day who don't have answers. And I have been privileged in my role of meeting many of the families, many of the victims, many of the veterans groups who both served, but also are still dealing with the consequences.

So in turning to some of the specific questions raised, my Lords, I want to first commend, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the families that brought the case against the Legacy Act. Those families were utterly opposed to the Legacy Act and most notably, the provision it made for a conditional immunity scheme, a scheme that would have offered immunity to terrorists who perpetuated horrific acts of violence against our service personnel, as well as our service personnel, an immunity that has never been put into law.

The action they took resulted in the conditional immunity scheme and several other provisions of the Legacy Act be found by the High Court and then again by the Court of Appeal to be incompatible with our obligations under article two and three of the European Convention on Human Rights. My Lords, this government has and is opposed to the immunity scheme. It was wrong in principle. Had no support in Northern Ireland. That's why we dropped the appeal on immunity. In terms of one of the specific points on this issue raised by the noble Lord Lord Caine.

Well, I am not noble and learned as much as my mother had always wished I might be. And there was one key paragraph from the finding. In our view it cannot be said that Strasbourg court had established a principle in its case law that there is a reconciliation exemption to the general ban on amnesties for grave breaches of fundamental rights, or that the question has not come before the court. Absent such a ruling, there is nothing to which the mirror principle can be applied by the UK courts through incremental development to the circumstances in Northern Ireland.

As I said, I am definitely not learning it, unfortunately, but my understanding and my briefing is that that suggests that that is clear in legal language that amnesty would not be found to be legal. Turning to the remedial order, my Lords, this point is of particular importance to note. I know that there are those in this House who have shared the view that the government did not have the grounds on which to bring forward the remedial order, which would finally strike the immunity provisions from the statute book.

As my noble Lords will be well aware, the conditions for laying an row under the Human Rights Act are that an appeal brought within that time has been determined or abandoned. The Supreme Court recognised this and therefore immunity was not an issue before it. However, it did state very clearly that no exemptions in case law exist to justify the granting of immunity for breaches of article 2 or 3 of the ECHR. As such, the government will be moving forward with the remedial order as soon as parliamentary time allows, and I look forward to discussing the detail of the remedial order with members of your Lordships' House at that point.

From what I am sure will be an interesting discussion. Moving to article two of the Windsor Framework. My Lords, with regards to article two of the Windsor framework, the Supreme Court has provided important clarity on how it should be interpreted and applied in future. It has confirmed the government's long standing position that the rights protected by article two of the Windsor framework are those concerned with the cessation of the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland, and that specifically war. Reaffirming the government's position on this, the Supreme Court found that the relevant provisions of the Legacy Act should not have been applied by article two of the Windsor Framework for absolute clarity.

My Lords, this does not equate to endorsement of the immunity scheme that has been suggested by some with regard to the legislation before the Other place my Lords turning to the troubled Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland set out, the Troubles Bill is now the only viable way to generate confidence across communities, enable information sharing by the Irish authorities and put in place the necessary safeguards for our future service personnel. We have been listening to victims families and our brave veterans and service personnel in developing this legislation.

I myself have met with numerous victims and veterans groups and have had firsthand of the violence of the Troubles continues to impact their lives today. It is for them that we are seeking to act. That is why the government is committed to progressing this legislation as soon as possible. Will balancing that against the need to get this right? The government will be tabling a series of amendments to the bill in due course, which we hope will give all communities confidence in legacy processes and ensure our veterans are treated fairly and with the respect and dignity they deserve.

In answer to the noble Baroness Suttie, yes, absolutely. I'm more than happy to share them with members of your Lordships House as and when the legislation gets to our end of the building, however, I am convinced that we will be discussing that specifically those parts of the legislation for many hours. My Lords, one of the other issues that, and why we need the legislation to come forward, is also because of tackling the issue of the interim custody orders, which hasn't been referenced by the Lords, but we do need to deal with this issue.

We will be dealing so with in the legislation as it comes forward. Noble Lord Lord Caine also touched on the issues of of immigration. He's absolutely right. There are across Whitehall as as well as across Northern Ireland departments. Impact of this judgement. It is a very complicated judgement. So we're reflecting what it means in the round. But we the government was successful in its appeal. So therefore we look forward to moving forward. We look forward to moving forward.

In terms of the other issues, I'd also like to put on record my support for Wave. They are an extraordinary organisation and they are not the only one. We work so closely with many others, whether across the piece and whether they're the smaller groups like Maps or Sets, which is not a small group at all, or wave noble Lords who have been touched by this issue will be aware that veterans in Northern Ireland require different types of support to other members of the community, that it would be impossible for a member of the Unionist community to access certain services if they didn't know who was also going to be there to, and vice versa.

So making sure there are a range of organisations is key, and it is my privilege to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get to work with them. My Lords my Lords. We now move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords my Lords. We now move on to up to 20 minutes of backbench questions to get as many questions questions to get as many questions as possible. We need questions, not speeches. So all members of the House in the first question will come to the conservative Benches. come to the conservative Benches. We will then go to the cross benches.

15:53

Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)

- -

>> May I commend the Minister? The Amnesty Act of 1924, which the Minister will know was passed by the Irish Government at the conclusion of the Civil War. It was a very useful precedent, and may I commend it to the House for the very sensible way forward.

15:54

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

My Lords, there are many. And the noble Lord makes a very important and interesting important and interesting intervention. But there are so many people that are still in such pain that made huge compromises and sacrifices in order to deliver the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. While I appreciate the concept of amnesty could be appealing and there are other mechanisms that could be as appealing. There are others and I, for one, would want to see as many paramilitaries prosecuted as we could.

15:54

Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)

- -

My Lord. Minister for the way she introduced her response to the statement this afternoon. Can I link that with a thanks to the Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, MP, for the way that they have engaged with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on both the remedial order and, indeed on the Troubles Bill. Given that scrutiny on those things continues, can the noble Baroness promise us that, given that the remedial order was agreed by the Committee on the basis of urgency, that it will be expedited and brought forward without any further delay, and that the new amendments, the tranche of which she is alluded to in her remarks, will also be brought to the committee for them to see before it publishes its report on the bill.

And lastly, in the light of Peter May's recent report raising concerns about corporate effectiveness and cultural health of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, will the government use the forthcoming bill to address any of the issues identified in the report, enabling the Commission to deliver high quality article two compliant resolutions?

15:55

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

I thank the noble Lord for his contributions and the work and contributions and the work and interest he has taken on this area, both personally and his committee. With regard to the timing of the. The noble Lord would appreciate that. Might be above my pay grade for. When it comes in terms of. The Chief Whip has now left the building so I could get myself in a little bit of trouble. I prefer not to. And with regards to amendments and the Lord makes a reasonable request that.

Let me speak to the Department and let me speak to the Secretary of State and see what I can facilitate and regard to the. Peter May report the noble Lords absolutely right. We have just had an internal review of the workings of Iskra my Lords. The findings of that review were stark and suggest that we absolutely need to bring forward the legislation in order to strengthen the governance arrangements so that every community can have confidence in the process, but also that the workforce have confidence in how the Legacy Commission operates.

15:56

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)

- -

Two My Lords. >> Could I thank my noble friend, the Minister, for the statement today? And could I say at the outset that one of the families outset that one of the families that were part of the Dylan judgement submission was a former constituent of mine, John McAvoy, who was sitting in a pub in Kilcoo County Down, when his friend was shot dead by loyalist paramilitaries in November 1992. My Lords provisions within the EU Withdrawal Agreement of 2020 give statutory authority to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission to act as a dedicated mechanism for the protection of rights.

In article two of the Windsor Framework. Therefore, will my noble friend the Minister, working with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, ensure that this statutory authority given to both commissions is not diluted, is protected and that they have sufficient resources to continue their work in an unrestricted manner?

15:57

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

Yes. another heartbreaking case related to the Troubles and every one of our colleagues and members of your Lordships House, who has been touched by the Troubles, has their own story and their own heartbreak. With regards to the substantive point raised by my noble friend, my Lords, the government remains fully and unequivocally committed to the protection of human rights and safeguards in Northern Ireland, including our statutory obligations under article two of the Windsor Framework, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission play a vital role in the dedicated mechanism to monitor, advise on and report on these commitments.

Will the funding of the Equality Commission from the my Lords is a devolved matter. The Northern Ireland Office maintains regular active dialogue with executive colleagues on a wide range of issues impacting rights and governance across Northern Ireland. The UK government also provided ring fence funding of £1.1 million in 2526 to enable the NI to deliver its dedicated mechanism commitments with similar levels of annual funding committed to up until the end of the current spending review period. I have a much more extensive answer than that for my noble friend, but I will write to her with the extent with the details.

15:58

Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)

- -

The noble. >> Lady, the Minister, agree that the Supreme Court judgement has not affected the role of Windsor Framework article two, as is, as it Framework article two, as is, as it was intended. The lodestar of human rights considerations in Northern Ireland, for example. Does she agree that its provisions will still be relevant to the exercise of discretion? For example, in the public interest Test in decisions concerning prosecutions, alongside considered provisions for veterans? And will she be kind enough to welcome the forthcoming consideration of article two by the houses Northern Houses Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, which contains many very distinguished Northern Ireland politicians and which, in fact, I have the privilege to chair.

15:59

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

My Lords the easiest question of the day with relation to welcoming your report. Of course I do, and I and thoroughly enjoy our conversations about the work of the noble Lords Committee, which is right at this moment. That, I'd argue is one of the more important committees. But then I would say that, my Lords, the government remains committed to article two of the Windsor framework. The Supreme Court's judgement has not affected this commitment and has provided important clarity on how article two should be interpreted and applied in future.

It has confirmed the government's long standing position that the rights protected by article two of the Windsor framework are those concerned with the cessation of the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. Given the length and complexity of the judgement, however, the government and stakeholders will need the requisite time to digest its contents and I will need many, many briefings by cases in order to understand it. But we would be happy to continue that conversation with the committee in due course.

16:00

Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Welcome. >> Welcome. >> The way in which the noble Baroness, the Minister, introduced her remarks by referencing the her remarks by referencing the sacrifices made by members of the security forces. She suffered grievous losses to protect everybody in Northern Ireland, and that's often forgotten in the perverted twisting of history that is now going on relentlessly in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I welcome the ruling of the Supreme Court in seeking to restrict the application of EU law. As far as human rights in Northern Ireland is concerned, but she will be aware that the quangos that were mentioned earlier have spent a large amount of money seeking to expand the application of article two in ways that are erroneous and wrong, and that is undermined public confidence in both communities for those quangos, and that must be central to the Belfast Agreement and its application, something the government needs to be very aware of.

Can the noble Baroness also confirm that article two does still have a direct effect in terms of the application of the law in certain circumstances, and will she elaborate on what those may be? And finally, as she looks at the legislation, the legacy legislation, can she confirm what representations her government has made to the Irish government about its continuing case in the international courts against the United Kingdom, a government that has had a de facto amnesty for decades against IRA and other terrorists who used their country as a safe haven during the Troubles, and also in relation to refusing to cooperate with the ICR.

IR the Irish government refuses to cooperate with the commission, which the noble Lord Lord Caine has outlined and spoken of, and talk about the need for more resources. The Irish government refuses to cooperate. Has that been called out by the government? Yeah.

16:02

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

I'd like to thank. I don't think >> I'd like to thank. I don't think I meant to say, my noble friend, but I'm going to anyway. His advice but I'm going to anyway. His advice and support were we are undertaking. This is key. And while we may not be able to agree on every point of the legislation as it comes forward, I am very, very grateful for the time that he gives me with regards to Windsor Framework article two. Noble Lord, our specific questions.

But we have always been firmly committed to article two of the Windsor framework and to the right safeguards and equality of opportunity. It protects, as set out in the Good Friday Agreement. My Lords, in terms of the specifics that he's asking for, I hope he'll indulge me and let me write to him in terms of the detail. But he raised a very important point about the Irish government and my Lords. The government has done a joint framework agreement, which includes unprecedented commitments by the Irish government.

I am aware of the scepticism from certain parties of why that about what next steps will be, but in terms of the interstate case, what it is a matter for the Irish government, the Secretary of State will be raising it directly with the Minister for Foreign Affairs this week to discuss about how it should be gone.

16:03

Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)

- -

Lord Roe Lord Sewell. Forgive me as we start again down this road of dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, I feel again the trauma of the bomb which took my unborn baby's life. And I find it very difficult that we have to. We have to think very carefully here. I'd like to say that I accept and value the contribution made by the military and all the other security forces in Northern Ireland. My own family served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, but given the fact that 25 to 30,000 people were convicted of paramilitary paramilitaries were convicted, as opposed to three who were convicted, three members of the military who were convicted during the Troubles.

Given the fact that one person from the military has been convicted in the 28 years since the Good Friday Agreement, is it time, perhaps, my Lords, to refocus? I hear constantly about the veterans and as a relation of veterans, I know how important that is. But, my Lords, is it not important not to make the victims the afterthought, the last reference in every case? And is it not important that we look at the things which will enable them to have confidence in the in the New Legacy Commission and the noble Lord, Lord.

Lord Alton referred to the findings of the May report, which referred to the very significant structural weaknesses as a consequence of the Troubles Act. 23. I hope that the noble Baroness. The Minister, will ensure that those structural weaknesses are removed in the New Troubles Bill. And although she told that one of the noble Lords that the remedial order will be introduced, but she can't say, when can she write to us and tell us when it will happen? And can she tell us when the Troubles will come back into the Commons? Because these things, my Lords, need to be dealt with.

16:05

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

The noble Lady demonstrates, as she has previously, the genuine. The heartbreak that many members of your Lordships House, and the personal cost that to many members of your Lordships House have faced, and the. And there is a face behind every one of the statistics, and every. One of the stories that we read out, and there is nothing I can do to fix some of that hurt there just. I wish there would be. But this is our final attempt to do what we can to bring peace so that people can access the information and the answers that they have waited for in some time, in some cases for over 50 years.

In terms of the specifics that the noble Lady asked for, I think she raises a really important point. Noble Lords will be aware that I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. I consider myself part of the military family, although on the periphery, not as some of my noble friends are in the heart of. But I have the privilege of also being allowed to wear a uniform. So the veterans provisions are incredibly important for me personally. But there is an issue here about the victims that we need to make sure that it is for them that we are moving forward and that they are able to access what we put in protections, as many protections as we can reasonably do for veterans.

She made a very interesting point. They raised a very interesting point about the number of prosecutions and the number of people previously charged. In terms of the current prosecutions that are underway. There are currently ten live proceedings, ten six of which are about Republican paramilitary activity. Two of loyalist paramilitary, one of the RUC and one military my Lords. When you look at those numbers, that is still quite clear that although some of the narrative is elsewhere, actually the focus is still on the actions of the paramilitaries, as it should be.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't put the protections in place. In terms of the specifics, my Lords, I am not a business manager of this place or the other place, but noble Lords would have heard the Gracious Speech, which we are still discussing, referenced the Troubles Bill, and we will be discussing it in your Lordships House in due course.

16:07

Lord Swire (Conservative)

- -

Hello, hello. >> Hello, hello. >> The Minister tell the House what the current status is of the Independent Commission for the Location of victims remains, whether it remains funded, whether it is dormant and needs to be provoked into action. If there's new information, whether it is properly staffed and whether it still enjoys the support of the government in Dublin.

16:08

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord raises an incredibly important point, and I myself visited one of the sites earlier this year where they were looking for one of the disappeared. My Lord, I've never had that kind of experience before. When I stood on the side of a bog while people were looking for a body. We continue to fund. We will continue to fund the commission, and we will do everything we can to make sure that the families of the disappeared, including the family of Robert Nairac, but also others, are that the structures exist until families.

16:09

Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Labour)

- -

My Lords can I. >> Done with regard to. >> This hugely important issue. >> Including in. >> The previous Parliament, when we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The previous Parliament, when we considered the legacy Bill as it then was and which had very well then was and which had very well meaning but wasn't ultimately successful because it didn't have sufficient all party support in Northern Ireland. And so can she assure me that before the Bill comes up the corridor to this House, that she will have talked to all the political parties in Northern Ireland represented here in Belfast, and that she can get consensus on that because unless we get consensus, that won't work either.

Yes.

16:09

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

My noble friend has just used the word consensus and Northern Ireland politicians. I think that Ireland politicians. I think that with the best of efforts and I look at the noble Lord Lord Caine, I. I consider myself not to be a bad politician. I am not sure I have those diplomatic skills that will deliver for everybody. And I say that as someone who spends time for. I just called you my noble friend. Having said that, we are working across party with all key parties enabled.

Absolutely right, I don't. There is one part of our politics that genuinely shouldn't be party political in a GB sense, and it is about the politics of Northern Ireland and making sure that peace is sustainable in Northern Ireland, and that we're doing what we can collectively and take the responsibilities of being the main political parties in the United Kingdom to deliver for the people of NI, as we do for every other corner of the country. Noble Lords will appreciate that there are always challenges in this space, but I will try and be as charming as possible to deliver what I can in terms of getting a level of support, as I know that my hon.

Friend in the other place, the Secretary of State, is to.

16:11

Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)

- -

The noble Lady reference to the interim custody orders and the fact interim custody orders and the fact that the Bill is now going to put in with beyond doubt the validity of interim orders, and also the reappraisal and reconfirmation of the Carlton Principle. This is a reference to the fact that the first instance judgement in Dillon was going to allow Gerry Adams, in a number of other people, to sue for the alleged unlawful detention by the government. Now, the previous government was appealing the first instance decision, but this government abandoned the appeal.

I wonder if the noble Lady can explain why they abandoned the appeal and accept the fact that had they not abandoned the appeal, they would not have needed to to legislate to now at last put right the question of the status of the interim custody orders.

16:11

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

Noble Lord Jay is very aware and he lived and breathed this during the last piece of legislation, the last piece of legislation, during the the Legacy Act that we are discussing. The reason why the appeal wasn't continued, I believe I've said it from the Dispatch Box before is because it was made very clear to us by the courts we wouldn't win. Therefore, we needed to come up with an alternative solution to it. That's what we're seeking to do in the new bill.

16:12

Lord West of Spithead (Labour)

- -

My Lords. I'm a simple sailor, and recently I've spoken to quite a number of simple soldiers, maybe even simpler. There is no doubt that when we joined the military, we felt there was an agreement that as long as we acted in good faith, the country would support us. Now, this is a highly complex subject. I understand that, and I've served in Northern Ireland. It's highly complex. I don't know where we've got to in the answers, but can I ask my noble friend, the Minister, to make absolutely certain that we do honour that contract? In a sense, because already it's having an impact on recruiting, particularly in the special Forces.

And we must look after those people who went out every day to try and look after the safety of people in Northern Ireland. They might have got it wrong occasionally, rather than going out every day to actually damage and injure the people in Northern Ireland.

16:13

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

I thank my noble friend and I look forward to discussing the look forward to discussing the detail both of our future amendments and further and further conversations in this space with him as the legislation progresses. I am personally, as I know many members of your Lordships' House are very grateful to those people that put on uniform, both today, tomorrow, but also in this case yesterday. They ran towards the they ran towards the Troubles in order to protect the rest of us. And we should be forever grateful to them.

That isn't to say, as the noble Lord would appreciate, that putting on a uniform protects you. If you did do ill. I would, however, like to put on record one of the issues that has been said repeatedly in this space, and the fact that this that the conversations we are having about the Troubles is having an impact on recruitment and retention. My Lords recruitment into our armed forces is up 13% and outflow is down 8%. I appreciate that people's concerns are real, but I think we need to be careful about our language in making sure that we aren't talking people out of joining our military.

At a time when I think all noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords would appreciate, we need people to sign up. My Lords before I call the next

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords before I call the next business. This might be a moment for those not taking part in the Motion Motion for Motion for debate. Motion for debate. The Motion for debate. The King's Speech Lord Whitehead.

16:15

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

- -

My Lords, it is a great honour to open the third day of our debate on the Gracious Speech. His Majesty's speech recognised the challenges facing our country and set out a clear plan not just to meet those challenges, but to build a more resilient Britain which protects people for the long term and spreads opportunity for all. Now, today's debate will cover some of the issues at the heart of the government's plan, including energy security, education, technology and culture.

And I will begin with energy and our response to the second fossil fuel shock in just four years. My Lords. Almost two years ago, this government came into power with a mission to take back control of Britain's energy security. And as my predecessor, the noble Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, set out in our previous debate on the Gracious Speech, it was clear then that the only way to bring down bills to drive growth across the country to tackle the increasingly urgent climate crisis, whilst to end our dependence on unstable fossil fuel markets we have no control over, and instead harness our immense potential for clean home grown energy.

As someone who's been campaigning, advocating and writing on clean power for just shy of half a century, it's a privilege to be part of a government that is now delivering on its promise. Since July 2024, we have secured enough clean Home-grown power for 23 million homes through two record breaking renewables auctions, and that clean power is already making a difference. New wind and solar saved Britain around £7 million per day in gas purchases during the first month of the Middle East crisis.

We've moved solar power from the margins to the mainstream, making rooftop panels standard for new builds and bringing plug in solar to the UK. For the first time, we've established Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean energy champion which has already installed solar on hundreds of schools and hospitals, as well as investing in cutting edge floating offshore wind projects. And we're delivering the biggest public investment in home upgrades in British history. With our 15 billion warm homes plan to get solar batteries, heat pumps and insulation into more homes in order to save energy, cut bills and ultimately lift up to a million households out of fuel poverty.

All of which is contributing to record growth in our domestic clean energy workforce, which is set to double to around 800,000 jobs, 860,000 jobs by the end of this decade. My Lords. Whilst this government has made remarkable progress, the House needs no reminding that our mission has taken on renewed urgency and importance following the conflict in the Middle East and the closure of the Straits of Hormuz. Just as we saw four years ago when Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine sent gas prices soaring, the impacts of 21st century conflicts are felt far beyond the battlefields, and once again, it is businesses and households here, including, as is so often the case, the most vulnerable in our society who are bearing the brunt of wholesale price rises.

In response, the government has taken direct action to bring down bills, as well as expanding the £150 warm home discount to 6 million people. Now, there are those who believe the long term solution to this latest fossil fuel crisis lies in doubling down our dependence on oil and gas. The very problem which led us here. This government believes that would represent a failure to learn from multiple crises going back to the 1970s and an abdication of our responsibility to households and businesses across the country who would continue to suffer.

Instead, as the Energy Secretary has set out in the other place, we are going further and faster for clean, secure, home grown energy to ensure that we are never at the mercy of volatile fossil fuel markets again. That means bringing forward the next renewables auction to July, exploiting untapped public land for solar and batteries, and working across government to speed up the electrification of our economy. It also means taking direct action to break the link between gas prices and electricity prices, which is responsible for some of the extreme costs we have seen in recent years.

Noble Lords will be aware that successive governments have failed to address the complex challenge of Delinking, but from next year we will seek to transfer existing low carbon generators that have renewable obligations, contracts and which supply about a third of our power onto fixed price contracts that deliver value for money for consumers and in doing so, safeguard households and businesses from spikes in the price of gas to energy security, as set out by His Majesty in the Gracious Speech is our energy independence Bill.

Now, this bill legislates for the powers government needs to deliver the full benefits of the clean energy transition to the British people. It will underpin action on three core objectives. First, it is about standing up for working people by tackling the cost of living crisis. The energy price cap fell by £117 in April because of the decision taken in last year's budget to move the cost of some levies from bills to the Exchequer. This Bill will place that change on an enduring legal basis, removing around £90 a year of costs on average from household bills, as part of the £150 reduction in costs announced in the autumn budget.

It will also pave the way for the Warm Homes Agency, a dedicated public body that will deliver the Warm Homes plan and tackle fuel poverty across the country. And it will bring in new rules to ensure landlords invest in home upgrades that cut bills for renters, as well as giving the energy regulator the powers it needs to be a strong consumer champion and stay ahead of a rapidly changing energy system. Now. Second, this bill will speed up our drive for energy security as well as the electrification of our economy.

And that means transforming market planning and regulatory frameworks to get projects, including offshore wind and hydrogen, built more quickly. And it means speeding up the build out of vital grid infrastructure with a package of measures to reduce unnecessary delays, including reforms to land access rules and networks, consenting. And third, the Bill will deliver a fair, managed and prosperous transition with the North Sea at its heart, this government's view is that neither drilling every last drop nor turning off the taps completely is a realistic plan.

Instead, we are being led by the science, the facts and the needs of workers and communities. So we are managing existing oil and gas fields for their lifetime, including through new transitional energy certificates for areas adjacent or in close proximity to existing fields linked via a Tieback. But we are also demonstrating the climate leadership people expect of us by meeting our manifesto commitment not to issue new licences to explore new fields, including delivering the commitment to ban fracking.

At the same time, we will keep investing in the rapidly growing energy industries of the future and help workers and communities take up the opportunities they offer. And bearing in mind that the UK is green, economy is expanding three times faster than the economy as a whole. We are locking in this growth for the future. The bill will also expand workers rights and protections, as we pave the way for a new generation of good jobs in clean energy. Now in the Gracious Speech, His Majesty also set out plans for the Nuclear Regulation Bill.

It is no exaggeration to say that we are on the cusp of a new age of nuclear power in this country, driven by government investment in the biggest nuclear building programme for half a century, from Sizewell C to our small modular reactors programme with Rolls-Royce SMR. Nevertheless, according to last year's Nuclear Regulatory Review, the sector is still held back by a system which is overly complex and bureaucratic, and which favours process over safe outcomes. The environmental impact assessment for Sizewell C, for example, was 44,000 pages long and left neither side particularly happy.

It is not hard to see why the UK is the most expensive place in the world to build new nuclear. The measures in the Nuclear Regulation Bill will deliver a pro-nuclear pro nature approach to building, with a coordinated system that reduces costs and timeframes. And this is not about compromising safety. It is about simplifying and needlessly unwieldy and frustrating system so that we can unleash the potential of this rapidly growing industry. It epitomises everything this government is doing to get Britain building things and owning things again.

And alongside the Energy Independence Bill, that is how we will become more resilient and create more opportunities for today's and future generations. Now, turning to technology, the Gracious Speech was clear that every path to stronger growth in this country has innovation front and centre, which is why this government has made a record £86 billion investment in research and development, as well as launching five AI growth zones across the country. In the Energy Department, we are exploring all the possible ways AI can improve our power system and cut out inefficiencies.

But government's task is not only to fuel innovation, it is also to help people navigate and benefit from the changes that new technology inevitably brings. Free AI training is being rolled out to 10 million people, a third of the country's workforce, in the biggest national training effort since Harold Wilson's Open University. And we are, of course, introducing a national digital ID through the Digital Access to Services Bill, which will provide people with a free, optional proof of identity to access services without needing to rely on physical documents which can be lost or stolen.

My Lords. It is clear that people also need to trust the technologies that they use every day, and particularly that their children are safe online. In the last eight months, we have legislated to make online content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority offence in the Online Safety Act, and we have stood up to X to stop the spread of intimate, deep fakes on the platform. Our Cyber Security and Resilience Bill will also better protect our most essential services, like hospitals and water supplies, from advanced cyber attacks.

And we know that parents everywhere are grappling with how much screen time their children should have, and the impact of social media. And that is why we are running a national consultation on the best ways to protect children's wellbeing, including a possible social media ban, overnight curfews and other measures. The question is not if we measures. The question is not if we act or if we will act, but how. The Gracious Speech also set out plans for an education for all principle that every child should be supported to achieve and thrive.

The measures include national inclusion standards, with tools to help teachers identify and support those with additional needs. For those with the most complex needs, new specialist provision packages will be designed with experts and tested with parents to set out exactly what support is required. We will also set clear expectations of public services and hold them to account. And for the first time, Ofsted will inspect nurseries, schools and colleges on how well they include children with additional needs. We will regulate independent special schools, ensuring that children get the right placements without unnecessary costs, and we are investing billions of pounds across the system to support early intervention and make it easier to access specialist expertise, and we will also invest in the transformation of local send.

That is, special education needs services, including £1.8 billion to bring experts like speech and language therapists into settings. Finally, let me touch on culture. This government is determined to maintain the UK's reputation for world class events, whilst ensuring that working people up and down the country can both enjoy them and feel the wider economic benefits in their communities. The new Sporting Events Bill will ensure events like the 2028 European Football Championships can be delivered as efficiently as possible, while securing the jobs and world class facilities that our regions deserve.

It will also strengthen our claim to host future global events and tournaments, including the 2035 FIFA Women's World Cup. We also need to ensure that real fans have fair access to matches, concerts and other major cultural events. For too long, fans have been ripped off by touts buying large volumes of tickets online at an industrial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scale and reselling them For.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Vastly inflated prices. So we're introducing secondary ticketing laws to end the scourge of touting laws to end the scourge of touting by making it illegal to resell a ticket for more than its original ticket for more than its original cost. And in this context, I would like to pay tribute to the work of like to pay tribute to the work of Robert Smith of The Cure, who has done exactly that in terms of his ticket prices and his world tours, and encouraged many other artists to do the same.

And I thereby out myself as a dedicated cure fan in the process. This will support our world leading creative industries by diverting profits back into our live events sector and the pockets of hard working people. This could save fans £112 million each year, and result in a £37 reduction in the average ticket price on the resale market. And therefore, Robert Smith's efforts will just become the norm as far as tickets are concerned, with all the consequences that that involves.

My Lords, I began by setting out some of the challenges we face as a country in a world which is more volatile and dangerous than many of us can remember. But as the expression goes, necessity is the mother of invention. And as we face up to these challenges, we have an opportunity to strengthen our foundations, to not just get through hard times, but build something stronger from them by getting off the roller coaster of fossil fuels and embracing the security of clean, home-grown energy.

By putting science and technology at the forefront of economic growth. By ensuring every child gets the support they need to succeed, and by making the UK one of the best places in the world for sporting and cultural events. With British citizens feeling the direct benefits, that is how we will make our nation more resilient whilst ensuring everyone has a platform

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they need to go forward and thrive. Yeah. My Lords, it is a great pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to open this debate on behalf of His Majesty's loyal opposition. I am delighted that this debate will am delighted that this debate will include maiden speeches of several noble Lords. I am looking forward to hearing from my noble friend to hearing from my noble friend Lord Lord Blackwater, whose historical understanding and insight into Britain's constitutional make up will be an constitutional make up will be an asset to the whole house. The noble Lord Lord Dixon of Jericho, with his experience at Citizens Advice and advocating for society's most vulnerable, brings a public facing experience to the House from which we shall all benefit.

And the noble Lord Lord Hobby has had an extensive career within the education sector, and I know I shall speak for say that his experti be both welcomed and appreciated. Education legislation. Lastly, Baroness Leaman brings to the Liberal Democrat benches a wealth of experience, and I look forward to supporting her campaign to address the scourge on our society that is violence against women and girls. My Lords, I will first briefly touch upon education, beginning with the Send system. This session will introduce legislation that recognises the crucial moment we find the system in.

Costs are ballooning, councils are flailing and it is the most vulnerable children who are the

16:33

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Conservative)

- -

worse off for it. And yet, my Lord, the impression remains that there will be no additional departmental spending until 2029, when central government will absorb send provision. When this occurs, it will account for four of the £6 will account for four of the £6 billion annual shortfall, and that is before we account for the projected council deficits of £14 projected council deficits of £14 billion. I hope that the government will, in due course, set out a timeline to deal with these costs. timeline to deal with these costs.

I would also like to reflect briefly on the impact of the government's policies in the past session. We began with a new tax on education, advertised as an equaliser that has only served to funnel more children into a struggling state sector. The number of pupils leaving private schools is now almost four times more than the 3000 originally estimated, due to the government's policy that tax was meant to be one half of a trade off that helped recruit 6500 new teachers. That plan has failed.

There are, in fact, 400 fewer teachers now than when they took office. My Lords, under 25 apprenticeship starts are down. Gender questioning guidance has been watered down. Both parental and school freedoms have been reduced, and the government has yet to put forward a concrete policy regarding poor value degrees, which shackle graduates with decades of spiralling debt. My noble friend Lord Markham will speak to that latter point, but I can only hope that the government recognises the damage of these policies in the last session and will have learnt something from them.

My Lords. Turning to the focus of my contribution. Energy and I declare my interest as an independent consultant to Terrestrial Energy, a US nuclear technology company developing generation four advanced nuclear technologies in light of yet still mounting costs of energy. I would like to use this opportunity to give an overview of the policies that have brought us to this point, and highlight the need to change course in order to prevent this session's legislation, rendering us entirely energy dependent upon undependable power and unreliable imports.

My Lords, the Secretary of State is doubling down on his headlong rush towards renewables without properly acknowledging the consequences of this approach. Britain continues to suffer some of the highest wholesale electricity prices in the world since the government was elected on the promise to reduce energy bills by £300. They have risen by £73. Meanwhile, constraint costs reached £1.7 billion in the last financial year, whilst balancing costs stood at 2.7 billion by the secretary of State's two 2030 target.

Those combined cost costs are projected to rise to 15 billion my Lords. The blind pursuit of renewables is costing the British economy and is costing the British people. The problem is not the renewable energy itself, but rests on the fact that there is currently an absence of perspective and balance in the government's strategy. The Secretary of State is committing the country to intermittent power generation without ensuring that sufficient firm power exists to support it, hoping that the wind will always blow and the sun will always shine.

Cannot and will not deliver a competitive, affordable and secure energy sector. What it will do is to leave the British public increasingly dependent upon the whims of the weather, whilst paying for the privilege. My Lords, the Secretary of State does at least quietly acknowledge the need for firm power. We welcome his acceptance of the Fingleton regulatory review and look forward to working constructively with the government on its implementation in the forthcoming Nuclear Regulation Regulation Bill. Nuclear power should form the future foundation of our national energy system.

It remains the only source of low emissions firm power capable of delivering genuine domestic energy security. However, my Lords, the Fingleton reforms will have to cut through layer upon layer of environmental and planning bureaucracy that has paralysed development. We will see whether the government are really going to take on the many MPs in the Parliamentary Labour Party and the Green Party when it comes to accelerating the delivery of new build nuclear. Recent nuclear projects have been characterised by soaring costs and ever extending construction timelines.

Environmental impact assessments and planning procedures have too often become more burdensome than the construction of the plants themselves. And that is before we even begin to discuss the procurement of the most cost effective technology. We welcome the announcement of the Rolls-Royce SML development at Wolver, but it is disappointing that building will not commence until 2030. Meanwhile, there is ample room on that site for a gigawatt scale development as well to commence development much earlier. Alongside Rolls-Royce. And all these projects need skills and there is an acute shortage at all levels, from technical skills, welding electricians and general engineers to apprentices, both graduate and postgraduate.

And I was pleased to hear the Minister comments on the skills shortage for renewables. But can I personally encourage the government to consider establishing an SMR fleet Technical Education Centre in North Wales to complement the work of the nuclear department at Bangor University in MPs Park? There is also an urgent need for a thermal hydraulics facility and a materials test reactor to put us in the forefront of global research, because if we are to build global expertise in this field, we need to start developing this critical infrastructure now, not only to provide technical support and training facilities for the operating fleet here and overseas, but also to create high value clusters around these technologies of the future.

My Lords, I sincerely hope that the forthcoming legislation will address these shortfalls, but such reforms will inevitably take time to produce results. Given the projected timelines for Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, nuclear power is unlikely to provide reliable, large scale, firm power. For the mid 2030s. In the meantime, my Lords, we must still rely upon oil and gas as the foundation underpinning intermittent intermittent renewable power. The Secretary of State himself knows this. Last year, he instructed Neso to ensure that 40GW of backup electricity generation be available by 2030 through new gas fired power stations to guarantee supply when wind and solar output is low.

And yet, while he acknowledges this, the government has simultaneously pursued policies which make oil and gas less secure and more expensive. Indeed, the flagship policy in the Energy Independence Bill will be the statutory ban on the licensing of new onshore oil and gas fields in the North Sea. My Lords gas still accounts for roughly a quarter of our annual energy consumption, half of which is imported. Banning new licences will not will only increase our reliance on these foreign imports.

Increasing reliance on imports makes little environmental sense. In fact, it's positively damaging the average carbon emissions. Intensity of North Sea gas production is 24kg of CO2 per barrel of oil. The jackdaw field where the Secretary of State to to approve it would produce just 8.5kg per barrel of oil. That is what the ban on licensing will prevent and what will replace it in its place. We will be reliant on imported LNG, which has an average carbon emissions intensity of 85kg per barrel of oil.

My Lords, that is not a sustainable energy policy. Similarly, my Lords, banning new licences only makes us less secure. Renewables and firm power are inseparable. Wind and solar provide only as much security as the reliable backup capacity, supporting them. By relying on imported LNG. We make ourselves very vulnerable to international instability, and the most recent war in the Middle East demonstrates precisely why dependence is so dangerous. What happens when the Ras Laffan is disrupted? What happens when global shipping lanes close? What happens when another international crisis sends imported energy prices surging overnight? We have already seen, specifically across the Iberian Peninsula, the very real risks associated with instability in energy supply.

Blackouts become a real risk and carry with them profound economic and human consequences. My Lords, we constantly hear that the North Sea is a declining. Annual projections have repeatedly underestimated the remaining reserves. Norway was supposedly written off in 2010, yet last year they produced 4.1 million barrels of oil a day, compared with the United Kingdom's 1 million. They drilled 49 exploration wells US none. The only thing that separates many of these fields is an arbitrary line across the continental shelf, with constantly improving technology supplemented by AI, the potential to exploit undiscovered reserves remain substantial.

The companies are ready to invest. The expertise exists. All that is lacking is a government willing to reconsider its own self-defeating policy. My Lords. Beyond the environmental incoherence and the insecurity inherent in the government's policy lies the question of cost. The noble Lord, the Minister, will no doubt continue to argue that oil and gas prices are set internationally and that increasing domestic production therefore brings little benefit. But this ignores the economic reality. The more Britain develops its own reserves, the less exposed we become to international supply shocks, whether in Middle East or elsewhere.

Greater domestic supply does not insulate us entirely from global markets, but it does improve resilience, and it reduces the current exposure to volatility. Secondly, quite apart from production levels, the government still exercises enormous influence over energy costs through taxation. The reason? Energy bills now sit £73 higher than when the government took office is not merely international pricing, it's because the government is accelerating towards net zero while loading additional policy costs and levies onto consumers in order to fund that transition.

Even if wholesale prices were to halve over the next five years, forecasts suggest that consumers would still face electricity bills 20% higher than they currently stand. It is no wonder that, faced with these burgeoning costs, the Treasury's own economic modelling predicts that energy intensive sectors will be forced to cut over 160,000 jobs this year, and that loss is a direct result of dangerous de-industrialisation high cost policies, and thus entirely lies at the government's feet. The economic principle remains straightforward if you reduce taxation and regulatory burdens, you reduce costs and the market does the rest.

If the government is serious about lowering bills, they would consider the conservative proposal to scrap the Renewable Obligation Scheme, which currently guarantees some wind farms prices three times above the market rate for electricity. They would repeal the energy profits levy, stimulating investment and protecting jobs in the north east of Scotland. And they would remove the carbon taxes, which continue to inflate electricity costs for households and businesses alike. My Lords jobs are declining and bills are rising. Far from increasing our energy security, the government's current approach risks making Britain more vulnerable to blackouts and more dependent upon unstable imports.

True energy independence requires reliable, firm power upon which energy what the wider system can safely operate in the long term. I hope sincerely that nuclear energy will fulfil that role. But until the necessary reforms are enacted, a new nuclear capacity is operational. We face a straightforward choice imported oil and gas, or domestically produced oil and gas. The latter is environmentally preferable, supports British jobs, generates revenue for public services, reduces exposure to international instability and helps moderate costs for consumers.

The government remains trapped within a dogma that serves no one except the most rigid net zero ideologues. The forthcoming legislation gives Ministers an opportunity to rethink that approach. They should seize that opportunity, reduce the tax burden, burden, restore investment confidence and allow domestic production to proceed. And if they do that, Britain may yet achieve genuine energy independence.

16:46

Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lord, it is an honour to >> My Lord, it is an honour to speak in this debate on energy securities. I begin by saying I look forward to the maiden speeches look forward to the maiden speeches of all the new Lords and Baronesses, and I wish them well in their time here. If a week is a long time in politics, in the period since the last parliamentary session feels like an eternity, our world continues to be ever more dangerous and unstable.

Families and businesses are feeling the reality in their bills, in their shopping baskets, and have a sense that something is wrong with the way we are managing our affairs. If there is one lesson we need to draw from the turbulent events of recent months, it is this. What we need now is not internal party politics and leadership battles, but a change of policy backed by renewed ambition, upscale delivery and a clear national commitment to cut dependence on volatile and unreliable fossil fuels.

I begin by thanking the Minister and his officials for the work that they have continued quietly and diligently to do throughout a period of considerable turbulence. My gratitude is genuine, but it is not a substitute for greater urgency. There will be shocks ahead and we must be ready for them and honest about their impacts. The International Energy Agency has been clear. This global energy crisis is among the most severe. Global energy stocks are being depleted at record pace.

There is a quality to this moment, rather like watching an explosion at a distance. The flash has already occurred. The light has reached us, but the destructive pressure wave has yet to arrive. Our task is to prepare for what is coming, and to persuade ourselves, and not to persuade ourselves that it will pass us by. This crisis is not simply a question of oil and gas prices. As uncomfortable as those are, it cascades through the whole economy into jet and heating oil, diesel, fertiliser, food production and supply chains of every kind.

It will increase government borrowing costs in many economies, triggering recessions. The United Kingdom, with some of the most expensive domestic energy bills in the G7, is particularly exposed. The longer we remain dependent on fossil fuels, the longer we remain price takers and not price makers. Subject to decisions made in foreign capitals and boardrooms over which we have little influence. The cost of dependency is tangible. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has calculated that the UK's reliance on fossil fuels led to direct economic impacts of £183 billion in the four years following the invasion of Ukraine.

To put that figure in perspective, it exceeds the entire annual budget of NHS England in 2020 425. These are not arguments. These are not ideological arguments. These are arguments of economic necessity. America wants our closest ally now pursues a national security strategy that speaks explicitly explicitly of global energy dominance, backed by a denial of climate change, a belief that is contrary to responsible energy policy. The consequences are not our only beginning to impact us now, and resolution to the Iran conflict is not imminent in this context or any other.

It would be a delusional fantasy, as David put it, to suggest that North Sea oil offers any serious answers to our long term energy security. It does not. And the official opposition should stop pretending anything else is the case. The answer lies in what Carbon Brief has already demonstrated in hard figures since the Iran conflict began. Britain's existing renewables have shielded us from some 1.7 billion in additional gas import costs. Hard evidence that clean power is already working and saving us money.

The Climate Change Committee has also made clear that the total cost of another fossil fuel crisis of this kind would exceed the total cost of reaching net zero. This is the most powerful argument for added urgency. I am genuinely pleased that the government is moving at speed and scale towards the achievement of clean power. 2030 renewable projects to power. The equivalent of 23 million homes have already been secured. We want Labour to succeed in this endeavour, not from any partisan generosity, but because if they do not, then the days ahead will be considerably darker.

We therefore broadly welcome the Energy Independence Bill and we will engage with it constructively, but we will press for a ban on fracking that contains no loopholes, one that cannot be quietly unpicked by future political pressure. We will seek to require solar panels on suitable new warehouses and car parks as a matter of standard practice. We also want communities to to be genuine participants in the energy transition, not merely its hosts. People who live alongside new infrastructure ought to share in the benefits it generates.

That means a right to sell electricity. Restored funding for Great British energy, directed in part towards community coastal onshore wind and a better access to local generation and storage. Our market reform we are clear more levies must come off electricity bills. The system must properly reward clean power, and a social tariff must be introduced for households that cannot absorb repeated bill shocks. These proposals are not radical. They are proportionate and compassionate. Brexit. Brexit has left us poorer and less secure and more energy vulnerable than we need to be.

And our future lies in closer energy ties with our nearest neighbours. Rejoining the EU internal energy market and linking our emissions trading schemes where that is practicable, will reduce costs and strengthen resilience in a modern energy system. Isolation is just inefficiency by another name on the Nuclear Regulation Bill, we recognise the case for faster delivery and for streamlining, where streamlining is generally genuinely warranted. But we will scrutinise the detail carefully. Public confidence in safety and accountability of nuclear power is not a luxury, it is a precondition for its success and it should be treated as such.

Nuclear power requirements cannot override our nature protections. If Labour are backing a renaissance of nuclear power, it must extend to greater efforts to deal with the legacy of nuclear waste and ensure that those costs do not spiral. The Electricity Generation Levy bill implements the pot zero proposals that my party called for over a year ago. While we support them, these matters are rightly complex. Persuading companies to negotiate new contracts will also be complex and will take time, and the savings may be slower than is anticipated.

Beyond this, more must be done to further fundamentally reform our outdated energy market arrangements. We call on the government to develop proposals for a strategic reserve for gas fired power stations outside the market. As we move towards a more wholly renewable energy market, my Lords, I turn finally to a matter that troubles me. I checked the gracious address carefully. The word nature does not appear in it, and the phrase climate change appears only once. We do not wish to see Labour following the Green Party's latest example, and we call on them not to ignore climate and nature in their discourses.

This omission reflects our real concern in the current limits of the government's vision and ambition. Energy. Energy security. Energy security cannot be meaningfully separated from the climate and nature crisis. They are, as my party has long argued, are two intertwined aspects of the same emergency. Britain is one of the most nature depleted countries that matters for our food, our water, our health, and our long term resilience. We have had five of the worst harvests since 2020. Last year was the worst year for burning from wildfires.

The real consequences of an ever warming climate are a national security issue, and they must be treated as such. Our adaptation pathways are, by any assessment, inadequate for the climate impacts already under way. We need a proper national strategy for nature and adaptation, properly funded, integrated into policy making and treated as a matter of national security rather than an afterthought. I ask the conservative benches to return to the cross-party consensus on climate and nature that this country once led, and that many of them helped build.

I ask the government to stop treating nature as something that can be omitted from their legislative programme. This government should lead the world on climate change and must provide adaptation support for those less fortunate who live on the front line of climate impacts. The Liberal Democrats will support this government where it acts in the national interest, and we will hold it to account courteously but firmly where it falls short. We stand ready to work cooperatively on the difficult decisions ahead, because on these matters, co-operation makes a near impossible, merely difficult.

And its absence makes the merely difficult impossible. The clean energy transition is not simply the right thing to do. It is the affordable thing, the secure thing. The only thing that seriously answers the crisis we are in my Lords the opportunity is before us. Let us not waste it. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Before we move on to the back benches, we've got over 70 speakers taking part in the debate today, including four maiden speeches. And I know that noble speeches. And I know that noble Lords are looking forward to well informed and concise speeches. Can informed and concise speeches. Can I encourage noble Lords to stick to the four minutes advisory time limit so that we can finish at a reasonable time, and also give reasonable time, and also give respect to other speakers in the debate, which are a kind and generous group of people.

So please excuse if one of my number needs to get up during the debate to remind people of the four minute limit.

16:56

Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords imagine if this morning a child could go to school knowing that the technology in their classroom was designed to support their learning, rather than simply harvest their data. That the pupils personal information, whether their educational record or visits to the school nurse, were protected from commercial exploitation. Imagine if safety by design was the price of access to children. If addictive functionality was no longer the business model of social media, or if online protection started at birth and continued to adulthood.

Imagine if social media and AI companies were required to fix all identified risks in their products. If generative AI systems had to check that, they could not be prompted to create child sexual abuse material if chatbots were not permitted to manipulate, exploit or provide unsafe advice. If tech companies had a duty of care. Imagine if Ofcom had enforcement powers that worked, and if tech executives were held responsible for risks that they chose to ignore. And imagine, my Lords, if, when a parent watched helplessly as their child was groomed by a chatbot, they could turn to the police, a court, a regulator or hotline for an emergency halt to the service.

My Lords, none of that is fanciful, fanciful. None of that is technologically impossible. It is simply the list of proposals in my name that this government refused in the last legislative session. Last week, Jess Phillips said in her resignation letter it has taken me a year to get you to agree to even threaten to legislate in this space. Not legislate, but to threaten. She was talking about child sexual abuse material. Her fury mirrors my warnings to Ministers that they will regret kicking these issues into the long grass.

A narrow consultation. Vast powers to the Secretary of State. Long timelines and photo opportunities with bereaved parents are not action. And my Lords, my amendments did not stop with child safety. They extended to AI accountability, data sovereignty, public sector dependency workers and creative rights to their labour and property procurement, security. And the basic question of whether this government is willing to govern in the national interest, rather than subsidising and creating further dependency on a handful of rapacious American firms.

My Lords, this is not a collection of isolated failures. It is a pattern. Again and again, when forced to choose between the needs of UK citizens, democratic accountability, or the demands of Silicon Valley, this government has chosen the latter. The King's Speech says remarkably little about tech for what is an issue that controls every aspect of private and public life. It promises transformation, efficiency, empowerment for UK citizens. But its legislative programme does not provide the means.

If there is a beautiful technological future over the horizon, I am afraid this is not it. Unless we recover the confidence to govern technology in the public interest, the government will be found profoundly wanting, particularly where children are concerned. This weekend I spoke to campaigners in Canada who are supporting UK families as their loved ones are groomed by chatbots, because our government refused to provide a route to protection. In fact, they whipped against it. My Lords, it is on our on our watch that lives will be lost.

17:01

The Lord Bishop of Oxford (Bishops)

- -

My Lords is always a pleasure to >> My Lords is always a pleasure to follow Baroness Kidron. I look forward to the maiden speeches to come. In the words of the King's come. In the words of the King's Speech, an increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom. The government will respond with strength and in. London with British values of decency, tolerance and respect. Not all threats are visible, though. All need an international response. The potential of artificial intelligence is clear, but there is rising public concern about the risks and dangers, both present and future.

There is concern about employment and jobs displaced by technology, already registering in statistics and in the aspirations of the young about the toxic effects of social media on public discourse. Nearly 1 million children are in the mental health system. Youth worklessness has doubled over the last ten years, according to a report by the Smartphone Free Charted as concern about public truth, about abuse through and by chatbots. Increasing violence against women and girls, about the proliferation of AI in warfare.

And there is growing concern about the international competition to develop general AI and the lack of guardrails for technology companies. There are some things to welcome in the King's Speech on technology. Each will require careful scrutiny in this chamber. However, there is for me a massive hole in the centre of government policy in the area of online safety and security, and the relationship between government and technology companies. The best interests of our citizens are simply not being served by a small number of global companies pledged to generate revenue and to meet the demands of their shareholders.

We are seeing and will see an increasing distortion of human dignity and value in the interests of profit. I look forward very much to Pope Leo's forthcoming encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas on AI, to be published on Monday, and to your Lordships House exploring these issues in more depth. On the 5th of June, in the debate on Human-centered AI, sponsored by the Archbishop of Canterbury, where in the Gracious Speech is the legislative vehicle to deliver the urgent changes needed to the online safety regime.

Where is the strategic approach to AI safety? Where is the careful balancing of ethics with innovation? Where are the laws binding development on superintelligent AI? Would the Minister please comment? Finally, as the Bishop of a diocese with over 280 schools, two of our own maths and a partner in 22 further maths and on behalf of the Church of England, I welcome the proposed reforms of the Special Education Needs System. They align with the Church of England's vision for education, centred on human dignity, belonging, inclusion and enabling every child to flourish regardless of their needs or abilities.

But we need to pay much more attention my Lords to the ordering of the digital world our children will inhabit.

17:04

Baroness Rebuck (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I rise to speak about >> My Lords, I rise to speak about the vital importance of creativity and imagination. The twin engines of our world leading creative industries, and of books in particular, and declare my interest as a former publishing CEO and books charitys founder, research conclusively shows that reading for pleasure fires the imagination, builds empathy, and is the single greatest predictor of academic success, life outcomes and wellbeing, regardless of social background. Books are also a major economic force, driving exports and inspiring global film franchises, TV series and plays.

It is therefore alarming that according to the last yearly survey, only 1 in 3. That's 32% of 8 to 18 year olds choose to read for pleasure the lowest figure on record. Less than 50% of adults read a book a year, and too many parents no longer read to their preschoolers. 50% of five year olds have never been read to. This is despite powerful evidence that when adults read babies, their breathing, heartbeat, and brain rhythm synchronise in the most magical way.

The problem runs deeper. The Financial Times reported that human beings may have reached peak cognitive powers in 2022, and it has been in decline ever since. University students, it's true, struggle to concentrate on classic texts. Getting old might be in this house, and this year, the first UK reading census found that 30% of the population are too distracted to read, and a further 16% completely disengaged. As Guardian Editor highlighted, we live in an attention span crisis with a tsunami of data where truth is downgraded and reality itself sometimes seems fake.

This is such a troubling environment for our children, as Baroness Kidron so often and powerfully reminds us, captured by addictive algorithms and rising anxiety. Books, by contrast, are for quiet, immersive pleasure, real entertainment, and, as the children's laureate argues, genuine happiness rather than digital sedation. Neuroscience from the Queen's Reading Room charity, shows that just five minutes reading a day can reduce stress by 20%. Now the Secretary of State for education, Bridget Phillipson, announced a national year of reading this year in 2026, the first in the age of AI and a true public private collaboration delivered by the National Literacy Trust.

Already, the campaign has reached 2 million children, distributed 600 000 books signed up, 11,000 teachers, 7000 schools, 3000 libraries, 150 local authorities and 800 partner organisations ranging from the Premier League to parent teacher associations to prisons. The campaign is also recruiting a growing army of community volunteers, already at 30,000, aiming for 100,000 linking schools, homes and libraries. Now, I welcome the Education Select Committee's investigation into reading for pleasure. The government's commitment to a library in every primary school, and additional funding for secondary school books.

I also support calls for regular story time in primaries that distinguishes listening for pleasure from formal skills teaching. Now, King's College research also shows that, like reading, looking at a painting reduces cortisol levels by over 20%. Our splendid free museums are brilliant policy, legacy, and anything that adds friction and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

complexity like charging for avoided. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. In the book industry, we must protect the creative pipeline with robust copyright and ensure writers robust copyright and ensure writers are fairly and transparent, remunerated. AI is trained on human remunerated. AI is trained on human creativity. Human imagination has never been more important or more under threat. Reading for pleasure under threat. Reading for pleasure should be nurtured throughout the school years, including a re-evaluation of cuts to arts and humanities in further education, which the Minister might want to comment on later.

Interestingly, McKinsey have pivoted to hiring philosophy and literature graduates able to think creatively and better equipped for the AI world of work. My Lords, the government has a key role to play in reversing the decline in reading for pleasure, restoring its enrichment and joy for a generation, and thereby turbocharging the creative economy. The journey has only just begun. My Lords the Gracious Speech spoke of a country in which every child is included in the nation's highest aspirations, and in which no child should be held back by poverty, special educational needs or lack of respect for vocational education.

Well, it's quite a challenge on the day, an 11 year high in youth unemployment has been announced. 16 to 24 year olds, the rate has surged to 16.2% in London, a 24.6% spike. 1 in 4 of that age group unemployed. We're promised a bill to raise standards in schools and introduce generational reform of special educational needs. Let's hope that's ambition enough. But the test is whether it makes a real difference in classrooms, communities, in cultural institutions where too many people fail to receive opportunities for a worthwhile education.

But the Gracious Speech failed to refer to culture, the arts, or the creative industries. That's unless you count sport. There was much about growth, economic stability, security and public service reform. But education is more than just achieving standards and examination success. Culture isn't an optional extra to be afforded only when times are easy. The creative industries, if not our Eurovision songs, are part of Britain's national pride and strength. A country that nurtures talent widens opportunity and develops human

17:11

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Conservative)

- -

potential will gain socially and economically. How serious is the economically. How serious is the government's growth agenda when so many of its actions impede growth? The increase in employer National The increase in employer National Insurance contributions, lowering employee pay thresholds where the employee pay thresholds where the employer has to pay has harsh impact on labour intensive sectors impact on labour intensive sectors including the arts, theatres, orchestras, museums, galleries, festivals, production companies are all suffering as a result of the steps this government has taken.

Higher employment costs mean less rehearsal time, less touring, fewer new commissions. A government praising creative industries as drivers of growth shouldn't make it harder for those organisations to flourish and survive. And of course, our cultural model is a mixed one. We don't have the high public subsidy of Europe, nor the scale of private philanthropy seen in the US. But what we are seeing is the pressure on private giving and philanthropy. Those who studied the Rich list report last weekend will see that 1 in 6 of those in the list two years ago didn't appear.

A third have left the country. This is a really alarming result of a government that makes success, prosperity and wealth seem unworthy. We're losing the people who for so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

activities. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government have announced they're accepting or exploring much of Baroness Hodge review. I welcome of Baroness Hodge review. I welcome that, and I hope it makes for a big difference. I've often referred to difference. I've often referred to Hull as being a great centre of creative activity. The head of the creative activity. The head of the National Theatre. The most important theatre job in the country, James Graham, all were educated there and what it did for a community with high unemployment, low pride is quite remarkable.

Let me quickly refer to those young people and older people of all ages who fail to get the recognition they deserve, and that is prison education. I call on the government, please, to end this ludicrous ban on prisoners doing taking university degrees. Too often, university education in prisons is short changed. Understandably, employment problems and the funding problems. Victor Hugo said he who opens a school door closes a. Prison. Education is critically connected to the prison population.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Well done. Culture is part of today's debate and Lord Whitehead acknowledgements of its importance and Baroness Rebuck. I'd like to say so. Wonderful celebration. It say so. Wonderful celebration. It and our consequent creative industries for by provide both social glue and an engine of social glue and an engine of economic growth. My goodness. Does our country need both. We like Baroness Bottomley. Welcome. Baroness Bottomley. Welcome. Baroness Hodgson review of Arts Council England. Her endorsement of the arm's length principle, also of

17:14

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (Liberal Democrat)

- -

the need to properly fund big national organisations. They support smaller regional ones, contributing to the talent pipeline and touring, as well as providing international reach. We also welcome strengthening regional decision making through new decision making through new regional boards. Skills again, for our creative sector to thrive, we need a skilled workforce. But creative education has been almost eroded from our state schools. This has serious implications for the creative sector. We are relieved that the government's new revised curriculum aims to address this.

But can I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, to give us the timetable? Then there is the nurturing skills the recent Creative Industry Skills audit paints a sobering picture. Necessary skills are changing at speech speed. Continuing continuing development of the workforce is essential. The apprenticeship system needs to be more flexible to fit a freelance workforce, and the new growth and skills levy must be put to good use. Will the noble Baroness May Minister listen to industry's needs and ask? And also, can she tell us when the freelance champion is going to be appointed? Plus terms of reference.

Then there is the calamitous consequence of Brexit, the ability to access the continent involves complicated paperwork, carnets cabotage visas, inflicts punishing costs and red tape across the creative sector as well. Our young people have been cut off from European culture. My Lords, we must pursue visa waivers, a youth mobility scheme and apply to participate in Creative Europe. Finally, and crucially, the BBC, recent Reuters Institute data shows the BBC remains the most trusted source of news, not just for the news, not just for the UK, but the world.

In an era of disinformation and social media silos, the BBC stands as a beacon of accuracy and impartiality. But it is not just about news. It develops and invests in talent and R&D. It is radio stations, podcasts, orchestras, bite sized BBC online, iPlayer, world service. It is David Attenborough. It is the glue. I referred to earlier, and it plays a pivotal role in promoting the UK around the world, both through the programme programmes it exports and the World Service ever more important.

Now President Trump has cut off funds to the Voice of America. It has also drawn American streamers to our shores. Audience viewing patterns are changing. The BBC has responded. Its new partnership with YouTube creates BBC content, including news for YouTube viewers. But we need to help PSB broadcasters navigate this new environment. Does the noble Baroness Limb Minister agree that those provisions of the Media act around prominence and discoverability must be properly enforced and strengthened? My Lords we on these benches applaud the Secretary of State support for the BBC, but we have some.

Asks all non-executives to the BBC board and the chair should be independently appointed and the government should maintain long term public funding for the BBC. Crucially, protecting the principle. Principle of universality. This, of course, is against the backdrop of that ten year event charter renewal. So another request the need for renewal should go and the BBC should have a forever charter without it. And in the wrong hands, Farage like hands, the charter can simply be terminated on its last day.

No negotiations, no BBC gone. I end with the words of the embodiment of the BBC and PSB, Sir David Attenborough. Every section of society, for one reason or another, should be glad that the BBC is there.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords decarbonising energy and deploying AI are the defining technology challenges of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our times. They are fundamental to growth and they are intimately linked. The and they are intimately linked. The greatest constraint on technology deployment in the United States is deployment in the United States is energy availability. In the UK, Ofcom has 140 data centres on its books, and so the Energy Independence Bill will scale up renewables, accelerate the deployment of clean power and build out the grid. The Nuclear Regulation Bill, as we have heard, will speed up new nuclear and deal with the damaging delays.

So let me turn to technology and AI, in particular. The UK is the world's third most important hub for AI start ups. We are an AI maker as well as an AI taker. And so the government's streamlining of planning of the new UK compute roadmap, the AI hardware plan, are all vital infrastructure fundamentals, but they must be

17:19

Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Labour)

- -

matched by pace in deploying AI. So I welcome the AI Growth Opportunities plan, the funding of Opportunities plan, the funding of start ups, the growth labs to train UK AI Regulating for Growth Bill UK AI Regulating for Growth Bill will create new sandboxes, relaxing existing rules for new AI products existing rules for new AI products that can transform lives. The UK is raising its game about innovation. raising its game about innovation. Regulators will be required to support growth, to boost investor confidence and to speed the time to market.

All of these actions signal a new and largely cross-party consensus that Britain should be prioritising outcomes over processes. My Lords it is hard to overstate the long term impact of AI. As we have heard already, two thirds of jobs are exposed to some form of automation. Many entry level jobs will be changed forever. So let me conclude on the security challenges that have already been touched on. The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill will strengthen our cyber defences. But post mythos, we have to ask is it enough? This is, of course, found severe vulnerabilities in every major operating system.

The systems that run our electricity grids, our retail networks, our military, our military systems, emergency services, hospitals. The US administration has been compelled to act. Project Glasswing gave leading firms a head start in patching those vulnerabilities. However, the American media is now awash with talk of executive orders, bipartisan bills, cooperation with China all moves towards greater oversight. So my Lords balancing AI growth and security is complex. As with climate change, we need to balance national and international action.

International coordination matters. 80% of Europe's digital services are provided by non-European companies. The European Union's own attempt at legislation was too broad, and it created disincentives in the UK. Our AI Security Institute operates without statutory authority or parliamentary oversight, and indeed, some have argued that that very ambiguity has been the key to the trust that it has built. So what do we do? Many AI companies, CEOs talk sincerely about balancing growth and safety, but profit invariably takes precedence in corporate cultures, and that is why some risks, the economists call them externalities, are better overseen by citizens.

We can draw lessons from other sectors, more transparency, safety by design cultures, corporate liability as a potential lever. That is what lies ahead of us. The technology has huge potential and Britain has great potential in that for realising the upsides. But as other Lords have noted, this chamber is well equipped to discern the public interest. That is the opportunity before us and the really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

interesting times that we live in. Thank you. It's a pleasure to follow the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lady, Baroness Alexander. Also a pleasure to speak in the. On the same day as so many the same day as so many distinguished maiden speakers, and particularly if I can mention my particularly if I can mention my noble friend Lord Blackwater. We're fellow alumni, and those of us who fellow alumni, and those of us who are devotees of his magisterial tomes know that he will bring a splendid erudition to your

17:23

Lord Maude of Horsham (Conservative)

- -

Lordships proceedings. Yeah, my Lords, I want to touch on part of the Gracious Speech, which is a bit of a minority interest. It is the of a minority interest. It is the word, sir, in paragraph 77 on the word, sir, in paragraph 77 on the Civil Service, the proposals that the government pledges to bring forward to strengthen the delivery, accountability, innovation and productivity of the Civil service, I welcome this. I applaud it, although tinged with a little bit of dÃ©ja vu, I know few people are better qualified than I to know that the easy part is the bringing forward of the proposals, the failings of the institution, of the Civil service, not the civil servants, because we still have brilliant civil servants in this country.

But the institution itself is flawed and needs serious reform, and the flaws are well known. The churn, the unplanned movement of civil servants from one post to another, the class distinction, the lack of parity of esteem between those charged with delivery and implementation versus those who are the policy. The Whitehall civil servants who who get all the top people, nearly all of the top jobs, and the lack of openness to influence from outside the civil service.

All of these are flaws which have been identified going way back, well, back even to the before the Fulton Committee report in 1968. And so we look forward to these these proposals. But the hard bit is making it happen. And there are three things which need to happen in order to make it even possible for these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Changes. To be introduced. And then to stay. The first is authority. There needs to be real authority. There needs to be real authority given to the head of the civil service, and that authority civil service, and that authority can only be given. It needs to be given explicitly by the Prime Minister, whose statutory powers Minister, whose statutory powers can be delegated, so that the head of the Civil Service doesn't need of the Civil Service doesn't need to rely upon her admittedly splendid powers of charm and persuasion to ensure that these reforms can be implemented on a whole of government basis.

And they do need to be implemented on a whole of government basis, although that may give offence to those in the Treasury who worship at the altar of the hermetically sealed departmental silos. So authority is essential. The second is transparency. It is time to lift the veil which conceals behind a curtain the sensitive area of the management of the Civil service. This is deemed too precious and rare and sacred to be exposed to any view, particularly to the view of politicians of the people who, after all, have to take responsibility and require rightly to take responsibility and to be accountable for everything that is done by civil servants.

And the third element, which is need to be strengthened, is mentioned. But that is accountability. It is time for there to be genuine external accountability for what is actually being delivered in terms of the civil services capability. It is to it. For too long it has been the civil service itself, which has been scrutinising itself. And it is time to beef up the role of the Civil Service Commission to make it a genuine external regulator of the Civil service, so that this this tendency now for the Civil Service itself to be marking its own homework.

So authority, transparency, accountability, if these are introduced genuinely, there is at least a chance that these no doubt splendid proposals will actually be put into action.

17:27

Lord Hobby (Non-affiliated)

- -

Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My Lords. It is. >> A great pleasure to rise to give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A great pleasure to rise to give my first speech in this House. I would like to declare an interest as the chief executive of the as the chief executive of the Kemnal Academies Trust, and I want to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude for all the support I have received. I have been genuinely bowled over by the warmth and the kindness that I found on every bench and in every part of your Lordships House. I want to say a special thank you for the.

My introduction by my noble friends Baroness Bousted and the Lord Kestenbaum. The guidance of Black Rod, the clerk of the parliaments and her team, the doorkeepers, all the staff, and especially my noble friends, Lord Kennedy, Baroness Wheeler and Baroness Miller and the team behind them. A final thank you to my family Vic, Keir, Cameron and Fred for literally everything. Now waiting for this moment has given me the chance to make my contribution. In a debate on education, which has been at the centre of my career for the last 30 years.

Despite, dare I admit, never having taught in a classroom. Luckily, I've not mentioned that anywhere with a permanent record of what has been said. I didn't know it at the time, but this journey began at the age of eight. I was at a family funeral and as I stood outside at the end, I saw a familiar figure walking away. It was Mr. Peacock, the head teacher of my primary school. What sticks with me is not just that he took the time to come, but that he sought no attention or credit for doing so.

And there is no standard, no professional qualification, no inspection judgement that I think properly captures these daily acts of care that characterise everybody who works in our schools and our colleges. I work in education to back those people, and because the answer to almost every challenge our country face leads back to the classroom. And above all, if we want greater unity and cohesion, we must ensure that everybody has a stake in the future. I admire all who work in our education system to make this happen, but you can see why I have a particular fascination for the role of the head teacher, and it was a famous member of the Other place who once said, God has not seen fit to grant a prime Ministers the power he has granted to headteachers, a line that's a little poignant right now.

So it was a great honour for me to represent 29,000 headteachers and their deputies. When I became general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers in 2010. After the NHT, I became chief executive of Teach First, that amazing charity founded to encourage talented graduates to spend part of their career teaching. Because the evidence is clear, the most important in-school factor driving educational outcomes is a good teacher. Today I lead the Kemnal Academies Trust, a group of 45 schools in the south and east of England, and this is a fantastic opportunity to say thank you here to my 56 headteachers, 3200 staff and the 22,000 students, many of them whom are in the middle of their GCSEs and their A-levels, who do a stunning job in demanding circumstances.

Indeed, we have Ofsted in, as I speak in one of our schools. So best wishes to Rainham School for girls. I'm being grilled by the inspectors tomorrow and I'm not sure which of those two events this speech or my inspection grilling that I am most nervous about. My Lords, we have a good education system, but it doesn't yet do well by every young person. Those who grow up in poverty and those with special educational needs and disabilities don't achieve all they deserve.

I think it was right to remove the two child benefit cap. I saw the damage that caused every single day. And whatever you may think of the motives and incentives and choices of adults, surely we do not penalise children for those choices, and the reform of special educational needs will be difficult. But it is essential if these most vulnerable of young people are to thrive as they deserve. Our current approach is broken. An adversarial system that encourages conflict, delays, diagnosis and forces separation.

As a practitioner, I am nervous about the reforms. Like many, but these proposals were well received in the sector and I have come to realise that it's the expertise and scrutiny that is characteristic of this chamber that will be a crucial part of navigating the development of these reforms. So as we debate education matters, I hope we will remember that having gone to school doesn't make us experts on pedagogy any more than having been to hospital. Makes us experts on surgery.

What teachers and heads want from us are the resources to do their job. Clarity on direction and support for the difficult decisions they often have to make. And we can give that to them. And we as a country can reap the benefits from that. And so as families regain their stake in the future, the unity and the optimism that we all crave will grow again. Thank you.

17:32

Lord Kestenbaum (Labour)

- -

Hear, hear. >> My Lord. It is with the greatest pleasure that I follow that excellent and very moving speech from my noble friend Lord Hobby. My from my noble friend Lord Hobby. My noble friend is renowned as a person of strong values and deep conviction, two attributes that will serve him well in this chamber. His has been a lifetime of service, at the heart of which has been his tireless efforts to elevate the sacred profession of teaching, in particular, the delicate task of getting teachers to places where they are most needed and in front of children who most need them.

My noble friend Lord Hobby has done more than most to place schools and schools, people at the heart of the nation's affections. And for this reason, your Lordships House will be thankful for his presence and will look forward to many more such outstanding contributions. In that spirit, may I focus my remarks on the government's intentions to. On education as set out in the Gracious Speech. My Lords, this government is rightly focusing attention on the grave dangers of nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training the so-called NEETs.

This neat title masks the toxic cumulative effect of chronic disadvantage, often over many years, often since early childhood. Indeed, forthcoming research from Teach First, where I serve as a trustee, will set out the profound impact that sustained poverty, poverty through childhood will have on educational outcomes and on life chances. And this correlation between child poverty and low GCSE attainment in particular is sobering. These challenges are especially acute where disadvantages are geographically concentrated some coastal areas, some rural towns and, of course, former industrial centres.

And yet, my Lords, we also know that these outcomes, this hopelessness does not have to be inevitable. It is the blessed combination of great teaching and strong school leadership, which consistently demonstrates that life chances and in particular, post 16 year old destinations can be profoundly altered and for the better. The best available evidence, notably from the Education Endowment Foundation, is incontrovertible. Put simply, great teaching and strong school leadership are indeed the most important levers that schools have to improve outcomes for their children.

And so, my Lords, there is another correlation. But this one, an inspiring one. Wherever you find children from disadvantaged communities consistently achieving excellent outcomes, you will also find you will always find inspiring teachers and remarkable school leaders, heroes who know that what is at stake are not just qualifications, but the opportunity to build strong aspiration, personal confidence and stability. My Lords, we are often told that there is no silver bullet. That may be so, but we do know one undeniable truth.

As government policy seeks to attract school leaders into communities facing the greatest disadvantage, it will in so doing, change the face of this country. It is a former member of this House, the late and revered Lord sacks, who said in his own maiden speech, quote, to defend a country you need an army, but defend. But to defend a society you need teachers. My Lords, it is no exaggeration to say that there is an urgency to this challenge, as set down by the late Lord sacks, equivalent to the very defence of this realm.

17:36

Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech, and I look forward to those that and I look forward to those that are about to come. If there was precious little in the grace of speech about the arts per se, social cohesion was mentioned, but they are inextricably linked. As we've heard, a society bereft of culture cannot question itself, cannot rejoice in itself. But whenever the economy comes under pressure, the arts are one of our first casualties.

We seem gifted also at scoring own goals. Whatever your feelings about Brexit, few would deny that it has been catastrophic for the creative industries. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, graciously conceded that his government got wrong the negotiations on artists and musicians performing in Europe that has had an absolutely disastrous effect on countless artists, both in terms of reputation and income, and on the Treasury and the cultural reputation of the UK. When I put this to the Prime Minister in an interview on radio three, he too agreed.

But here we are, my Lords. With agreement across the political spectrum. Reform possibly aside, but no advance, though hopefully Erasmus might be a of light as a door gradually opens, so can the Minister perhaps make me feel better by reporting on progress on European access for artists and musicians? I also tackle Sir Keir on AI and copyright, and the implacable concern of colleagues like Elton John that allowing unfettered use of copyright in AI training is the thin end of the wedge.

Intellectual property either belongs to its creator or it doesn't. There's no half way house. The long established principle of ownership being vested in the creator cannot and must not be watered down to appease Big Tech. Yes, of course, the US, the UK must be at the forefront of AI, but not by ceding control of copyright. I too admired the noble Lady Baroness Hodge in her report on the Arts Council. Can the Minister say if our government will mandate the Hodge recommendations, particularly in terms of tax cuts or tax easing for performing organisations, where in real danger of diminishing beacons of innovation like the London Sinfonietta, an aural equivalent of Tate Modern through funding cuts, they are 41% down on their grant, the equivalent in Paris, the Ensemble InterContemporain worked to a budget 12 times that of the Sinfonietta, and it's the same in Germany.

Well, finally, my Lords, where it all begins music in schools, tuition for all, not just the well-off and privileged. I felt real shame when the mother of that wonderfully gifted tribe, the Masons, told me that in today's educational setup, her children would not have emerged. Now, I know the government is very committed to work in this stage and I welcome that. But my Lords, there's so much more to do so that every child is exposed to music, if only at assembly, for example.

Now some schools do a very good job here. They play a piece of music at every assembly. Maybe the noble Lord Lord Hobby will confirm this. And it's such an easy and cheap thing to do. But that thing of hearing three minutes of music, be it pop, classical or jazz, can really change lives. So I feel that something I'd love to see the government insist on in every school. We have much to be proud of, but we need to continue the legacy for the next generation.

It's our legacy. It's their legacy. It's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

society's legacy. Yes. My Lords, I congratulate all noble Lords making their maiden speeches today. My Lords, I wish to highlight the emotional needs of children and our duty to ensure that their happiness and well-being are at the very heart of are at the very heart of government's policy. Because childhood lasts a lifetime. So it's childhood lasts a lifetime. So it's our responsibility to ensure this happens, and that includes what content they consume in the media, especially on online platforms.

The content children watch in their formative years will have an enormous impact on this outcome. We need to consider how they are being influenced and who is shaping their lives. Because many are suffering from mental problems and anxieties. My Lords, I declare an interest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because this year is 50 years since I first appeared on children's television. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Back then it was a thriving industry, contributing millions to the Treasury. But today it's no longer a viable business. Children's television is in crisis. Children's television is in crisis. It has collapsed. It's on its knees. My Lords, I took millions of my play school babies, the nation's

17:41

Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)

- -

play school babies, the nation's children. Through the round square and arched window, exposing them to their world full of fun, education and creativity with unconditional love, continuity and age appropriate content, helping them to live through adversity and face the future. At present, we are failing our children as the content they watch online in droves on platforms like YouTube and TikTok are adding to their mental vulnerability. My Lord, the BBC has announced plans to get rid of 10% of its staff, but I make a plea that they tightly ring fence their children's programming output because apart from a trickle of pre-school programming from channel five, the BBC is the only public service broadcaster who is commissioning children's TV content.

If not, they will join Sky and ITV, who have completely abandoned children's commissioning, so any cuts could be the hammer blow that kills off the industry completely. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to cut down kids screen time, especially as the endless algorithms on YouTube and TikTok are engineered to make our children dedicated to watching content that is not culturally relevant, highly imbalanced, and does not represent their lives, voices, or communities. Teachers are noticing how many children now speak with an American accent and have very little concentration span because of the way content is delivered.

My Lords. There is no youth funding content because the way the system is set up by online platforms means UK content is not easily found, which is the biggest problem. So we need prominence and regulation on these platforms to ensure the cleverly and carefully crafted, trusted content children BBC provide is not buried under content from around the world, which doesn't reflect our children's lives. Streamers should give prominence to content that passes a culturally relevant test, not just made by the BBC, but from independent UK producers who at present are suffocating with this policy.

The problem of finding will then be solved. Funding can be supported by having a culturally relevant tax rebate for producers, equal to that given to independent UK films. My Lords, the combination of prominence and tax rebates can help increase the creation of content here in the UK. It's not where children watch is what they are watching that matters. So I ask the Minister, how is the government going to rescue a decimated children's media industry? My Lords, I believe the answer is to require online platforms, including social media companies, to operating in this country to obtain a licence from Ofcom with binding conditions, the same way television broadcasters are required to do.

Also, as the BBC. As the future of the BBC is being debated, I urge government not to consider commercialising this great unique industry institution, especially its trusted children's output, but celebrate it and support it in every way possible. It's our legacy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the future. Amen. My Lords, can I first of all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I first of all congratulate the noble Lord Lord Hobby on his maiden speech? It seems not five minutes, but in fact seems not five minutes, but in fact it was ten years ago, since he was visiting the Department of Education to gently point out where Education to gently point out where we were going wrong with government policy. More gently, perhaps, than some of his other colleagues on the some of his other colleagues on the benches. But we will return to that later in debates on education.

I declare my interest as chair of the Careers and enterprise company. I want to focus in this time on the issues of tech and on education. First, I welcome references in the Gracious Speech to cyber resilience measures and also to the Digital Identity Bill, and look forward to debating those. But as we have already heard, and I will not reiterate, given timing, there will have to be much focus in this session on online safety and the implications of new technology. I entirely support the remarks of the Right Reverend, the Lord Bishop of Oxford, in relation to.

There is an online Safety Act version two shaped hole in the Gracious Speech and I also support the remarks of the noble Lady Baroness Benjamin on the need for tech companies to have a licence not just in relation to broadcasting to children, but also in relation to the impossibility otherwise of Ofcom enforcing successfully many of the obligations under the Online Safety Act. One thing we will look forward to in this session fairly shortly is the last minute. The report due under the last minute government amendment in relation to the under 16 social media ban.

I think the first report from the Secretary of State is due by the end of July on how that consultation is to be implemented, and it is of deep relevance to many, many families as well as many members of this House. The House will also have to consider the impact, as I say, of new technology, particularly AI chatbots, which the noble Lady Baroness Kidron has spoken about so powerfully, not just today, but in other debates. I am reminded of the damage that the AI generated.

For example, child sexual abuse material can do. The Internet Watch Foundation says that in 2025, they saw over 260 times more AI generated child sexual abuse videos, over 3400 of them than in 2024 when they saw 13. This is a growing problem. One other element of harmful content is, sadly, the rising tide of antisemitism online. Given the link with education in this debate, I think it is right to mention, and I hope that the noble Lady Baroness Miller, the Minister, has seen the stand with US UK report on the scale of antisemitism faced by Jewish students that is particularly at UK universities.

But there is a report today in The Times newspaper of antisemitism faced by schoolchildren in their classrooms. But I have been told that the report includes a recent bomb threat made to the Jewish Society at Royal Holloway University, made by Instagram. The Community Safety Trust has told us of over 1500 online antisemitic incidents in 2025. Again, this is an issue that this House is going to have to return to in this session. Finally, in relation to schools, I do support the direction of travel and have been public in saying so of the government's reforms on the education of those with special educational needs, like the noble Lord Lord Hobby, I think there are questions to be asked, particularly about the preparedness of teachers and schools for more inclusion, and how schools or how families who have children with the highest needs, particularly the highest medical needs, will be catered for.

And what is the timing of transition for families who currently have education, health care plans, many of whom are rightly concerned about having some of their entitlements taken away. I would just remind the

17:49

noble Lady, the Minister, that she has promised that we are going to return this session to dealing with return this session to dealing with the extension of relationship and sex education to the over 60s in our colleges. And finally, I would our colleges. And finally, I would just support the moves in the White Paper on more enrichment in schools. Paper on more enrichment in schools. But I think it's not just about activity, it's also about the development of character values and traits. And I look forward to traits.

And I look forward to debating that. This is undoubtedly going to be a heavy session, and this House will have to do much of the heavy lifting in relation to its legislation.

17:49

Lord Isaac (Labour)

- -

My Lords. >> I'm delighted to. >> Follow the. >> Noble Baroness. >> But also to. Congratulate the noble Lord Hobby.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord Hobby. On an excellent. And very moving speech. I intend to focus my remarks on education, to focus my remarks on education, and before I do so, I should declare a number of interests. As the Provost of Worcester College in Oxford, the chair of governors of the University of the Arts, London, and it'll become obvious in a second. The former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. If this country is to remain globally competitive, economically successful and socially cohesive, a strong education system is indispensable.

Investment in education should never be regarded merely as a cost nor a luxury. It is an investment in the future prosperity, resilience and fairness of our country. A good education equips young people not only for employment, but for citizenship. It enables them to think critically, engage confidently and to participate fully in our democracy. At present, we are facing a troubling combination of declining levels of reading, as we've heard, and analytical thought, alongside increasing dependence on social media and fragmented sources of information.

The consequence, I fear, is that is that it becomes even more difficult for people to distinguish fact from falsehood,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which creates fertile ground for simplistic populism and division. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. During my time as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I was deeply concerned by the extent to which children and by the extent to which children and young people with Send were too often treated as second class often treated as second class citizens. The 2021 census showed that disabled people are three times more likely to have no formal qualifications than non-disabled people. So it's against that background that I welcome the government's commitment to education for all in its bill to improve provision for children and young people with Send.

I do recognise that there are some families who fear that this will actually have a negative impact on their access to care plans, but overall, I'm persuaded that the proposed investment of. As I understand it, more than £4 billion, together with greater inclusion within mainstream settings, is absolutely going to move us forward and address these very long overdue improvements. I also welcome the commitments contained in the government's post 16 Education and Skills White Paper to strengthen support for further education, its staff and its students.

Employers urgently require more skilled young people, and the Fe sector educates and trains at least half of those who do not pursue a university route. But also, we know that over the last two decades, Fe funding has declined substantially. We cannot neglect a sector that is so essential to national productivity and social mobility. The further education sector, as my noble Lords will readily acknowledge, is often described as a Cinderella sector in comparison with the higher education sector. But I fear that the higher education sector now faces profound challenges itself.

I see it firsthand the pressures confronting universities, the long term erosion in the real value of tuition fees, rising pension liabilities and increasing operational costs across the country. I see, especially in the humanities, the closure of departments, wholesale redundancies, restructuring and institutional mergers. So I therefore welcome the elements of the White Paper that seek to support the sector, including increased research, funding, improvements to governance and measures to enhance the student experience, which is absolutely fundamental to drive change in the sector.

Greater collaboration between institutions may help strengthen resilience, but we must not overlook the huge dependence on international students and the fact that the proposed international levy creates additional uncertainty for institutions that already are financially fragile. I'd like to say very quickly that we cannot ignore the importance of the arts in education. I welcome the fact that the government is now committed to restore arts subjects more fully within the school curriculum from 2028. My Lords, if the United Kingdom and its citizens are truly to flourish, we must be willing to invest seriously in education, skills, culture and the arts.

To neglect them is not simply short sighted, it is to diminish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our collective future. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a great honour. To follow. The. Noble Lord, Lord Isaac, in his extremely intelligent speech. I speak partly as a professor and I know what he is saying about higher education is exactly true, and it education is exactly true, and it is a great challenge across this is a great challenge across this House for all parties. I want also to echo the sentiments of the noble Lord Lord Hobby, who made. I speak as a fellow debutant, made an exceptional maiden speech.

I congratulate you, my Lord, on that. And I echo what you said about the welcome that we get when we come to this House. In the short time I've had the privilege to sit here, I've been deeply gratified by the warmth of the welcome extended, not just by my noble friends, who perhaps may feel they have a duty to do so, but by noble Lords from all parts of this House, and for that great generosity of spirit, I am sincerely grateful.

With equal

17:56

Lord Blackwater (Conservative)

- -

sincerity, I readily salute the kindness and professionalism of the kindness and professionalism of the clerks, our magnificent doorkeepers, and all other staff who make this important part of our Constitution important part of our Constitution actually work. They did an exceptionally superb job during the exceptionally superb job during the induction process and in preparing me for my introduction. As those of us who write books say in our acknowledgements, all mistakes are entirely the responsibility of the author. I am particularly grateful to my sponsors, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, and my noble friend Lord Swire.

I've had the honour of knowing both, for I realise more than half my life. Such is their distinction, that I always knew that they would one day adorn these benches. It never occurred to me, however, that I would sit here with them, and it's rather humbling. I could not have wanted better sponsors and nor indeed better friends. My one regret is that a man for whom I have the highest regard, the noble Lord Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield had to make his valedictory speech yesterday.

He has been a great friend to me for many years, a great example and a great mentor. He was also my PhD examiner, so I owe him a great deal and I wish him the happiest possible and longest possible retirement. I know that he had enormous and sincere tributes from this House yesterday, and we will all miss him, but I presume to say that I may miss him more than most. I've taken the title of my barony from a river. The Black water enters Essex from the North Sea and flows first through the ancient borough of Maldon, famous for the battle where the Vikings beat Ethelred the Unready Anglo-Saxons in 991.

This established a tradition of Euroscepticism in Essex that lasts to this day. Maldon is also known for its annual mud race, in which very hardy people heave themselves from one bank of the Blackwater to the other at low tide, swamped by brown, sticky stuff. I'm striving to avoid an oratorical emulation of this in his speech. I've lived near the Blackwater all my life. Growing up on the Essex marshes. I would go and paddle in it and usually unsuccessfully, because they sank play with toy boats in it.

That at least helped me realise that I was not cut out for a naval career. Now it is the main river nearest to where I and my family live. A little further downstream, it changes its name and becomes the River pant. I'm relieved we live where we do because the comic possibilities of a Lord pant are self-evidently endless. Noble Lords will recall the tension of preparing for their maiden speech. For me, there was an extra complication. I am conscious of the convention that one must not be controversial, although for some years I have been a professor of history.

I have, since the 1980s, earned most of my living as a Fleet Street columnist. In that line of business, one tends to get sacked if one is not controversial. So you see before you a man struggling to break the habits of a lifetime. However, there is one subject very close to my heart and relevant to today's debate on the Gracious Speech that I hope might provoke noble Lords only into agreement. And that is the importance, as Lord Berkeley has said, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley has said of teaching music in schools.

60 years ago, at my tiny State Village primary school, I and my schoolfellows were all taught by visionary teacher to play the recorder and to read music. An attempt was also made to teach us all to sing, though that rather failed in my case. Today's reality is different. I am associated with two musical charities. I am chairman of one of London's greatest choirs, the London Chorus, and I am president of the Chamber Music Foundation. And despite the excellent review of music education by Darren Henley in 2014 and the promise by the then government to develop a national plan for such teaching, the availability of both general music and specific instrumental and voice teaching in schools has continued to decline.

It did not help that my noble friend Lord Gove, who in many respects including this was a superb education Secretary, was moved on after welcoming the Henley Review and before he was able to ensure that its recommendations were properly implemented. Henley's first recommendation was that a child's experience of music should include performing, composing, listening, reviewing and evaluating it. This has come nowhere near fruition. One of our leading music professors told me recently that there are whole areas of the country where music teaching is simply unavailable to school pupils beyond the age of 14.

Arts Council funded hubs exist to assist schools in teaching music, but many schools have no contact with them and no qualified music teachers to fulfil the demands of the national curriculum. Primary schools need offer only one hour of music a week, and that leaves usually no room for instrumental teaching at all in the time available. Today, I can barely begin to describe the deficiencies of music education. I hope to return to it at length another time, but I should like to leave you with one statistic to contemplate that the numbers taking A-level music in England have fallen by over 44% since 2010, to fewer than 5000 students in 2025.

These are the same people that the great Sir Hubert Parry, distinguished forebear of the noble Lord and my friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, called we singing English no more. I fear the profession of music in Britain, both in the way it creates performers and creates their. Audiences must inevitably suffer. But since we all know that music expresses so much that words cannot. All those who fail to encounter it properly are. Having not just their civilisational, but their emotional development.

Severely. For generations, we have rightly expected children to leave school literate. All I ask, my Lord, is that we should be able to expect them to leave school musically

**** Possible New Speaker ****

literate as well. Well, my Lords, it is of course a very singular honour to be able to follow on from my noble friend Lord Blackwater's excellent maiden speech. And it was a privilege to be one of his supporters, along be one of his supporters, along with my noble friend Lord Garnier, who seems to have attached himself permanently to Lord Blackwater side. He has already revealed the length of all our friendship, if not the of all our friendship, if not the depth.

And I, like many others here, welcome his presence on these benches. My Lords, the noble Lord is a polymath as well as being one of the country's foremost and respected commentators on conservative politics. But his interests are extensive and varied, from French politics to ecclesiastical architecture and, of course, music, and particularly English music, about which his knowledge is only matched by his passion. As we have just heard, my Lords, the noble Lords writings would enhance any lively. His authoritative book on Enoch Powell, like the Roman first published in 1998, has just been reissued and is required reading for anyone seeking to better understand that complex man.

Of course, his more recent works, more recent three works High Minds on the Victorians, The Age of Decadence on pre-World War One,

18:04

Lord Swire (Conservative)

- -

Edwardian Britain and sing as We Go About Britain. Between the two About Britain. Between the two world wars are unmatched. I am currently halfway through and that says something as the noble Lord says something as the noble Lord does not write short and small books. The last book, sing as We Go books. The last book, sing as We Go and the arguments about conscription and rearmament, then, conscription and rearmament, then, are the same arguments as we are having today, and were indeed similar to the arguments we were having in the 1930s.

Sometimes it seems, we never learn. More recently, the noble Lords editing of the three volumes of The Life of Sir Henry Channon, or chips, as he was better known, was masterful. As well as being hugely informative and entertaining, as we know, political diaries can often be, don't we? My Lords, it was also a privilege to hear first hand the maiden speech of the noble Lord Lord Case, and the valedictory speech of his former pupil, master, and indeed the noble Lord Lord Blackwater pupil.

Master, as we have just heard, the noble Lord Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield. Yesterday in the chamber. They showed this house at its best, and I have every expectation that we can expect contributions of a similar quality from the noble Lord, and that is needed now more than ever. The noble Lord Lord Blackwater spoke briefly about the London Chorus, formerly the London Choral Society, of which he is chairman. He and I have discussed the problem of raising funds for them.

This is, unfortunately not uncommon, as the noble Baroness Baroness Bottomley said earlier in her contribution. Funding for the arts has become a very real problem, if not a crisis of late, not least as so many high net worth individuals have been driven out of the country or are uncertain about the way the economy is heading. These are precisely the people who fund our museums, galleries and other cultural institutions. So I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, what assessment has he made of this flight of capital and its impact on the cultural sector, and what measures is he contemplating to make up for the loss? I can see precious little about this in the Gracious Speech.

My Lords, the noble Lady Baroness Hodge has produced an excellent report on the Arts Council England. It is full of good ideas, but one area it seems to shy away from is the issue of free admission to our National museums. My Lords, I do not have the time this afternoon to rehearse all the arguments for or against admission free admission, which I do understand as well as anyone. I bear the scars of this as someone who, as shadow Culture Minister, argued in our 2005 Arts manifesto that we will support museums that provide free access and we will not impose entry charges, neither will we penalise those institutions that feel it is in their best interest to charge.

My Lords, I would argue that that approach was balanced and fair then and remains so today. But since 2005, there has been one fundamental change, and that is we have now left the EU. Our membership was always given as a reason why museums couldn't charge non-nationals. But museums are currently suffering a financial crisis. Some are closing galleries, others are limiting opening. The current funding regime is unsustainable, forcing museums to dramatically ramp up the prices they are charging for temporary exhibitions.

There was a letter in the Daily Telegraph from an unexpected source, perhaps on this subject. The 1st of December 2018, from Sir Roy Strong. National museums and galleries should charge an entrance fee and subsidise discounts for millennials, because high special exhibition ticket prices are excluding young people. Sir Roy objected to his trustees when he was director of the V&A, forcing him to introduce voluntary charges which were later swept away. But he now believes that national collections have little choice because they are so strapped for cash.

My Lords only today we read that the British Museum is preparing to charge up to £33 to see the tapestry for 40 minutes slot, although that though there will be the usual concessionary tickets. Our major museums are being forced into these sensational blockbusters to make the money they so desperately need, simply to keep the lights on. And meanwhile, in Europe, the Louvre now discriminates against non-EU members. Charging 32, the Prado 15, the Uffizi up to 29 and the Rijksmuseum 25.

Why cannot we do the same? There has, unfortunately, been this obsession about the numbers of people who visit our museum, but there is a fundamental difference between visitors and visitors. As Nicholas Penny wrote once the director of the National Gallery, where I was the first sponsorship secretary and then the first development director, he wrote, attendance figures make no deductions for the protesters and celebrators in Trafalgar Square, who entered the National Gallery to use its facilities for teenagers attending rock concerts in the Garden Court of the Vienna and for the coachloads of tourists decanted into the British Museum while their hotel rooms in Bloomsbury are being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prepared. My Lords. Of course. I'm sorry. Could the noble Lord wind up,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

please? He's well over his time. Thank you. Numbers of ways of slicing the cake. Concessions for slicing the cake. Concessions for pensioners. Student days. Even free admission. Off season. The problem is, this argument has become is, this argument has become politically. And it should not be so. Let us build on Lady Hodges report and re-examine all aspects report and re-examine all aspects of art funding, including allowing our national institutions to raise much needed funds by introducing charges. If that is what the trustees and directors choose to do.

18:11

Baroness Hazarika (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I'd like to begin by. >> Congratulating Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater two fine debuts, and I think we can all look forward and I think we can all look forward to many important contributions in the many years ahead. I very much agree with the comments made by Baroness Kidron, and I do urge the government to engage positively and constructively with the creative industries, to strike the right balance with AI, and I declare my interest as a board member of the BPI, which represents recorded music.

Look, we all want growth, but there is a feeling sometimes that we are compelled to worship at the altar of AI, no matter at what cost to other industries. And there are other very powerful engines of growth. And that includes the creative industries and culture. We are blessed across these shores with such creative riches. Our creative talent is a precious national resource. We export our music, film, fashion all over the world. Our museums, galleries, opera, orchestras and theatre bring people to our great cities and they support and nourish hospitality and tourism.

And if anyone is looking for something to watch, I can highly recommend. 1536 about three young Tudor women in a small village in Essex in Tudor England, and the satirist Rosie Holts play called Churchill's Urinal, all about a rather stressed out, frazzled female Chancellor. It is entirely fictitious, by the way. It's also very, very funny. Look, we get that AI is very important, but so too are our creators and intellectual property and strong copyright laws are the bedrock of a successful knowledge based economy.

This debate also draws together education, tech, and culture, and I welcome the government's ambition to regulate young people's access to social media. But we cannot delay and we cannot be timid. We are seeing young men and women scarred and, I think permanently damaged because of their access to hard core violent pornography in the palm of their hands. And of course, there are many other threats from social media, and not just for our young people. One of the most frightening things we are witnessing as a result of unfettered and unregulated social media is the rise of extremism and polarisation.

Unhinged hate, anti-Semitism, racism, anti-Muslim vitriol, misogyny the list goes on. We are living in deeply anxious times where algorithms run by billionaires who have an agenda are exploiting very human emotions of fear and insecurity, and manipulating them into something far darker. And we are seeing this, you know, we used to hear it's just words. It's just words. It's not. We're seeing this play out with terrifying consequences on our streets, in our schools, campuses, and colleges, in our synagogues and in our mosques.

People are getting threatened, maimed, and even killed. And we know that bad faith. Foreign actors are using social media to unleash fear and loathing and terror and division and violence in this country. We have to ask ourselves in this House, why are we just letting this happen? This is the time to fight back. We need action. We need courage, and we need a sense of urgency for the sake of our country, for the sake of our children and our grandchildren.

If we do not try and take on the algorithm of hate now, we will regret it for generations to come.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I congratulate Lord Hobby. And Lord Blackwater on their Hobby. And Lord Blackwater on their excellent maiden speeches. Lord Blackwater has a deep knowledge of English culture and English history, and we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we. Had that on display. As he rooted his Euroscepticism

18:16

Lord Willetts (Conservative)

- -

>> As he rooted his Euroscepticism in a battle in Essex in 1991. Now I

18:16

Baroness Hazarika (Labour)

- -

understand it and I very much look forward to his interventions in the future. I should declare my

18:16

Lord Willetts (Conservative)

- -

future. I should declare my interest as chair of the Regulatory Innovation Office and a visiting professor at King's College London, professor at King's College London, because I want to touch on the technology and education themes in technology and education themes in The King's Speech. The speed of technological advance mean regulations can't just assume the regulations can't just assume the old ways. And of course, there are deep concerns about AI and online safety, which have been expressed already in this debate.

But those 44,000 pages of environmental assessment before a nuclear power station can be built are a scandalous waste of public resource. We need to get the balance right when we set regulation, and I very much support and hope that the Nuclear Regulation Bill and the regulation for growth Bill will be opportunities to do just that. Universities are key drivers of new technologies and innovation. They're also a key route for young people, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, to transform their lives.

So it's very frustrating to read this week that Alan Milburn, leading the needs review for the government, said that he wanted to steer young people away from higher education because of graduate unemployment. The Minister is responsible for needs and policy and will I can I ask her to confirm that? If you look at young adults aged 22 to 24, you will find that 10% of graduates will, at some point during that period not be in work, which is a problem.

But will she confirm that it is the case that 30% of Non-graduates will have that experience whilst they're age 22 to 24? Getting into higher education is a great way of boosting job prospects and reducing welfare dependency. And can I also ask the Minister, therefore, why the legislation to index university fees proposed in the government's own White Paper with the promise of legislation does not appear in the King's Speech? We do have a problem with NEETs.

We do have a problem of youth unemployment when we compare our performance to other countries across Europe. The big gap, the big reason for our poor performance is quite simply because we have fewer people in education and training, particularly, things go wrong at the age of 16, the transition from GCSE. We don't have enough people staying on the level three education and beyond, and we heard in Lord Blackwater excellent lady's speech a powerful example, a case for the cultural and educational benefits of that education.

Our problem in this country is not too much education. It is too.

18:19

Lord Touhig (Labour)

- -

I'm not alone. noble Lords in a maiden speech. >> Today has enriched. >> This House, and I certainly look forward to their contributions in forward to their contributions in the future. May I declare my interest as the Vice President of the National Autistic Society, an honour I share with my noble friend Baroness Browning. A while ago I visited an autistic unit in the mainstream school, where the head was very keen that I should meet a pupil who had behavioural problems and was about to move on to a comprehensive school.

You've heard I've got behavioural problems, he said to me when we met. Yes, I said, I have. I'm trying to do something about it, he said, looking for approval with his head teacher. Have you heard? I'm going to a comprehensive school? I said yes, are you looking forward to it? Yes, and I've decided on my career. Have you? I said, what are you going to do? I'm going to become a High Court judge. And I tell you now, if you come up before me, you'll get a lenient sentence.

My Lords. Who knows, perhaps he will become a High Court judge. What I do know, as a result of the education and support he had at that school, he had a future. I wish that were the case for all autistic children, but it isn't. 74% of parents think their autistic child's school place doesn't meet their needs, and 26% of autistic pupils feel unhappy at school. Now, to be fair, the government proposed reforms are most welcome and in particular the plans to ensure every child with Send has an individual support plan is good.

This has the potential to make a real difference, I think, to the lives of autistic children and their families. However, further clarity is needed. Issues remain about accountability for the plans and the lack of legal options to the challenge. Inadequate support if a plan isn't implemented fully. More information is needed on how education health care plans will be restricted to those the government calls more complex needs. The government must clarify what will be considered more complex needs. Parents urgently need clarity on what support their child can expect for their level of need, and there are doubts about the level of funding.

The funding set aside does not match the level of ambition proposed, particularly the investment in staff training and programmes. Adequate funding is the only way to guarantee these reforms are not implemented in a haphazard way. So can I ask my noble friend some questions? Does the government plan to ensure there are legal mechanisms for parents to hold providers accountable for implementing individual support plans effectively and appropriately? How does the government intend to ensure the meaningful involvement of families in the assessment of their children's needs and in the development of the plans? Has the government assessed the number and availability of trained professionals needed to meet the experts at hand plan included in the schools white paper? Finally, can I ask my noble friend to commit the government to work closely with groups like the National Autistic Society and the Disabled Children's Partnership and others as they develop their proposals? That is the better way, the effective way to make things right and get it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right from the start. Yeah. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I Draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members Interests. As chairman of the Countryside Alliance and related positions, and I add my congratulations to the noble Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater on their Hobby and Lord Blackwater on their fine maiden. On Thursday, the Gambling Commission will decide whether to approve the roll out of whether to approve the roll out of affordability checks on online betting. When the previous government announced these checks three years ago. Ministers said they should be totally frictionless.

18:23

Lord Herbert of South Downs (Conservative)

- -

The pilots have not been immense. Damage has been done to horse Damage has been done to horse racing already and to what effect? Bettors resent intrusive checks and are driven to the black market. Racing loses revenue an estimated Racing loses revenue an estimated £250 million over five years. And so in turn, does the Treasury. And while I appreciate the potential while I appreciate the potential harm of other forms of gambling, betting on racing is simply not in the same league. The risks are akin to that of playing National Lottery scratch cards.

Should these be restricted to. There has been no proper evaluation of the affordability pilots and. It appears that the checks will be green lighted with no parliamentary debate or scrutiny. Affordability checks are directly contrary to the government's declared support for racing, so I urge the Culture Secretary to step in now and revisit an ill targeted policy which, after all, wasn't the government's in the first place. When racing is damaged, so too is the rural economy, and I wonder if the government understands how rural communities feel about successive policies which have been directed at them.

First, we had affordability checks, then we had the family farm tax, which had to be partially reversed after a year of protest. Then, out of the blue, we had an extraordinary plan in the land use framework to license game shooting. Now we have a proposed ban on trail hunting. Tony Blair's government faced enough opposition when it forced through the hunting ban, but it wasn't so unwise as to attack racing. The nation's second most popular spectator sport. Farming and shooting at the same time.

When members of Parliament so obviously face a mortal challenge from reform UK, these unforced assaults on rural voters aren't just bad policy, they're inexplicably bad politics, too. 20 years ago, Ministers justified the abolition of hunting by telling people they could hunt trails instead. Now this government wants to ban this activity, too, on the grounds that it risks the pursuit of animals. But this is already a criminal offence, outlawing the following of an artificial trail is akin to banning cars to prevent speeding.

It's illiberal, disproportionate and completely out of step with voter priorities. After the local elections, there's much talk of a reset, and I hesitate to intrude on the bloodsport of leadership challenge. But I do offer this suggestion for future policy. There are enough real problems in the country real problems in the country and the countryside to address without creating new ones. The job of DCMS is to back sport, not to undermine it. The job of DEFRA is to support rural communities, not to attack them.

And the job of government is surely to improve people's lives, not to behave like new Puritans telling everyone what they can and cannot do. The Gracious Speech committed the government to promote the British values of tolerance and respect for difference. That respect should extend to rural communities, and I would suggest that freedom is foremost amongst British values to.

18:27

Lord Tarassenko (Crossbench)

- -

It's always a pleasure to follow maiden speeches, and I congratulate the noble Lords Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater on their distinctive and Blackwater on their distinctive and excellent speeches. My Lords. There is no AI bill in the Gracious is no AI bill in the Gracious Speech, but AI would play a major role in both NHS modernisation and education for all. Here I declare an interest as a senior adviser to the Alan Turing Institute, the National Eye Institute. Over the last six months, the Institute has argued that the time has come for the UK to train its own sovereign large language model.

At present, the choice is between closed source models like ChatGPT or Gemini from US big tech companies, or open weight models, mostly from China. Neither type of model can be fully trusted, as there may be poisoned with sleeper agents or may harbour backdoors for uses of national importance, and I would argue that this includes education and healthcare, as well as defence and national security. The only way to have 100% security when using an LLM is to have complete knowledge of both the training data and the model's weights.

Other countries such as France, Switzerland, the UAE and South Korea are keen to reduce their dependence on the US and China have announced their own sovereign LLMs in the last 12 months. There are further advantages for the UK in going down this route. Firstly, a sovereign LLM would be trained using UK values with full transparency, respect for the law and copyright, and the possibility to create a process to remunerate training data providers. This would help to end the standoff between the UK's growing AI sector and its world leading creative industries.

Secondly, the UK has unique data sets both in its health service and its school education system, including BBC resources, which could and should be treated as sovereign data assets prioritised for use in training the country's sovereign LLM. But is it affordable when it costs US big tech companies tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars to train their frontier LLMs. When. In contrast, the Alan Turing Institute, supported by evidence from the Swiss model, estimates that it would only cost between 5 and £10 million to train the UK's sovereign LLM.

How can that be? Well, US big tech companies do raise hundreds of billions of dollars to train the next general purpose frontier model. But the key lesson from Deep Seek 18 months ago was that frontier level performance on application specific tasks can be achieved with much simpler models through distillation and fine tuning. The UK sovereign LLM distilled and fine tuned and fine tuned on NHS data will be able to give healthcare advice as accurate, if not more accurate than GPT five.

It will not be able to translate Hamlet's soliloquy into Arabic. As a general purpose LLM such as GPT five can. But that is of no consequence to an NHS doctor or a patient seeking a second opinion. My Lords, with the Lords with the heads. Health Data Research Service due to launch its first services by the end of this year. And with AI tutoring tools now being developed for secondary schools, we urgently need a UK sovereign LLM. This would enable fully trusted application specific models fine tuned on our unique NHS and education data sets.

The government launched a sovereign AI unit last month. It should now support the development of sovereign AI models.

18:31

Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch (Labour)

- -

I am delighted, my Lord, to follow the excellent maiden speech follow the excellent maiden speech of an old friend, Lord Blackwater, and my noble friend Lord Hobby. I remember when Teach First was established during Tony Blair's premiership. It is a brilliant organisation. My stepdaughter is an alumna and my noble friend took it to great heights. I look forward to the government's response to the Timms and Milburn reviews, and the aim to support both young and disabled people to flourish in work as the basis of their long term economic security.

That will require further reform of the welfare system. I welcome the education Bill targeting support for those at risk of becoming the growing number of needs, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kestenbaum and Lord Willetts. It is a particular concern of mine, as is the pipeline being built inspirationally and educationally for the workforce of the future alluded to by other noble. The Royal Academy of Engineering recent report. Engineers 2030 and I declare my interest as a former director.

There is a wake up call to the perilous skills gap we face. The demand for engineering skills in clean energy, defence, house building and skills in the emerging digital technologies, AI, software development, cyber security will experience the highest growth in employment by a factor of 6 to 1, with entirely new roles emerging all the time. 76% of employers are struggling to recruit personnel with the required skills now. Improving the take up from underrepresented groups is vital.

Women make up 17% of the engineering workforce. Minority ethnic groups 14% and disabled, and people with special needs also at 14%, and all with higher attrition rates. At age ten, only 11% of girls say being an engineer fits well with who they are, compared to 44% of boys. The Royal Academy for Engineering's recent submission to the Women in Tech Task Force praises the government for upskilling 10 million people in AI and the new AI apprenticeships, but recommends urgent systemic reform of the entry barriers, starting with an updated and dynamic curriculum and advice for young people.

Present arrangements are uneven, not tailored to underrepresented groups and not prioritised. I know the government is working hard to meet our future employment challenges, but I urge a greater emphasis on career advice in the early years that captivates and inspires. I end by welcoming the prescient Bill to strengthen our energy, security and national security. I urge the Minister to read the report, published today again by the Royal Academy of Engineering, regarding the digitalisation of the grid, which will enable the government to go further and faster to deliver clean energy.

I sit on the National Resilience Committee, which has been a tremendous education, both reassuring and alarming, in the nation's preparedness for the myriad threats we face. The committee has heard repeated warnings of the interconnected nature of these risks. Energy security is a resilience issue, not just about supply, but about the systems that depend on it transport, communications, finance, health, food, water, local emergency response. We have also heard evidence relating to the rapidly increasing number and AI engendered sophistication of cyber threats.

43% of UK businesses have suffered some form of cyber attack, most notably JLR last year. Imagine a concerted assault on our energy installations. I hope the Minister will take into account our recommendations in due course. My Lords. Can I add my.

18:35

Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)

- -

Congratulations to the noble Lord Hobby for his maiden speech and to my noble friend Lord Blackwater, who. It is great to Blackwater, who. It is great to have you both in the house with differing views and I'm sure you'll add much value between you. My Lords. It won't take you many moments to realise that there are nearly a million young people who are Neet in in the country, and the Minister will no doubt stand up and say that these problems worsened after Covid under the previous government, that we are to blame and that we should look at ourselves before criticising this government.

So to save her trouble, I will say it for her. Are you listening? Yes. Part of this problem is structural. Yes. Part of it reflects the long shadow and economic scarring of the pandemic. But what we cannot ignore, excuse, or allow to slip by are the deliberate political choices this government has taken, which are actively making the situation worse. If the objective is genuinely to support youth employment, improve labour market participation and reduce barriers to work for younger people entering the labour market, and surely that should be the objective, then you do not tax employment more heavily.

You do not increase the marginal cost of taking on an extra member of staff, and you certainly do not increase employer national insurance at precisely the moment. Businesses are already becoming more hesitant about hiring those at the edges of the of the labour market, nor create uncertainty onto business through the Employment Rights Bill, and make employers even more cautious about taking someone on. The unemployment figures are only going one way, and I would desperately ask the government to rethink the policies on this.

If we are serious about getting young people into work, we need to focus on two things at the same time young person's readiness for work through skills, education and support, but also the cost and risk of employing somebody in the first place. The government has at least recognised there is a problem and I welcome that. But the Youth Guarantee Scheme, whilst has many good parts, does leave a great deal to be desired. With the number of young people not in education, employment or training continue to rise.

We have to be honest, this is simply. This is not simply a temporary labour market fluctuation, nor a problem to be solved by a single programme. At the end of the process. Something more systemic is going wrong. Further up the line, let me suggest on what should happen long before a young person ever reaches the point of becoming Neet. The school curriculum should have fundamentally running through it, preparing young people for the world of work. I've told this story before.

I'll tell it again. When I was at Tomorrow's People, we had a young girl who had never, ever worked. We got a job in the Unipart factory in Oxford, booking the executive director's travel. I mean, she died and gone to heaven as her first job. And Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. She turned up on Friday, no show. So we got in the car, drove around the house. She came downstairs in her pyjamas and we said, what's going on? She said, I never went to school on Friday.

Nobody ever said anything. So we told her to get dressed, took her back to work, thought that was it. Second week, same thing. Happened again. Took her back. We took her back to work. Third week, third week. It was right. My Lords. This is not long enough to do this. But let me just finish quickly, please. So I leave the Minister with this. How does the government believe its current approach helps young people like the one I've just described? How does increase in the cost and risk of employment make employers more likely to take a chance on younger workers? And when will the government recognise that? If we truly want to tackle the need crisis, we must focus not only on programmes at the end of the process, but on the deeper cultural education, educational, economic barriers that are stopping too many young people from entering the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

world of work in the first place. Thank you. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. It is an honour to speak in the debate which saw such wonderful debate which saw such wonderful maiden speeches from Lord Hobby and from Lord Blackwater. There is much from Lord Blackwater. There is much in the Gracious Speech that I in the Gracious Speech that I welcome. I particularly welcome the proposal for an Overnight Visitor Levy Bill, and I hope that the proceeds of such a levy can be directed half to local cultural activities and organisations, and half to the placemaking which will enhance the experience of both visitors and citizens.

I want to focus though, on two other things. The first is the consultation underway by the DCMs to explore the possibility of charging overseas visitors for entry to national museums and galleries, and on this I cannot disagree more strongly with the speech of the noble Lord Lord Swire. The. Such a proposal would undermine one of the very best of achievements of the new Labour government, and I was pleased to play a small part in

18:42

Lord Smith of Finsbury (Labour)

- -

ensuring that it came about. First of all, there are huge practical of all, there are huge practical difficulties. How on earth can you tell who is a British citizen and who is not? We have no national who is not? We have no national identity card system as yet in this country. There are also the need to install turnstiles, barriers, ticket desks and to employ supervisory staff. This will undermine any savings that come from charging visitors.

Second, fewer visitors mean less spend in the cafe. The shop. The restaurant. Third, having barriers in place effectively puts up a sign saying you're not welcome here, and that will have an impact on British visitors as well as on overseas visitors. Fourth, this is an important part of Britain's soft power. Free museums for all has a major reputational benefit for the UK, and it means enhanced tourism income for the country and fifth.

Imagine the opprobrium if we're charging visitors from Greece to see the Parthenon marbles and visitors from Nigeria to see the Benin Bronzes. And sixth, the overnight visitor levy is a far better way of ensuring that foreign tourists contribute to the life of this country. Don't, for heaven's sake, I plead with the government, go down the road of changing free entry for all to our museums. The other issue I want to raise briefly, and I remind the House I am the Chancellor of Cambridge University, is the complete failure of the student loan system.

The system is broken. It's causing enormous harm to young people. It's beginning to be a deterrent to going to university. And I regret there is nothing in the Gracious Speech to reform this system for young people. Their university experience ought to be full of excitement, aspiration and hope. It's a passage to adulthood, an experience that teaches them how to explore, discuss, learn and discover. Yet, because of the student finance system in place at the moment, the experience is darkly overshadowed.

I plead with the government to bring the light back in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Lord, I to congratulate both the maiden speakers and my Lords. As my colleague Baroness Smith of Llanfaes noted yesterday, a new Llanfaes noted yesterday, a new political era has opened in Wales. Lord Carey First Minister emphasised in his first emphasised in his first conversation with Keir Starmer a wish to work constructively with Westminster on issues of common interest. An indicator of reciprocal goodwill would be an

18:45

Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)

- -

early review of Wales's funding formula. We have today in another

18:45

Lord Smith of Finsbury (Labour)

- -

formula. We have today in another place heard about the reset of HS2, a massive 100 billion boost to England's transport infrastructure.

18:45

Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)

- -

England's transport infrastructure. So can we now have an assurance that this time Wales will receive consequential funding previously denied? We are today discussing education, culture, technology and education, culture, technology and energy security. Education and culture are largely devolved, so I'll concentrate on creating job opportunities in the energy sector in Wales. My Lords coal, nuclear and hydro have long been part of Wales's industrial structure. Long lasting bitterness arose when profits from coal were rarely used to Wales benefit. Yet we were left to clear up the mess and live with dangerous tips.

Please, will the Energy Independence Bill ensure that the full costs of removing or securing remaining coal tips aren't lumbered onto the Welsh Government, nor left to private companies to work residual coal in a largely unregulated way? My Lords, I welcome the decisions made to move ahead with SMRs at the will of the site. Will the government, in collaboration with Senator Comrie, work to ensure appropriate training facilities to equip local workers with the necessary skills? My Lords, another aspect of energy security is energy storage.

Pumped storage. Hydro. Electricity generation such as the Dinorwig Power Station, are an essential partner to nuclear, tidal, solar and wind generated electricity to balance supply and demand. It is quite outrageous that public money, as much as £346 million, was paid in 2025 in Scotland alone to those operating wind turbines, compensating them for turning off their generating equipment because there was, at certain times of day a glut of electricity. The figure for the UK was almost a million, a billion and a half.

Last year. Pumped storage schemes, along with developing battery technology, are the obvious answer to such challenges of mismatch. So will the Minister please clarify what is delaying the licensing of new pumped storage capacity, and will he review the schemes queuing up in North west Wales for approval and accelerate that process? Finally, my Lords, will the government take steps to defuse the tensions in some rural areas in Wales, where local communities are in conflict with large scale wind generation projects, with their networks of highly intrusive transmission lines.

These detract from the natural beauty and have a detrimental effect on the tourist industry and to the cost of local communities. Surely there should be an agreed protocol that either such lines are placed underground or those suffering such impositions should be financially compensated, and in the absence of any such offsetting benefit, they should have a veto over schemes which undermine their quality of life. My Lords committee looks forward to playing a constructive role in scrutinising the government's programme as we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move forward. It really is a pleasure not only to speak in the debate after two to speak in the debate after two such excellent maiden speeches, during which time I realised all the things I'd done wrong in mine. So apologies, for instance, to my So apologies, for instance, to my sponsors who I never thanked. Thank you Lord Alli. Thank you, Lord Baroness Winterton. The doorkeepers. Baroness Winterton. The doorkeepers. ET cetera. ET cetera. And in the spirit of that, can I just say, because I'm halfway down the list, because I'm halfway down the list, it means I can simply refer to the speaker's list, say everything Lord Smith said, everything Baroness Bonham-Carter said, everything Lord Berkeley said quite a lot of things, but not everything on Brexit that Lord Blackwater said.

But thank you and very little that. Lord Swire said. Other than his tribute to Lord Blackwater. Obviously I pay

18:49

Baroness Debbonaire (Labour)

- -

tribute to my new hon. Friend Lord Hobby and his expertise in education is clearly going to be very welcome and I must declare up very welcome and I must declare up from my register in. The interests include being very part time chief executive of UK Opera Association and currently chair of the Women's Prize for non-fiction that is for Prize for non-fiction that is for 2026. And also it means that I can dispense with anything that's already been said, which is really handy. So I'm just going to spend a handy.

So I'm just going to spend a few minutes, only a couple of minutes, talking about the political economy of arts, culture and heritage, because if and I believe it is if arts, culture and heritage are the important features of our national life that they truly are, then we need a really well articulated political economy which deals with both demand and supply, as well as the most important bit of all the joy. And the joy is, I think, self-evident. There are so many August members in this in your Lordships House that have spoken of it eloquently, far more eloquently than I can.

I've experienced it myself as a cellist and musician for 56 years, I think now and so many of your Lordships House have likewise. But I just want to say that in order for that to work, we need a political economy with political arguments made for economic questions, those economic questions being about how do we make sure that from early childhood every child is given that education, but also picking out bits that haven't yet been mentioned? The specialist education, which Lord Berkeley did mention, which includes conservatoires, but also specialist music schools, as well as music hubs which serve slightly different needs for slightly different groups of people, young people.

They are both important. If we're going to have world class musicians as our art schools, as are the arts and humanities departments in universities. Now, if we attend to the careers, we also need to attend to the employment conditions, the Employment Rights Act, which of course, I was very proud to support, doesn't really deal with the freelance conditions experienced by most creators in the creative arts and culture and heritage sector, and so I welcome the Small Business Late Payments Bill. I do hope that by the time it becomes law, we also have a Freelancer's champion named, which is well trailed, and we need that freelancers champion, if only to make sure that freelancers actually know about what their rights are.

I confess that I'm slightly confused about the ticket touts legislation. First of all, I saw the word draft, and I was irked because quite a few of us in my former Commons team, as well as my dear friend Sharon Hodgson, had campaigned on this long and hard and it was in the manifesto then I saw that in the Sporting Events Bill, there is a mention of ticket touting, so I'd like to gently ask my colleagues on the frontbench, can we? Just as an amendment to the Sporting Events Bill, insert the entire ticket touts bill.

I'd really like to know. We've actually done loads of work on this already. We know how much it's going to save. The only people who benefit from a delay to the ticket touts legislation are ticket touts. And the corollary to that is we give more joy if we bring it forward. So what else is needed? My hon. Friend Baroness Rebuck mentioned so much and I meant to say and everything Gail said. So my hon. Friend have said so much about the importance of reading, of music, of of the BBC, of sorting out the AI legislation.

I just want to finish on this. If we want a thriving creative sector, we need a political economy that articulates how we train, sustain and develop and grow the body of work that makes our country so great. That identifies the UK by so many people at home and abroad, and helps bring us together in a series of national stories which matter now, perhaps more than ever. Thank you, my Lords.

18:53

Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I'm grateful to be contributing to this debate in contributing to this debate in response to His Majesty's most Humble Address, most gracious speech, and it's an honour to be following such excellent maiden speeches. And I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. I want to speak to your Union. I want to speak to your Lordships about the removal of peerages. Bill, which is. My noble friend. Lord true said, will need to be looked at very carefully, lest it ever become a licence for the social media lynch mob.

He referred to it as Peter's Law, since it's clearly inspired by the government's desire to punish Lord Mandelson. And therein lies the problem. The threshold for removal will have to be low enough to bring Lord Mandelson's behaviour within scope, which means removal will almost certainly not be limited to peers who've been convicted of a criminal offence. It will also, of necessity, be retrospective, since the sins the government's wants to punish Lord Mandelson for are those he's already committed. I fear the threshold will be something along the lines of bringing the House into disrepute.

And I know from numerous cases the Free Speech Union has fought that take, that this is a nebulous standard that's easily weaponised by political activists seeking to punish their opponents. I'll give just one example, my Lords. That is the case of Anil Bhanot, a Hindu community leader who was awarded an OBE in 2010 for fostering community cohesion. In January 2024, he received a letter from the Honours Forfeiture Committee, which sits in the Cabinet Office, informing him it was minded to recommend he be stripped of his OBE because, and I quote, he had brought the honours system into disrepute.

What had he done? My Lords, following a campaign by Muslim activists, the committee had received a number of complaints about replies Mr. Bhanot made to social media posts some three years earlier regarding the murder of Hindus by mobs of Islamists in Bangladesh. Those replies, according to the committee, were Islamophobic and it singled out one in which Mr. Bhanot said that the accusations of Islamophobia were sometimes used as a weapon to chill free speech. That in itself, that argument in itself, said the Cabinet Office, was an example of Islamophobia.

Now the same complaints that were made to the forfeiture committee about Mr. Bhanot were also made to the police, the Charity Commission and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. All three cleared Mr. Bhanot, but not the forfeiture committee. It went ahead and stripped him of his OBE. My Lords would members of this House be at risk of being stripped of their peerages for saying something similar, even for making the same point in this House? Parliamentary privilege might not protect us, since the conduct committee can consider complaints about things said on the floor of the House, and I assume that the committee would play a part in deciding whether noble Lord should be stripped of their titles.

If that's a genuine risk, Peter's law will inevitably have a chilling effect on what peers feel at liberty to say, including in this House. When arguing for Peter's law earlier this year, the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, said the reason the government is bringing it forward is to restore the public's confidence in the integrity of Parliament. But if it ends up preventing peers speaking out about matters of national importance for fear of being accused of bringing the House into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disrepute, it will further erode the reputation of Parliament and not restore it. Here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. My Lords, may I to echo the congratulations to the two maiden speeches we've heard so far this speeches we've heard so far this evening from Lord Hobby, who I work very closely with when I was a shadow schools Minister and also shadow schools Minister and also Lord Blackwater, and I particularly enjoyed his devastating critique of the previous Conservative the previous Conservative government's policy on music in education, and I hope to hear much more of it from him during his time

18:57

Lord Brennan of Canton (Labour)

- -

here in this House. This is culture's part of our debate here today. And this is Ivors week, everybody, because the Ivor Novello Awards take place on Thursday, Awards take place on Thursday, which is the the world's greatest actually award ceremony for songwriters and composers. And I'd songwriters and composers. And I'd like to pay tribute. I'm a member of the Academy. I should declare that to Tom grey, the chair of the that to Tom grey, the chair of the Academy, and Roberto Niro, the chief executive who do so much to try and enhance and protect creative remuneration in this country, and also because Ivor Novello came from Cardiff, which is where I come from.

Can I praise the government, first of all for introducing and laying an see at the moment which many hon. Members may not be aware of, which will put the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority on a statutory footing as a external whistleblowing authority for the creative industries, and congratulate both Jen Smith, the CEO of Cisa, and also Baroness Kennedy of the shores, on their work in getting this body very important body to this stage, and I hope the government will also take reserve powers to ensure it gets properly funded.

Now, in the King's Speech, we've already heard about the draft bill regarding ticketing, and I want to welcome this or I wish it was more than a a draft bill. It is one of the recommendations in my own report, which was recently published, commissioned by the Culture Committee in the in the Commons on live and electronic music, which contained the seven what I call the Seven essentials of live music. And they are celebration embracing live music not just for money making but as a public good, grassroots, nurturing, grassroots and community, live music for its own sake and as an incubator of future success safety, prioritising fans from harm of injury, crime, violence, harassment and discrimination at live events, accessibility thinking and acting accordingly at all times.

Transport making live music central part of transport policy. Voice for fans to promote and support the voice of music fans, but also ticketing. Treating fans with respect, providing transparency and ending rip off practices. And I do hope that the government comes forward sooner rather than later with the actual bill and introduces it into Parliament, and when it does so that it also puts into the bill another recommendation in my report, which is to put the current Live Trust levy, which is currently on a voluntary basis, to at least take the powers to make it a statutory basis to ensure that it, too, is properly funded.

And I just wanted to say that last week I attended the The Great Escape music event in in Brighton, which promotes new music, where I met a young man called Isaac Nielsen. Now Isaac's a working class artist from the Derbyshire town of Buxton, and he's been trying to build his career as an artist and songwriter since 2022. And he's performing a gig every day in 2026 to try and build his career. He's currently on day 139 of that challenge, so if any noble Lords have any venues in their areas that they think he might be able to perform at, or anyone else listening to this debate, I hope they'll offer him that opportunity.

I want to mention one other thing to the government in relation to music, and that is around recorded music. Battery Studios, which is one of our iconic studios, is in danger of closure and redevelopment. We really ought to by now have measures to create assets of cultural value as a designation, to be able to protect these sorts of places where everyone from Paul McCartney to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kylie Minogue have recorded here. My Lords. For the past seven years, I've served as Chief of Staff to my right hon. Friend, Sir Staff to my right hon. Friend, Sir Ed Davey. And while I declare this interest, I must say it's not all been wetsuits and splash parks and I'm not sure why. New leader, my noble friend Lord Purvis up for bungee jumping team boats. I'm neither. Together with an extraordinary team of colleagues,

19:01

Baroness Leaman (Liberal Democrat)

- -

including my noble friend Lord Dixon, whose own maiden speech I'm very excited to hear later in this debate. Ed and I had the task of rebuilding our party. At the last election, the Liberal Democrats returned our largest number of MPs in a century. And I say this because it matters. With populism on the rise across the world, it matters that we have a thriving liberal force in this country, one committed to holding governments to account when they fall short, but crucially, one prepared to stand firmly against those who would drag our politics and our communities to the extremes of left or right.

Division and demagoguery are not inevitable, but they must be resisted, and I intend to play my part in that resistance from these benches. In joining this House, I follow in the footsteps of many former political staffers across all benches, and I would like to acknowledge two of them in particular today, my sponsors and friends, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender and Lady Suttie. They have been generous mentors to me over many years, providing wise counsel, encouragement, wine and on occasion the perfectly timed piece of rather blunt advice.

While I thank them, I also thank Black Rod doorkeepers and attendants and staff across this House for their support and good humour in helping me to find my way at this end of the palace, as well as our wonderful team in the Liberal Democrat Whips office. And I'd also like to add my congratulations to the noble Lords Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater for their maiden speeches today, both of which I think gave a real sense of the contribution they'll both make to this place.

My Lords, it is a huge privilege to speak in this debate on His Majesty's gracious speech, and it certainly feels a very long way from Chipping Sodbury, where, along with my brother and sister, I was raised by my lovely mum. Mum spent more than 40 years as a nurse in the NHS, promoting the health and protection of children and those who look after them, so I was fortunate to be able to draw on the values mum instilled in me to support Ed Davey, to tell his story of care, and to place the millions of unpaid carers across our country at the front and centre of our general election campaign, to help make the case for those who form the invisible backbone of our communities, those who constitute an economy within the economy.

Uncosted too often uncounted and still overwhelmingly women. So I'm going to focus my remaining remarks on the families who are often part of that same story of care, children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and the parents and carers who spend months, often years, fighting for support. The system is broken. That's the lived reality of families across the country. Children are failed every day. Parents are forced into exhausting battles simply to secure what their child should have been entitled to.

From the start, teachers and school leaders are doing their best in a system stretched beyond capacity. Meanwhile, local authorities are being driven to the brink by costs they can't meet. That's why reform is urgent, and why I welcome the Education for All Bill as a step in the right direction. But reform will only succeed if children and families are placed at its heart. If reform means removing rights from parents who already feel powerless, weakening routes of appeal or disrupting settled placements, it will fail.

This is particularly true for neurodivergent children. Understanding of autism, ADHD and other forms of neurodiversity has grown enormously, but support has not kept pace. Too many children wait years for assessment. Too many families are told to come back when things are worse, and so too many children learn far too young that school is a place where they're misunderstood. I know this not only as a matter of policy, but as a parent. My son and daughter each waited three years for their diagnoses.

In my daughter's case, I'm not sure she would have been referred at all had it not been for one particular teacher, Miss Holmes. She saw my daughter clearly when the systems around her did not, and advocated for her when she could not yet advocate for herself. I think of the children who do not have a. Miss Holmes, the children whose distress is quiet, the girls who mask until they break. The young people whose underlying neurodivergence is missed as my own was.

My Lords. The challenges within the system are complex and fixing them will not be cost free. But failure isn't cost free either. We pay for delay in crisis placements, parental exhaustion, children's mental health, and lost potential. So I look forward to working with colleagues across this house of all parties, and none to make the case for the children who can't wait, and for the families who shouldn't have to fight. And for a country that's at its best

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when it sees, hears and values every child. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lord, it is a. Delight to follow the speech of my noble follow the speech of my noble friend Baroness Lehman of Chipping Sodbury. I congratulate her on setting out with her customary clarity the important case of neurodiversity in children. They

19:07

Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)

- -

neurodiversity in children. They will have a great new champion in this House. I also welcome the maiden speeches by the noble Lords, hobby and Lord Blackwater. Having worked with my noble friend for over a decade, her dedication to send issues comes as no great surprise. Our collaboration started out with a request from her for mentoring and to be honest, she showed such political know how. I have never quite been sure whether it was me doing the mentoring or her Baroness Leaman has political intuition, tenacity, and a level of drive that leaves most people who work with her sprinting to simply keep up.

Being a Chief of Staff to a party leader, as many on these benches and many other benches know, is one of the toughest leadership roles in any political party to take on that challenge. At a point when the question was whether that party would continue to exist at all, and to help deliver the best general election result in a century, shows extraordinary strategic leadership and skill. Baroness Lehman worked alongside Sir Ed Davey and told his story of care, humanity and love with something that everyone involved in caring recognised.

She managed to make it moving human and just a little bit of fun to her ability to put care and social care at the very heart of politics. Alongside her experience working for Save the Children means I look forward to her future work in this house with some relish. I also look forward to hearing the maiden speech in my noble friend Lord Dickson, who I should declare an interest, was my boss for three years when I was director of communications for the Liberal Democrats, a brilliant chief executive and friend, I thank him, Baroness Lehman and Dave McCabe, our campaigning guru and Hull luminary, for being part of a leadership team.

That was one of the best experiences of my life, my Lord, sadly, we are seeing the opposite of teamwork at the moment in the House of Commons right now and I fear for their program. These plans lack the ambition and urgency we seriously need. For too long, communities have suffered whilst water companies profited, polluting our rivers and seas and let their customers down. The water bill is therefore welcome, but the government already holds many of the powers they need to act, and stronger enforcement of existing rules should accompany any new legislation.

We continue to believe the government should go much further on transparency, stronger regulation and ending the broken financial model that has failed customers and the environment and simply rewarded the shareholders. The government's own environmental improvement plan points to important work on water for farming, land use and food. But my Lords, the gracious address has a lack of information and debates this week about the all important issue of DEFRA, and it does not as yet show the urgency or ambition needed to deliver.

It is also striking for what it leaves out on food security, at a time when affordable food and domestic production matter more than ever, there is still no clear plan to back British farmers or strengthen our resilience. That matters because food security is national security. Urgent measures are needed on sustainable food production, food affordability and farming resilience. For years, unfortunately, the conservative government neglected British farmers. Subsidies fell in real terms by 20% since 2015, and now Labour is cutting further our overreliance on imports alongside continuing energy price pressures, leaves food inflation as a real danger.

And who's exposed? It's the poorest families that are exposed. These risks were raised in a joint letter of 100 food companies, who, in February of this year called for white paper and legislation to confront these problems. The government promised to legislate to end peat sales, but without a timetable. Still, that's not good enough. We need to meet environmental commitments and restore business confidence to UK horticulture. My Lords on water, on farming, on food security, on nature. The government must move at the speed of the current crisis, not at the glacial pace of their own internal wrangling.

And my Lords, from these benches we will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be on their case on these issues. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords may I to congratulate Baroness Leaman? It's excellent to have another woman on our benches have another woman on our benches and Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater for their excellent speeches, and for their excellent speeches, and we look forward to hearing much more from all of them as they move

19:12

Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Labour)

- -

19:17

Viscount Chandos (Labour)

- -

room mate. I wish to speak today about education and about culture. about education and about culture. Both are central to the sort of society I believe all noble Lords wish to promote and live in, but wish to promote and live in, but they are also vital drivers of economic growth, directly and indirectly, short term and long term. In the context of education, I declare my interest as a trustee I declare my interest as a trustee for a few more months of Lamda and in relation to the creative industries.

As a director of Digbeth Loc Film Studios and the Theseus Agency, the Gracious Speech did not contain a lot in relation to education in general or in terms of higher education in particular, although I welcome the education for all. Bill, even if the devil is likely to be in the detail. Nearly three years ago, the Industry and Regulators Committee of your Lordships House, in its report on the Office and Higher Education, flagged the looming financial crisis for the sector.

The back seat, driven by the last government, insisted that all was well since when. Unfortunately, the accuracy of these predictions has become ever clearer. Mergers such as those recently announced between the universities of Greenwich and Kent and King's College London and Cranfield University, may bring some improved resilience to the sector, but these will not solve the chronic underfunding described by my noble friend Lord Isaac and my noble friend, Lord Smith. The funding for smaller specialist institutions is an essential support for.

For world leading conservatoires and other institutions. Can my noble friend the Minister, say, when the process for awarding the next round of these grants will begin, the office requires universities to provide rolling five year financial forecasts. Yet too often decisions on grants are essential to an institution's viability, have been left until the last minute. The funding crisis in the cultural and arts sector is, if anything, even greater than that. In higher education. The Hodge Review, which I hope we will get the opportunity to debate in this House before the summer recess, set out a number of modest recommendations for increasing funding.

And though the government has accepted these and all the review's recommendations, they will only scratch the surface of the funding gap. From where will the rest of this gap be plugged? It should have been, as I've previously agreed, from the lottery, where the new operator awarded by the awarded the licence under the last government, without any enforceable sanctions for failing to deliver on its ambitious financial promises, is struggling to maintain either even previous levels of support for good causes.

Can the my noble friend the Minister, say what she intends to do to ensure that the lottery operator delivers on its promises here?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we've had three wonderful making speeches today, wonderful making speeches today, each distinct in its own way, but I can see quite clearly that in the debates that we have around the debates that we have around the House in the future, each of our contributors today will make a very important contribution to the debates of this House, and I

19:21

Baroness Browning (Conservative)

- -

debates of this House, and I congratulate them all. My Lords, tonight I would like to focus on the Send proposed changes in the forthcoming education Bill. Perhaps the House will be surprised that I do not intend for once to single out autism, because I hope to cover autism in more detail on the 10th of June. When we debate the Select Committee report on the 2009 Autism Act. But my noble friend Lord Touhig, of course, earlier in this debate flagged up many issues that are of concern in the in the legislation to, as far as autism is concerned, that Send needs to be reformed is not disputed.

But following from the government's consultation, we are short on the detail which has raised concern, particularly from charities, parents and professionals. So today I would like to ask questions that I expect to be raised during the course of the Bill, and which I hope will give the Minister an opportunity to do a bit of prep before the Second Reading begins. If children are no longer to have easy education and care plans, how does the government intend that both education and health be brought together to provide a whole person plan? They do not work well together now, except in casework that's reached a crisis.

Something needs to be done to make this more mainstreamed for a much wider group of children. And following on from that, how's the how does the government plan to deal with long waiting times for assessment involving both health and education? If it is the case that intervention will begin before assessment, does that mean that children will be grouped under umbrella labels, and how will that affect the concept of no decision about me? Without me, it's good. It's a good thing to seek to provide more support and services.

But will the bill provide more detail about the number of staff needed, their funding and most importantly, their training? We are looking at a very wide range of disabilities with many co-morbidities. Without specialist training, this merely provides staffing at best to manage children in the classroom as opposed to educating them in the broadest sense of the word academically, where you can to build confidence, speech and language mobility and are so important. Independence as the child develops compared to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

present. It is intended That children who are assessed. Is it intended that children who are assessed and diagnosed will be treated under umbrella terminology, rather than a specific diagnosis, even when that diagnosis has been even when that diagnosis has been provided by a. How does the government view the changes in the bill impacting when schooling is bill impacting when schooling is over? How will they prevent the cliff face between further or higher education and ultimately employment? And of course, independent living? And will those specialist schools currently providing for disabled children.

All of these post 16 facilities be affected? And if so, what analysis has the government made of how they will be affected? Where does the government see parents role in the Send programme? Will parental rights be diminished, and how easy will it be for parents to challenge decision making? My Lords disabled children live longer than they than than they did previously, and they have higher expectations when they leave schools. I hope this bill will ensure that this improves.

19:26

Lord Alli (Labour)

- -

The my Lords. this. >> Debate. >> I want. To commend the government on the choices it. >> Has made in the areas covered

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has made in the areas covered today in education. Its choice to start change with early years in start change with early years in culture, its choice to put arts back on the curriculum in technology, its choice to harness the power of digital visual age to change and improve access to public services and in energy. Its choice to invest in the transition to green power. So I welcome the education for all Bill, the Digital Access to Services Bill and the Energy Independence Bill.

However, I want to focus my contribution today on culture in a world where truth is made to look like lies and lies, to look like truth. Both social media and the BBC become vital. I wait with huge interest for the government's response to the consultation on social media, and I support the government's steadfast commitment to the BBC. Why are these two issues so important to me? Because my Lords, I know, like many of you, that the most important thing is truth, and truth is the cornerstone of any strong democracy, and I believe it has to be safeguarded, protected and fought for.

I know that the BBC is one of our country's greatest assets in that fight, and I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's commitment to ending the cycle of charter renewal. But I also believe that the BBC needs the resources to invest in local, national and international journalism, because that is the front line of the fight for truth. I also believe that tech and social media companies should be under the same obligations of truth. That means less talk and more doing when it comes to the protection of children and harmful content.

When the government brings forward its recommendations after the consultation closes, it should put itself on the side of parents as they struggle with this new media age. It should introduce a ban on social on mobile phones in schools. It should strengthen the enforcement of age restriction. It should remove anonymity from social media users, and it should work with other countries to turn tech and social media platforms into publishers responsible for the content that they produce.

And my Lords, I also believe that the government should bring in the long overdue independent press regulator. And thats what a fight for truth looks like. This King's Speech is a choice. It's a choice to govern from the centre ground. It's a choice not to govern from the extreme left or the extreme right. It's a choice to spend more on public services, because we've seen the chaos and harm of not doing so. This is a King's Speech that I believe makes the right choices to further further strengthen our economic security, our energy independence, and our national security.

But there are also cultural choices, too, and we will see those unfold over this session. I remain hopeful that they will be the choices rooted in the values of my party, my country, but also the battle for truth and my Lords. Just before I sit down, may I also congratulate the noble Lords hobby, Blackwater and the Baroness Leaman on their maiden speeches, and I look forward to the noble Lord Lord Dixon of Jericho's maiden speech in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a few moments. My Lords, we've been lucky to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we've been lucky to hear three absolutely first class maiden speeches today. I look forward to a fourth in just a few forward to a fourth in just a few moments. No pressure. In the last moments. No pressure. In the last King's Speech debate in July 2024, I praised the government's ambition

19:30

Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Conservative)

- -

I praised the government's ambition to achieve 80% employment rate by helping 2 million people from welfare into work. 22 months on, the figure required is now 2.2 million, meaning the target is 10% more difficult to reach. In the same time frame, we've seen unemployment increase from 1.4 million to the 1.8 million announced this morning, with those signed off with no requirement to seek work. Up from 2.7 million to 4.2 million. I'd like to focus on one cohort within these figures, the 960 000 young people who aren't in education, employment or training, another figure which has increased since 2020.

For the Prime Minister called the gracious address, and I quote a king's speech for the young people whose gifts lie in their hands and who work hard. And last Monday, he said that incremental change won't cut it for the million NEETs. There's a mismatch between the government's programme and its rhetoric to tackle a NEETs crisis. It should have included a bill to ensure that our education system properly prepares young people for employment. It should have included a bill to reform welfare, so it's targeted at those who genuinely need it, rather than those who can work, and it should have included a bill to help businesses create jobs and provide training opportunities.

An essential element to get Britain working. To be fair, the government has said they'll respond to the Milburn Review. But the hole in the King's speech on NEETs betrays the government's view that new legislation isn't required to solve the crisis. What will happen between now and the next King's speech? The rate of change is likely to accelerate in the foothills of the AI transition. British Chambers of Commerce research suggests that AI use has doubled since 2024, with a majority of businesses now using it by the time of the next King's Speech.

Its use will be universal. Our labour market is therefore heading for a fundamental shift. Taking King's and Queen's speeches as a barometer of how seriously UK governments, both Labour and Conservative, are taking, AI is revealing. Of the six gracious speeches since the 2019 general election, AI has warranted just two mentions. Once in 2023 and once in 2024, and trawling through the explanatory notes for those six speeches, AI tells me that buses were mentioned more than AI, with 33 and 28 references, respectively.

My Lords. I suspect Claude doesn't realise how interested voters are in public transport, but when historians look back at this period, it's safe to say the AI revolution will feature more prominently. In fact, I would argue there's a strong case that AI should have been the key theme in this King's speech, rather than an add on. To conclude, I urge the government to consider a strategic AI review on a par with the Strategic Defence Review to properly and thoroughly examine the impact and opportunity of AI.

Such an approach is needed not just to prevent the next crisis from worsening, but to prepare our economy, our society and the public sector for the future.

19:34

Baroness Curran (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I must admit that when I saw my name was so far down the I saw my name was so far down the speaking list, I did hesitate and thought, I'll have so many speeches thought, I'll have so many speeches I have to listen to. But can I say, I'm so glad that I have spent the afternoon and early evening here, because I have, as an ordinary but avid consumer of the arts. I've got a whole new level of motivation. And can I say my learning has increased most especially when we listen to the impressive maiden speeches of Lord Hobby, Lord Blackwater and Baroness Leaman, and I anticipate my learning will continue further.

I want to focus my remarks this evening on energy policy, and I would argue that the starting point for energy policy has to be the stark realities of climate change. As has been mentioned much earlier in this debate, the Climate Change Committee confirms that we are already experiencing most frequent heat waves, heavier rainfall and conditions conducive to wildfires. These are not distant risks. These are happening now and the UK. We have to be honest, is not adequately prepared and we see the consequences immediately, first hand.

As my noble friend Lord Harris said earlier at the questions today in 2022, extreme heat contributed to over 3000 deaths and disrupted vital infrastructure in 2024, the UK faced 50 consecutive days of rain and a number of named storms across the globe. Extreme weather is attention is intensifying, with enormous consequences. The evidence is all around us and the science is clear. We face not isolated incidents, but cascading and compounding shocks across sectors with threat to national infrastructure and global supply chain disruption and fragility.

I do not have time to begin to list all the consequences that we face, but let us put. Let us listen. Of course, as we should to Sir David Attenborough, who reminds us that what happens over the next 50 years will determine the fate of for all on the planet. We know what we need to do, and what happens next is up to us. And that is why the legislation in the King's Speech is so important, and makes clear that it is time to get off the fossil fuel roller coaster and accelerate our transition to clean energy.

The Energy Independence Bill is central to the ambition of of change. It strengthens our energy security at a time of global instability. We have experienced two major energy shocks in just five years. And in fact, we have been experiencing energy shocks since the 1970s, with increasing costs to families and businesses. This helps build national resilience and I to sit in the National Resilience Committees. And we need to reform markets, we need to improve planning, and we need to produce better regulatory frameworks.

I also welcome the nuclear regulation bill because it plays a vital role in delivering reliable, low carbon power. We must acknowledge the challenges in delivering nuclear power deliveries too slow and costs remain too high. But all in all, what we need to do is absolutely accept the need for urgent action. Energy policy has rightly been a central focus of government action, and it must remain so. We stand at a defining moment. The government must keep its nerve and focus with these measures in the King's speech.

We must act to protect lives, livelihoods and the foundations of our economy. Inaction is a costly choice. Now is the time for leadership, ambition and enduring commitment. We must not back off.

19:38

Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Conservative)

- -

Hear. Hear, hear. My Lords. excellent maiden speakers today and wish the noble Lord Dixon luck in a few minutes time. I will restrict few minutes time. I will restrict my comments to technology. Much of the gracious speech involves and the gracious speech involves and impacts tech, but I was sad to see nothing that holistically addresses the positive and negative impacts of technology, especially AI, on society. There was no resolution on protecting copyright, no updated online safety bill for the AI age, no approach to societal guardrails for superintelligence.

Indeed, no AI bill at all. Instead, there are various references to growth being equated with inward investment and specifics such as the NHS single patient record and digital ID. You may say my Lords that it is right that tech is embedded in everything now, so it should just be part of each piece of legislation. But I think that that misses the point. We are living in an era of huge technology change. It's reminiscent of the late 19th century. Tech companies are more powerful than countries.

They're making huge fortunes and delivering much positive innovation, but also great societal harm. We need to build the moral and legal frameworks for this new AI age. And in this regard, my Lords, the Gracious Speech is sorely lacking. I think there are two bills, particularly, that are important in establishing this moral and legal framework, but unfortunately not for the right reasons. The Competition Reform Bill will change how the Competition and Markets Authority makes competition decisions. It risks reducing the CMA's independence.

This matters because AI investment is like catnip for all politicians. We risk being bedazzled by short term investment from these tech titans. My Lords, in this House, many of us fought hard for the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. I worry that the Competition Reform Bill risks weakening this regime, as it only just gets started. And I would ask the noble Lord, the Minister, how this bill will not reduce the CMA's independence and how it will ensure we have fair and competitive digital markets, rather than even stronger tech monopolies with faster CMA decision making.

The second bill that I am concerned about, my Lords, is regulating for growth. The critical question is what kind of growth does the government want? Short term investment in data centres or sustainable growth that comes from competitive and fair markets? Will this bill place beyond doubt? Copyright owners rights and prevent tech companies stealing their content? The robber Barons of the 19th century needed regulation, my Lords, antitrust regulation, health and safety regulation for society to get the sustainable and fair benefits that growth from their technologies promised.

The same is exactly the same is exactly true for the digital AI era, and it is only if we regulate sensibly that we will get that sustainable growth. And finally, my Lords, what's missing a legal and moral framework for AI that doesn't accept that just because we can means we should, and instead sets out the legal barriers we wish to impose on new tech, just as we do in all other parts of society. A proper AI bill that addresses child safety in an AI age that puts to rest any doubts about copyright protection, and starts the process of building genuine citizen trust so that we can benefit from the undoubted upsides that technology could bring.

Without that, my Lords, I fear all these other bills will not actually bring society with us. And like my noble friend just in front of me, I fear that this is a big hole in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gracious Speech. My Lords. We've already had three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We've already had three excellent maiden speeches from my noble friend Lord Hobby, from Lord Blackwater and from Baroness Hayman, Blackwater and from Baroness Hayman, and I'm looking forward to our fourth from Lord Dixon, and I'm fourth from Lord Dixon, and I'm sure he's going to make it a great quartette. And I congratulate everybody. My Lords, the King's

19:43

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)

- -

everybody. My Lords, the King's Speech proposed a number of really positive legislative changes to improve productivity and stimulate growth, offering much needed hope, I think, particularly of the Social Housing Bill, of which I'll speak at Second Reading. Reform of water companies, tackling bureaucracy in the National Health Service, a defence housing service, and calling out the awful anti-Semitism threatening our communities. We only have one opportunity to speak at this stage, and I welcome the government's recognition in the King's speech of the central role education plays in driving economic growth, social mobility and national resilience, and its continued emphasis on skills, innovation and improving opportunity across the education system, including sand reform.

My Lords. I want to focus on higher education, an area in which the United Kingdom remains a global leader and which is essential to the delivery of the government's ambitions for growth, productivity and international competitiveness. Over the past year, the government has taken several welcome steps to support the sector, increasing tuition fees in line with inflation for the next two years. Acknowledging the significant financial pressures universities face, universities face and the retention of the graduate route. The Graduate Route visa to maintain the UK's attractiveness to international students who contribute enormously to our economy and society.

It's also encouraging to see the ways in which universities themselves have recognised the need to evolve, improving accountability and ensuring students receive genuine value and opportunity from higher education. In that spirit, I welcome universities UK's Future Universities programme, focusing on working closely with employers, communities and government while equipping students with the adaptability and resilience needed in a rapidly changing world. Our universities are among this country's greatest national strengths. They generate more than £265 billion in economic output, support hundreds of thousands of jobs, drive innovation in research and anchor regional economies across the United Kingdom.

It's a success story, but it's under strain. The growing the current funding model is no longer sustainable. The value of domestic teaching funding has been steadily eroded in real terms over many years. Research funding is under pressure, with institutions increasingly forced to cross-subsidise research from other income streams. At the same time, uncertainty surrounding international student policy has increased financial instability for institutions that rely on overseas recruitment to remain viable. This isn't simply a challenge for universities themselves. If institutions weaken, the effects will be felt across our economy, our research base, regional growth and the opportunities available to future generations.

The Education Select Committee's recent report on higher education funding and insolvency rightly highlighted the urgency of these issues and called for a more strategic and sustainable approach. I echo that call today. The sector now urgently needs clarity on the proposed inflation linked tuition fee mechanism. There are ways forward. There are practical steps the government could take right now. They could protect the Strategic Priorities grant in real terms, supporting institutions with rising teacher pension scheme costs, and maintain the balance of dual support for research funding.

Ultimately, what is needed is a coherent funding settlement that recognises the full economic and social value of higher education. So can I ask my noble friend the Minister, will she urge the government to now provide clarity on inflation linked tuition fee uplifts, and set out a credible plan to secure the financial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sustainability of our universities? My Lords. I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden opportunity to make my maiden speech during this debate. It's an honour to follow the noble Lord Hobby and the noble Lord Blackwater. I'm not sure whether the protocol also requires me to congratulate noble Baroness Debbonaire on the noble Baroness Debbonaire on the delayed moments of her speech from earlier, when she did part of her earlier, when she did part of her speech today, my Lords, making sure that people have a fair chance in life has been the core of my work at Victim support in Government, at Citizens Advice and the drug, alcohol and mental health charity that I was privileged to lead with the support of my noble friend Lord Carlisle.

As Chair of Trustees, I want to start what I say today by congratulating another noble friend, Lady Leeman, on her maiden speech. There are fewer people with deeper and truer instincts about what is right and what is wrong, and the courage to say so. And it's good to see you step into the light. I want to thank all noble Lords for their welcome here. This is a daunting place, and the warmth that I've experienced from right across the house has been quite something.

So for all of you who have smiled, who've inquired, who've pulled me onto the bench when I was sitting in the wrong place, thank you. This is a culture that is fragile, and it's a hard and rare and precious thing, and I will do my very best to sustain it and foster it. I want to add my thanks to the staff team here the doorkeepers, the attendants, the clerks, and the wider teams right across the estate. They are always reasonable, they're always kind, and there is often a twinkle in the eye.

I want to thank my supporters, Lady Grender, who has been both impish and wise counsel to me as only a true friend can be for six years and Lord Purvis of Tweed in front of me here, who has been a kind and astute interpreter of this place, its customs, its history, and particularly its architecture. If anyone ever wants a question on that, I recommend his advice highly. And of. And of course, the staff in our Whip's office who have guided me through this strangest of experiences with care, with expertise and real attention.

But most of all, my mum, who brought me up by herself in Jericho in Oxford, not the other Jericho, to believe that you should be kind and that you should try. So before I move to the matter of the Gracious Speech, I need to declare an interest as the current chief executive of the Liberal Democrats. I've. I've always believed that the best policy and the best legislation and the best decisions come from truly understanding what matters to people and what people actually do.

And, and that sounds obvious, but in my experience in lots of organisations, it's, it's all too rare. It's, it's so easy to make assumptions from our own lives about how people feel about how people will respond. And it's so easy to miss the nuances in what people say. And I think one of the things that I most value about the debate today has been the care and attention to which people have both listened to what each other say, but also try to hear the meaning behind it and the motivation behind the words.

It can be hard to get the words right, but the meaning and the motivation I think, has been approached today with with the spirit of generosity since since January, volunteers across the Liberal Democrats have held more than a million conversations with people across England, Scotland and Wales asking them about what matters in their lives. I mention this not because it lies behind my party's success. Volunteers and other parties have also worked hard. Sadly, the data on how hard they've worked is less accessible to me than I would like it to be.

But I mention it because I truly believe it's. It's how politics should work. By starting with and listening to and serving people as you find them. So a decade ago, I was at Citizens Advice, and the website there was written in very precise, very technical language that got the law absolutely right and was completely impossible for most people to understand. And with a brilliant team, including many people who worked on the prototype of gov.uk with Lord Maude, we took it from being used by 4 million people a year to 38 million people a year, and that one change has probably helped more people than anything else I've done in my entire life.

We did that by listening to the language people used, understanding the way people approach problems in their own lives, and designing our tools and giving our advice in a way that was simple and clear. And if government needed to bend to where how people thought about a problem, we made sure that it did. So. I've also spent countless hours in drug and alcohol services, where one simple change we made had a huge impact. So the regulations used to require charities like mine to ask an astonishing and frankly, pretty impertinent number of questions to people who've just walked through the door of a drug and alcohol service, which is one of the things that is the hardest things to do in a life.

And too many people would never come back. And our country has lost too many people as a result of the way it was regulated. So our frontline workers didn't feel they had permission to do what they knew was right. But we backed them and they proved the obvious, which is that if you make people welcome, if you show them they're safe and that you care, they will come back and you can ask the questions later. So I'm pleased that some years ago, the regulator followed our lead, changed its requirements, and more people now get help and more people are alive because of that regulatory change.

My Lords, we will debate in this session bills on modernising how citizens interact with public services and how we use technology to do so. I hope the examples that I've given today give a sense of what I want to bring to this House in those discussions with you all. So a curiosity and a focus on what actually matters in people's lives, the importance as as Baroness Leaman said in her speech, the importance of emotion and dignity in our decision making, the opportunities technology provides.

If we start with people and put them before machines, and the need for public services to serve people as they are not, as we may assume them to be. So as I start my work in this House, I look forward to many conversations on these issues and to working with and particularly learning from as many people across this chamber as I can.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Well done. Well. My Lords. What a pleasure. What a privilege to speak. After four brilliant maiden speeches. And it's a special personal honour for me to a special personal honour for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dickson, follow the noble Lord, Lord Dickson, my friend Lord Dickson. In 2016 I became the chair of a large

19:53

Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)

- -

became the chair of a large voluntary organisation, a drug and addiction charity. The day after I accepted that demanding and unremunerated role, I was told that the chief executive was leaving and was going to be the chief executive of Children in Need, which he did. So I held on to the railings, as it were, and realised that I had to find a new chief executive. We had a formidable shortlist that included two internal candidates and a young fellow called Mike Dickson, a rising star in the voluntary world, in social enterprise and benefit.

And he was irresistible. And we appointed Mike Dickson and here he is today. He proved to be clever, strategic, eloquent and wise. He knew how to tell truth to what he perceived, possibly falsely, to be power in the organisation. And he led essential changes. Shortly after he joined us, I was at a meeting with Hilary Benn. MP Mike Dixon had been in the past one of Hilary Benn's special advisers, when Mr. Benn was in one of his many roles over the years as a Cabinet Minister.

I told Mr. Benn at the end of the meeting that I'd just appointed Mike Dickson as our chief executive. Without blinking, he replied in that case, Alex, you are a very lucky man. Indeed I was. And I say to you, Lordships, that we are now in this house a very lucky house, to have Lord Dixon here. I look forward with your Lordships to his many contributions in the future, perhaps over the next 30 or 40 years or more, along with Baroness Leaman, who made such a magnificent speech.

My Lords, in the context of this debate, I want to make some comments on technology and education in relation to children and the threat that the threat that gambling brings to their lives. My Lords, I'm not a spoilsport about gambling. By the way, last weekend I actually won £2.90 on the National Lottery. However, as a parent, grandparent, lawyer and citizen and a member of this House, I am very concerned about the potentially addictive exposure of children in their everyday digital environments to online temptation temptation that could ruin their lives.

I'm going to speak briefly specifically about loot boxes. My Lords, if you don't know what loot boxes are, do as I did. Ask your grandparents, or possibly Lord Dixon and Baroness Leaman who may already know, but loot boxes are items within computer games which have access, which are accessed either through gameplay or purchased within a game, and offer virtual currencies, but sometimes ask for real money. And it's the temptation to pay that real money that they do not possess.

That is the real danger and may lead them to a life of addiction and a life that is shortened as a result. Actually, as your Lordships, no under eighteens are not permitted to gamble, yet they remain exposed to temptation and all too often circumvent prohibitions. In short, I would urge His Majesty's Government to classify and regulate all loot boxes as gambling. This would bring them under Gambling Commission oversight, ensuring a ban on access and targeted promotion, which is quite specifically aimed at the under eighteens as a vulnerable group.

Some loot boxes my Lords are completely unregulated and represent a threat to children and young people. There's an excellent organisation now called peers for gambling Reform to which I belong, and it shows. It has shown through evidence it has collected a consistent link between loot box spending and later problem gambling and potential lifelong addiction. This risk was acknowledged by the government in 2022. The previous government, in a consultation which fully recognised that link and this has been addressed in part only by the Pan European Game information body and applies to new games for next month from next month.

But my Lords, it's not retrospective and young people for a very long time will remain subject to this egregious temptation which could ruin their lives. I would ask His Majesty's Government to apply the new rule to the huge number of Pre-june 26 games for the protection of future generations. As I said earlier, I'm not against gambling, but I am against uncontrolled gambling and the effect it has on future generations.

19:59

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Conservative)

- -

Compliments and thanks to all those who've given their maiden speeches today, I look forward to hearing much more from them. I put on record. That's in my register of interest that I'm the director of the Global Warming Policy the Global Warming Policy Foundation. I wanted to discuss electricity. Electricity accounts electricity. Electricity accounts for 20% of the overall energy use in this country. The other 80% is oil. It's gas, it's kerosene, it's coal. It's a bit of home wood burning. And thank heavens we do, because there are countless times when winter storms regularly bring down power lines for extended periods.

One can lend a neighbour a bucket of logs, but you can't lend a neighbour a bucket of electricity. On a particularly good day. The renewable system that we have on what is planned will actually produce. When it's perfect wind and perfect sunshine, it will overproduce the 40 to 45GW that the country uses. But if it produces more, we have to pay for constraint payments. But unfortunately most days are nothing like that. More payments are needed to encourage gas stations to turn up and pray.

Pray that France has some nuclear power spare. Pray that other countries, via their interconnectors, have some spare capacity to export to us, and while we're. We seem desperately concerned about where our domestic electricity comes from, we don't seem to be too concerned where the interconnector electricity comes from, because when it comes from Germany and Belgium, it's broadly coal produced. And the perversity is that the more that we've seen, we have more renewables in the system. We seem to be paying a higher price for our electricity.

We are already paying the one of the highest prices in the world. And it's because we have two systems. We have the irregular renewables and the backup that has to be paid for as well. There's an absolute correlation more renewables, more cost. Now, if the ambition is to have virtually all electricity produced by non-fossil fuel means by 2030, then I have a bridge to sell. The noble Lord, the Minister, we have a problem of night. We have a problem with a fantastic German word called the dunkel flatter.

And that is a high pressure system which often sits across the entirety of northern Europe, often for a week or more in the depths of winter, when it is both cold and very, very dark. So we'd need to overproduce a lot of our renewables so that we may store it. Now, how might we store it? We might look to Chinese produced batteries and cobalt produced by children in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We could look at some untried systems like hydrogen or like reservoirs that don't exist, or we can use hydro storage.

All suffer from huge thermodynamic losses. And this is just electricity. This is just the 20%. We haven't even start to have an alternative to the 80% of other energy sources. Hydrocarbons will be with us for a very long time yet, because there is no at scale alternative to power jets, heat our homes or to fuel our vehicles. But the reason Iran problem has proven some things. It's proven that there is an international price for LNG, and it's pretty high, but there is not an international price for locally piped gas.

Gas priced in the USA is infinitely cheaper than than than the LNG market and gas from Norway that we rely upon is cheaper than LNG. But it's certainly proven that energy security is valuable and it is absolute madness that we are considering cancelling or or banning any future use of the North Sea while Norway goes gangbusters for it and we buy it from them. There's a serious constitutional point that Parliament can't bind its successors, and that's a serious point with any legislation.

And I find it amazing that an 18% government, a government that secures 18% of the support of this country, can be allowed to consider such long term legislation. I welcome any legislation because it will allow me to highlight the problems of UK's energy security

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here. My Lords, I would like to congratulate all the noble Lords on congratulate all the noble Lords on their maiden speeches. They are. And and noble Baronesses. They have been really excellent. In particular, I'd like to congratulate my friend Lord Hobby, who, when I was general Secretary of the Association of Teachers and of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. He was general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. And I think when Baroness

20:04

Baroness Bousted (Labour)

- -

Teachers. And I think when Baroness Mone said, he said things very gently, which other noble Lords and ladies on the benches were more robust. I think she was looking at me and perhaps at Baroness Blower as well. But there's a there's a room for everyone in the house, isn't there? And different styles of address. I want to welcome the government's ambition that the UK should be a country fair for all, and a place where every child is included in the nation's highest aspirations.

And central to this ambition in this legislative cycle is the Bill being brought forward to raise standards in schools and introduce generational reforms of special educational needs system in the education for all Bill, the government has already signalled the seriousness of its intent to mend the utterly broken system it inherited, the £5 billion it is giving councils to pay off. 90% of the debts built up, supporting children and young people with Send is clear evidence of that intent. Staving off what would in 2028 have been widespread Council bankruptcies my Lords a long time ago now, in the 1990s, I worked in a school where children with physical and mental disabilities were included in the mainstream life of school, with a special unit which supported their inclusion.

It was a wonderful place to work and to learn. Many of the children who had the support of the inclusion unit went on to achieve marvellous things academically and socially and professionally, something that they would not have been able to do if they had been confined to a more narrow, restricted curriculum, which at that time was usual in special schools. That school was Whitmore High School in Harrow, and its head teacher was a future. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector Christine Gilbert. So I applaud the Secretary of State, Bridget Phillipson, for whom send inclusion is clearly a passion for grappling with the Treasury to release a £1.6 billion over the next few years to support, send inclusion and to equip staff with the knowledge and skills needed to deliver excellence.

My Lords. I should declare an interest. I am chair of the Teaching Commission, our second report, to be launched this July, focuses on the implication for teachers and leaders of the 2028 dual introduction of the revised national curriculum and the said reforms, which I've already said I support so wholly. However, I have to express a key concern, and it was a concern expressed by a series of expert witnesses to the Commission, and that is that the insufficient reduction of only 10% in exam time for GCSE students and the lack of consideration in the curriculum assessment review, led by Professor Becky Francis of Adaptive, modular and authentic assessment methods, which could better support learners with send learners with mental health or anxiety, might limit and constrain inclusion.

The delay until post 16 in providing a pathway for students who cannot access the mainstream curriculum, has also been questioned. Why, witnesses asked did students with low prior attainment and send have to fail at GCSE before they are offered level and 1 or 2 qualifications? Post 16? They were clear the witnesses that this delay will drive a deficit in inclusion my Lords a coherent alignment of curriculum assessment and accountability is essential. Without this, a government's ambitions for inclusion, improve belonging and reduce attainment.

Gaps may remain out of reach and policy incoherence may continue to frustrate and demoralise the profession. So I ask the government and the Ministers to look again at this issue. The curriculum will not become more inclusive if its assessment remains exclusive. This is not what I want. I'm sure it's not what the government wants. I know it's not what the government wants, and I hope that this issue can be resolved prior to 2028. I think there is still time and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will to get this right. Here, here, here, here, here. My Lords can.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords can. I also congratulate the four quartette of peers who've spoken the maiden speeches? Lord Hobby my the maiden speeches? Lord Hobby my friend, noble Lord. Lord Hobby. Lord Blackwater Baroness Leaman and finally Lord Dixon, who had to live finally Lord Dixon, who had to live up to quite a billing before he managed to say a word. But he achieved it with distinction. achieved it with distinction. Whilst I'm on Lord Dixon, I think Lord Carlile suggested we should speak to our grand parents.

About lute. I think he meant grandchildren. Yeah, so hence I correct the record. I'm sure he'd

20:09

Lord Lennie (Labour)

- -

appreciate that too. I want to speak about energy security and energy independence, which the energy independence, which the government committed to in the Gracious Speech. There should be no doubt, since Russias illegal doubt, since Russias illegal invasion of Ukraine and the war in Iran, leading to the closure of the Straits of Hormuz. There is an urgency to get policy right and to get on with delivering UK energy independence. Indeed, to oppose doing so would be an act of self-harm, leading to significantly higher prices for businesses and consumers, and to energy insecurity when it comes to keeping the lights on.

Renewables and nuclear are clearly the frontrunners for our future sources of supply, and both exist outside of the international markets. Price regulation, which will enable the UK to be independent of the high price fixing of international markets. But as a point of reassurance to those opposite who made this point, the changes to renewables and nuclear will not happen overnight, nor at the expense of gas and oil from the North Sea, and indeed the North Sea will continue at least until the next century to produce vital energy for the UK and those who argue that this Labour government is putting jobs at risk, I think their scaremongering indeed.

I live in the north east of England, where companies are pleading with us to go faster and further on renewables in order that they can retain the skills of those employed in the construction of pylons, wind turbines and the control mechanisms that they they operate under. So by creating this certainty, the UK will retain these skills, and that is what the government is committed to doing. The government is introducing Energy Independence Bill and to ensure energy security and the Nuclear Regulation Bill to pave the way for greater nuclear energy investment.

Building on the Fingleton review of the nuclear sector, this will see an acceleration of UK's commitment to both wind wave, solar and nuclear future and an improved light touch regulation to overcome price gouging by unscrupulous companies. So, from a starting point of 3% in the year 2000 to just under half our energy now, renewable sources are on the up. It's predicted that together with nuclear, new needles will dominate the market for the foreseeable future. And in the 1st of April 2026, we saw the first whole day, 24 hour period where renewables met all our energy demands.

On that day, third party intermediates were operate, which operate in the business sector, are currently only controlled by voluntary measures and general consumer protection laws. So I welcome the government's proposal that they should be properly regulated by Ofgem, become properly regulated by Ofgem and the Labour proposals to make sure the country's energy energy is independent and energy is secure. So in conclusion, can I ask the Minister if these are all true? Firstly, that the government will protect customers from international market volatility.

Secondly, boost employment in the future industries for green power. Thirdly, remove delays in planning, especially grid access and cut costs. Fourthly, increase UK resilience to energy threats and finally through GB energy, quicken the transition and ensure that considerable benefits are felt by everyone.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in the Humble Address and I congratulate all the noble Lords on their excellent maiden speeches. I warmly welcome the government's renewed commitment to tackling renewed commitment to tackling violence against women and girls, and to ensuring that women are able to participate fully and equally in to participate fully and equally in our society. I declare an interest as receiving pro bono legal advice

20:13

Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)

- -

as receiving pro bono legal advice from Mishcon de Reya on image based sexual abuse, and as a member of the advisory board for Array of Ventures, a venture capital company, noble Lords will know that I have long raised concerns about the rise of tech facilitated abuse, which continues to disproportionately target women and girls. Against that backdrop, I was disappointed by the lack of online safety provisions in the Humble Address. I fear that once again, your Lordships House may find itself compelled to strengthen protections through ad hoc amendments to other legislation.

I was also saddened by the recent resignations from government of both Jess Phillips MP and Alex Davies-jones MP, with whom I work with on my previous amendment. During their time time as Ministers, it is troubling to read in Jess Phillips letter of the intransigence in government to delivering meaningful change in tackling vawg. The noble Lord. The Minister, in his opening remarks, stated that the government stood up to X to stop the spread of intimate deepfakes on the platform. Noble Lords will remember that in the last Parliament, this House had to push the government to include these essential provisions in the Data Act to criminalise both the creation and requesting of sexually explicit images without consent.

These protections were then sat on by government for over seven months and only enacted in the face of the large scale abuse of women who would have otherwise had criminal recourse had the government enacted their available law quicker. My Lords, this is not good enough. Government must heed Jess Phillips warning and use this new parliamentary session to act at pace if we are to tackle violence against women and girls. On the issue of tech facilitated abuse, I believe there is unity across this House in recognising both the seriousness and the urgency of the challenge before us.

The pace of technological change is accelerating rapidly, from chatbots being weaponised to harm and abuse children. AI enabled glasses, covertly filming women without their consent to the continuing and deeply concerning rise in intimate image abuse. The revenge porn helpline is reported that image based sexual abuse has increased by one third compared to this time last year. These threats are evolving at speed and we cannot afford complacency. I hope the government will adopt a more proactive and forward looking approach to addressing these harms, so that women and girls may live and engage online, free from abuse and intimidation.

As the government advances its growth agenda, it is vital that women are central to that vision. For the future, we must ensure that young girls are encouraged and supported into Stem education and careers, so that the AI future we are building reflects the diversity of the society it is intended to serve. Women in tech reports that as of 2026, women comprise only 29% of the UK technology workforce, 19% of core engineering roles and just 13% of cyber security positions.

My Lords, if women are absent from the development and the deployment of these technologies, we risk embedding inequality into the foundations of our digital future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I also congratulate all of the peers who have given their maiden peers who have given their maiden speeches this evening, and I would also like to endorse the speech of also like to endorse the speech of my noble friend Baroness Bousted in all its particulars, my Lords, that there is a widespread agreement that the current system is, as the

20:16

Baroness Blower (Labour)

- -

that the current system is, as the EU describes it, adversarial, fragmented and under-resourced. The current parlous state of provision has been worsening for more than a decade, with teachers and schools stretched beyond capacity and families forced into exhausting battles to get support for their children. The daily challenges facing teachers is one of the reasons they leave the profession, and I know this from talking to them, including my own former primary teacher daughter. Against that background, the ambition of this government to change the system, to meet the needs of all children is indeed laudable.

The cap on independent special school fees to address the flow of public money to private providers is exactly the right thing to do. Experts at hand is also very welcome. And as for targeted and targeted, plus many of us who were teaching when we had school action and School Action Plus will be delighted to see the return of this. The new has campaigned for it and I've campaigned for it myself. As the CEO of Mencap has said, families must have their children's needs identified and for them to be given the right help straight away.

Backed by fully funded services to do the job. I earnestly hope that all the resources will be found to meet the very big challenge of doing the right thing by all children and young people, with C and D as Nick Harrison, chief executive of Sutton Trust, says, schools are in a financial crisis that's more than a decade and a half in the making. Little wonder, then, that not just the EU but also the Nasuwt, the NHT Haskell, the Local Government Association and the Save Our Children's Rights Campaign all agree that if mainstream schools are to do much more on inclusion for every child, the right level of funding must be available.

My Lords. In conclusion, I will just say a few words about further and higher education. The deepening crisis in post 16, education, and the consequences of treating education as a market rather than a public good, are clearly out of step with the government's ambitions. When your Lordships House debated the value of modern foreign languages, teaching and learning, we were as one in agreeing that the value of learning modern foreign languages is very high, and yet such courses are being cut, and sometimes even whole departments in universities.

The logic of competition between institutions has not improved student experience. So what reassurances can my noble friend the Minister, give to students worried about the financial stability of their universities, when 4 in 10 of them are facing deficit budgets? My Lords, we all want the best for all our children and young people, so we must will the means.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To congratulate all the maiden speeches for excellent contributions and particularly welcome my two new colleagues, Baroness Leaman and Lord Dixon, who are both taking a well-earned break, are both taking a well-earned break, but we are delighted to have them join us and we look forward to working with them. I know the convention is not to repeat a point convention is not to repeat a point made earlier in the debate, but as number 48, it's quite difficult to find totally new things to say.

But I will concentrate on education within many subjects of today's debate, and I thought I was going to be new because I'm going to talk about modern languages and blow me Baroness Blower just talked about one language. I was a one time

20:20

Baroness Garden of Frognal (Liberal Democrat)

- -

modern linguist, and I pleased I am to see that we seem to be rejoining Erasmus, a brilliant programme for Erasmus, a brilliant programme for encouraging young people to learn languages and experience life in other countries. Leaving it was one other countries. Leaving it was one of the very many losses from Brexit, but Erasmus Plus gives hope that the government will be able to the government will be able to support this valuable scheme. So can I ask will they also introduce can I ask will they also introduce group passports and find other ways of enabling disadvantaged youngsters to afford life, life affirming experiences? Because my Lords if we wish to be an internationally minded country, we need to be able to speak other languages.

It's no good just speaking English loudly. It honestly doesn't get you anywhere. It is a matter of shame that numbers of GCSE and A-level entries are dropping, leading to some universities having to close language departments through lack of applicants and knock on effect of courses. Fewer language teachers but starting languages in primary schools enables children to learn so much more enthusiastically. So what support is the government giving to ensure there are language teachers to enthuse and inspire the young? But just as languages needs a boost in our education system, so do life skills.

Practical skills. We should be ashamed that a million young people are not in education, employment or training. Many of them will have been turned off learning by the largely academic curriculum so beloved by the previous government. Yet the country is short of skilled people in engineering, construction, hospitality and craft. Schools need to offer music. As we've heard already, art, drama, sport, dance. If we are to maintain this country's reputation for creativity and the creative industries are major assets for the country, both in their earning power and their power to make people feel good about themselves.

We need to encourage the next generation to follow Tom Stoppard, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Lucien Freud well, perhaps not Lucien Freud, perhaps Tracey Emin. Instead, this government has made some good decisions in addressing the curriculum to give a focus on skills for life, moving away from the facts leading to university, which were so highly prized but not relevant for many learners. So can the Minister say when we shall see a curriculum to cater for all young people, which will prepare them for life, enthuse them about learning and help them to jobs which the country needs and which will give them self-respect and the satisfaction of work.

And please, will the government review its draconian treatment of independent schools, where some of the smaller, more specialist schools dealing with special needs music dance are struggling with the imposition of VAT and taxes, which cannot be passed on to embattled parents? Not all parents at private schools are wealthy my Lords. Some are just struggling with their children who need a particular environment. We need to encourage talented and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Disadvantaged youngsters. So can the Minister say if the government will review the very broad brush it used to extract money from independent schools? I look forward to the other speakers and indeed to the Minister's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords, my arthritis isn't very good today, so I'm sure you'll forgive me for doing this. Seated. My Lords, I will focus on energy, My Lords, I will focus on energy, and I warmly welcome the speeches of my noble friends Lord Whitehead and Baroness Curran, and also of Earl Russell. And can I add my

20:24

Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Labour)

- -

congratulations to all our wonderful maiden speakers, my Lords. wonderful maiden speakers, my Lords. After the second fossil fuel crisis in five years, it's that clear that in five years, it's that clear that clean power is the only route to energy security. Energy independence is a vital goal of national security, as shown by recent events in the Middle East. recent events in the Middle East. This requires increased production of home grown, clean and affordable British energy. Faster action on the energy transition and climate change will help address many of the country's most pressing challenges, including long term cost of living, energy security, local job opportunities and many co-benefits such as cleaner air and warmer homes.

The Energy Independence Bill must strengthen us against energy price shocks for the long term and create thousands of clean, green apprenticeships and jobs. As my friend said, we need to get off the oil price rollercoaster. Energy independence must mean affordable energy for consumers, including private renters, not just more generation. We must secure a just transition for workers from old industries to new and place. Tackling energy poverty at the heart of all relevant legislation. My Lords, I wrote the Energy Poverty Manifesto adopted by the European Parliament and the European Commission.

Now, as then, no one should have to choose between eating or heating or cooling their homes. Touching on culture very briefly, can I congratulate Coventry City FC on their promotion? And can I say play

**** Possible New Speaker ****

up Sky Blues? My Lords. I too. Want to congratulate the four

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Want to congratulate the four noble Lords who made excellent maiden speeches today. Can I also congratulate Aston Villa, who are congratulate Aston Villa, who are playing in the Europa Cup final tomorrow? My Lords the Stone age tomorrow? My Lords the Stone age did not end because mankind ran out of stone. We just found more of stone. We just found more effective ways of doing things. Science, innovation and technology have historically brought solutions to everyday problems. Britain can be proud of the fact that it started the Industrial Revolution.

We are now in the fast moving artificial intelligence revolution. But the issue is my Lords. Whether we are leaders or followers, giants

20:27

Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-affiliated)

- -

or clients. One of the lessons from history is that we should learn lessons from history. It was my bill in 1997 which established Britain's first ever comprehensive DNA database. As a result, we became the first nation in the world to embrace this ground breaking technology. Nearly 30 years later, the DNA database has positively transformed the effectiveness of medicine, forensic and research science of 195 nations in the world, 175 now utilise DNA profiles. I declare a further interest as a vice chairman of the all party parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence.

I'm also a former Chancellor of Bournemouth University, which has its own specialist data science and AI department. Now the King's Speech included key bills of direct relevance to the technology sector, including the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill and the regulation for growth Bill. But, my Lords, there was no mention of an AI regulation bill. Meanwhile, AI is being monitored, I would say, in pieces through the Online Safety Act and a patchwork of policies in various sectors. This is not the same as a coherent framework for the development, deployment and use of AI.

The cost of this delay is showing up most visibly in copyright. The dispute between rights holders and AI developers has been running for years, with no resolution in sight. Ironically, in the music industry, it is wealthy musicians like the UK's Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, who have been speaking out on behalf of lesser known creative artists who cannot afford expensive legal fees to protect their copyright. Clear regulation is not the enemy of innovation, so please, will the noble Minister indicate when are we likely to see an AI regulation bill? The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill is long overdue.

With an increasingly pressurised, cyber threatened ecosystem in recent months, my Lords, we've seen major airports like Heathrow, retail chains like Marks and Spencer and large manufacturers like Jaguar Land Rover, all immobilised by cyber hacking. So can the Minister say whether this bill will properly account for AI stewardship? Now, the regulation for growth Bill claims to give organisations controlled environments to build and test AI tools, but I query whether this will be enough to support the innovation landscape and retain AI companies in the UK.

There are numerous examples of UK AI start ups which were created here but bought up by the Americans. For example, DeepMind in London was sold to Google. SwiftKey in Cambridge was acquired by Microsoft and Vocal IQ, another start up company in the east of England was taken over by Apple. Earlier this month. I was invited to speak and at an awards ceremony in America, the biggest AI event, presumably in the world. It was backed by the federal government and it was backed by Wall Street.

We need that here now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I have no doubt that. All noble Lords have seen K-pop

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All noble Lords have seen K-pop demon hunters. It is the most watched original film in Netflix history, and it is, of course, centred around K-pop Korean popular centred around K-pop Korean popular music, which is now a $10 billion industry for Korea. And on the back industry for Korea. And on the back of it, Korean dramas, food, cosmetics and fashion are all

20:31

Lord Sarfraz (Conservative)

- -

thriving and my Lords Korea is not alone. It is just one of several alone. It is just one of several emerging cultural superpowers. My Lords. When we get home tonight, a billion people would have watched this evening a Turkish drama. Every night a billion people watch a night a billion people watch a Turkish drama. Turkey is now the world's largest producer of world's largest producer of television episodes. And in a town called Mardin, more than a million hotel nights were booked just last year because it featured in one Turkish drama.

My Lords. I'm getting to it, I promise. My Lords. Nigeria. Nigeria. Nollywood. Nollywood produces more films than Hollywood, and it employs 1.5 million Nigerians. And finally my Lords, if you look at China, they are now leading in micro dramas. These episodes, which are two minutes long that you can watch on a bus or on the tube, and the entire 60 episode series are shot in ten days for $300,000. It's a $7 billion industry now. My Lords none of this is happening by accident.

These are results of a deliberate state strategy. The Turkish government subsidises these productions that promote its culture by $100,000 an episode. The Korean government is opening cultural centres all around the world. But meanwhile, my Lords we are retreating. We have been for centuries the world's leading exporter of ideas, stories, music, art, film, education. But today we're dismantling that influence. The British Council is shutting offices all over the world. The British Council's library in Chennai has sold all its books and is shutting down our programs to teach English in Italy, a program which has been running for 80 years, is shutting down my Lords.

We have stopped thinking of culture as a strategic export and there is no reference to culture. The creative industries in His Majesty's most gracious speech. But in this year 2026, this is a great year. It is the year when the next James Bond is being cast. After 20 years in this year, I hope my Lords that the Minister can reassure the House that projecting British cultural influence will once again be at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heart of our soft power strategy. My Lord, I congratulate all of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I congratulate all of those poor maiden speakers. Speeches which. Were really very moving and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Were really very moving and inspirational. I. Have been reflecting, however, that this. If this was indeed the that this. If this was indeed the King's own speech, rather than the government's plan relayed by His

20:33

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Majesty, then there would be far more on nature and biodiversity in it. As my noble friend Earl Russell said, that really is an immense lack in this legislative programme, and considering that really nature underpins our food production, what we drink, it's essential that we take better care of it. The only really mention in the government's plans, not even in the speech, but just out for consultation, is the trail hunting bill. But I don't think banning trail hunting is going to be contributing anything to biodiversity.

It's just a political choice, far more important for preserving our British mammals, and one that would command really cross-party support because Baroness Helic introduced it as a private member's bill. Last session, was introducing a closed season for hares in England. They can be shot while pregnant, lactating or caring for young. However, Scotland and Northern Ireland have recognised how important a closed season is and they've passed such legislation. I really wonder why the government can't just introduce such a simple bill and do it.

The sad decline of hare numbers is obviously due to other factors as well, such as hare coursing and lack of habitat, but it does make recovery impossible where the closed season means that as soon as the females are pregnant, they can be shot, and the book Raising Hare by Chloe Dalton joins other remarkable books, such as The Leaping Hare, to show why we must protect these wonderful, iconic creatures that are a really central part of our natural heritage. I join my noble friend Baroness Grender in welcoming the water bill, but there is a lot of work to be done on this, and I think actually it should be called the water and sewage bill.

It needs to be much bolder than what's currently envisaged. The fact is that as the remarkable programme Dirty Water showed, we are poisoning our very rivers and I'm very glad Lord Blackwater chose to take the title of a river, because rivers need friends. We're choosing to poison our rivers with sewage. But not only that, there's a lot of other things that need to be addressed, such as the fact that industrial waste, the sludge that comes from that is mixed now with sewage sludge and is spread on farmland.

So the runoff from that contains the forever chemicals that the industrial process is using. That's really toxic my Lords. It's entering into people's bodies, the bodies of our children. And that's the sort of thing that absolutely must be addressed in the water bill. Finally, I would just like to ask the Minister what plans the government has in terms of children and education about nature. Obviously there are forest schools, field trips, but we need our children to become nature champions.

David Attenborough, of course, has inspired many, but we need the next generations of them and we need the citizen scientists who are those who actually showed what was happening to rivers. And we need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the activists. My Lords. Whilst there is a lot to be welcomed in the government's to be welcomed in the government's proposed new legislation, I want to focus on further and higher focus on further and higher education, especially skills and apprenticeships. The government has done a lot to encourage SMEs to done a lot to encourage SMEs to take on apprentices, but the latest figures are disappointing and we figures are disappointing and we know how necessary these skills are to so many of our industries,

20:38

Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)

- -

whether it's construction or energy or craft skills needed to repair churches and cathedrals such as stonemasonry. So many of our villages have thatched roofs, and villages have thatched roofs, and we need the next generation of Thatchers to preserve that heritage. Too many schools advise young people that university is the only people that university is the only choice, and fail to tell young people that apprenticeships provide a good career path, with good pay and a guaranteed job.

There is another major challenge that we face thousands of young people not in employment, education or training. The cost to our economy is enormous, and it encourages young people to believe that living on benefit is an option, something that we can't afford, and we certainly shouldn't be encouraging them. Given giving 16 to 17 year olds the right to vote is an important right. But I hope we will realise that we need to educate them about the importance of their choice, which I believe should be from the age of 14.

If we leave it until they're 16 years old. I think we've missed a golden opportunity. So I welcome lots of the reforms in relation to schools and education, but I still think we've got a long

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way to go in relation to skills and apprenticeships. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I warmly welcome all new members of your Lordships House and congratulate them on their congratulate them on their impressive maiden speeches. My Lords, on university campuses, real freedom of speech is vanishing. Please watch if you have a moment. The brilliant speech by Maeve Halligan. She recently gave it at the Cambridge Union on how LGBTQ plus ideologies failing gay people. But her student union originally blocked her from starting a group for women to meet with other women.

Why? Because the group was not inclusive of trans women and elsewhere. Jewish students in our country face appalling ordeals. The Stand with Us report documents, bomb threats, physical attacks and doxing. A Jewish student at King's

20:40

Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)

- -

was reportedly required to write a thousand word essay explaining why displaying an Israeli flag had been displaying an Israeli flag had been wrong. Now, two thirds of academics believe that their university would believe that their university would prioritise feeling safe over freedom of speech. This is completely wrong. This focus on completely wrong. This focus on safety ism. It's antithetical to developing robust adults who are able to thrive in the world outside able to thrive in the world outside their ivory towers.

And the government has faffed about with the Conservatives 2023 Free Speech Act stripping out duties on students Union. And I'm very disappointed. There is nothing in the Gracious Speech on freedom of speech, which is so foundational to a successful society. Secondly, I want to touch briefly on CND the government recognises there is a problem, but my Lords, nobody has the appetite to ask the very honest question, which is why are there so many more CND children? If up to 1 in 5 children now are deemed to have special needs, surely that is an absurd concept, a stretching of the concept of special.

Now the government is promising more money and Baroness Spielman for. Of this House notes, spending more money on a child will not necessarily improve their experience or outcomes. But of course, parents desperately want to believe that something can be done and is easier for the state to be kind than to be honest. And this might explain why we already spend £15 billion a year. That, my Lord, is more than £500 from every household on high needs SEND and Children's Disability Living Allowance.

But we have no real idea of what real difference this spending is making to those children's lives. My Lords, the recent explosion in CND isn't caused by profound physical disability or severe cognitive impairment. The numbers are driven up by autism, ADHD and behavioural disorders. The idea of neurodiversity, which covers all of these conditions, started life as a campaigning movement. And now these terms, neurodiverse neurodivergent, can be found all over social media. And of course, teenagers seeking to find their tribe are drawn to these identities.

My Lords, I have two psychology degrees, and I learned in those degrees that every human brain is genetically unique. It is genetically diverse. So neurodiversity is a simple biological descriptor of every human brain. But more dangerously and more worryingly worryingly, I believe the converse concept is there are some people who are perhaps unfortunate enough to be neurotypical, and that means they're undeserving of any special help. And I think that's damaging when there's no objective test to distinguish who's neurodiverse and neurotypical my Lords.

To be crystal clear, I don't doubt for a second that these children are being failed by the current school system. And as we've heard that in an excellent maiden speech, but we lack evidence that the current approach is helping them, and the next generation deserves better

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from this government. So. My Lords, in. Opening our.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Debate on the Gracious Speech, my noble friend Baroness Sanderson. Described our government's ambition as having one central mission to build a more resilient country that spreads opportunity for all. The contrary in which we live is one in which talent is everywhere. But opportunity is not. It is through our creative sector

20:44

Baroness Keeley (Labour)

- -

that we extend opportunity to those with talent. So I welcome two measures that will support that sector. The draft Ticket Tout Ban Bill is a long awaited measure. My friend Sharon Hodgson MP has campaigned since 2010 for government to act to stamp out ticket touting. I was proud to put forward this measure for the Labour manifesto of 2024, when I was the shadow Minister for music, and it will be welcome to see it scrutinised as soon as possible so that we can legislate to stamp out ticket touts for good.

I know that music fans and others who buy tickets for live events will be delighted when that happens. Second, I support the measure to grant new revenue raising powers to local leaders in the overnight economy. When we travel to European cities, we often pay city tax or tourism levy. Italy raises over 1 billion per year through city taxes and my noble friend Baroness Hodge of Barking argued in her review that a modest tourism levy in England would ensure visitors contribute fairly to the cultural assets that they come here to enjoy.

But I do agree with the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions that such funds must be fully ring fenced and reinvested locally in culture, tourism, infrastructure and heritage. And can I say, I also totally support all that, my friend Lord Smith said in his excellent contribution on keeping free entry to museums my Lords. I welcome the bill to strengthen ties with the European Union. Looking back to 2019, the EU was the largest live music market and theatre was also part of our fast growing creative industries.

In fact, the UK's performing arts sector supports some 244,000 jobs and generates £2.3 billion per year in gross value added. But our exit from the EU has introduced significant barriers around visas, work permits, cabotage limits and it has made tax arrangements more complex. The 2023 UK music Survey found that 82% of musicians surveyed said that earnings had decreased because of Brexit, and 43% said it was no longer viable for them to tour to the EU. So while strengthening of ties with the EU must lead to solutions to these problems, which prevent UK artists touring and which hamper growth in our performing arts sector.

Finally, I turn to two of the other measures announced in the in the King's Speech, the Competition Reform Bill and the Regulating for Growth Bill. Because there are some key questions around those two bills, the Competition Reform Bill seeks to streamline the work of the Competition and Markets Authority, but concerns have been raised, particularly by the News Media Association, about removing the role of the independent panel. So I asked my noble friend, the Minister, if the government can reaffirm its support for independent regulation from the CMA and say what safeguards are proposed to maintain expert decision making that is independent of government? Among measures in the Regulating for Growth Bill is one which will allow for the creation of AI sandboxes, allowing the testing and adoption of AI products.

In the consultation on these AI sandboxes or AI growth labs, the government considered specific protections for IP and copyright law to cut. My noble friend the Minister, make a clear commitment that the UK's gold standard IP and copyright law will not be disapplied as part of AI sandboxes. Can I end quickly by echoing the. Congratulations on the four excellent maiden speeches we have heard today from my noble friend Lord Hobby, the noble Lord Lord Blackwater, the noble Baroness Lehman, and the noble Lord, Lord Dickson.

We look forward to the future contributions, and I could say it would be welcome to continue the debate on music education started tonight by Lord Blackwater.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The first thing I think I should do is to carry on from Baroness Jay just sat down and thanking the just sat down and thanking the maiden speakers in this debate. Lord Blackwater Lehman Dickson. I Lord Blackwater Lehman Dickson. I think we're going to hear a wee bit more about them, and I am very glad to have my two colleagues still to have my two colleagues still with me today, because I'm looking forward to offloading a great deal of work on them that I'm currently

20:48

Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)

- -

of work on them that I'm currently having to do. Sorry, this is what you're here for. And now what I am really attracted me to speak in this day is of course, and this will come as no surprise to anybody is the proposed bill on the proposed bill. Sorry on special educational needs. It was over 39 years ago that I made my maiden speech on the subject. It was then something of a novelty dyslexia. In my case. We all have our little part of this fence we come to from it, and it was.

Oh, haven't you done jolly well to have got to university then? My Lords? It isn't quite that now, but it's still a slightly patronising attitude. Some in certain quarters, and there's always somebody saying, oh, just try harder my Lords. It doesn't work that way, because anybody who's got a special educational needs identified, part of the neurodiverse community has a brain that works slightly differently. You process information differently. That's why you need special education, i.e. different education to get through.

Hopefully, when this bill comes forward and the opening statement from the government frontbench about saying, we would make sure this was a part of how a school is assessed and how you do it, is probably the first step that should be taken. After that, you're going to need a trained workforce that accepts that. You've got to get in and teach differently, and then you've got to define what you're doing. And this is where I start disagreeing with the government because I said, I am a dyslexic, I'm president of the British Dyslexia Association.

I'm also chairman of the company that deals in technology for supporting people with disabilities. If anybody's got a problem. It doesn't matter just putting the package together. That's Microlink plc. You've got to work differently. Special here doesn't mean anything other than the fact that different. You have a different pathway through in the case of dyslexics, and I'll stick to nurse if you don't mind, if the house will permit me to. At this point, I am not going to handle huge amounts of written work or having to take notes, and I didn't in my education process, I haven't.

In this House. I will be able to do it if I use technology and listen. This is quite a friendly place for me. If we bring that into the classroom and if we make sure people implement that the dyslexics 10% of the population stand a chance or they will achieve their full potential. And if the government makes sure people are trained, people are assessed, you're going to stand a chance. We have a very short period of time to get this in place.

By the end of the Parliament. We need real energy here, and we need to make sure that people are checking that it happens. If that doesn't occur, you're not going to achieve. You're going to get another serious list of things which aren't happening. The rest of this bill, as we go through this Parliament, is going to be difficult to maintain this, but please make sure you remember it's learning differently. That will give you the chance of getting people out there so they can function in life independently for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the rest of it, because that's what it should be about. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Addington Lord, noble Lord Lord Addington Lord, over the many years I've seen him performing, he's he's been a brilliant contributor, but we've brilliant contributor, but we've always known that because of his educational needs, there is a particularly important thing to recognise that he brings the

20:52

Lord Whitty (Labour)

- -

attention of this House, and he's done it again tonight. And I do hope that the Education Minister is hope that the Education Minister is listening, because what is needed for everybody with any form of for everybody with any form of special needs is a recognition that they are just a bit different from the rest of us, and all of us are the rest of us, and all of us are different. And I do hope that that that is taken up. My Lords this is probably about the 30th King's Speech debate I've attended, and I always try meticulously to follow the recommendations of of what is suggested for this.

The particular day. My problem this time is my main obsessions these days are climate change and employment. And neither of them, neither of them actually appeared in the titles for the day. So I decided to use the energy security outlook for mentioning some things which, broadly speaking, relate to climate change. And in that context, I want to congratulate the noble Lords Minister and Lord Whitehead, not only for sitting through 90% of this debate, which I know from experience is a terrible drag drag, but also for making clear that despite all the.

Shots that we are getting from all sides, including some within the labour movement, our commitment to our net zero strategy remains. And I was disappointed in the opposition in effectively repeating that the. And underlining and emphasising that what was a good cross-party consensus for for about ten years has now entirely disappeared, and I'm really glad that the. The noble Lord. The Minister made it clear that our commitment is to energy security through the use of renewable and nuclear energy, and that is the investment we need to make.

We need to recommit ourselves to that. If I can use a couple of other environmental issues. Two things. The water bill is absolutely necessary. But as 2 or 3 noble Lords have already said, it is not enough. I have always advocated nationalisation or renationalisation of the water sector. I recognise that is not approved by any party in this House, but the second best solution is actually the nationalisation of a regulator. But that has to be for real.

And the the fact we had 2 or 3 regulators regulating the same sector and the main regulator, in a sense, the Environment Agency was starved of resources for ten years. During the past, government has meant that effectively, the regulation of the water sector has not operated. And we do need stronger measures than are apparently going to appear in this bill to deliver the water sector that we need, my Lords my, my only other comment really is to congratulate the leading speakers in this House, but also to recognise that this debate has been primarily, I think, about the education sector and that the government do have to think again about aspects of the regulation of the interface between education and the development of technology.

I would say that energy security depends on having a just transition for the workforce, but so does parts of the wider workforce. And the whole AI revolution is going to transform the white collar sector in the way that the energy one has transformed the energy blue collar sector. And we need proper and effective manpower planning for that transition, which is going to take place. And I hope that the government, in focusing not just on the far end, but the whole question of training and retraining, recognise that the technological technology challenge means a much more effective and a much more interventionist programme of training and retraining and planning for the future workforce.

Yeah.

20:57

Lord Ranger of Northwood (Conservative)

- -

My Lords may I also congratulate Lord Hobby. >> Lord Blackwater. >> Baroness Leaman and Lord Dixon on their superb maiden speeches, and may I now introduce them to the and may I now introduce them to the next frontier and the house to the next frontier, because the next 18 months will define, I believe, Britain's place in the future of digital finance. The question is whether we lead it or follow others who move faster. I welcome the ambition set out in the Gracious Speech, and in particular, the three bills that speak directly to this challenge.

The Regulating for Growth Bill, with its statutory growth, duty and regulatory pilot framework, is a genuinely important step. But may I put one challenge to the government directly? Industry's frustration is not with the concept of sandboxes and pilots, it's with what happens next. Too often, successful pilots demonstrate viability but fail to translate into scalable market change. The framework must include a clear pathway from pilot to authorisation with timescales, accountability and presumptions in favour of scaling that works.

Without that, we risk creating a more elaborate holding pattern rather than genuine acceleration. The Enhancing Financial Services Bill is equally welcome, consolidating the payment systems regulator with the FCA should mean fewer regulators, less duplication, more coherent experience for scaling firms. The proposed reforms to the Financial Ombudsman Service also addresses a long standing concern. Both changes send the right signal, but they must be followed through. In practice, these reforms matter because, yes, it's about AI but also digital assets, and these are no longer separate policy questions.

We are entering the era of Agentic finance AI systems that will not merely analyse markets but act within them, initiating payments, allocating capital and managing liquidity in real time. The rules governing digital finance are therefore also the rules governing the next generation of AI. Why does this matter? AI credit cards, personal agents, programmable money, fractional payments for social media content, and many, many more use cases. The world of money is changing. And so it was good to see the Bank of England's willingness last week, as reported in the Financial Times, to revisit its stablecoin approach following industry pressure.

This is welcome, but it also reveals a structural weakness. Too often, good outcomes arrive through ad hoc pressure rather than by institutional design. I therefore ask to address this issue the government to commit to one specific measure, a standing cross regulator and industry advisory group bringing together His Majesty's Treasury, the FCA, the Bank of England, alongside scaling digital asset issuers and exchanges and AI finance firms, both domestic and international, that are seeking to build here.

My Lords, the decisions taken in the next 18 months will shape where capital flows, where firms scale, and where the next generation of financial technology is built. Agentic financial services can become part of the engine of Britain's economic growth for the next generation, but only if we are prepared to move with the urgency this moment demands. Regulators can only move as boldly as the political environment environment permits. It falls to the government to provide clear direction, industry to innovate and parliament to provide active engagement so that our regulators have the confidence to build systems worthy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Britain's ability and ambition. My Lord. I am deeply. Distressed and depressed that I have to speak as I do this evening on education, though my account could just as well have been on one of the other well have been on one of the other days of debate on the Gracious Speech chose education because that Speech chose education because that is where the current crisis of Jew hatred starts. There is a cancer at hatred starts. There is a cancer at the heart of our education system.

The antisemitism which the Gracious Speech promised to tackle. Even today. After I wrote my draft, a report came from Parents Against Antisemitism describing how little children are reverting to the old

21:02

Baroness Deech (Crossbench)

- -

antisemitic tropes and giving Hitler salutes to their Jewish classmates. Their teachers do not classmates. Their teachers do not dissuade them, and the teaching unions indulge in Israel hatred unions indulge in Israel hatred because antisemitism is now disguised as anti-Zionism. This paves the way for Jewish students paves the way for Jewish students to be subjected to systemic humiliation and violence. It is set humiliation and violence. It is set out in the Union of Jewish Students and stand with us. Testimonies. Horrifying reading Jewish students accused of using the blood of non-Jews to make Musar Arabic chants calling for the killing of the Jews on our reputable university campuses.

The targeting of Muslim or Chinese students on allegedly political grounds would not be tolerated. For a moment. University authorities have ignored the abuse or belittled it. Will the government ensure that vice Chancellors, head teachers and their unions are summoned to appear before relevant parliamentary select committees to provide an account of their institutional responses and use of their disciplinary procedures. Public appearance worked in the states where university presidents had to own up. Will the government call on universities to regulate and ban encampments, occupations, face coverings, megaphones in their classes and meetings, and for the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

This is all compatible with freedom of speech. The government must acknowledge that Holocaust education and memorials have achieved nothing for students, except to teach them that Nazi symbols and parallels are useful tools for harming Jews. It has failed to teach them about Jewish history, life, and Israel. The government has gone along with the Jew hatred by recognising a state of Palestine contrary to international law. When the hostages weren't even free. It has cast Israel as inimical. And though Zionism and Judaism are distinct, we all understand that the obsessive focus on Israel displayed by this government, by the BBC is not helping.

They ignore worse tragedies in, for example, Sudan and Nigeria and Pakistan's expulsion of Afghans. Our right Reverend prelates should be going into churches and schools to tell them that anti-Semitism is wrong and they should be leading the marches against it. Well-Meaning actors in the government have got it all wrong. This government has specifically and shamefully refused to allow the planned learning centre in Westminster to focus on the Jewish genocide and on anti-Semitism. It has universalised the Holocaust and removed its Jewishness.

It is likely to be co-opted into narratives, and frankly, the current plan is an event to be condemning the Islamists, and the extreme left in this area. Will it overhaul, overhaul Holocaust education and turn it into lessons about the living, not the dead? Will it promote a Jewish museum to explore the amazing 1000 year story of Jews in Britain, their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contributions and their survival. My Lords, I rise today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise today. To speak in this debate on His Majesty's Gracious Speech. My Majesty's Gracious Speech. My speech today is on education and to ask His Majesty's Government a variety of questions surrounding variety of questions surrounding this important subject that I'm passionate about. This morning, in passionate about. This morning, in my capacity of chair of the Race Equality Engagement Group, our roundtable discuss discussion was with the DfE teams covering behaviour management and exclusion, and what alternative provision for

21:06

Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Labour)

- -

Saint, including the disparity of those of those groups. As education is the foundation of all our futures. And in order for for it to futures. And in order for for it to have the greatest impact on our lives, what are the steps which lives, what are the steps which which have been taken to ensure that our education system properly, properly reflects diversity, history and lived experience? Of all those who have helped shape modern Britain as it is today.

First, can the government continue to. Can the government continue to outline what measures that are in place to ensure that teachers receive adequate training and continued professional development on promoting racial equality and addressing racism within within the education system, within education settings, teachers are often. Teachers are often at the forefront of fostering and understanding, respecting and and inclusion. Yet many still report feeling insufficiently equipped to manage difficult conversation around race and discrimination in the classroom.

Secondly, our teachers, our our teacher training providers required to include within initial teacher training curricula meaningful teaching on black history, the experience of marginalised communities, and the impact of racism both historically and in the on and in contemporary society. If we respect. If we expect teachers to deliver an an exclusive, informed education, it is essential that they themselves are given the confidence, knowledge and the tools to do so from the outset of their careers.

Thirdly, what steps are the government taking to encourage schools to deliver a more inclusive history curriculum, one that properly reflects black history, migration histories and the immense contribution that the diverse communities have made and continue and continue to make in British society. Young people, young people. So I just lost my voice. Young people benefit enormously from seeing their roots, seeing the richness and complexity of our shared national story represented in what in what they learn. They should not only be done in a month at the end of the year, but integrated into all, all parts of, of school life in, in considering these matters, it is also important that we do not overlook the experience of children with special educational needs and disability.

Too often, children from racialized backgrounds within sin within Sen system is is misunderstood, insufficiently supported or misidentified within our, our, our our education sector. There is a clear. There is a clear need to strengthen early intervention. In short, equitable provision across both mainstream and specialist settings, and to embed lived experience and community expertise into developing the policy and practices. Any approach to any approach to inclusion must recognise that a. Recognise and address these disparities to ensure that all children receive receive the support they need to to thrive.

It is equally important to consider the experience of pupils educating with within the Pupil Referral Unit and other forms of alternative provision. These settings, these settings disproportionately affect children from marginalised background, many of whom have already faced exclusion, unmet needs or disadvantage within mainstream education. They must be a clear and sustained focus on ensuring that these that these children are not further marginalised, but instead are provided with a high quality, inclusive education, clear pathway to reach to reintegrate into mainstream school where appropriate, and the support and the support necessary to achieve positive outcomes.

Can I just say before I know I've come to the end just to to say, I'd like to congratulate all, all four maiden speech in our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships House today. The Minister Baroness Levitt

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister Baroness Levitt yesterday. Explained the government's priorities and I quote government's priorities and I quote from her to right past wrongs to rebuild trust, to make sure that systems work as they should, and to systems work as they should, and to restore fairness and predictability. So I'm bringing this week a new case of injustice. Not new, but new

21:11

Lord Mann (Labour)

- -

for government action. And to the House tonight. And I've met with a House tonight. And I've met with a group of people who are the victims of such injustice, Sean Davis, Brian Deane, Rod Wallace, Craig Brian Deane, Rod Wallace, Craig Short, Tommy Johnson, Paul Williams, Michael Thomas, Danny Murphy, Andrew Cole, they're part of the V 11. Some of the top footballers that this country has ever produced. They did what was right. They followed the government advice.

The film schemes to promote the British industry established by Prime Minister or rather by Chancellor Gordon Brown 20 years ago, and rather than squander their money, they invested the money as government advised with a company called Kingsbridge Asset Management. What's unique about them, as opposed to large numbers of other footballers? Famous and non-famous, is that they were mis sold, not just them, but most footballers mis sold tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions disappeared.

That money is gone. But with this group, HMRC decided they would pursue them. In addition for tax on money that they have never had never seen. Now I've met with this group. They were persuaded in the dressing room by major football organisations, football authorities, people they trusted to invest their money. The way that government advise people to invest the money and lost that money. Huge amounts. But what really gets to them, to their soul, is that they again are pursued and constantly pursued and have battled for 14 years, not just with the financial advisers who mis sold that the the City of London police describe as financial fraud.

Not my words. The police's words financial fraud. Not just that they can't get the money back from their. But the government through the HMRC then pursues them and continues to pursue them for taxation. That is not fair. That is not reasonable. When you have done your best for your family, when working class people suddenly get into money, be it footballers, sports stars, musicians, HMRC like they do for MP should have a direct hotline for tax to help them pay their tax and nor have the secondary scammers advising them and ripping them off even more and leave them in the state they are.

And government has a responsibility to get in and solve the problem. Working class people making good, wanting to do the right thing should be allowed to do the right thing. This should be part of and will be part of the government's agenda.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I must start by congratulating the noble Lord Lord Hobby on his powerful speech, rooted in his substantial career in education, and also the other noble education, and also the other noble Lords and Baronesses who've made maiden speeches today. But the maiden speeches today. But the education programme laid out in the speech is strikingly thin, and on the one hand I take this as a

21:16

Baroness Spielman (Conservative)

- -

the one hand I take this as a positive. It is widely recognised internationally that education in England has, in the main, been a major success story over the last 15 years, and I spend much of my time now, including this evening talking to educators from overseas who want to learn from the success of our reforms in England. But of course, it's right to address the issues of special educational needs. We have the worst of all worlds at the moment, a hugely expensive system that leaves many parents and also many schools and teachers unsatisfied, where labelling a startlingly high proportion of children, including a much wider range of children with lesser needs and the incentives in the system can be perverse and in some cases may even be contributing to reducing children's aspirations and achievement.

Also, over the last 30 years, the school's budget itself has increased enormously in real terms, and the share spent on special educational needs has risen inexorably. The high Needs Block and Children's Disability Living Allowance together cost every single household in England £500 a year. But this is still not achieving the desired outcomes and those statutory priorities for SNP, and also for social care, mean that local authorities have less and less money for all their other responsibilities, which is leading to the depressing downgrading of the public realm around us.

But the white Paper offers little comfort that this bill will make the right kind of difference. I'll pick out just three important points, though. There are many others. And first, practically, the plan introduces a huge administrative burden on schools who will have to prepare and maintain an individual plan for every child with Sad, perhaps 5 or 6 times as many children as now. Even if these plans can't be enforced by tribunals, they may contribute to pushing parent expectations beyond the realistic capacity of mainstream schools, and so actually worsen the quality of provision and fray relationships.

Secondly, the references to education conceal the evidence. I beg your pardon, conceal the fact that there's remarkably little firm evidence, either of what makes a real difference to outcomes for children with special needs, or what is unjustifiably expensive relative to its cost. It is easier for the state to be kind than to be honest. The sad truth is that much of the current budget could probably be spent much better across in the health sector. This is why Nice was set up to gatekeep health treatments, and I believe that an Send equivalent is urgently needed, and I hope that when the Bill is published, it will make explicit provision for building such a function.

And finally, I must point out that the most difficult questions do seem to have been ducked, perhaps to avoid taking on either the powerful SEND lobby or Labour backbenchers. The proposals aren't really going to focus sufficiently clearly on the children who've got the most to gain from extra help, and costs will continue to escalate, with guarantees baked in. So a ready made SEND crisis will be dumped into the lap of the next government. And finally, I must point out that the noble Lord, the Minister, did make some erroneous remarks about Ofsted inspection of inclusion and a provision for children with Send, which he said Ofsted would be assessing for the first time.

In fact, both of these were substantial elements of inspection throughout my seven years at Ofsted, including in the 2019 framework, which was unequivocally focussed on quality of education for all children. Both inclusion and send provision contributed significantly to judgements of quality of education and of overall school effectiveness. This would be a good opportunity for him to correct the record, as the misstatement appeared in the government's consultation document, as well as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in his speech. Can I. First start by congratulating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First start by congratulating our maiden speakers? Lord Hobby. Fantastic to see someone with your experiences joining your Lordships' experiences joining your Lordships' House Lord Blackwater and my friends and colleagues Baroness Leaman and Lord Dixon, who I've Leaman and Lord Dixon, who I've known for many years. And while I was listening to their speeches, I learned a lot more about them than learned a lot more about them than I thought I knew. But they are all fantastic additions to your Lordships House, and I'm sure they will make many more fantastic speeches.

The areas covered tonight are very broad and I would love to speak about NEETs. It's something I've worked on for many, many years, but I will leave that for another day, just as I would about Erasmus. I'm very excited by the fact that we are or you are as a government now in 2029, 20, 27, 28, at least going back to where we were before. And I say this as someone who served in the European Parliament, I was on the cult committee.

And at that time in 2019, 2020, we were very keen as a European, as a parliament, then to triple the Erasmus budget to make sure that actually more young people from across different sections of society benefited from it. And I really hope that training is also a priority rather than just academic route. But for my remainder of my time, I will talk about the education for all bill. For too long, our Special education needs and disability system has been failing the very children and families that it's designed to support.

Parents and carers across the country are forced into exhausting battles simply to secure the help that their children need and are entitled to. At the same time, local authorities and as someone who has just finished serving as a local councillor, are buckling under immense financial pressures, would send cost driving many councils to the brink of effective bankruptcy. This is not sustainable and nor should it be acceptable. My Lords, the previous conservative government left behind a system in deep crisis reform is not necessarily.

Not only necessary, it is urgent. In that context, we on these benches recognise that the government has inherited an inevitable challenge and that difficult decisions must be made. Proposals for more coherent frameworks, including universal sent offer and greater access specialities expertise represent a step in the right direction. But reform without children and families at its heart is reform destined to fail? My Lords, the Liberal Democrats have serious concerns about the proposals to remove and weaken parental rights to challenge decisions through tribunals.

Parents already navigate a system that is too often opaque, competitive and draining. To strip away the right to appeal would not reduce conflict. It would merely silence families while leaving poor decisions unchecked. We will fight to ensure that the legal rights are preserved, settle placements are protected and meaningful mechanisms of challenge remain available. We are equally concerned that funding and workforce capacity is not yet in place to deliver these much needed changes. Universal offer is only meaningful if schools have the staff training and resources identified to support that need early.

Can I also talk about curriculum reforms? My Lords reforms must proceed in lockstep, ensuring that, alongside high standards in literacy and numeracy, children receive genuine, broad and balanced education. Creative subjects such as sports and physical activities are not luxuries to be squeezed out, but essential elements of a healthy child development and emotional well-being. And finally, my Lords, I would like to address the spiralling costs of special provision. It cannot be right that private providers, often backed by private equity, extract excessive profits from the system, supporting vulnerable children while councils struggle to stay afloat.

We on these benches believe profits in this sector should be capped and steps taken to reduce profiteering for stent provision. We must also expand capacity. Not every child

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will thrive in mainstream education. Councils should not be pressurised Unsuitable placements through restrictive funding conditions or halt specialist expansions. My Lords. We support the need for reform, but we will judge this bill reform, but we will judge this bill by one simple test. Does it make life better for children and their families? If it does, we will support it. If it does not, we will work tirelessly to improve it. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work tirelessly to improve it. Yeah. I too would like to add my congratulations and welcome to all the maiden speeches today. My Lords, I declare an interest as founder and CEO of a biotech company, Neuro Limited, where we're developing a first in class effective treatment for Alzheimer's disease. Consequently, I welcome the relief mentioned in the Gracious Speech under the Regulating for Growth Bill. However, I was disappointed by the lack of any further mention of government support for small, highly disruptive companies such as mine.

Since there are some clear opportunities being missed. First,

21:25

Baroness Greenfield (Crossbench)

- -

R&D tax credits is estimated for every £1 of tax credit. Companies will spend an additional £2.3 of will spend an additional £2.3 of R&D in the UK, and this create jobs and value immediately, followed by an incredible dividend if resulting an incredible dividend if resulting in a globally competitive technology. But the rates of relief for R&D companies have shrunk now for R&D companies have shrunk now from 33% before April 20th 3 to 15% from 33% before April 20th 3 to 15% now.

This change may provide a negligible uplift in the tax revenue, but it comes at a great cost to the company itself. Moreover, if we factor in the significant amount of time and effort required to make a claim, new administrative requirements and the risk of HMRC enquiry, smaller companies may give up making a tax credit claim altogether. A second issue, and this was touched on by Baroness Hunter, is that relating to women, in my case, women in Stem. This is not just about fairness. It's about progress.

Studies consistently show that diverse teams drive innovation, and that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are 25% more likely to outperform their competitors. But one oft cited statistic is that less than 2% of VC funding goes to female founders. We need a formal sponsorship programme where senior figures in industry actively champion the careers of promising women scientists and perhaps a women in Stem talent Bank, a centralised platform where women scientists and the private sector can access mentorship, funding opportunities and leadership training.

My third point touches on education. Leaving aside, or perhaps in the light of the time consuming bureaucratic hurdles now required post-Brexit to recruit scientists worldwide, there's an even greater need to increase the potential pool of those that are already here. Although much has been said over the decades to encourage the take up of Stem subjects, there is still room to do even more. One possibility would be to offer wider industrial sponsorship of university places, as already offered by the armed forces, in return for an agreed period working as a postgraduate in that company and reverting to a loan if the individual left early.

A fourth point is that there is little help currently available for University academic, who then takes the bold decision to transit way out of their comfort zone into business. I can say from my own personal experience, what I just had to learn as I went along that entrepreneurial training and mentoring and the thrills and spills of the commercial world would be invaluable. It would give confidence, save time, and ensure maximum productivity. Currently, there is no training on the basics of business or commercialisation for a scientist until after they've had their lightbulb moment, and even then, it's rare.

The fifth and most basic problem isn't a lack of innovation. It's the baked in, oftentimes biased decision making that stifles otherwise great economic impact. It's safer to fund small transitional technologies at the cost of truly disruptive innovation, because there is very little in the way of incentives or protections if an investment doesn't work out. Yes, we have schemes such as EIS, where there are incredible returns are well acknowledged, but they should be expanded and strengthened. The current state of affairs creates an incentive to back only very small step innovations, to the detriment of truly transformative companies.

This risk averse mindset often forces disruptive scientists into looking further afield for funding. Too often, the UK is seen as a feeder ecosystem into the US. Let's return to my own era of Alzheimer's as an example of why this trend needs to be reversed. In the UK, current costs for dementia will be £42 billion this year, rising to £90 billion in 2040. It is clear that finding an effective treatment could have a very significant impact on individual wellbeing, society and our economy.

We need an improved national strategy across the areas on which I briefly touched a wider and deeper consideration of UK biotech in the Gracious Speech would have been more welcome and more timely.

21:29

Baroness Paul of Shepherd's Bush (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I have very much >> My Lords, I have very much enjoyed the range and quality of the speeches that have taken place this afternoon and into this evening, and in particular, I congratulate those members of the class of 2026 who made their maiden class of 2026 who made their maiden speeches today. I am biased, but I think this is going to go down as a vintage intake and a very special one for the future. Well, I would say that, wouldn't I? Before I make my comments, I'd like to declare my interest as a as a director of the government backed terrorism reinsurer.

So to the speech, I welcome the government's continued focus set out in the Gracious Speech on strengthening the resilience of the United Kingdom in an increasingly uncertain and volatile world. In that context, the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill represents an important and timely step in modernising the framework that protects our digital economy. However, if we are to build a true national resilience to cyber threats, we need to not only think about how we prevent incidents, but also how we respond to them and recover quickly when they occur.

And so it's in that spirit that I wish to briefly highlight the importance of the cyber insurance market in keeping us safe. Insurance is a vital, but often under-recognised component of our economic resilience. It helps businesses absorb shocks, supports recovery, and enables those who have been impacted to get back on their feet fast. In every survey of leading business people, cyber risk tops the poll of what they're concerned about. With a recognition that the capabilities of those that wish to harm us is evolving at pace, and that we just can't keep up with it.

In this context, specialist insurers are well placed to help businesses, especially small businesses, understand the risks that they face and the mitigation activities they can take to protect themselves. Underinsurance, however, is a real problem that remains significant. There remains significant protection gaps across the full gamut of the risk spectrum. So at one end, among small businesses, the take up is worryingly low. A recent report by the Association of British Insurers Small Businesses Big Risks, shows that fewer than 20% of SMEs have any cyber insurance at all, and that percentage goes down as the business gets smaller.

Many SMEs either underestimate the risks that they face, particularly supply chain risks, or they find the market far too complex or frankly, too expensive to engage with. That, and statistics show that if an SME hasn't experienced a cyber attack six months later, 20% of them will be out of business. So it's an important element of keeping them safe. At the other end of the spectrum, we have the spectre of systemic cyber attack, which, while reassuringly remote, is still imaginable. A single event or coordinated attacks could generate widespread outages and result in correlated losses across the economy.

This could be a direct action by a state or non-state actor, or even as the consequences of as yet unknown vulnerabilities in our complex supply chains and systems. The incident at Jaguar Land Rover last year, only to graphically demonstrated the impact that these events can have on our economy. And I think it's worth noting that Jaguar Land Rover were in the throes of getting their insurance in place and didn't have any. Whereas Marks and Spencer's did have insurance in place. They made a claim of in excess of £100 million, and in one incident, the government had to step in and make financial support and help available to Jaguar Land Rover, but did not have to do that to Marks and Spencer's.

We have to do this in a better way, and pooling arrangements have long been an important and established way for businesses and governments to risk share. So in other areas of systemic risk, notably terrorism, which I have some experience of, we've recognised the benefits of public and private partnerships so that the taxpayer doesn't always have to step in when a significant event happens. The creation of pool Re back in 1993 as a response to a sustained campaign of terrorist attacks, has proved to be an effective partnership for government and industry, enabling over the 30 years that it's been operating, a fund of £13 billion to be built to pay claims in the event of a catastrophic terrorism event.

So this is money collected as insurance premiums that's then invested and will be spent before any government has to step in. So before we are called upon as taxpayers to support organisations, there's now a growing discussion in the insurance industry here and across the Five Eyes community as to whether, in time, a similar approach might be required for systemic cyber. And I hope that this is a discussion that our government would consider being part of as this important legislation makes its way through this House.

I hope we'll consider how the insurance sector could be better utilised and its expertise leveraged in helping to meet the ambitions of the Cyber Security and I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rise to say I understand how important this debate is to everyone, but the speeches since I came into the chamber have all been came into the chamber have all been creeping over the four minute recommended time. Could I ask everyone to be very focussed in the everyone to be very focussed in the last few speeches, to give our winders the opportunity to give a proper round off to the debate?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proper round off to the debate? Thank you my Lords. Firstly, I congratulate all the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Firstly, I congratulate all the four maiden speeches which were so inspiring. I welcome the importance with which the government rightly takes the wellbeing of children. The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act, passed in this session, just ended, delivered the statutory backing for mobile phone free schools that begins at the end of June. The consultation on social media that closes on the 26th of this month, and I thank the

21:35

Lord Marks of Hale (Conservative)

- -

tireless efforts of my noble friend Lord Nash and others. These are not small things. They reflect a small things. They reflect a country waking up to the harms done to a generation of children by an industry that profits from their attention. So in the limited time that we have, I turn to faith schools. Faith schools exist because parents in this country have for centuries claim the right to raise their children within a moral and spiritual inheritance. Faith schools are not a footnote in the British education system.

They are a foundational part of it. Long before the state took an interest in educating poor children, the churches, the synagogues and later the mosques were doing the work. Today, faith schools, Anglican, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu consistently outperform the national average. They are popular with parents of every background and with parents of no faith at all. And yet they live under a kind of permanent suspicion in parts of Whitehall, as if private were a public danger.

Today I want to focus on the hard cases, test the principles. It is with a sense of irony that haredi children already live in a world that we are trying to legislate into being. They do not own smartphones. They do not scroll. They are not groomed in the small hours by strangers in foreign jurisdictions. They are not driven into eating disorders by algorithms. They do not need a bill because they have a tradition. The haredi are not trying to be different for differences sake.

To them, the precise content of what is taught the tropics permitted and the topics deferred. The relationship between religious and secular learning. These are not preferences, but obligations. They cannot in conscience accept a curriculum that requires them to teach what their faith forbids. They are not asking the state to fund their descent. They are asking for the state not to extinguish it. When they asked that certain topics, including aspects of sex education, be taught in ways consistent with their faith, they are not asking to opt out of being British.

They are not being difficult. They are simply asking to remain who they are. The transmission of a 3000 year old inheritance from one generation to the next is not a lifestyle preference. It is for them a sacred obligation. Walk into any haredi classroom and you will not find a child scrolling on a smartphone. You will not find a child filming a fight in the corridor. You will not find a child who has been up half the night in the company of strangers on the internet.

The corridors are not toxic, truancy is almost unknown, and the addictions that the government rightly worries about to screens, to vaping, to pornography find no foothold there. Let me say plainly what is too often left unsaid. There are haredi schools in this country that have been threatened with closure by Ofsted, not because their pupils are failing, not because they are unsafe, not because they are unhappy, but because their curriculum does not include precise content in the precise terms that the Department for education has decided, every child must hear.

That is not safeguarding, that is conformity dressed up as safeguarding. These parents will not hand the moral formation of their children to the state and the state. My Lords has no business in demanding it. So my plea to the noble Lord, the Minister, is a simple one in the pursuit of high standards. Let us not confuse difference with deficiency in seeking better send provision. Let us not assume one model fits all. And in dealing with faith communities, let us not proceed with.

Let us proceed not with suspicion, but with understanding and compassion, with the full consultation that this community

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are still waiting for and is long overdue. My Lords. As the final backbench speech.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the final backbench speech. Speaker in this. Debate, I want. To speak about something that seems to be missing from His seems to be missing from His Majesty's Gracious Speech a sense of the bigger picture and why it feels to so many as though this country just isn't working. Our public services and the services

21:39

Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)

- -

public services and the services from companies that we rely on are just not delivering what we expect and what we need. We want water companies that take away the dirty water, treat it, and deliver it back to us as clean drinking water, and we're happy to pay a fair rate for that to be done as efficiently as possible. We do not want to be paying money directly into the large profits of a few individuals, whilst our dirty water is being dumped into our streams and our seas.

Likewise, we want to be able to use digital services to do things quickly and effectively without worrying about whether all the information we put in is being used or sold by the company, providing the service without our consent. We do not want companies to use our children's social and psychological vulnerabilities to hook them in to doing and sharing more and more online so that they can be profiled and marketed to. Unfortunately, the proposals in the greater street speech to address issues like these, and many others, if they exist at all, seem to be sticking plasters of regulation or legislation.

Nothing about tackling the root causes of why people feel that things are not working. We all know that it's very hard and very expensive to get a company or institution to do something that goes against its incentives or its fiduciary duties. And this government appears to be making the profit or growth duties stronger and stronger with its proposed agenda. Instead of adding a new priority of growth to regulators or any public service in order to try to increase the tax income that can then be spent on the expensive business of trying to remediate the problems.

We need companies and public services to be focussed on delivering what people want in the first place, the job they were founded to do. People care about the environment, child online safety, data security, about every job actually being done well. We need the government to design the basic incentives and the duties of institutions and companies to deliver these outcomes in the first place, to help ensure that all the sectors of the economy contribute to the common good. So create incentive structures that allow companies and organisations to develop naturally in the right direction, with minimal need for regulation.

Obviously, we can shape what public companies are aiming to achieve through their statutory duties. We can also help shape what private companies do too through changing their fiduciary duties. We need to be able to assign value to what people value so that we can help companies maximise what people want them to maximise. For example, looking at longer term outcomes, mainstreaming natural capital accounting alongside financial accounts, even on a utilitarian basis, the services we currently get for free from ecosystems need to be valued before we destroy them and have to invent an expensive way to replace them.

Peatlands have a certain value if considered as bags of horticultural compost or drainable agricultural land, but they have a greater value when considered on a bigger scale financially. It could be natural flood prevention, saving costs somewhere else in terms of climate stability. Our peatlands could be carbon sinks, but ONS figures show that instead we're still degrading them and they're releasing carbon dioxide instead of capturing it. The government has still not announced the bill to deal with this. The same is true of how we treat digital tech companies.

These are companies that provide a service to people, which start to start with is efficient and easy to use. But then companies start to try to maximise their short term financial return to investors, almost regardless of the impact on all of its users and on the environment. Again, it takes government to stand up for and measure what people care about, the service they receive, the protection for them, their children, and the environments they care about. Then enshrine these measures into the incentives of the companies wherever possible and where it's not.

It needs to regulate on behalf of the people it represents. Prevention is better than cure. Let's get the incentives right so that corporate behaviour follows. And then we might see the jobs we want done. Finally done well, because the profit motive will no longer be the sole driver.

21:44

Baroness Redfern (Conservative)

- -

It is a pleasure. >> To follow Baroness Freeman and to say, I think I'm going to be the last speaker in the debate tonight last speaker in the debate tonight and to congratulate the noble Lords on their excellent maiden speeches, and to have the privilege to speak and to have the privilege to speak to the Humble Address in the gap with the introduction of the Energy Independence Bill, aims to increase Home-grown renewable energy to hopefully protect living standards for future years.

While the direction of travel has been broadly welcomed across the sector, questions remain around delivery and infrastructure readiness. Unfortunately, grid connections delays continue to be a long standing challenge for the UK energy sector, with renewable projects, battery storage and major developments often facing lengthy wait times to connect to the electricity network. So urgent support from government is required to build out. As pressure mounts so urgent expansion on grid infrastructure has to be developed at a really fast pace.

All this is set against the backdrop of unreliable imports, so the opening of possible Jackdaw and Rosebank could be part of the UK energy security and reliability to help complete the jigsaw as we work towards net zero, with skills needed in particular where infrastructure is built, not concentrated elsewhere, and to adapt similar occupation to new technologies. As engineers move from oil and gas into offshore wind. So as the clean energy workforce is set to grow rapidly, inevitably demand will concentrate in sectors that already face recruitment pressure pressures.

I question what further proactive support is being given to those retraining, particularly workers moving, as I said, from other industries, from a relatively weak base to ensure jobs in the clean and economy are high quality and of high standard. So people want to train and retrain into them, and ensuring the UK has a stable and competitive business environment. The UK steel sector is, for one, essential to the UK security and has been severely impacted as a result of unfair trading practices, including market distorting subsidies.

The UK currently has some of the highest electricity costs in Europe, in part due to social and environmental levies placed on electricity bills, so the emphasis must be in reducing our electricity prices, enabling competitive electrical electricity prices are an important enabler of the steel sector, especially as producers and supply chains transition towards electrified green steel production. High electricity prices hurt and cut deeply into business competitiveness and reduced business confidence for future investment. Finally, my Lords, I turn to the issue of large solar farms and seeing communities who are increasingly on the front line.

And aside importantly, to note that just 58% of grade one agricultural land the most productive and versatile land is situated in the floodplain and 9% is at highest risk of coastal flooding. Our food farming sectors contribute to the economy must not be overlooked. The question is just how many acres of good grade land is still determined at planning station at planning stage, while the alternative sits waiting? So with urgent action, first and foremost should be to target large industrial warehousing car parks.

Brownfield sites first and foremost, and therefore support food security as well. Thank you.

21:47

Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)

- -

22:03

Lord Markham (Conservative)

- -

coolest place to be a Lord of. I look forward to hearing from him, look forward to hearing from him, as he says, on what matters to people and how public services can people and how public services can be designed to meet their needs. This being a King's speech on This being a King's speech on education, culture, technology and energy security, like the Bishop of energy security, like the Bishop of Oxford and Baroness Freeman, I must admit I would have expected more of a strategic King's Speech a bigger picture, if you like.

That sets out some of the challenges that are there and sets out the government's vision and values in how to address them. For instance, as Lord Tarassenko and my noble friend Lord Taylor said, I would expect a a major AI plan. I'd expect to hear how AI represented a generational opportunity to transform productivity and output, to increase our human knowledge, to free us up from mundane tasks, and to enjoy our leisure time, to improve our lives and create unprecedented wealth and and prosperity.

But I would also hear about the generational threat that AI brings to certain types of jobs to potentially many of our freedoms, to cyber security, and to the whole nature of modern warfare, warfare, and the defence of this nation. Most of all, though, I would have expected to hear how we're going to ensure that the UK is in the AI fast lane and the dire consequences of being stuck in the AI slow lane. But yet, as many have said, we don't even have an AI bill in education.

Like my noble friends Baroness Maclean and Baroness Miller and many others said, I'd expect to hear how we would use education to equip our kids to thrive in the AI future, to train and attract the best AI talent in the world. And as said by Lord Clement-Jones, to avoid a dangerous skills divide like Baroness Kidron, who has ever spoke so passionately and my noble friend Baroness O'Loan, I expect to hear concrete plans and action on how we're going to protect our children from the threats of AI and social media and the technical world.

Instead, in education, as set out by Lord Smith, we heard how actually we've been making degrees harder and less attractive. We've introduced new funding systems, especially around planned two students with loans with much higher interest rates, where debt grows faster than their ability to repay not only grossly unfair, but deterrent to skills and education. And I'd ask the government to look at a conservative proposal to look student, to link student debt and interest to inflation as a fair and just approach in energy.

I would have expected the government to set out an energy policy which will achieve competitive prices, so we can attract AI data centres and keep our industrial base. I would have expected them to maybe learn some of the lessons that we've seen in Norway, where they show that you do not have to have a binary choice between receivables and oil and gas production, but you can actually combine the two and focus on renewables and granting new oil and gas licences.

As my noble friends Baroness Bloomfield and and Lord McKinlay said, because if you look at Norway versus UK, you see what I see is the rule of double. Norway has double the UK's oil and gas production and double the percentage of renewables, whilst the UK business and consumers face double Norway's costs. This means that data centres can afford to be in Norway, as can manufacturing companies, to the benefit of their economy and their people, and the strategic security of that country in a dangerous world.

So I would say to the government, I understand the ambition for renewable energy. It's the ambition of many on this side as well. But it doesn't have to be at the cost of our own North Sea oil production. It does not have to be either or. And finally, in this uncertain world, I'd expect a serious sovereign technology agenda. What, for instance, is our approach to ensure semiconductor resilience? How can technology and AI be at the forefront, forefront of our defence, of our drone capability, of our cyber security? How can we develop a critical AI and tech infrastructure that can protect us all? These are the things I would have expected and hoped for in the King's Speech.

These are the things of vision, of a set of values and of ambitious goals. These are the things that the country needs. And what do we get instead? Dare I say it? In the words of Wes Streeting, we have where we need vision. We have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift. As I say, not my words, but the words of the former health secretary, West Street. So I say to governors, I say to the government and Ministers here today who are vastly talented, who I highly respect.

Please don't settle for the mediocrity set out in many parts of this King's Speech when we can do so much better and our country needs so much more than this. So I'm actually going to conclude, in the words of another minister's resignation letter, that of Jess Phillips, who I think many of us, probably all of us, have enormous respect for her campaigning. I might surprise you to hear me say this, but she said Labour governments come around rarely. They are precious, have a real push back, make arguments, stand up and be counted, and bring back a king's speech with vision, boldness and and energy which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

equal to the task at hand. Yeah, yeah. My Lords. It's a tremendous honour and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pleasure to be. Closing today's. Debate. A debate, as we've heard, with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A debate, as we've heard, with very many interesting and important contributions, not all of which I'm contributions, not all of which I'm afraid I will be able to do justice to in this response. But I certainly want to draw attention to certainly want to draw attention to the excellent maiden speeches that we've heard today. My noble friend, Lord hobby not notwithstanding his his confession of not having actually taught. Nevertheless, through his representation of headteachers and his important work to bring new people into the teaching profession, profession through Teach First brings an enormous amount of experience in the field of education that I know he will use to good effect in this House the noble Lord Lord Blackwater, whom I.

Good friend, conservative broadcaster blogger podcaster Ian Dale, told me to be nice to. And I can see it will be worth while if I am recognising, of course, that what Ian and the noble Lord have in common is that they are both Essex boys. The noble Lady, Baroness Leman. I don't think it's a bad thing to have more political staffers around around the place, and I think that was demonstrated by both by the noble Lady and by the noble Lord, Lord Dickson.

But the noble Lady will undoubtedly, as we heard from her experience, bring an emphasis on cohesion, on children and on care to our debates in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Dickson, who always. It's always a winner. Can I say to the noble Lord to bring your mum into the. Into the. Speaking as a mother myself, and I'm sure she is very proud of your great achievements, particularly, I think, bringing not only that political background, but that that leadership in the voluntary sector to our debates in this House.

As we begin a new parliamentary session, we know that this country continues to face long standing challenges, challenges that cannot be solved quickly but require long term strategic solutions that make a positive difference to people's everyday lives. Rather than promise quick fixes. This government has set out a series of bills and measures that face down these challenges and deliver the change. The British public voted for. The hard work of change is already underway. I won't list the full legislative programme of the last session, but for my part, I'm proud of our reforms to education and children's social care through the Children's Schools and Wellbeing Act.

Through the Estate Act, we laid the foundations for Skills England and the post 16 Skills White Paper to help us understand and meet the country's skills, needs and of course, our non-legislative reforms and implementation continue to drive change. Outside of this chamber. We had a volley from the noble Lady Baroness Bloomfield of criticism of education policy at the beginning of this debate, although I do note that we don't yet have a an opposition education spokesperson. The opposition chose not to have a debate on education in the other place.

Perhaps today we've been watching an audition for that opposition spokesperson. The noble Lady Baroness Barran is enormously big shoes to fill, but I look forward to somebody making an effort, at least at that. Since coming into government, we have got children back to school for 5 million more days and and turned the tide on teachers leaving the classroom. Parents are benefiting by as much as £8,000 from government funded childcare, and young people are benefiting from new training opportunities in technical excellence.

Colleges across our country and new foundation apprenticeships and hiring incentive incentives for small businesses are turning around. The 40% fall in apprenticeships for young people, and the tragedy of nearly 1 million young people not earning or learning. We, unlike the last government, will not abandon a generation to this. We are cutting the cost of living and boosting standards at every stage of our children's education. But to return to this session, as you've heard, we're going further because we cannot deliver opportunity and economic growth in every part of the country without a programme of legislation to match our ambitions.

This includes our once in a generation reforms to special needs education, which we've designed in partnership with families and teachers, to give every child the opportunity to do well at school. We are accelerating the UK's drive to energy security through the nuclear regulation and energy independence bills. The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill will strengthen a different kind of infrastructure, supporting businesses of all sizes to improve defence against cyber attacks across the economy. We will introduce digital ID to parliamentary scrutiny during this session.

Built to the highest security standards, it will provide an optional choice for efficient access to public services. And finally, our secondary ticket and sporting events bills will strengthen the UK's capacity to host world class sporting fixtures and ensure fans of live events can no longer be exploited by ticket touts. All of this legislation supports the government's primary mission to build the economic growth this country needs, and the opportunities our people deserve to respond to some of the particular points raised during this debate.

We had very good contributions, I thought, on special educational needs from many noble Lords with both personal and professional experience in this area, we are clear that every child deserves a chance to achieve and thrive. Not some children, not children in the right postcode, every child, whatever their background, whatever their need. Raising standards means raising expectations for all the education for all bill will transform support for children and young people by providing access to high quality education, health and care services in every community.

It will ensure every setting delivers the stretching, rewarding education all children and young people deserve. It's how we build a truly inclusive education system, because when settings get it right for children and young people with. Send, every child and young person benefits and. We will carefully consider responses to the on going. Send consultation subject to this an ongoing engagement with the sector and experts. We will meet our reform principles by providing support that is early, local, fair, effective and shared.

This Bill will bring forward measures to enable effective delivery from 2029. We will provide early support to children with send through embedding inclusive practice and requiring settings to publish an inclusion strategy. We will equip early years providers, schools and colleges to intervene early and effectively by creating national inclusion standards to support settings to identify and implement best practice. We will enable local support by making mainstream settings more inclusive. And of course, we recognise the significance of teachers in this, which is why we will be delivering more training on send and inclusion than ever before.

Backed by over £200 million of investment. We will. The bill will require settings to produce an individual support plan for every child and young person with Send. But we will streamline and standardise both the content of CPS and the process for obtaining them, whilst ensuring that the transition from the current to the new system is as smooth as possible. And once the new system is in place, a triple lock of transitional protections will mean no child loses the effective support they already receive.

Every child with a special school place in September 2029 will be able to stay in a special school until they finish education. No child with a current EHCP will transition until the end of their phase of education, and not before September 2030. Children who transition out of their EHCP will have an individual support plan in place ahead of their plan ceasing. And when the new inclusive mainstream has been built to ensure no break in support, we will reform the role of the Send tribunal, encouraging greater use of mediation before appeals, including placement appeals, and there will be a continued right of appeal to the Send tribunal for key decisions about education, health and care needs, assessment plans and placements.

We will ensure that those children with the most complex needs receive high quality, consistent support through new specialist provision packages and this legislation will utilise partnerships and ensure support is shared across settings. We will make these changes because every child and young person deserves to belong, achieve and thrive and in order to facilitate them, we will put in place the necessary investment we are supporting already local authorities with the deficits that they built up through the failed system that we inherited.

We will invest £1.6 billion over three years in our inclusive Mainstream Fund to support high quality, inclusive teaching, £1.8 billion invested over the next three years to create a new national offer called Experts at Hand. Wrapping professionals such as educational psychologists, speech and language therapists, and occupational therapists around mainstream settings, and we will put in place £3.7 billion worth of investment to create 6000 specialist and inclusive education places. Turning to some of the other aspects of education, several noble Lords, as we've heard, raised the issue of higher education.

These are challenging times for higher education, the freezing of tuition fee income by the last government has caused considerable financial stress. But of course, we took the decision to reverse this, and we will legislate to ensure that tuition fee income for universities is index linked. We have already ensured that that will happen for three years. We are putting research funding on a more sustainable basis. And on the subject of student finance, I do have to point out to the noble Lord Lord Markham that plan two loans were introduced by his government.

They weren't the problems we have inherited. The design was the last government's. We will, of course, review the student finance system to make sure that we protect those who have taken part in higher education, but we will also. In order to encourage more to take up the opportunity of higher education, reintroduce the maintenance grants that were done away with by the last government. When it comes to young people who are neither earning nor learning, we are determined to break down barriers to opportunity for all our young people.

That is why we are investing £2.5 billion over the next three years in the Youth Guarantee and the growth and skills levy to create up to 500,000 opportunities for young people to earn and learn. We will strengthen the role of schools so that every young person leaves with a planned post 16 destination. We are piloting the automatic allocation of place in further education for those who don't already have one. We're improving how the system works. Together with local authorities, strategic authorities, schools and Fe providers, we are investing in new data tools to identify those at risk of becoming

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Neet earlier. We're expanding the. Number of youth hubs across the country and through the Jobs Guarantee Scheme, the Youth Jobs Grant and new apprenticeship incentive for small and medium incentive for small and medium sized businesses. And by doing that, we will work with employers to get we will work with employers to get more young people into work. Turning to the important issue of Turning to the important issue of of as several noble Lords, my noble friends, are Baroness Curran the noble Lord, Lord Lenny, have I have identified.

And my noble friend Lord Whitehead tells me that you get five yeses. Lord Lennie for the questions that you asked me in your speech. The lessons for the UK as we face the second fossil fuel shock is clear. We need to get off fossil fuel roller coaster with clean home-grown power that we control and electrification of our wider economy. The Energy Independence Bill will underpin action on three core objectives tackling the affordability crisis and protecting consumers, accelerating the UK's drive for energy security and delivering a fair, managed and prosperous transition and good jobs in clean energy.

In important points, particularly around the transition that my noble friend Baroness Griffin made, the bill supports the government's efforts to bring down energy bills and support vulnerable households. It gives the energy regulator the powers it needs to act as a strong consumer champion and stay ahead of a rapidly changing energy system, and it supports the biggest investment in home upgrades in British history through the Warm Homes Plan. The bill accelerates the delivery of Clean Power 2030 and electrification of the economy so that we can deliver a fair, affordable, secure and efficient electricity system that will bring down bills for good.

It will enable vital grid upgrades. After decades of underinvestment, it will help to create a global blueprint for a fair, managed and prosperous transition in the North Sea that acts in line with the science of fossil fuel. The bill will expand workers rights and protections and pave the way for a new generation of good jobs in clean energy. The Energy Independence Bill legislates for the powers the government needs to fight people's corner and go further and faster on our clean energy mission.

The Nuclear Regulation Bill fulfils the government's commitment to strengthening the UK as a nuclear nation. We've been clear that nuclear power will play a key role in achieving Clean Power 2030 and beyond. The government has committed almost £17 billion across the spending review period to the biggest nuclear building programme in a generation, funding Sizewell C in Suffolk. The small modular reactor reactor programme at Wilfrid, North Wales. We've progressed Hinkley Point C in Somerset and we're welcoming a new era of advanced modular reactors as part of our clean energy mission.

Recognising the point made by the noble Lord Lord Willetts. However, we have recognised as the Nuclear we have recognised as the Nuclear Regulatory Review in 2025 found an Process over safe outcomes is holding back the industry and making the UK the most expensive place in the world to build new nuclear. We accept this diagnosis, and the measures in the Nuclear Regulation Bill will support quicker delivery of nuclear projects in a way that produces a win win for building critical infrastructure, while protecting nature and the environment and high standards of nuclear safety.

Moving on to the issues around technology and AI, can I first of all say, in response to the contributions by the right Reverend prelate, the Bishop of Oxford, the noble Lady, Baroness Kidron, the noble Lady, Baroness Owen, my noble friend Baroness Hazarika, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. This government has been clear that we will be putting some form of age or functionality restrictions in place for under 16 seconds on online services. Our consultation will determine the best route to do this to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our children.

We will act by the end of the year. When this government published the AI Opportunities Action Plan, we set out our ambition to ensure Britain leads in shaping the AI revolution. AI has the potential to grow the economy, create good jobs and deliver huge societal benefits. We are making sure that we shape a future that works for all, not just a few at the top. We are building on Britain's technological strengths and expanding our domestic capabilities through the £500 million sovereign AI fund to back British start ups.

At the same time, our AI growth zones are accelerating the delivery of data centres and bringing in billions in private investment. And we are working towards a copyright solution that both protects the UK's creative industries and unlocks the potential of AI driven innovation. However, if we are to realise any of AI's benefits, we need to make sure it is safe and that is why we have taken important steps to ensure that most AI systems are already regulated at the point of use by our existing expert regulators.

The government continues to act decisively to address harms where the evidence suggests it is necessary to do so. That is why we've taken powers in the Crime and Policing Act to bring unregulated chatbots into scope of the act, to mitigate illegal content risks like nonconsensual intimate images and child sexual abuse material. And we have also taken powers in the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act to ensure that we can act on the findings of the consultation, including, as I say, whether restrictions should be placed on children's use of chat bots.

We recognise AI capabilities are accelerating rapidly and bring the potential for serious risks. This is why we're strengthening cyber resilience through the Cyber Security Resilience Bill and a new National Cyber Action Plan. While using AI is regulated at the point of use, we are also supporting our world leading security institute, which is working with frontier developers to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities to ensure we understand and prepare for AI's potential impacts in the area of culture. We are introducing the draft Secondary Ticketing Bill.

We will have the opportunity to build on the important work of my noble friends, Baroness Debbonaire, the noble Lady, Baroness Keeley to reflect on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and to prevent fans being ripped off by touts. Bringing support to those who want to attend events and ensuring that money is going into those events, rather than into the pockets of touts in the area of arts and culture. They're at the heart of community life.

They bring people together across divides, and that's why we're taking decisive action to ensure the arts are accessible to everyone, everywhere. In March, we published our response to Baroness My Noble Friend Baroness Hodges. Independent Review of Arts Council England, accepting all recommendations. We're backing that vision with significant investment. Last year we announced £1.5 billion to help protect more than 1000 treasured arts venues, many museums, libraries and heritage buildings across England. In April this year, we announced the first set of organisations to benefit from this support, which included 96 million through the Creative Foundations Fund, 25.5 million for museum repairs and development, and £6.3 million to modernise libraries so that they can continue serving our communities for generations to come.

In recent decades, we have lived through a revolution in media. That's why we're improving the curriculum to ensure better standards of media literacy. It's why we've launched the local Media Action Plan, as well as committing up to £12 million in funding, it includes a campaign to inspire young people about future media careers and help them understand the importance of journalism to our society. Similarly, both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State believe public service broadcasting and the BBC in particular, are vital British assets that support our democracy, bring our communities together and help to shape and define our nation through telling stories about the lives of people in all parts of the UK, and enabling the noble Lady, Baroness Benjamin, to have influenced very many of our childhoods through her play school period.

And of course, who knows, enabling us to all get to know K-pop demon hunters. If that's something that we want to do. We're acting to to future proof. This vital institution and our review of the BBC's charter aims to protect the BBC for decades to come. My Lords, we are at the beginning. As as of this new legislative agenda. But it does not shy away from tackling problems that are complex, longstanding and multifaceted. We will build on the foundations we have laid in our first two years in government reforming, where carefully designed change is needed, strengthening and empowering what works well, and I look forward to working with noble Lords as we take this important legislative agenda through this House year.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the debate be now adjourned until Wednesday, the 20th of May. The question is that this debate be again adjourned until Wednesday, the 20th of May. As many as that the 20th of May. As many as that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move have it. My Lords, I beg to move that the House will now adjourn,

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page