Lords Debates Energy Security, Justice Reform and Defence Rights
High-Level Summary
The House of Lords introduced the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells and held questions on fracture liaison services, the International Criminal Court, co-operation with the devolved Governments and Meta’s revised commercial terms. It then considered a Commons Statement on approval for the Jackdaw gas field, with debate focusing on energy security, domestic production, prices, emissions and the transition to net zero. The Armed Forces Bill completed its Lords stages after the Government confirmed that specified immigration-fee exemptions would be implemented by the end of September 2027; the Bill was returned to the Commons with amendments. The Courts and Tribunals Bill received a Second Reading and was committed to a Committee of the Whole House, while Lord Rooker withdrew an amendment concerning the extent of Commons scrutiny.
Detailed Summary
Introduction of the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells
Noel Michael Roy, Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, was introduced, took the oath and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct. He was supported by the Bishop of Chelmsford and the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich: “signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.”
Fracture Liaison Services: National Coverage
Baroness Murphy asked what progress had been made towards national coverage of fracture liaison services (FLS) in England by 2030. Baroness Merron said that the 10-year health plan committed to a rollout by 2030 and that integrated care boards (ICBs) were responsible for commissioning the services: “Integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning these services”. Baroness Murphy also argued that FLS should link orthopaedic and geriatric services and improve care for frail older people; Baroness Merron agreed that this was an important function and referred to same-day emergency care and comprehensive geriatric assessments.
Members asked about workforce and funding, the reported rate of progress, learning from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, variation between ICBs and possible links with women’s health hubs. Baroness Merron referred to a forthcoming 10-year workforce plan and support for recruitment and training, and undertook to write about the position in the devolved Governments. She acknowledged differences in service levels but said that the approach was not hands-off, citing national planning frameworks and an updated best-practice guide. In response to claims about Scotland’s coverage, she said: “it has been suggested that it has 100% coverage, but I am advised that that is not exactly the case”. The Minister did not give a specific commitment to integrate FLS into women’s health hubs; the transcript instead records her reference to research into diagnosis of vertebral fractures in women.
International Criminal Court
Lord Teverson asked about the future of the International Criminal Court (ICC), particularly in the context of United States sanctions. Lord Wood of Anfield said that support for international criminal justice and accountability remained a fundamental element of UK foreign policy. He said that the UK had co-signed an early statement with Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and the UK, and was providing practical support including witness protection, sentence enforcement and support for internal reform: “We are offering that practical support through various things, including witness protection, sentence enforcement and commitment to internal reform processes.”
Members also asked about possible UK blocking measures, prosecutions relating to crimes committed by Russians in Ukraine, universal jurisdiction, Sudan, the prosecutor’s handling of warrants relating to Israel and Hamas, and a possible international anti-corruption court. The Minister said the Government were monitoring the sanctions and maintaining dialogue with European allies. He referred to work with other countries on investigative commissions concerning Ukraine, supported active investigation of the situation in Darfur, and said that he would examine the reports on universal jurisdiction. On the prosecutor’s conduct, he supported procedures consistent with the ICC statute and due process. No specific commitment to extend the UK blocking regime or to establish an international anti-corruption court was made in the transcript.
Public Service Delivery: Devolved Governments
Lord Macintosh of Eastwood asked about improving joint working between the UK Government and the devolved Governments. Baroness Twycross said that the Government were committed to collaboration and referred to a meeting of the National Economic Council in Scotland on deeper devolution. Members then raised sharing good practice, cross-border health-app interoperability, intergovernmental reporting, the Council of the Nations and Regions, Northern Ireland’s budget, Welsh justice and ambulance services, and the location of GB Energy executives.
Baroness Twycross said that the Council of the Nations and Regions had met twice, discussing inward investment and economic growth at its first meeting and trade agreements and artificial intelligence at its second: “The Council of the Nations and Regions has met twice.” She agreed that health systems should be interoperable across borders and undertook to feed that issue into discussions. On Northern Ireland, she referred to a UK Government package of more than £1.5 billion and said that the Secretary of State would consider all options if the Executive failed to agree a budget. She supported sharing best practice through the Test, Learn and Grow work, including learning by the UK Government from other parts of the UK. She undertook to write to Earl Kinnoull about the intergovernmental reports.
Meta’s Commercial Terms and Artificial Intelligence Development
Lord Clement-Jones asked about Meta’s revised commercial terms, which, according to the question, authorised it to crawl UK business users’ websites for artificial intelligence (AI) development. Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath said that Meta had delayed implementation until 20 November, that the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) was engaging with Meta, and that the Government were reviewing mechanisms through which creators could control the use of their work: “Meta has delayed their introduction until 20 November”.
Members questioned whether the terms could bypass paywalls or technical blocks, whether the CMA should use its powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, and whether Meta’s statements about robots.txt should be made binding. The Minister said that the delay did not resolve the concerns and that the CMA was working to an expedited timetable, with a written response to the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee expected shortly. She said: “UK copyright continues to apply to the use of protected works in AI development and training.” She also noted that Meta disputed whether the revised terms could permit content to be used for AI training, and said that the Government’s review of creator control and input transparency was expected to report in the first part of the following year. The CMA was described as independent, and no formal European Commission enforcement action had been announced.
Jackdaw Gas Field and the North Sea Transition
The House considered a Statement originally made in the House of Commons on 21 October. It said that the previous consent for the Jackdaw project had been quashed because emissions from burning the extracted gas had not been considered. The Energy Secretary had subsequently decided in favour of the project, and the North Sea Transition Authority had granted consent for production, which was expected to begin by the end of the month: “the project will therefore start to supply gas to British homes and businesses by as soon as the end of this month.” The Statement also announced a North Sea energy wealth fund with an initial £2 billion capital injection and said that the project was consistent with the UK’s legally binding carbon limits and net-zero target.
Lord Moynihan welcomed the decision and asked about other tie-back projects, domestic production, tax revenues and Rosebank. Earl Russell accepted that gas would be needed during the transition but argued that Jackdaw should not become a precedent and that investment should instead prioritise renewables, insulation and electrification. He asked for evidence that Jackdaw would displace higher-carbon imports and for information on how Parliament would know how the wealth-fund money was spent. Baroness Curran said that the Government could not comment on projects subject to quasi-judicial processes, including Rosebank. She said that Jackdaw would make a small but meaningful contribution to energy security, but that: “producing more gas cannot, by itself, protect British consumers from volatile international prices.” She said that Jackdaw was expected to increase domestic gas production by about 6%, support nearly 300 jobs and contribute about £2.9 billion to the UK economy.
Further exchanges covered methane emissions and flaring, bureaucracy, energy storage, decommissioning, heat pumps, tax arrangements and the timetable for decoupling electricity prices from gas. Baroness Curran said that the Government would continue examining storage, would consider the Australian domestic-market model, and would keep bureaucracy and duplication under review. She did not give a precise timetable for further decoupling, although she said that gas had become less frequently responsible for setting the electricity price. She also confirmed that the zero-emissions vehicle mandate review consultation had closed and that no policy decisions had yet been made.
Armed Forces Bill: Third Reading and Passage
At Third Reading, Baroness Antrobus reported that legislative consent had been secured from the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd but not from the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government nevertheless decided to proceed, citing the need for consistent coverage of the Armed Forces covenant duty and service-justice protections: “there are compelling reasons to proceed with the Bill without consent.”
The Government amendment required regulations to exempt qualifying service persons and qualifying family members from specified immigration fees and required a report to Parliament within six months of Royal Assent on the estimated cost and implementation timetable. Baroness Antrobus confirmed that the exemption would be implemented by the end of September 2027 for service personnel with four years’ reckonable service: “the Government will implement the exemption before the end of September 2027.” Lord Craig of Radley consequently withdrew his amendment seeking an earlier timetable. Amendment 2 was withdrawn, Amendment 1 was agreed, and the Bill passed and was returned to the Commons with amendments.
Courts and Tribunals Bill: Second Reading
Lord Lemos introduced the Courts and Tribunals Bill against a background of almost 81,000 outstanding Crown Court cases, including nearly 24,000 waiting for more than a year. The Bill would increase magistrates’ sentencing powers, remove defendants’ automatic right to elect Crown Court trial for certain either-way offences, introduce a permission stage for appeals from magistrates’ courts, permit judge-alone trials in specified lengthy and complex fraud and financial cases, strengthen provisions for victims and witnesses, repeal the presumption of parental involvement in family proceedings, and bring tribunal leadership under the Lady Chief Justice. Lord Lemos said that investment, modernisation and structural reform were all required, including additional magistrates and funded sitting days.
The debate included Lord Stace’s maiden speech. He supported efforts to reduce delay but argued for a wider approach to prevention and reform, warning that “we risk shifting the problem, not solving it.” Baroness Levitt and Lord Carlile supported greater use of magistrates’ courts and argued that delay could influence behaviour within the system. Other Members, including Lord Howard, Baroness Chakrabarti, Baroness Mallalieu and Lord Keen, raised concerns about limiting jury trial and transferring work to already pressured magistrates’ courts. Lord Murray opposed replacing automatic appeals with a permission stage, citing a 56% success rate for contested appeals. On family proceedings, Baroness Barran and Lord Farmer questioned whether the evidence established that the presumption had caused unsafe decisions, while Baroness Brinton and Baroness Neate supported repeal as a means of prioritising children’s safety.
In reply, Lord Lemos said that allocation would continue to be based on seriousness and complexity, with magistrates applying Sentencing Council guidelines and considering representations from the prosecution and defence. He said the Government had accepted in principle a recommendation to raise the magistrates’ court legal-aid income threshold, and referred to planned increases in sitting days and recruitment of magistrates, legal advisers and district judges. He confirmed that adding offences to the judge-alone schedule would require the affirmative procedure and a successful vote in both Houses. The Bill was read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, with the order of consideration agreed.
Courts and Tribunals Bill: Commons Scrutiny Amendment
Lord Rooker moved an amendment to delay Committee stage until the Minister provided a statement identifying clauses, schedules and amendments that the Commons had not had time to consider. He said that programme Motions and guillotines had reduced scrutiny and explained the purpose of his proposal as follows: “The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the role of the elected Members of the Commons.”
Lord Howard, Viscount Stansgate, Lord Garnier and Baroness Jones supported the concern about the level of Commons scrutiny. Lord Lemos replied that the Bill had received Second Reading, had been considered in 12 Public Bill Committee sittings and had had a full day on Report, with all amendments and new clauses selected by the chair considered. Lord Rooker maintained that this did not address his concern about material added without debate, withdrew the amendment and said that he would return to the issue. The amendment was withdrawn, the main commitment motion was agreed, and the House adjourned at 9.05 pm.