Lords Debate Accountability, Farming Reform and Citizenship Education

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords considered questions on Russian and Chinese influence in the Western Balkans, accessible new towns, UK-EU renewable-energy alignment, settled migrants’ economic contribution and BBC funding. It also considered the Sustainable Farming Incentive, including plans to move away from the first-come, first-served process for 2027. Committee proceedings on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill covered record destruction, responses to inquiry recommendations, official guidance, ethical codes and the proposed offence of misleading the public; the relevant amendments were withdrawn or not moved, and Clauses 8 to 12 and Schedules 2 and 3 were agreed. A short debate considered citizenship education, after which the House adjourned at 10.26 pm.

Detailed Summary

Western Balkans: Russian and Chinese influence

Baroness Helic asked about Russian and Chinese influence in the Western Balkans, particularly Serbia, in defence, security and robotics. Lord Wood of Anfield said the two countries had different objectives and methods, with Russia seeking to retain influence and prevent further regional integration with the EU and NATO, while China had built influence through infrastructure, mining and technology. He identified Serbia as the principal regional partner of both countries, citing energy dependency on Russia and growing trade with China, including drones and air-defence systems: “Russia and China have different objectives in the western Balkans and use different levers and methods.”

Peers also raised the readiness of KFOR in Kosovo and EUFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina, media freedom, Serbia’s regional role, disinformation, intelligence, United States engagement, China’s relationship with the UK and illicit finance. The Minister said that the UK contributed about 45 personnel to KFOR, supported regional resilience and responses to hybrid attacks, monitored Serbia’s elections with international partners, and was developing information-defence expertise. He continued to describe Serbia as an important partner for regional stability and said the Government would engage with it on democratic reform and its responsibilities towards Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina. No formal decision was recorded in the transcript.

New towns: accessibility and infrastructure

Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe asked how new towns and associated infrastructure would be made accessible to disabled people and people whose conditions change. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said inclusive design was a core place-making principle and that national policies and standards on inclusive design and accessibility would apply: “Accessibility is a core theme of our place-making principles”.

The discussion covered adaptable homes, staircasing within local communities, modern methods of construction, accessibility testing, small housebuilders, home energy and flood risk. The Minister said the Government wanted at least 40% of homes to meet the M4(2) standard, and that financing and insurance obstacles to modern methods of construction would need to be addressed. She said the current proposals were undergoing strategic environmental assessment, including consideration of flooding, water availability and environmental impacts: “All the current proposals are now going through a very significant strategic environmental assessment process”. No final locations were stated in the transcript.

UK-EU alignment on renewable energy

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea asked about the UK’s ability to align with the European Union’s renewable-energy acquis. Baroness Curran said the Government were negotiating an electricity agreement to reduce trading costs, strengthen energy security and support investment in the North Sea. She said the relevant renewable-energy rules and detailed commitments remained subject to negotiation: “The detailed commitments under such agreement will be developed as part of the negotiations”.

Peers questioned the possible 42.5% renewable-energy target, the costs and constitutional implications of alignment, and the potential role of the European Court of Justice. The Minister said the agreement would not require membership of the single market, that the UK would negotiate the rules, and that the European Court of Justice would not be involved in the acquis. She also said that membership of organisations such as North Seas Energy Cooperation could form part of the negotiations. The negotiations were ongoing, with no agreement or completion timetable stated: “these negotiations are ongoing”.

Settled migrants: economic contribution

Lord Moraes asked for the net annual economic contribution of settled migrants, particularly people with indefinite leave to remain (ILR). Lord Collins of Highbury referred to Migration Advisory Committee estimates of migrants’ static and lifetime fiscal impacts, and said that settlement made a lifetime assessment more appropriate: “it is right to consider the fiscal contribution of migrants with settlement over their lifetime”. The Minister did not provide a single net annual figure in the answer.

Peers discussed the earned-settlement consultation, migrants’ roles in health and social care, entrepreneurship, labour shortages, public confidence and applications by British nationals overseas from Hong Kong. The Minister said that more than 200,000 consultation responses were being analysed and that final arrangements would be announced in due course. He cited substantial variation between cohorts, including an estimated positive lifetime contribution of £689,000 for people arriving through the skilled worker route and an estimated negative £36,000 for a lower-category care cohort: “They vary quite substantially between different cohorts”. He declined to comment on individual Hong Kong applications, saying that applications would be considered in the same way.

BBC licence fee and streaming services

Lord Hunt of Wirral asked whether the BBC licence fee might be extended to households using streaming services and about the effects on household bills, consumer choice, investment and the creative industries. Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood said that the charter review was considering options for the BBC’s future funding, including possible licence-fee reform, and that the Government would publish a White Paper by the end of the year: “The Government will set out their decisions in the White Paper by the end of the year”.

Peers discussed affordability, sustainable BBC funding, commercial diversification, local news, trust, BBC salaries, regulatory independence and whether streaming services using BBC resources should contribute. The Minister did not confirm which specific streaming-service option was under consideration because the review was ongoing. She said she would reflect on a suggestion that an independent body should set the public funding settlement and would respond to a question about the collection of trust data. She made no commitment to safeguard local democracy reporters before the White Paper.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

The House considered the Commons Answer to an Urgent Question on the Sustainable Farming Incentive 2026 (SFI26). The Answer said that nearly 19,000 new agreements had been funded with £310 million across two application windows, including £253 million for 12,200 agreements in the second window. It also acknowledged that some farmers who wanted to join the scheme had been unsuccessful. Baroness Hayman of Ullock said that other schemes remained available: “There are still other funding opportunities available to farmers”.

Peers criticised the first-come, first-served allocation, questioned whether demand had been anticipated, and raised the effects on small, tenant and common-land farmers, pest risks and the measurement of environmental outcomes. The Minister said Defra was reviewing the process, working with farming organisations and providing mental-health support. The Government’s Answer stated that the 2027 scheme would scrap the first-come, first-served process, and Baroness Hayman confirmed the intended change: “One of the things we have pledged to do is move away from the first come, first served approach”.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill: destruction of records

On the second day of Committee, Baroness Brinton moved Amendment 31, which proposed an offence of deliberately destroying information or records relevant to an inquiry, investigation or inquest where the person knew, or was reckless as to whether, the information was relevant or required. She and other speakers referred to Hillsborough, infected blood, nuclear-test veterans and the Post Office Horizon scandal, arguing that the law should address the destruction and concealment of records. Baroness Brinton described the problem as “a culture of destroying important information”.

Lord Carlile of Berriew argued that concealment should also be covered, while Lord Beamish emphasised record-keeping policies for paper and digital communications. Baroness Finn supported a clear offence but said that the drafting needed to balance the different proposals. Lord Lemos said that existing duties to provide relevant information, the proposed misconduct offence, perverting the course of justice and contempt of court could already address the conduct, and cautioned against overlapping offences. He also undertook to write to Lord Alton about the latest position on the atomic-test inquiries. Following the Minister’s offer of further discussion, Baroness Brinton withdrew Amendment 31: “Amendment 31 withdrawn.”

Public Office (Accountability) Bill: responses to inquiry recommendations

Lord Carter of Haslemere moved Amendment 32, which would have required a Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within 56 days, details of action taken or proposed in response to inquiry recommendations, or reasons for taking no action. Supporters argued that costly inquiries required transparent follow-through. Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Bichard and others questioned whether 56 days would always be workable and emphasised the importance of monitoring implementation, not only obtaining an initial response. Lord Carter said that there needed to be “a meaningful and timely response”.

Lord Lemos said that the Government agreed there should be a clear and consistent expectation that public authorities respond to inquiry reports and recommendations. He referred to inquiry-recommendation dashboards and said the Government would consider how to establish a clearer and more consistent expectation, while allowing sufficient time for informed decisions: “The Government should respond and give their reasons, and they should do so in a timely fashion”. Lord Carter withdrew the amendment and said he would consider its wording before Report. Amendment 33 was not moved and Clause 8 was agreed.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill: guidance and ethical conduct

Baroness Finn moved Amendment 34, which sought to require guidance on the duty of candour within one month of the Act coming into effect, including information about support for officials. Speakers raised the position of junior officials, legal assistance and arm’s-length bodies. Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent said that guidance would be ready for commencement and that departments currently provided legal advice to officials, with the same expected for arm’s-length bodies: “we will provide guidance to public officials about the duty of candour and assistance”. Amendment 34 was withdrawn and Clause 9 was agreed.

The Committee then debated whether ethical codes should be produced separately by each authority or based on a single national core code. Lord Alton of Liverpool, Lord Bichard and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames supported a common core, with scope for supplementary provisions; Lord Alton also proposed consultation on sanctions and independent enforcement. Lord Evans of Weardale argued that sector-specific codes were needed because ethical issues differed between public bodies. Lord Lemos defended tailored codes but said the Government would consider ways to strengthen consistency and consult stakeholders. He said the Ethics and Integrity Commission was developing best-practice guidance, but the Government did not consider it necessary to place the Commission’s functions on a statutory footing. Amendments 34A, 35A, 35 and 37 were withdrawn, while associated amendments were withdrawn or not moved; Clauses 10 and 11 and Schedule 2 were agreed.

Teaching of citizenship

Lord Norton of Louth secured a short debate on enhancing citizenship education. Speakers linked citizenship teaching to democratic participation, resilience against disinformation, media literacy, financial education and preparation for a lower voting age. They also raised low GCSE uptake, a shortage of specialist teachers, uneven provision and the role of Ofsted. Lord Norton quoted Lord Hodgson’s earlier warning that “schools regard citizenship education as a ‘nice to have’, not a ‘must have’”.

Baroness Smith of Malvern said that the Government would consult during the year on a refreshed curriculum. She said that citizenship would become statutory in primary schools as part of wider national curriculum changes planned for 2028, and that the Government would work with the Association for Citizenship Teaching, the Electoral Commission and other organisations, provide Oak National Academy resources, and consider pilots and teacher support. She said the Department for Education reviewed bursaries annually and would announce a new package in the autumn; she also said that Ofsted’s framework recognised the importance of detailed citizenship knowledge. The Government’s stated next step was consultation: “The Government intend to consult this year on a refreshed curriculum”. No change to the 2028 timetable was announced.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill: offence of misleading the public

The Committee debated Clause 12 and amendments concerning the meaning of “misleading”, prosecutorial consent, harm, communications with journalists, misleading Ministers and safeguards for freedom of expression. Baroness Brinton argued that officials who misled the press had contributed to harm in the Hillsborough, Post Office Horizon and infected-blood cases. Lord Faulks, Lord Young of Acton and Baroness Falkner of Margravine warned that vague terms such as “obfuscation”, possible police investigations and criminal penalties could affect public administration, journalism and political debate. Lord Lemos said that the offence was intended to cover serious cases and that journalists reporting information were excluded: “the offence is not intended to restrict free and healthy political or public debate”.

The Government opposed defining “misleading” by importing wording from another Act and rejected a requirement for Attorney-General consent, noting that the Bill already required the Director of Public Prosecutions’ consent. The Minister maintained the harm threshold and the reasonable-excuse defence, but agreed to further consideration of the drafting, particularly “obfuscation”. He said that misleading a Minister by a civil servant could be covered by the seriously improper acts offence where the statutory conditions were met. Amendment 71 was withdrawn; Amendment 72 was also withdrawn; Amendments 73 to 80 were not moved, and Clause 12 and Schedule 3 were agreed.