To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to address the decline in uptake of childhood immunisations.

NHS England’s 2023 vaccination strategy set a range of ambitions, including to improve uptake of children’s vaccines across the board. On mumps, measles and rubella in particular, between January and March the NHS and partners administered around four times as many MMR vaccinations to those aged five to 25 as last year and focused on engaging groups with historically lower vaccination rates. We intend to build on these experiences to further improve uptake.

I thank the Minister for his reply and pay tribute to the NHS for its sterling work in this area. I have a couple of points. First, I wonder what consideration His Majesty’s Government have given to working with leaders of harder-to-reach groups, some of the smaller groups and some of the faith groups, where messaging can be more powerful when it is done by a local leader. Secondly, there is a worrying increase in the level of whooping cough. Indeed, I believe there has been a childhood death recently. Can the Minister update us on what is being done about this worrying development?

I thank the right reverend Prelate. First, I completely agree that using faith leaders is often a very good way to reach hard-to-reach communities, particularly as it is often ethnic-minority communities that have lower rates of vaccine uptake. Whooping cough has been a concern; we had about 850 cases in January 2024 compared with about 550 for the whole of 2023. We are deploying a number of strategies that have been proven to work in areas such as MMR: using outreach groups, having leaflets in 15 languages and having recall programmes. In the case of whooping cough, if we can get pregnant mothers vaccinated, that is 97% effective.

My Lords, I know the Minister agrees that it would help if parents had online access to their children’s vaccination records and, with his customary efficiency, he kindly wrote to me following a previous exchange on the digital red book to say that parental access to baby records is being piloted in 70 general practices. Can I ask the Minister to give us a ballpark date for when it might be rolled out to the other 6,000-odd GP practices in the United Kingdom? Will it be shortly, soon or in due course?

Or “none of the above”. The noble Lord is quite correct. Of course, data is vital in this whole area, and getting that sharing of data and understanding with people is vital. I will come back on the precise date, but I hope it will be soon.

My Lords, there have been more than 1,000 cases of measles in the last six months. What action are the Government taking to make sure that mothers are given options, which maximise convenience, of places to go and times when they could take their children for vaccination, rather than tying them to appointments that may clash with the working day when they cannot get childcare for other children?

That is an important point. We must try to make sure that vaccination clinics are widespread. We have used pop-up clinics successfully in many locations, particularly around London, and that has helped get 25,000 more jabs into unvaccinated people’s arms in the last few months.

My Lords, I welcome the action that the Government are taking to ensure that MMR vaccinations are going up in underrepresented groups. Can my noble friend the Minister say what action the Government are taking for people seeking asylum? What kind of service are they being offered, and what access do they have to vaccination?

I thank my noble friend for the question. Actually, it is not just asylum seekers; it is often migrant groups full stop. Their communities or the countries they have come from often do not have the same level of vaccination programmes. It is part of the check we try to give people as they come into the country, and something we ask GPs to look out for, so that we can get them in a catch-up programme. A lot of the work we are doing on outreach is also particularly focused on those communities.

My Lords, is it not the case that we need to make the case for public health, and that our public health policy is determined by parents getting their children vaccinated? Do we not need to make the case that they put their own and other people’s children in danger unless they comply with vaccination?

Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately, we are all aware of the Wakefield effect on the MMR vaccine. That knock of confidence was completely unjustified and irresponsible, but we know the impact it had. Clearly, a lot of the anti-vax sentiment around Covid has not helped either. We need to overcome all these messages.

My Lords, on the Wakefield effect, as the Minister called it, he will remember that the impact it had on a lot of people was very profound. In particular, some of that was associated with incidence of autism, which again was completely unjustified. Can he tell the House whether any work has been done, in the interests of public information, on what happened to the children who were not vaccinated at that time, and what the outcomes were for them? As a deterrent, it might be useful for people to know what the worst that can happen is if you do not get your children vaccinated.

The noble Baroness is quite right. I had two young sons at around that time, and it was a concern. Of course, we did go ahead, but it was a consideration. It is an excellent question. I have not seen the study of those various cohort groups but I will go back, because it is something we need to bring out.

My Lords, it is concerning that measles cases continue to rise, with a particular spike in London, where certain areas have low vaccination rates. With the advent of microarray patch technology, can the Minister confirm that this is being looked at? Does he agree that the chance to dispense with using needles and special storage, and the opportunity to use less of professionals’ time, could present an opportunity to drive up vaccination rates?

It has to make sense to take more measures that are easy for people, including maybe less skilled people, to operate. Funnily enough, I was talking just today to the head of Moderna about how it is packing syringes, or has planned to for vaccinations going forward, rather than vials, to take that step out of the process. The easier we can make it, the better.

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate rightly spoke about the role of faith communities in reaching those hard-to-reach communities. I know that my noble friend the Minister has answered these questions previously, but I wonder what lessons the department has learned from previous vaccination campaigns—Covid, MMR, et cetera—to make sure that the initiatives it is using to reach those hard-to-reach communities are more effective.

It really is about having the whole toolkit. Clearly, it is about making sure that we are using communications in 15 different languages. It is about the outreach groups and, particularly, the catch-up programmes. We have been doing one for 17 to 25 year-olds for polio and MMR. It is about all those strategies and the pop-up clinics, so that it is very easy to catch people in places that are convenient for them.

Does the Minister agree that the anti-vax sentiment is a powerful deterrent with some of the misinformation on social media? Is there anything more that can be done to try to counter that misinformation?

We are trying to get the facts out there. I appreciate the efforts of all noble Lords in doing that. I welcome any ideas on what more action we could be taking. The UK measures at the highest level internationally in terms of parents who believe that vaccines should be used. The level is 97%. That is high, but the trouble is that 3% in concentrated areas can still be quite dangerous.

My Lords, further to my noble friend’s question about asylum seekers and immigrants and the Minister’s answer, how are GPs going to check whether such children have been immunised? They will not be carrying any paper proof, and they will certainly not have an app on their phones.

It is often a case of asking them and seeing what they recall. There are a lot of vaccinations, such as the six-in-one ones. Often, they might not have had any vaccinations. My noble friend is correct that it is not easy to find out that information, but in many cases, where we can, it is good to apply the precautionary principle and offer vaccinations anyway.

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to their 2022 response to the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on Local Government Ethical Standards, what plans they have to address concerns about councillors having to publish their home addresses.

In the absence of my noble friend Lady Eaton and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, Local Government Minister Simon Hoare MP wrote to all local authorities last month to remind them that the Localism Act’s “sensitive interests” provision enables councillors to request that their home addresses be withheld from publication and to urge that such requests be accommodated. Primary legislation would be needed to make provision that home addresses should not be included in published copies of the register of interests, and the Government will consider this if and when a legislative opportunity occurs.

I am grateful to my noble friend. Does she agree that those who stand for elected office should be protected from those who wish them or their families harm? That is why MPs and local councillors can withhold their addresses from ballot papers. However, councillors have no such right to withhold their addresses from the register of interests, despite the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommending that

“a councillor does not need to register their home address on an authority’s register”.

Councillors remain open to the discretion of the monitoring officer. Should we not bring the law for the councillors’ register into line with that for the ballot paper and, indeed, with that for Members of Parliament?

My noble friend is right that the safety of our elective representatives is essential to the security of this country. Protecting our democratic values and our processes for democracy is one of the most important duties that government has. Any councillors with concerns about the publication of their home addresses on published versions of the register of interests can and should use the “sensitive interests” provision at Section 32 of the Localism Act 2011. Minister Hoare has recently reiterated this to those responsible in local authorities in his recent letter.

My Lords, according to the Local Government Association’s recent survey, 70% of local councillors reported experiencing abuse or intimidation. Aggressive behaviour which goes well beyond courteous debate deters people from public service, weakens democracy and is damaging to the families of those who seek to serve others. Will the Minister write to all local authorities urging them to take up the Local Government Association’s Debate Not Hate campaign? Will she seek to widen the scope of the defending democracy programme run by the National Protective Security Authority explicitly to include the safety, security and well-being of locally elected politicians, rather than focusing solely on national politicians and foreign interference?

I will certainly take that back to the department. Anything more that we can do to protect democracy, particularly in local elections, we will do—I will make sure that I do that myself. On 28 February, the Prime Minister announced that he was putting an additional £31 million over the next year into strengthening security not just for MPs but for all locally elected representatives. He has been working with the police on this issue as well. It is important to know that we are doing something to protect all our elected representatives, but we can always do more.

My Lords, I was a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life when the report on local government ethical standards was published in January 2019. We took evidence from many councillors of all parties about the intimidation they received, including at home because their home addresses were in the public domain. They felt particularly unsafe when online threats were being made. The Government did not respond to the committee’s recommendations until 2022, when they agreed with the principle behind them and the statutory amendments which the committee proposed. They said that this was the right route to take and promised that they would engage with interested parties on the best means of ensuring that councillors and candidates were not required to publish their addresses. It is a shame that it has taken so long. Do the Government intend to publish their response?

My Lords, we have already enacted one of the recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, about candidates, but, as I said before, the issue of local councillors is more difficult, as we need primary legislation to change that. We are keeping our eye on when we can do it.

My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend referred to democracy in general. Although we are here specifically discussing local councillors, is it not worth bearing in mind that, for example, Members of the House of Lords and other people in the public eye have faced threats? When discussing this with other government departments, we need to bear in mind the loneliness of families who are living in identifiable locations—their home addresses and the like—when their relatives or spouses are away in this or other places.

As far as families are concerned, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is why they are mentioned under the “sensitive interests” provision and protected in the same way as councillors. As far as the House of Lords and Peers are concerned, I will take that back to the relevant House officials.

My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to say that this was such an important issue that “Anything … we can do … we will do”. May I make a simple suggestion? At present, the protection afforded under law requires councillors to opt in. They have actively to seek out the right not to have their addresses shown. Could the Government make it an opt-out system by creating an obligation under statute that councillors’ home addresses will not be published unless they specifically request that this be done?

This is exactly what the Government have said they will look to do as soon as they get legislative time. At the moment, it is better that we have an opt-in, or is it an opt-out? I cannot remember which way it is; noble Lords will know what I mean. It is important to have this while we are waiting for that further legislation.

My Lords, if we go back to the 1960s, when I stood for election in the London Borough of Islington and was the first ever Conservative leader in that borough, there were—from memory—two people standing as councillors on phantom home addresses. As far as I am concerned, there must be some managed means of ensuring that anybody standing for a local authority is actually living within that local authority area.

I do not think it is a requirement to live in that local authority area necessarily, but it is important that anything on the register is correct. Obviously, there are ways of looking into that. The other interesting thing is that you can opt in or opt out. Some people like to opt in—they really want their names to be there—and therefore any legislation needs to give the opportunity for councillors or any other elected members to do that.

My Lords, in recent months, many local and national politicians, including me, have been subject to behaviour from a minority of the public which goes beyond what is reasonable and acceptable, including putting people’s homes on social media, throwing fireworks through letterboxes, and horrendous abuse being given out on the doorstep. Keeping our politicians safe and feeling safe is vital not only for its own purpose but to stop others being put off from dedicating their lives to public service. What broader steps are the Government taking to ensure that this building pattern of intimidation is halted and reversed before it becomes an accepted norm against councillors, MPs and Members of this House?

The noble Lord is absolutely right. We cannot have intimidation stopping people wanting to be elected to represent their communities at whatever level—it is important even at parish council level. What more can we do? We can look for legislative time to change it, but, in the meantime, we are doing everything we can. We have put in £31 million more this year to bolster security for elected members and, as I say, if you are a local councillor, there is always an opportunity to go to your monitoring officer and ask for your home address to be taken off if you are worried about it or worried about your family.

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure political deepfakes on social media are not used to undermine the outcome of the general election.

My Lords, we are working to ensure we are ready to respond to the full range of threats to our democratic processes, including through the Defending Democracy Taskforce. It is already an election offence to make false statements of fact about the personal character or conduct of a candidate before or during an election. Additionally, under the Online Safety Act, where illegal political deepfakes are shared on social media, they must be removed.

My Lords, Google’s Kent Walker has talked of the “very serious” threat posed by AI-generated deepfakes and disinformation. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Mayor of London have all been the subject of deepfakes, so it is not surprising that the Home Secretary has identified a critical window for collective action to preserve the integrity of the forthcoming election. Obviously, monitoring online content is important, but that will not prevent malign individuals or hostile foreign states trying to interfere in the forthcoming elections at home and abroad. Will the Minister finally take up our proposals to use the Data Protection Bill to fill the deepfake gap left by the Online Safety Act so that we can all have confidence in the outcome of the general election?

I start by saying that I very much share the view of the importance of protecting the forthcoming general election—and indeed every election—from online deepfakes, whether generated by AI or any other means. I think it is worth reminding the House that a range of existing criminal offences, such as the foreign interference offence, the false communications offence and offences under the Representation of the People Act, already address the use of deepfakes to malignly influence elections. While these Acts will go some way to deterring, I also think it is important to remind the House of the crucial non-legislative measures that we can take, continue to take and will take up to the completion of the election.

My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that there is an issue regarding the distortion of what politicians say, both through video and through the written word? Would he give me some indication of what the position is regarding Hansard and the coverage of what is said in this House and in the other place? Are we sufficiently protected if that written record is distorted or abused by others in the media?

Indeed—and let me first thank my noble friend for bringing up this important matter. That sounds to me like something that would be likely to be applied under the false communications offence in the Online Safety Act—Section 179—although I would not be able to say for sure. The tests that it would need to meet are that the information would have to be knowingly false and cause non-trivial physical or psychological harm to those offended, but that would seem to be the relevant offence.

My Lords, does not the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, highlight that we must hold to account with legal liability not only those who create this kind of deepfake content and facilitate its spread, but those who enable the production of deepfakes with software, such as by having standards and risk-based regulation for generative AI systems, which the Government in their White Paper have resolutely refused to do?

The Government set out in their White Paper response that off-the-shelf AI software that can in part be used to create these kinds of deepfakes is not, in and of itself, something that we are considering placing any ban on. However, there are ranges of software, a sort of middle layer to the AI production, that can greatly facilitate the production of deepfakes of all kinds, not just political but other kinds of criminal deepfakes—and there the Government would be actively considering moving against those purpose-built criminal tools.

My Lords, given the use of deepfakes and malign disinformation facilitated by data theft, has the noble Viscount taken note of what the Biden Administration decided to do last week? The President signed into law the ability to ban TikTok, and the Chinese-owned company that owns it, because of America’s experience in the mid-term elections in 2022 and the elections in Taiwan earlier this year. Does the Minister not worry that, unless we take similar powers in the United Kingdom, the same thing will happen here?

Well, some of the enforcement measures under the Online Safety Act do allow for very significant moves against social media platforms that misuse their scale and presence to malign ends in this way, but of course the noble Lord is absolutely right and we will continue to look closely at the moves by the Biden Administration to see what we can learn from them for our approach.

My Lords, I pay tribute to Andy Street for the way he responded to the circumstances in what was an incredibly close race. He must have been hugely disappointed. Sadly, another candidate in that race has since made false accusations of racism against a Labour volunteer, posting the volunteer’s name, picture and social media account, with the result that the volunteer subsequently received death threats in both calls and emails. Will the Minister join all noble Lords in condemning this kind of behaviour and confirm that, in his view, attacking party volunteers falls fully within the range of threats to the democratic process?

First, let me absolutely endorse the noble Lord’s sentiment: this is a deplorable way to behave that should not be tolerated. From hearing the noble Lord speak of the actions, my assumption is that they would fall foul of the false communications offence under Section 179 of the Online Safety Act. As I say, these actions are absolutely unacceptable.

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware of the threat of AI-generated deepfake election messages flooding the internet during an election campaign. At the moment, only registered users have to put a digital imprint giving the provenance of the content on unpaid election material. Does the Minister think that a requirement to put a digital imprint on all unpaid election material should be introduced to counter fake election messages?

The noble Viscount is right to point to the digital imprint regime as one of the tools at our disposal for limiting the use of deepfakes. I think we would hesitate to have a blanket law that all materials of any kind would be required to have a digital imprint on them—but, needless to say, we will take away the idea and consider it further.

My Lords, if, at the very height of the forthcoming general election, deepfakes were to emerge, what would be the role of Ofcom, in particular regarding the taking down of material that is manifestly false? Does Ofcom have the resources necessary to do this?

In the regrettable scenario mentioned by the noble Lord, such actions would generally fall to the Joint Election Security and Preparedness Unit and the election cell that will have been set up for the duration of the election to conduct rapid operational rebuttal and other responses to such things. We would not necessarily look to Ofcom until after the event because of the speed at which things would have to move.

My Lords, it is not just technology that can undermine the outcome of general elections; the Government are facilitating it, too. Jacob Rees-Mogg, former Business Secretary, famously said that voter ID rules were an attempt to “gerrymander” the electoral system. Does the Minister have any empirical evidence to show that the introduction of the voter ID system has reduced alleged fraud or encouraged more people to vote?

It is a very interesting question, but I am afraid I have no information on that as it is not DSIT’s area at all. I will be very happy to find out and write to the noble Lord if that would help.

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take in response to the ruling of the High Court on 3 May that their carbon budget delivery plan was not sufficient to meet legally binding targets.

My Lords, we are immensely proud of our record on climate change, having gone further and faster than any other major economy in cutting our carbon emissions. The Carbon Budget Delivery Plan sets out more than 300 policies and proposals which the Government have put in place to reach their carbon budgets. The judgment focused on the decision-making process and did not criticise the policies themselves. We will publish a new report, compliant with the court order, within 12 months.

Thanks to ClientEarth and its partners bringing a judicial review, the courts have now told the UK Government not once but twice that their climate strategy is not fit for purpose. The Government believed they could get away with the “vague and uncertain” plan that was referred to in order to deliver the carbon budget delivery plan. They have now had to pledge to do another redraft within the next 12 months. I ask the Minister: why should we trust the Government to do a better job this time, or is it going to be third time lucky?

The Government are determined, as all of us who supported the Climate Change Act are, to live by the legal requirements we set for all Governments to hit the carbon budgets. The Carbon Budget Delivery Plan was not criticised for the measures it included. It was criticised in the judgment for the information provided to the Secretary of State. We totally accept that. We accept the ruling and will respond. We will make sure that we are putting in place measures to address this. Sections 13 and 14 of the Climate Change Act are, in hindsight, a little opaque. In a way, this has helped us clarify this and we will work to give all the information needed to show that we will hit our carbon budgets.

My Lords, can the Minister unpack the pride that he has in the Government’s achievements so far in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions? If we look at the last six years, what proportion of those reductions have resulted from external factors, such as Covid and the war in Ukraine and the consequent slowing growth in our economy, and what proportion have resulted from implementation of policies in relation to transport and agriculture?

The noble Lord asks a very detailed question. The third carbon budget ended in 2022, so I do not think that issues such as Covid will have been particularly relevant to that. We exceeded that by 15%. The noble Lord outlined some of the most difficult areas that we have to tackle: transport, housing, and agriculture. Agriculture is currently responsible for about 12% to 15% of our emissions, and that will grow as a percentage of our emissions as other sectors decarbonise, which they can do more easily. It is incredibly difficult. Defra, working with the Climate Change Committee and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, is seeking ways in which we can absolutely make agriculture play its part in reducing our emissions.

My Lords, is there not something a bit strange about this whole debate? I am sure that the High Court ruling was made correctly on the basis of all the evidence before it, but achieving net zero on all electric delivery plans has, in fact, hardly started. About nine-tenths of our total energy use is yet to decarbonise. How can anyone possibly know at this stage whether these plans are sufficient? It cannot be done.

We have to work with the Climate Change Committee to show that they can be. Interestingly, the judge said in his judgment that the assessment involved

“an evaluative, predictive judgment as to what may transpire up to 14 years into the future, based on a range of complex social, economic, environmental and technological assessments, themselves involving judgments … operating in a polycentric context”.

I had to look that one up: it means “many centres” but I am not quite sure how it applies here.

My noble friend is absolutely right that we have go across a range of different sectors to deliver on our carbon reductions, so it makes good economic sense to do so, as well as complying with the law.

My Lords, this is the second time in less than two years that the Government’s plans have been found wanting. The court found that government policies were simply not justified in evidence and insufficient to deliver the required cuts on time. One of the most pressing gaps in net-zero policy exists in heating and building insulation. What measures are the Government taking to increase the uptake of the Great British Insulation Scheme, which has the dual benefits of lowering bills and helping us to meet our net-zero targets?

That is precisely an example of what the Government can do by putting their money where their mouth is. Some £6 billion has been put into that scheme up until 2025, and that will go a long way to tackling the greenhouse gas emissions from housing, which is one of the most difficult areas to tackle. Alongside that, the Government are working on building regulations and other measures to ensure that new and existing housing is compliant.

My Lords, the Government, and many Governments around the world, are pinning an enormous amount of their strategies on carbon capture and storage. There are currently just 41 CCS plants operating globally and they account for 0.1% of annual global emissions. When Exxon tried to use that as an argument last week in the United States, the technology was described as going “at a snail’s pace”. We have none in this country. We have four clusters that have been identified, but as yet no plans have been made; yet if you look at the net-zero strategy, carbon capture and storage is playing a really large part. Can the Minister update the House on where we are with this and whether he is actually confident?

This is a matter on which my colleague, my noble friend Lord Callanan, will have the facts at his fingertips. I will make sure that he or I contact the noble Baroness for the details of how carbon capture and storage will deliver and can be a major source of decarbonising our energy system.

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the amount of carbon we are emitting is less than 1% of the world’s emissions? Can he confirm that, when we come down to zero, there is a serious risk that the Chinese will still be burning vast quantities of coal and fossil fuels, and that world carbon levels will be rising?

My noble friend may be right—but why would we not want to do this? The net-zero economy grew by 9% last year, and there is £74 billion of gross value added to British businesses in the net-zero work being done right across the industrial sectors. So it makes sense to do this from an economic and a business point of view. Why would you not want to decarbonise your business or your home? That is why we have to work to hit these carbon budget targets, and there is an economic reason for doing so as well.

My Lords, I am glad to hear the Minister applauding the net-zero green industries, but how does he square that with the decision by the North Sea Transition Authority—possibly misnamed—to grant 30 companies the right to look for hydrocarbons on sites that had been earmarked for offshore wind?

I am not aware of those sites, but it is predicted that, even if all those licences are taken up, there will be a continuing reduction of 7% a year in oil and gas requirements for this country. That is one of the fastest reductions in fossil fuel requirements of any industrialised country.

My Lords, how will the High Court’s ruling that the carbon budget delivery plan is fatally flawed impact the UK’s next nationally determined contributions, due early next year?

The judgment did not actually criticise the measures. The plan has more than 300 measures and proposals for the Government to deliver. It was a process failure, if you like, to make sure that the Secretary of State had all the information at his fingertips in order to make that plan compliant. We will make sure that it is compliant. But the noble Baroness should have confidence that this Government are absolutely determined to deliver on this. The Liberal Democrats were part of a Government who saw some reductions that have halved the carbon emissions in this country. Are they losing their touch? They usually take credit for everything, but all they do at the moment is criticise.

From the start of the passage of this Bill through the House, I have been in full support of its stated aims and the improvements it will bring to animal welfare in the farming sector. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her support for this amendment both in Committee and in the House today, and for her support and advice in helping me table my first amendment to any Bill in the House. I also express my sincere thanks to the Minister and his extensive team—from his office and Defra—for making time to meet me last week to discuss these amendments.

I still believe that this small amendment has merit, as it would provide future protection not just to animals currently listed in the Bill, but to all animals—such as cattle, horses, sheep, goats and pigs—from this unnecessary trade and long, arduous journeys to other countries. I acknowledge that the Government listened to the results of the initial consultation and to animal charities when preparing the list of animals that had been traded abroad for fattening and slaughter prior to us leaving the EU. This amendment seeks to provide a safety net for all animals in future, if a trade in animals such as rabbits, alpacas and deer were to start due to an opportunity being provided to some to increase income because of changes in society or the environment. In that case, the Minister of State could quickly stop that unnecessary and cruel trade, for the benefit of animal welfare, by extending the list of relevant livestock to include the relevant animal.

I took on board from our meeting the Minister’s enthusiasm to get this Bill on to the statute book as quickly as possible. If the Government supported this amendment, it would delay the passage of the Bill. Given current pressure on parliamentary time, an unwanted consequence might be that time is not found for the Bill to be reconsidered in the other place, resulting in it being lost. That is something I do not wish to see, as the Bill will improve conditions for many animals. I also note concerns about more delegated powers being granted to Ministers of State, which I understand is something we prefer not to do too often. I beg to move.

My Lords, I am conscious that we are on Report and should not, therefore, repeat speeches we have previously made. We are all aware that the whole thrust of the Bill is to prevent live animals experiencing long and distressing journeys to Europe to be fattened or slaughtered. The Bill is short and specific as to the types of animals within its remit.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has raised again the issue of extending the list of relevant livestock. As the Bill stands, there can be no extension of species: only those listed in Clause 1(4) are covered by the Bill. I believe this is short-sighted. Those of us involved in the passage of the Bill, both in this Chamber and the other place, are not able to anticipate what other species might become attractive for export for fattening or slaughter in future. During the debates at the various stages, other species have been mentioned by noble Lords. It seems sensible and humane for additional species to be added in future without the need for separate legislation to ensure this happens.

The two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, give the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers the power to amend the list of “relevant livestock”. This is not an outlandish request but a very sensible and pragmatic way forward.

I am aware of the shortage of legislative time for the Bill to pass. I am also mindful that making amendments means that it must return to the Commons, which would delay it getting on to the statute book. However, I also have the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, from earlier stages of the debate, ringing in my ears. She said that if it is not in the Bill, it will not happen. I subscribe to that view.

I strongly support these two amendments and am looking for reassurance from the Minister that there will be some flexibility in future to ensure that, if necessary, other species can be included in the Bill.

My Lords, my name has already been mentioned in this regard and, like others who have spoken, I am fully in sympathy with and support of the thrust of the amendments before us. I worry, however, about what happens if we pass such an amendment and it has to go back to the Commons. I do not know how close we are to a general election, but it is all too easy for things to get lost, particularly when there are other major Bills—perhaps of more interest to others than to us—which might get much further ahead in the queue. Having waited 50 years for a Bill such as this to be passed, I am desperately anxious that it does not fall at the last hurdle. So, reluctantly, I would not wish to vote for this amendment, but my heart is there for it. It is simply a pragmatic reaction.

My Lords, in line with the noble Baroness’s comments, I have a lot of empathy with this amendment and indeed the later amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. If they had been incorporated originally, that would have been perfectly reasonable, but alas, they are not in the Bill. This is a very important Bill and to send it back to the Commons would, as has been mentioned, seriously risk losing it. As it stands, it is an important Bill for the improvement of animal welfare. We have had a lot of animal welfare legislation in the last 10 years, but this is one of the more important examples. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has waited 50 years for it, as she told us on her birthday at Second Reading. Regrettably, I say to my noble friend that I cannot support the amendment.

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on his first amendment. I, like the previous two speakers, would ideally have liked to see this in the Bill at the beginning. I have not been campaigning for as long as my noble friend Lady Fookes, but I have been campaigning to get this ban in place for a number of years—from the time when I sat on the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which I think started in the 1990s.

I am keen to make sure that there is no excuse not to get this on to the statute book. My noble friend Lady Fookes and I tried to get it into the Agriculture Bill a few years ago. We were told, “Please don’t do it”, but we promised to bring it back in another form, and here it is. I can only echo the words of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Trees: yes, ideally, it would be good to have this, but let us not hold up the Bill. Please let us ensure that it gets on to the statute book so that animals can no longer be exported for slaughter or fattening.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for tabling and introducing this amendment; I was very pleased to help him with it and to support it. Although, as other noble Lords have said, the priority is to get the Bill through and on to the statute book, and we do not want to hold it up in any way, it was disappointing that the Government did not pick up this amendment following Committee. It would be a sensible, practical amendment, just to future-proof the Bill. It is not as if the amendment specifies certain animals; it would leave it open to a future Secretary of State to determine whether a particular breed of animal—rabbits, for example, were mentioned—should be brought into the scope of the Bill in future.

Unfortunately, as it stands, there cannot be any extension of species. As the noble Baroness said, ideally, we would have supported enabling that to happen in the future. I do not think any of us would want to see other species suffering what can happen during long-distance live transports. There is plenty of evidence from the RSPCA and others of the harm this causes animals, and plenty of evidence showing that, when we think they are being transported a certain distance, they are then picked up and transported much further. So, that is disappointing.

Having said that, I agree that the priority is to get the Bill on to the statute book. We strongly support it and I pay tribute to those noble Lords—the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for example—who have been campaigning for years to get this done; it is something I have been campaigning for myself for many years. So, despite being disappointed that this amendment has not been picked up by the Government, and thanking the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, again for bringing it back for further discussion, I think that our priority is to support the Bill as it stands and to get it on to the statute book.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and to all other noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently and passionately on these efforts to ensure that this Bill brings to an end excessively long journeys for all species likely to be exported for slaughter and fattening. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are fully in agreement on that point. We wish to put a permanent end to this unnecessary trade for all animals, and I believe that the definition of “relevant livestock” in the Bill will achieve that aim.

I shall begin by summarising the process of evidence gathering and consultation that led to the drafting of the list of species included in the Bill. In 2018, the Government launched a call for evidence on live exports for slaughter and on animal welfare in transport, alongside a systematic review conducted by Scotland’s Rural College and the University of Edinburgh. The UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments then commissioned a report from the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, which drew on this evidence, as well as a range of expert opinion from stakeholder engagement. Building on these findings, in 2020 we consulted widely on the ban on live exports for livestock and horses and received over 11,000 responses. During the consultation, we received no evidence that a ban on any other species was necessary. We have also received no such evidence since.

In the 10 years prior to EU exit, the live export trade for slaughter and fattening mainly involved sheep and unweaned calves. There have also been exports of pigs and goats for fattening, although these have been at significantly lower levels. While there have been no recorded exports of horses for slaughter, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the trade does exist. The definition of “relevant livestock” therefore already covers the species required for the Bill to bring an end to the unnecessary live export trade for slaughter and fattening. We also discussed this amendment in the context of alpacas, llamas and deer. In the UK, there are extremely low numbers of these animals compared with the numbers of farmed animals already covered by the Bill. More importantly, we have no evidence of any of these species being exported for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU, or that there is any demand for a trade in live exports of these species from the EU or elsewhere.

I understand noble Lords’ desire to ensure that the ban will apply to all relevant animals, at present as well as in the future. When considering the data we have on the slaughter export trade, I continue to hold the view that the definition of “relevant livestock” in the Bill is comprehensive and the proposed power to extend it is not required. The Government wish to see the unnecessary slaughter and fattening trade brought to a conclusive end at the earliest opportunity. I am sure this desire is shared by those here today and all those who support the Bill outside Parliament. Today, we have the chance to act swiftly and decisively to bring the end of this trade one step closer, and I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for your support and your constructive challenge to my amendment and to the Minister for his detailed explanation. Given my own desire as well for the speedy passage of the Bill into law for the benefit of animal welfare in general, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, following the debate in Committee and the Minister’s comments, I have retabled my amendment. The NFU, which represents the farming community, is concerned that the import of both live animals and carcasses of animals that have not been raised to the same welfare standards as pertained in the UK will undercut our own industrious farmers.

The issue of cheaper imports of live animals and carcasses for the food industry has been of constant concern to British farmers since the country voted to leave the EU. The benefit from the relaxation of rules and regulations promised as a result of Brexit has failed to materialise, and farmers are leaving their profession at an alarming rate. The quest for cheaper food at any cost is not a mantra that we should be signing up to as a country. Farming is not a job where you clock on at 8.30 am and clock off at 5.30 pm; it is a way of life, a vocation that involves a love of the land and growing crops and vegetables, and rearing quality livestock to high welfare standards to produce meat that consumers want to buy. The British public want to support our farmers. They do not want to see them undercut, disadvantaged and forced out of business by substandard imports.

The border control regime introduced recently is having an adverse effect on the food and farming communities. In my amendment, I ask that, six months after the Bill’s implementation, a review is undertaken to assess the effect of the measures in the Bill on our farming community. Coupled with the changes made with the rolling out of ELMS and the appalling weather we have suffered, there has been a detrimental impact on farmers. The Bill, which is so important for animal welfare and our country’s reputation for high standards for animal welfare, could be the last straw for many farmers. I urge the Government to agree to this amendment so that a review of the real state of the farming community can be carried out and action taken, if needed, to help support this vital element of our economy and landscape. I beg to move.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, on bringing forward this amendment. While I will not support it at a vote, for reasons that were rehearsed in the previous debate, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look carefully at having a review of the impact on farming, for a number of reasons.

First, the noble Baroness referred to the importance of farming to rural areas and indeed the country as a whole. According to the figures prepared by the NFU for Second Reading, the United Kingdom is one of the largest livestock producers in Europe, with an industry that is worth £14.7 billion to the economy each year. Compared to the export of fresh and frozen meat, live export from GB is a small, but important, component of the sector. In 2020, the UK exported a total of 751 million live animals. As we know, now that there are effectively no border control posts in the EU, that trade is effectively not happening anymore.

In the letter that my noble friend very kindly sent to us following Second Reading, he states:

“The final destination for the vast majority of livestock exported for slaughter from Northern Ireland is the Republic of Ireland with around 1,800 cattle, 13,200 pigs and 352,000 sheep moved directly to slaughter in 2023”.

He went on:

“By comparison, only 11,000 sheep were exported for slaughter from Northern Ireland to continental Europe”.

He then states:

“There were no movements of livestock from Northern Ireland for slaughter or fattening to destinations beyond other parts of the UK and Europe”.

I take this opportunity to press my noble friend for any reassurance he can give the House that this is indeed the case. We debated this in Committee, and it was also debated in the other place. I am not convinced that the loophole does not remain. There is a possibility for even longer journeys than those that went through the channel ports, and that the category of animal covered by the Bill may be exported from the Republic of Ireland to the rest of the European Union.

My noble friend has always replied to questions from me and others about the reasons why there are no border control posts on continental Europe at this time. He quite rightly states that it is a matter of commercial interest for those ports. Surely my noble friend will agree that it is a matter of great commercial interest for those livestock producers who have spent generations investing heavily in the genetics of the breeding stock of the United Kingdom that, at this point, there is no possibility of exporting breeding stock for breeding purposes. I would like an assurance from my noble friend that this will resume at the earliest possible opportunity.

I would like to update the House on a briefing I have had from the NFU in this regard. This was at an earlier stage; there may have been further developments since then. The NFU states that there is a genuine will to establish a reciprocal route between Harwich and Hook of Holland. The Dutch port authorities, the NVWA, Stena Line and a commercial operator all want to press ahead. The NFU had heard that there was going to be a change in EU regulation that would allow an existing equine facility to be licensed and approved for ungulates, subject to the appropriate scheduling and protocols: full licensing and disinfection of the facility. I looked this up, and ungulates are mammals on the hoof, with which many noble Lords will be familiar.

The existing equine border control post in Hook of Holland has five stables and could accommodate consignments of about 10 cattle, 25 sheep or 25 pigs. If dual use is not possible, there is an unused area adjacent to the office area of the border control post that could be retrofitted with penning and a small handling system. If this was allowed to proceed, it would carry more weight to a modest border control post development at Harwich. I declare my interest in that I was the MEP for Harwich for 10 years, and I maintain an interest in the development of the port on a purely personal basis.

If that is the case, will my noble friend the Minister concede that it is now a matter of urgency to proceed with the creation of a border control post at Hook of Holland, where equine facilities could be converted in very short order? Will he use his and Defra’s good offices and lend their weight to such a proposal? I personally believe that it is unacceptable that this trade is not going on at the moment. It is clearly not a Brexit dividend and is really harming livestock production in this country. At Second Reading, the National Sheep Association informed us that, because of the lack of a border control post in the EU, most of the trade has simply not happened since we left the European Union. Therefore, the Bill is not necessary because it is not happening and it will not happen any time soon.

I conclude by pressing my noble friend on the figures and saying why I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, is right to press for this amendment. The figures for food and live animals are simply not clear. On a cursory glance of the UK trade figures from the Office for National Statistics, we are told that currently EU imports to the UK are £3.2 billion—which means the EU remains the largest exporter to the UK —and imports from non-EU countries are £1.3 billion. I am sure the House will appreciate that it is not clear in the figures what are live imports and exports, and what are clean or dressed pig carcasses or other imports. Those figures could be more greatly clarified than is currently the case. It would be very helpful if my noble friend was able to share that information today. If not, it would be enormously interesting if he could write to us.

Finally, it is a note of enormous regret that, while we have banned—for very good reasons—battery cage egg and poultry production in this country, we are now harming our own producers by importing eggs and poultry from third countries to the tune of billions. That is a complete own goal, and I hope that the Government will address it at the earliest opportunity.

My Lords, I apologise that this is the first time I have taken part in the debates on the Bill. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb took part in earlier stages, but she is otherwise occupied today so we are tag-teaming.

I sympathise with the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady McIntosh, on the circumstances in which our farmers find themselves. They have set up their businesses according to the policies and frameworks provided by successive Governments, and it is now clear that those will have to change radically because of the climate emergency and food security issues, et cetera. When the Government take steps, it is important that we see and understand what the impacts will be on individual farmers.

I will speak to this amendment just to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, one question and to put on the record something that I think is important. In the debate on the previous group, we heard from all sides of your Lordships’ House that people have been campaigning for decades for the impact of this Bill to be delivered, including the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes—credit to her—and many others. It is important that we put on the record and make clear that the purpose of this review would not be to reverse the action of the Bill or to say that we have to let live exports happen again because of the Bill’s impact.

This is a situation where the UK is, without a doubt, providing leadership. There are still horrendous things happening with live livestock exports in the EU. A report last year showed that there had been

“180,000 consignments of EU cattle, pigs, sheep and other species over a 19 month period”.

Many of them suffered from

“overcrowding, exhaustion, dehydration and stress”.

There is also the subject of the biosecurity risks of moving live animals in such a manner, which I have often discussed with the Minister. To put it on the record in Hansard, can the noble Baroness confirm that there is no intention in your Lordships’ House to reverse the direction of the Bill?

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for introducing her Amendment 2. It seems to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion to review the impact on farming, for the reasons that she introduced and other noble Lords mentioned, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Our farmers have had a pretty tough time over the last few years. There have been a lot of changes, and this is another change—one that we strongly support. We need to ensure that our farmers are always steered and supported through any major change to the way their businesses have to operate.

An important point has been made about farmers’ concerns about being undercut by cheap imports, including the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about poultry in particular. It is very expensive for our farmers to bring in the new systems on animal welfare that we expect them to. It is good that they do so and that we farm to particularly high animal welfare standards in this country, but we should not allow the sale of produce in this country that does not meet those same standards. When we do our trade deals, we need to be really careful about what we are opening a door to. We should always first support our own farmers and the standards that we need to meet in this country.

Some concerns were also raised about border controls and the cost to farmers and producers of the new controls that are coming in. I will not go into great detail about that, as other noble Lords have talked about it and we had a fairly extensive debate on it in this House— I cannot remember whether it was last week or the week before; time flies when you are having fun. Any impact of the border controls, combined with changes in how farmers are expected to manage, transport and export their produce, needs to be considered as a whole. That seems to be a very sensible approach.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also made the important point that any review must take into account what the potential outcomes of that review could be. Clearly, the last thing any of us would want to see would be any review resulting in the starting up of live exports. I say that with the assumption that the Minister is not going to stand up and say that he will accept the noble Baroness’s amendment. However, it is generally the case that new legislation does get reviewed at some point—so, again, it is important that, once this is on the statute, it does not get unpicked at any stage.

Although we very much support the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, is making here and the points made by other noble Lords during this debate, as previously, we would not want to slow the passage of the Bill in any way. So, while it is important that we have discussions and debates around this, we would not want to hold the Bill up at all.

I just want to make one very final point. I was absolutely delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talk about ungulates. Many years ago, in a previous life, when I was a proofreader, I proofread a book called The Biology and Management of Mountain Ungulates—and I never thought I would get the opportunity to say that in this House.

My Lords, I am not even going to try.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and to other noble Baronesses who have spoken and continue to speak towards the efforts to ensure that all impacts of the Bill on farming have been fully considered.

I will start by making three main points. First, I reassure the noble Baroness that we have already considered the impacts of this policy on British farmers and businesses and we expect the impact to be minimal, as outlined in our impact assessment, published in July 2021. The estimated direct cost to businesses of ending live exports for slaughter and fattening is around £5,200,000 across the 10-year appraisal period, or around £500,000 per year. It is also highly likely that the impact will have further decreased since then, as there have been no recorded live exports for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to continental Europe since this assessment was published.

Secondly, when we consulted, responses indicated that some businesses which can no longer export live animals for slaughter will instead sell their live animals domestically and export the carcass or final meat products instead. We do not anticipate any issue with domestic slaughterhouse capacity being able to absorb any animals that might otherwise have been exported. In 2020, we exported from Great Britain around 6,300 sheep to the EU for slaughter and about 38,000 for fattening. These slaughter exports accounted for around 0.02% of all livestock slaughtered in the UK in 2020 and so represented a very small proportion of the total number of animals processed in the UK every year. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness.

Thirdly, in 2020 we exported approximately 480,000 tonnes of beef, veal, lamb, mutton, pork, bacon and ham from the UK, worth an estimated £1.4 billion in real terms. Clearly, this trade is much more significant to the farming industry in Great Britain than the live export trade.

I also reassure noble Lords that there are not, and never have been, significant imports for slaughter or fattening into Great Britain, and there is no established import trade for this purpose that in any way constitutes a comparable trade to the previous live export trade. According to Animal and Plant Health Agency data on imports to Great Britain from the Republic of Ireland, since the beginning of 2021 around 1,800 pigs and 500 cattle have been imported for fattening and around 900 cattle imported for slaughter. The total number of livestock imports into Great Britain for fattening and slaughter from other EU countries is smaller still, in the tens of animals or less over the same period. In stark contrast, 44,500 sheep were exported for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU in 2020.

Further to this, the very low numbers of livestock imported into Great Britain all come from EU member states, primarily the Republic of Ireland. This means that animals are reared in conditions that are comparable to the animal welfare standards that apply in Great Britain, and we do not foresee any reason why this would change.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised a number of issues—I will cover one or two of those. The first is the issue of Northern Ireland being used as a loophole by transporters. The requirements when transporting livestock to Northern Ireland would make any attempt to export livestock in this way uneconomic. Livestock transported for slaughter from Great Britain to Northern Ireland must go directly to the slaughterhouse: it is an offence to move the animals anywhere else. On arrival at the slaughterhouse, the animals and accompanying health certificates must be presented to an officer of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Livestock exported for any other purpose must remain at the place of destination for a minimum of 30 days and be retagged to comply with animal identification requirements. The Bill will make it an offence for anyone to send, or attempt to send, livestock from Great Britain to anywhere outside the UK and Crown dependencies.

The noble Baroness also raised the issue of border control posts, particularly those going into Europe. The Government would like to see exports for breeding resume, but this is a commercial issue. We remain sympathetic to the concerns of the businesses involved and the department has been active in doing what it can to support a satisfactory outcome. Defra officials continue to track progress on this issue and meet regularly with the National Farmers’ Union, which represents the wider industry. It is disappointing that, despite all efforts, the companies that are seeking to identify an appropriate solution have not been successful in securing a border control post to serve their preferred routes. I did pick up on the noble Baroness’s point about Harwich to the Hook of Holland, and perhaps we can take that as a separate issue outside today’s business.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised the issue of trade deals and welfare standards around that. On low-welfare imports, the UK Government were elected on a manifesto commitment that, in all our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high animal welfare and food standards. We will stand firm in trade negotiations to make sure that any new trade deals live up to the values of farmers and consumers across the United Kingdom and will maintain our high standards as part of any future free trade agreements.

Products imported into the UK must continue to comply with our existing import requirements. It has always been the case that products produced to different environmental and animal welfare standards can be placed on the UK market if they comply with these requirements, and this includes products from the EU and other long-standing trading partners. A range of government departments, agencies and bodies continue to ensure that these standards are being met, including the Food Standards Agency, Food Standards Scotland, the Animal and Plant Health Agency, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Health and Safety Executive.

I do not disagree at all with what my noble friend is saying, but the Government must see that we are harming our own producers in the same way that we did when we had the unilateral ban on sow stalls and tethers. Consumers need a label to let them know in this regard.

I thank my noble friend for her point, and perhaps I can clear that up with her later on.

In conclusion, this Bill will put a permanent end to a trade which, at its height in the 1990s, affected over 2 million animals a year; more recently it has impacted much smaller numbers. I can safely say there will be a minimal impact on farming in Great Britain and I think we all agree it is better that we encourage exports on the hook, rather than on the hoof.

It is an important point, and one of which we should be proud, that this Bill will reinforce our farming industry’s position as a world leader on animal welfare, boosting the value of British meat and helping to grow the economy. Given that the impact of the Bill on farming in Great Britain is outlined clearly in our impact assessment, I continue respectfully to hold the view that it is not necessary to add this further requirement to it. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses who have taken part in this short debate. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that were there a review of the impact of this Bill on the farming community, it would not be my wish that the exportation of live animals for slaughter or fattening should recommence—absolutely not. I am committed to the fact that the Bill will stop that happening; it is a revolting practice and causes a lot of animal suffering. I am absolutely clear about that.

My concern is about the impact of the continuing changes that are going on around farmers and their cumulative effect on them. I thank the Minister for his response and his reassurances. I sincerely hope that he is right that the impact on farmers will be minimal. Farmers are continually undermined on all fronts, in some cases by the import of cheaper produce that is not produced to the same standard as our own British farmers’ produce—the Minister referred to this.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for raising the issue of labelling. I would be grateful if the Minister could copy me into whatever response he gives to her, because it is important that when the consumer buys something they know whether or not it is from an animal that has been reared to the same standards as our own. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:

“I would like to update the House on a data incident involving activity by a malign actor. In recent days, the Ministry of Defence has identified indications that a malign actor gained access to part of the Armed Forces payment network. That is an external system, completely separate from the Ministry of Defence’s core network, and it is not connected to the main military human resources system. The House will wish to note that it is operated by a contractor, and there is evidence of potential failings by it, which may have made it easier for the malign actor to gain entry. A specialist security review of the contractor and its operations is under way, and appropriate steps will be taken.

The contractor-operated system in question holds personal data of regular and reserve personnel and some recently retired veterans. That includes names and bank details, and—in a smaller number of cases—addresses. In response to the incident, we have undertaken significant and immediate action, enacting a multipoint response plan to support and protect our people. I would like to provide the House with details of this eight-point plan.

First, we immediately took the system offline. That has secured it against similar future threats. Secondly, we have launched a full investigation, drawing on Cabinet Office support and specialist external expertise to examine the potential failings of the contractor and to minimise the risk of similar incidents.

Thirdly, while our initial investigations have found no evidence that any data has been removed, as a precaution we have today alerted those service personnel affected through the chain of command. In addition, we are also sending out letters to a small number of veterans who have retired and who may have been affected as an additional precaution. The House will wish to note that the vast majority of the UK veterans community is, however, unaffected.

Fourthly, specialist advice and guidance on data security has been shared and is available on GOV.UK. Fifthly, we have additionally set up a helpline to support individuals. The number for the helpline is 01249 596665, and it is available now. Sixthly, we are providing a commercial personal data protection service for all service personnel. That facility will constantly monitor each individual’s personal data and notify them if there are any irregularities. Even though we do not believe that their information has been stolen, we intend to do that in order to bring further peace of mind.

Seventhly, welfare and financial advice is available, where needed, through each individual’s chain of command. Eighthly, on becoming aware of the incident, the MoD stopped the processing of all payments and isolated the system. I want to provide further detail on that step. We are making changes to the system to ensure that it is secure before recommencing payments through it. I confirm that in the meantime all April salaries have been paid. Some service personnel will have experienced a slight delay in receiving some expense payments; however, we expect that to be fully resolved today, with the money in their accounts by Friday. Furthermore, I confirm that we are ensuring that all high-value payments remain unaffected. For example, all outstanding Forces Help to Buy and terminal benefits payments have been facilitated by alternative secure transfer. As mentioned, salary payments and pensions for veterans have not been affected, and we do not expect them to be.

For reasons of national security, we cannot release further details of the suspected cyberactivity behind the incident. However, I can confirm to the House that we have indications that this was the suspected work of a malign actor, and we cannot rule out state involvement. The incident is further proof that the UK is facing rising and evolving threats. As I set out in my Lancaster House speech in January, the world is, I am afraid, becoming somewhat more dangerous. Last month, the Government therefore announced an increase in defence spending to meet those new threats, reaching 2.5% of GDP by the end of the decade.

Following this incident, I can announce today that although this incident is entirely unrelated to our own MoD networks, we are also reviewing all personnel data networks to ensure that our people’s data is secure. This was the work of a malign actor who compromised a contractor-run network entirely separate from the MoD core system. However, as I have said, we cannot at this stage rule out state involvement from elsewhere. This eight-point plan outlines the immediate and significant action we are taking to protect our most precious resource: our people. Even though this occurred on a contractor’s system, with a malign actor involved—and we cannot rule out foreign state involvement —I want to apologise to the men and women affected. It should not have happened, and this eight-point plan seeks to ensure that it is put right and cannot happen again. I commend the Statement to the House”.

My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my interest set out in the register as a serving Army reservist.

My Lords, I thank the Government for the opportunity to discuss this Statement again today and the noble Lord for repeating it. He will know that on these matters we are united with the Government. We cannot and must not stand for any such attacks. With the number and level of such threats increasing, we have to do all we can to make our country secure at home and strong abroad, so the news of this grave security and data breach is of real concern to us all. It is particularly alarming given that this is yet another example of an MoD data breach. It is particularly concerning as it involves our Armed Forces personnel past and present.

In the last five years, there has been a threefold increase in MoD data breaches, with 35 separate breaches reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office. Such threats—from state activity and other malign actors—are increasing across government, including attacks on prime contractors and subcontractors, as in this shocking case. Do they not present a soft underbelly to our national security?

Can the noble Lord explain when this breach took place? When did Ministers become aware of it? Reports say that these attacks took place weeks ago, but that Ministers were informed only days ago. Is that the case, or are the reports simply wrong? In these instances, who is responsible for alerting whom, how quickly, and when? Who monitors these contracts? Why did it take this appalling incident to alert officials, as the Defence Secretary said in the other place, to the potential failings of the company now named SSCL? What other potential problems are there? What other government departmental contracts are run by SSCL—or indeed by others—which could also be impacted by this breach? This itself would represent a very real threat to national security. Does any review being undertaken by the Government include all these other prime contracts and subcontracts, stretching across government?

The noble Lord and the Government say that this constraint is now offline, but I am unclear on some of the facts. Can the Minister confirm that all salaries and expenses will be paid by this Friday? Can he confirm how many service personnel, past and present, have been or may have been affected by this breach? In the other place, a figure of up to 272,000 was mentioned. How near to that figure will it be? The Government were unclear about that. What is the Government’s latest estimate of the number of Armed Forces personnel, past and present, who will be affected?

The Minister in the other place went to great lengths to say that a malign actor was responsible for the breach, but he would go no further. Why not? Can the noble Lord explain how it was briefed all over the media that sources believed it was China? Of course, evidence is needed to confirm that, but how did that occur? Has the noble Lord anything further to say about that? When will he be in a position to update us on the outcome of the Government’s own inquiries? Can he also explain how this data breach appeared in the media—presumably through a leak—meaning that Armed Forces personnel found out what had happened through the media, rather than in the proper way? How did all this happen?

This is exceptionally serious. In addition to reassuring our Armed Forces personnel, who, frankly, deserve better, our country, too, needs reassurance. The MoD, the guardian of the nation, is threatened, along with others, and its defences appear to have been breached. Time and again, we also see security undermined in other areas of government. We all hope that the eight- point plan will reassure our personnel, and their welfare must be our top priority. The Government have been warned time and again—not least by recent reports from the Intelligence and Security Committee, for example —about threats from China and others. Why have the Government not taken more urgent action? They need to adopt a more cross-cutting, far-reaching, urgent approach to cybersecurity. We all support the security of our country. We all want our country to be safe. Does this further example of a cyberattack not represent yet another wake-up call to the Government?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that His Majesty’s Government have many questions to answer. I thank the Minister for taking the hospital pass and repeating the Statement to the House this afternoon.

The wording of the Statement is interesting. The Ministry of Defence has identified indications that a malign actor gained access. Did it identify these indications only after the leak to the media, or was it aware of this and trying to deal with matters behind the scenes? It would be helpful to understand whether the MoD has a handle on the data breach.

As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has pointed out, there are questions about prime contractors and subcontractors, and the eight-point plan raises some concerns about what is being asked of government departments and our contractors. Point four states:

“specialist advice and guidance on data security has been shared”

and is available now on GOV.UK. This is part of the eight-point plan—after the horse has bolted. Why on earth was this advice not available before the data breach? It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to refer the other place back to his Lancaster House speech and remind us that the world is a “more dangerous” place. We know the world is a dangerous place. We know that there are cybersecurity dangers, and if the MoD and its contractors cannot ensure that we are safe and secure from data breaches, who can? Can the average citizen of the United Kingdom feel secure if the MoD is not able to deal with its own cybersecurity? Why can it not? To say that this is a contractor and therefore separate from the MoD’s HR supply is not necessarily adequate, either. Are the requirements for our prime contractors and subcontractors adequate?

A question asked in the other place, and which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has also touched on this afternoon, is: which other government departments are using Shared Services Connected Ltd and to what extent should we be concerned? My understanding is that the Home Office, the MoJ and possibly the Cabinet Office are also part of these contracts, but the Secretary of State did not appear to be able to answer the question in the other place. I hope, with the additional 24 hours, that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, may be able to give us some answers to this question.

Point six of the eight-point plan says that His Majesty’s Government are now

“providing a commercial personal data protection service for all service personnel”.

Why is it a commercial personal data protection service? Would it not now be appropriate to learn the lessons of outsourcing and think about whether we should provide our own HR and payroll? Would it not be appropriate for His Majesty’s Government to rethink that and for personnel data to be ensured by His Majesty’s Government and not outsourced?

I have two final points to make in my last 33 seconds. Given the Border Force issues yesterday, do we suspect that the same malign actors who hacked the data impeded people entering our country? Are other malign actors damaging UK infrastructure? Is that a further security concern? My final point concerns the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. During questions on the response of Israel and its iron dome a couple of weeks ago, he asked whether, if London were faced with a similar issue, we would be able to defend ourselves. Should we not be concerned that, if the MoD cannot defend its personnel against hackers and malign actors, maybe our country is not as secure as it should be?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for the points which they raise and for their ongoing support, and that of their Benches in this House, for the Armed Forces. Our people are our strongest asset and the department is committed to taking appropriate action to investigate this matter thoroughly, in terms of both the contractor and the malign actor, and to ensuring that this does not happen again.

Since yesterday, I can confirm that 100% of the backlog of travel and expenses claims held up by the data compromise have now been paid and I can give assurance, on the advice of departmental officials, that the May pay run will be unaffected. I can also confirm, further to the Statement, that public guidance for affected personnel is now live. This can be found on the GOV.UK website by searching for “pay network compromise”.

On the issue of the contractor, as the Defence Secretary confirmed in the other place, a full security review of the contractor’s operations is under way and appropriate steps will be taken if it is found to have been negligent or in dereliction of its duties under contract. This is being co-ordinated with cross-government partners as the contractor, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness indicated, does not work solely for defence. The contractor, SSCL, holds 12 contracts across nine government departments. The incident in question, however, is isolated to defence and there is currently no evidence of any risk to any other government services provided by the company.

As the Defence Secretary stated yesterday on several occasions, it is true to say that a malign actor is involved and it is possible that it is attached to a country, or a group based in a country. But I would ask that we refrain from turning media speculation into fact before the investigation has had a chance to conclude its important work. The Ministry of Defence is not trying to avoid giving the House this information; we need to be certain before we are able to do so. The Defence Secretary committed in the other place to return when he has further information which can be disclosed, if it is in our country’s interests to do so.

On the subject of Border Force e-gates, my information is that this was a network system failure and not in any way connected to this data breach. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised ongoing cybersecurity. As I hope the Statement and my follow-up remarks attest to, this is something we take incredibly seriously. On a personal level, cybersecurity threats involving bribery, fraud and corruption are all part of our ongoing soldier training, which has to be done individually and is renewed each year.

The noble Lord asked how many personnel may be affected. I am afraid I can add no further clarity, except to say that we believe that approximately 272,000 personnel may have been affected. Investigations continue to refine this number. We monitor all defence contracts and, as I say, this is an ongoing investigation. I would not want to say anything which could impede it in any way.

My Lords, perhaps I should start by saying that I may have an active interest as a five-star retired serving officer. Having said that, not much has been said so far about what precisely veterans, who will obviously read their newspapers and be concerned, should be concerned about. Is it possible to give any more indication of any risks that they may have to their bank accounts, or elsewhere, which are not protected by the normal arrangements made between an individual and his or her bank?

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. The information that was compromised in this was names, bank details and, in some cases, addresses. We are working at speed, as part of the investigation, to ascertain exactly whose information and what information have been breached, and to contact them through all methods of communication that we have on file for them. It will not be the case that we use just one avenue; we will be doing everything we can to contact them in the most expedient way possible.

My Lords, following the declaration of interest from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, I fear that I should also declare an interest as a lowly two-star officer who has definitely been affected by this data breach—as indeed has the Minister, although he may not have said that.

I commend the Government’s response. I awoke this morning to a very comprehensive email in my MoD inbox explaining exactly what had happened and what I should do about it. I would, however, like to make one point following what the noble Baroness said. When I accessed the commercial data protection service, the first thing it asked me to do was to submit all my bank account details from my various bank accounts. The Minister will understand that I was slightly reluctant to do that in the circumstances.

My serious question is one that is very much doing the rounds among the Armed Services. If, while no data appears to have been harvested, subsequently data is harvested and we see money removed from bank accounts, where will the liability fall?

My noble friend—“General”, “Sir”—raised a number of very important points. He is, as always, ahead of me. In preparing for this Statement, I have not yet gone through my notifications to see what steps I should be taking next.

This is a very serious issue and that is why we have acted in the way we have. We take data responsibility extremely seriously. That is why, as soon as we became aware of the incident, we stopped the processing of all payments and isolated the network, enabling us to review what happened. As I said in the follow-up to the Statement, pay runs have been unaffected, including monthly salaries and larger payments. We understand that this is a distressing time for service personnel. I would like to reassure them and all noble Lords that we are dealing with this matter with the utmost seriousness and haste.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement. In the remark he just made, he illustrated the real dangers presented to military personnel with the release of addresses into the hands of a hostile state—a malign actor, as we have been told—which undoubtedly will compromise the safety of military personnel, past and present. It also, of course, endangers national security and is of a piece with the espionage and other cybercrimes to which some of us, even here in Parliament, have been subjected.

Can the Minister tell us whether, in this instance, the private contractor entrusted with this data will be brought before the Intelligence and Security Committee to explain exactly what happened? This should not simply be subject to an internal review. How many other private contractors currently hold Ministry of Defence data? If and when this hack is attributed to the People’s Republic of China, as was briefed by the Government yesterday morning, will the state entities responsible be sanctioned and not merely individual hackers? Are we in touch with our Five Eyes allies to co-ordinate a comprehensive and effective response safeguarding our national interest and, in this instance, our service personnel?

The noble Lord raised a number of very important points. It is difficult to comment on them because of the ongoing investigation and the sensitivity around it. In respect of his request that the supplier is brought before the committee, that is certainly a reasonable suggestion that I will take back to the department.

My Lords, the MoD has in place, and regularly refreshes, robust resilience plans in case any of its systems are compromised or prejudiced by an adverse attack. Although this incident relates to systems operated by a primary contractor and not the MoD, I ask my noble friend whether primary contractors are required to observe the same high standards of preparedness as the MoD. Did this particular contractor comply with these requirements?

My noble friend raises a very good point. I do not know the vetting process they went through, so I will have to go back to the department, find out and write to her. My hope is very much that they are subject, as all suppliers and third-party contractors should be, to the highest standards of vetting.

My Lords, I do not know whether to declare an interest—I have a daughter in the reserves, who may or may not be affected —but I do want to declare that I am a very proud board member of the British Library, which suffered a severe cyberattack at the end of October last year. We are still, in the British Library, going through the forensics to discover how and why this happened and what has been affected. Building back takes time. We have found the support and guidance of the National Cyber Security Centre extremely helpful. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether the National Cyber Security Centre will be involved with the contractor to the MoD? Will there be some sort of overview, because today it is the MoD, in October it was the British Library, and other organisations have recently been subject to severe cyberattacks? What is the strategic overview and the learning that we can take from these incidents?

I thank my noble friend. I cannot comment on the specifics of the investigation and which authorities are being co-ordinated, but this is going to be an extremely thorough and robust investigation. The Government are absolutely alive to the threats posed by malign actors of all kinds, be they terror, criminal or state-sponsored. That is exactly why, given the deteriorating security environment, we have set out that increase in defence spending to 2.5% by 2030. I assure the House and my noble friend that the uplift in spending includes cyber defence, which is of critical importance.

My Lords, the Minister mentioned that a number of payments to the people affected have been delayed. When that happens, it can mean that those people affected themselves miss payments for credit cards, rent, mortgages et cetera, which can cause penalties to be accrued and can impact people’s credit ratings. What are the Government and the MoD doing to make sure that soldiers and others are put back into the position they should be in?

My Lords, I confirm again that all pay runs of large and small transactions are up to date. However, I totally take on board the noble Lord’s point that missed or late payments can incur fees. The last thing we want is our service personnel getting into further difficulty or distress because of this incident. We do not think that anyone will be affected by this, but—I say this categorically—if they do incur any additional costs or miscellaneous expenses as a result of any late payment, they should contact their chain of command with proof of this, and it will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis to recompense them.

My Lords, earlier this year a UK council reported that it was facing 10,000 cyberattacks per day. Unfortunately, such events are only going to increase across the board. What preventive measures will the Ministry of Defence take going forward to protect us from potential data theft in situations where other external contractors hold similar sensitive data?

Like those of many large organisations, MoD systems are targeted by malicious actors. That threat is only growing and is one that we are very alive to. The MoD monitors the latest information with regard to vulnerabilities and issues advice, guidance and direction. The MoD and suppliers organise patches to address any relevant vulnerabilities. We do not stop there: if we judge that there is a threat to the security and independence of the UK’s critical national infra- structure, we will act accordingly.

My Lords, the shock here is not that the attack was mounted—“spies are gonna spy”—but that it got as far as it did. It is worth checking the point first made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about subcontractors being a particular point of vulnerability in the MoD. But my question is about the alliance. The United Kingdom is of course part of an alliance, and our allies will be following this data breach along with service personnel in the UK, so is the MoD keeping allies abreast of what has happened and the results of the investigation?

As the noble Lord will be aware, we are in constant and regular dialogue with our allies and partners on a range of matters.

My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches about short-term losses if, for example, a pay run is delayed, what contingency do the Government have if there are any long-term losses as a result of bank accounts being frozen, or indeed anything more severe than that happening?

My noble friend raises an important point. We do not foresee this being an issue at this stage. However, the advice would be exactly the same for a sum small or large: it is to notify your chain of command immediately, and appropriate action will be taken on a case-by-case basis.

That this House agrees with the Commons in their Amendment 1.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1 to 11. I thank colleagues for their previous engagement and constructive approach to the Bill during its passage through this House. The excellent review carried out by your Lordships was reflected in its broad acceptance in the other place. As a result, the Government were required to make only minimal amendments, including minor technical amendments.

I begin with Amendment 1. Following constructive discussions with the Welsh Government, we tabled a clarificatory amendment to Clause 40 to include the Welsh Ministers as an authority that may be required to report on incidents within Wales. This follows clarification that Welsh Ministers are a traffic authority for the purposes of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and a highway authority for the purposes of the Highways Act 1980. In our discussions with the Welsh Government, they confirmed that they would like to see the Clause 93 powers to digitise traffic regulation orders extended to Welsh Ministers. Previously, this was an England-only measure. Amendments 5 to 8 make the necessary changes to enable this.

In various places, the Bill allows the Secretary of State or the devolved Administrations to delegate or confer functions on traffic commissioners. The remaining amendments make minor and technical changes to correct drafting errors in these areas. Amendments 2 and 10 ensure that traffic commissioners are able to recover their costs through fees made payable under the Bill when carrying out functions that may be conferred on them under operator licensing regulations. These amendments correct a straightforward drafting omission; the Bill was always intended to function in this way. Indeed, such provisions are already included in relation to the other instances where functions are conferred on traffic commissioners.

Amendments 3, 4 and 11 clarify that these receipts are deposited into the correct consolidated fund, depending on the nature of the funds. The mechanism aligns with that used for the direction of other fee receipts and is in line with previous legislation and current practice. These amendments do not allow for any new taxation; they are included to make sure that fees can be recovered, no matter who is carrying out the function, and to ensure that those fees get paid into the right place. I hope that that reassures my noble friend Lord Borwick, who wrote to me yesterday on this specific point.

These amendments also make provision so that, if the devolved Administrations were to delegate the power to receive penalties to the traffic commissioners, the receipts relating to those penalties would go the appropriate devolved consolidated fund. My officials have engaged with the devolved Administrations, who have agreed that this matter does not require a legislative consent Motion. I beg to move.

My Lords, this Bill is a technical framework, with the detail largely to follow in regulations. We on these Benches have been generally supportive throughout the passage of the Bill and will remain closely interested as the detail is fleshed out in secondary legislation. We welcome the Commons amendments as improvements—in particular to reflect the responsibilities of the devolved Administrations. In the case of Amendments 5 to 8, the Government have, on this occasion, listened to the representations from the Welsh Government to extend the powers in Clause 93 to Welsh Ministers. The Bill applies to the whole of the UK, parts of which will—indeed, already do—have slightly different approaches to traffic regulation. It is therefore important to ensure that the relevant Ministers have the right powers.

On other matters, we are disappointed that some of the issues raised when the Bill was passing through this House were not agreed in the Commons amendments either. A number of amendments were tabled to the Bill about the accessibility of public transport for disabled people, but none of these proposals was accepted by the Government. It is nevertheless still crucial that disabled people are involved in the developments from this legislation to make sure that it makes transport more accessible, not less.

Similarly, Wera Hobhouse MP continued to raise the concerns that we voiced around the protection of personal data but, sadly, those concerns were dismissed by the Minister in the other place. Thus we will be particularly keen to see how the legislation addresses all the concerns that we have raised throughout the passage of the Bill and how it ensures that the rollout of autonomous vehicles will be both inclusive and innovative. I will also watch with interest how the balance between open-source and IP rights plays out.

My Lords, from our Benches we are very pleased that the Bill was returned to this House by the Commons in reasonably good shape. It is an important Bill, setting a framework for future innovation and enterprise in a key sector. We basically agreed in the House on this framework. We, for our part, would have preferred a more inclusive approach, with some kind of council that regularly brought together all concerned interests to create a consensus on how the technology should be developed. However, we were very pleased that the Minister listened to our concerns on the safety standard and, indeed, accepted them.

On the Commons amendments, I make two small points, neither of which affects our view that the Bill should now go ahead. First, it is obviously a good idea that there is a regulatory power for the requirement that incidents affecting autonomous vehicles are properly notified to the authorities. We support that. Secondly, if autonomous vehicles are to go on the whole of our road system in due course, it is clearly necessary to have a requirement for highway and traffic authorities to notify on a digital platform where repairs are being done—although I must say, with the present state of our roads and potholes, there will be an awful lot of notifications. It is clearly necessary that there are these regulations, but can the Minister say what timetable he envisages for use of the regulation-making powers that we are agreeing to in this measure?

I end by thanking the Minister and his officials for the courtesy that they showed in explaining to us very clearly what the Bill was about and in responding very promptly to any questions and comments. I thank the Minister for taking this Bill forward in a generally consensual way.

My Lords, I extend my gratitude to colleagues across the House for their supportive comments on and contributions to this Bill. Your Lordships’ careful and considered scrutiny has been hugely valuable, and I hope that the House sees fit to agree the handful of Commons amendments before us today.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about the timetable for regulations, I will give a brief outline. Over the coming months, we will launch a comprehensive programme of secondary legislation, building the new regulatory framework piece by piece. This will incorporate several statutory instruments, including guidance in the form of the statement of safety principles. Among the first elements to be consulted on will be regulations on misleading marketing, as these can apply before the authorisation system has been established. We expect consultation on these to commence later this year. We plan to consult on regulations for digitising traffic regulation orders in the autumn, which would come into force in spring 2025. Early work on the statement of safety principles will begin this year, as we build and review the evidence base that will underpin them. We expect to consult on the principles in 2025. The detailed regulations establishing the authorisation, operator licensing and in-use regulation functions will then follow. Full details on the programme will be made available in due course.

The passage of the Automated Vehicles Bill means that a self-driving future is within reach. It will be a future of safer roads, as self-driving vehicles remove human error as a factor of vehicle death and injury, a future where we can seize a market worth £42 billion to our economy, creating 38,000 new jobs. The Bill will ensure that the UK is at the forefront of a profound technological shift, moving us closer to a safer, more efficient and more accessible transport system that works for everyone in the country.

That this House agrees with the Commons in their Amendments 2 to 11.

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 2, 3 and 7 in my name. I declare any relevant interests in the register, noting that while my own media interests have ceased, I retain many friends in the creative industries. I am grateful for the cross-House support of my cosignatories and to the Citizens’ Forum for Public Service Media and UK Music for supporting my amendments.

The Minister noted at Second Reading that PS broadcasters are governed by laws written over two decades ago. Clause 1 aims to update and simplify the framework by amending Section 264 of the Communications Act 2003 and replacing what the Minister described as

“14 overlapping purposes and objectives … with a new, modernised remit … intended to provide a much clearer sense of our public service broadcasters’ distinctive role ”.—[Official Report, 28/2/24; col. 1119.]

My four amendments share a common purpose, which is to reinstate some of the wording from the 2003 Act, precisely in order to protect the distinctiveness of our PSB content and the qualities that make it, to quote the Secretary of State, attractive to national and global audiences as well as a key driver of our creative economy.

I am not opposed to modernisation; indeed, it would be odd if something written 20 years ago could not benefit from a little updating. My concern is that the process has gone too far, stripping out obligations that are the essence of our public service broadcasting. Section 264(5) and (6) of the Communications Act is replaced by Clause 1(5) of the Media Bill, but aside from Clause 1(5)(a), which protects news and current affairs and references production quotas, very little survives. One paragraph is left to act as a near “catch-all” for what has gone, requiring

“content that reflects the lives and concerns of different communities and cultural interests and traditions within the United Kingdom, and locally in different parts of the United Kingdom”.

This is fine in itself, but reflecting “the lives and concerns” does not equate to the nuanced, if overlapping, requirements of the older Act. What we lose are vital obligations, covering quality, the Reithian principle, PSBs’ fundamental role in the success of the UK’s creative industries as well as the educative value of public service broadcasting—in essence, the very things that distinguish and define PSB.

Amendment 1 would reinstate the requirement to maintain high standards in content, quality of production and

“the professional skill and editorial integrity applied in the making of the programmes”.

These high standards have driven quality products, innovative formats and original programming, under- pinning the domestic success and, in turn, the global popularity of British media productions. The terms of trade paved the way for this success, but it is widely acknowledged that it is the high quality characterising the products of British PSBs that has made a difference in this story. Yet the Bill strips out a requirement for standards, quality and skills. The obligation that remains, to reflect

“the lives and concerns of different communities … interests and traditions”

could be adequately met by a locked-off shot of a talking head, as long as that head talked about a diverse range of subjects and, occasionally, in Gaelic or Welsh.

Removing requirements for standards risks diminishing the experience for audiences and impacting public perception of PSBs. It also risks their global competitiveness and economic value. Of course, reducing production quality reduces the need for skilled creatives, thus further undermining a sector already under threat. It is directly counter to the intention of the Bill.

My Amendment 2 goes to the heart of public service broadcasting, reinstating the Reithian mission, to “inform, educate and entertain”. These three foundational elements are absent from the Bill, in effect limiting the definition of the public service remit to a narrow focus on news and current affairs, regional and children’s content, and original, regional and independent productions. By focusing on “market failure” content that commercial providers need not bother with, it fails to uphold the fundamental principle that the purpose of PSBs is to serve society in its broadest sense with culturally, democratically and socially valuable content across a wide range of subjects.

The Reithian principles have served for almost a century and they represent far more than an outdated belief that “Auntie knows best”. In the words of Professor David Hendy, the Reithian philosophy is a view of broadcasting

“as something that should strive to do more than simply reflect the present state of affairs: it was something that needed to imagine other ways of being in the world”.

Reith’s three little words are vital because they encompass the important possibility of television expanding the interests of audiences beyond their own lives and concerns and into those of others. This is education in its widest sense and, over the life course, it is what many people value about public service broadcasting. In this age of misinformation and disinformation, “inform” and “educate” are surely more relevant than ever.

I jump next to Amendment 7, as it leads directly from this point in that it would reinstate a requirement for PSBs to provide programmes on educational matters, of an educational nature and of educative value. Clause 1(5)(c) of the Bill replaces references to education with the same catch-all, referring to a range of content that

“reflects the lives and concerns of children and young people in the United Kingdom, and … helps them to understand the world around them”.

That is another laudable aim, but it is not the same as content intended to educate or have inherent educative value. The wording in my amendment, which is again lifted directly from the 2003 Act, is important for three reasons. First, it makes a distinction between programmes that reflect the lives and concerns of children and educational programming which might teach them something outside their life experience and beyond their concerns. Secondly, it encompasses the role of public service broadcasting in lifelong learning. Thirdly, it recognises the broader concept of educative value—sometimes concealed in entertainment—which is perhaps a defining feature of PSB content.

GK Chesterton famously noted:

“Humor can get in under the door while seriousness is still fumbling at the handle”.

The same is true of education in the hands of skilled programme makers, insightful commissioners and public service broadcasters. Let us think of Channel 4’s “It’s a Sin”, the “I Am” series, ITV’s “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, and seminal dramas such as “Cathy Come Home” or “I, Daniel Blake”. I would even point to the educative value of the gossip in soap opera pubs and cafés. When Sonia discussed Section 28 in the Albert Square caff all those years ago, we knew that the issue had moved into a different kind of mainstream. None of those programmes originated in an education department, but they have each been educative, shaping public discourse, dispelling myths, fostering intercultural understanding, changing attitudes and offering us new ways to consider the world and ourselves.

Of course, the responsibility for educational and educative content is distributed across the PSB landscape, with different channels assuming different responsibilities, as agreed in their operating licences. The amendment does not seek to mandate all PSBs to deliver “educational programmes” in any narrow sense, but it seeks to reinstate the fundamental educational purpose and educative value of PSB content. I find it hard to believe that the Government intended to remove any use of “educate” from this clause, and I hope the Minister might be able to reassure us when he speaks to this group.

Finally, Amendment 3 would reinstate the requirement for public service broadcasting to reflect, support and stimulate cultural activity, in all its diversity, in the UK. Since its inception, public service broadcasting has enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with the cultural and creative industries, supporting—and being supported by—a thriving creative sector. This amendment, again lifted from the 2003 Act, enables three societal and sector impacts.

First, it ensures wider and more equitable access to the rich diversity of UK arts and culture by presenting drama, comedy, music, visual and performing arts on screen—a point articulated by UK Music, which supports this amendment. Secondly, it inspires active engagement in arts and culture, stimulating people from all backgrounds and across all ages to get involved as participants, audiences or as a career choice—I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, whose Amendment 33 addresses the important issue of workforce diversity in the sector.

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 1 to 3 and 7, to which I have added my name, and in doing so, I declare my interest as laid out in the register as a board member of Creative Scotland.

The Bill will set the standard for public service broadcasting and is much welcomed. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has spotted that currently the Bill removes any overarching principles for public service broadcasting, which I believe is a glaring omission.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has just excellently introduced, the Reithian principles to inform, educate and entertain have been at the foundation of our public service broadcasting for over 100 years. These overarching principles mean that the values, objectives and practices of public service broadcasters are very different from those in the private sector.

A 2022 report by the Ada Lovelace Institute highlighted the importance of the Reithian principles that guided public service broadcasters in what stories they chose to tell, how they were told and presented, and what programmes were commissioned. By extension, they reflect, support and stimulate the nation of the UK in all its diversity and creativity, and therefore support our world-leading creative industries.

Public service broadcasters already face criticism that they do not sufficiently reflect the public whom they serve, which is why the BBC and Channel 4 attempted to address that by moving parts of their workforce and commissioning outside London—but more of that in amendments to come. In contrast, private organisations such as Netflix are designed to maximise market share and shareholder revenue. They use recommendation systems to drive user engagement with their content. They may have some consideration of social values, but public service organisations are currently legally mandated to operate with a particular set of public interest values at their core. Without these amendments, we would lose that. PSBs are building their own recommendation systems to compete in this new digital age but, as the Ada Lovelace Institute report highlights, they will not work unless public service broadcasters are clear about their own identity and purpose.

Amendment 3 reinstates the role of PSBs in supporting our creative industries in all their diversity. The regional production of drama, comedy, music and other visual and performing arts programming plays a vital role in enabling new talent to be heard, local creative economies to be sustained and regional culture to be supported. The UK’s network of PSBs provides a platform for artists, musicians, songwriters, producers, composers and choreographers, enabling them to reach a wider audience and to gain exposure. For example, many people’s first experience of ballet is only through the Christmas Day ballet production. It is a two-way relationship: as government and funding bodies encourage live performing arts companies to make the most of digital viewing opportunities, it is in partnership with the broadcasters that those skills can be developed.

Amendment 7 recognises that education is not solely the preserve of children and children’s broadcasting. Education is a crucial part of the public service broad- casting requirements. Several of the statutory requirements set out in Section 264 of the Communications Act 2003 relate to educational objectives. The noble Baroness’s amendment picks up on them and ensures that PSBs continue to have a role in lifelong learning.

Engaging adults in lifelong learning, to ensure that we continue to invest in the development of crucial skills, is a theme that emerges from numerous Select Committee reports from your Lordships’ House. Lifelong learning is vital to the success of the UK economy. Broadcast media has a unique power and reach as a medium for inspiring adults to take advantage of learning opportunities and can engage unconfident learners who would not normally consider the possibility of lifelong learning. It is therefore essential that requirements are in place that encourage broadcasters to produce high-quality educational programmes and to give them sufficient prominence to attract viewers.

This is our opportunity to ensure that we clearly define public service values for the digital age. Public service broadcasters are already delivering against the Reithian principles and—as far as I understand from my conversations with some of them, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said—we believe that they have no objections to these amendments. As a group, the amendments seek to ensure that PSBs continue to provide content considered of value to society, if not to the shareholders. I wholeheartedly support them and hope that the Minister will too.

My Lords, I support the first four amendments in this group—Amendments 1 to 3 and 7—and will not repeat what has been said so far in the excellent two speeches. However, I support them for a different reason: I think that they lay the ground for later amendments, particularly Amendments 9, 13 and 32. I will make a serious point about those amendments now, partly because I may have to be on a train when the Committee gets to them.

If we take seriously the Reithian principles to inform, educate and entertain, it means doing what the inscription from George Orwell outside the BBC spells out: that people are enabled to be confronted by, or to hear and see things, that

“they do not want to hear”.

That is essential to public service broadcasting and democratic education. That is also why, when we get to Amendments 9, 13 and 32, it becomes so important to cite in the Bill some of the genres that need to be not just glossed over or assumed but recognised as essential to inform, educate and broadcast in an entertaining way. As was said earlier, not everything has to be serious; often we are informed and educated by being entertained. The reference to “EastEnders” was pertinent: we gauge the public conversation by what we see being conversed about in things such as soap operas.

That is why—I would say this, wouldn’t I?—portrayal of religion is so important and needs to be named, as well as children, the arts, science, and so on. These are often called minority interests but in fact, because something is of interest to minorities does not mean that the majority should not be aware of what those interests are. Whenever we talk about religious broadcasting —I refer to my previous interest as the chairman of the Sandford St Martin Trust for nine years—it is not about proselytism or propagating a particular world view; it is recognising that you cannot live in the world and understand it if you do not understand religion. That should be obvious, given what is going on in the world at the moment. We cannot understand the Sunni/Shia divide and how that impacts on politics in the United Kingdom if we do not get informed and educated about that. So it is not about proselytism; it is about education, social cohesion and so on.

That raises another question that I wish to put at this point. How is Ofcom supposed to be able to report on whether PSBs are fulfilling their remit if there are no metrics in the Bill to say what fulfilment of the remit might be? At Second Reading we were told that it will be left to “flexibility”. Flexibility is as flexible as you want it to be, but it is quite possible to go through a whole year and just have a subjective account of what constitutes, for example, religious broadcasting or children’s broadcasting, which puts it into a narrow silo and which, for example, counts out entertainment as a medium for these things. If there are no metrics, how are we and Ofcom to know whether the remit has been fulfilled? I have been told that it cannot be the number of hours you allot to a particular genre, or a percentage quota. I am very happy with that, but what are the metrics going to be? There have to be some; otherwise, it is totally subjective.

We can speak nobly about creative industries, the creative process and what ought to constitute public service broadcasting, but if we do not put some detail in and nail down those things, name the genres and say something about metrics other than flexibility, we cannot guarantee that the remit is being fulfilled.

My Lords, I rise briefly to support all my noble friend Lady Bull’s amendments.

The world has changed somewhat since about a century ago. My great-grandfather, Stanley Baldwin, who was the then Prime Minister, would go round to Cowley Street, just around the corner, sit down with Sir John Reith, as he then was, and discuss in some detail exactly how best to use the radio to deliver what he wanted to deliver. He was the first Prime Minister to use public sector broadcasting as a means of mass communication to the electorate. Things have moved on somewhat since then, to the extent that I believe that in recent times certain members of the Cabinet have even refused to appear on the public sector broadcaster, which is a strange development, to put it mildly.

I did some research, and I do not think it is an accident that 43% of the 35 speakers at Second Reading referred directly to the issue we are talking about in this group of amendments. If one wants a metric for the depth, strength and breadth of feeling across the House about this set of principles, that is evidence enough.

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, primarily as chair of Peers for the Planet. I rise to speak to Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who very much regrets that she cannot be here this afternoon.

After listening to the contributions on the first four amendments in this group, I hope—it does not always happen in Committee—that my comments on Amendment 8 will continue the conversation that has been started about overarching principles. This amendment reflects two of the enduring principles which have underpinned our world-class—my noble friend used the phrase “world-beating”—PSB regime: discoverability and trust. Ensuring prominence for public service broadcasters in a digital world is a welcome reform in this Bill. In ensuring that PSB content is discoverable, we need to do what we can to maintain and strengthen public trust in the content that is discovered. I am particularly grateful to the Royal Society for its support for Amendment 8. Its briefing recognises the importance of science and scientific credibility in our national broadcasting framework. It also recognises the risks posed by concerning trends in misinformation.

Amendment 8 would amend the Communications Act 2003 to require Ofcom, in carrying out its functions, to report on the provision by public service broadcasters of accurate and timely science-based public information, and of countering misinformation, including—but not exclusively—on matters such as public health, climate and the environment, which reflect key existential threats of our time.

The effect of Amendment 8 is cross-cutting; it is not genre specific—that is a debate we will have later in Committee. It emphasises the important of good science and the need to tackle misinformation across the totality of PSB output, a theme that has already emerged. It sits alongside a number of other strategic objectives in Clause 1(5) of the Bill, which encapsulate important outputs of the PSB regime, such as “facilitating … well-informed debate”, reflecting diverse cultural concerns and traditions, and the concerns of children and young people, as well as original and regional production.

The need for this amendment is well documented. In its recent report Trusted Voices, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee notes the rise of information on public health issues such as Covid-19, water fluoridation and 5G, alongside climate change. It states:

“The Covid-19 pandemic made clear just how vital it is to be able to access authoritative information. In February 2020, the World Health Organisation warned that, alongside the outbreak of COVID-19, the world faced an ‘infodemic’, an unprecedented overabundance of information—both accurate and false—that prevented people from accessing authoritative, reliable guidance about the virus”.

In this context, the committee emphasised the importance of trusted voices from the scientific community and the role of the media in providing those trusted voices. Recent research from Ofcom further underlines why those trusted voices matter: it found that adults and children “overestimate” their ability to spot misinformation, with “only two in 10” adults being

“able to correctly identify the tell-tale signs of a genuine”

social media post. Worryingly, there is a similar pattern among children.

The damage caused by misinformation in relation to health issues is also well documented. A 2022 study covered in the bulletin of the World Health Organization found that:

“Incorrect interpretations of health information, which increase during outbreaks and disasters, often negatively impact people’s mental health and increase vaccine hesitancy, and can delay the provision of health care”.

This year, a Lancet study indicates that infodemics create damage beyond the negative outcomes for any specific health epidemic,

“such as reduction of public trust in health institutions and economic burden due to increased morbidity and mortality, including costs that take away resources from other public health activities”.

Damage caused by misinformation on climate change is similarly concerning. The Global Risks Report 2024 by the World Economic Forum ranked misinformation as the biggest short-term risk to human society, and extreme weather events as the top long-term risk. Those two findings underline that one of the greatest risks to society is obscuring the facts on climate change. The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report in 2022 was very clear:

“Rhetoric and misinformation on climate change and the deliberate undermining of science have contributed to misperceptions of the scientific consensus, uncertainty, disregarded risk and urgency, and dissent”.

It also found that misinformation, in turn, is impacting on climate policy decisions.

Everyone agrees that, since the PSB regime was last reviewed, the world has changed. We are now, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, to look to the future and the effects of that infodemic. The evidence on the level of, and the damage caused by, scientific misinformation is deeply troubling. Some of it can be measured in data, but much of it is much more insidious. Surely the roles of the media regulator and the PSBs in the coming years become more, rather than less, important in responding to this challenge.

Amendment 8 is a proportionate and workable amendment to future-proof the PSB regime. It provides a clear strategic steer on the responsibility of the media sector and its regulator, without being overly prescriptive. The crucial role of science in our cultural and public discourse is something on which most of us agree. If we want a powerful regulator such as Ofcom to take into account the importance of science, and the clear dangers of scientific misinformation, we need to tell it to do so, and we need our public service broadcasters to support trusted voices and be trusted themselves.

I hope the Government will give this amendment serious consideration.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 33 in my name. I start by apologising for not being able to speak at Second Reading.

Despite good will, good intention and lots of work by activists, the UK’s creative and cultural workforce still does not reflect the diversity of the UK population. Ofcom already undertakes monitoring for PSBs in this area, and this amendment updates the legislative framework accordingly to ensure that this continues. Its own report on diversity and inclusion in broadcasting, published last year, notes that well-intentioned policies are not always actioned. It also draws attention to the fact that there is often a lack of diversity at senior management level in broadcasting organisations across the board. If PSBs are to represent all sectors of the UK’s population, then the workforce should be representative at every level.

Speaking as someone who comes from a television background, I know that diversity is not just about on-screen representation, but those behind the scenes: researchers, technicians, producers, directors, commissioners, and director-generals—there has not been a single woman or person of colour yet in 100 years. Women and people from minority ethnic groups and those with disability,

“remain underrepresented at senior management level: in TV 42% and in radio 36% of senior managers are women, while in TV 13% and in radio 7% are from minority ethnic groups”.

These figures matter, not just because a diverse senior management demonstrates to the workforce a real commitment to diversity at every level, but because a senior management team dictates the culture and practice of the organisations that they run. The more diverse that team, the more it will understand and promote diverse values in their workforce and diversity on-screen.

Despite the positive fact that a higher proportion of people from underrepresented groups are being recruited, broadcasters continue to struggle to retain these staff, with women, disabled workers and people from minority ethnic backgrounds leaving in disproportionate numbers. Ofcom itself has recognised that those broadcasters

“with advanced data collection practices tend to have more representative workforces”.

This amendment will further empower it to specify what kinds of data companies should be required to monitor and publish.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. From these Benches, I congratulate all who have already spoken and the Government on bringing this Bill forward. It is much-needed, and I welcome it, with the caveats already addressed today.

The Government talk about streamlining and simplification. There are advantages to this approach—all of us dealing with bureaucracy and form-filling know that—but there can be oversimplification, and this is what has happened here. These amendments are to ensure that, while we both update and future-proof our incredibly valuable broadcasting media, we do not lose the principles that have made it so unique and internationally renowned. They address the need, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said, for specific genres; I know we will come on to that in greater detail. In particular, they reinstate the Reithian principles—to inform, educate and entertain.

The wording in the Bill as drafted limits the definition of the public service remit and fails to capture the full range of objectives and benefits currently delivered by the PSB system, as well as dismissing what has been a founding principle of public service broadcasting in the UK for more than 100 years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, mentioned.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter—I thank her for the name check—which I have put my name to in support. I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, in everything she said in her speech. I declare my interests as set out in the register.

When I started my career in television, more than 50 years ago, diversity and inclusion was not a priority for public service broadcasters. I personally had to break down so many barriers to get diversity on the agenda to where we are today. Thankfully, enormous strides have been taken and the diversity landscape has been transformed, both in front of and behind the camera. Although we have not yet reached what I call “diversity nirvana”, we are well on the way. Broadcasters such as ITV have made huge progress with their diversity and inclusion strategy and should be applauded.

But, talking to people across the industry, the big concern is the redundancies that are sweeping throughout the industry, combined with the slowdown in commissioning, which in turn will lead to many production companies going out of business and will therefore have a negative effect on all the diversity gains over the past few years. As ITV and Channel 4 look for new financial models and tighten their belts, they need to make sure that they do not take their eye off the ball when it comes to diversity and inclusion, because most TV workers are freelancers and work for independent production companies. So perhaps some programme-level data is necessary in order for us to properly see how many of the PSBs’ full-time staff are from under- represented backgrounds and how much of their programming is made by diverse talent from the freelance community.

Adeel Amini, a series producer and the founder of The TV Mindset, said, “While PSBs have certainly been saying all the right things regarding diversity, their impact on the ground level and on the wider industry structure as a whole has been harder to see. In fact, many people from underrepresented backgrounds feel like the industry has gone backwards. Given the current crisis, they feel they are being squeezed out quicker than ever before. This particularly applies to roles at mid and senior level, with not enough representation at decision-making level. It’s important that diversity is seen not as a box-ticking exercise, but something that demands accountability if we are to change the fabric of this industry and make it truly welcoming and inclusive to all”.

Amendment 33 is very much the start of making this process a reality.

My Lords, I shall just slip in on the back of the excellent speech on diversity from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, because this is a subject very close to my heart. I think Amendment 33, put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, is very telling in calling for public service broadcasters to put forward a diversity strategy.

But I would go behind the amendment and say that, in my experience, it is often the case that public service broadcasters can hide behind a strategy, and a strategy can often be an excuse for inaction. I remember that when I first got involved in the diversity in broadcasting debate, which is now more than a decade ago, I was very struck by the fact that, when we had a meeting with the broadcasters—there were three main broadcasters in play: ITV, BBC and Sky—the BBC came in and said, “We totally get what you’re saying and we’re going to produce a strategy”. ITV came in and said something in between. Sky came in and said “We’re just going to go for 20%”—and it did go for it, in terms of people both in front of and behind the camera. So it is very important that the Minister himself gets very engaged with the broadcasters, because if they simply put strategic documents on his desk, nothing will change.

The other important part of any strategy that is legislated for in this Bill is that it brings forward proper, in-depth statistics about what is happening in broadcasting in terms of diversity and equality. On that point, I would like the Minister to update me on the Diamond network, which was the measurement standard put in place in the mid-2010s in which broadcasters had to report for every production. It gradually included the independent producers, because that was another thing that we discovered made life more difficult, because you then had to go to all the independent production companies and bring them within the system. What has happened to the Diamond system? What kind of statistics is it throwing up that reveal what is actually happening in broadcasting?

I am fully aware that, when one talks about diversity, there may be a small element of the public—perhaps a Venn diagram overlapping with Garrick Club members—who regard talking about diversity as some sort of woke totemic point. But the point is that we live in an extremely diverse country. It is so important—and it really emphasises why this Bill and broadcasting are still so important, no matter how diverse and fragmented broadcasting has become in terms of platforms—that people in this country are able to tell their stories and see themselves represented. Equally, to echo the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, it is not just the people in front of the camera; it is the people making the programmes and making the decisions about what is commissioned. You can have as many diverse people as you like appearing in a television programme but, to be blunt with the Committee, if the people commissioning the programmes are all white, those are the stories that will get told.

As far as the other amendments are concerned, since I am on my feet, I am obviously very much in favour of the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, put forward about putting back the Reithian principles into broadcasting. But I simply say at the beginning of what will be a mammoth session of days and days of scrutiny of this Bill that I am also very deregulatory minded. It is important for the Committee to be aware as much as possible that broadcasters sit under a plethora of regulations and there must also be a mindset as we debate this Bill that we do not simply put every single issue and principle that we care passionately about—albeit I am now massively contradicting everything I have just said—into the Bill, because technology is changing rapidly, costs are rising, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, hinted, and putting a lot of people under pressure, and people need flexibility. To a certain extent we need to trust our broadcasters, for whom quality programme making is to a certain extent embedded.

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, capped by a single show of dichotomy from the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. I am sure that most of us found it both entertaining and enlightening, in line with true Reithian values.

As we draw this debate to a close, we should congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, on tabling her amendments in this group. As we have heard, they broadly relate to the Reithian principles that have under- pinned public service broadcasting for much of the last century. We on the Labour Benches have co-signed Amendments 1 to 3 and 7. Additionally, we support Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We also support Amendment 33 on diversity. On reflection, having spoken to my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I feel that we should have had a separate debate on the whole issue of diversity. It is merited in the context of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, underlined the importance of workplace diversity, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. There is much to think through about what we see and how it is measured to ensure that our public service broadcasters reflect the diversity of our great nation.

I turn to the Reithian principles. My honourable friend Stephanie Peacock in another place said that she welcomed the attempts to simplify the remit of PSBs. I made a similar observation at Second Reading. As we have heard, a number of commentators have argued that this may have the unintended consequence of leading to rather more restricted content. The Communications Act 2003, which this part of the Bill seeks to update, gave a fair expression of the PSBs’ Reithian principles. Over time, these have become partly enshrined in particular genres. These amendments attempt to take the debate beyond genres and to talk to the issue of the fundamental purpose of public service broadcasting, in particular the purpose of broadcasting in a multimedia world now tackling the challenges of the digital age and digital content.

At Second Reading I said that, while the Bill was very welcome—it continues to be very welcome—and for the most part highly supportable, it seemed to lack an overarching purpose and principle: an abiding vision, if you like. As we have heard, Lord Reith believed that PSBs should “inform, educate and entertain”. The 2003 Act sought to flesh out what that meant. Labour enshrined those principles in legislation. In that regard, it did a more than serviceable job. This new legislation seeks to do it slightly more flexibly. Flexibility is one thing, but I think we need firm statements of principle and purpose. These amendments move to set Reithian standards and values in a more modern context.

We want public service broadcasters to retain high standards of content. We want them to maintain high- quality production and editorial integrity, as referenced in Amendment 1. We want to see content that meets the Reithian dictum of informing, educating and entertaining, while recognising the role of the sector in stimulating, reflecting and supporting the cultural and creative industries.

Finally, these amendments take us to the educative purpose of public service broadcasters and help promote a culture that values learning as a lifelong activity to serve all. Together, one could paraphrase a sort of John Prescott-ism and place old-style Reithian values in a modern setting. For that, and for the other reasons I have set out, we are very happy indeed to support this group of amendments. We hope to receive some words of encouragement from the Minister. I do not think public service broadcasters will object at all to this renewed obligation. It does much that will help Ofcom in its periodic reporting on this aspect of the public broadcasters’ remit.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for starting our deliberations in Committee in such a careful and considered way. We have already had allusions to Chesterton, Orwell and Sonia from “EastEnders”, so we are off to a good start.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his, as ever, thoughtful and considered response. I am not sure that I completely share his view that broadcaster-specific agreements are the place to house such fundamental principles; I would imagine that they should be there in an overarching sense. He says that the current regime demonstrates the challenges of measuring, but it also demonstrates the opportunities of succeeding, because it is indeed the high quality and innovation of UK productions that has led to global success, as has been well evidenced over the last two decades. It is a long evening ahead for the Minister, so I will not dally, but I will certainly accept his invitation to ponder and reflect, and take that as an opening to continue to discuss some of these amendments.

If I may, I will say very briefly that the point of Amendment 3 in my name is absolutely not to reinsert a list of activities; it is that cultural activity is stimulated, supported and reflected. That is a slightly different point; it is achieved by presenting those services, but that is not the end in itself. I know that my noble friend here will be talking a lot about that in a moment.

So, in accepting the Minister’s invitation to ponder and reflect together, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

My Lords, Amendments 4 and 5 are in my name and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for adding his name to them. We are of course moving on to the area of indigenous minority and regional languages. Proposed new subsection (16) in Clause 1 lists those languages. There are six of them: Welsh, of course—I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on the Benches—and we have Ulster Scots, Scots, Scottish Gaelic, Irish and, sixth and last to be listed, Cornish.

I am a resident of that area, Cornwall. I am English rather than Cornish, but I have lived there for some time and Cornish is a very important part of the culture of that far south-west peninsula. Many noble Lords will have visited Cornwall during their holidays, or maybe during vacations as children to its beaches or whatever. The Cornish language is of the Celtic family. It is actually nearer to Breton than it is to Welsh, but it is an important part of that family. It has been revived and is an important part of culture these days. Cornwall Council often uses Cornish in its public notices and publications.

What I want to emphasise in these amendments is, first, to welcome very strongly the fact that Cornish is named in the Bill as a minority and regional language. It was first recognised in 2002 by the Council of Europe’s convention on regional and minority languages and this is the first time, as I understand it, that it has appeared in British legislation. I very much welcome that. But it is my belief, having read through proposed new subsection (5), that there is an issue about this. It is around not just Cornish itself but those other regional and minority languages as well.

New subsection (5)(b) says that

“the audiovisual content made available by the public service broadcasters (taken together) includes what appears to OFCOM to be … (ii) a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content that is in, or mainly in, a recognised regional or minority language”.

That reads to me as if, in a practical sense, we could have hours of Welsh broadcasting, which clearly I would welcome, but that could be taken together as a substitute for these other minority languages as well. That is now the Bill reads to me and I do not think that is the Government’s intention. I will be interested to hear from the Minister his own interpretation. That is also why, in my Amendment 5, instead of saying

“a … regional or minority language”,

I have said “each” regional and minority language.

There is a strange bit of grammatical use in new subsection (5). It puts “taken together”, which is what I see as contentious, in brackets. I have looked very briefly through the rest of the Bill and have found no other key provision that is in brackets. My theory is that, when the Bill was put together, those brackets were not normal brackets: they were actually square brackets and there was a question about whether that phrase—the two words “taken together”—should be in the Bill. Then, somehow, they have been translated into normal brackets and so have appeared in the written part of the Bill. I would love to think that that was the case.

Of course, the Government’s statute writers are normally absolutely perfect in what they do, but I genuinely believe this is not what the Government intend. It is really important that each of those minority and regional languages is represented sufficiently in the public broadcasters’ output. On that basis, I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether he agrees that that is the intention or whether we could have a further conversation to try to get this right. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 6 and 10 in my name and the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I am very grateful to those noble Lords for their cross-party support.

These amendments are designed to address an urgent problem. They seek to provide more explicit protection for Gaelic-language broadcasting within the Bill. Gaelic broadcasting faces a crisis—and I do not use that word lightly—caused by decisions over the allocation of responsibilities when the Scottish Parliament was established. As a result, there is no reliable mechanism for resolving funding and operational matters.

Gaelic broadcasting is provided by the BBC Alba channel, a joint venture between BBC and the Gaelic Media Service, otherwise known as MG Alba. The channel is resourced by the BBC’s contribution to the JV of content and people, valued at £10 million per year, and MG Alba’s annual budget of £13 million per year. Its funding is provided by the Scottish Government via Ofcom. The effect is to split responsibility for Gaelic broadcasting. Broadcasting is a reserved matter. The statutory underpinning for MG Alba is UK legislation—the Communications Act 2003—and Ofcom, the UK regulator, is arbiter of whether enough Gaelic is being broadcast. However, funding responsibility for the forerunner of MG Alba was devolved in 1999 to Scottish Ministers, who are not answerable to Ofcom.

The consequences of this split are clear to see. In 1991, a Conservative Government set up the first Gaelic television fund of nearly £10 million a year; today that would be worth £25 million, almost double MG Alba’s current budget. The Scottish Government have chosen to freeze MG Alba’s budget for the last 10 years and, if that trajectory continues, in two years’ time its budget will be worth half of what it began with in 2008. These arrangements do not provide Gaelic broadcasting with a sustainable future, with all the potentially adverse consequences for Gaelic as a living language, because, make no mistake, education and broadcasting are the twin pillars of its survival.

Let us consider for a moment the practical implications. First, viewers increasingly consume content online rather than via the traditional linear services. To succeed, Gaelic content must be prominent and visible on the new digital channels that people actually use. Digital transition requires investment. I see the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in his place, and S4C has been provided with ring-fenced funding to develop its digital services, but BBC Alba has not.

Secondly, if Gaelic broadcasting is to engage the next generation of young would-be Gaelic speakers it needs to be able to create new content and not rely on repeats which are increasingly dated. BBC Alba can afford only to broadcast one hour and 40 minutes of new content per day and to commission three hours of drama per year.

Thirdly, one of MG Alba’s potential advantages is the freedom to invest in co-productions with commercial producers, yet it lacks the funds to be an attractive investment partner of any scale for commercial producers.

MG Alba commissioned EY to assess its future funding requirements. EY’s report suggests that an annual budget of around £25 million is required—in effect, restoring the value of the original Gaelic Television Fund —to put the business on a sustainable footing. Unfortunately —this is the main point of my amendments—there is no forum for evaluating this report because Gaelic broadcasting, MG Alba in particular, currently has no formal mechanism for ensuring that its needs are assessed in a holistic way.

This is the context for the amendments tabled in my name, which are supported by both the BBC and MG Alba. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, new subsection (5)(b)(ii) in Clause 1(2) places a duty on Ofcom to assess whether public service broadcasters, taken together, are producing

“a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content that is in, or mainly in, a recognised regional or minority language”,

specified as including

“Welsh, the Gaelic language as spoken in Scotland, Irish, Scots, Ulster Scots or Cornish”.

This is very welcome. It does not, however, provide sufficient protection for Gaelic broadcasting, which will otherwise, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, be swept up in a generic assessment of minority languages across all PSBs.

Amendment 6 therefore obliges Ofcom to consider specifically the needs of Gaelic broadcasting when making its assessment of sufficiency. Without this specific obligation, Ofcom could determine, for example, that an on-demand curated collection of Gaelic content is sufficient, rather than what is necessary to sustain a Gaelic media service, with at its beating heart a schedule of live daily news, sports events, and topical and lifestyle programmes.

Amendment 10 would bring the Gaelic Media Service into the scope of the PSBs to be assessed by Ofcom. Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, addresses the same issue. This is a very modest and narrowly focused amendment. The Gaelic Media Service would be considered a PSB only for the purposes of assessing Ofcom’s duties in new subsection (5)(b)(ii).

In practical terms, the proposed designation would formally include MG Alba in the scope of Ofcom’s five-yearly review for the period 2019-23, which will start later this year. This will provide a yardstick of sufficiency and a mechanism, which is currently missing, for assessing the needs of Gaelic broadcasting in the round. The affect is more limited than making BBC Alba a PSB in its own right, so Ministers can be reassured that, in agreeing to this amendment, they would not be creating—however great it is—another S4C, with all the associated legal, financial and other obligations, not least for the BBC, that this entails.

The other feature of these amendments is that they would tie the Scottish Government more explicitly into the process for putting Gaelic broadcasting on a more sustainable footing. MG Alba is under a statutory responsibility to provide a wide and diverse range of high-quality programmes in Gaelic. Scottish Ministers have a statutory duty annually to provide Ofcom with a sum they consider appropriate for MG Alba to discharge its responsibilities. However, there is no guidance to or formal expectations of Scottish Ministers in this regard. By bringing MG Alba within the scope of Ofcom’s assessment, Amendment 10 would establish a direct link with Scottish Ministers’ statutory funding responsibilities.

Should Ofcom determine that there is insufficient Gaelic content, the BBC and MG Alba, and by extension its funder, would be obliged to respond to Ofcom. This would create an expectation for the first time of Scottish ministerial participation in a more formal, transparent and joined-up process to consider the overall sufficiency of Gaelic media content.

My Lords, I am delighted to participate in the debate. I assume that the time warning was wrongly put here, as we are in Committee on a Bill.

No.

There are new rules.

Well, I hasten to add that I have no intention of going beyond that time. If that is a new rule, of which I was unaware, I certainly think it is a highly retrograde step because in Committee we should be exploring all the implications of all amendments. That is something we will no doubt return to at another time.

I welcome this debate and these amendments, particularly the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, moved his amendment and made reference to Wales as well as Scotland. I do not intend to go in depth into the Scottish context. I welcome the fact that amendments have come from that side of the Committee, with their intentions shared in other parts of the Committee, no doubt. I discussed some of these matters with friends in the Scottish National Party but, quite frankly, I feel incapable of addressing the Scottish context, which is very different from the Welsh context in terms of structure and the location and strength of the language in the country as a whole.

I would like to make this point at the beginning of my remarks. On page 6 of the Bill, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, it says

“‘recognised regional or minority language’ means Welsh” ,

et cetera. But Welsh is not a minority language. Welsh is a national language in Wales and is officially recognised as such in statutes passed by Westminster. Therefore, it is inappropriate for that terminology to be used in this context.

In saying that, I should perhaps clarify, in case there is some uncertainty about it, that I come from a very different background to most Members in this House. Welsh is my first language; Welsh is the language that I speak almost all the time at home; Welsh is the language of 90% of my community and village, and 70% in the county in which I live. I have two children and six grandchildren. All six grandchildren speak Welsh as a first language; those six grandchildren have two grandparents who are Welsh-speaking and four who are not Welsh-speaking. That is the reality in Wales today: Welsh is a language that has been grasped by people of Wales, in Wales, but also by people have also moved into Wales. It is part of their heritage. In fact, there are 20 Welsh-medium schools in Cardiff now, teaching through the medium of Welsh. That is the reality.

Welsh is a language that has a diversity within it as well. People come on holiday to Wales and they see Jason Mohammad on Welsh television. The sound is off in the pub, so they turn it up to hear what he is saying. They are amazed when they find that Jason Mohammad is, of course, speaking in Welsh. He is one of the Welsh community, a fluent Welsh speaker, and he learned it as a second language. We have rappers, such as Sage Todz, who raps in Welsh and in English. There is no problem with that. They are an ethnic part of the Welsh community, and the language belongs to the whole of Wales. It belongs to those who speak Welsh and to those who do not speak Welsh, because it is part of our culture.

There have been changes in places such as Merthyr Tydfil, where I lived before I entered Parliament. The language was almost dead when I was there. It is partly thanks to television and partly thanks to education that things have changed since then. We will be coming on to some of these aspects in a later bank of amendments. However, I want to make the point as strongly as I can that the context of the Welsh language is a very different one to being treated as a minority language or a regional language.

This does raise questions in relations to Welsh and to Gaelic, whether they should be seen just in a Scottish context—or in a part-of-Scotland context for Gaelic—or in a Welsh context—the whole of Wales, as far as Welsh is concerned, where it is an official language throughout the whole of Wales—or should they be seen in a British context? That is the implication in some of these amendments. If they are being seen in a British context, do they have a claim to existence, in respect and with regard to nurturing, within England itself?

There was a time when I was on the board of S4C —the Welsh language television service—where some of our programmes were being picked up in England, particularly things like rugby, understandably, where there were audiences of 100,000 and more from within England. That raises the question: how many people in England actually speak Welsh? We do not know that, because in successive censuses—in 2001, 2011 and 2021—there has been a refusal to ask that question in England. It may be 100,000; it may be 200,000; it may even be half a million. We do not know.

We know that many, many young people leave Wales to look for work, and they live in England. They tune into S4C, and, of course, it is very much easier to do that now than when I was on the board in earlier times. The fact that there can be audiences of that scale indicates that a question must arise if you are talking about minority languages. What is the position of minority languages such as the Gaelic language and the Welsh language in England? What intentions will there be to find out how many speakers there are? What are the appropriate requests and demands of those? In terms of television, which we are discussing, there is now no problem: television knows no boundaries, and Welsh-language television can be seen in the United States, in Patagonia or wherever, because of the facility technology affords to it.

There are a number of questions that arise in that context. This is not the time to follow this through, but they run through to questions as to whether the Welsh language and the Gaelic language should be available, in some schools at least, in conurbations in England if we are saying that the Welsh and Gaelic languages are British languages. I just assume that this is the position from which the Government come on such matters. In which case, what are the Government going to be doing about it?

I am grateful for these amendments being tabled because it puts into context our interpretation of the words “regional or minority language”, which are on the face of the Bill. I suggest that this needs to be thought through again, in order for it to have a respect, or even a meaning, as far as we in Wales are concerned.

My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Creative Scotland. I thank my noble friend Lord Dunlop for his work to champion the Gaelic Media Service and add my support to his amendment.

I just want to respond a little bit to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that the Welsh and Scottish situations are not the same. No, they are not, and we feel rather hard done by because, as the noble Lord said, the two pillars of education and broadcasting have done much to support the Welsh language. I think that my noble friend Lord Dunlop’s amendments are just trying to reverse what I call the devolution deficit that has done no favours to the Gaelic Media Service.

We heard at Second Reading about the economic benefits of MG Alba. It sustains 340 jobs in the Highlands and Islands and produces gross value added of over £17 million. It is very interesting today that the Scottish Government’s new Deputy First Minister is not only a fluent Gaelic speaker and the first-ever Scottish Minister for Gaelic, as my noble friend said, but she also has responsibility for the economy. Despite its impressive economic record, however, MG Alba is facing a huge generational challenge at this very moment of having to transition to a digital service on its existing funding.

My noble friend Lord Dunlop has already set out that Scottish Government Ministers have been very vocal about their so-called strong and consistent support for the Gaelic language service. What I support about my noble friend’s amendments is that, by denominating the Gaelic Media Service as a public broadcaster, they are not committing the UK Government to funding, but they could ensure that the Scottish Government are held more accountable for their—in real terms—dwindling support for MG Alba.

If the Minister is minded in his reply to say that this issue should wait for the BBC charter review, I respectfully warn him that he is in danger of conflating two issues. The Media Bill is the appropriate place to confirm that there should be a Gaelic broadcaster. It is the place that confirms again that there should be a Welsh language public broadcaster, so why not Gaelic? The charter review would simply be a mechanism for the delivery of this. Frankly, if MG Alba has to wait another two years, it may be too late for the future of the Gaelic Media Service.

My Lords, I rise humbly to take part in what has been a very rich and informative debate. I would particularly single out the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I apologise that I did not take part in the Second Reading of this Bill due to other commitments. I declare for general purposes for the whole of this Bill that I was formerly an editor of the Guardian Weekly and spent 20 years as a journalist, so that is the background that I bring into this.

We have uncovered some important technical drafting detail here, both from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and I hope that we will certainly be seeing some government amendments on Report addressing those issues. However, I really just wanted to offer general Green support for the importance of having linguistic diversity broadcast across these islands, and I really wanted to stress that this is a terribly important issue.

We were talking in the last group about the British broadcasting ecosystem having a general claim to being world-leading. I am afraid that English characteristic monolingualism is something of a global joke. It is really important that we acknowledge that there is multilingualism on these islands, and it needs to be supported and encouraged.

I experienced a monolingual environment in the Australia of my childhood. Having exposure to only a single language impoverished my youth. Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Ulster Scots, Irish and Cornish are treasures of these islands, and they need support. They preserve tradition and knowledge, and they contribute to cultural diversity.

I note that, last week, the Scottish Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee heard evidence on the proposed Scottish Languages Bill, which aims to establish official status and improve educational support for languages. The chair of the professional association for Gaelic secondary teachers noted that Gaelic-medium education is, in effect, now stopping at S1 or S2. In 2023, only 1% of primary school pupils were in GM education, but 46% of primary school pupils in the Western Isles, for example, are in Gaelic-medium education and 54% study Gaelic. If we are going to have broadcasters that truly serve across these islands, we clearly need to see the delivery of all these languages.

My Lords, I am delighted to respond to this group and speak to my Amendment 11. I think that, by now, the Minister will be aware of the strength of feeling about these matters in the Bill. Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 10 all address the place of minority languages—I hesitate to use that word, having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said; I certainly have some sympathy—in public service broadcasting today and in the future.

The preservation of the Gaelic language through public service broadcasting was debated at Second Reading and discussed at some length in the Commons. The subject is important. It exercises people in Scotland and throughout the rest of these islands. There is concern about the lack of a requirement for Gaelic language public service broadcasting. There is no requirement for a minimum amount and no requirements relating to new content. There could, for example, have been a requirement in the Bill for the BBC to produce new Gaelic language content.

That is important because language is the cornerstone of culture. It is not just a way of communicating but a daily expression of history and stories reflecting ways of life, values and heritage as it is spoken. The diversity of the languages in our nations and regions is therefore a living, breathing expression of the rich identities and traditions that we are lucky to carry with us.

However, understanding that requires an understanding of the risk of losing such a language, be it Gaelic or Welsh. That is very unlikely, but, if they are not spoken, nurtured and passed down through the generations, that rich culture would be at risk of being lost. With that recognition in mind, I think it is good that we are discussing this absolutely at the top of the Bill. We believe that the Bill and legislation more broadly seem not to recognise Gaelic language broadcasters in the same way as they recognise, for instance, S4C, which we absolutely support. This is despite there being cross-party support for recognising them, both here and in Scotland. For example, Clause 17 talks specifically about the quota for S4C.

When Ofcom published its sixth review of BBC performance, mentions of the Gaelic service totalled four lines in an 80-page report—and that came from the need to assess BBC Alba only as a BBC portfolio service, which is what the BBC operating agreement does. Given the importance of the service to Gaelic speakers, it would seem appropriate to see it acknowledged and assessed properly, so I hope the Minister might be able to lend his support to the new clause we are putting forward. If he chooses not to, I would like to hear from him about the measures the department is taking to support Gaelic broadcasting in the way it deserves and needs.

My Lords, as several noble Lords have noted, the indigenous languages of these islands are crucial to the lives of those who speak and cherish them. As my noble friend Lord Dunlop and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out, that includes holders of high office and substantial majorities in certain parts of the UK. The Bill seeks to ensure that people are able to access content in those languages, as well as content that is culturally important to them, for many decades to come. However, I note the sad paradox that the number of Welsh speakers has declined since devolution rather than grown.

I turn to Amendments 6, 10 and 11. As some of my noble friend Lord Dunlop’s amendments recognise, the Gaelic Media Service, MG Alba, already has a statutory function under the Communications Act to ensure that a wide and diverse range of high-quality Gaelic programmes are available to people in Scotland. I recognise his and other noble Lords’ keenness to ensure that we do not lose such a valuable function. That is why Clause 1 makes clear in legislation the importance of having programmes made available in the UK’s indigenous, regional and minority languages, including Gaelic, by including it in our public service remit for television for the first time. Moreover, elsewhere in the Bill, we make it clear that public service broadcasters must contribute to this remit and that they will be accountable for the extent of their contributions.

As my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie noted and anticipated, His Majesty’s Government are formally considering the funding of minority language broadcasting, including Gaelic, as part of the BBC funding review launched in December. As part of that review, we have already asked MG Alba for a range of evidence, including its assessment of the sustainability of its current funding model and of how any changes to the BBC’s funding model could affect it and minority language broadcasting more broadly. I acknowledge what she said about timing vis-à-vis the Bill, but we feel that it is right to wait for the funding review to conclude and then to consider the overall future of MG Alba and the ongoing provision of Gaelic language broadcasting. Given the closeness of the link between the BBC and MG Alba, we think that these considerations are best made alongside the upcoming review of the BBC’s royal charter, for which we will set out further details of the timeline in due course.

In addressing his Amendments 4 and 5, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to the Cornish language. I recognise the importance that regional and minority language programming plays in representing the rich and diverse tapestry of culture across the country, including in the noble Lord’s home of Cornwall. Amendments 4 and 5 would require each of the UK’s six public service broadcasters to provide a sufficient quantity of programming in each of the six regional or minority languages that are now recognised and set out in the Bill. Adding further rigour to the legislation regarding regional and minority languages is an ambition that the Government share with the noble Lord, which is why we have, for the first time—as he noted—listed Cornish and a range of other languages in this legislation. His amendment would require each broadcaster to provide content in each language stated in the Bill, a proposal that we think would be excessively onerous on the public service broadcasters. It would result in a situation where, for example, S4C would be obliged to broadcast in Ulster Scots and STV in Cornish, which is not, I am sure, the outcome he seeks. There may be some confusion here and it might be easier to clarify it—particularly regarding the choice of brackets—in a format where we do not have to try to describe the shape of punctuation. I will happily do that with him. The choice of parentheses is not a drafting error: “(taken together)” is the formulation used in the Communications Act and indeed elsewhere in Part 1 of this Bill, but if it is helpful to speak about that outside the Chamber, I am happy to do so.

The Bill already puts new obligations on Ofcom to monitor whether a sufficient quantity of minority and regional languages is provided. In our view, any additional obligation on broadcasters would be excessively burdensome. Given the provision already made in the Bill in respect of Gaelic and other languages, as well as the further work I have outlined, although I echo what noble Lords have said about the importance of these languages, the culture and tradition they represent for people and our shared anxiety to make sure that they are passed on to new generations and shared with many—not just in the places where they are currently commonly spoken, but where others can hear them and learn them too—I am afraid that I am unable to accept the amendments noble Lords have proposed in this group. I am happy to continue to talk to them about these important issues, but I hope that, for now, they will be willing not to press them.

I invite the Minister to comment on the question of whether the Welsh and Gaelic languages should be counted in the 2031 census in England. If they are regarded as British languages, as is suggested in the context of the Bill, surely, they should be.

Questions relating to the census are a matter for colleagues in other departments, but I shall happily take the noble Lord’s point to them. I imagine that he has raised it with them directly, but I am happy to let them know that he has raised it again today.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. In fact, I worked with Mebyon Kernow on this amendment, and it would probably also criticise me for not referring to Cornish as a national language rather than a minority one—but that is how it started with the Council of Europe in 2002. I suspect that Gaelic language proponents are also not particularly happy with the Minister’s reply.

I agree absolutely with the Minister, in that I am not expecting Cornish to be broadcast sufficiently in Northern Ireland, even though I would love that to be the case. The purpose of my amendment is not that all languages should be broadcast everywhere, but that there is an obligation in each of the regions, nations or areas that the relevant language should be sufficiently broadcast. It seems to me that the Bill does not say that, so I shall have a further conversation, and I thank the Minister for his help in that area. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I declare an interest as a freelance TV producer who has worked for all four public service broadcasters. I thank the Voice of the Listener & Viewer and the Media Reform Coalition for their support in putting this speech together, and the commercial public service broadcasters for their information. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have attached their names to this amendment.

I welcome a lot of the Bill. However, I have tabled this amendment because I am convinced that the public service remit set out in Clause 1 is not worthy of the name. The White Paper says that it replaces the

“outdated set of fourteen overlapping purposes … with a new, shorter remit, focussed on the things that”

the PSBs

“are uniquely positioned to deliver”.

Unfortunately, this new remit does not deliver either of those things for audiences or for the industry.

I degrouped this amendment so that noble Lords would have a chance to direct their speeches specifically towards the need for genres within public service broadcasting. In looking at Clause 1, I ask the Minister: are the Government really not going to insist that our commercial PSBs commission and broadcast any content on science, on the arts, on social issues, any content of international significance—or, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said earlier, any content on religion? In a society where there is a desperate lack of knowledge about those matters, surely the media, which has been so privileged and protected in this Bill, should be mandated to battle against ignorance and bring illumination and context to the lives of people in this country. It has never been more important than now to have reliable information easily accessible by everybody. Surely, this is the antidote to the swirl of fake news and conspiracy theories which so dominate the internet.

My Lords, I hope it was fairly clear from what I said at Second Reading that I would be very likely to support the amendments that we heard in the first group and, in particular, to support Amendment 9, which has just been so powerfully introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville.

Many of us at Second Reading, as has been reiterated already today, believed that we had a very good understanding of what a PSB was from the Communications Act 2003. Our fear is that the Bill that is now before us is much less clear because of the changes that have been made to that Act, removing the Reithian values and removing the list of genres—from music to the arts, from science to religion. All we now have is a vague requirement of a range of appropriate genres.

These points have already been well made in our deliberations today, so I will not repeat the arguments for them. I wish to pick up just one point: namely, where does Parliament have any say in the future in what will happen to our public service broadcasters? From the debates that have taken place both in this House, at Second Reading, and in the other place, we know that one of the Government’s arguments about this streamlined arrangement for PSBs is that we should not be worried because, as far as the BBC is concerned, much more detail will be provided within the royal charter and, for the other public service broadcasters, it will be provided for within the licences. However, I asked a question at Second Reading to which I did not get an answer. It was a simple one: does Parliament have any say whatever in the royal charter or the licence agreement? My understanding is that the answer is no. I hope that, when the Minister responds on this group, he will confirm that I am correct, and I hope that, in doing so, he will acknowledge that that argument means, therefore, that there is no opportunity for Parliament to have a say on this important issue.

In response to the first group of amendments, the Minister told us that there was a second way in which we need not be concerned. He told us about the rather pointless, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, pointed out, five-yearly “high-level”—as the Minister called it—review, because so much would have changed. He pointed quite rightly, however, to the annual report that Ofcom would have to do, collecting the annual statistics on the genres covered. We should get some confidence from that, because he pointed out that that is contained in Section 358 of the Communications Act, which will be continued.

Well, I had a look at Section 358, which talks about annual reports with statistics on the genres covered, but I noted that, very interestingly, that Section 358(3) states:

“In carrying out a review … OFCOM must consider, in particular, each of the following”—

and the first is

“(a) the extent to which programmes included during that period in television and radio services are representative of what OFCOM consider to be the principal genres for such programmes”.

So Parliament is not going to have a say there, either.

We look to the Bill itself, which also talks about the new streamlined way in which the whole approach to PSBs is set out and how Ofcom will review it. Clause 1(5)(b) states that the requirements of this subsection are

“that the audiovisual content made available by the public service broadcasters (taken together) includes what appears to OFCOM to be … a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content that reflects the lives and concerns of different communities”—

and so on. So, yet again, we have a Bill before us that refers back to a previous Bill and also to something where Ofcom is making decisions on issues in which Parliament has not had the opportunity to be involved.

These amendments are the only opportunity for Parliament to have its say. I, for one, strongly believe that we need to give very clear guidance to Ofcom on what Parliament believes is the appropriate role for a for a public service broadcaster. This amendment gives that very clearly. It would reinstate what was contained within the Communications Act 2003. I very much hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept not only the amendment but the legitimate role that Parliament has in saying what it believes should be the guidance given to Ofcom for the review that it carries out into the nature of our public service broadcasters.

My Lords, I too have added my name to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, which, as he has explained, seeks to define what an “appropriate range of genres” actually is. What worries me is that his amendment has a list and, without that, I do not think that there is any definition of what we think an appropriate range should be.

We are not alone in believing that new subsection (6) is inadequate in its lack of clarity over both what an appropriate range of genres is and how it is going to be monitored by Ofcom. Concerns have been expressed through briefings to noble Lords from the Citizens’ PSM Forum, which welcomes and endorses these amendments. The only change that I suggest is that instead of “religion and other beliefs”, I would prefer “religion and other faiths”, as I think that will ensure that conspiracy theories and the like are not accidently captured by this.

My Lords, I offer Green support for Amendment 9, which I think has already been very powerfully argued for. I also note the degree of lobbying, from the Citizens’ PSM Forum, already referred to, but also a number of other groups and individuals who have contacted me about this, indicating that they regard this as terribly important.

I will focus on science, because I think that science broadcasting, in terms of socially valued public service genres, really deserves to be stressed. This picks up points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the first group, in the context of our climate emergency and all the other exceeding of planetary boundaries threats that we face. I am speaking in the context where today’s Guardian reports that a survey of IPCC scientists notes that the majority view is that we are heading towards 2.5 degrees of global heating. I remain an optimist and I do not necessarily agree with that—it is a question of social innovation and change—but what is clearly crucial is that the public sector broadcasters provide the scientific information and context that the public need to understand the debates and the issues.

I declare my position here as a science graduate from 1987. Much of what I was taught in my science degree I now know to be utterly out of date. One thing that may not apply to the other aspects of this—certainly to the first point here—is that science changes with lightning speed. Most of what I was taught in soil science I can now regard only as absolute junk. Much of what I was taught in genetics has been utterly overturned. If we are to have a public who are informed about these really crucial issues, science programming can be difficult, controversial and very expensive but it is crucial that there is a remit in the Bill that we need this from our public sector broadcasters.

Personally, I try to keep up to date with a whole range of podcasts. I can recommend to noble Lords “Big Biology” or the New Books Network “Systems and Cybernetics” channel, but they are not necessarily terribly accessible and it is really important that we have public sector broadcasters providing the content that informs the public on scientific issues.

My Lords, I too have added my name to Amendment 9. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, said, a clear definition of the genres, rather than the vague “appropriate”, is necessary to ensure commissioning from the PSBs across a full range of programmes and proper oversight from Ofcom. As my noble friend Lord Foster mentioned, the Minister said earlier that the Bill has not removed Section 358 of the Communications Act, which requires Ofcom to collect information on principal genres, but it does not define what these genres are, so we return to the essential fact that, if not specified, Ofcom will not be required to monitor this crucial content in quantitative terms.

Specifying genres provides guarantees for a future we cannot predict. It does not take a lot of imagination to envisage the slippery slope. With the genres gone, there are two likely consequences. First, the commercial PSBs will seek to diminish their commitment and will lobby accordingly, exactly as ITV did with regional current affairs programmes. Secondly, Ofcom will have less discretion to hold them to account if it is under no obligation to monitor individual genres.

I return to the pre-legislative DCMS Committee report and to what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said so forcefully, that removing the requirement on commercial PSBs to provide specific genres for UK children’s content

“led to significant reductions in the production of original children’s TV, and we are concerned that the draft Media Bill’s removal of the specific reference to other genres will lead to similar reductions in content, particularly in the less commercially successful areas”.

That is from the committee’s report, but we all agree on it, I think.

I have one rather off-the-wall question, having listened to the very interesting debate about language: can we please find another word instead of “genre”? Maybe there is a Welsh, Gaelic or Cornish word that we could use instead.

My Lords, if I may contribute briefly to this debate, I would not go as far as saying that I support the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, but I think it raises some interesting questions. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about the role of Parliament in making clear its expectations of Ofcom in discharging its responsibilities in regulating broadcasters is an important one and I will be very interested to hear more from my noble friend about the Government’s position on that.

One of my concerns more generally—I have raised it in the context of other Bills—is how we as parliamentarians can do our job properly in overseeing and properly holding regulators to account for the powers and responsibilities we give them through legislation. What the amendment really does, for me, is expose what I see as quite a strategic challenge, and I will be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister says about this, because I find it a bit of a dilemma. On one hand, the vaguer the obligations on the public service broadcasters become, the harder it is to argue for the privileges they enjoy as public service broadcasters; on the other hand and by the same token, the more prescriptive the obligations on them are, the harder it becomes for them to compete in the modern media world. It gets to the heart of quite a dilemma. On that basis, I am very keen to listen to my noble friend, because I find this one of the knottiest and most difficult things to come to a hard and confident position on, in terms of the questions it raises. I look forward to what my noble friend says.

When the Government first released Up Next, the White Paper that preceded the Bill, it made no reference to genres such as entertainment, drama, science and religion being removed from the remit, as they have been in this Bill. That is why this is an important question, and why we were very keen to add our name to the amendment from the noble Viscount. As other noble Lords have said, we have seen the effect—particularly with children—of what happens when we do not have specific mention of genres with which we can hold the regulator to account.

It is good that the public service broadcasters have issued reassurances that the new remit will not significantly impact on programming in the removed areas, but I agree with the noble Viscount that the addition of “appropriate range of genres” to the Bill is a small protection. We believe the removal of references to specific genres is still a matter of concern. We think that there is no guarantee, therefore, that Ofcom will be held to account to monitor. In many ways, this is what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds was talking about when he mentioned the matrix: how do we know that things have been delivered properly? That is why we support this amendment.

We do not propose that every genre would have to be addressed by every provider, but I hope the Minister can take on board what Amendment 9 proposes. Simplifying the remit is a worthwhile objective, but not if it is done at the cost of the kind of content that sets our public service broadcasters apart.

My Lords, the noble Viscount degrouped his amendment to give us a chance to look at genres again and in more detail. There was much overlap with the debate we had on the first group, so I hope he will forgive me if I am relatively brief and do not repeat myself but allude to what I said previously. It has, however, given noble Lords the opportunity to ask further questions and make further points.

Let me turn first to what the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, asked about the royal charter. It is not quite as simple as he expects. The Secretary of State must lay the final terms of reference for the royal charter review before Parliament, and a draft of the proposed charter and framework agreement must be laid before Parliament and debated by each House. Both Houses can, of course, hold the Government to account—as they do—for the way they go about their work on charter renewal. I hope that gives the noble Lord some further detail.

In relation to the question posed by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, there is no change to Ofcom’s accountability to Parliament through this Bill. It is accountable to Parliament and routinely appears before Select Committees, such as the one she chairs in your Lordships’ House.

On the question of genres—which I will continue to refer to in the Norman French because I do not know the Welsh or Gaelic words for it yet—

Would the Minister like some help?

Yes. The point is, as my noble friend Lady Stowell put it, echoing the point raised by my noble friend Lord Vaizey in the debate on the first group, to strike the right balance with a streamlined remit that gets to the heart of what it is to be a public service broadcaster and does not dilute that. As I mentioned, we have added a new subsection (6) making clear that public service broadcasters must together produce a range of genres in order to fulfil the public service remit. Although we do not object to any of the specific genres that have been mentioned, we are concerned that reintroducing further granularity would serve only to complicate the role we have given Ofcom in regulating this important area.

We are confident that the streamlined remit treads the right line between providing the broadcasters with the flexibility to meet the new challenges of a market that changes very rapidly, as the noble Viscount is right to say, and ensuring that a wide range of genres will continue to reach our screens. The Bill ensures that Ofcom has the tools it needs to ensure that public service broad- casters continue to produce that wide range. It can take enforcement action, should it judge that a licensed public service broadcaster has failed to fulfil its public service remit, which includes making an adequate contribution to the overall public service remit for television.

My noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie asked in what circumstances the Government would consider using the delegated power in the Bill to add a quota for an underserved genre. That is set out in new Section 278A and follows a recommendation from Ofcom in its reports under Section 229 or 264 of the Communications Act. We would of course carefully consider any such recommendation alongside any other information from Ofcom, such as information from its market report conducted under Section 358, and information provided by the public service broadcasters and other providers in line with the process set out in new Section 278A.

With those further points, and reiterating my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull—which gives me the opportunity to acknowledge the distinction she was trying to make in her amendment and the relisting of genres that we value and are familiar with—I hope the noble Viscount will be satisfied to withdraw his amendment.

I am very grateful to noble Lords for their support on this amendment. I think it proved that I was right to degroup it so that we could have a specific discussion about the need for genres.

The Minister said that it is going to be fine because we have Ofcom, which will oversee the remit and make sure that the PSBs give us good, broad content. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, warned us, this does not give Parliament anything like enough power to hold Ofcom to account. This is an issue we have had in this Chamber a number of times, on different Acts. We discussed it quite a lot on the Online Safety Bill and were very concerned by the enormous powers that were given to Ofcom and the inability to control them. In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, suggested a parliamentary committee that could look at the way Ofcom carried out its powers.

There is obviously a battle between regulation and competition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said. The Minister is obviously content that new subsection (6) in particular is going to help direct the PSBs to deal with this problematical and knotty area. However, I remain unconvinced and extremely concerned that the fiercely competitive economic environment in which our PSBs find themselves will drive them inexorably away from serious factual programming and towards entertainment.

I hope that between Committee and Report the Minister will meet me and other noble Lords to discuss this issue, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

That this House regrets the Government’s decision to lay the National Networks National Policy Statement, laid before the House on 6 March, without carrying out the systematic review of road projects recommended by the Climate Change Committee; addressing the risk of insufficient environmental action by the Department for Transport highlighted by the National Audit Office; or joining up their policies with the missions presented to Parliament under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this short Motion tonight. I think the text of the Motion is pretty clear to noble Lords: in simple terms, I believe that the Government have introduced the latest national networks national policy statement without proper consultation and I fear that it will end in tears.

These NNNPSs have been around since they were set up with the Planning Act 2008 and are supposed to be produced every five years or so. They can be debated in both Houses. The present one was debated in the other place. I think there were 10 Members of Parliament present, and everybody had the feeling that it was being pushed through by the Government. The same legislation basically requires any debate in the Lords to take place within what they call a “relevant period”, otherwise you do not get the benefit of a response from the Minister. I was only told about this particular need for a debate quite recently by the Transport Action Network, for which I am very grateful, but we are actually out of time already.

The Government have not actually designated this NNNPS yet, and I hope to get comments from the Minister in this debate to explore what they are going to do next. Last week, the Government lost a case in the High Court on climate change issues. The case was led by Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and the Good Law Project. They took legal action over the targets that the Government had put in the NNNPSs, having successfully challenged the previous budgets. The High Court ruled that Britain had breached legislation designed to help reach the 2015 Paris Agreement goal of keeping temperatures within 1.5 degrees Celsius of pre-industrial levels, which required a new plan. The court effectively ruled that the NNNPS was illegal.

So my question to the Minister is: what next? Given that surface transport caused over 29% of UK emissions last year, it would be pretty foolish if the Government were to designate—in other words continue with—the NNNPS now. A lawful climate plan will inevitably require a fundamental and radical shift in transport policy, and we have not seen it yet. There is no sign of it. There are many examples that I could go through, but I will not, because a number of colleagues wish to speak. I have noted examples from organisations such as the Institution of Civil Engineers, the House of Commons Transport Committee and a lot of the other organisations that have submitted evidence. They are name-checked in the NNNPS, but just mentioning their names does not actually mean that the Government will do what the particular organisation says that they should do.

The Climate Change Committee’s report to Parliament stressed the importance of a

“systematic review of all current and proposed road schemes”.

That was in 2023. I am wondering where they are; maybe the Minister will be able to tell us. Many things in the Environment Act 2021 have not been translated into the NNNPS. Policy issues on cycling, wheeling, walking et cetera—particular interests of mine—are totally missing.

I have come to the conclusion, as I expect other noble Lords may have, that the Government have got a rather unsavoury record of ignoring any climate change documents or reports—even their own report—if they conflict with other policies. The two that I have come across govern oil production and building more roads. A couple of weeks ago, we had a debate in your Lordships’ House in Committee on the offshore oil and gas Bill. The Minister completely ignored the strong recommendations from the Environment Agency’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee—a statutory maritime advisory committee—not to drill oil in marine protected areas. The Minister totally ignored it, and the Government are going to go ahead. The same comment applies to the Department for Transport and the Climate Change Committee.

So I ask the Minister: what next? I could have divided the House on a Motion to Regret, but I am afraid that that does not solve the problem. If the Minister does nothing and the Government eventually designate this NNNPS, they will end up with multiple court cases and judicial reviews, which will likely stop them in their tracks because they have been defeated in the courts and they have to accept that. The presumption in favour of road building will also have to be looked at and obviously there will need to be changes to some of the planning laws.

The most important thing is for there to be an in-depth review of how the NNNPSs are actually created, and the role of other organisations who have an input, within government and outside. Some debate on them is a necessary part of NNNPSs being produced and they should be debated in both Houses in a proper, structured way.

I shall stop there. I beg to move and look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the regret Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, even though I think that regret Motions are pathetic, frankly. At least it means a debate.

It is better than nothing.

It is better than nothing. As somebody who has watched this Government for a long time now, I cannot believe that they have backtracked on so many of their plans. Actually, they had very few plans to start with, but they seem to have backtracked on all of them about delivering net zero. They seem to not even understand what net zero means.

As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, the Government were taken to court because it is obvious that the UK is going to fail to do its bit to save the planet—and they lost in court because they no longer believe in doing the right thing. They are now fighting another court case because they cut £200 million from the promotion of walking and cycling, a key part of delivering net zero.

I almost think that I—or someone else, possibly on this Bench—ought to write the Ladybird Book of Transport Policy for Climate Change Deniers, because, really, you do need to understand what we are going to see in the future. As has been said, transport accounts for nearly a third of emissions and, despite a million electric vehicles on our roads, those emissions have hardly changed in a decade. All the road building has led to extra cars and longer traffic jams. Instead of switching people away from their cars by creating places to live that are within easy, 15-minute walks of shops and services, this Government have run down bus services and built sprawling suburbs that actually increase the use of cars.

One big reason for the Government doing the wrong thing, rather than the right thing, is the millions that the Conservatives have received in donations from the oil and gas industry. Gas and oil people want drivers to spend longer driving to the shops and to fill up at petrol stations, because that means more money for them. Gas and oil do not really like people cycling or walking—all those cheap, easy things—because those people are not making them money. The big polluters finance Tufton Street think tanks and social media bots, because they want to squeeze as much money out of their planet-killing business as they possibly can.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that the Government have an unsavoury reputation on climate change. I do not think that it is unsavoury; it is ignorant. I do not understand how you can go through the last few years of hearing what is happening on climate change and still be so ignorant about it.

For a few years.

How many years in Government does the noble Lord want? Maybe a couple of terms. As such, I will focus my next few remarks to those in the next Government, because these national policy statements were Labour’s idea—and they are a really good idea. To make them work, we have to make sure that the Treasury listens and that the next Government get the funding to deliver real change.

When I was the Deputy Mayor of London to Ken Livingstone, I told him that, if we were to be serious about creating more cycling routes, we were going to need hundreds of millions a year. There was a huge shudder of shock around his whole office. It was eventually accepted that, if you want to change things and to get people more safely walking and cycling, you need the sort of money that we might spend on a new road. The truth is, if you build those opportunities, people will take them. We need to imagine a future that is better than what we have now and spend the money building that future.

My Lords, I have two interests to declare. First, I am a practising Silk. At the planning and environment Bar, I act for a range of parties affected by national policy statements. Secondly, in February this year, I was appointed by the Prime Minister to undertake a review of the processes relating to legal challenges to development consent orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects.

In the course of that review, which is still to report, I have engaged on NSIPs with various stakeholders from all sides of the spectrum, including environmental NGOs, the public sector and the private sector. Obviously, I will not comment on matters within the remit of the review, but I want to draw the House’s attention to one point on which there is broad consensus among the stakeholders. It is not directly relevant to my remit, but it has some relevance to this debate. There is broad consensus that national policy statements need to be kept up to date, and that there have been shortcomings in that respect in recent years. The NPS that we are debating tonight replaces one from 2014. That is the status quo; it is 10 years old. The disbenefits of a national policy statement being out of date include, first, that the function of an NPS—to set the framework for development consent and streamline the consenting process—is undermined if it has been overtaken by events. Secondly, the propensity for and risk of legal challenges is greater if people can point to a mismatch between current circumstances and an out-of-date NPS.

Voltaire probably did not have in mind nationally significant infrastructure projects when he said that the perfect is the enemy of the good, but he might very well have done, because the adage is no less applicable, and possibly more so, in this context than it is in any other. Even if the national networks NPS could be improved with further reviews of the nature the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, suggests, the status quo during the time when it was subject to that review would be the 10 year-old and even further ageing 2014 NPS. I suggest that it may well be better to have a 2024 NPS—which on any view is more up to date than its decade-old predecessor—complete with a commitment to be reviewed within five years or earlier, as the new NPS commits that it should be. That review would be in light of any further environmental policy developments that took place in that five-year period. Is that not better than maintaining the status quo of 2014 while we conduct further reviews in the meantime?

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Woodland Trust and president, patron or vice-president of a range of environmental organisations. I support the Motion to Regret tabled by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. He got to the Table Office about 30 seconds before I did with my version of the Motion. He will pay for that in future.

I want to challenge the previous statements, with all respect to Voltaire. This is not a question of it not being necessary to update the previous policy statement. It is very overdue to update the previous policy statement, but, alas, this version is badly out of kilter with a whole suite of other policy commitments that the Government have already made, including environmental and other targets. Voltaire might have said that the best is the enemy of the good, but this is far from being “the best”—and it is not even “the good”. Let us press on.

It is amazing how many respectable bodies have criticised this policy, because this revised version has significant implications for the delivery of the key objectives of the UK Government on climate and the environment. The Government have missed many of their targets for years. In its most recent assessment of the Department for Transport, the National Audit Office gave a “black” rating—the worst possible rating—to the likelihood and impact of the risk that the Department for Transport would

“not deliver sufficient action in the transport sector to provide carbon savings, meet air quality and biodiversity targets, and adapt to climate change”.

That is pretty forthright. We have to remind ourselves that these targets are, for the most part, enshrined in law.

The Transport Select Committee had a go at this. It was highly critical of the draft NNNPS, but the Government rejected the vast majority of its findings. The Climate Change Committee’s 2023 progress report to Parliament stressed the need for

“a systematic review of all current and proposed road schemes”,

with only those that

“meaningfully support cost-effective delivery of Net Zero and climate adaptation”

to be taken forward. But that did not seem to be picked up by the Government. In fact, the Department for Transport flatly refused to undertake any assessment of schemes, and the revised NNNPS would now permit an increase in emissions, when we are already not on track to meet our future carbon budgets. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, road transport emissions are almost one-third of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions. We must take action in transport if we are to meet these overall binding targets.

The NNNPS is not just failing on net-zero targets; it does next to nothing to reduce the significant impact on key habitats, such as ancient woodlands, of the strategic road and rail programmes. So far, HS2 has caused the greatest ever destruction of and damage to irreplaceable ancient woodlands of any major infra- structure project. The successive stages that have emerged since the early part have not shown any improvement whatever—and neither has East West Rail in its planning process. The most valuable fragments of ancient woodland often occur in the open spaces between areas of built development. New roads and railways make a kind of beeline for those open spaces, since they provide a green field route with nothing getting in the way—except irreplaceable habitats. In fact, it often looks like roads and rail routes simply join up the dots of the ancient woodland fragments that should be protected.

The Woodland Trust ran an assessment of the impacts of the schemes in the Department for Transport’s road investment strategies 1 and 2, which cover the last 10 years. Some 29% of the schemes have resulted in a confirmed impact on ancient woodlands and ancient trees.

There is one small crumb of comfort in the proposed NNNPS. It adopts the wording of the National Planning Policy Framework that loss or damage to these key habitats should be allowed only where there are “wholly exceptional reasons”. However, the DfT then goes on to argue that nationally significant infrastructure project roads are wholly exceptional due to national needs—so a fat lot of good the slightly tougher wording turns out to be.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about the debate in the other place on the NNNPS. It was a bit desultory—to use the kindest phrase I can think of. It was scheduled as virtually the last business before the Easter Recess: sort of the equivalent of a wet Tuesday night at the Aberdeen Empire. That is not a great way to deal with such an important policy statement. Although several Members made compelling points, the Minister barely noticed that they had happened. This development since the debate in the other place is crucial: the High Court’s judgment last week declaring the Government’s climate change action plan unlawful is absolutely fundamental.

In the light of that, it seems unwise for the Government to seek to designate the NNNPS now. A lawful plan will inevitably require a fundamental shift in government approach to transport planning, since transport policy represents 70% of the gap in delivery policies across all economic sectors. Therefore, a lack of progress to decarbonise transport, in effect, kicks the legs out from under the whole net-zero agenda.

There is an elegant way for the Government to get out from under the car crash in which they find themselves as a result of the High Court ruling. In February 2022, the energy national policy statements were withdrawn for further review in light of the BEIS Committee calling for stronger emphasis on net zero, so there is a precedent. In my book, the DfT should gracefully do the same, and commission an independent review of the NNNPS and of the projects that are beneath its overarching framework to make sure that transport policy can deliver what is needed for the Government to achieve their statutory targets, both in climate change and in the broader environment.

Can the Minister confirm that he will, in fact, gracefully withdraw the NNNPS? If he is not prepared to do that, why not, and how are the Government planning to meet their statutory climate and environment commitments and to respond to the verdict of the High Court?