Lords Shield Life Sciences as Fatal Amendment Fails

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords held oral questions on NHS corridor care, supermarket land covenants, think‑tank funding transparency, and infant formula safety. Peers then debated and approved regulations adding the life sciences sector to “key national infrastructure” under the Public Order Act 2023; a fatal amendment to block the instrument was defeated by 295 to 62 and the Motion was agreed. Members questioned a Government Statement on the Prime Minister’s visit to China and Japan. Two bills received second readings and were committed: the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill, to prioritise UK‑trained doctors for training posts, and the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, to cap NICs relief on pension salary sacrifice from 2029–30.

Detailed Summary

Retirement of a Member: Lord Mandelson

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean formally notified the House of Lord Mandelson’s retirement pursuant to the House of Lords Reform Act 2014: “I now formally notify the House of his retirement, with effect from today, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.”. No further action was required.

NHS: Corridor Care – Oral Question

Baroness Watkins asked about the assessment of corridor care and mitigation plans. Health Minister Baroness Merron said new corridor‑care data will be published for the first time: “we have introduced new data collection on corridor care, which will be published shortly for the first time”. She added that “corridor care should not be normalised” and cited the Urgent and Emergency Care Plan and targeted support for the most‑challenged trusts. Peers raised social care capacity, GP funding and patient experience. The Minister cited adult social care funding of “around £4.6 billion … by 2028-29” and over £1 billion via local authorities to expand capacity. Responding to an account of an elderly patient on a corridor trolley, she said such cases must be risk‑assessed and “There should be a named nurse” with food and drink provided. On waiting lists, she said, “The waiting lists are going down” and offered to share data. Next steps include publication of corridor‑care data, application of clinical standards, and discharge initiatives; no decision was sought.

Land Covenants: Supermarket Chains – Oral Question

Lord Kirkhope asked about updating rules on restrictive land covenants. Minister Lord Stockwood said the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) “is currently assessing whether additional retailers should be designated under the controlled land order”. He acknowledged concerns about Aldi and Lidl exemptions but stressed CMA independence, saying it “seems right on face value that Aldi and Lidl should be brought into that same regime” while the consultation proceeds. Peers queried enforcement and wider fairness issues. The Minister said he would consult colleagues on whether the digital markets legislation confers fining powers, cited business rate reliefs including “a permanent 5p cut in the business rates multiplier for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties”, and noted a goal to “reduc[e] the £22 billion annual burden by 25%” via the Regulation Action Plan. He referenced £150 million for high streets and planning streamlining under the Planning and Infrastructure Act. No decisions were taken; the CMA assessment is ongoing.

Think Tanks: Funding – Oral Question

Lord Rennard asked about transparency for think‑tank funding, including foreign sources. Minister Baroness Anderson replied: “it is for each individual think tank to publicise and declare their sources of funding,” noting Charity Commission guidance and electoral law for third‑party campaigners, and she said, “We eagerly await the findings of Philip Rycroft’s independent review into countering foreign financial influence”. On electoral reforms, she said recipients would be required to undertake “know your donor” due diligence to guard against illegitimate foreign funding. Pressed to rule out changes, she responded, “I cannot and will not” confirm that current arrangements will remain unchanged, arguing for clarity on “who is funding what, when and why”. She agreed to update peers on concerns about community interest companies and to correspond on Sinn Féin donation transparency in Northern Ireland. No immediate policy changes were announced; the House awaits the Rycroft review and forthcoming legislation.

Baby Milk Powder: Cereulide – Oral Question

Baroness Bennett asked about systemic issues after discovery of cereulide toxin in infant formula. Baroness Merron said Nestlé and Danone had launched recalls and that “This is a live incidence and it is too early to identify any systemic issues”. On arachidonic acid (ARA) oil, she said it is common but “this one appears to have had some contamination, which has affected certain batches, and it is those that are being recalled”. Peers raised supply‑chain regulation and independent testing. The Minister said the Food Standards Agency (FSA) judges current testing adequate and covered by the Food Safety Act—“they have the tools to do the job”. On communication and harm, she praised the response as “more than a decent job” and advised consumers to consult NHS/FSA websites and clinicians if concerned. Incident management continues; post‑incident reviews are expected.

Public Order Act 2023 (Interference with Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 – Motion to Approve (life sciences added to KNI)

Moving the Motion, Lord Hanson said the instrument adds life sciences facilities to key national infrastructure to address disruptive protests, making it “a criminal offence to deliberately or recklessly disrupt life sciences infrastructure or interfere with its use or operation,” with penalties up to 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine. He stressed it “does not prohibit or restrict peaceful protests”. Baroness Bennett moved a fatal amendment, calling the SI “a notable and dangerous piece of legislative overreach” and saying it would “represent a further restriction on the democratic right to peaceful protest”. Supporters cited national resilience and the necessity of animal research; Lord Winston described “repeated death threats” against researchers. Lord Kerr raised constitutional concerns, stating, “This instrument pushes the boundaries too far”. Outcome: the fatal amendment was defeated by 295 to 62 (Ayes 62, Noes 295) and the Motion was agreed. Next steps include implementation and operational guidance for policing and prosecutions, as indicated by Ministers.

China and Japan – Statement (questioned in the Lords)

Peers questioned the Prime Minister’s Statement on his visit to China and Japan. The Statement reported agreements to “intensify dialogue on cyber issues” and a new climate and nature partnership, a border security pact to disrupt the supply of small‑boat engines “at source”, and China’s agreement to halve whisky tariffs—“from 10% to 5%”. It also said that sanctions on UK parliamentarians “no longer apply”. Answering for the Government, Baroness Smith said the Chinese embassy planning decision was “quasi‑judicial … It is not a matter for the Prime Minister”. She reaffirmed support for Ukraine and for the Global Combat Air Programme with Japan: “we remain fully committed to GCAP”, and said the Government will continue to press for Jimmy Lai’s release. No vote was taken; Ministers undertook to provide further updates and correspondence on specific queries.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill – Second Reading

Baroness Merron introduced the Bill to address training bottlenecks by prioritising UK‑trained graduates (and defined priority groups) for foundation and specialty training: “The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill gives effect to the Government’s commitment to place UK-trained doctors … at the front of the queue … It is not about excluding people, but it is unashamedly about prioritisation”. She highlighted the need for Royal Assent by 5 March for this year’s cycle and referenced planned expansion of specialty posts. Peers broadly supported the objective but raised concerns about fairness and implementation—effects on UK universities’ overseas campuses (e.g., Malta), a potential “stranded cohort” mid‑recruitment, and using immigration status as a proxy for NHS experience in 2026. Earl Howe cautioned that the Bill is “far from insignificant” and urged precision to avoid unintended consequences. The Minister said “almost 300” applicants were from overseas campuses and that “overseas campus students are not part of the numbers that the Government are setting”; she noted Malta has its own foundation school affiliated to the UK programme. She argued that delaying implementation “would mean another full year where we are not tackling the issue”. Outcome: Second Reading agreed; committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill – Second Reading

Opening the debate, Lord Livermore said the Bill “introduces a cap of £2,000 under which no employer and employee national insurance contributions will be charged on any pension contributions,” with implementation “in 2029-30” and most lower earners unaffected. Peers debated fairness, behavioural impacts and complexity. Critics argued it could hit middle earners and reduce saving; Baroness Neville‑Rolfe said it “hits people squarely in the middle of the income distribution”. Supporters questioned salary sacrifice’s logic; Lord Davies of Brixton called it “an illogical nonsense”. Closing, the Minister said small firms are less likely to use salary sacrifice, confirmed “The Government have no plans to index the cap”, and stressed that core pension tax reliefs remain intact. Outcome: Second Reading agreed; committed to Grand Committee.