House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Leaman
Duty Relief Exemption: Small Parcels
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the new tax on small parcels entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain as a result of the EU’s change to the duty relief exemption.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore)
My Lords, the Government are committed to the smooth flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework. The Government are aware of the EU’s plans to remove its relief for low-value imports from 1 July 2026. The facilitations under the Windsor Framework are unaffected by this change, meaning that goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland can continue to move under the UK Carrier Scheme and the UK Internal Market Scheme without the need to pay duty.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. Responding recently to two questions from me and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, he said that we would continue to engage with the EU. Now that the regulations have been published just two weeks ago—written in the normal EU way that is quite difficult to understand, but I am sure the Minister does—can he clarify for us whether the new rules will operate subject to EU regulation 2023/1128 such that any trusted trader on the UK Internal Market Scheme need not pay any duty? Can he also clarify whether the duty will be paid by the person sending the parcel in GB, the person receiving the parcel in Northern Ireland or both? Does he agree that we need detailed clarification on this? People are very worried about it—maybe wrongly, maybe rightly. Will the Minister make sure that there is clarification on exactly how this is going to work and how it will affect people in Great Britain sending parcels to their relatives in Northern Ireland?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes, I can give the noble Baroness the clarification she seeks. The answer to the first question she asked is yes. As I said in my opening Answer, in May last year the Government introduced important new arrangements for freight and parcel movements to ensure that goods can continue to move smoothly from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. These facilitations under the Windsor Framework are unaffected by the EU’s change to its duty relief exemption. Goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland can continue to move under the UK Carrier Scheme and the UK Internal Market Scheme without the need to pay duty.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his detailed and clear response. Does he agree that one should be very careful about what you argue and campaign for, because sometimes you get what you want? Does he agree that those who argued for the hardest possible Brexit got the Windsor Framework? I agree with that.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that back in 2016, Sir John Major and Sir Tony Blair very clearly said that Brexit will present very specific challenges for Northern Ireland, given its land border with an EU member state and the importance of safeguarding the Good Friday agreement. Unfortunately, many of those concerns were dismissed, but now that the reality of Brexit does not match up to the fantasy version that other people imagined, they seek to blame others for the consequences of their own actions. My noble friend is equally right, though, that the Windsor Framework is the best possible solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be pleasantly surprised to hear that I agree with him: the GB-NI movement of goods is covered by Article 5 of the Windsor agreement. The issue is about the movement of goods into Northern Ireland post 5 July, when the EU rules change. Can he clarify whether the €3 charge and the €2 handling charge will be applied from 1 July, and will that money go to the EU, not the UK? Furthermore, can he explain why France and Italy are bringing in these changes now, and the UK is having to wait until 2029 to implement this revenue-generating initiative?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes, I can. The noble Lord asks about goods sent from the rest of the world; the EU has only just published its legislation—sorry, it was the EU handling fee that he asks about. Although the EU has published its legislation relating to the matters I was describing previously, it has not yet published its legislation relating to the EU handling fee. We are obviously aware that the EU is considering plans to introduce a handling fee for every consumer parcel imported by November this year. It has not yet finalised its plans or published final legislation, so we have not yet carried out an assessment of its implications at this point.
The noble Lord also asks about our own reforms, which I know he has championed for many years. As he knows, the Chancellor announced at the previous Budget that the Government will remove low-value import relief by March 2029 at the latest, but it is important that we consult on those arrangements and how they will affect retailers. That consultation will close next month, on 6 March.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has already agreed with our view that this situation is really caused by the appalling nature of the deal that the Conservative Party negotiated on Brexit. Does he also agree that it demonstrates that the rapid agreement of a customs union and other alignments with the EU would not only have huge financial benefits to the United Kingdom but smooth out issues like this that were caused by those in Northern Ireland who advocated for Brexit in the first place?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord knows that I absolutely agree with his analysis of the problem, and I greatly admire the consistency with which he has pursued his policy for a customs union. The points he makes are obviously factually correct. This Government are pursuing an EU reset. The UK and the EU have agreed to negotiate an SPS agreement, which aims to significantly reduce barriers to trade in agri-food goods, support simplified movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the EU, and boost our exports. Negotiations that we are taking forward on electricity and emissions trading will have a similar effect on businesses trading with Northern Ireland and the EU.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I thank the Minister for the answers that he has given thus far. He mentioned the EU reset negotiations. Can he tell us whether this issue is part of those negotiations and, more generally, what the timetable is for the outcome of the negotiations? Is the pursuit of free, untrammelled internal trade within the United Kingdom something that he and other Government Ministers have at the forefront of their consideration, given that the current restrictions are doing enormous damage to business and consumer confidence in Northern Ireland, as illustrated in the recent report by the Federation of Small Businesses, which I urge every Member of this House to read in detail?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for the points that he makes. As I said, the EU negotiations will cover an SPS agreement, which will have significant advantages for trade and the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the EU, and help boost our exports. Similarly, the negotiations on electricity and emissions trading will have beneficial effects for businesses trading with Northern Ireland and the EU. On his question about the Windsor Framework, goods will continue to benefit from the Windsor Framework facilitations, including manufactured goods which are not within the scope of new agreements that we are taking forward with the EU. On the recent report on the Windsor Framework from the Federation of Small Businesses, as the noble Lord knows, the Government recently accepted all the recommendations made by my noble friend Lord Murphy in his Independent Review of the Windsor Framework. This included recommendations that align with the points raised by a wide range of stakeholders, including those set out by the Federation of Small Businesses.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Returning to the issue of small parcels, we must ensure that all those concerned are aware of the rules governing trade with Northern Ireland, including all exporters into Northern Ireland, families sending parcels and, of course, Northern Ireland businesses and consumers, who will bear the cost, with the revenue going to the EU. Can the Minister reassure us that the Government are on top of all this and will introduce the new sets of payments—the £3 duty or the £2 handling charge—alongside existing rules in a clear, unbureaucratic and timely manner? It is unclear for the individual just what they have to do.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The Government are on top of it, perhaps slightly more so than the noble Baroness, given that her question was incorrect. I have already clearly said that these facilitations under the Windsor Framework are unaffected by the EU’s change to its duty relief exemption, and therefore there will be no need to pay duty.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, what is ultimately at stake here is the stability of the institutions of the Good Friday agreement. The EU, to its credit, stretched itself in the lead-in to the Windsor Framework, opening negotiations with the Truss and Sunak Governments. A moment was reached that allowed the Windsor Framework to be part of that process and to return the functions of the institutions. Since then, the EU seems to have returned slightly to its older ways—a series of interventions that are causing destabilisation and strengthening the forces in Northern Ireland that are politically opposed to the Good Friday agreement. In dealing with the EU, will the Minister please make it clear that the survival of the institutions of the Good Friday agreement is fundamental, and that actions that strengthen the support of those hostile to the Good Friday agreement should be avoided at all costs?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Absolutely. We are fully committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market. The Windsor Framework is the best workable solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. We will work constructively with all stakeholders—the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive, businesses, political parties and civic society in Northern Ireland—to achieve this aim, taking into account the implementation deadlines.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strasburger
To ask His Majesty’s Government with which organisations they are consulting regarding the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is following the process in the Equality Act 2006 and is consulting the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. As set out in the Act, the EHRC operates independently of the Government and is responsible for drafting the code and consulting such persons it thinks appropriate. It consulted on the code from 2 October 2024 to 3 January 2025, and again from 20 May 2025 to 30 June 2025 on updates to the code.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. By law, the Secretary of State has only two choices: to either lay the code before Parliament or send it back to the EHRC. She has dithered for five months over this binary decision about 11 pages that are at issue. If kicking the can down the road were an Olympic sport, this Government would be favourite for the gold medal. But this is serious: thousands of organisations are desperately waiting for the code of practice to make sure that they comply with the law. When will they get it?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let us be clear, the updated code was received on 4 September. The draft updated code is undergoing review by policy and legal teams in the Office for Equality and Opportunity. We are reviewing the draft code with the care that it deserves. Any suggestion that the Government are delaying the code is totally inaccurate and unhelpful.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Cross Benches next.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The Minister will be aware that organisations such as the Women’s Institute and Girlguiding have described their current difficulties arising from the draft code as costly and difficult. How will the Government and the EHRC reduce anxiety about the code, so that organisations can act proportionately, inclusively and realistically, rather than facing an uncertain situation in which the main beneficiaries are lawyers and plumbers?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a valid point. The EHRC submitted its draft code to Ministers, and we are reviewing it, as I said before, with the care that it deserves. It is crucial that providers have legally robust guidance on how to apply the Equality Act, which is why we are considering the draft code properly. The code will have implications for service providers up and down the country. It is vital that we get this right.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Conservative Benches next.
Lord Harper (Con)
I am grateful to the Chief Whip. The Minister will remember that on 2 February I asked him to confirm whether the Government were in full compliance with the law, as set out by the Supreme Court, across all the public services and functions that they deliver. He gave an unequivocal, one-word answer: “absolutely”. I tabled a Written Question the following day, asking him for the evidential basis for that assertion. That Question is now nearly 10 days overdue, so this delay thing seems to be catching. When will I get an answer to that Question, and is the Minister still prepared to stand by his assertion that the Government are in full compliance with the law across all the public services and functions that Ministers are responsible for delivering?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I will repeat my answer: absolutely. I also responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who asked a supplementary to the Question. I have taken the precaution of reading the letter received by Maya Forstater, the CEO of Sex Matters, which sets out the reasons for our review of the code. Obviously, the Government are absolutely committed to complying with the law and the judgment of the Supreme Court. There is no doubt about that. But what we want to do, and as we are doing with the EHRC code, is to review all policies. The policy in the code is not about just one issue: it covers a whole range of protected characteristics. Some of the people who are most concerned about the implications of this are people with disabilities. We should be very careful of saying that we must do something straight away. We are complying with the Supreme Court judgment, and we are not going to deviate from that.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, in the Good Law Project v the EHRC, Mr Justice Swift described the statutory framework as providing a minimum requirement and not a “ceiling”. How will the Government work with the EHRC to ensure that the code reflects this proportionality-based structure?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. The really important thing here is our focus on getting this code right. There are implications for a whole range of businesses and people up and down the country. We have set out our expectations that service providers follow the law, as clarified by the For Women Scotland ruling, and seek specialist advice where necessary. But it is for that reason, and that potential legal challenge, that we need to take time to get this properly right, so that the code can be adopted by everyone with confidence that they are following the law.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
We have had the shabby spectacle of the Government disingenuously arguing against their own regulator’s interpretation of the law in the High Court this past November. On 13 February, those arguments were comprehensively defeated and the EHRC unambiguously won the case on its interpretation in the interim update. Will they now come clean and say that they have no interest in defending women’s rights, and write to the EHRC, as the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, has said, to say they will not lay the code—or at least lay it forthwith, so that everyone can see the arguments contained in it?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not accept the premise of the noble Baroness’s question at all. We have a statutory duty, as does the EHRC. The EHRC is independent of the Government, but the Secretary of State has an obligation. As one noble Lord said, we will consider the code and either reject it or accept it. We are working with the EHRC to publish the code as speedily as possible. We want to avoid the very cases—whether it is the Good Law Project, Sex Matters or anybody else; there are lots of cases going on—as it is the people on the ground who suffer. We want to get it right and we will do so.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there is nothing shabby about taking your time to get right a consultation that affects so many people who face difficulties and who are often treated as inhuman minorities in this country. Therefore, I say to my noble friend the Minister, given that there are disputes across multiple settings, when will the Government consider it necessary to provide a clearer steer, working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, rather than allowing proportionality to be defined incrementally through the courts? I believe, in the end, that does not really help anyone.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear what my noble friend says. I understand his concerns; I do not think it is good practice to have legal challenges. They do not actually resolve anything. What will resolve things is to get the code accurately and robustly reviewed and properly published. The updated code is, as I have said, undergoing review by policy and legal teams in the Office for Equality and Opportunity. This is a lengthy and legally complex document which will impact service providers up and down the country. Rightly, we are carefully considering it. It is crucial that providers have legally robust guidance on how to apply the Equality Act, which is why we are considering it very carefully.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
If the noble Baronesses can be quick, we can get the Front Bench in and then the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
There are hundreds of documented NHS trusts which still have unlawful policies with regard to the provision of single-sex hospital accommodation. The NHS policy annex B continues to authorise the placement of biological men on women’s hospital wards. Will the Government act now and instruct these organisations to follow the law? If they continue not to, can they explain when they will act?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I repeat what I said to the noble Lord. There are many policies in existence that will obviously need to undergo review as a consequence of the Supreme Court judgment. That review will have implications, for not just sex but all the other protected characteristics. Many of these policies cover a whole range of issues. The fundamental point, which I made to the noble Lord, is that the Government and all government departments will comply with the law. That is my answer to the noble Baroness.
Fire and Rescue Services: Clean Energy Projects
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consultation they have carried out with the fire and rescue services in England regarding clean energy projects such as battery storage plants; and what assessment they have made of the combustibility and flammability of such projects.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
The Government work closely with the National Fire Chiefs Council on battery fire safety. In October 2025, Minister Shanks held a round table on battery safety with industry, regulators and academics, including NFCC representatives. In the last five years, there have been four grid-scale battery fires in Great Britain. Analysis from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero suggests that these fires appear less likely than fires in non-domestic buildings.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but it is unacceptable, given the fire risk posed by something as highly combustible, flammable and at risk of thermal runaway as these battery energy storage facilities, that fire and rescue services should not be statutory consultees to the planning application. To look at one constituency alone, the former Vale of York constituency that I represented, there are BESS plants to be built in Scotton and Lingerfield, Bedale and South Kilvington. That will put enormous stress on the fire and rescue services of north Yorkshire, which last year had to deal with one of the most aggravating and long-term wildfires that we have seen to date. Will the Minister use his good offices to ensure that, forthwith, in any current planning application, fire and rescue services will be statutory consultees, so that they can advise on the fire risk of each individual site with a view to mitigating the fire risk?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The Government already have moved to make sure that the fire services and developers are closely involved in applications as far as large batteries are concerned. The planning practice guidance has been updated to ensure that developers consult fire services in the pursuit of their applications. The fire service itself considers that to become a statutory consultee would prove enormously bureaucratic and additional to its particular work, and is in line with that particular planning practice guidance update.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the national Building Safety Regulator and the former London Fire Commissioner. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer. Given the comprehensive new guidance that the Government have published with the National Fire Chiefs Council in December 2025 to directly address the issue of battery energy storage system consultation with fire services, if I was in my former role I would certainly agree that we would have preferred that, rather than the bureaucracy of being a statutory consultee. However, on a related matter, what action are the Government taking following the serious substation fire at Heathrow Airport, which my colleagues at the time fought for many days under very dangerous circumstances, and which closed the airport? Could my noble friend provide an update on how his department intends to implement the 12 recommendations arising from the subsequent National Energy System Operator investigation?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My noble friend, to whom I pay tribute for his enormous service in the fire service over a number of years, really ought to be the person who knows what he is talking about on this subject. He refers to the fire in North Hyde a little while ago, which, as noble Lords will know, caused considerable problems at Heathrow Airport in 2025. That was subject to a NESO investigation into the circumstances around that particular fire, which related to faulty maintenance in a substation. As a result of that investigation by NESO, the Government have accepted all the recommendations that were put forward in the report and are working closely with other government departments and the energy industry in implementing the 12 recommendations and 20 related actions, detailed in the Government’s response to that investigation. Among other things, that ensures a joined-up approach across organisations to improve energy resilience, emergency response and recovery. The majority of actions are forecast to be delivered by the end of 2026.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, long-duration energy storage is an extremely important part of our energy transition, providing much-needed stability to our future energy systems. Falling prices and evolving technology are also helping. I welcome the Minister’s response, and we recognise that robust safety systems are in place. However, Ministers have previously spoken of considering additional measures to enhance the regulation of the environmental and safety risks of BESS. Does the Minister feel that more work is needed to reassure the public on public safety concerns?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The Government are actively exploring additional measures to manage safety risks on the grid-scale battery energy storage sites. That is important in the context, as the noble Earl mentions, of the substantial expansion that there will be in batteries as an essential part of the UK’s balancing energy system for the future. In August, Defra published a consultation on modernising the environmental permitting regime for industry, which included proposals to include BESS within scope of environmental permitting regulations. The Government are currently reviewing industry feedback and will publish a response in due course. That would require battery developers to demonstrate to the Environment Agency how specific risks were being managed while also providing for ongoing regulatory inspections of battery sites.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare my directorship of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. When I was the MP for South Thanet, we had a proposal for one of these battery farms—let us call them that—in the constituency. I wrote to Kent Fire and Rescue Service with my concerns, and it wrote back with its own. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh quite rightly states, fire and rescue services really have very little part in the process. I ask the Government to consider a statutory Section 106 requirement applying to each and every one of these battery farms, so that they have to pay for the specialist equipment that local fire and rescue services need to put such fires out. Once they start to go, there is very little that you can do with usual water systems to put them out. It requires specialist equipment and, not least, a local evacuation, because the fumes that come off these lithium-powered fires are very serious and deleterious to health.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I think that we should get this into some proportion. As I have said, the number of battery fires over the last five years is four. The percentage of fires that you might encounter in an industrial premises or commercial premises is higher than the proportion per thousand of battery fires. Battery fires stand within the general problem of fires across industry. As far as the extinction of those fires is concerned, there is protocol already in the fire service about how to deal with those particular fires. It is a process of enabling burnout, so that the battery does not self-reignite. The noble Lord is correct to say that there are issues relating to battery fires, particularly the ability of that battery fire to reignite itself even in the absence of oxygen. There is a protocol now to surround the fire with safety measures and allow it to burn out. That, as far as the fire service chiefs are concerned, is a perfectly adequate and safe response to those fires.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister revisit his figures on battery fires? On 6 September 2024, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, led an outstanding debate in your Lordships’ House on lithium-ion battery safety. Superb contributions were made across the House, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. Since then, battery fires in bin lorries and at waste sites in the UK have reached an all-time high—not four, but more than 1,200 in 2024. That is an increase of 71% from 700 in 2022, which was described by the Environmental Services Association as an “epidemic”. Will the Minister take this opportunity to go back to his department and agree that, at a minimum, we need the fire service, the Environmental Agency, and the Health and Safety Executive to be statutory consultees for all planning and new stand-alone battery energy storage systems? There is urgent action required in this sector.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I do not intend to go back to the department and tell it that its particular concerns are wrong. What we are talking about today are fires in large stand-alone battery storage plants, of which there have been four in the last five years. If the noble Lord would like the individual addresses and locations of those four fires, I have them here. It is not the case that this covers every battery fire there has ever been. We know that certain batteries—for example, illegally imported batteries in scooters—tend to be a little less safe than other batteries. There is proper concern about some areas of battery safety and maintenance, but not about this particular sector, which is very well regulated and safe now. As I have set out today, there have been further measures to ensure that the safety and integrity of those stand-alone batteries is maintained.
New Housing: Flood Risk
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to mitigate the risks arising from new housing being built in areas of medium or high flood risk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that inappropriate development in flood risk areas should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. If necessary in such areas, development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The framework also requires any development which could have drainage impacts to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. We are consulting on a clearer, more rules-based framework, including a dedicated chapter on flood risk.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The framework may suggest that, but reliable figures from the insurer Aviva reveal a trend of more and more new homes being built in medium and high flood risk areas, up from 8% 10 years ago to 11% last year, and potentially rising to 15% of new homes by 2050. In addition, of course, the Flood Re insurance scheme does not apply to houses built after 2009 and is due to end in 2039. Will the Government publish their own figures on this worrying trend, and what will they do to ensure progress towards reducing housing construction in flood risk areas?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that 96% of all planning decisions and 99% of all new homes proposed in planning applications comply with Environment Agency advice, so we are making progress with this. I accept his point that it is very important, as we continue to work towards our target of 1.5 million new homes in this country—desperately needed because of the housing crisis—that we continue to push forward with the National Planning Policy Framework guidelines that homes should not be built in flood risk areas. The sequential test still applies to new-build homes and the planning applications for them, as does securing high-quality sustainable drainage systems to support flood risk management. It is impossible to push forward with this without sometimes using areas that might be at risk of flooding. The important thing is that the mitigation is put in place properly when that happens.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, given that flood risk and housing demand are only going to increase, what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to allow flooding and housing to coexist? Are they considering the urban planning model of sponge cities, using nature-based solutions such as permeable pavements, planted roofs and urban wetlands to absorb, store, purify and reuse rainwater to mitigate both flooding and drought?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I had heard about that very interesting concept. We need to make sure that all steps to mitigate flood risk are taken, even in areas that are not subject to traditional flood risk. The increase of surface floodwater is an issue and we need to make sure that, where possible, permeable surfaces are laid down. It is very helpful that both the building guidelines and the National Planning Policy Framework direct as much attention as possible to make sure that applications mitigate the flood risk when they come forward and that buildings are built with that mitigation built in.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s White Paper A New Vision for Water gives a case study on page 40 of how a housing development was stalled on a habitat site with protected species. The Government’s water delivery taskforce was able to unblock it, resulting in 4,000 houses being built. Unblocking challenges could result in additional flooding, endanger protected species and ultimately result in new home owners being refused access to Flood Re, which has only 15 years left to run. How will the Minister ensure that this does not happen?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not accept the premise of the noble Baroness’s question that we cannot protect the biodiversity arrangements at the same time as dealing with flood risk. Defra established the water delivery taskforce to make sure that water companies delivered on their planned investments to provide water and wastewater capacity. The Government have worked hard to secure £104 billion of private sector investment into this and, in partnership with water companies, investors and communities, we will introduce a new water reform Bill to modernise the whole system. That will make it fit for decades, leading to clean rivers, stronger regulations and greater investment. We are focusing on both the provision of good water supplies as we build the homes that we need and protecting biodiversity. These things go hand in hand; they are not mutually exclusive.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I do not want to get into the water reform Bill too much—it is a terrible Bill and the Government ought to withdraw it—but on this issue of flood risk, the fact is that houses are still being built on places that risk flooding. Some of the solutions are much wider than just putting a few ditches around the housing project. We must think very big when considering floods, because we have to look uphill and downhill. At the moment, I feel that some of the measures are very limited in scope. Do the Government agree?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not agree with the noble Baroness. Some amazing work has been done by the development industry to tackle and mitigate the risk of flooding. I have been to visit sites with very attractive-looking sustainable drainage systems; they not only deal with the issue of surface water and floodwater but provide fantastic environmental features for those estates. That encourages people to get involved and—to speak to the previous questioner’s point—encourages biodiversity, as well as tackling the flooding issues. Developers are doing that. We need to make sure that we share the work of those providing the best practice in this area and that everybody is working to enhance that best practice.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the time is right for a review of the Flood Re programme? As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, it does not apply to buildings which were built after 1 January 2009; it also does not apply to blocks of flats that have more than three dwelling units within them or to buildings that have any elements of small or micro-commercial businesses within them. These are all things for which it would be very helpful to have the availability of the Flood Re insurance, which is a very good programme. Is it time now for this to be looked at very hard?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We know that Flood Re has provided cover for 346,000 household policies and 650,000 properties have benefited since the scheme’s launch, so I agree with the noble Earl that it has been a very valuable scheme. We know that all homes built since 2009 are excluded from Flood Re, as that would be inconsistent with current policy. With the planning policy, we are trying to make it clear that inappropriate development in flood plains should be avoided and, where development is necessary in a flood risk area, it should be made flood resistant, resilient and safe for the lifetime of the development.
Build Back Better is the UK home insurance sector initiative, which I am sure the noble Earl is aware of, and is designed to help home owners recover from flooding in a smarter way. It enables eligible policyholders to access £10,000 to install flood measures during repairs over and above the usual cost. We are looking at supporting those who have been at risk of flooding and, through the National Planning Policy Framework, making sure that we absolutely reduce that risk to a minimum.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, flood risk management is a complex issue that requires co-operation and collaboration between developers, local authorities, insurers and home owners. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that institutional knowledge and specialist risk management expertise is not lost during local government reorganisation?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure that my colleagues in local government, who address these issues every day through the planning system, as the noble Lord will be well aware, are more than alert to this issue. When the new authorities are set up, they will have more resilience in their planning functions because there will be fewer of them and they will be able to focus on planning issues using the capacity funding that the Government have put into planning. As importantly, there will be a strategic level enabling planning across a combined authority area, which will make sure that issues of flood risk are taken into account right from the strategic level to the local plan. We are developing our new National Planning Policy Framework and making sure that it supports local authorities to do just that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the sequential test. She will be aware that that was overturned recently in the case of Gladman in the High Court. Will her department respond to that case and ensure that the sequential test is met in every case?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That High Court judgment has been raised in recent debates on the English devolution Bill. I cannot comment on specific cases, but the case does not disapply the strong protections in the National Planning Policy Framework relating to development in areas of potential flood risk. The sequential test is a procedural step to assess relative degrees of risk and is used to steer development to areas of lower risk where possible. However, where development is necessary in such areas, the framework is clear that it should proceed only if made safe for its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, which is the other danger. I reassure the noble Baroness that the sequential test remains firmly in place as part of the planning process.
Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Statement from the Minister in the other place that this dreadful surrender Bill is being paused pending further discussions with the United States. My amendment of a few weeks ago, which the noble Baroness described at the time as “wrecking”, called for exactly that, so it is great that the Government now seem to be in the same place. Does she agree that, had the Government followed the logical sequence of agreeing their new treaty and then amendments to the 1966 treaty with the US before progressing with this Bill, they would not be in this embarrassing position today?
On the subject of pauses, will the noble Baroness pause the no-fault eviction of the group of Chagossians who have returned to take up residence on one of the outer Chagos Islands? Throughout the passage of the Bill, on many occasions she rightly expressed her sadness and shame at the way that a previous Labour Government had evicted the Chagossians from their homes. We will now see just how sincere she was in those comments by whether this current Labour Government carry out another forceful eviction of British citizens from a British territory. Finally, does she agree that the current international crisis and the possible use of Diego Garcia for military strikes against Iran demonstrates the vital strategic importance of the base and why we should retain it under British sovereignty and UK control?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the people who have found their way to some of the outer islands should not be there. It is not safe for them and they do not have permission. It is not legal for anybody to visit those islands without a permit. They do not have such a permit and they should leave immediately. It is deeply irresponsible that they are encouraging others to join them and there is a risk to life in doing so. I hope that they leave of their own accord safely, but promptly.
The noble Lord is right that this base is of vital strategic importance. It is an expression of our incredibly close security and defence relationship with the United States, which is why we have gone to such lengths to secure the future of the base.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the House will note the fact that Conservative MPs, Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson, all of whom proclaim to love their country, actively undermine it when they are in the State Department and the White House. However, given President Trump’s statement, it is now necessary for us to be presented with what would be a binding decision with the United States, our key ally in the use of the military base. If there is a pause, does the Minister agree that this is an opportunity for there to be a statutory right for the Chagossian community with regards to resettlement, active participation from the Chagossian community on decisions that affect them, greater clarity on the value for money for our taxpayers if there is to be a long-term treaty, and a greater role for this Parliament in holding any government to account over the lifetime of that treaty?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is very important that we lay out clearly the costings and the value for money points are answered. I am happy that the Government have committed to doing that and will continue to do so.
On the participation of Chagossians, we have discussed this at great length in the past, and for very good reason. We are able to find ways, together with Mauritius, to make sure that Chagossians are properly represented and able to exert influence within the treaty around the trust fund, their ability to resettle in the future, who is entitled to do so and all these issues. It is probably a good idea for us to continue those conversations to make sure that is done as well as it possibly can be.
On the stability of the US position, I take the point. We had secured very clear and firm support for the deal from Secretary Rubio and President Trump. We continue to have close, intense conversations with our dearest allies and partners about the consistency of this decision, in order that we may be able to move forward with this treaty which, as I have said, secures our ability to operate together with the United States from Diego Garcia.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, on that very point, the Minister said on 12 occasions—and I have a list of them—that the treaty can only go ahead with US support. Well, the US President said last week that this is a “blight on our great ally” and the UK should not give up Diego Garcia. The following day, the President’s senior press officer, Karoline Leavitt, was asked by the BBC whether the President’s statement was now official policy and she said that it certainly was official policy. Can the Minister tell the House what her plan B is?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Our plan is to proceed as I have said, which is to speak with our friends, allies, partner, close friend in Washington to establish a stable position. As I have said repeatedly—and it is good to know the noble Lord has been listening and counting so assiduously—it is true that this is all about securing the base for the United Kingdom and the United States to operate together.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the imperative about what happens to the base is the national security of our country, not only for those of us in our generation but for the generations to come in the next hundred years or so? Does she agree that noises off can be distracting and misleading and, at the end of the day, we have to make up our own minds?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We do need to make up our own minds and we have done so, but I do not think it is realistic to proceed in a way that does not involve the support of our allies in the United States who pay for the base and its operation, and with whom we work so closely. The noble Lord is right about noises off, and sometimes you do have to wonder about the motivation of some of those conducting themselves in that way.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, given what the Minister has just said about “our dearest friends and allies”, would the single most sensible gesture to our dearest friends and ally not now be to put this pause on to permanent hold?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness will forgive me for not wanting to disclose in this forum the very detailed nature of the conversations we are having with the United States, but it is not for any of us here to tell each other what the best thing to do for the United States would be; it is up to them to talk to us privately at this stage about how we should be proceeding to secure the base.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Why do the Government think the international courts can make us give Diego Garcia away to Mauritius when there are very clear defence opt-outs from their jurisdictions in the relevant treaties?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is good to see the noble Lord here in his place—he has not been part of the discussions we have had up to now. If he had been, he might have found some useful exchanges across this Chamber on that very topic. We think there is a legal basis for the decisions we have made. Although noble Lords opposite may disagree with that, there is at least consistency in our position. I am genuinely fascinated by what the previous Government thought they were doing, negotiating around a dozen times, if, as they maintain now, they thought there was no legal jeopardy around the future of the base.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, next.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I did say the last time we debated this issue, as the Minister probably remembers, that there were consequences to ignoring the voices and the rights of self-determination of the Chagossian people. We now find ourselves in a situation where they have taken matters into their own hands and have gone to the archipelago. Surely it is now long past the time when we need to kill this treaty.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I respect the noble Baroness’s steadfast support for the Chagossian community, but as she will know, there is not one single view among the Chagossian community or Chagossian groups, and there are several which support this new agreement. It is not good that people have found their way to this remote island, which is not suitable for habitation. They are putting their own lives at risk, and, more importantly, encouraging others to put their lives at risk too—and they should leave promptly.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, on 5 January, when debating the Diego Garcia Bill, I asked the Minister this question:
“Is there any legally binding agreement between the UK and the United States that it”,
that is, the United States,
“will continue its use of the base or have need of its use for the 99-year duration of the treaty?”—[Official Report, 5/1/26; col. 957.]
The Minister did not answer then. Perhaps she could answer now, because it seems the UK should be aware and assured that the United States is committed for the whole length of the treaty, the 100 years.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is very important that we have an agreement with the United States about the continued use of this base, because it matters so much to our security, and the United States feels the same about it. There is no difference between the United Kingdom and the United States about the need to continue to have that base and to operate it together; we are in complete agreement on that. Where we are coming to talk to them now is about the nature of that agreement and these issues around sovereignty. We will do that, and we will get these issues resolved so that we can move forward.
Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, any suggestion that there have been insufficient transitional arrangements for the ETA system is surely for the sky. The scheme was introduced three years ago but was not made mandatory, to allow for people to adjust. It is absolutely right that the Government are now making this system mandatory and that dual nationals should have to enter using British passports—I am with the Minister on that. My question is: now that we have this system in place, how will the Government utilise the information for stronger immigration enforcement?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support. As he knows, this position was introduced by the previous Government, and I am very pleased that we have been able to see it through. He asked how we will use this information for important border control. The whole purpose of the system is to have border control. As he probably knows, today we have had some new figures on immigration positions. They show that asylum hotels are at the lowest level for 18 months, which coincides with the UK Labour Government; the asylum backlog has fallen for the fourth quarter in a row to 64,426; and small boat arrivals are 9% lower than the peak in 2022. This is part of a government strategy to control our borders and ensure that they are firm. I welcome his support not just for this measure but for the wider government agenda.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am not sorry but pleased to disrupt this cosy consensus because, honestly, the Government’s temporary mitigation measure is no good at all. It leaves discretion to carriers on what evidence to accept for entry, resulting in, as was said by my friend in the other place, Manuela Perteghella, who tabled this Urgent Question yesterday,
“chaos for law-abiding British citizens”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/26; col. 351.]
and the separation of families. Why can this Government not do what Canada did: delay enforcement and create a low-cost, temporary authorisation? Why do this Government not do something similarly common-sense? We understand that controls should be properly enforced, but, for goodness’ sake, leave a breathing space for people for whom the impact is very personal.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, rightly said, this scheme has been in planning for three years; it was introduced by the previous Government and we have seen it through. There is always going to be a deadline at some point in any scheme, and the deadline for the introduction of this one was 26 February—today. What we have tried to do is to ensure that, if there are individuals who are impacted today, this week or in the near future, there is a temporary mitigation so that carriers may—at their discretion, as the noble Baroness said—accept an expired UK passport, alongside a non-visa national third-country passport, as evidence of British nationality.
Dual nationals may also ask their carrier to contact the Home Office’s carrier support hub, which is available now. Dual nationals overseas may also wish to contact the embassy. There is provision for urgent travel without a British passport in certain circumstances, as set out on GOV.UK. If there are particular problems, my colleague the Immigration Minister will hold drop-in sessions in the Houses of Parliament next week and the week after. Now that the scheme is available, dual nationals who wish to come to the UK can apply for either a British passport or a certificate that is a lifetime allowance on that dual-national approach.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his answers so far. He will recall that I have written to him on several occasions about an anomaly in the electronic travel authorisations that results in an impediment being placed in the way of the development of tourism in Northern Ireland. The majority of people who come from the United States to Ireland come through Dublin Airport and thus travel to Northern Ireland, adding to our local economy and revenue. However, the issue of ETAs presents an impediment and inconvenience. Therefore, will my noble friend and his ministerial colleagues in the Home Office look again at this issue to see whether an exemption is possible?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful and can reassure my noble friend that the Government wish to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits from inward tourist economy issues. We have, in discussing the proposals to date, worked with a range of partners, including the Northern Ireland tourism association, to ensure that the ETA requirement is communicated effectively and ultimately will not prove a barrier to people wishing to come to Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom to support their tourism objectives. We have looked at, and will look at, with the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency the impact of this issue, but I say to my noble friend that I cannot offer an exemption for visitors to Northern Ireland, because that would undermine the rationale of the scheme as a whole, which is to strengthen our borders, as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the rules say that the personal details on the two passports must match, but Britons in Greece are among the those highlighting the fact that this is extraordinarily discriminatory against women, given that, for example, in Greece—and this applies to a number of other countries—there are rules about the name they must have on the Greek passport. If they are married to a Greek, they must have their maiden surname as well. The Minister may say that the Government have said that, under extraordinary, exceptional circumstances, the two names do not have to match. Can he confirm that that applies in this case, where people have no choice but to have two different names on their passport? More than that, can he guarantee that every agent for every airline and other travel company will understand that when people turn up to travel?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will look at the specific instance that the noble Baroness has mentioned with regard to Greece, because that has not been drawn to my attention to date. I will contact her directly. We have made a strong effort, since the last Government introduced the principle of this, to inform and work with carriers to ensure that they understand the situation. Without repeating what I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, if she reads Hansard tomorrow, she will see that there are a number of mechanisms whereby individuals who feel they have a problem now in this temporary period of transition can follow that up with a range of authorities to make sure they get proper access. As ever, when a date is introduced, there will be a little friction, because that is always the case. But, in the long term, the ETA arrangements and the ability to provide stronger borders is a task worth working for.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, further to the point raised by my noble friend, the Minister himself confirmed that the Home Office’s current arrangements are that, “at their own discretion”, carriers “may” accept “some” expired British passports as appropriate documentation. Does he not accept that that is the worst of all worlds and that dual nationals will have no idea which carriers are going to accept the documentation, and under which circumstances? Given that he has admitted that there is a transitional period, would it not make a great deal of sense for the Government to tell all carriers that they can accept expired passports for a set period of time?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The scheme has been introduced this week, as the noble Lord will know. The friction that may occur on occasions now is because people do not understand or are unaware of the results. But we have made a strong effort to make sure that carriers know that they can accept expired passports. Again, I advise individuals who wish to travel to the United Kingdom to contact the carrier to see whether their documentation is in order in this period when the scheme has been introduced. There are a number of measures, even at the point of refusal, whereby an individual who has been refused at a gate can contact a number of things, which I do not wish to outline because of time. The noble Lord will know, and be able to read in Hansard, about those that I have just mentioned, which are available. The feedback we have had so far is that there is a limited number of concerns in the initial introduction, and I will obviously monitor that over the coming weeks.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the UK Government’s trade envoy for Australia. This issue is causing considerable consternation in Australia, a country with which we are developing our defence, security and other relationships, to the benefit of the wider world. It seems slightly extraordinary that an Australian who is not a British national can much more easily gain entry to the UK than one who is, even if it is a residual matter and they do not have a passport. Should we not be looking at ways to facilitate this? The Passport Office, when we had difficulties two or three years ago, moved at pace and had people here to deal with the cases. Should we not be doing that in Australia and encouraging movement between our countries rather than creating an incident?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Any Australian dual national who wishes to prove their British nationality can do one of two things. They can apply for a British passport, which is usually a nine or eight-day wait at the moment, or they can even get one speedily if they need to: that can be done. They can also apply for a certificate of exemption, which is a lifetime exemption that can be attached to their Australian passport and will allow them to travel to the United Kingdom without the need for an ETA. That is a reasonably sensible approach to make. It is a short-term thing. Now that the system has been introduced, any Australian citizen who wishes to travel to the UK can either get a certificate, get a British passport or travel here, and if they travel here and are refused, in the meantime there are a number of mechanisms—I outlined them to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—that they can adopt. However, in the long term, this ETA scheme is a sensible thing to do and I commend it to the House.
Resetting the UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ricketts
That this House takes note of the Report from the European Affairs Committee Unfinished Business: Resetting the UK-EU relationship (1st Report, HL Paper 202).
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, before the first debate gets under way, I want to highlight the four-minute advisory time for Back-Bench contributions. This is designed to ensure that the debate can finish within three hours, in line with the usual timings for Thursday debates and so that the House can rise at a reasonable time this evening. I therefore urge noble Lords to keep their remarks within four minutes to meet those aims.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to lead this debate on the report from the European Affairs Committee, which it was my privilege to chair until last month, when I handed the baton to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I am glad to see such a distinguished group of people in the Chamber to debate this report, which shows how salient the issue is right now. I thank the Government for getting their response to us in a timely way, which enables us to hold the debate now in good time and at an important moment.
This was not an entirely straightforward report to produce. We thought it was essential that the House have an overall assessment of what used to be known as the reset, which is, after all, the Government’s flagship policy towards the EU. As the only committee of Parliament conducting systematic scrutiny of the Government’s European policy, we concluded that we were the right people to do it.
It was a long inquiry which covered a wide range of complex issues. We found it quite difficult to get our heads around exactly what the reset covered, since the Government did not produce a White Paper on their negotiating objectives. Initially, we had only the Labour Party manifesto to go on. We also found that we were aiming at a moving target, because in the course of our work, the range of the reset increased. A number of important areas were added at the May 2025 UK-EU summit.
Members of the committee held deep and very different convictions about what the reset should cover, and indeed on whether it was necessary at all. Although we strove to find a consensus, that proved elusive. We therefore took the unusual, although not unprecedented, step of voting on the committee’s report. As a chair, I would always prefer to have a reconciliation of differences, but if that is not possible without a meaningless fudge, I think it more useful to the House to have different views clearly set out. Members will have seen that in appendix 9 of the report there is an alternative summary and the outcome of the voting on it.
Given all those circumstances, I am very grateful to all the members of the committee who contributed through this long inquiry. We all owe a particular debt of gratitude to our committee staff: Jarek Wisniewski, Brigid Fowler, Tim Mitchell, Tabitha Brown and Luisa Jaime Nunez, assisted by our press adviser Louise Shewey. I also want to thank our national parliament representative Jack Sheldon and his assistant Maherban Lidher for the vital work they do in liaising between this House and European parliamentarians.
The Government are right to have dropped the misleading term “reset”. The UK-EU relationship will be a continual process of adjustment and adaptation. There is no end point. Even since we finished our report three months ago, there have been further significant developments, driven largely by the increasingly stark reality that we Europeans can simply no longer depend on the US as our ally.
I will not try to summarise the detail of the snapshot that we gave in our report as of last November. I want to focus on the issues that will arise in implementation of the various agreements now under negotiation, and then to range a bit more widely to consider where we go from here, especially in the light of the Prime Minister’s interesting Munich speech of 14 February.
Let me start with security and defence co-operation with the EU. This is, of course, the area where progress is most urgently needed in the face of Putin’s war in Ukraine, now entering its fifth year, and Trump’s total unpredictability. Our report welcomes the security and defence partnership which the Government concluded at the 2025 summit, but that is only an enabler. Closer consultations are useful, of course, but translating them into real improvements in military capability is much more difficult. That was all too obvious when the negotiations for the UK to participate in the €150 billion SAFE defence investment programme broke down in December. The sticking point, as noble Lords will remember, was a completely unreasonable EU demand for an entry fee running to several billion pounds. This was a remarkably short-sighted EU position, given the geopolitics, and one with which many member states were unhappy. Since then, there have been suggestions in the media that the Government plan to reopen discussions, with the aim of participating in SAFE on more reasonable terms. Can the Minister tell us whether that is the case?
Staying with our report, we also looked at the area of police and law enforcement co-operation. The key here is more automation and streamlining of data sharing between law enforcement communities. A specific example arises when the Government have to decide whether to participate in the updated version of the Prüm database, which will have facial image data as well as the existing database of fingerprints and DNA. That will be an important decision that I am sure Parliament will need to scrutinise carefully.
On the economic issues, most of our witnesses supported the Government’s manifesto commitment to negotiate agreements on sanitary and phytosanitary checks on food and animal products, and on the emissions trading system. Our witnesses were also clear that the electricity trading scheme proposals outlined in the trade and co-operation agreement simply would not work. They therefore supported the idea of exploring UK access to the EU single market for electricity trading. That is now under way, as is a negotiation.
Our report lays out the implications of agreements in these areas of UK access to the single market. In particular, they will require dynamic alignment with EU regulations as they change, subject to any exceptions that are carved out in the negotiations. This will raise important issues for Parliament. We are promised a Bill soon, which will be interesting. The SPS agreement is likely to involve a continuous process of alignment, much of it highly technical, with each change potentially having an impact on businesses across the UK. How will Parliament exercise any useful scrutiny of this constant drip of administrative change? I guess that, at the very least, the European Affairs Committee will need more staff to keep abreast of the constantly changing regulatory landscape.
Agreements with the EU will have other implications as well. In particular, the UK will have to make a financial contribution. In the case of SPS and ETS, the 2025 summit agreed that payments would go towards EU costs in running the schemes, which seems fair enough, but the Commission’s draft negotiating mandate on electricity market trading introduces the idea of “cohesion funding”—in other words, British payments to reduce disparities between EU regions. Norway makes such cohesion payments directly to projects in poorer regions. If the Minister could give us more detail on whether that would also be the UK’s approach to the inevitable demand for cohesion funding when we seek to apply for single market access in other sectors, that would be interesting.
Two aspects of the trade and co-operation agreement were set to expire in June 2026: the arrangements on fisheries, and on trade and investment in energy. The May summit agreed to roll over the existing access for EU fishermen to UK waters for 12 years, but agreed to extend the energy title only one year at a time. That fisheries deal was strongly criticised by many of our witnesses, particularly those from the fishing industry. The committee also had serious doubts about the process. Within one month of the deal being struck, it had been enacted by the Specialised Committee on Fisheries, with no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. I should add that the Scottish salmon industry was very pleased at the prospect of an SPS agreement, given its export-orientated business.
On the cultural front, our report welcomed the prospect of the UK associating with Erasmus+ from 2027. Agreement on that has now been reached, which is good news for young people across the UK and the EU. Negotiations are also under way for a youth experience scheme. Is the Minister confident that a deal can be struck on that in time for the next summit, planned for May?
I note that both schemes were EU, not UK, negotiating objectives. I welcome that progress is being made, but it is disappointing that there has been no progress, as far as I can tell, on the UK’s one priority in the cultural field—a deal to help touring artists. That enjoys widespread support in both Houses of Parliament and the European Parliament, given the discussions that we have had in the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. I hope that the Minister can update us on how the Government are planning to break the logjam on touring artists.
In conclusion, I want to spend some time on the wider context for the future UK-EU relationship. My view as we went through this inquiry was that the Government’s level of ambition, even as extended at the May summit, was not nearly bold enough. Our witnesses were unanimous that, even if all the highly technical negotiations now under way were successful, the economic impact would be marginal, if positive. The Government predict a boost of around £9 billion in total by 2040, which is not much for a £3 trillion economy. The reality is, as Mark Carney put it so well in Davos, that we now live in a world where the great powers are using
“economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities”.
In that world, marginal benefits are nowhere near enough.
The Prime Minister, in his excellent Munich speech, seemed to agree. He saw closer UK-EU economic relations as part of the answer, setting the aim of “deeper economic integration” and moving
“closer to the single market in other sectors”.
If the Minister could give us any details on which sectors, that would be interesting. I welcome the aspiration to move closer to the single market, but the EU will need to respond to that. The failure of the SAFE negotiations and the restrictive rules now under discussion around its “made in Europe” initiative remind us that, for the EU institutions, the UK is still a third country. They are tending to apply their rules pretty inflexibly despite a mutual interest in working together.
The reality is that the hard strategic choices facing European nations, including Britain, will not be made in the UK-EU framework. Again, the Prime Minister recognised that in Munich. He talked of the need to step up work with like-minded allies on options for a collective approach to defence financing. He said:
“We must come together to integrate our capabilities on spending and procurement and build a joint European defence industry”.
He added that we should “turbocharge our defence production”. Again, any detail on that important new initiative would be interesting. It sounds as if the idea is to mobilise a wider group of European countries, going well beyond the EU, leap-frogging the stalemate over SAFE. There must be a question over whether there is room for two separate defence financing initiatives, but I welcome the willingness to think big in facing up to the new reality that we will have to take much more responsibility for our own security.
Trump is dismissive of international law and sees no value in allies. His treatment of Denmark over Greenland has broken all the bonds of trust which have kept NATO together for 75 years. New forms of co-operation among like-minded middle powers are therefore urgently needed to deal with a hostile Russia and an indifferent America. Such groupings tend to take shape under the pressure of great events and do not necessarily follow the blueprints set out in foreign ministries. It may be that this coalition of the willing, which has done such interesting work under UK-French leadership in supporting Ukraine, can grow into a load-bearing forum for wider strategic thinking outside NATO. For the moment, it is informal and unstructured, but it has a very interesting membership covering many European countries and Asian allies. I am sure that other noble Lords will have wisdom to bring to bear on this crucial subject.
Whatever the shape of the future, we need a turbocharging of our relationships with our closest neighbours in the EU, who share our values and interests. That will need more vision and more consistent political focus on both sides than we have had so far, but it is an objective that becomes more important every month, given the international situation that we face. I look forward to the debate and to the Minister’s comments. I beg to move.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to all the witnesses who contributed to this report, to the committee staff who worked so hard to bring it together and, not least, to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for his excellent chairmanship and clear and comprehensive introduction to the report. In the limited time available, I shall mainly confine myself to a few brief comments on one of the many important issues covered in the report: European security.
Before I do so, I want to register a quick point on the vexed matter of touring artists, on which others will no doubt wish to elaborate. A couple of weeks ago, I met with representatives of the European Parliament’s culture committee. They had just come from DCMS, where they had been told that the problems faced by our artists seeking to perform in Europe were not a priority issue for the UK. That is certainly not the view that Ministers have rightly expressed from the Dispatch Box. I suggest to the Government that we might do better in our negotiations with the EU if we sent rather more consistent messages.
I go back to the security and defence partnership. This was the area that seemed to hold most promise in the run-up to the UK-EU summit last May, since the threat looming over the European continent—not just over the EU—seemed to give us common cause despite any Brexit hangover on either side. In the event, it turned out to be the area of perhaps greatest disappointment.
Defence is, of course, not an EU competence, but neither is it strictly a national responsibility. Our necessarily corporate approach to defence in Europe is given substance through NATO, but even the alliance cannot address what is perhaps our most urgent military challenge today. This is not increasing the number of ships, soldiers or aircraft, important though those things are. The priority is to create an innovative, agile and rapidly scalable defence-industrial base across Europe. I am not just talking about traditional defence industries; we have seen in Ukraine how important the normally civilian-orientated sector can be in time of conflict. Without such an industrial hinterland, our Armed Forces will quickly become impotent in any sustained conflict through lack of the wherewithal to fight. Developing such capacity is where the EU can—and has started to—play a part. But it is about European defence, not EU defence. Frankly, the latter is a meaningless, not to say dangerous, concept.
It was therefore very disappointing to see UK companies excluded from full participation in the SAFE mechanism. This was a significant setback for the kind of integrated defence-industrial enterprise we shall need on this continent if we are to develop the strategic capabilities for which we are still overreliant on the United States and in which the UK should play a leading role. We must do better going forward. But if we are to do better and play a leading role, we must recognise that, in terms of defence, we are increasingly viewed as something of a paper tiger, even among our closest friends in the EU. We talk a good game but seem less and less able to play one. That is not exactly a leadership position.
In Munich recently, the Prime Minister said that European nations need to increase defence spending further and faster. Amen to that, but where is the UK action to match the rhetoric? We need to argue for a much more coherent approach to defence-industrial capability within Europe as a whole. But if we are to convince, we must at the very least put our money where our mouth is.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for his measured, calm chairmanship of the European Affairs Committee, and I welcome his successor, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, whose military experience will, I am sure, be up to dealing with the lot of us.
I served in Brussels for six years, the only woman Britain ever sent as a commissioner. After being the first woman to take on the trade portfolio, I became the first High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, responsible, among many other things, for leading the Iran nuclear talks, Europe’s response to the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and up to 10 military and civilian missions. I also set up the European External Action Service.
In my short contribution to this debate, I want to focus on collaboration on law enforcement and intelligence gathering. The committee was fortunate to hear from witnesses from the Crown Prosecution Service, the National Crime Agency and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We asked them about Part 3 of the TCA covering law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. This gives the UK unprecedented access compared with any other third country, but of course falls short of the access we would gain as a member state. Our interest in the committee was in how effective this has been and where more could be done to increase that effectiveness.
Our witnesses told us that aspects of their work were more challenging and cumbersome than before, within a system that is process-heavy. There was limited opportunity to automate, meaning that a lot of manual processes had to be deployed. I want to be clear: they were not suggesting that the system was broken, nor that they were unable to achieve what they needed to do, but it took longer, required more bureaucracy, relied on 27 bilateral relationships rather than one overarching one and was just a little bit harder. Their analysis was summed up by them in one word, “clunky”—a very diplomatic way of saying that it is harder now than it used to be.
One of the greatest practical losses was access to SIS II, the information-sharing system among not only EU member states but Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. This gives real-time information sharing from police databases. Until Brexit, it was used an estimated 600 million times a year by the UK. We can of course use Interpol red notices and information systems, but they are less efficient. We need to find ways to streamline and access information more easily and to share knowledge across the continent. Crime does not stop at borders, and criminals rely to an extent on the clunkiness and the gaps to pursue their activities. We were told that the real prize would be the signing of a multilateral agreement with EU member states that would enable alert sharing through the I-LEAP platform. While it would not restore information sharing in full, it would be much better.
We all know that the European arrest warrant was used after the attempted bombings after 7/7 claimed the lives of 52 people and injured more than 700. The suspect was taken in Rome and extradited to the UK using the European arrest warrant. The Minister at the time, Andy Burnham, told your Lordships’ committee in 2006 that this case
“very well illustrated the potential benefits … of the smooth functioning of this system”.
It is not and was not perfect, and other cases have not been as swiftly dealt with, but to quote the Lords report, it
“has a key role to play in the fight against terrorism and in bringing those accused of serious crime to justice”.
Our law enforcement witnesses have asked us to find ways to recognise the European arrest warrant as a valid request. As one of our witnesses said, give us
“the agility that organised crime exercises”.
We owe it to their professionalism and dedication to get this done, and soon.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, whose service in Brussels was so distinguished and whose experience of the Commission is so much more recent than mine. I believe that this report has the potential to transform British politics. If the reset is successful, it will set us on a path to creating a new relationship with the EU that marks a break with the past and reflects the realities of the present, a relationship that has a life of its own and is not a road to something else, a relationship that will evolve in response to the needs and interests of the two parties, not in accordance with some predetermined and underlying plan. As it progresses, so its ambitions can increase, and the sooner the better.
This is vital and in the national interest. On the one hand, in a threatening and uncertain world, our defence and security interests are intimately bound up with those of our EU neighbours. On the other, the EU, one of the world’s three great trading blocs and the one nearest to us, is by far our largest trading partner. Yet there are those in this country who are so obsessed with the Brexit battles that instead of looking for a new beginning, they present any change in the situation as a plot to subvert the result of the Brexit referendum. We must move on from that attitude.
As I said in a debate a few weeks ago, I believe the policy being pursued by the Government, on which this report makes a number of helpful suggestions, is on the right path—by which I mean the pursuit of agreements with the EU on a range of specific and often technical issues that create a balance of tangible benefits for both sides. If the two sides can do that successfully, it will create a habit of co-operation on the basis of which the new relationship can be built. This report is a constructive contribution to that end; I just hope that the EU will be able to respond in the same spirit. Its own agenda is so full, and its recent record of reaching the internal consensus required to carry forward difficult ventures is not encouraging. The question is: can it, as well as we, rise to the challenge of our times? Will it shake the hand that the Government are extending?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. It is a credit to his diplomatic chairing skills, as well as the excellent committee staff, that we were able in the end to produce this excellent and comprehensive report. The committee began its work on this inquiry a little over a year ago, when President Trump had just started his second term. This week, we have marked the fourth anniversary of the devastating war in Ukraine. It is through the prism of those two events that we have to view the reset of our relations with the European Union.
June this year will see the 10th anniversary of the EU referendum. It is now quite hard to find anyone, on either side of the argument, who believes that the process and outcomes following Brexit have been positive—not least because of the strain it has put on the unity of this country, perhaps most of all in Northern Ireland. Resetting our relationship with the EU is not just a good thing to do; it is increasingly a necessity—for our economy, our trade and our security.
Last year’s summit in May was welcome but so far has been longer on rhetoric than tangible outcomes. A commitment to an SPS agreement is welcome and could do much to boost trade. However, it would be helpful to know from the Minister whether the Government expect substantial progress to be made on that agreement in time for this year’s EU-UK summit.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, said, with an SPS agreement comes the issue of dynamic alignment. This raises important questions of parliamentary oversight and transparency and of how to feed into the EU’s policy development process at an earlier stage. It would be good to hear in the Minister’s closing remarks more details of the Government’s thinking in this regard. In particular, is it the intention to substantially increase the UK’s influencing capacity in Brussels? How, in practical terms, do the Government intend to ensure parliamentary oversight, particularly in the House of Commons, which no longer has a European affairs committee?
In the past the UK played a pivotal role in driving EU enlargement, which we always regarded as a process for positive change. Clearly, our influence on these matters is now much diminished, but what is the Government’s position on a fast-track approach to Ukrainian membership of the EU? Might such an approach also be in the UK’s best interest?
We on these Benches favour the closest possible relations with our European partners. The Government should be congratulated on removing some of the toxicity of the years immediately following Brexit, but I now hope that they can begin to match the positive words with concrete actions and courage.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the publication of this report, but the process in these negotiations is very uncertain and it remains to be seen whether the outcome will be in the best interests of the United Kingdom. The report suggests that the Government have made a good start but, for Northern Ireland, that assessment simply does not reflect reality, as the noble Baroness who has just spoken mentioned.
I am very much aware that the committee’s remit was not to discuss Northern Ireland, because there is a separate Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee within your Lordships’ House which looks at that matter. However, in the context of this debate, it is important that we reflect the fact that we have the Windsor Framework/protocol, which impacts not just on Northern Ireland’s trade, politics and constitutional position but directly on the United Kingdom, because the Government have made it clear that they are preparing to align in order to avoid divergence with Northern Ireland in many respects. In our view, unless the Windsor Framework/protocol is fundamentally dealt with, there can be no genuine reset of relations with the UK.
Some might say, “Well, things are settled”, but as we were reminded by noble Lord, Lord Bew, earlier in Question Time, the situation in Northern Ireland is far from settled. When there comes a point when this issue of the Windsor Framework/protocol and our relationship with the EU remains unresolved and the Northern Ireland Assembly and other institutions are in peril, people in this House and in the other place will say, “How did we get to this place?”
The reality is that unless we deal with the issue of the Windsor Framework and its economic detriment for Northern Ireland, its constitutional detriment and the denial of democracy, we will inevitably reach that place. I think that at that point, this House will say that we need to take these matters much more seriously, because the Windsor Framework leaves large volumes of EU law in place over Northern Ireland. There is no democratic control. It preserves a customs border down the Irish Sea between one part of the United Kingdom and the other. It maintains a role for a foreign court in the internal trade of the United Kingdom and embeds regulatory divergence inside our own country, as the backstop proposals would have done as well. This is not normal or sustainable in any modern democracy and it is not compatible with equal citizenship within the United Kingdom.
Businesses, as the Federation of Small Businesses’ report recently said, face massive bureaucracy and compliance costs. The Trader Support Service is already costing half a billion pounds of public money, just to help traders negotiate this labyrinthine process. We have to accept that this is not what sovereignty in a modern country looks like; it is what colonialism looks like. The principle of consent that lies at the heart of the Northern Ireland political settlement is being devastatingly eroded day by day. Legal changes imposed without that consent have altered Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market.
When we discuss the issues of the UK-EU relationship, we must not turn our eyes away from the fundamental problem that faces us in this United Kingdom, which is the democratic denial of consent to British citizens in this country in the 21st century. This needs to be continually highlighted because it is going to lead to real problems—not just for Northern Ireland but for this whole country.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad that the title of the excellent report we are discussing refers to a “reset”. Indeed, there seems general agreement in all the documents, including the Government’s response, that it is a reset, which we can define very widely. It is certainly “unfinished business” and certainly raises issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, rightly said, of wider geopolitical significance.
Some of us have been at this issue for, in my case, over half a century, long before we actually joined the European Union, or European Community as it was then called—or was it the European Economic Community or Common Market? I cannot remember; there have been so many changes. It has dominated the lives of many of us in and out of politics and public affairs for well more than half a century, before the treaty of Rome. To try to add anything in four minutes is a bit of an insult to the wisdom of this report and to the proverbial skills of the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. I suppose that, until we can change this extraordinary Lords procedure, which I think we should somehow try a bit harder to do, we are stuck with it.
What are the evolving changes? Obviously, everyone is pointing out that the whole show—the whole European Union—like everyone else, is in a new world context and operating under new pressures. It is very different from the body that we left when we left the customs union and Common Market arrangements some years ago.
The new factors include, first, security, as has already been pointed out in the excellent opening speeches, and the new problems of changing security. People talk about what will happen with Ukraine and whether we should do this, that or the other, but there is no outcome in Ukraine in prospect. Meanwhile, Russia is moving to a new situation and beginning to raise agitations and undertake more hybrid activities with the Baltic states, which are our friends. They have not been given nearly enough attention in our view of our partners in the sort of Europe that should lie ahead. It is going to come anyway; it is no use saying that we are just an applicant to rejoin certain aspects, as it were, without the cards. We have enormous cards. We belong with the middle nations that Mr Carney talked about the other day. We have immense pressures to mobilise, if we use them carefully. The Baltic states are our friends and Russia is busily working to disturb them—not by military invasion, but by all kinds of other activities—and cause additional problems, even though they may not see any more than we do to the Ukraine situation.
Secondly, it has also been raised that defence and warfare have totally changed, requiring completely different politics from what we discussed 10 years ago. As many of us predicted 30 years ago, drones have transformed the system and nature of war, and the disposition of trenches and troops. The use of AI is coming along, which will transform it even further.
Thirdly, the whole of Europe, including the EU, is underwater on debt at a level and scale which has never been seen before in history. The euro is weakening. We must be very careful not to be involved in all this before we understand what is really happening.
Finally, we must get ahead with rebuilding the global governance which we set up in 1945 from the rubble of the Second World War. It is now out of date, out of time and in great trouble. It requires a new architecture to provide us with a shell of protection—the shield under which we can reform ourselves. Britain played a major part in 1945. I cannot see that major part being played in 2026.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who has chaired the European Affairs Committee for the past three years. He skilfully led us to a consensus on most occasions, and all members of the committee are grateful to him.
The Government were elected on a manifesto to reset this country’s relationship with the European Union, and I very much support that objective. Departure from the EU has affected the lives of so many people who wish to trade with, travel to, or work or study in the EU. There is no doubt that it is in the national interest to improve our relations with the European Union. I commend the work of Nick Thomas-Symonds in the Cabinet Office, who has responsibility in the Government. He has twice come to the committee with Stephen Doughty in the Foreign Office, thus demonstrating close co-operation between the two departments on this matter.
I will comment, in the very brief time allowed, on just two elements of the negotiations. The first is the need to reach a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. For food producers—farmers and fishermen—and for food processors, this is important and urgent. Fresh, perishable food cannot wait for 48 hours while checks and paperwork are completed. Food processors of non-perishable products can be held up in customs for weeks. Importers in the EU will, very understandably, eventually prefer to buy from elsewhere in the EU or from countries that are not subject to the same regulations as we are. It is disappointing that even the Minister does not expect a new SPS agreement to be operational until the second half of 2027. I simply urge the Minister to do everything possible to hasten this agreement, which is so important to the food and drinks industries.
The second element is the youth experience scheme. For young people to travel for study or work experience is beneficial both for the individual and for this country. This works both ways. The fact that so many foreigners who have gone on to become leaders in business, politics, academia or the military have spent part of their education or youth in this country contributes enormously to the soft power of the United Kingdom. I therefore congratulate the Government on having as an important policy objective the reset and improvement of our relations with the EU. They have already achieved a considerable change in approach in Brussels and a willingness there to negotiate. I am sure that they will have much public support to pursue this policy with vigour and imagination.
Lord Redwood (Con)
I welcome the Government’s emphasis on growth and I look forward to future debates when we can exchange positive ideas on how to get more people into work, have better-paid jobs and extend investment in these islands. However, I must say to the Government that the measures currently being discussed, often in secret without proper text, are very worrying. They will either add nothing at all to our growth rate or, worse still, they will subtract from it and do damage. Look at what will happen to our fishing industry now that, for many more years, so much of the catch will be offered to continental super-trawlers and other vessels. This has delayed the rebuilding of the British fishing industry and means that we do not get all the inward investment and domestic investment in fish processing and food processing that would follow from having more catch landed in the United Kingdom.
Or look at the idea that we should join the carbon taxes and emissions scheme and the electricity scheme of the European Union. It would be another ratcheting up of the costs of electricity and energy in this country. Their carbon taxes are higher even than our high ones. Are not our carbon taxes doing enough damage already? Does the Front Bench opposite not see the factories closing and the plants being destroyed by ultra-high energy prices? Yet they want to volunteer for more of the same and take it out of our control.
If the Government decide to offer large new sums of money to the European Union, as they usually seem to when they visit Brussels, it will all be borrowed money. We are in a time of stress in our public finances; we are not looking for new ways to spend money. The more they spend giving it to Brussels, the more it will be resented by many people here in the United Kingdom and the more it will mean that those high levels of borrowing keep our interest rates above those of our competitors and stifle private investment and private growth, which is what we so clearly need.
We do not need to look forward, or even to forecast, to know what will happen with ever closer alignment to the European Union, because we have lived through it. In the 20 years that elapsed before we joined the European Economic Community, our economy grew at 3.4% per year: a very good rate of growth. In the 20 years of our early membership when we were a member of the European customs union, until the full single market was declared in 1992, our growth rate slumped to 1.76%. Of course it did, because we took all the tariffs off the things that the European continent was good at and just watched as it laid waste to so much of our industry, with all those closures, and we did not get the market opening on the services that drive the success of our economy. So of course that is what happened.
If you then roll the camera forward to our years in the single market, from 1992 to 2020, our growth rate fell again, even compared with the poor performance when we were just in the customs union. Again, of course it did, because of the anti-innovation, high-cost spirit of so many of those regulations. The last thing we need for a growth strategy now is more laws made in Europe. We know that they do not work; we know that they slow us down. Why do we want to link to the part of the world that is growing so slowly, when our great friends and allies in the United States of America are growing at twice the pace of the European Union? We seem to be negative about them and positive about joining the slow lane. We should not want to join the slow lane. This set of negotiations is bad for Britain and bad for growth.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, it was a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who had a difficult task indeed. His choice of title is apposite, first, because resetting our relationship is a continual process, not a single act, so it is rightly unfinished business, but, secondly, because he had to preside over some unfinished disagreements as to whether Brexit was good or bad. A quick look at the committee’s membership—with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and myself sitting side by side—rather describes the task that faced him, as he has referenced.
As a result, the report is perhaps a little more factual than prescriptive, and we were unable to fully welcome the Government’s move to rebuild trust and to boost trade with the EU and its advances over defence, Ukraine and the USA. Labour’s reset should be judged against the 2024 manifesto that sought to
“deepen ties with our European friends, neighbours and allies”,
and to make the UK
“a leading nation in Europe… with an improved… relationship with our European partners”
without crossing Labour’s red lines.
The May 2025 summit witnessed a new strategic partnership alongside an agenda for greater co-operation with the EU in relation to safety, security and economic prosperity. When we visited Brussels, we saw how the atmospherics had already changed. We were no longer hearing about “us” and “you”, but much more about “we”: about a common endeavour based on trust and a joint approach to work on major challenges. And challenges there are, with Ukraine, or rather Russia, being perhaps the greatest.
Besides that, however, we have the impulsive US presidency, especially its impact on the rules-based trading framework, which also necessitates a European response that goes beyond the EU, to encompass both us and the EEA, with our shared approach to the rule of law and respect for treaties. The security and defence partnership was significant in itself, but also for the potential for closer industrial and strategic working. It is disappointing that SAFE has not yet progressed; I hope that it may, and I endorse every word of the committee’s new chair, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. Security is also about organised crime, illegal migration, people trafficking and threats to our borders. We hope, therefore, for further intelligence and data sharing, and closer policing integration, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Ashton.
Much as I hated Brexit, I knew that we had to make it work via a closer, trusting and evolving relationship with the 27. The Government’s reset agenda, and their open and positive approach to the EU, form the right approach for a mutually beneficial relationship, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and others have stressed. Oddly, both Putin and Trump have made this more likely by forcing us to work together on Ukraine and in response to the USA’s new politics. I believe that we are in a better position with the EU than we were in July 2024, so we should welcome the start of this reset.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, noble Lords will get an encapsulation of the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, had in chairing our committee. He had a very difficult task, and the disagreements were very strong. As he noted, I could not endorse the report in the end, and I summarised what I felt it ought to have said in Appendix 9, kindly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson.
I said in Appendix 9 that the reset was “somewhat unsatisfactory” and that I did not believe
“that the Government has made the best possible use of its negotiating hand”.
That is the least that one can say—and now that I am not using committee language I think I can say that the outcomes were so poor that even poor negotiating cannot explain the point we have got to; there is more going on.
For one thing, I do not think that the Government are really being honest with us about what they are trying to do. On the one hand, we hear about the red lines on the single market and customs union; on the other hand, the Prime Minister says that we have to keep moving towards a closer relationship. His Ministers muse about joining the customs union, and the Business Secretary said yesterday that being aligned is “where the magic happens”.
The truth is that we know that everybody on the Labour Benches opposite really wants to be back in the EU or in the single market/customs union simulacrum of that. The only thing holding them back is that they won an election on promising not to, and that presents them with a problem. They know that they cannot get back in one go; they know that it will take time and that the solution is to approach it slowly, bit by bit, with one thing leading to another—the Monnet method in a different context. That is what we are seeing.
First, we are joining bits of the single market—on SPS, ETS and electricity—but it is claimed that we are not joining the single market. We have joined bits of customs, such as the CBAM—the carbon border adjustment mechanism—which will expand out of our control. We have started opening migration doors again, with the work experience scheme, and we start paying for it all—Erasmus, the nebulous future Bill on single market access, SAFE and much more. This direction of travel is the only way to understand what otherwise one might think were quite amateur night negotiating tactics.
The truth is that the Government do not care about concessions—they care only about the destination. They just want to get close to the EU, and they are prepared to do so on any terms that are available. How else are we supposed to understand why they have agreed subordination—again—of this Parliament to EU laws as the only way to improve food, agriculture and electricity trading? We know that it did not have to be done that way—they have chosen to do it that way. How else are we to understand the shameful giveaway on fisheries for nothing more than a statement communiqué? How else are we to understand the failure to get anything on matters of interest to Britain in return for these concessions other than the much-vaunted access to e-gates, barely touched on in our committee report, which the EU regards with such contempt that it has not even bothered to deliver it—the one thing that came out of this nine months later?
This approach is dangerous. The truth is that we are not going to succeed as a country if, outside the EU, we just do what the EU does. Yet hitching us to EU policy regimes is going to leave us in that situation. I am sorry to say that the committee’s report does not come close to acknowledging these issues, and that is why I cannot support it. What it should have said is quite simple: this is a dangerous reset; it is being done in a dangerous way; and this country’s independence is not safe in this Government’s hands.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it is nearly a decade since 23 June 2016, when I voted to remain, and campaigned to stay in the European Union, partly because I did not want to spend the next 10 years of my parliamentary career having to deal with all the issues that came about as a consequence of Brexit. But I am a democrat; I still am. That is why, when I was appointed by my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead to go into Defra, where I worked for three years, we continued to go to the European Council and to respect and interact with all the different regulations that were going through—but also starting to plan how best to leave.
There is no doubt that I would have agreed with the summary statement put out in Appendix 9, but I appreciate that the committee was not unanimous in its report and I certainly did not support the alternative summary. It is important to try to get a sense from the Government—having had these manifesto commitments to not go back into the single market or the customs union and not have freedom of movement—as to why they think that having the SPS does not drive a coach and horses through the single market.
One of the constant issues in the early years of negotiation was that we could not be a rule-taker if we were not a rule-maker. That continues to be the real problem that is being put forward by the Government. I am conscious already that the only reform that they have approved as a consequence of Brexit is to put VAT on school fees, which they would not have been allowed to do if we were still part of the European Union.
It comes back to some of the differences, where often the UK was not necessarily a sole voice but a leading voice in trying to address quite a lot of not just environmental regulations but chemical regulations, all these different ones, to which we brought our sense of our large economy—this was often how so much was negotiated. For heaven’s sake, the fishing agreements were negotiated with countries that had no fish being taken out of the sea. But that was done because they could use it as leverage on many other issues. I appreciate that we have a former Permanent Representative to the European Union in the Chamber. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, who went to Brussels as one of our representatives after the referendum result.
One of the things that I have found frustrating in this whole debate, not just on this report but more generally, is the continued gaslighting. We need to be honest with the British public. The Labour Party has been driving a coach around Manchester ahead of the by-election today, repeating the lie that £350 million per week has not gone into the NHS. It has. It happened when my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead was Prime Minister. We put the money in then. It is that sort of approach, the rewriting of history, that is one of the reasons why this will continue to be a thorn in the challenge of trying to do what is best for Britain.
That, of course, is to have a very strong relationship with the European Union. But since then, we have joined the CPTPP and other free trade agreements. We should be taking more advantage. Frankly, if it had not been for Covid, in many ways, we would have got on with a lot of the freedoms. But it was due to Covid and not being part of the European Union that we were the first country in the world to be able to authorise a vaccine and deploy it successfully.
I am afraid that this report will continue to be somewhat controversial and quite divisive—not necessarily between political parties. I appreciate that many of my noble friends would love to rejoin the European Union tomorrow. There is an element of reminding ourselves, as part of this reset relationship, that we would not go back in on the same terms that we left. To try to pretend otherwise, I am afraid, is not displaying the candour which this debate deserves.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, this is a full and comprehensive report from the European Affairs Committee, although perhaps controversial, as the noble Baroness has just said. I might also say that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and I worked amicably together in the Foreign Office many years ago, and it is good to be speaking after him today.
What I want to do in this debate today is to say just a few words about defence. Let me start by saying that the UK’s relationship with the US on defence and on security is exceptionally close and should remain so. Our submarine nuclear deterrent is unsustainable without US support. Much of our military equipment is made in the US and is dependent on American spare parts, and we have a close and important intelligence relationship too. For the last 50 years and more, that relationship has gone hand in glove with NATO, and let us hope that that continues, not least, as others have said already, in supporting Ukraine. But NATO depends heavily on the US and, at least at present, the US is, alas, an uncertain ally, so a closer security and defence relationship with the EU makes sense, and the EU-UK Security and Defence Partnership is a good start.
However, the Government’s response to the committee’s excellent report describes the security and defence partnership as
“a structured framework for cooperation”.
Structured frameworks are necessary, but it is what goes into them that matters. Let us hope that flexibility on both sides, as suggested perhaps in Munich recently, leads to a sensible agreement, including on SAFE, on which, like the noble Lord Ricketts, I hope the Minister can bring us up to date.
Let us hope, too, that this developing UK-EU relationship on security and defence can work closely and effectively with NATO. We hope that that is the ideal, but we cannot be sure. NATO is facing uncertainty, as I said, and the EU is essentially an economic construct with nimbleness not exactly its watchword—on that point I perhaps agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redwood; I do not agree with him on many things, but I probably agree with him on that. As the nature of defence changes, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned, we need a more informal, nimbler, less bureaucratic association, a coalition of the willing. That is developing fast, with the UK, France and Germany at its core and Poland, the Baltic states and, outside the EU, Canada working with it too. But all this needs money—money that is needed for our security. The Prime Minister has promised it. I hope that the Minister can confirm that that promise is not a chimera, a bubble without substance, but a firm commitment to provide men and up-to-date equipment soon.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, this is an important report, not least because we are the only committee with the bespoke role of looking at the relationships between the United Kingdom and the EU. There was mainly consensus in this report, notwithstanding appendix 9, as my noble friend Lord Frost said, which contains the alternative summary. The consensus was around the Government’s failure to outline a clear and comprehensive negotiating mandate, perhaps by way of a White Paper, which obviously undermined the ability of the committee and the House more widely to exercise proper scrutiny and oversight.
There was a reason for having an alternative summary, and it was because in essence some of us believed that the Government’s policy, even measured by their own measures, was incoherent, insubstantial and deliberately obfuscatory. Kind words butter no parsnips. The Government failed to leverage strong negotiating hands in, say, defence, security and fishing, despite the UK being number two in the world for soft power and being pre-eminent in defence, for instance. They unilaterally surrendered those advantages with very little to show for it, such as on the fisheries deal. I have to say, in all fairness and balance, that I think the EU made a strategic miscalculation over SAFE, and hopefully those negotiations will be more fruitful.
In areas such as mutual recognition of professional qualifications and touring artists, they have made little or no progress despite being in the manifesto. They have capitulated on key areas to support the EU strategic objectives in policy areas absent from the manifesto, such as Erasmus+, the 12-year fisheries deal and the electricity trading scheme. Most egregious is a commitment to improving the SPS regime, which is of course laudable in reducing friction at the border, that has morphed into a full-blown commitment to dynamic alignment which is likely to cost, according to the Growth Commission in its report published this week, £15 billion to the economy. Currently, it is a system and regime that costs the EU itself €39 billion a year. The Government have not themselves yet produced any information on legislation, costings, the likely commitment of cohesion funds or an impact assessment. In a number of areas, the Government’s proposals are opaque, including, for instance, those on economic impact and carve-outs. A good example is gene editing, which the National Farmers’ Union has pressed for over the last few months. We are no nearer to understanding the global impact on UK sovereignty, the nebulous concept of “decision-shaping”, the status of governance in respect of dispute resolution and the likely role of the European Court of Justice.
Finally, can the Minister say what legal form the new agreements will take? What commitment will the Government make to parliamentary sovereignty and oversight of the new arrangements? What carve-outs will be sought in the new dynamic alignment regime? What are the likely costs to be borne in order to participate in SAFE and the new partial membership of the single market? What stance will the Government take on the new trade and co-operation review due this year?
Our committee will be pressing the Government on all these issues and will hold them to their commitment to their red lines, not least in our forthcoming inquiry into dynamic alignment. They will not have a free pass to subvert Brexit and take us back into the European Union by subterfuge and sleight of hand.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, on the excellent report he has produced, which is exactly what I would expect of a committee which he chaired. However, our debate today has shown the difficulties he had in producing a consensus, because there are clearly many Members opposite who do not want to move beyond the Brexit debate or see a closer relationship with our friends and allies in the European Union. They seem completely oblivious to the economic cost of what Brexit has brought—virtually every estimate is at least 4% of GDP—and the fact that the public now believes overwhelmingly that Brexit was a mistake.
We need this reset of the relationship and to get closer. I will make three brief points about what I think is necessary if it is going to succeed. First, all the issues to do with a closer relationship with Europe are extremely complex. What you need is a top Whitehall team in every department working on these issues and, at the centre of government, someone bringing all these people together to hammer out differences between departments, and a very strong permanent representation in Brussels. I believe these things have weakened since Brexit. I experienced it for seven and a half years when I was in Downing Street and saw how effective it was, but we must rebuild these institutional capacities if we are going to make a success of the relationship.
Secondly, we must be willing, if we want much greater access to the single market, to make meaningful contributions financially. I am not talking about the nonsense of the €7 billion, which came up in the ridiculous arguments about SAFE, but we have to be prepared to pay more to the budget than simply administrative costs. The French, Germans, Dutch, Swedes and others are significant net contributors to the EU budget. The reason why it is necessary is that in order to get the weaker members of the union to co-operate in the single market there has to be some kind of measure of cohesion, and we will have to pay into that.
Thirdly, the Government have got to make the case to the country much more strongly for why we need to get closer to Europe. It is necessary to convince our European partners of our seriousness. Making the case at home will help convince them of our seriousness. At the same time, for us as the Labour Party, it will help unite at home the opposition to the far-right populism that is such a danger to this whole venture.
In a way, the 2016 arguments for Europe are completely redundant. The world has changed enormously in the last decade. Economically, we have Trump tariffs, the rise of China and a world of greater instability. We need to be part of the EU.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I am finishing—and it is an advisory speaking time.
On defence, we face huge challenges. The transatlantic alliance now hangs by a very insecure thread, in my view. We have to be much closer to our European allies and partners and we have to get closer to Europe. We need to explain why to the British public, in economic terms, to give us greater security against China and the United States’ tariffs, and in defence terms.
Lord Barrow (CB)
My Lords, I will seek to be quick, not just because we were advised to be so but because I find myself in former permanent representative corner, and going first in this company is a bit dangerous.
I have a few quick points, not least as a new member of the European Affairs Committee, under the martial leadership of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, with whose remarks I fully associate myself. I extend my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for the report we have in front of us, including the clear statement that the reset is a process, not an event. When I was in Brussels talking to those missions, which were third-country missions at that time, all of them said that all meaningful third-country relationships with the EU are unfinished business, in perpetuity. In that context, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in asking the Government what their assessment is of the possibility of Ukraine’s membership of the EU and the consequences for UK interests of such a move.
I welcome the breadth of the agenda for the UK and the EU. This demonstrates a strength of ambition and good relations at the top on both sides. However, as many in this Chamber know, and as we saw with SAFE, while that is necessary at the top it is not always sufficient. Delivery will be difficult. Although we have had the welcome news on the Gibraltar negotiations, which I very much commend, that took many years—maybe that was the fault of some of us negotiating it—and we need more rapid progress.
I would therefore like the Minister to share her assessment of progress ahead of the summit in relation to two areas. The first is law enforcement co-operation, and I join everyone, including the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, who highlighted that. It was one of the most frustrating areas of the negotiations in which I took part. There was clear, direct and mutual benefit for citizens in the UK and the EU, but we were unable to do all that I felt we could do. Can the Minister update us on possible progress, including on existing measures such as SIS II and Prüm—which the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, mentioned—or any new innovations?
The second area on which I would welcome an update is defence co-operation. What happened with SAFE was regrettable, although saying no in negotiations is sometimes as necessary, important and valuable as saying yes. I politely suggest to some of my friends in Brussels that, if your position leads to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, leading the charge, with trenchant criticism in the media, something has gone wrong with your position. However, there is still scope for co-operation in the security area, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, advocated. As the report notes, that includes the European Defence Agency, perhaps the Ukraine loan scheme, and even SAFE or a potential SAFE II. However, like the report, I am more sceptical about UK participation in CSDP missions under current third country rules.
As many noble Lords have said, all of this is part of a much bigger question: how will we, across Europe, respond to the present evident security challenge and what will the UK role be in that response? As was made obvious at the Munich Security Conference, Europe wants to do more, the US wants Europe to do more and Ukraine chides us for not doing more—but how is that response to be delivered? The report rightly notes consensus on NATO as the cornerstone of our defence, but are we to deliver that response through NATO mechanisms, alongside a patchwork including the coalition of the willing and maybe JEF, EU-UK co-operation and the welcome intensified E3 co-operation?
Alternatively, as others have said, should there be some new security architecture as a vehicle to galvanise and focus efforts? For instance, Carl Bildt recently advocated reviving the WEU—I am not sure whether that would be the answer that would commend itself, but the question still needs answering. I do not ask the Minister to answer it today, but we need an answer soon, not least if the UK is to play the role that we want to play in this. Can she seek to answer that question urgently, not least because this week we mark the fourth anniversary of the war in Ukraine and the terrible suffering that continues there?
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for introducing this important debate. My thanks also go to the European Affairs Committee for producing such a comprehensive report.
For more than 40 years, the UK was part of the European Union. The famous soul music song “We Are Family” was cited by some to describe that relationship—but wedlock eventually became padlock. As a result of Brexit, the British people decided to adopt another tune. This could best be described by the rock supergroup Queen’s anthem, “I Want to Break Free”.
As the report points out, Brexit is a process, not an event. It is in everyone’s interest that progress is made. About 45% of UK exports go to the EU, and 53% of our imports are from the EU. I had the privilege of speaking at an Inter-Parliamentary Union event in Geneva some years ago, where I raised the issue of tariffs. I described tariffs as a way to promote trade or a weapon to prevent trade. It is ironic that tariffs are once again a worldwide topical issue. It is important that the EU and the UK strive to maintain a zero-tariff and zero-quota relationship.
One of the lessons of history is that we do not learn lessons from history. It is interesting that, throughout the Bible, there is a theme of one empire after another eventually overreaching itself and gradually collapsing. In the Old Testament, there were the Egyptians, followed by the Assyrians, the Babylonians and, finally, the Persian Empire. In the New Testament, there was the powerful and mighty Roman Empire. All these empires eventually fell because national independence proved more durable than empire.
I have some questions for the Minister, arising from the committee’s report. First, why did the Government not produce a White Paper setting out their objectives concerning resetting our relationship with the EU? Surely, that would have helped the committee’s task of holding the Government to account. As the committee noted:
“We were scrutinising a ‘moving target’ throughout, and have continued to do so as we prepared this report”.
I am a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence. The report alludes to data protection and cyber security issues. AI is changing all aspects of the modern world. What progress are the Government making with the EU concerning AI-related issues, including data protection, cyber security and AI regulation?
The first duty of any Government is to protect their people. What progress are the Government making with the EU concerning defence-related issues and NATO? Young people represent our future. What progress are the Government making on rejoining the European Erasmus programme, which provides valuable education and training? Are we still on course to rejoin by next year? What date has been set for the next UK-EU summit? When the Cabinet Minister, Nick Thomas-Symonds, gave evidence to the committee last year, he said that it would be “sometime in 2026”, but when will that summit be?
I believe that resetting a positive relationship with the EU can work; but if we fail to plan, we plan to fail. There are those who spread fear that this reset will never work, but fear is that darkroom where only negatives are developed. We must not be like the paranoid patient who visits his doctor, to be told, “Please listen, you’ve got hypochondria”, and who replies, “Oh no, not that as well”. It is said that every story has “a beginning, a muddle and an end”. So it is with this Brexit process. However, when fear knocks at the door, let us answer it with faith.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s EU trade reset has failed to achieve its three main trade objectives, on which I will focus. There has been no agreement on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and no end to the restrictions on UK touring artists, about which we have heard more today. Also, instead of a veterinary agreement, which the Government announced in their manifesto and trailed publicly for two years, they have agreed to reimpose EU SPS law on agri-foods, with dynamic regulatory alignment for the agri-food sector and a role for the Court of Justice of the European Union. The manifesto pledge not to return to the EU, the single market or the customs union has thus been broken.
Moreover, as we have heard today, the Government have caved in to the EU’s demands for long-term fishing access to UK waters and promise to work towards a youth mobility scheme, now called a youth experience scheme. Up to 70 million EU youths could seek to avail themselves of this scheme.
The report follows the Government’s line in seeing the reset as an emerging process—its title is Unfinished Business. There is no assessment of the costs to the UK economy of dynamic alignment for agri-foods, although an assessment from the Growth Commission this week, made by 13 independent economists, suggested that the hit would be £15 billion. Nor is there any analysis of the economic and trade impact of returning to EU regulatory alignment on trade and the economy or on our relationships with other trading partners. We now have, apart from the EU, 40 trade agreements with 70 trading partners.
The SPS sign-up to regulatory alignment will bring legal challenges, because we have changed the basis for agri-foods in this country and the law on them. There is nothing here to consider the repercussions on Britain’s democracy of the breach of a manifesto pledge, at a time when confidence with the established order and politicians is at an all-time low, right across Europe and in this country.
The alternative summary by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and other co-signatories highlights two failures: the Government’s failure to make the best possible use of their negotiating hand, and the committee’s failure to do its duty to scrutinise and assess that policy and make clear the reality of the reset. The presence of this alternative summary highlights the problems the consensus approach creates for scrutiny. It suggests what I, as a member of the committee from the outset of its investigation, came to consider: that if we had a diversity of views from members and from witnesses, and we tolerated it, we might produce a more useful and critical report. That is our job in the Select Committee: to scrutinise on behalf of Parliament and the taxpayer what the Government are doing in legislation.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is an excellent report and very well presented, but I wonder why the negotiation has to be so transactional, so timid and so slow. What could be done to speed it up? I suspect that one of the reasons is that the Commission negotiators are the same guys who were involved in the Brexit negotiation, and it may be that our current negotiators suffer for the sins of their predecessors.
We also suffer from a degree of timidity in what we are putting forward, and the other side suffers from a bit of excessive ambition. I do not think we should be paying contributions into the EU budget, that it is right to try to charge us €10 billion to join SAFE, or that it is right to try to charge us for integration into the EU electricity market. These things are a common benefit—they suit both sides—so why should we pay?
What should we do to speed things up? A common Cross-Bench speech is emerging today, because I think we have to play the security card—in fact, we need to play it anyway. I would like to see the negotiations become more top down, and I would like to look at the big picture. The prophet there was Mark Carney. We are indeed seeing a serious transatlantic rupture. Of course, we must retain as much as we possibly can of the NATO architecture, but within it we need to build new, all-European structures and capabilities. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, that the coalition of the willing is the place to start, but we need an E3 blueprint. Why E3? Because it exists, because we work well with the French—our military works well with the French—and because German defence spending has taken off and is set to surpass ours and that of the French put together.
It was another Healey, Denis Healey, working with Helmut Schmidt, who created the NATO Eurogroup and developed the NATO Nuclear Planning Group. The need for big-picture thinking about European defence is much greater now than it was then. Now, economic security is the EU’s business—energy security, not military security—but a British initiative in the military sphere leading to an E3 security blueprint could transform the atmosphere in the EU Council, with two provisos. First, there must be no direct linkage, explicit or implicit—we must not repeat Prime Minister May’s mistake—and, secondly, that is provided we back our words with action.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, was absolutely right. Our friends—just like our foes, I fear—know that our uniform numbers and stockpiles are too low and our forces hollowed out. We talk a good game but we are living on history and reputation. We are not investing enough. We are where the Poles were when Putin invaded Ukraine. Four years ago, Poland was spending 2.2% of GDP on defence. Today it is 4.8% and rising, because the Poles know that Putin would not stop at Ukraine. If our financial commitment rose to match theirs and the Germans’, and if the Healeys and Schmidts of today could produce an E3 plan, our friends in Brussels would be more likely to override the transactional technicians and identify common interests. Anyway, upping our defence spending is what we need to do, because we are at a 1938 moment and need to respond, with or without Trump, to the Putin challenge. That is the big picture.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, in his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, pointed out that the European Affairs Committee is the only committee in Parliament looking in detail at these matters. Given the direction of travel, the concept of a reset and the manifesto commitments made, while of course it is entirely its own business, it is extraordinary that the other place does not have a committee specifically looking at these matters. It is entirely a matter for the other place, but it seems odd to me.
Reset is, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder. It can mean sensible and practical co-operation or, for some, on the other hand, as we have seen from some of the contributions today, another slidy way of getting back into the European Union in one form or another. We held a referendum in 2016 and, irrespective of what side of the argument one was on—the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will know from his experience that people like me were worried about the direction of travel and what would happen, particularly in Northern Ireland, where we share a border with an EU country—we went to the Prime Minister of the day to establish the negotiating position and came away clearly of the view that no such position existed. Consequently, we have ended up in the constitutional and economic sludge through which we are wading as a result of the arrangements that we are now working in. The point I am making is that if a Government or party feel that they want to take a different trajectory and go back into the European Union, they should have the guts to stand up and say so, because we are undermining trust, and that is a mistake.
The SPS has been raised on a number of occasions. To me and other colleagues, in effect we have been in this position for some years now. People do not seem to recognise the implications, because it means that people in Brussels will be deciding what regulations to determine how we do our business. That is the inevitable consequence. We will be a rule-taker with no meaningful influence and not a decision-maker. Let us be honest with each other: that is what this means.
From a local perspective in Northern Ireland, as I said, you join us in the sludge because we will then all be in the same boat. Under no circumstances will we have anybody effectively taking a decision for us in this or the other place. It will be taken away from us elsewhere. If that is what we want, we should say so. But bear in mind that there is no way of avoiding the fact that parliamentary sovereignty is going to be transferred in significant quantities to the European Union.
The fishing has been mentioned, and we have the tobacco and vape things, on which growing numbers of European countries are likely to challenge our decisions. On the referendum, I know that situations have changed—we can all see that—but we had a referendum in Scotland, and a decision was taken to remain within the UK. If we say that in 10 years we can avoid the decision we took on the European Union, the nationalists will say the same thing for the independence referendum, so we are digging a hole for ourselves.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the report of the committee, very ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. I particularly welcome the aspects on Erasmus, electricity and, of course, defence and security.
I want to make some reference in my brief remarks—to follow the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Dodds—to Northern Ireland, and to remind your Lordships’ House that the protocol developed after Brexit was very badly negotiated. It led eventually to the complete destruction of the Assembly and the Executive in Northern Ireland because of the differences of views. After that, of course, it was succeeded by the Windsor Framework, which was definitely an improvement, but it still did not satisfy everybody in Northern Ireland because it is very difficult, constitutionally, for unionism to accept what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has just referred to. Nationalists, however, took a different view; indeed, there was a majority in favour of staying in the European Union when the referendum was held. However, the difficulties have to be addressed.
Last year the Government asked me to review the Windsor Framework, which I did: I came up with 16 or 17 recommendations to try to improve its working, because there is no doubt that the burdens placed on Northern Ireland businesses, large, medium and small, are huge. Those recommendations included one regarding SPS. I know the constitutional question is different from the practical issues I was trying to address, and that is perhaps for another time, important as that constitutional issue is. However, businesses said to me that they regarded the SPS as extremely important in trying to ensure that the burdens they currently face would be removed.
My plea to the Government and my noble friend the Minister is that they act speedily on the recommendations I made, which have all been accepted by the Government. I hope, too, that the European Union will be speedy in the negotiations. I have enormous confidence in my right honourable friend the Paymaster-General, Nick Thomas-Symonds, not least because he succeeded me as the Member of Parliament for Torfaen.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the report we are debating today, so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Ricketts, is an important one, as it marks the first six months of the follow-up and implementation of the UK-EU summit last May. It is important, too, because our debate marks the beginning of the run-up to the probable next summit this summer, which will hopefully register the conclusion of some, if not all, of the negotiations already begun and the engaging of new steps.
The report is also notable because it records the vote against the attempt by one of the co-authors of the trade and co-operation agreement—the noble Lord, Lord Frost—to emasculate its conclusions and recommendations. Let us be grateful for small mercies.
The top priority, I suggest, along with many others, must be the security of Europe and the restoration of a strengthened deterrent against Russian aggression such as has been unleashed on Ukraine—a deterrent based on a far more effective European pillar of NATO than we have had hitherto. Fortunately, talks on security are resuming now after an unfortunate setback, and our own Government are refusing to take no for an answer. I welcome that.
There are of course plenty of critics of the reset, but they need to be able to answer some of the following questions. Do they seriously discount the benefits to our agri-food exporters of an SPS agreement lifting the costly and time-consuming checks at the EU border? Do they ignore the lightening of the burden on Northern Ireland’s commercial operators from such a veterinary agreement? Do they not think that a youth mobility scheme would benefit both sides, supplementing the decision to join the Erasmus+ scheme, which we, like many other third countries, should never have left in the first place? Is there not clear mutual benefit in linking our and the EU’s emissions trading schemes, or in ensuring that the cross-border admission schemes we are both setting up to deal with carbon content—the CBAMs—are broadly equivalent, thus avoiding creating new non-tariff barriers and seeing exports from third countries being diverted to us? Is there not mutual benefit, too, in more energy interconnectors, as foreseen by the recent Hamburg meeting, and a more integrated electricity market? Should we not rejoin the pan-European rules of origin convention? All these questions and more are hard to answer in the negative, although some in this Chamber have no difficulty in doing so. If they cannot be so answered convincingly, are they not more the fruit of unthinking obstruction? To suggest that they are somehow betraying Brexit is the height of absurd.
Two catchwords, one on each side of the UK/EU divide, seem to be heavily overused. The first is the description of UK objectives as “cherry picking”. In reality, every negotiator tries to achieve their own prime objectives. The EU Commission certainly does—or at least it did when I was a Commission negotiator in the 1970s. Every negotiator recognises that there is a successful negotiation only where there is a balance of mutual benefit, including some form of continuous alignment and financial contributions to joint objectives. The second of the two problems I see in the way people address these issues is the incessant repetition of “red lines”. Naturally, both sides have such limits to their negotiating flexibility, but endless repetition is merely a recipe for not thinking things through and a disincentive to those on the other side to subject their own limits to critical scrutiny. So I make a plea for a reduction in the brandishing of those two facile catchphrases—“cherry picking” and “red lines”—and for a sharper focus in the phase ahead on where we can agree common ground, not on where we cannot.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, before commencing, I, too, protest the four-minute limit—hardly enough time to clear one’s throat, although quite a few noble Lords seem to have happily breezed through it. Given that time limit, I shall discuss only one matter: the so-far aborted—as described by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—negotiations to join the SAFE project.
In the face of a changed world, the UK, the EU and the US must work together in an adult way to ensure that the West has the best possible defence capabilities, avoiding national self-interest or mercantilism. Yet the European Commission, in classic mode, demanded that Britain should pay an entrance fee of up to nearly €7 billion before it could join SAFE. As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, put it, that was totally unreasonable. Canada paid €10 million: 1/700th of that. Allegedly, we could get it all back in contracts, but there were no guarantees whatever that we would get any contracts at all. I found no published analysis from the Commission, HM Treasury, the MoD, RUSI, the IFS or any parliamentary committee demonstrating how that €7 billion outlay could ever be recouped. Contra the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, EU member states do not pay: au contraire, France is given—loaned—€16 billion for SAFE. So why, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked, should we, an equal partner in this, pay?
It is not just the money. There are profound contractual problems with SAFE. The EU demands exclusive design authority and strategic autonomy, likely compelling UK firms to transfer their proprietary technical know-how to the EU. Cash equal to 10% of our entire annual defence budget would be handed over, with no guaranteed return, loss of valuable IP and no reciprocal market opening, for the privilege of becoming merely a subcontractor, allowed to take no more than 35% of any contract. Yet Europe is irreplaceably dependent on the UK’s defence capability. We have capabilities that no EU member state can replicate: nuclear, intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, advanced air combat, long-range strikes, air-to-air refuelling and submarine-building expertise that is unmatched in Europe.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, just said, the UK’s defence relationship with the United States, including Five Eyes, is key for us and for Europe, across virtually every capability. AUKUS, for example, includes co-operation with the US on AI, quantum, cyber, hypersonic and electronic warfare. That relationship with the US is highly important for our economy too, with over 20,000 direct and 94,000 indirect jobs with US-owned firms.
So why is France—for it is France, not Germany—trying so hard to ensure that we refuse to join, or to extort us if we do? Does it not care about the existential threat to western Europe? These safe negotiations embody a view that is hostile to creating the best possible defence for Europe, treating the UK not as an equal partner in this important task but as a supplicant to be fleeced. If this is how the EU allows itself to behave on defence, how can we expect it will behave in the negotiations on SPS or energy? Let the Government, let our country, beware.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and the committee, for the report and the noble Lord for his clear, calm introduction to it. As he said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, agreed, President Trump has broken the bonds of trust and we can no longer depend on the US as our ally, over Greenland and many other matters. That has put the UK and the EU in a very different position compared with where we were in 2016. As a middle-ranking power in an uncertain world, we need to tighten the bonds that have been severed and frayed with the EU and, we must not forget, with the rest of the world, the majority of which is not the US, China or Russia. With the right approach of humility, generosity and realism, we can work in partnership to tackle the many crises we face.
I know that others will cover in detail the utter failure by successive Governments to deal with the critical, often career-threatening, impacts of Brexit on our creative community. That makes us all poorer, not just financially but culturally, with the huge loss to young people of Erasmus+ which now, happily, is to be restored. However, I will focus on an issue that is crucial to the reset and to the public and environmental health of the UK, to which the committee paid only glancing attention. That is not a criticism. As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, said, there are many highly technical areas that will need to be sorted and Parliament will struggle to have proper oversight of them. This is one of those areas, fitting under the sanitary and phytosanitary standards label: the regulation of pharmaceuticals and chemicals.
The EU is prohibiting the import of animal products from countries that routinely use antibiotics for growth promotion. This will take effect in September. We banned these practices domestically in 2006, yet the UK has not committed to the same rule for imports. Last November, I asked the Government in a Written Question whether the UK would align with these EU import rules. They stopped short of committing to an import ban. Hopefully, this will come with the SPS negotiations, but we need it now. I am not expecting a Dispatch Box declaration, but please will the Government make this a priority?
The public and environmental health gap extends particularly to water. The EU’s 2024 urban wastewater treatment directive mandates advanced treatment of urban wastewater to remove pharmaceutical residues, microplastics and other pollutants, along with harmonised antimicrobial resistance monitoring and producer responsibility schemes. What a contrast to “Dirty Business”, a recent television programme on this issue which provided an account that has horrified so many. Here we have no legally binding requirements for water companies to monitor emerging pollutants, including microplastics, antimicrobial residues or resistant bacteria or genes in effluent. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, spoke about being a rule taker. If others consistently have better rules, why do we not take those rules?
On chemicals, the UK is also falling behind. Since we left EU REACH, the EU has adopted 13 new restrictions and initiated 24 more. The UK has begun only three. We are trailing EU protections on chemicals, including the planned restrictions covering the 10,000 PFAS, the forever chemicals. We are subject to a cocktail of chemicals, of particular concern to the health of our young. We have begun action on only one PFAS restriction, despite civil society calling for alignment with the EU. The EU is also ahead of us on pesticides. Brexit has left us in this area, as in so many others, worse off—left behind and less healthy, with our environment dirtier and without the precautionary principle that we so urgently need to restore.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I express my sympathy to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, who has to wind up and present a coherent, responsible and constructive opposition position on this for the Conservative Party after hearing several speeches from behind her that would have done very well for members of Reform. I want to take from this report the comment that this is a process, not an event, and to make three points about the domestic conditions of a successful reset process.
First, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, we need to rebuild expertise within Whitehall, including training in other major European languages and multilateral negotiation. I am old enough to remember, when we first joined the European Community, the scale of the task of familiarising civil servants with the multilateral style of EU meetings and the skills required to negotiate successfully for British interests in that context. Whitehall developed an expert cadre of European specialists, familiar with not just EU regulations but the complexities of other countries’ domestic priorities. That pool of expertise has now been dispersed, and I hear from officials that fluency in French, German, Italian or Spanish is not highly valued in Whitehall. As we again work to build closer relations with our European neighbours, what efforts are the Government now making to rebuild negotiating and language skills and knowledge about both the EU’s institutions and other member Governments across our public service, from Defra to DESNZ to the MoD?
Secondly, Ministers and parliamentarians of all parties need to rebuild wider links with political parties and policy advisers in other member states. I was struck when I was in the coalition Government by how much closer and wider were the links that my Conservative colleagues had with Washington politicians and think tanks than with those from France, Germany, the Netherlands or Italy. That was partly a result of the unfortunate decision of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, to withdraw the Conservatives from the European People’s Party. I recall many occasions in the Foreign Office when I personally knew some of the Ministers we were meeting in Berlin, The Hague, Copenhagen and Brussels as fellow members of the Liberal International, and my Conservative colleagues did not. I hope the Labour Government are better than their predecessor in promoting international contacts with our neighbours, but are they planning any new initiatives in this sphere?
Thirdly, we need the Government to lead a national conversation on why closer relations with our European partners and their institutions are now central to our national interests. Political leadership is about changing the political agenda to tell the public that we are no longer in a world in which we can balance between the USA and Europe, let alone, as Reform is currently suggesting, imagine a “new Elizabethan age” in which British ships will sail away from Europe across the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, or put our trust in trade with China as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, seems to be suggesting. The reset we need will not go far unless the Government carry the public with them and the Conservative Party resists retreating into imperial nostalgia or simple dependency on Trump’s Republican America.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, as I look back over the last decade in Brexit Britain, I am ever more convinced that the arguments for Britain’s wholehearted engagement with mainland Europe are as strong now as they were when I first, in the late 1960s, became a supporter of this country joining the European Economic Community.
Brexit is not an endorsement of treating the European Union as a political leper or pretending either that our near neighbours do not exist or that we do not share a whole range of interests with them. Rather, it indicated that our then way of doing the necessary business with them—at least, this was the case on polling day—did not command the country’s support. Against that background, the national interest demands that we find a different way of conducting that business which is acceptable not only to us but to our interlocutors, who need to have a firm belief in our good faith. No doubt that is much easier said than done.
This excellent report, Unfinished Business: Resetting the UK-EU Relationship, mostly spells out what nowadays might be described as the elite high-level aspect of much of this. As this debate has shown, current geopolitical circumstances show this is a priority. At the same time, we should think about some of the more domestic implications.
I say this because for a number of years I chaired the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership. There are many less high-level and “politically sexy”, but nevertheless very important, issues which need to be taken into account. The point of business is business. The business of business is business and the closer it is to home, the better. Many SMEs I know of which had integrated EU-wide supply-chain businesses found they could no longer compete because of tariffs and bureaucracy. The rules of cabotage have seriously diminished opportunities for hauliers, because the truck that you send abroad has to come home. The current crisis in agriculture, in which I am engaged, owes a great deal to what was agreed as part of leaving. All this amounts to the loss of real jobs and negative growth, affecting real people with great immediacy all the time across the whole country.
It is commonplace to say that one of the reasons for our current national distrust with politics goes back to alienation from the European Union, because it was so distant and failed to understand much of the real world away from the glitzy centre. It is a view I do not entirely share. At least as significant was the estrangement of UK national politics from the European aspect. UK political parties and the House of Commons as a whole always, it seemed to me, resented it. I speak as someone who served for 10 years in the European Parliament with a dual mandate. Rather surprisingly, I was elected on a Sunday and inherited a peerage the following Thursday—neither of which is now possible.
As the report rightly points out, resetting this relationship is an ongoing process, but that process has to provide emotional buy-in by the UK political establishment and the wider public as a whole so that it becomes part of the political normal, to avoid a repeat of last time. The past, as advice to retail investors always points out, is not necessarily a good guide to future performance. But, as this report points out, it has to be the starting point, recognising, as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said all those years ago, that no man can stand in the same river twice, since both the man and the river are not the same the second time round. Nevertheless, the national interest demands that we get into the water.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, today’s debate is ultimately about the national interest. Would a closer relationship with the EU best serve the UK’s economic and strategic needs as an outward-looking global nation? The Chancellor has described stronger EU ties as the country’s “biggest prize”, but would they materially improve growth and living standards? How much would they cost the taxpayer and what trade-offs would be required?
Since leaving the customs union, we have regained important freedoms. I will not list them here as we have only four minutes and the list is too long. That flexibility matters, particularly in industries such as AI, life science and fintech, which will define our future prosperity. A customs union would require us to apply the EU’s external tariffs. It might reduce some of our trade bureaucracy, but not eliminate it. It would mean less autonomy while offering only partial market access. Take food prices for instance: we already trade tariff-free with the EU, and global sourcing from other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, can keep costs down. We also no longer make regular net contributions to the EU budget—a substantial fiscal saving. Meanwhile, parts of the EU economy face high debt and slow growth. The EU will no doubt negotiate firmly in its own interest. On this occasion, considering that it has a big budget deficit and is angry towards the UK for leaving the European Union in the first place, it will negotiate particularly hard.
History shows that success in Brussels requires clarity and resolve. Margaret Thatcher secured a substantial rebate by being clear and firm, a big chunk of which Tony Blair later gave away under pressure from the member states. The 2016 negotiations under David Cameron showed just how difficult it is to secure concessions from Brussels. Recent experience, including Chagos and the current EU talks, raises serious doubts about whether this Government can really stand up for Britain’s best interests. The Prime Minister speaks of red lines on the single market and the customs union. How can we be confident, however, when the committee itself has pointed out that there are no clear negotiating objectives? Without a clear plan and a firm bottom line, red lines may sound strong, but they will no doubt prove to be flexible.
Regulatory alignment rarely comes without conditions, financial contributions, legal obligations or constraints on domestic policy. The Prosperity Institute has warned that such a reset could deliver limited gains and increase costs for British businesses. I therefore ask the Minister: what precisely are the benefits of this reset, and what is the price in money, control and flexibility? If growth is our objective, should we not prioritise domestic reform, competitiveness and broader global trade with the economies growing faster than the failing EU economies, which would truly benefit our long-term interest?
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the title of the report is Unfinished Business, and the quicker we finish the business and properly cement our relationship with the EU, the better. It is becoming increasingly likely that our own democracy could be severely tested in the coming years, if we have a different Government. We need to have structures in place that are rock solid and not easily undone. A sympathetic relationship with the EU, to which so much import is given today, will be the first thing swept away. There needs to be a rock-solid commitment to all the European structures, which, contrary to what some claim, strengthen our sovereignty and help to protect our democracy—the two things are related—by virtue of being part of something larger than ourselves that is itself a democratic structure. If people believe that the EU is not perfect, we need to be in there making it so.
I will give some specifics. I welcome the Government’s agreement to rejoin Erasmus+ since the publication of this excellent report, led by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. First, will the Government not extend the time for committing to this scheme to give it the best chance of success? Ten months is too short a period to take a sounding, considering that the scheme needs to bed in and eligible groups need to be encouraged to reply. Secondly, there is the concern about travel restrictions, including visas and passports. Will the Government look at the possibility of group passports for school pupils, assuming school trips and exchanges will be a significant part of the scheme?
Almost 20 months into this Labour Government, there is still no tangible evidence of any improvement in the lot of musicians touring. Indeed, UK Music has made the point that customs bureaucracy in terms of visas and carnets have increased, meaning that things have actually gone backwards. What the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said earlier in this debate about the possible attitude of DCMS is worrying. As the Minister will know, and as DCMS should know, this is an urgent matter about which the sector is hugely concerned. There are also, of course, wider trade concerns for all the arts and creative industries, with ongoing losses in job opportunities and huge monetary losses, including what we have lost in not rejoining Creative Europe. The Government absolutely need to rethink that, both for that reason and for the role it could play in helping to unblock progress in other areas.
Finally, perhaps the most intransigent problem of all for the creative industries and further afield is the huge difficulty of obtaining jobs in Europe. Artists and creators, from film actors to opera singers, now commonly face applications that insist on an EU passport, so that many fall at the first hurdle. I understand that this is a legally grey area but I ask the Minister: will the Government look at this, including in relation to the youth mobility scheme? What good is such a scheme if our young people continue to be shut out of jobs in Europe because of frankly understandable concerns from reputable potential employers, when the rest of the pool to draw from has no such relevant red tape or financial costs attached and, as important, there is no time element involved? Will the Government promise to look at this in a purely practical way, because it is the practicalities here that are crucial?
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, as the 29th speaker, I fear that many of my original points have disappeared, but the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in particular, has inspired me to make a few more. I join others in commending the noble Lord who chaired this committee, and the committee itself, on getting over the refighting of the Brexit campaigns, which we have seen a bit of again today, to produce a report that at least has some signposts for the future.
I tried to insert some linguistic points here, to take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. “Reset” in English means two different things. If you reset your telly, it means you are either putting it back to its original setting or resetting it to a new one. The title of this debate and report, Unfinished Business, suggests there is a finish, but there is no finish. We are actually going to go on developing a new relationship with Europe, which will not have a fixed terminal point. Therefore, resetting—continuing to reset and to positively engage with Europe—is what we need to focus on.
In that context, beyond the linguistic point, there is the need that the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Wallace, underlined for us to engage, and not just with the institutions of the EU and the representatives of those institutions. As a committee we found ourselves very well received by those institutions in Brussels—but we also need a much more effective engagement with the member states. We thought we had already made a significant move forward with the proposals on the security and defence side, but the costs attachment that has now become evident—emanating, most people assume, from the French Government—indicates to us that we have to operate at the member state level effectively, as well as keeping doors open to Europe at the EU level. This Government have made a start on that, but we need to reinforce it. Although we supported the changes in the Whitehall structures for dealing with the EU and EU-related issues, they still need some significant strengthening.
My other point is that during this debate and the whole discussion, one important issue has hardly been mentioned at all—except negatively by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood. It relates to a need for Europe as a whole to address the issue of climate change and environmental change, particularly now that the Americans have effectively abdicated from that stage and nobody has clearly taken up the reins. Unless Europe, the UK and other positive states recommit to tackling climate change, all the stuff that we are negotiating today and all the structures in the world will be overwhelmed by a dramatic change to our climate and to how our industry and trade operate; it will become the major issue confronting Governments. That will happen not next year or the year after but within the next decade, and I believe that part of our re-engagement with Europe has to focus on starting again on the initiatives that were so well started in the Paris Agreement and on ensuring that we both make a contribution to tackling climate change and achieving something like net zero.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, as speaker number 31, I am relieved to have picked an aspect of the report that has yet to be discussed in much detail. I will use my time to concur with recommendation 24 of the report, which asks the Government to set out how joining Erasmus+ brings added value to the UK. I question whether this scheme, set up in 1987, aligns with the travel preferences of young people in 2027. I question the quality of the education that they will receive and its cost effectiveness.
I can appreciate how, in the immediate post-war period, young people were excited about studying in France, Germany and Italy. My father speaks fondly about his cycling tour around France between school and university. But that picture has changed dramatically. In 2024 a British Council survey found that the most attractive countries for 18 to 30 year-olds were Australia, the United States and Canada. That is backed up by the data. Of the 51,000 18 to 31 year-olds who left the UK in 2023, just 9,000 went to the EU. In contrast, 17,000 flew to the other side of the globe, to Australia and New Zealand, and 13,000 went to North America.
Perhaps we are joining Erasmus+ because the EU has the best universities in the world—but, again, that does not appear to be the case. According to the Times Higher Education supplement’s world university rankings for 2026, none of the top 25 universities is located in the EU. There are 16 in the United States, four in the UK, two in China and one each in Switzerland, Singapore and Canada. Zooming out to the top 50, the UK has more top universities than France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined.
If young people are not looking to the EU as somewhere they want to live, and if the world’s top universities are mainly located outside the EU, perhaps rejoining Erasmus+ is extremely good value for money—or, since the UK has proportionately more top universities, perhaps the EU is paying us to join the scheme. Sadly, this is not the case. Our membership fee for Erasmus+ is set to be £570 million in 2027. We paid £296 million for the scheme in 2019: just over £400 million with inflation. Despite the purported 30% discount negotiated by the Government, we are set to pay £170 million more in real terms than our contribution to the scheme in 2019. I hope that the person responsible for the negotiation is not going on holiday to Turkey this year to buy a carpet.
By contrast, with the same £570 million budget we could quintuple the size of the Turing scheme, which covers universities across the world, or we could keep the Turing scheme and create an additional 69,000 apprenticeships, which would do more to help the million NEETs struggling to find work. To conclude, the Government clearly need to be up front about the cost of joining Erasmus+ and why they deem it to be cost effective. We should not simply assume that a scheme set up in 1987 is still fit for purpose in 2027.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and the European Affairs Committee on their report. Our EU relationship has always concerned trade, regulation and security. What has changed is that each of these now runs through technology. Competitiveness, resilience and strategic influence increasingly depend on data, digital markets, infrastructure and talent. If this reset is to be durable, it must reflect that reality.
I want to emphasise four technology-related themes that underpin many of the committee’s recommendations. The first is scale. If we are serious about producing world-leading companies—firms that shape markets rather than follow them—scale is decisive. Advanced technology and AI businesses rely on large markets, secure cross-border data flows and regulatory clarity that enables rapid deployment. AI systems improve through real-world use. They learn from diverse users and datasets. Fragmentation does not just add friction; it shapes where capital flows and where growth ultimately anchors. The European Union represents a market of around 450 million people. For a British technology firm deciding where to expand engineering capacity or launch a new platform, predictable access to that market is strategically significant.
The second theme is talent. Frontier industries depend on people. AI researchers, engineers, chip designers and cyber specialists are globally mobile. The strength of our technology sector has long rested on the flow of European talent into our universities and start-ups, and on British talent collaborating across Europe. We have many examples of British companies with genuine global ambition. I declare an interest in one of them as non-executive director of Multiverse, which uses digital platforms to transform workforce skills across borders. There is also the autonomous vehicle developer Wayve, much in the news this week, which is advancing frontier AI systems that require diverse European testing environments at scale. These firms want to operate within integrated markets. The question is whether that integration will be as seamless as it can be with our nearest partner. Barriers to mobility may not show immediately in trade statistics, but over time they erode innovative capacity.
The third theme is standards and alignment. In digital markets, those who set standards shape outcomes. Rules governing AI, cyber security and data protection define the environment in which innovation occurs. We instinctively look to the United States when we think about technology leadership and, as many have said, it must remain an indispensable partner. Yet deeper transatlantic digital alignment has stalled recently, and some of the deals already announced are looking increasingly flaky. Meanwhile, Europe is not a peripheral AI player. It has serious research depth, industrial capacity and firms such as Mistral, Europe’s leading foundation model company. In a world where compute, standards and deployment scale matter, proximity matters too. The British firms serving European customers already work within European frameworks. The choice is whether we help shape those rules or simply adapt to them from the outside.
The final theme is resilience and security. Recent UK-EU discussions have rightly put cyber, emerging technologies and even shared AI and supercomputing on the agenda, but no European state, including our own, can secure that resilience alone. These steps still fall short of a comprehensive technology pillar in our relationship. The Prime Minister speaks often of Britain as an AI and technology superpower. That ambition cannot be delivered by domestic policy in isolation. Without a fuller reset of our technology relationship with the European Union on talent, regulation and data, as well as security, we will not reach the scale that that ambition implies. Are the Government prepared to put a serious technology negotiation at the heart of the future UK-EU relationship, rather than treating it all as individual, isolated initiatives?
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the committee on trying to establish the Government’s reset negotiating objectives, which the Government have failed to publish. But the Government have published what they call an explainer. I have a copy of it here. It lists the items on the Government’s reset menu, but it is a menu without prices. I first came across that as a naive young man when I was invited to a very exclusive and expensive West End club. I embarrassed my hosts by asking the chief waiter why there were no prices on the menu, to which he replied, “If Monsieur needs to know the prices, Monsieur probably cannot afford to dine here”. That is the problem with this reset: we do not know the cost and, if we did, we would not want it. The Government know it.
At least the menu in that club gave a wide choice of dishes. With the EU, it is: “Take it or leave it. It’s the dish of the day, the chef’s special or, in the case of fish, the catch of the day”—and there is the catch: the EU said that it would not even initiate negotiations unless we first agreed not to increase our catch of our fish from our own waters for another 12 years. This supine Government enacted that irrevocably, even if all other aspects of the negotiations fail.
Although the explainer does not mention prices, the EU’s negotiating mandate reveals that we are expected to pay into the EU’s coffers for almost every item. For the SPS deal, we must pay the EU’s extra administrative costs for not carrying out checks on UK exports—quite why not checking goods involves extra costs beats me but, given that the EU exports four times as much food to us as we do to it, surely it should pay us for not checking its food.
On the carbon border adjustment mechanism, the EU insists that we pay its additional costs, despite the agreement eliminating calculation and charging for the carbon content of imports. This too mainly benefits the EU, since we produce few carbon-intensive goods, thanks to our crippling net-zero energy costs, which this agreement will enhance.
On Erasmus, the Government claim that the price is a 30% discount, but that is relative to the cost in future years. It is twice what we paid in 2019 and will be three times as much after the first year’s discount expires. The most egregious cost, however, is actually in the title of the EU negotiating mandate, which demands
“financial contribution of the United Kingdom towards reducing economic and social disparities between the regions of the Union”.
So we are to contribute to levelling up the EU with money that could, and should, be used to level up the UK.
Today, Secretary of State Kyle justified breaking Labour’s manifesto pledge of no return to the single market on the grounds that that is “where the magic happens”. He is, I am afraid, off with the fairies. As the Trade Secretary overseeing our entry into the single market, I too predicted that it would boost our exports, but over the ensuing 25 years our goods exports to the EU stagnated—growing at less than 1% a year—whereas goods exports to the 100 countries with which we traded just on WTO terms grew by 87%.
What drives trade is producing goods and services that people want to buy, then getting out and selling them, preferably in fast-growing markets. It is not submitting to EU rules, regulations and protectionism, which have made Europe the slowest-growing continent in the world.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate. I have recently been chucked off the European Affairs Committee—due simply to my three years being up, I hasten to add, not for misbehaviour—but I participated fully and keenly in the preparation of this report. Although I am very happy to have found a berth on the equally absorbing and admirably chaired Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, I will very much miss the European Affairs Committee and pay tribute to its members and first-rate staff, who were named by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. Above all, I congratulate our then chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, on his superb leadership of the committee, which he has also been rotated off, and his introductory speech. From my new committee berth, I take very seriously the problems for trade and business, and, indeed, the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland.
This country’s links with the EU are going in only one direction, a development I wholeheartedly support. EU Ambassador to the UK Pedro Serrano has said that the UK and the EU are “indispensable partners” and described the statement from last May’s summit as
“a new narrative for the relationship”.
The President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, echoed similar sentiments in her visit in the last few days, including in a speech at Chatham House and at a reception held by Mr Speaker, to which he kindly invited me.
I believe the Prime Minister is serving this country and Europe well in fully supporting Ukraine and working with allies to that end. I applaud his speech at the recent Munich Security Conference, although, as far as we know, his welcome words have not secured UK participation in the SAFE project for defence capability improvements. Like other speakers, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply on this.
We saw recently in a poll for ITV that over 80% of 16 to 24 year-olds would vote to rejoin the EU in a new referendum. Only 17% of this age group would vote to stay outside, compared with an overwhelming 83% who would vote to rejoin. I am soon 75, but I intend to live long enough, even to 100, to see us rejoin the EU. I venture to suggest that the Prime Minister could reinvigorate his support through the EU question. Of course, the route to rejoin is not where we are now, but it will be before too long. The young, and politics, will see to that. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, that we would serve the young well if we ensured that they were not monolingual.
In a significant article for the Telegraph last November, Jeremy Warner wrote:
“Time to admit the truth: Brexit has been an unmitigated economic failure”,
confirming that
“from an economic perspective at least, Brexit has so far proved close to disastrous”.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, illustrated some of the ways in which this is true. Therefore, no Government who cared about economic growth could avoid the need to seek a better trade relationship with the EU, which, from these Benches, we welcome, as far as it goes.
I would, though, sound a cautionary note, as others have done. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, as well as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the Government are going to have to be more candid and transparent with the public, sooner rather than later, about where they are headed. There is a limit to how much can be done piecemeal or by stealth, without placing it in a coherent framework and goal. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that a process without a destination is satisfactory. If that coherence is not visible to the public, there risks being a lack of confidence or even a backlash, as well as loss of support for the Labour Party, although I will leave it to worry more than I do about that particular consequence.
The EU will be looking for, if not political consensus—which is unattainable, as we have well heard today—then a solid and consistent majority for better ties with the EU. In my opinion, the Government would do well to bring the public more into a conversation about where all this will be heading. As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and others pointed out, there was no reset White Paper. While the Government have previously asserted that they will not cross their red lines of no single market or customs union participation and no freedom of movement, they are already not quite practising what they preach. The Prime Minister’s recently expressed goal of deeper economic integration with and closeness to the single market smudges the red lines—and I gather that the Business Secretary said something today—and that is gaslighting the public, which they never appreciate. For instance, we understand that in the negotiations on the youth experience scheme, the Government are seeking freedom for British participants to move from one member state to another. That would be particularly welcome in, for instance, the travel and hospitality sectors, but the term for this is in fact “free movement”.
We now have a list of half a dozen sectors in which closer links are being pursued. Some present themselves, such as security and the easing of SPS and veterinary controls, but would it not be wise to share more of the thinking behind the choice of all these areas, as well as the neglect of the important issue of touring artists and the lack of much emphasis on law enforcement?
As well as lack of clarity, there is a problem of lack of transparency and accountability. Both Brexit and the reset have given a lot of leeway to executive freedom over parliamentary authority. I suggest that this cannot go on. While intergovernmentalism outside formal structures can have its advantages, they say, it has its limitations and comes up against the need for Parliaments, as well as the public, to get a handle on what Governments are up to. It would be a great advantage, as my noble friend Lady Suttie said, if the other place was able to restore a European Affairs Committee to increase scrutiny and seek to keep the Government honest.
The European Parliament managed to make considerable progress when I was an MEP, from 1999 to 2014, in getting a grip on the member states’ liking for unaccountable intergovernmental arrangements, which is how the data-sharing Prüm arrangement started. Prüm is a database of biometric as well as other data, and there were a lot of rows about its content when it finally got “communitarised”. The data retention directive, which the Labour Government of 20 years ago policy-laundered through Brussels under the UK presidency, later came unstuck in the European Court of Justice. Therefore, firm foundations are a good investment. Trying to escape the kind of detailed scrutiny and joint legislative powers that Parliaments need but Foreign and Home Offices are not quite so keen on is only a short-term fix. The UK-EU relationship and reset have provided a context and pretext for slipping back to that executive comfort zone. I predict we could see some revolting parliamentarians on both sides of the channel—and I know the European Parliament is very upset that it is not included in the design of the SAFE system.
We hear the Government claiming that the reset will involve British influence on relevant laws through “decision-shaping”, but I would respond, tell that to the marines. No one who has been an MEP, as others in this House were, believes that a country can call any shots on EU laws from outside EU legislative co-decision structures.
I have a few words to finish, on a very important issue in UK-EU relations: citizens’ rights. The UK’s EU settlement scheme has largely been a success, although there remain some problematic issues such as the cancellation of pre-settled status for some without any appeal rights, the harsh treatment of a particular cohort of families with a British citizen but EU family members—which could yet become another Windrush scandal—the loss of funding for organisations to assist people with their applications, and, in particular, the Government’s insistence on digital-only proof and refusal to let holders have a paper document or card as proof of status. The platform of a largely successful EU settlement scheme in the UK entitles this Government to put more pressure on member states where there are problems for British citizens and to push the European Commission to monitor and intervene more effectively and with greater power than it currently does. I hope the Minister can tell us that the Government intend to do just that.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate the European Affairs Committee’s report on resetting the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for setting out the current position with his customary clarity. I pay tribute to the committee members and the clerks, who have, as always, produced an outstanding report. As anyone who has served on a committee knows, it takes real skill to steer a single text through competing views and legitimate nuances. On that note, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for his kind advice on how to reconcile disparate views within one’s own party—I know that that is a core Liberal Democrat skill.
I also wish to place on record a warm word for the noble Lord, Lord Frost. During the committee’s consideration, he circulated an alternative summary which, although not agreed, was thoughtful and well-argued and an important reminder that questions of sovereignty, democratic consent and national self-confidence sit beneath the technical detail. It strengthened the committee’s work by ensuring that those concerns were tested and heard.
The report is a serious assessment of the progress the Government have made in pursuing what they describe as a “closer, more cooperative relationship” with the European Union, while maintaining the position that there will be no return to the customs union, the single market or freedom of movement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, among others, have noted, this research is a process rather than a single event, so it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions at this stage. However, there are areas where the House would welcome further clarity from the Minister, particularly on objectives, costs and parliamentary scrutiny. Like my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, I hope that this debate can mark a shift from rehearsing 2016 to concentrating on how we secure practical co-operation without diluting the hard-won principle that decisions affecting the United Kingdom should be made with the consent of this sovereign Parliament.
The committee raises several concerns about the Government’s approach. Foremost is the absence of a clear, published plan before entering negotiations ahead of the UK-EU summit on 19 May 2025. The committee regretted that the Government did not produce a White Paper—a concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, and my noble friend Lady Meyer—or a similar document setting out their objectives. That matters. Without clarity on aims, red lines and trade-offs, Parliament and the public are left to infer strategy after the fact.
Contrast this with the European Union’s more clearly articulated priorities. In the summit documents, the parties committed to work towards a balanced youth experience scheme and UK association with Erasmus+ on terms to be agreed, and they reached political agreement to extend existing reciprocal fisheries access arrangements for a further 12 years to June 2038. Whatever one’s views of the merits, these are substantial policy directions, and they carry costs, constraints and distributional consequences. As the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and my noble friend Lady Coffey made clear, honesty matters.
On fisheries, it is important to be precise. This is not a return to the common fisheries policy but a long extension of reciprocal access arrangements under the trade and co-operation agreement. The committee recorded evidence that the length of the agreement was at the outer limits of what many in the sector expected, and it criticised the absence of a meaningful assessment of impact and the limited Explanatory Memorandum provided to Parliament before the agreement was reached and enacted. That is exactly the wrong way round.
On Erasmus+, I welcome opportunities for young people in universities, but we must be candid about the bill and the balance of advantage, a case very well made by my noble friend Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell. Since the committee reported, the Government have announced that the UK will join Erasmus+ from 2027, with a contribution of around £570 million for the 2027-28 academic year. It is therefore vital that Ministers set out transparently the criteria by which they judge this to be value for money, how participation will complement domestic schemes and what safeguards exist should costs rise in future budget cycles.
On the proposed youth experience scheme welcomed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, the Government have said that it would be capped and visa-based, and the common understanding speaks of numbers acceptable to both sides. This is not, on its own, a sufficient description for Parliament to scrutinise. We need clarity about the proposed cap, duration, eligible activities, enforcement and interaction with the domestic labour market, especially when the Office for National Statistics estimates that around 946,000 people aged 16 to 24 were not in education, employment or training in mid-2025. Against that backdrop, Ministers should explain how the scheme will be designed so that it is balanced and controlled.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, raised the lack of progress on helping UK artists touring in the UK. I hope the Minister can give an assurance that the Government will maintain focus on this very important area.
The Government will no doubt point to the proposed linking of the UK and EU emissions trading systems, yet it is a matter of record that since 2023, UK allowance prices have generally traded below EU prices. An analysis for the European Parliament noted periods in which the EU prices were over 60% higher than the UK carbon price in early 2025. Linking markets could therefore raise carbon costs for some UK firms by up to 15%, as my noble friend Lord Redwood pointed out, at least in the short term. The Government argue that linkage would also reduce exposure to the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism and provide greater market stability. Those are legitimate objectives, but Parliament needs the distributional analysis: who pays, who benefits, and on what timetable?
Many noble Lords, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, my noble friend Lord Howell and the noble Lord, Lord Jay, have raised the issue of defence. The much-discussed security and defence partnership is so far a framework of intent rather than a settled set of instruments. The committee identified potential access to SAFE as one of the key practical tests. The Government have said that they have not yet been able to conclude an agreement on terms they consider to be in the national interest. Press reporting has suggested that the EU sought a very substantial UK financial contribution, rightly criticised by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Ricketts, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea. Recent commentary has contrasted that with Canada’s participation fee, though comparisons are not straightforward and need careful unpacking. What matters for the UK is that if access to SAFE is genuinely central to the partnership, Ministers should set out the strategic benefit to the UK’s defence ecosystem, the likely costs and how UK industry will be treated under any rules on component origins and supply chains.
Of further concern is that prospective agreements on an SPS area, ETS linkage and possible participation in the EU internal electricity market are being explored on the basis of dynamic alignment with EU rules, along some form of decision-shaping role. The Government have said that disputes would be resolved by independent arbitration and that any role for the Court of Justice would be limited to the interpretation of EU law for an arbitration panel. Those assurances are welcome as far as they go, but as my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor have highlighted, the constitutional question remains: how will Parliament scrutinise, in real time, a system in which rules may evolve dynamically and the UK is not in the room when decisions are taken?
It is one thing for the Government to advocate a policy of closer alignment; it is quite another to proceed without giving Parliament the opportunity to examine objectives, costs, as my noble friend Lord Lilley highlighted, and legal consequences. The committee was right to call for stronger parliamentary scrutiny, including sight of draft texts where possible, explanatory material that genuinely explains trade-offs and a presumption that any major new agreement will be implemented through primary legislation. Given those concerns, will the Minister reassure the House on several points? First, will she confirm that the Government are not seeking a model that would restore general judicial oversight by the Court of Justice of the European Union over domestic law? Secondly, will she commit that any major agreement arising from the reset, whether on SPS, ETS linkage, mobility or defence, will be accompanied by a published impact assessment, including costings, and presented to Parliament in time for meaningful scrutiny before implementation? Thirdly, will she explain how decision-shaping will operate in practice and what arrangements the Government propose so that this House and the other place can scrutinise dynamic alignment effectively?
Any step towards the European Union should be taken with utmost caution and with full democratic transparency. Whatever our views of the referendum and its aftermath, the public rightly expect that Parliament, not private committees or opaque processes, will scrutinise agreements that shape regulation, taxation, borders and livelihoods. I hope the noble Baroness can provide the assurances the House is entitled to expect and commit to a reset that strengthens co-operation where it is in our interest, while safeguarding sovereignty, accountability and the primacy of Parliament.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords on the European Affairs Committee for their wide-ranging and considered report. I take this opportunity on behalf of the Government, and, I believe, the whole House, to especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for securing the debate and for his skilled chairing of the committee. He has proved himself to be the eternal diplomat—something I am not known for. Since the general election, the collaborative approach he has taken to engaging with the Government has been very welcome. I welcome the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, as the new chair of the committee, and look forward to continuing our constructive engagement.
I am also extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate for their insightful contributions—whether I agreed with them or not—which are a tribute to the report and its authors. I will attempt to answer all the questions raised, but with 34 contributions, I will also reflect on Hansard and respond to any issues I miss; the scale and range of our debate means that I will struggle to respond within the time.
This report was an important opportunity to look at the positive progress the Government have made on our manifesto commitment. While welcoming the progress that has been made, it asks important questions on areas such as the security and defence partnership, the SPS agreement, linkage of our emissions trading scheme, a youth experience scheme and potential participation in the EU internal electricity market. It also highlights the important role of Parliament in scrutinising existing and future agreements with the EU.
On progress to date, when the Government were elected, it was with a clear manifesto commitment to reset relations with our European partners. That meant tearing down unnecessary barriers to trade and increasing national security through strong borders and greater international co-operation. I do not wish to bring forth the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, by using the phrase red lines; I want to be clear that there is no return within our red lines to the single market or customs union, and no return to freedom of movement. I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that our red lines were clear in our manifesto. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that we were clear on what that meant.
As your Lordships’ House knows, at the UK-EU summit in May last year, the Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU. This strategic partnership will unlock huge benefits for the UK, reducing barriers to trade, accelerating economic growth and keeping us secure in an uncertain world. It is good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs. We took this decision—exercising our sovereignty—to strike a deal in the national interest. We are making good progress on talks with the EU since the summit to implement the joint commitments made.
I wrote down the name of every noble Lord who mentioned the issue of security and defence, but as it is over 20 names, noble Lords will have to bear with me. I was listening, and I am very grateful for their contributions. At the recent summit, we secured a new security and defence partnership agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, reminded us, it is all the more salient this week as we mark four years since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. This agreement represents a joint commitment to European security built on the long-standing commitment of the UK to support Ukraine and our cross-continent work to protect our NATO allies. We continue to step up on European security, including through leading the coalition of the willing for Ukraine.
This sits alongside the defence co-operation agreements we have struck with our other European partners. Last year the Prime Minister refreshed the Lancaster House agreements with France, deepening our defence and security co-operation, including nuclear co-operation through the Northwood declaration. The Prime Minister also signed the Kensington treaty with Germany, a generational shift in our relationship which broadens our co-operation across defence and security issues, building on the Trinity House agreement.
We are working quickly with the EU to implement our security and defence partnership and have already stepped up our co-operation on supporting Ukraine, tackling hybrid threats and increasing stability in the Western Balkans. Our co-operation is already delivering results. We have worked together to maximise the impact of sanctions on Russia, including jointly lowering the crude oil price cap to curb Moscow’s energy revenues. We also worked with the EU to ensure a successful UK-hosted Berlin process on the Western Balkans in October to promote regional co-operation and deliver security and growth.
Since agreement of the partnership, we have also established senior, structured dialogues with EU counterparts. This is all to ensure that co-operation delivers tangible benefits to European security. We remain fully committed to our continued close co-operation with the EU and European partners to strengthen European security and maintain unwavering support for Ukraine.
As the Prime Minister said at the Munich Security Conference:
“We want to work together to lead a generational shift in defence industrial cooperation … We must come together to … build a joint European defence industry”
and
“go beyond the historic steps that we took at last year’s UK-EU summit to build the formidable productive power and innovative strength that we need”.
Obviously, this then takes us to the questions on SAFE, which were raised by many members of your Lordships’ House, but specifically by the noble Lords, Lord Ricketts and Lord Moynihan, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. The security and defence partnership unlocked the possibility for enhanced UK participation in the Security Action for Europe scheme, also known as SAFE. We entered those discussions with the EU in good faith. We were prepared to make a fair financial contribution that reflected the potential for a mutually beneficial relationship and value for the UK taxpayer. It is disappointing that we were unable to come to an agreement, but we have always said that we will not sign any deals unless they are in our national interest. The UK’s defence industry continues to have access to SAFE under standard third-country terms. UK companies will be able to participate in and benefit from SAFE contracts to provide up to 35% of their content.
Issues related to Erasmus and the youth experience scheme were raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Since this report’s publication, the Government have reached an agreement with the European Commission for the UK’s association to Erasmus+ in 2027, fulfilling a key commitment made at the summit. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, on the benefits of Erasmus, association will open up world-class opportunities for learners, educators and young people, as well as youth workers, sports sector professionals and communities of all ages across the UK. We expect that over 100,000 people could benefit from participation in 2027. We will work with the national agency to encourage people to sign up when applications open, and we welcome the focus of the Erasmus scheme on disfranchised communities.
We will further strengthen the people-to-people ties between the UK and the EU by creating opportunities for young people to travel, to take up short-term work or study, to broaden their horizons, and to get to know new people and places through the establishment of a balanced youth experience scheme with the EU. We are also currently negotiating the parameters of the scheme with the EU and aim to conclude these negotiations by the time of the next summit.
On the costings that were touched on, the UK will contribute around £570 million to the Erasmus+ programme in 2027. This is down from the approximately £810 million we would have paid under default terms. The UK will receive most of that money back to distribute among the UK beneficiaries, which will also have the opportunity to compete for grants from a £1 billion central pot directly managed by the European Commission. This is a good deal for the UK. We have negotiated financial terms which reflect a fair balance between the UK’s financial contribution and the number of UK participants receiving funding.
Noble Lords rightly challenged me on the issues relating to touring artists. This was a manifesto commitment. To reassure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, because this issue was in our manifesto we are consistent and clear on its importance. Just as we recognised at the UK-EU summit the importance of opportunities for young people, we also jointly recognise the value of travel and of cultural and artistic exchanges, including the activities of touring artists. We will continue our efforts to support travel and cultural exchange, and we are exploring how best to improve arrangements for touring across the European continent with the EU and member states. We are determined to make progress, including on the ambition to agree improvements as soon as possible.
I will answer specific questions on some of these issues, if noble Lords will bear with me. The issue of electricity and trade was raised by several noble Lords. Following last year’s summit, the UK and EU have also concluded exploratory talks on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market. Participating in the EU’s electricity market will have tangible benefits for the people of the UK, driving down energy costs and protecting consumers against volatile fossil fuel markets. We are now in the process of negotiating a UK-EU electricity agreement.
I move on to the SPS agreement, a key issue raised by many Members of your Lordships’ House. To reassure noble Lords, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, we are moving at pace on these negotiations. I love the phrase, “at pace”; it is good Civil Service language. The committee’s report also contained recommendations on next steps for the agreement. Let me be clear: the UK is the EU’s largest market for agri-food and vice versa. UK agri-food exports to the EU were worth £14.1 billion in 2024, while UK imports from the EU were worth £45.5 billion in the same year. Agri-food producers are among those most affected by increased paperwork and checks associated with exporting to the EU, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. A food and drink agreement will change that, boosting our exports and cutting costs for importers. We are working with Defra on negotiations and implementation of the agreement. The implementation of the SPS deal will be a matter for Defra.
Let me be clear: the Government believe that in some areas, such as SPS, it is in our national interest to align our rules with the EU. This is a sovereign choice that we make because it will cut paperwork, costs and barriers that have a negative impact on our businesses and consumers every day. We know that there are trade-offs with that approach, but we believe they are worth it. To reassure noble Lords, as agreed with the EU, we will have decision-shaping rights when new EU policies are made. Parliament will rightly have a say on those new rules. Any disputes will be overseen by an independent arbitration panel, not the European Court of Justice. Of course, many of the rules that we expect to be in scope of the agreement already exist in UK statute, with minor divergence between the UK and the EU since we left in 2020. This reflects the fact that we are like-minded trading partners with mutually high standards.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, that we may have to agree to disagree on the issue of growth, as deeper economic integration is in all our interests. We must look at where we can move closer to the single market in other sectors, as well as where that would work for both sides.
I move on to the ETS and CBAM. British businesses and consumers will also feel the benefit of linking our carbon markets, cutting costs, making it cheaper for UK companies to move to greener energy and once again saving the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism charge being paid on £7 billion-worth of UK goods exports to the EU. Where the UK needs access to EU agencies or databases to make the agreements set out in the common understanding a reality, it is reasonable that the UK pays for these services. For example, the UK should make a fair contribution towards the running costs of the EU agencies, systems and databases that administer the food, drink and carbon market linking deals. We will negotiate the details of any financial contributions with the EU. The food, drink and carbon market linking measures alone are set to add up to £9 billion a year to the UK economy by 2040 in a significant boost for growth. We aim to conclude negotiations on these areas by the time of the next summit.
The Government will introduce primary legislation later this year to ensure that we can deliver these agreements and that the benefits can be felt as soon as possible. It is important that Parliament has its say, so where we are making commitments to introduce new laws, Parliament will, as always, play its role in scrutinising the legislation that implements those commitments—I think we have many hours in your Lordships’ House ahead of us. The precise timing and details of legislative agreements are naturally subject to the course of more detailed negotiations that are taking place. We look forward to working with Parliament on the exact arrangements for scrutiny of the legislation as negotiations continue.
Noble Lords will appreciate that we cannot talk about the European Union and our relationships with it without touching on the Windsor Framework—something I feel somewhat informed about by many Members of your Lordships’ House. I enjoy being educated about this issue. I reiterate that we are committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Murphy for his comprehensive review of the Windsor Framework and thank him for reminding us of the impact on Northern Ireland. I reassure him that I hope we will act speedily on the SPS agreement and the other recommendations in his report.
The insights provided by my noble friend are the direct result of his personal investment in the process and his extensive outreach to groups and individuals across the board. While the issues around making this work are incredibly charged in Northern Ireland and here, all noble Lords, especially the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Empey, have constructively engaged to make sure that we can get a way through.
I move to some of the specifics raised. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, asked me about the UK cohesion payments to the EU. We accept the principle that, when the UK participates in an EU instrument, programme or other activity, we should make a fair financial contribution to its budget to cover the costs of our participation. In December, the European Commission set out a proposal to the European Council to open negotiations with the UK on the financial contribution of the UK towards reducing economic and social disparities between regions of the union. This does not represent a proposal by the Government and the details of any contribution would be subject to negotiation.
My noble friend Lady Ashton and others touched on law enforcement and judicial co-operation. The summit package aims to strengthen our law enforcement and judicial co-operation capabilities, making our streets safer and ensuring that criminals are brought to justice. It will support our police officers and help enhance our intelligence and investigative capabilities against murderers, rapists and drug smugglers, including via facial imagery. It will also help ensure that investigations are equipped with the full facts of a suspect’s criminal history and that those are fully utilised to protect UK citizens from harm.
The noble Lord, Lord Barrow, asked about the second-generation Schengen Information System, SIS II. At the May 2025 UK-EU summit, we were pleased to agree a package which enabled further work to be undertaken with the EU to strengthen our law enforcement through new data exchange capabilities. The Government committed in their manifesto to ensure access to real-time intelligence. While at the UK-EU summit it was not possible to secure references to real-time, reciprocal alert sharing for border security and law enforcement processes, the summit represented an opportunity to further strengthen our capabilities, co-operation and relationship.
Many Members of your Lordships’ House, but specifically the noble Lord, Lord Jay, touched on defence spending—a subject that I, as an honorary captain of the Royal Navy, am particularly exercised about too. As the PM said in his Munich speech:
“To meet the wider threat, it is clear that we are going to have to spend more faster”.
We have shown our collective intent in this regard with the historic agreement to increase spending to 5% on security and defence. Noble Lords have had and will continue to have the opportunity to discuss that with my noble friend Lord Coaker on many future occasions.
On the White Paper—a genuine issue raised by the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Taylor of Warwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn—the Government’s manifesto on which we were elected was clear on our approach to resetting relations with the EU, including negotiating an SPS agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks and to help reduce pressure on prices. At the UK-EU summit in May last year, the Prime Minister announced a new strategic partnership with the EU, underpinned by the common understanding. The common understanding sets out an agenda in writing for strength and co-operation with the EU across safety, security and economic prosperity.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, rightly asked about AI. We have had a number of good discussions with the EU on AI, including through the committees established under the trade and co-operation agreement, and are now in discussions with our EU partners about how we take forward further collaboration on AI and other digital issues. If the noble Baroness will indulge me, I will write to her on the specific questions at the end of her speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked about training for civil servants. The FCDO has a dedicated team leading work to build Europe capability across government. We are keeping our learning offer under regular review to ensure that we are partnering and influencing the EU and European allies in the most effective way.
I was surprised by one of the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about free movement by the back door and how the European youth experience scheme could be regarded as such. To reassure her, the youth mobility arrangements are clearly not freedom of movement. They are based on strict control; they are subject to a visa requirement, capped and time limited. We already have agreements with 13 other countries, and no one has suggested that we have freedom of movement with them. Any scheme will be subject to an allotted number of places, and we have made it clear that this will be in line with the UK’s existing schemes with countries such as Australia and New Zealand. They will have limits on numbers and length of stay and will be subject to a visa application so that we can decide—
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I evidently did not make myself clear. I did not say that the Government want free movement inwards, but, as I understand it, are asking for British citizens who go under the youth experience scheme to the continent to be able to move freely between different EU member states. That is free movement inside the EU for Brits, but it is not reciprocal, because we are only one country.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The scheme will have a cap and quota both ways. On fisheries, I will write to the noble Baroness about her specific point because I am aware that I am out of time.
There are a couple of important final points, if your Lordships’ House will indulge me. The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, may enjoy the comments of the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, in yesterday’s Telegraph about how the European Union feels about next steps. I advise him to read her op-ed. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, asked me about European Union membership for Ukraine. That is a matter for EU members, and we are no longer one. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked about the date of the next summit. We are in discussions with the EU on timings, but it will be this year.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for his suggestions in the defence space and, most importantly, for referencing one of my personal political heroes, Denis Healey. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke about wider engagement across Europe with European politicians. I think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister has actively sought to engage in this space and to make sure that we have solid relationships. He has also been a strong advocate, at least throughout the time I have known him, for making sure that we all as parliamentarians engage with our sister parties across the European Union and beyond.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, asked me about Erasmus beyond 2027. The scheme does not yet exist, which is why we have joined year one. We will review after year one whether we will have further issues. I will write to him on group passports. On the youth experience scheme, I cannot comment on the details of ongoing negotiations, but I am sure we will be discussing it at great length in your Lordships’ House when I can.
The Government remain committed to strengthening our strategic partnership with the European Union and delivering real results for the people of the UK while sticking to the red lines set out in our manifesto. As the committee notes in its report, strengthening the UK-EU strategic partnership is an ongoing process. The summit in 2025 was the first in a series of annual summits and, as the Prime Minister set out in his speech at the Munich Security Conference recently, we must look at what more we can do with the EU. I reassure noble Lords that although I understand that we have many different views in your Lordships’ House, I think the one thing that we all agree on, especially in such a volatile world, is that having positive relationships with our neighbours is a very good idea.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for such a comprehensive speech—delivered at pace, if I may say so—and I am glad that our report has stimulated such a wide-ranging and lively debate. Noble Lords will see that I am trying to be the eternal diplomat again. Many Members raised points that I did not have time to raise in my speech. I am left with the feeling that our title, Unfinished Business, was not that bad. It is unfinished in the sense that it will never be done, and in the sense that in British politics the issue of whether closer relations with the EU are in our interest is still live. That debate will continue in the months ahead, and one of the issues will be the legislation connected with dynamic alignment.
I think the big message from our debate is that the EU-UK relationship cannot be seen in a vacuum, isolated from the wider geopolitical upheaval. Indeed, it is encouraging the Government to go faster on the reset, which I welcome. I think there was widespread support in the debate for the idea that we should get closer to the EU on defence-industrial co-operation, if we can do so in a way that is in our interest, which requires the EU to think again about its entry ticket.
However, the real strategic decisions are not going to be taken in the EU, and I hope that the House will continue to discuss the issues that we touched on here. What is the right forum in the future to do that? We need to bear in mind the points made by a number of noble Lords that Britain’s leadership in a future forum for strategic decision-making in Europe depends on us having the defence resources rising at a pace to make us credible.
I personally think that a close and confident relationship with the EU is part of the response to the generational upheaval that we are facing. I am surprised that our debate did not produce a consensus on that point of view, but I think it was a valuable debate and I beg to move.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill: Exclusion
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government why Members of Parliament and members of the House of Lords are excluded from Clause 11, “Offence of misleading the public”, of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill; and what consideration they have given to removing this exclusion.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, what a small, select and charming group we are to discuss a topic that could feature quite high in news media later, because I think it is an issue that the public will care about.
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill has rightly been recognised for its proposed duty of candour, but there is another provision within it, less understood, yet vastly more consequential: the creation, for the first time in modern democratic history, of a criminal offence of misleading the public. It provides that, where a public official, including our very own Prime Minister, knowingly or recklessly deceives the public on a matter of significant public concern, and if that deception is proven to the criminal standard, a prison sentence of up to two years may follow. In short, the Prime Minister is proposing to criminalise lying in politics for the first time and he is leading by example by applying it to himself. This has never happened before and I congratulate the Government on being brave and decent enough to criminalise lying by their own Ministers. It is a very big step.
This Bill has been commonly called the Hillsborough law because of the stadium crush in 1989 in Hillsborough, Sheffield, in which 97 Liverpool supporters were unlawfully killed. That was followed by years in which police and other officials advanced misleading accounts that falsely blamed the victims, deceived families over the pain that their loved ones suffered before death and obscured institutional failings. The sustained campaign by the bereaved families for truth and accountability led to the Hillsborough Law Now movement and to the introduction in Parliament of this Bill. It is intended to impose a statutory duty of candour and to criminalise serious deception by public officials. It is worth noting that the inaccurate account by Sheffield police has never been corrected, which is something that the Government should resolve. Among others, the Hicks family lost two daughters and they, and other still-grieving families, deserve the truth.
This Bill will correct an inconsistency. For centuries, we have criminalised deception in almost every professional sphere, except for some politicians. Fraud is an offence, perjury is an offence and false advertising is unlawful. Under consumer protection legislation, tradesmen may not mislead the public about serious matters. In finance, commerce, the courts and taxation, truthfulness is not optional; it is legally enforceable. We already accept, under the Representation of the People Act, that dishonest statements about a rival candidate during an election may be criminal. The principle that deliberate political falsehoods can be legislated against is therefore not novel. It has existed for decades without overwhelming the courts or extinguishing debate.
No equivalent statutory standard has governed broader public claims made by politicians. That anomaly can be set against the collapse of public trust. The Ipsos Veracity Index once again ranks politicians among the least trusted professions in the UK. That distrust weakens democratic consent, discourages civic participation and feeds a corrosive cynicism that democratic institutions cannot be trusted and that Parliament is full of liars. It makes the lives of Members of the Commons and the Lords much harder and doubtless impacts our well-being as well.
But the Bill offers some hope. The proposed new offence of misleading the public attempts to respond to that crisis, not by criminalising opinion, silencing debate or punishing error or failed prediction but by addressing something narrower and more serious: deliberate or reckless deception about matters of significant concern to the public, proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Some have raised concerns about free expression. Those concerns deserve respect, but the offence, as drafted, is confined to intentional or reckless deception. It does not criminalise political disagreement, capture advocacy or police rhetoric. It does not apply to anything said in Parliament, as privilege is still in place. It targets only proven deceit elsewhere, such as online, on television, on the radio or at events. I hope that this narrow definition will stop people with expensive lawyers launching malicious legal cases in the hope of silencing legitimate criticisms. In short, this provision affirms a simple democratic proposition: those who exercise public authority should not be permitted to lie to the public with impunity.
So far, so good. Yet the following exemptions have been brought to my attention by campaigner Marcus Ball of ExecProsec, who is working with Jennifer Nadel of Compassion in Politics and Luke Myer MP from the other place. As currently drafted, the proposition excludes some parliamentarians. Civil servants would be bound by it, as would police officers, members of the Armed Forces, NHS staff, Government Ministers and even the Prime Minister, but Back-Bench Members of Parliament and Members of your Lordships’ House would not, nor would the shadow Cabinet or the Opposition in their entirety.
There may be procedural explanations for excluding Peers and Back-Bench MPs, and even technical constitutional arguments, but I wonder what the public will think. They will see a law that criminalises deception by nearly every category of public official except the very people who are making the Bill become law. They will not be persuaded by constitutional nuance; they will draw a much simpler conclusion. If Parliament legislates a requirement not to lie for others while reserving exemption for itself, the perception will be that we parliamentarians are hypocrites. That perception will endure each time the offence is invoked, a prosecution is considered, accountability is pursued or any parliamentarian is accused of being dishonest. The public will be reminded that parliamentarians chose to criminalise lying by almost all public officials apart from themselves.
Equality before the law is the foundation of democratic legitimacy. If nurses, teachers, civil servants, Ministers and even the Prime Minister are to be subject to this standard, it is impossible to persuasively justify a position in which Members of either House of Parliament are not. Surely, those who make the law should be subject to the same standard of honesty that we, as legislators, impose on others.
This House has long seen itself as the guardian of constitutional principle. We are uniquely placed to consider not only how legislation functions in the courts but how it will be understood by the public. I am concerned that if we do not apply this law to ourselves, we will cause reputational self-harm. We are legislators; we pass laws that relate to everyone else, so why should they not relate to us as well?
To conclude, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I sense that the Government will probably not accept what I am saying, but I wonder whether she will meet me at a future date to discuss this, perhaps with one or two lawyers who can argue more persuasively than I can. Why are Members of Parliament, in both Houses, excluded from Clause 11? Will the Government give serious consideration to removing that exclusion, so that the Bill may stand as a testament to integrity rather than a monument to hypocrisy?
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and congratulate her on bringing forward this important debate. It is a good Question. I agree with her that the Public Office (Accountability) Bill should be welcomed, but I will wait until Second Reading in this place before addressing the wider merits of the Bill.
Few matters strike more directly at the moral core of public life than the question of honesty, and few touch this House more directly than the standards we set for ourselves. Clause 11 of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill creates a new criminal offence, as we have heard, where a public authority or official acting in that capacity intentionally or recklessly misleads the public, knowing or being reasonably expected to know that such conduct is seriously improper.
The intention, as I understand it, is to ensure that those exercising the powers of the state are held to the highest standards of truthfulness. It would apply to government departments, local authorities, the police, the NHS, schools and others exercising public functions. Yet, as we have heard, Members of both Houses of Parliament are to be excluded. The Government’s reasoning is that the clause is aimed at those who wield executive authority rather than those in representative or political roles. But is that distinction defensible? Does this fly in the court of public opinion? Why should accountability in public life be limited only to those who administer the state rather than those who make its laws or shape its policies?
To be a Member of either House is to possess a particular form of public authority: the authority of trust. As recent events relating to Lord Mandelson have shown, parliamentarians are not above the system: we are the system in the eyes of the public. Our words, our votes and our conduct influence government action, policy direction and public belief. That is power by any reasonable definition, and it is power that depends entirely on trust.
As the clause stands, it applies to a government Minister acting in an executive capacity. In that case, Ministers face a legal duty not to seriously mislead the public, but their opposition shadow does not. That asymmetry is frankly bonkers and unfair on political incumbents. We are in an age of disinformation. Elected politicians who consistently, deliberately and cynically mislead the public should be subject to criminal sanctions in extremis.
Outside the protections rightly offered by parliamentary privilege, should we not be prepared to hold ourselves to account when serious or repeated dishonesty on matters of public concern causes demonstrable harm? The damage caused by misleading the public goes far beyond a single misstatement. It corrodes the foundations of confidence on which democratic governance rests. It also creates fertile ground for those who thrive on distrust and resentment: the bad-faith actors, who see cynicism as a political opportunity.
We have seen again and again how false narratives can take hold and persist: Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, the Horizon cases and, more recently, the partygate affair. Each has shown how misinformation and evasion can compound tragedy, turning mistakes into long-term injustice. The Bill bears the “Hillsborough” name advisedly. It reminds us that misleading the public is not a victimless act.
The evidence of eroded trust in politicians in this context is stark. The 2024 British Social Attitudes survey found that 58% of people “almost never” trust politicians to tell the truth. Four in five said they were dissatisfied with how they were governed. The Electoral Commission’s 2025 findings were similar: only 14% expressed trust in politicians. According to the Constitution Unit, “being honest” ranks as the single most desirable quality in a parliamentarian, and nearly three-quarters of respondents support the removal of MPs who lie.
In that context, the amendment tabled in the Commons by my political friend Luke Myer MP deserves serious consideration. It would extend Clause 11 to Members of both Houses in a proportionate and carefully safeguarded way: not to stifle political disagreement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, but to make it clear that those who knowingly and deliberately mislead the public cannot do so with impunity. That principle, I believe, commands widespread public support. To do otherwise confirms exactly the perception that has done such damage to trust in political institutions: that there is one rule for us and another for everybody else. That sentiment has helped drive the rising populist tide that every democracy now faces.
Mention of populism triggers me to say something about the valid concerns around freedom of expression. These are understandable, but in this case, I think, misplaced. The threshold in Clause 11 is intentionally high. It is directed only at conduct that is serious, significant and harmful. The clause includes a “reasonable excuse” defence and would require a demanding evidential standard. It is not about slips of the tongue, robust political rhetoric or contested interpretation; it is about substantiated, deliberate dishonesty causing real harm. In practice, prosecutions would likely be rare, but the deterrent effect of the law, and the statement of principles that it represents, is powerful.
Some may observe that the common-law offence of misconduct in public office, about which we have heard quite a lot lately, already covers such ground. In theory, yes, but, in practice, this offence is notoriously ill-defined and difficult to sustain. However, Clause 11, which has been carefully drafted, offers a clearer, modern test for the same fundamental idea: that the abuse of public trust is, at its most serious, a criminal matter.
In my view, this is about leading by example. We cannot credibly legislate for honesty in public life while exempting ourselves. If we do, we risk deepening the very scepticism that this Bill seeks to repair. The British public are remarkably forgiving of error; they are far less forgiving of hypocrisy. A Parliament that will not hold itself to its own standards invites precisely the accusations of entitlement and complacency that have weakened respect for institutions across the democratic world and would fuel the growing belief that we are an entitled, self-serving elite.
The restoration of trust will never come solely through codes of conduct or ministerial guidance. It will come through action: through showing that no one, however senior or unelected, is beyond accountability. Extending Clause 11 to Members of both Houses, with proper safeguards for privilege and freedom of expression, would mark a principled step in that direction. If honesty in public life is to be more than a slogan, we must be prepared to bind ourselves by it in law, and not just in aspiration.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union, which may well end up defending people as a result of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, given that it creates a new speech offence. As we have heard, the offence is that of misleading the public. A public authority or public official commits an offence if, first, in their capacity as such an authority or official, they act with the intention of misleading the public or are reckless as to whether their act will do so; and, secondly, they know, or ought to know, that their act is seriously improper.
The problem is not that MPs and Peers are immune to being prosecuted for this offence but that the carve-out is not large enough. According to my reading of the Bill, MPs or Peers acting as public officials—that is, Ministers of the Crown—would be liable. This is a gold-embossed invitation to the Jolyon Maughams of this world. It will unleash a wave of politically motivated lawfare. Is that really what we want?
As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, just pointed out, the new offence of misleading the public is intended to replace the offence of misconduct in public office. Let us not forget that attempts have been made by political activists to bring private prosecutions against their opponents for committing that offence. For instance, in 2019, an outfit called the Brexit Justice Group brought a private prosecution against Boris Johnson for misconduct in public office because, according to the BJG, he had knowingly misled the electorate in the EU referendum campaign by claiming that leaving would bring a bounty of £350 million a week. It was an obviously vexatious case, but a magistrate issued three summonses against the then Prime Minister before the case was eventually thrown out in the High Court.
Should this Bill become law, we can look forward to a slew of similar cases. Rachel Reeves, for instance, might find herself in the dock for claiming that she would not raise taxes on working people, while Ed Miliband could have his collar felt for promising that household energy bills would fall by £300.
If the Bill is amended along the lines that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wants, would not her party’s candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election find herself in difficulty—assuming that she becomes an MP? During her now infamous campaign video in Urdu, released a few days ago, she said that Reform UK wants to put higher taxes on people who were born abroad. That is misleading, to put it at its most charitable. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said there are safeguards in the Bill to prevent private prosecutions, but what is to stop members of the public bringing judicial reviews against the police for not prosecuting politicians for misleading the public?
The Free Speech Union recently defended an SNP activist and editor of a blog, “Wings Over Scotland”, who had supposedly said something transphobic on social media. A trans activist, Lynsay Watson, tried to sue Greater Manchester Police for not prosecuting him. I am happy to say that he failed, but that is not to say that others will not attempt to sue the police for not arresting lying politicians.
I do not want to see Hannah Spencer behind bars for misleading the public any more than I do the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Candidates campaign in poetry and govern in prose. If they fail to keep their promises or traffic in obvious mistruths, there is already an adequate mechanism for punishing them—the ballot box. Rather than extend the scope of the Bill to include MPs and Peers, let us limit it to make sure that Members of both Houses, in whatever capacity, are properly excluded.
I would go further and urge the Government to amend the Bill to exclude civil servants too—and not just those working in the intelligence services. As a recent piece in the Economist pointed out, making Whitehall officials liable for prosecution for misleading the public could have disastrous unintended consequences. It would mean fewer civil servants willing to take responsibility for decisions or giving ministerial advice, and more decision-making by committee to dilute liability. Rather than providing Ministers with timely, sensible advice, they will mitigate the risk of a prosecution down the line by obfuscation and delay. To quote from the Economist:
“Ministers complain that the civil service is bogged in a ‘sludge’ of slow decision-making. But officials will have an incentive to take more detailed minutes, keep more records and give risk-assessments even lengthier consideration to insure against future court challenges”.
I am reminded of the effect of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Rather than leading to greater transparency on official decision-making, it resulted in MPs, Peers and Whitehall officials abandoning email in favour of WhatsApp, with disappearing messages switched on—less transparency rather than more.
The intentions behind the Bill are undoubtedly good. The families of those who died in the Hillsborough tragedy deserve to hear the truth from public officials, particularly those testifying to various inquiries, but it is hard to legislate for candour. To pretend that the Bill will
“once and for all end the culture of cover-ups and hiding the truth”,
as the Labour manifesto promised, is, I am afraid, just another example of misleading the public.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for raising the profile of our candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election. That is very kind of him.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I too welcome the obtaining of this debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and want to return, as we often should, to the actual Question in the debate. We shall have plenty of time to look at the Bill when it gets here. We are not on the Bill but on this very narrow point. Narrow though it is, it is important. Although what the Government have proposed—excluding MPs and Peers—is probably right, because it is the Government and the Executive who are dealt with in the scope of the Bill, it is worth while considering the implications of this. We can take two things by way of some help in examining the question, because the acuteness of this issue will arise primarily when we get close to an election or when political tensions are high.
It is quite interesting to see what we did in the Representation of the People Act, or to go back to what was originally enacted in 1895, in distinguishing between untruths in relation to people’s personal characteristics and untruths in relation to all other matters. Looking at the debates in 1895, it seems remarkable to me that that distinction, which was carefully made, has stood us in good stead, because we addressed a particular problem in elections.
When you look at the debates, you can see what was worrying politicians in 1895. One was worried about the fact that, during an election, he had been on a Bench of magistrates and was said to have sent a man to prison for a month, with hard labour, for stealing three pennorth of oats; he had dissented from the decision of the others. Another was accused of his yacht being used to poach salmon with a net on a Sunday in Scotland. It was a concern that untruths were being told about people’s personal characteristics, for which there was no effective remedy because you could not bring an action for slander during an election. Therefore, in 1895 it was decided that one ought to focus on what the problem was, what the remedy was and whether it should be enacted. It was enacted then and has been re-enacted successively, as recently as the 1983 legislation.
Why has it been restricted in this way? Looking at the case law that has elucidated these provisions, it seems that Parliament then thought—it is, to my mind, a very tenable position—that whereas it is wrong to be allowed to tell lies about someone’s personal characteristics, because it is very difficult to disprove those, do you leave the good sense of lying about politics to the public? That has served us well for over 130 years, but the question is: should we continue that distinction?
It is useful to look at a second matter, which is the proceedings in Senedd Cymru where, in relation to elections in Wales, it is proposed that there be an offence, similar to what is envisaged in the Bill, applicable during elections: namely, telling untruths of any fact or matter completely. The report of the examination by the Senedd committee is useful reading because it had evidence from the Electoral Commission, the Bar in Wales, Transparency International, Professor Horder and others, in relation to the problems that you create by having a wide-ranging offence of this kind.
The way forward, it seems to me, is to look at what the problem is in this House and in the other place. Is there a remedy that should be brought, and in what circumstances? The one thing that would be very undesirable is to create a huge amount of potential for people to complain to the police, saying “X or Y is lying about this” and seeking to engage in political prosecutions of that kind. That is a real worry.
However, I go this far in supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Jones: we simply ought to look at the difficulties and see what the problem is—but it is a difficult problem on which there is an awful lot of experience, and we need a proper examination. On what I have read so far, I regret to say that I agree with leaving their Lordships—I should say “your Lordships”, including myself—and others out of the scope of this Bill, because there is a logic to confining the provision to the Executive and not opening the door to lengthy and politically inspired prosecutions. However, it is a question that should be examined, and that is why I am so grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this very difficult point.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I join with everybody in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and thanking her for raising this issue and for the powerful and eloquent way in which she opened the debate and presented her arguments.
As we have heard, the question that the debate raises is whether it is right that Schedule 2 to the Bill would exclude parliamentarians from both Houses from the definition of public authorities and public officials who might be guilty of an offence of misleading the public under Clause 11. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who described this as a very difficult issue that was not going to be simple to determine and that required a great deal of consideration.
On the one hand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, the exclusion of parliamentarians from the ambit of this offence could well be perceived by the public as putting parliamentarians above the law. Some Labour MPs have expressed that view in the House of Commons and the media, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, gained powerful support from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth. The noble Lord also made the point, which is of considerable significance, that Ministers acting in their executive capacity would be liable to be prosecuted under this offence, whereas shadow Ministers would be in an entirely different position. On the other hand, if the exclusion were removed, it could be said that Peers and MPs might be deterred from speaking freely on important issues, and that is the basis on which parliamentary privilege is founded.
The reason given in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill for the exclusion of parliamentarians is, and I quote,
“in recognition of long-standing conventions around the independence of the judiciary”—
who I might say are also excluded from offences under Clause 11—
“and Parliament’s ability to regulate its own affairs. These institutions have their own processes for establishing and enforcing ethical standards”.
No more detailed explanation was given on behalf of the Government in Committee by the Minister at the MoJ, Alex Davies-Jones MP; she referred only to long-standing conventions of self-regulation and independence. For my part, I am not sure that is a convincing response. In my view, the mere existence of long-standing conventions should not prevent Parliament examining those conventions and, if necessary, legislating to overturn them.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the position taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. She rightly points out that the Clause 11 offence is directed not at innocent mistake or honest disagreement but at deliberately or recklessly misleading the public, when the accused knows, or ought to know, that their act is seriously improper. That is a pretty heinous wrong, and one that the Bill is rightly determined to prevent and penalise. The threshold for conviction is a high one. So why, she asks, should parliamentary privilege and MPs’ and Peers’ freedom of speech get in the way of that worthwhile aim, against the background that we have seen of unacceptable institutional cover-ups and outright dishonesty by some official bodies, which this Bill is intended to address?
My concern with the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is not, principally, that without the exclusion parliamentarians would in practice be prosecuted for this offence. Rather, it is that without the exclusion parliamentarians could be threatened, publicly and in correspondence, with prosecution, and that the threat of attempted prosecutions could deter MPs and Peers from speaking their mind openly and without fear of the consequences. It is in that context that the protection of parliamentary privilege is genuinely an important democratic protection.
It is true that under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3, proceedings for a Clause 11 offence could be brought only with the consent of the DPP. Nevertheless, the whole process of investigation and consideration, and the threat of prosecution, could have a chilling effect on parliamentarians and parliamentary debate. It is therefore not only freedom from prosecution that is important but freedom from the threat of prosecution.
I am reminded of the argument around SLAPPs litigation—SLAPPs standing for the obscure description of strategic lawsuits against public prosecution. As we all know, SLAPPs are unmeritorious actions threatened or brought, often for alleged defamation, generally by powerful or wealthy individuals or organisations, to frighten off critics who would attack them in the press or elsewhere. SLAPPs are used as a form of oppressive censorship of investigative journalism and legitimate criticism, which we are rightly attempting to regulate, control or penalise.
In the context of this Bill, a parallel argument was advanced at Second Reading in the House of Commons by the Conservative MP Mike Wood. He foresaw a risk of parliamentarians being subjected to what he called “politically motivated lawfare”—I note that was an expression repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton—which the exclusions are designed to prevent. I have to say I found some of the examples from the noble Lord, Lord Young, a little overstated at times, but nevertheless it is a point that is worth making. I found the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, very persuasive, including his distinction, which may not be directly on point but is helpful, between lying about politics and lying about personal characteristics. That distinction is illuminating.
We should not be so complacent as to believe that parliamentarians would be so immune to threats as always to stick to our guns in the face of them. Parliamentarians expect and welcome criticism, argument and disagreement. However, I suggest that the threat of prosecution for speaking their mind is not a legitimate hazard of parliamentary life. At worst, it may drive some to trim or curtail their arguments, even if not abandoning them. On the whole, and with some hesitation, I have come down on the side of parliamentary privilege and in favour of the exclusion that is written into the Bill, despite the very powerful arguments set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, and others.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for providing the opportunity for noble Lords to raise a matter of deep and real public interest. The exclusion of Members of this House and the House of Commons from Clause 11 of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill is a topic which touches on constitutional issues and those which relate to public trust. The Bill engages long-standing concerns about transparency in public life. It will impose a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness, and to maintain ethical conduct within all parts of their authority. It creates offences for those who, in that capacity—and I emphasise the phrase “in that capacity”—mislead the public and, in relation to the misconduct of persons, who hold public office.
The Hillsborough families’ campaign for accountability has been one of the most powerful calls for reform in recent decades; it is right that we act on their concerns. Here, I declare an interest: I acted in some civil claims on behalf of South Yorkshire Police and, at a later date, for victims who sued their solicitors who had settled their original claims for too little. I have also represented a health authority in a public inquiry against a dishonest consultant, so I know and have practical experience of what dishonesty and cover-ups can mean for the victims.
The new offences will apply when a public authority or official acting with intention or reckless disregard commits improper acts that mislead in respect of matters of significant public concern. But MPs and Peers do not, by virtue of that status alone, act as officials—we must remember that. By Schedule 2 to the Bill, “public authority” means a government department, a Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, or a Northern Ireland devolved authority. So individual officeholders and their departments, when acting, are within scope. It is only when acting personally, in a purely parliamentary capacity, that an MP or a Peer will be immune.
This debate raises the interesting and difficult question: when, if ever, should MPs and Peers be guilty of the criminal offences contained in the Bill? Neither House of Parliament will for that purpose be a public authority. This reflects long-standing constitutional conventions of Parliament’s self-regulation and independence. Parliamentary privilege and constitutional autonomy are vital; they must not be compromised. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 remains a cornerstone of our constitutional settlement. It provides that freedom of speech and debate in Parliament
“ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”.
Article 9 safeguards the core functions of this House and the other place in debating and scrutinising the Government without fear of legal sanction. Those who abuse parliamentary privilege are susceptible to punishment and expulsion by Parliament.
The problems with the Hillsborough and infected blood scandals stem from cover-ups by those acting in official positions, whether as Ministers or officials. I am not suggesting anyone in particular here, but they were in positions of authority. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, explained some of the hazards that might arise from going beyond the Bill and the significance of the Representation of the People Act, for example. My noble friend Lord Young of Acton explained other risks. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, rightly highlighted the danger of the mere threat of proceedings to what people may then be prepared to say in either House of Parliament.
Article 9 rightly protects proceedings in Parliament. It does not protect conduct by individuals outside those parameters, those formal proceedings, nor does it provide immunity from the criminal law for conduct outside parliamentary debate—see the expenses scandal, where at least one MP attempted to run the argument but failed in the courts. The scope of parliamentary privilege is carefully constrained, and rightly so.
Parliament should be very cautious lest any words spoken on the Floors of either House, or in its committees, are put at risk of being caught by criminal offences or civil actions. The threat of prosecution would have a chilling effect on robust debate, which is the essence of parliamentary democracy. An authoritarian Government with majorities in both Houses, any mischief-maker in either House or any outsider might raise specious allegations for bad motives, or just out of ignorance. The fact that the Member in question might ultimately be acquitted of wrongdoing, whether in the criminal or civil courts, will not have prevented exposure to frightening pressures. Our legislators must not be so exposed. The Bill of Rights is a bulwark. History is on its side.
As we have heard, some Members in the other place have suggested that extending the offence to MPs and Peers might improve public trust and perception, and amendments have been tabled from some MPs to bring Members of Parliament within the scope of the offence. That would be a grave error. MPs and Peers acting as such do not make decisions on behalf of the state. They are not Ministers or officials. Their misconduct, if and when it occurs, will be addressed by Parliament—we have had examples in the recent past. Parliament does and will police its Members; no one else should when it acts within the bounds which I have set out.
We on these Benches believe that creating a criminal offence would be wrong, but we also recognise that the exclusion of Parliament from the offence risks sending the wrong message if it is not properly explained to the public. It is not an easy topic to explain in plain and simple terms to a wider public. Accountability and integrity in public life must be strengthened and supported, and public trust in our institutions is, frankly, fragile at present. But the way to hell is paved with good intentions, so beware: the remedy will be worse than the disease.
Given these considerations, I ask the Minister the following questions. What consideration have the Government given to alternative models to ensure meaningful accountability without infringing on this privilege? Do the Government believe that the current system of parliamentary sanctions alone is sufficient and effective? What further parliamentary sanctions might be of value? What steps will the Government take during the currency of the Bill to explain these important principles of our constitution?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, it is customary to begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for securing this debate, but I am sure she would agree that I should start by paying tribute to the victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. In doing this, I make it clear that the victims and bereaved must always be front and centre of the Government’s mind as the Bill makes its long overdue way through Parliament.
I hope your Lordships will understand what I mean when I say that the Bill is not just about justice for Hillsborough victims and families, and those of the other disasters; it determines what kind of a society we are. Do we protect vested interests, or do we believe in the importance of rights of and protections for our fellow citizens as individuals? To that extent, I entirely understand the points made, very forcefully, by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Knight.
The noble Baroness and I had a very short discussion yesterday when she explained her concerns to me. I am grateful to her for that. I hope she knows that my objective in this matter is not to make partisan points or to be stubborn about legislation but to make sure that, as we go through the process of introducing a new law, we get it right. By “right”, I mean that the law captures the behaviour that we think is so egregious that it merits being criminalised while not trespassing on other important issues, which will include convention rights. By securing today’s debate, the noble Baroness and all the other Members of your Lordships’ House who have spoken have given the Government food for thought, and I have treated everybody’s contributions as, in effect, being those of critical friends.
The offence of misleading the public is a brand new offence contained in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, your Lordships will have the opportunity to scrutinise it fully when it is sent to us from the other place. My intention today is to explain the policy reasoning behind the Government’s decision to limit the offence to the Executive rather than extend it to all MPs and Peers. To do this, I need briefly to outline what the Bill in general, and this clause in particular, intend to do.
The Government are clear that what happened following the Hillsborough disaster must never happen again. In that case, police lied and changed witness statements to protect their reputations. Bereaved families from Hillsborough, and too many other examples over many years, faced an inquest process with no funding for legal representation. All of that was underpinned by a lack of a duty of candour. The Bill contains a powerful new package of measures to address these failings and others, such as the infected blood and Horizon scandals.
As part of the measure, the Bill creates not one but four new criminal offences, and they fall into two groups. There is plainly some level of misunderstanding about this. That was articulated most clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton; I owe him an apology because, in a recent letter on the Crime and Policing Bill, I addressed him as “Lord Young of Action”, although perhaps he will not have minded too much.
The first group of these four offences includes two offences to replace the common-law offence of misconduct in public office, which will be repealed. The first of those new offences is committing seriously improper acts and the second is breaching the duty to prevent death or serious injury. These new offences broadly replicate the effect of the common-law offence, and they have a very wide reach. They cover a much broader range of behaviour than the kind that was seen at Hillsborough; for example, misconduct in public office has in the past been used to prosecute for offences such as corruption in public office—that is what these two new offences are intended to replicate.
We are replacing the old common-law offence because there was a lack of certainty about it. One of the issues with it was the lack of a list of those to whom the law applied. To deal with that, those two new offences do have a list. Both those two very broad offences do apply to MPs and Peers, as well as to a number of other public office holders, including judges.
Secondly, we have created another two new offences, which are completely separate from the old misconduct in public office offence. They were designed specifically to deal with a narrower range of circumstances and to deal with the situation that has arisen in these large-scale disasters. These two new offences are: first, a breach of the new duty of candour; and, secondly, the offence of misleading the public contained in Clause 11. It is only the latter offence, out of the four new ones, with which we are concerned today.
As I have already said, this offence is designed to be much narrower than the ones designed to replace misconduct in public office. It was designed specifically with what happened at Hillsborough in the front of our minds, and I will explain the reason for that. As the scale of the disaster at Hillsborough was becoming apparent, the police lied about its cause, saying that Liverpool fans had broken into the stadium. However, as we now know, and as the Taylor inquiry uncovered, in fact the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control.
This new offence is aimed squarely at those who intentionally or recklessly aim to mislead the public and cover up the truth. It is intended to capture only the most serious instances of public officials or authorities misleading the public. An example might be a chief executive of a hospital instructing the staff to lie about a major incident to avoid criticism of the hospital. It is not intended to apply to instances of accidental or inadvertent misleading.
To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Young, prosecutions cannot be brought without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, specifically to avoid vexatious private prosecutions. The noble Lord mentioned judicial review, but the doorway to a judicial review is a narrow one—it is a very restricted set of circumstances and is subject to a permission stage from the High Court.
The Government thought very carefully about to whom this offence should apply. It applies to public officials and public authorities, so it captures those working in government and the wider public sector who take decisions on behalf of the state. That includes Ministers and other politicians in executive roles, but not MPs and Peers.
Our thinking was this: Parliament has a unique role in our society. Parliamentarians are responsible for legislating, scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account. In addition, MPs are responsible for representing their constituents. However, individual MPs and Peers do not directly take decisions on behalf of the state, nor do they have access to the kind of government information that would be available to Ministers. For that reason, we have come to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to extend the offences in the Bill to all MPs and Peers—and they are not extended to judges either. We have the wide group of offences designed to replace misconduct in public office, which applies to Back-Benchers, the Opposition and the judiciary, and this narrow offence designed to cover those who take decisions.
Of course, the Government agree that misleading the public in any capacity is not acceptable, and there should be consequences for parliamentarians who do so, but this new offence is not the appropriate vehicle for regulating political speech. Parliament has its own arrangements for ensuring accuracy and truthfulness in proceedings, including processes for determining whether MPs have misled the other place, and it is for the House of Lords Procedure and Privileges Committee to consider any instances where a Member of your Lordships’ House is alleged to have misled the House. This reflects the important principle that parliamentary proceedings are rightly privileged and cannot be questioned in a court of law. Each House is responsible for determining the right sanctions when it is alleged that someone has misled the House.
Members of both Houses must also act in accordance with the Nolan principles in all their public functions, and the very high standards expected of public office holders, conducting themselves with honesty and integrity. It is for each House to determine the procedures for investigating and sanctioning those who break the rules. The Government are confident that the scope of the new offence, combined with the existing arrangements and the codes of conduct for parliamentarians, strike the right balance between capturing the most serious wrongdoing while not infringing the tried and tested procedures that govern all noble Lords and all those in the other place to ensure that we conduct ourselves to the highest standards.
This has been an interesting and important debate and I will of course meet the noble Baroness, any lawyer she wants to bring with her and indeed any other Members of your Lordships’ House who would like to discuss this further.
Transnational Repression in the UK (JCHR Report)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
That this House takes note of the Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights Transnational repression in the UK (7th Report, HL Paper 160).
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, before the debate gets under way, I want to highlight the four-minute advisory time for Back-Bench contributions. This is designed to ensure that the debate can finish within two hours, in line with the usual timings for Thursday debates, and that the House can rise at a reasonable time. I therefore urge noble Lords to keep their remarks within four minutes to meet these ends—of course, with the exception of the mover, the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is an honour to open today’s debate on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report Transnational Repression in the United Kingdom. As chair of the JCHR, I pay tribute to my committee colleagues from both Houses and thank the terrific JCHR team, headed by our clerks Rhiannon Hollis, Moriyo Aiyeola and Lauren Marchant. I also thank the Library for its briefing note, the Minister and the officials who have briefed him for the work that has been done by him and his colleagues in the department, but especially the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, who will make his maiden speech today. We greatly look forward to hearing that.
Our report highlights the absence of a universally accepted definition of transnational repression—TNR. We recommend that the Government adopt a formal definition, systematically collect data, and develop monitoring mechanisms. We agree with James Lynch, the co-director of Fair Square, who told our committee that we are missing a
“big opportunity to properly monitor and analyse the trends and then develop a coherent strategy”.
We query the way in which TNR is treated in diplomacy with hostile states, and contend that failure to incorporate it as part of the UK’s diplomatic engagement with perpetrator countries
“risks … emboldening authoritarian regimes to escalate TNR activities”.
The report calls for international co-operation with other democracies—we mention the example of Canada—in combating TNR, and we make some specific recommendations about the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, and the misuse of Interpol red notices. Closer to home, we call for a national hotline for victims, and more systematic, specialised training for police officers to identify the early warning signs of TNR.
In paragraph 96 of the report, we say:
“The UK’s response to TNR would benefit significantly from more structured and consistent coordination across government departments”.
Andrew Scurry, the director of the homeland security group at the Home Office, told us that:
“We are looking still with the police … at how best to gather data and more information, and indeed intelligence”.
It would be good for the House to hear how that is going.
During a discussion this morning with academics from Bristol and Oxford Universities, facilitated by the international affairs parliamentary hub, I was struck by their finding that TNR is profoundly on the rise in the UK. This chimed entirely with our own committee’s view that TNR is not a peripheral or minor issue. MI5 says that, in 2024, the number of its state-threat investigations jumped by some 48%, with more than 20 threat-to-life cases relating to Iran alone, since the start of 2022. The true scale, though, is likely to be far greater still, given the significant underreporting and the often covert nature of TNR criminality.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights commends the National Security Act 2023, which created new offences relating to foreign interference in the UK, and did not identify any significant gaps in criminal law related to TNR. We do, however, want the existing laws to be better used and more effectively enforced. It is essential that the legal framework remains agile and responsive to evolving threats. We recognise the rapidly evolving nature of digital technologies, and the increasing sophistication of methods used to conduct TNR. We call for the Government to keep relevant legislation under regular review, and have asked for an annual update to the JCHR on the effectiveness of current legislation in addressing evolving digital forms of TNR.
Our country has a long history of giving protection to courageous dissidents being hunted down by dictatorships. During my early days as a young Member of Parliament in the 1980s, I met extraordinary heroes who had escaped the Soviet bloc and continued to work for the liberties that would ultimately come with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Back then, and today too, dictatorial regimes had a long reach.
Let me draw on the evidence given to our inquiry to illustrate the nature of the threats that people resident in the United Kingdom now face. A number of noble Lords have experienced a small dose of transnational repression themselves: in my case, collecting sanctions from Russia, North Korea, Iran and China. But this is small beer in comparison with some of the appalling intimidation experienced by others. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether China has lifted sanctions on parliamentarians’ families, and on others, including Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, who chaired the Uyghur Tribunal, Dr Jo Smith Finley, Essex Court Chambers, and the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.
Will the Minister also comment on the 1 million Hong Kong dollar bounty placed by the CCP on the head of Chloe Cheung, a 19 year-old young woman, and others in the United Kingdom? Read Chloe’s courageous testimony to our inquiry, waiving her anonymity, in which she described the profound effect that this CCP targeting has had on her. She spoke recently against the proposed CCP mega-embassy in London, fearful that, if it is built and she is snatched, she will, to use her words, “never come out”.
Read the evidence of the brave Uyghur activist Rahima Mahmut, whose relatives in China have been subjected to intimidation and coercion, forced to publicly condemn her in order to safeguard themselves from reprisals. She movingly described to the committee what she called the “human cost” of speaking out. Read the evidence of the disgraceful treatment of Professor Michelle Shipworth by University College London, and the shameful mistreatment of Sheffield Hallam’s Professor Laura Murphy following her brilliant work on Uyghur slave labour in Xinjiang.
Their treatment is an affront to British sovereignty, to academic freedom and to free speech. It is transnational repression driven by overreliance on Chinese money. Let us note too that, earlier this month, MI5’s Ken McCallum identified threats to universities, students and academics at a meeting he convened with 70 vice-chancellors. How will the Government implement a direct reporting route on foreign interference, implement the complaints scheme in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act and strengthen overseas transparency regulatory powers?
Unsurprisingly, the JCHR received a large amount of evidence recommending the designation of China under the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS. It was an issue raised by Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC the lawyer of British citizen Jimmy Lai, incarcerated in Hong Kong for five years and in solitary confinement. She told our inquiry that, as his lawyer, she had been subjected to threats and harassment. She criticised the feeble response to bounties and sanctions against parliamentarians and described how peaceful protestors in Manchester had been assaulted by CCP diplomats. She said:
“We send such a terrible message if we have a situation where a diplomat can drag an activist by the hair into the Manchester consulate … and the use of language such as calling individuals rats who need to be hunted down worldwide, and yet … China is not in the enhanced tier”.
The JCHR concluded:
“Decisions on which countries to specify under the enhanced tier of FIRS must be guided by objective assessments of threat, not influenced by broader foreign policy considerations. We recommend that the Government specify China under the enhanced tier of FIRS”;
and that
“The Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 do not capture the full range of TNR tactics”;
and that China’s omission from the enhanced tier
“risks undermining the credibility and coherence of FIRS”.
The JCHR found:
“China conducts the most comprehensive TNR campaign of any foreign state operating in the UK”.
I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to my previously voiced proposal—which appears at paragraph 90 on page 37 as a JCHR recommendation—that the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which the noble Lord himself served with great distinction, should have confidential oversight of FIRS and sanctions and which, like appointments of high-level British ambassadors, or the expulsion of diplomats connected to TNR, should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Such scrutiny should also extend to issues of proscriptions. Let us consider Iran and the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We heard shocking evidence of the lethality of Iranian transnational repression. We heard about an Iranian journalist left seriously wounded on the streets of London and about intimidation of BBC Persian journalists and their families. One witness, Hossein Abedini, deputy director of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, almost lost his life in a vicious brutal attack by Iranian operatives. He told the JCHR that “cultural centres” in the UK are used as fronts for surveillance operations targeting members of the Iranian diaspora. Reporters without Borders told us:
“Iranian women journalists have been subjected to gendered and sexualised abuse, including explicit threats of rape or sexual violence towards them or their families (including children), the circulation of fake stories designed to ruin their reputations and photoshopped pornographic images”.
In this week marking the fourth anniversary of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, we should consider also how Putin’s regime has engaged in the most terrible war crimes and egregious forms of transnational repression. We can recall the Salisbury nerve agent attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal. But Russian TNR comes in other form too. The JCHR received evidence relating to the misuse of SLAPPs to intimidate and silence journalists, activists, and other critics.
Although SLAPPs are typically initiated by private individuals rather than states, we heard that they are often used as a TNR tactic. Susan Coughtrie, the director of the Foreign Policy Centre, told us that individuals “closely aligned” with the state are utilised to carry out TNR through legal harassment. She cited the case of Catherine Belton, the journalist and author of the book Putin’s People:
“She was pursued originally by five oligarchs, including Roman Abramovich, but also Rosneft, which is the Russian state gas company, so there was a very direct link there … to the Russian state”.
The inquiry found that SLAPPs are increasingly used to silence and intimidate people who expose or criticise the actions of authoritarian regimes.
The committee would also like the Government to look at the cost and stress of lengthy legal action, provide a clear timeline for a review of the effectiveness of the SLAPPs provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and ensure that future legislation deals with SLAPPs that are not related to economic crime.
Our inquiry also found that Interpol red notices had been issued without the knowledge of those targeted, leaving people uncertain about whether they can travel without risk of detention. We concluded that red notices are being systematically exploited to pursue political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists beyond national borders.
Beyond Russia, Iran and China, the committee received credible evidence that a number of states had engaged in acts of transnational repression on UK soil. The evidence included allegations concerning Pakistan, India, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.
I draw particular attention to the evidence and testimony given to our inquiry concerning Eritrea by Martin Plaut, the accomplished former BBC journalist, author and academic. The UN special rapporteur on Eritrea told the inquiry that those who refuse to contribute a tax that is levied on the diaspora are
“considered government opponents and face harassment, intimidation and ultimately social isolation”.
I welcome an update on what the Government are doing about this.
In the last few days, I have received additional disturbing depositions, one of which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will refer to in her remarks. I received evidence also about a Burmese artist who has been targeted, and I will send the depositions to the Minister, because they are outside the scope of the inquiry.
Let me end. With our national security interests and way of life threatened on a scale unparalleled since the 1930s and 1940s, democracies must act together in strong alliances to combat multipolar threats to our way of life. We are fools to take for granted our privileges and freedoms, including the right to think, to speak and to believe—even to live. All over the world, the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are under concerted attack. We have been far too complacent and dependent on the states which threaten us, and insufficiently focused on resilience. Transnational repression is a harbinger of far worse to come.
Our committee concluded that transnational repression risks undermining the UK’s ability to protect people who have sought safety within our borders, such as the witnesses to whom I have referred. But we also found that a failure to deal robustly with TNR and the malign activities of hostile states will also increasingly put the UK’s indigenous population at risk today. Debates such as this will bring the JCHR report to a wider audience and I hope that noble Lords who have participated—and I am grateful to them all—will circulate its findings far and wide. I beg to move.
Lord Isaac (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his warm welcome and for introducing this important debate: one that is fundamental to protecting freedoms and human rights in this country, and one that I believe highlights the important work of his committee. I rise for my maiden speech with a real sense of responsibility and duty that comes from joining this august body.
I begin by thanking Black Rod, Garter, the Clerk, the doorkeepers and all the staff of this House for the kindness that they have shown me since joining. I thank noble Lords from every side for the very warm welcome without exception they have given to me. I especially thank my supporters, my noble friends Lady Royall and Lord Collins, for their encouragement, wisdom and support, as well as my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, an alumnus of my college in Oxford and someone who has been a great supporter and friend of my work, in and beyond Oxford.
I grew up in a small village called Llanfoist, outside Abergavenny in South Wales, where many of my family for many generations had lived. I attended the village primary school and I went on to the local secondary school, where I was privileged to receive an excellent state education—something that we Welsh are rightly proud of and that should be the right of every child, not a privilege. That education enabled me to go to Cambridge, the first member of my family to go to university, and ultimately to establish a successful career as a lawyer in the City. Education transformed my life and life chances. It gave me important skills, it widened my horizons and it taught me about the importance of music, art and culture and how they enhance the world.
My commitment to education has led me to the most recent phase of my career as provost of Worcester College, Oxford, and chair of the University of the Arts in London. These roles have enabled me to give something back to current students, but they have also given me an opportunity to argue for a number of things, such as improved funding for students and universities, the need to continue to support initiatives to widen participation and, last but not least, the importance of creative education. Let us not forget that the creative industries contributed £125 billion to the UK economy in 2022. Improved support for students and educational institutions, including creative educational institutions, is, in my view, essential if this country and future generations are to flourish.
I am very conscious that this debate is about transnational repression of freedoms and human rights. Human rights have played a key role in my life. I grew up in the 1980s during the AIDS pandemic and later lived through the chilling effect of Section 28. Working with others, I realised that we could use our legal and advocacy skills to work to end discrimination against the gay community in this country. Progress in delivering legal and cultural change has succeeded in no small part because of our focus on human rights. Later, as the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, it was a privilege not only to lead a national organisation committed to promoting equality and human rights, but to work with international organisations promoting greater understanding, particularly in countries where human rights are not yet as well embedded in law as they are in the UK.
At the same time as protecting the rights of our own citizens, and, dare I say, resisting culture-war attacks on the very notion of human rights, we must stop foreign state-directed crimes against individuals deemed by their Governments to be a security threat. The noble Lord has provided ample evidence of those threats. I am particularly grateful to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hanson, for meeting me to discuss his department’s response to this important report. I thank him for his work, which I am confident is in line with the ambitions of the JCHR report. The freedoms and human rights of journalists, lawyers and political opponents in this country are, as we have heard, being undermined. I also know that anxieties about such threats can and do have a chilling effect in our universities. We must work hard to ensure that human rights and freedom of speech are protected in our universities more generally. It is for that reason that I am committed to support the work of the JCHR in this important area.
I should like to end by making it clear that it would have been beyond the imagination of my teenage self to think that today I would be a Member of this House. It is thanks to the support of my parents, and particularly to the confidence that my teachers had in me while I was growing up, that I hope to play a role in this Chamber in promoting not only human rights but the importance of education and culture.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, it is my duty and pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, to his place and congratulate him on an outstanding maiden speech. The rest of us will have to look to our laurels in the next few years, I suspect. The noble Lord, Lord Isaac, CBE, is, as noble Lords have heard, provost of Worcester College, Oxford, and chair of the governors of the University of the Arts London and of the Henry Moore Foundation. Throughout his career, he has consistently been involved in the arts, education and human rights; we heard some of that a few minutes ago. He is also a former chair, as we have heard, of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, of Stonewall and of Modern Art Oxford.
On a personal note, I thank the noble Lord for the delivery of the report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. He was not chair when the report was delivered but he oversaw and initiated it. That, for me, was a major turning point in Labour Party history and probably more widely in British political history. He was also a trustee of Cumberland Lodge, and a director of the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, of the Human Dignity Trust, of the Big Lottery Fund and of 14-18 NOW. He was also for many years, as noble Lords have heard, a partner at Pinsent Masons and made a CBE in the 2011 Queen’s Birthday Honours List. I do not know where he found the time for all that, but there we are.
I turn to the debate. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has an exemplary track record on issues of human rights around the world, and to the JCHR and the report that it has produced, which clearly demonstrates that a lot of regimes are using physical and digital means to target individuals across borders. The key passage from the report, from my point of view, states that testimonies point to a continuing gap between policy commitments and lived experience, including delayed police responses, subpar case management and persistent intimidation faced by diaspora communities. That is very clear about where we are. The report points to a number of countries but, in the short time I have, I will focus on two, China and Iran, which both use force against expats—we have heard a lot about that from the noble Lord, Lord Alton—and at times against British citizens.
The recent events in Iran should not need any repetition but, unfortunately, they do. We have seen, night after night, the persecution during the recent demonstrations by Iranian citizens. The recent crackdown probably involved the murder of 36,000 Iranian citizens. The figure is likely much higher than that, but that figure can be readily attributable to the Iranian regime. Agents of the Iranian state, as we have heard, have attacked peaceful demonstrators in central London on a number of occasions. I welcome the fact that the Government—I have engaged in Questions with my noble friend the Minister about this—have recently introduced new criminal charges that have been put on to the statute book, whereby if you have undeclared links to the Tehran regime, you can be prosecuted. That was not the case before and is to be welcomed.
However, as has been mentioned many times, the IRGC—the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—remains unproscribed. Individuals may be prosecuted and they have been proscribed, but we have failed to proscribe it as a collective unit. We are talking about an enormous organisation that employs some 140,000 to 150,000 people globally and uses proxies in many countries, including in this country and across Europe. In the other place and here, I have seen Ministers—from both Governments—come to the Dispatch Box who are clearly sympathetic to proscribing the IRGC, then it does not happen. That points to a culture at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that clearly militates against proscribing the IRGC.
That brings me on to China, which I also want to focus on. We all read regularly and see the reports about the persecution of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province. That is well known. I remind your Lordships and those who may not have been aware of it at the time that, extraordinarily—it sounds like a work of fiction—three or four years ago, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials invited the governor of Xinjiang province, the butcher of Xinjiang, to a meeting in London. The reason why that the meeting did not happen is that my former parliamentary neighbour found out about it and tabled a UQ.
I see that I have run out of time, so I will quickly mention a couple of points. We need to stop the construction of the embassy; that permission has to be revoked. We need to see the proscription of the IRGC. Finally and more widely, we need to see greater capacity in Britain’s military abilities, because the best protection against war is preparing for it.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it was a delight to listen to the noble Lord, and a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, give his maiden speech. Some of us may have been sceptical about the achievements of some new Peers in their past local government or party-political careers, but today we have a new Peer who has done things and achieved a tremendous lot, as a provost of Worcester College and as the chair of Stonewall and of the EHRC. I read that he was concerned a few years ago about interference in the work of the commission by Boris Johnson, so I hope he will express concern that the current Government are also messing around with the commission’s report on implementing the Supreme Court decision. However, he is a very able man and a great addition to this House, and we look forward to hearing from him. Having been so nice about his new noble friend, I hope that the Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, will allow me an extra 30 seconds.
Once again, I congratulate my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on yet another frightening masterpiece. The United Kingdom must confront a stark reality: transnational repression is not an abstract threat but a deliberate, systematic campaign by authoritarian states to silence dissent, intimidate communities, and export coercion into our streets and institutions. The main threat comes from China once again.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that transnational repression
“risks undermining the UK’s ability to protect the human rights of its citizens and those who have sought safety within its borders”.
We have seen the tactics these oppressive states use: surveillance, online harassment, threats to family members abroad, the operation of unofficial police outposts, bounties on activists, misuse of international law enforcement tools and even attempts to enforce foreign judgments in our own courts. Beijing has deliberately built an extraterritorial legal architecture—a long-arm jurisdiction that is being used to suppress free speech, coerce return, and weaponise ordinary legal and commercial processes against exiles and critics.
Let me be plain: this is an assault on the rule of law in our United Kingdom. When foreign states use bogus Interpol red notices as political instruments, seek to enforce civil judgments abroad to punish dissidents, or cultivate networks that monitor and intimidate diaspora communities on our soil, they are attacking the fundamental freedoms that it is our duty to protect.
The UK’s response under all Governments has been feeble. We have failed to use the National Security Act, the foreign influence registration scheme or sanctions regimes with the urgency, coherence and transparency that this threat demands. Worse still, we have put trade and access to cheap Chinese goods ahead of the defence of the freedoms of our people. China is a real threat to our fundamental freedoms and way of life, yet our Governments call it a strategic partner and we kowtow to it. That must change. I therefore propose five immediate, practical steps out of the 37 recommendations in the report that we should adopt without delay.
First, we should adopt a formal UK definition of transnational repression and mandate routine data collection across police forces and relevant agencies so that we can measure scale, patterns and perpetrators. Secondly, we should designate China under the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme where objective threat assessments support it, and publish clear guidance on how FIRS data will be used to investigate TNR. Thirdly, we should create a dedicated national TNR reporting and support hotline—one that is multilingual and staffed by trained specialists—and require anonymised data from that service to feed threat analysis. Fourthly, we should reform judicial comity and foreign judgment enforcement rules so that our courts do not blindly accept that Chinese courts have similar integrity to ours. They do not, as we have seen in the appalling case of Jimmy Lai. Fifthly, we should lead an international push to reform Interpol procedures, working with Five Eyes, the G7 and other like-minded partners to stop the abuse of red notices being used to punish political critics.
These are essential measures to defend our citizens, our institutions and the open society that we cherish. The United Kingdom is a refuge for those fleeing persecution. If we allow foreign states to turn our streets, campuses and courts into extensions of their coercive apparatus, we betray that duty. Let us act now—decisively, coherently and in concert with our allies—to protect those who look to Britain for safety and to defend the rule of law at home and abroad.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, on his maiden contribution.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate and highlighting the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on transnational repression. For the purpose of declaring my interest, I should mention that I was a member of that committee when this unanimous report was produced. It has been a great delight to work under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He has been responsible for highlighting human rights issues in your Lordships’ Chamber on frequent occasions, and this report is no exception. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his contribution.
Today, we live in an uncertain world. A few years ago, we would not have heard the phrase “transnational repression”. It still requires a great deal of explanation in many parts of the world as to what meaning we attach to it. I am pleased that clarity on a common definition now exists. This leave us in doubt where the civilised world stands. But we need to ensure that the FCDO and other agencies are involved in educating the rest of the world about transnational repression. This will not happen unless a common definition is agreed. Can the Minister give some indication of when this is likely to happen? Regrettably, this recommendation has not been accepted by the Government.
I said earlier in my speech that we live in an uncertain world. Human rights are frequently in confrontation with authorities and Governments. Acts or threats against individual groups and communities across territorial borders are carried out by Governments or their proxies. This violates human rights. The examples that are cited include Hong Kong, China, Iran and some countries in the Horn of Africa. Many of these are anonymised in the report to protect their identities, for obvious reasons.
I shall ignore China and Hong Kong and instead concentrate on Iran, because my time is fairly limited. The principal Iranian actors are the Supreme Leader and senior regime leadership, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and diplomatic missions and proxies. Hundreds of people have been killed simply to protect regime survival, fragment the opposition, prevent unity and prevent any form of independent, organised resistance through intimidation, infiltration, smear campaigns and manipulations. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Iran concluded that Iran poses a wide-ranging threat to UK national security which should not be underestimated, as it is
“persistent and—crucially—unpredictable”.
Since 2022, there has been a sharp rise in physical attacks, kidnappings and assassination attempts. The report further stressed that our security services and police have stopped at least 15 murder or kidnap arrests against British nationals.
In conclusion, we must introduce immediate legislation to proscribe the IRGC as a terror organisation and to constrain its transnational repression. We should expel identified diplomats linked to the IRGC where evidence of abusive and illegal activities exists. We should strengthen our investigatory and prosecution capacity, funding specialist policing and legal resources to identify, investigate and prosecute individuals and networks facilitating transnational repression. This is the best outcome of this report.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, on his maiden speech. I think we all remember what a daunting prospect that was, so many congratulations to him. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on securing this debate and introducing it, as he always does, with compelling evidence, incisive analysis, practical recommendations, and his typical passion and principle. I congratulate the JCHR, which the noble Lord chairs, on producing this powerful report on transnational repression in the United Kingdom, the subject we are talking about.
It is a very real threat. Hong Kong exiles who have quite rightly been welcomed into the United Kingdom now feel afraid that they are being watched by the Chinese Communist Party from which they fled. Several have received arrest warrants from the Hong Kong authorities, accompanied by bounties placed on their heads. Some, such as Carmen Lau, as reported in the media, have faced an appalling campaign of harassment, with anonymous letters sent to neighbours telling them to hand over Hong Kong activists to the Chinese embassy or report their whereabouts and activities to the Chinese embassy. In Carmen Lau’s case, it was even worse, involving sexually explicit images created by artificial intelligence, amounting to a campaign of sexual harassment. A young former Hong Kong district councillor who fled repression in Hong Kong in search of freedom in this country should not have to endure such obscene and grave abuse in the United Kingdom.
Of course, China is not the only perpetrator of transnational repression, though it is one of the most active and significant. Several Members of this House and the other place have been sanctioned by China and other regimes, and subject to various threats of harassment and espionage. Further, several British citizens, including the co-founder of Hong Kong Watch, Benedict Rogers, have faced sustained harassment as a result of their activism on human rights cases. In his case, for several years he received anonymous threatening letters at his home address. His neighbours in a London suburb received letters urging them to monitor him. Even his mother received letters, stamped and postmarked in Hong Kong, urging her to tell her son to shut up. He also received an official threat of a jail sentence from the Hong Kong Police Force if he did not cease his activism and advocacy for Hong Kong.
Transnational repression frequently targets dissidents living abroad, the family members of political prisoners and individuals who engage with the UN mechanism. Just last week, I was made aware of an example of a young Myanmar artist called Sai. He was trying to put on an exhibition in Bangkok of artists in exile from Hong Kong, Tibet, Iran, Russia and Syria, and Uyghur artists. The exhibition, which was scheduled to open for almost three months, was shut down by officials in Bangkok because of diplomatic pressure from the Chinese regime.
Finally, I want to talk about one of the most important aspects of the report: the foreign influence registration scheme, which was introduced under the National Security Act in 2023. The Joint Committee’s report welcomes the introduction of FIRS and the designation of Iran and Russia on the enhanced tier, and so do I. However, the report expresses concerns about the evidence it received regarding TNR by China, and therefore the absence of China from the enhanced tier. In concluding, can the Minister advise the House on whether TNR is a high priority consideration when deciding which countries should be specified under the enhanced tier of FIRS, and whether the Government will designate China on that enhanced tier in compliance with what the report has said?
Once again, I commend the noble Lord, his committee and this report, and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I want to start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Isaac on his excellent maiden speech, and particularly on what he had to say about education, creative industries and the arts.
I also want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and his committee members for their excellent report on this issue. It has had all too little attention. Indeed, many people probably have absolutely no idea what transnational repression actually means. In fact, the committee noted that there is no widely agreed definition, but that it amounts to
“certain foreign state-directed crimes against individuals”.
The best-known example is probably the Salisbury poisoning of the Skripals by agents of the Russian Government. Besides Russia, other countries which have been cited for intimidating and harassing—sometimes very violently—their subjects in the UK include Iran, China and Eritrea, all of which have been mentioned.
Also on the list, though less frequently cited, is Pakistan. I want to devote my speech largely to a current case concerning a Pakistani human rights lawyer who is living in exile in the UK. Shahzad Akbar was called to the Bar in the UK and subsequently had a distinguished career in Pakistan, working on human rights issues such as forced disappearances and the death penalty. He then became a Minister in Imran Khan’s Government and was responsible in particular for anti-corruption. When Khan was removed from office, Akbar fled to the UK in 2022, fearing what would happen to him if he stayed in Pakistan.
I am grateful to Reprieve for briefing me on the appalling attacks to which Akbar has been subjected since coming to this country. Unknown assailants have thrown acid at his face outside his home, assaulted him physically, and tried to set fire to his house, forcing him and his wife and children to go into hiding after gunshots were fired through the windows of his house. Counterterrorism police consider the attacks to be highly targeted and have arrested several people. It appears to be a recent example of a sophisticated plot to intimidate him and to assault him.
The response by the police is of course very welcome, but the committee report rightly contends that treating each case of this kind individually is not enough. Law enforcement can pursue the perpetrators, but what is needed is a commitment to address the behaviour of foreign Governments who are determined to destroy opposition to them by truly vicious means, and who are certainly denying those targeted their right to freedom of expression.
In the specific case of Shahzad Akbar, first, can the Minister tell the House what action the Government have taken to put pressure on the Pakistani Government? Does he agree that addressing the root causes in a political and diplomatic response is needed in cases of this kind? Secondly, what reassurance is Mr Akbar being given from a senior level in the Government that his safety is a matter of concern and that everything possible will be done to protect him and his family?
A number of dissident communities are at high risk of transnational repression, such as the critics of the Iranian regime, as has been mentioned by other speakers. They have escaped from the likelihood of imprisonment without trial in Iran, but can the Minister elaborate on what special measures have been taken to protect them?
When the Minister replies, I hope he will be able to give a positive response on a number of the issues the committee report identified, including better data collection, the co-ordination of interagency responses to TNR, and the possibility of specific sanctions against it. We need to address these questions to maintain our reputation as a country which does not tolerate the denial of free speech through violent intimidation.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the Joint Committee for this excellent and important report. It refers to concern about transnational oppression by China and Russia, as have many noble Lords in this debate—and you do not get much more extreme than attempted and actual assassination by Iran and other states. Speaking as the founding, now former, co-chair of the All-Party Group on Hong Kong, and having often spoken about concern for Hong Kong and other Chinese students at UK universities, these are very grave concerns.
Today, I am going to talk about another state—a rising threat. At the moment, most of this is in the form not of physical threat, obviously, but intimidation. We know that intimidation and physical threats are often closely linked, and that intimidation can have very serious effects on people’s lives.
I start with what is really a quite mild case, involving the head of a British public relations company about whom that state’s embassy—the official representatives of its Government—complained to the companies for which his firm worked. They complained not about the quality of his work or his representations but about private social media posts, which were critical, in very mild terms, of the leader of the state that the embassy represents. The individual has now left the company. It is called Hanover, and one of its key clients is the American Pharmaceutical Group. Yes, the state is the United States of America.
The Financial Times reports that the embassy refused to continue to support the US pharma firms unless the executive was fired. These, of course, are the same pharmaceutical companies which, with embassy help, have considerably raised the costs of drugs for our NHS.
Some might say that that is just the rough and tumble of capitalism, the unequal and all too often subsidiary position the UK finds itself in in relation to the US—“it is only that individual’s economic rights that are affected”. But, of course, what about his successor, and what about his and others’ free speech rights?
Let us look at the other end of the scale: the top of society. The US Vice-President JD Vance last year shocked Europe at the Munich security conference by attacking democratically agreed laws, debated in this very Chamber, to protect women’s healthcare rights. JD Vance suggested that the US might not live up to treaty obligations unless we changed our laws. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke about Chinese assault on the rule of law here; we are seeing an assault from the US on our rule of law.
This year, of course, the speech from Secretary of State Marco Rubio was much better received. The tone was much more conciliatory, but the content was no different. It attacked the obstructions of international law, the very human rights we are talking about, and suggested that this hamstrings future western colonialism. He asked—you might say demanded—that Europe join again with the US to expand with missionaries and soldiers to build vast empires extending across the globe, which is definitely not in line with human rights.
What does this mean practically? I spoke earlier today in the EU debate about the precautionary principle. Whether we are talking about Chinese technology or other forms of transnational repression, we might wish that we acted earlier. Perhaps we should apply the precautionary principle, particularly when it comes to US tech firms and their hold over our society and individuals, and to protecting not just British individuals or the US diaspora, but our whole rule of law and human rights, against a new threat of transnational repression.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I extend my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, on an excellent and very informative maiden speech. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Alton, as well as the members of the JCHR, on producing this excellent report and securing the debate. It will not come as a surprise to noble Lords that I support all the recommendations in this report.
The JCHR has articulated clearly the problems caused by TNR—a growing threat to democratic values, the rule of law and freedom of expression. Foreign policy decisions and international trade partnerships are often made without sufficient consideration of the TNR record of perpetrator states, which risks undermining the UK’s credibility as a leader on global human rights issues and emboldening these authoritarian regimes to escalate their TNR activities.
The JCHR has called for a definition of TNR, and we need it, but I think we recognise it—in state-directed cross-border actions to coerce, intimidate, conduct surveillance on, kidnap, prosecute or even assassinate critics, dissidents and diaspora opponents. All this, of course, is in the wider context of the torture, harassment, intimidation and even execution of diaspora family members who live in the country in question. Noble Lords have spoken of Russia and China. I want to speak briefly about Iran and the impact of its TNR activities in the UK.
The Supreme Leader, as he calls himself, Ayatollah Khamenei, the IRGC and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security in Iran are very active. They utilise the resources of diplomatic missions and embassies across the world. I give the example of the conviction of Asadollah Assadi, an Iranian diplomat who was convicted in Belgium in 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in prison for attempting to bomb a gathering of the Iranian opposition coalition, the NCRI, in support of a free Iran, which was held in Paris in 2018 and attended by Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place. They use various criminal methods and work assiduously to undermine any protest against the regime; they arrest and prosecute dual nationals on fabricated charges so they can leverage releases of regime operatives and convicted diplomats; and they have developed extensive and co-ordinated transnational repression.
Last July, the ISC issued a report which said that Iran poses a wide-ranging threat to UK national security that should not be underestimated and is persistent and, crucially, unpredictable. Since 2022, the previous major rising in Iran, there has been a sharp rise in physical attacks and kidnapping or assassination attempts. Our security services and police have stopped at least 15 murders or kidnapping attempts against British nationals or UK-based individuals since 2022. The threat to us has increased sharply, and there is now an acute national security and human rights concern.
The designation of Iran and Russia as countries on the advanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme is evidence of the threat posed by TNR originating from these countries. Anyone working for or directed by the Iranian state is at peril if they carry out such activities without compliance. The JCHR has recognised the need to support efforts to elevate TNR as a priority on the UN agenda, to promote co-ordinated international action against its use by authoritarian regimes and to ensure information and data sharing on TNR with like-minded countries in fora such as the Council of Europe, Interpol, the G7 Rapid Response Mechanism, the OSCE and the UN.
In January, the people of Iran rose up. We know that tens of thousands of them have been killed, including women and children. We should use the powers which are available to us. We should close the Iranian embassy in London, where there is evidence of, for example, co-ordinated attempts to silence Iranian dissidents. We should work with allied states to condemn Iranian state threats. I do not know, as other noble Lords have said, why we are allowing China to build this embassy in our country. This should not happen. We should adopt a more positive approach to sanctions, perhaps particularly against Members of your Lordships’ House. We have heard, and I have read, the Government’s response to the report and I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell us how long it will be before the IRGC is proscribed.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, to your Lordships’ House and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on his comprehensive and informative opening speech and the excellent report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights under his chairmanship. It is fair to say that, on these sorts of issues, he stands head and shoulders above the rest of us, and I thoroughly congratulate him. The committee obviously knew what it was doing when it appointed him as chairman. I cannot think of anybody better, and that is no reflection on others.
As the noble Lord and the Joint Committee’s report have made clear, transnational repression is about many other state actors besides China, notably Russia, Iran and North Korea, but also Pakistan, India, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. Some of these present recognised threats to our security and geopolitical challenges, while others are among the countries we may consider important trading partners and, at times, strategic allies. Nevertheless, as the JCHR states:
“China conducts the most comprehensive TNR campaign of any foreign state operating in the UK”.
This is consistent with the finding of the Intelligence and Security Committee report in 2023 that China had penetrated “every sector” of the United Kingdom and poses a “whole of state” challenge.
Given the findings of these two important reports, three years apart, can the Minister explain to your Lordships’ House how His Majesty’s Government’s new rapprochement with China addresses these concerns? What priority did the Prime Minister place on addressing China’s transnational repression, influence and espionage campaigns in the UK in his discussions during his recent visit to China? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that China’s new recently approved mega-embassy—if it goes ahead, as it is now subject to judicial review—will not serve as a hub for transnational repression and espionage as many of us fear it will?
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to evidence provided by Hong Kong activist Chloe Cheung, examples of transnational repression faced by other Hong Kongers now in exile in the UK, such as Carmen Lau, and the effects this has had on their safety and mental and physical well-being, and the threats made to Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC, head of Jimmy Lai’s international legal team. I am also aware of threats made to British citizens such as Benedict Rogers, co-founder of Hong Kong Watch, who has faced numerous anonymous threatening letters to himself, his neighbours and his mother, been named more than 95 times in the trial of Jimmy Lai and received threats of a prison sentence. Similarly, Luke de Pulford, co-founder of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, has been the target of such threats.
When Hong Kongers who have fled Hong Kong to escape repression and sought refuge in the United Kingdom in the expectation of freedom and security are pursued by the long arms of the Chinese Communist Party, and when the tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party reach into the letterboxes and email inboxes of British citizens who happen to be its critics, what are His Majesty’s Government doing in response? What are the Government, who have a duty to protect their citizens and keep us safe, doing to ensure the safety of our citizens and those whom we have rightly welcomed into this country as a pathway towards citizenship? Is there a dedicated police hotline? What efforts are the police and our intelligence agencies making to brief and advise those who are being threatened? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the JCHR for this very important report, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for moving it.
The Government recognised in their response to the report that not only can transnational repression
“undermine an individual’s ability to exercise their freedoms and human rights”,
but that
“it is also a matter of national sovereignty and national security”.
But there seems to be an insufficient follow-through from these conclusions. Although the Government say they cannot publish their Defending Democracy review, they say that the review found that the UK had a
“hard operating environment for states wishing to conduct transnational repression”,
and that the UK had
“robust tools and system-wide safeguards”.
The JCHR begs to differ, finding that the UK currently lacks a clear strategy to address it, with no clear definition of transnational repression, as we have heard, and a failure to routinely collect data on the issue.
Hong Kong Watch advises:
“Hong Kong activists have highlighted concerns that UK police officers see harassment, disruptions and verbal abuses by Chinese individuals against the Hong Kong diaspora as internal conflicts between groups with differing political views. One activist stated he felt this framing helped the police depoliticise TNR, omitting the role of foreign Governments in pursuing activists and thus avoiding highly sensitive aspects of UK diplomacy and national security”.
We want the Government to show that that charge is not true.
It is a mystery to me why the Government resist a definition of TNR in favour of a description. The Tackling Transnational Repression in the UK Working Group, a coalition of 60 individuals and organisations, has produced what seems to me to be a good definition:
“Acts or threats against individuals, groups and communities across territorial borders carried out by Governments or their proxies, which violate human rights and/or intimidate, control, coerce or silence dissent”.
It seems to me that it is impossible to have an effective policy and operational response from the Government and police to something that is undefined. Therefore, it seems fair to claim that there is an unresolved protection gap between policy commitments and lived experience, and that the UK response is fragmented and difficult to access.
For instance, a dedicated reporting line is something the JCHR asked for. The Government consider this would be
“duplicative and potentially cause confusion”,
which I do not really understand. This seems to me to have slight echoes of the experience of and complaints from victims of domestic abuse and sexual crimes in this sector.
In particular, the committee—understandably—wants China to be specified on the enhanced tier of the scheme. The Government’s response was, “We will not rush this decision”. As has been widely referred to, there is also the lack of proscription of the IRGC. Lastly, I ask the Minister: what are the Government doing at Interpol to stop the abuse of Interpol red notices? This is of course a cause that Bill Browder—Sir William Browder—has long taken up, after the case of Sergei Magnitsky. The other tool of pressure and silencing that the committee mentions is SLAPPs, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, also mentioned. What are the Government doing on all these matters?
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. In the short time we have, I will take up and apply what she has been saying in relation to one country and one subject. The country is China and the subject is our universities.
I know Chloe Cheung, for example, and these individual cases are appalling, of course. However, they are described as TNR “events”, and I think what is underrated by the Government is the systemic quality of all of this. It is not just one or two, or even several, horrible events: it is working right through the system. Above all, in this country, it is working right through our universities because of the whole-of-state approach that China has to its engagement with this country and other foreign countries.
The problem arises here partly because our universities are so incredibly dependent on Chinese money for their survival and are therefore uncritical of the terms on which they receive that money. Recent figures obtained by UK-China Transparency show that, in Russell group universities, Chinese postgraduate students in STEM subjects now outnumber British postgraduates. Our universities are a very rich ground for CCP intervention. Chinese and now Hong Kong students are incentivised to report dissident fellow students. Those who report the dissidents are rewarded with a leg-up in their educational careers. In the past five years, 260 Chinese students in this country have applied for asylum because of the problems they faced in this way. I would be very pleased to be corrected if I am wrong, but I have seen no admission of this problem by any vice-chancellor in this country, and that, it seems to me, amounts to complicity.
I will quote a recent article in Times Higher Education by Dr Michael Spence, the provost and president of UCL, where more than 10,000 China nationals are studying. He spoke of the idea that Chinese students might be persecuted in the way that I have described, but, in his view, it is only an idea rather than a reality. He went on to say:
“Ironically, the experience of many of our Chinese students is that anti-China sentiment in the UK has an impact on their ability to speak freely about the positives they see in their country and its culture”.
Well, I think that Dr Spence is setting up an utterly false moral equivalence. It may be true that people here criticise some Chinese attitudes, but they do not threaten them with arrest by national security police and imprisonment back home, or with financial penalties being inflicted on their families. That is what China does to the students that it disparages. I am sorry, I should have said earlier that I should like to join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, particularly in this context, because he of course has great experience of universities.
In the article, Dr Spence said his university was
“stamping out a culture of fear”.
I am sorry to say that I think that is almost the reverse of what is going on, and this will continue unless it is, as people now say, “called out”. This is where I beg the Government to give a lead, particularly in light of this report. It is very important that the report’s recommendation of raising China to the enhanced tier happens. However, I am not very optimistic about this, because I have noticed that, with the Government’s mantra of “challenge, compete and co-operate”, the power of money constantly means that the idea of co-operating is always preferred to the idea of challenge.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of the Free Speech Union. I praise the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the Joint Committee for producing this report and the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, for his brilliant maiden speech. As he knows, I am a big fan because of the work that he has done to promote free speech at the University of Oxford.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned the case of Laura Murphy at Sheffield Hallam University, so I will not dwell on that one. Instead, I will draw your Lordships’ attention to the case of Michelle Shipworth, an associate professor in social sciences at UCL. She was stopped from teaching her long-running data detectives module in 2024 after a Chinese student in her class complained about her use of data about China and its treatment of the Uyghurs from the Global Slavery Index in her module. She wrote in Times Higher Education recently:
“The department made a decision to protect what it saw as a risk to its income owing to potential reputational damage from the student complaint, and the core content teaching how to critically evaluate factual claims and secondary data was removed”.
There is an obvious remedy to these instances of what, on the face of it, looks like transnational repression in Britain’s universities: commence Sections 8 and 9 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. Section 9 would create a complaints scheme to enable academics and visiting speakers to complain to the Office for Students if they feel that their right to free speech and their academic freedom have been breached, including by repressive foreign states or at their behest.
The Government have said they want to amend the complaints scheme to exclude students and are waiting for a suitable legislative vehicle they can attach an amendment to containing a revised scheme. But, as I pointed out in this House earlier this week, there is no constitutional reason why this section cannot be partially commenced via a statutory instrument, excluding students from having access to the scheme, even if that is just a stopgap before a scheme meeting all of the Secretary of State’s concerns can be introduced via primary legislation.
We need to introduce a cost-free way for academics to defend themselves, other than by taking ruinously expensive legal action, if their speech rights are breached, including by university leaders worried about jeopardising their income from repressive foreign states. We owe it to Laura Murphy and Michelle Shipworth—and countless others—to introduce this scheme.
Section 8 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act should also be commenced without delay. It would require the Office for Students to monitor higher education providers and students’ unions to assess the extent to which overseas funding presents a risk to free speech and would impose a mandatory reporting requirement for providers to disclose information on foreign funding above a certain amount. The Minister will say that the Government have now created an academic interference reporting route for senior university leaders to pass on concerns about foreign interference to the security services. But while this is a step in the right direction, it is insufficient—and, incidentally, it could be improved by allowing academics to use this route, not just senior university leaders.
As Michelle Shipworth pointed out in her Times Higher Education article, this route is reliant on self-reporting, and senior university leaders may not be aware of inappropriate foreign influence in their institutions. Michael Spence, the president and provost of UCL, is a case in point, as the noble Lord, Lord Moore, just pointed out. Even if they are aware of it, they may be conflicted about reporting it. Under Section 8, all significant foreign income would have to be declared and it would then be the Office for Students’ job to monitor whether that funding came with strings attached.
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act was voted for by a majority of both Houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent in 2023. For how much longer does the Education Secretary intend to delay activating these clauses? We know there is a problem with transnational repression in our universities, and the Government have the remedy at hand. When are they going to put it in place?
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, it was a privilege to be present to listen to my noble friend’s wonderful maiden speech.
This is a brilliant and long overdue report. The committee said it had received
“credible evidence that a number of states have engaged in acts of transnational repression on UK soil”.
The report also says that
“the UK currently lacks a clear strategy to address TNR. There is no formal definition … and the Government does not routinely collect data on TNR events … Police officers often lack the training necessary to respond effectively to TNR, resulting in inconsistent and ineffective support for TNR victims”.
The Government’s response is clear. They say that the Select Committee’s recommendations are “constructive”, they recognise
“TNR as a term to describe certain foreign state-directed crimes against individuals”,
and they note:
“Efforts are underway to … improve data”.
I will therefore use my short contribution to ask the Government to conduct a cold case review of a group of alleged TNR crimes against individuals. I raised this group in the debate on the Queen’s Speech in June 2017, which can be found in Hansard in cols. 399-401 and was reported on in the BuzzFeed.com Reports section in the same month.
It involves more than a dozen suspicious “non-suspicious” deaths in the UK. According to the reports, the then Government declined to comment on any of the deaths due to national security concerns. Nine of the deaths relate to one circle of people. Police declared them “non-suspicious”, but MI6 asked its US counterparts for information about each of them. Eleven of the deaths occurred after the murder of Mr Litvinenko, which we knew from Sir Robert Owen’s report 10 years after his death in 2016. Some were UK public sector employees, about one of whom I had correspondence with the Government after the debate.
These deaths were claimed to be out of scope of local police. One named senior counterterrorism officer claimed they were “brazen” Russian assassinations in Britain
“right out in the daylight”.
I regret that claims were made that the UK failed to get a grip, partly due to the desire to preserve the flow of Russian money into banks and properties in London. I do not propose to go into detail, but I will do as I did at col. 400 on 27 June 2017 and list the names of the people whose deaths were the focus of the reports and the year they occurred: Scot Young, 2014; Boris Berezovsky, 2013; Badri Patarkatsishvili, 2008; Yuri Golubev, 2007; Stephen Moss, 2003; Stephen Curtis, 2004; Paul Castle, 2010; Robert Curtis, 2012; Johnny Elichaoff, 2014; Alexander Litvinenko, 2006—although that was found to be murder; Matthew Puncher, May 2016; Igor Ponomarev, October 2006; Daniel McGrory, 2007; Gareth Williams, 2010; and Alexander Perepilichnyy, 2012.
I have not contacted anyone about this issue that I have raised in the past, so I apologise if there is any distress caused after so long a time. However, we now can have a cold case review of these deaths, especially in the light of the UK Government now taking transnational repression seriously. I think this is long overdue.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of human rights at Liberal International. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. His focus on querying suspicious non-suspicious deaths over the past nine years is very serious and, from these Benches, we echo his concern and call for a cold cases review.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, on his maiden speech. It was imbued with his love of learning and of the creative arts and his passion for people in his role of chair of the EHRC as well. For our debate today, that passion in fighting for the rights of everyone was evident. From these Benches, we welcome him and look forward to his future contributions.
This report highlights in detail how this country responds to attacks on foreign nationals—and, indeed, some of our own nationals—on our soil by other Governments and repressive regimes. From these Benches, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and his committee for this excellent piece of work. I also echo my noble friend Lord Dholakia’s comments about the extensive work on human rights done by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, beyond this committee, over many years.
There is no doubt that transnational repression can be difficult to identify and manage; the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, shows exactly that. The report clearly sets out these difficulties, as we have heard in the debate: whether it is having a clear definition that makes it obvious when someone needs assistance; whether the existing law is sufficient to enable our police and intelligence agencies to assist them; and, very importantly, whether the current practical arrangements are actually working. The example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, of TNR on a senior Pakistani lawyer was particularly apt here.
As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, highlighted, the report also covers the very difficult issue of strategic lawsuits against public participation—SLAPPs—and Interpol’s notice and diffusion mechanisms and how they can be exploited through the use of either lawfare or red notices, which were, the report says,
“the sniper rifle of autocrats … long-distance, targeted, and highly effective”.
The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Cryer, emphasised the TNR on Iranian dissidents at home or abroad. The numbers are very worrying. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, reminded us that sometimes our friends, such as the USA, can also behave in a very unacceptable manner. I thank Amnesty International, the Stop Uyghur Genocide campaign and other organisations, as well as the individuals who have been targets of transnational oppression and who told me their personal accounts when I was at the UN Watch annual Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy last week.
The Government’s response to this report goes some way to accepting the issues raised by it. However, it is a shame that it does not go further, and I will use my time to query some of that in the light of the evidence taken by the committee, as well as of the contributions during this debate. Like others, I will not identify individuals. This matter is so serious that we should not put anyone at risk through this debate, and I know that the committee took equal care with people who felt they could not be named.
Although this report focuses on TNR in the UK, we know that it happens beyond our borders too, and that comparison may be helpful for us. In the Netherlands last year, Dutch society was shocked when a Dutch Uyghur was assaulted inside a city hall—a blatant attack in a democratic space. That is chilling. A correspondent noted:
“As a Uyghur activist based in the UK, I have personally experienced this pressure. Chinese police have contacted members of the Uyghur community and demanded that they report on my activities. I have had no contact with my family for nine years as a direct result of transnational repression. My relatives have been subjected to intimidation and coercion, and forced to publicly condemn me in order to safeguard themselves from reprisals. This is the human cost of speaking out”.
We know that this is true for other targets of the Chinese authorities. Hong Kong Watch reports concerns that people have moved home or, in the case of one family I heard of a couple of years ago, have had to change their names. The psychological effects of this were emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow.
The problem with TNR is that we too often think of appalling extreme events, such as the Salisbury poisoning that targeted the Skripal family but killed civilians as well. Much more is insidious and affects families back in the home country as well. I spoke recently to an Afghani who fled after the Taliban re-established their power. The TNR that this person experienced in the UK came from a number of asylum seekers who also fled Afghanistan. The individual said that they saw two types. There were those, mentioned by other speakers, who were blackmailed and pressured to bully and coerce individuals to protect their families who were still in Afghanistan, but, more worryingly, they noted that it was evident that some people clearly had sympathy with those in power, even though they claimed to have fled them. They said that this particular type of TNR is very worrying because those people had asylum-seeking status.
I also talked to Chloe Cheung in Geneva, who gave evidence to the committee last week; like with that evidence to the committee, I found her personal testimony moving. We need to ensure that China’s actions are condemned and it should be added to the enhanced tier list.
I talked last week to a victim of TNR who is currently living in Europe. The support they get from the police in their new country is impressive, including armed police supporting them when intelligence suggests that is necessary or when they may be in a vulnerable environment. But when they came to visit the UK they not only lost the support and intelligence of the experts in their country but found it very difficult to get support from day one because they were not based in the UK, even though they were still severely under threat. Will the Minister say what should happen when someone currently receiving support and protection in a country that we would regard as a friend is invited here, particularly for events, but is not entitled to the same level of support and protection in the UK as they get in their new base?
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, reminded us that TNR changes as technology develops. The use of AI is a real threat. Will the Minister say whether those investigating TNR across agencies are supported by cyber security experts? The tackling TNR in the UK working group, co-ordinated by Amnesty, points out that we should work closely with our Five Eyes allies to tackle the misuse of red notices, but I also wonder whether we share our experiences with them and European colleagues so that we can all learn to manage TNR better.
In order to do that, we need to collect good data. The police are the obvious body for this. But it is also clear, from talking to those on the receiving end of TNR, that it is the other agencies involved—local government, the FCDO and so forth—from which broader data should be collected, certainly by the police. The noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, was right to highlight the problems of the reliance that our universities have on Chinese students. Our Australian colleagues have long battled with this subversive influence attempting to silence higher education institutions. The illustration made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, regarding Chinese students in the UK trying to pressure HEIs not to criticise China, is also chilling.
Not much has been mentioned today about the Vietnam Government, but they have become habitual users of TNR for their opponents, both in-country and abroad. There are many familiar techniques: they have a particular habit of abducting their people when in other countries, whether in Berlin, or Bangkok, and getting them back into Vietnam. There is pressure on the diaspora and indirect discrimination, as we have heard about. There is certainly a risk of abuse of Interpol red notices. But there are other subtle mechanisms as well, such as using business techniques to try to scare these people out of country, and we need to be aware of that too. I am not sure that the police always pick this up.
As many others have said, will the Government reconsider the adoption of a definition of TNR? My noble friend Lady Ludford and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, have said that this is important, and they are right. Will the Government review that? Will the Government also undertake a review of the effectiveness of managing TNR cases in the UK? Will the Government include a comparison with some of the other nations managing TNR, as I mentioned earlier. Will they also undertake to set up a dedicated hotline within 12 months? Last week, I heard of one person who had need to call 999 in an emergency, and the call centre staff member said that they did not know what TNR was, and was therefore unwilling to pass them on to somebody with more knowledge. That was very frightening, as there was nowhere for them to turn to. As I end my contribution, I think of people in that sort of position.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, first I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, on his excellent maiden speech. I note that he was a partner at a top law firm that was established in 1769, so he will fit seamlessly into your Lordships’ House, which is another amazing place to work, having also been around for many centuries. As my noble friend Lord Blencathra so eloquently put it, the CV of the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, is so extensive that I could keep going for quite some time. I would like to focus, however, on just one further item. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, is the first provost of Worcester College to keep bees, and has been known to sell his honey in college, so perhaps he might consider selling a jar to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
Moving on to the report in front of us, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and those on the committee, such as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for their thorough and forensic work, which has resulted in the excellent report and debate today. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition would also like to pay tribute to all those who had the tenacity and strength of character to give evidence to the committee, despite the potential personal risk that they were taking in doing so. Through their voice, others will, hopefully, be spared the suffering of transnational repression here in the UK.
The security of our nation is clearly the first duty of government. It is a pivotal priority for any Administration that aim to foster a high-trust society where people are and, more importantly, feel free—that is, they are free to speak openly, free to debate and free to challenge constructively. Transnational repression has a chilling effect on those very freedoms. It is neither fair nor reasonable that individuals living in the UK are unable to speak out and bring to the fore perceived abuses perpetrated by foreign states, both internationally and here on our home soil.
The Government’s own National Security Strategy 2025 concluded:
“Hostile activity on British soil from countries like Russia and Iran is increasing, threatening our people, critical national infrastructure and prosperity”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, the committee found that
“In the last year, the number of state-threat investigations run by MI5 jumped by 48%”,
with that agency dealing with more than 20 threat-to-life cases relating to just Iran since the start of 2022. This repression is not limited to just those countries. As we have heard, Egypt, Eritrea, Rwanda and others feature in the committee’s report.
In that same national security strategy, Ministers recognised the vital importance of diplomacy in approaching the threat posed by China, and they are entirely correct. So as a starting point, we would be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, would confirm that his Government will action at pace an appropriate diplomatic conversation with senior counterparts from every country on the committee’s list, and update your Lordships’ House on what is being done and when.
Many noble Lords have made specific reference to Iran. In the same vein, we would appreciate a blow-by-blow account of the steps Ministers are taking to address the committee’s finding that:
“Iran represents one of the highest kidnap and assassination state threats to the UK”.
Surely, that is a line that must never be crossed.
Regarding evidence calling for a formal definition of transnational repression, in line with the Council of Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, is the noble Lord the Minister in a position to explain why Ministers have resisted calls to issue such a formal definition? What is the logic behind that decision? Does he not agree with all noble Lords, I am sure, on what my noble friend Lord Blencathra said: that a definition might improve our data on transnational repression? If he does not agree, perhaps he could provide colour on why the Government believe that data and monitoring of transnational repression can be improved without a further change to the way the Government describe the act. On the specific recommendation that new offences in respect of transnational repression may be required in future, is it not a sensible idea that Ministers keep existing offences under review and respond to emerging threats in the way the committee suggests?
Turning to China, the statistics do not lie, and I am afraid to say that the Government have failed to deliver the growth they promised 18 months ago. One just needs to look at the market-standard benchmark of GDP per capita, a measure often highlighted quite correctly by my noble friend Lord Hintze. The Prime Minister’s recent trip to China was a sensibly cautious yet tangible reset of UK-China economic ties. However, in line with the calls to action from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Moore of Etchingham, it would be wrong not to challenge the Minister on why China remains at a lower foreign influence registration scheme designation and not on the enhanced tier. Can he please explain what the threshold for China’s designation on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme would be?
My noble friend Lord Young of Acton rightly mentioned the Uyghurs, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The evidence given by the Uyghur Muslims to the committee was both brave and insightful. The same applies to the Uyghur communities in the UK and around the world.
Only last week, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, was asked at that very Dispatch Box which UK-registered firms imported component parts for solar panels that include polycrystalline silicon from China, and how many of these components were sourced from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, to which he replied:
“The Government does not hold or publish data identifying which UK-registered firms imported component parts for solar panels containing polycrystalline silicon from China, nor data on how many of these components may have originated from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region”.
The Great British Energy Act is crystal-clear. It requires the Secretary of State legally to satisfy himself or herself that no schools are clad in solar panels made from slave labour. It is only fair and reasonable that the Minister and the department confirm to schools, parents and children that they have a cast-iron guarantee from this Government that no schools are clad in solar panels with any component parts made by slave labour.
Noble Lords are also all too familiar with the situation of Jimmy Lai, and Ministers have flagged that:
“We will continue to protect the Hong Kong community in the UK and others from transnational repression”.
Is it the case that, if the Minister were to raise China to the enhanced tier, then Hong Kongers’ confidence in our national commitment to their safety and security would increase accordingly?
Finally, the committee’s report touched on strategic lawsuits against public participation. I assume the Government do not believe it is right to use a SLAPP to silence individuals who are exposing or criticising unacceptable conduct. Does the Minister agree with the committee that the current framework for tackling misuse of SLAPPs is too limited?
It would be wrong to end without touching on a critical element of the entire report, namely support for victims. The committee welcomed the Government’s guidance and improved training for the police, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in her live example. But actions speak louder than words, and all victims of transnational repression will be watching the Government’s every move to improve communication with and support all those affected.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for securing this important debate and for the work of his committee on understanding the issues of transnational repression. I note that he has been sanctioned by a number of regimes; I have been sanctioned by Russia, and I take that as a badge of honour on some occasions. He brings immense experience and moral clarity to the role of chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
It is clear from contributions across the House that this is a subject of utmost importance. I must start with my noble friend Lord Isaac, who made an excellent maiden speech, combining his championship of human rights, particularly LGBT rights, with his warmth and experience in education. It is clear that he will bring great experience to this House, and I welcome him on behalf of the Government—and, I hope, the whole House—to his new role.
The committee brought a very thorough and detailed report and its inquiry has presented a thoughtful contribution to the UK’s understanding of foreign states and how they operate on our soil. The Government have carefully considered the recommendations, as the noble Lord knows, and we responded formally on 30 October. That included welcoming much of the committee’s report, including on co-ordination, international co-operation, strengthening resilience and the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I cannot share all her analysis of the United States, because it is part of international co-operation and strengthening resilience when we look at how we deal with some of the state bad actors in the world at large. But she has made her point in her usual way, and I note the point as a whole.
Let me say at the outset that this Government are unequivocal that any attempt by any foreign state to intimidate, harass and harm individuals in the UK will not be tolerated. The position that we have is very clear: transnational repression in the UK will not be tolerated. I reassure the House that it is targeted and specific. Perpetrating states focus on individuals they believe to be threats, vocal critics, dissidents and activists, as in the many examples given in the House today. Our message, therefore, is that people should be alert but not afraid. From the Government’s perspective, we must not inadvertently amplify the fear that perpetrating states actively seek to create. The UK is a safe, open and democratic society, and we will always defend those principles. While transnational repression does not affect large numbers of people, its impacts can be severe for those directly targeted and for wider communities.
We have had some discussion around the term transnational repression, what it means and the behaviour it captures or not. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mentioned this in particular. The UK has a long, mature and well-established system across legislation, policing, intelligence, diplomacy and community engagement to counter state threats, including conduct that amounts to TNR. This issue demands positive, constant vigilance and proactivity to ensure our defences are strong, resilient and robust.
That is why, already, in the light of the committee’s report and of our own wish, we have conducted, through the Defending Democracy Taskforce, a review into the UK’s response, which has focused on building an understanding, through the collection of data, of the scale, nature and impact domestically, as well as making recommendations to strengthen that response. I want to share with the House some of the lessons that we have learned from our internal examination. These include, partly in response to the report, the continued implementation of the National Security Act 2023, which provides world-leading, modernised tools to counter state-linked threats, notably FIRS, which colleagues in the House today have referred to. I will talk a little more about that in a moment.
Another important issue that has been raised, including just a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is training on foreign interference and call handling, delivered by counterterrorism policing across 45 territorial forces in the UK to strengthen front-line identification of state-directed activities. These are all issues that we have reviewed and are working to improve.
There is clear and practical guidance published on the GOV.UK website for those who believe they may be at risk. We have a dedicated TNR team within the Home Office, giving a central point of contact on co-ordination and analysis. We are deepening international co-operation, including with Five Eyes—I say this in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—and looking at how we can work with like-minded partners to bring collective resilience.
FIRS, which has been noted, including by my noble friend Lord Cryer and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, does feature Iran. Iran is included in the scheme and we keep under constant review whether we should expand it to other countries. I have had representations on other countries here today. However, it is not something we discuss in public, but we keep it under review at all times. The Government have accepted the thrust of the committee’s findings, and we must continue to strengthen resilience.
The question of proscription of the IRGC has been mentioned by a number of people, notably my noble friend Lord Cryer. I say to him and others who raised it that that is an issue that we cannot comment upon but keep under review at all times. We do so because the safety of individuals, the integrity of our national security and the actions of foreign states in the United Kingdom are our foremost priority. The UK is a safe and open democratic society, and we must defend those principles.
The question of definition was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Ludford, the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Dholakia, and my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lord Rooker. The Government, in our review, considered the issue and the recommendations in depth and we recognise transnational repression in the following terms:
“certain foreign state-directed crimes against individuals, which may be carried out both physically and online”.
Any such activity will not be tolerated. There is no international universal agreement on a definition of TNR, but the definition we are using is deliberately broad so that we can capture the totality of the issue, provide maximum flexibility and ensure that we can address what is an evolving threat.
We have looked at the issue of data, mentioned by my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lady Blackstone, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, among others. We recognise the importance of robust data as evidence in shaping an effective response. We are taking steps to strengthen our understanding of the threat, to improve data collection and to ensure that our systems are responsive. To further support data collection, the police have now established a system for reporting crimes that include reference to foreign interference. I will be happy in due course to reflect on the comments that have been made today.
In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the question of the foreign influence registration scheme and asked whether we will publish data on it. The Government plan to publish data on the operation of FIRS by 30 June 2026, which is the first anniversary of its operation. I hope that that will help to give some colour to the discussion that we had today.
The noble Lord also mentioned the ISC and asked whether it can have oversight of FIRS and the sanctions regime. The Government are trying proactively to update Parliament whenever we can on all these issues. The ISC has statutory powers to call in anything it wants to. I sat on it for five years. It can call in and examine any of those issues if it so wishes, and we will obviously co-operate: it has oversight of those matters should it so wish.
There was a lot of discussion, notably from the noble Lords, Lord Young of Acton and Lord Moore of Etchingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about academic issues. Our universities, because they are world-class, are a prime target for foreign states and hostile actors who seek to erode their reputation by promoting, shaping or censoring what universities can offer. I do not take those threats lightly. We are collaborating with universities, we are meeting vice-chancellors, we have looked at how we can develop a new academic interference reporting route and we have put in £3 million of investment to ensure that we give guidance and support on the very issues that the noble Lords mentioned today. Freedom of speech and other fundamental rights are protected under UK law. Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, passed by a previous Conservative Government, requires providers to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students, employees and visiting speakers, and I totally uphold that right.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned Interpol, and SLAPPs in particular. Perpetrating states use a wide range of methodologies to conduct transnational repression, and the UK’s response in tackling state-directed threats is, I think, world-leading. We have appropriate tools and systems and we will certainly be examining those issues in detail.
A number of noble Lords raised individual issues. My noble friend Lady Blackstone mentioned issues in Pakistan and my noble friend Lord Rooker mentioned a number of specific deaths. I have to say to the House that, owing to the sensitive nature of these topics, the need to protect individuals who may be at threat and the need not to compromise cases, I cannot talk about individual cases, but I will reflect on what was said. However, I will say something on individual countries, if I may.
China was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Moore, Lord Morrow, Lord Blencathra and Lord Young of Acton, and by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on the Front Bench. The Government recognise that China poses a series of threats to the UK from cyber attacks, foreign interference and espionage. We understand the transnational repression of Hong Kongers and China’s support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we will challenge those issues robustly, but we are also alive to the fact that China presents the UK with opportunities. It is the second largest economy and it is currently the UK’s third largest trading partner, so we have to develop both challenge and pragmatism in relation to these issues. We are working with Five Eyes colleagues to build collective resistance to the threats China poses, but we also have to look at the business and economy of the United Kingdom in doing so. It is an issue that we will continue to return to.
There has been pressure, notably from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to include China in the foreign influence registration scheme. We continually look at whether, how and why this should be examined. No decision has been made about China. Adding countries to the enhanced tier requires consideration of a broad range of issues, which will remain under consideration at all times. As I have mentioned, the same is true with Iran. We have already put Iran in the FIRS, and we will examine and continue to look at Iran in relation to other matters. The proscription issue is always under review.
The Chinese embassy was mentioned in passing and I will touch on that. The planning decision was independently taken, but national security is our first duty as a Government. Therefore, intelligence agencies have been involved throughout the process and an extensive range of measures has been developed to manage any risks. Those risks can come from any nation at any time. Following extensive negotiations, the Chinese Government have agreed to consolidate seven current sites in London into one site, which in my view will bring clear security advantages.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I do not seek to delay matters at this time on a Thursday night, but the Minister did say that China was our third-largest trading partner. I wanted to be sure, for the record, so I have just looked it up. We had a £60 billion deficit with China in 2025. Chinese exports to the UK were £77 billion, far exceeding British exports to China of £17 billion. So yes, it is a big trading partner, but we are the weak one and China is the one getting all the benefit.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have to work with China. We will challenge it at all times and trade with it when we need to. It is important that we hold standards of democracy to account across the world.
I am conscious of time—
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
I do not want to detain the House and I thank the Minister for giving way. He has just said, I think, that he will keep us informed about the proscription issue. This has been said for months and months. Can he please give us some idea of when there might be some actual news?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is not in the interests of the UK’s security or the security of the individuals we are trying to protect to give a running commentary on the issue of proscription. This House will be informed if any proscription decision is ever taken on any individual, country or organisation. That is the process we have followed recently and we will continue to do so, but, unfortunately, I cannot give a running commentary on whether, when and how we will consider these matters. We keep them under review and, in the event of a decision being taken, I will be held to account in this House for that decision, as will Ministers in the House of Commons.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
Can the Minister tell me this, then? Jonathan Hall produced a proposal for dealing with the issue. Is that being accepted by the Government?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We will respond to the Jonathan Hall review very shortly. Again, Members of this House will be able to hold me to account for the response the Government give, but I cannot give a running commentary at the Dispatch Box on issues of national security in the way in which the noble Baroness tempts me.
I am conscious of time. This has been a very fruitful and useful debate for us. I will look at Hansard in detail when it is produced and, if there are issues I wish to respond to further, I will write individually to Members. I thank the noble Lord for securing the debate today. I hope that we can continue our discussions on how we keep people in this country safe from transnational oppression and how we support the security of the United Kingdom.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I start by saying how grateful I am to noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, for the way in which he has engaged with the JCHR on this issue, and indeed to his colleague, Dan Jarvis, Member of Parliament, another Minister in the Government, who gave evidence to the committee. It has been constructive and we have made progress.
The noble Lord has felt some of the frustration around some of the issues, such as FIRS and sanctions—things on which he cannot give running commentaries, including the proscription of the IRGC. However, that begs the question I raised earlier on about how we as a Parliament deal with such difficult, sensitive and often controversial questions. They cannot be dealt with on the Floor of the House, but they can be in places such as the Intelligence and Security Committee. I hope that he will talk to his colleagues about how some dedicated moment in the course of the year might be set aside to look at those things, because he knows as well as I do that if the avalanche of issues that come before a committee rumbles on, you never get round to doing some of the other things you might like to do. Perhaps he can take that away specifically so that some of these questions could be looked at in more detail in more confidential surroundings, in camera and safeguarding national interests. That is something constructive that could come out of this.
The Minister said that this is a safe, open and democratic society. There is unanimity across your Lordships’ House that we want to keep it that way. I do not agree with him about the numbers. In fact, he said we need to look again at the data. We have underestimated the scale of transnational repression. If anything, this report and the debate have helped us to see the scale.
This is an excellent report. I congratulate everyone involved in its compilation. I only regret that my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who is such a hard-working member of the committee, has now rotated off it. We were grateful to him for the contribution that he made to the report’s compilation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that few people know what transnational repression is. She is quite correct. I hope that the report and today’s debate will help to put that right. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, complimented the witnesses who came before the committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, emphasised the courage that many have shown, specifically those who wanted to waive their anonymity so that people would know what has happened to them.
Maiden speeches always give special definition to debates, and the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, certainly raised our debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cryer, said that we would all have to look to our laurels as a result of the noble Lord’s maiden speech; I agree. The noble Lord, Lord Isaac, brought together two things: his commitment to education and to human rights. Curiously, those two have conflated as we have heard about the threats to our universities. We heard that from the noble Lords, Lord Moore and Lord Young of Acton, and other noble Lords who contributed. This is something we have to return to. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, the Universities Minister, is looking at this. She could do no worse than go back to the report compiled several years ago by the then Universities Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone. When I drew that report personally to the attention of his brother, who at the time was the Prime Minister, he said he was not even aware of it. Things have moved on and we need to be much more aware of the systemic subversion of our universities, which has been referred to today.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who is a long-standing friend, always emphasises the importance, as he did in his intervention a few moments ago, of resilience and getting rid of the dependency we have—billions of pounds of national debt every year. But it goes beyond the funding to the very heart and nature of our society. We have heard about FIRS, SLAPPs, red notices, Magnitsky sanctions, common definitions, the collection of data, how to reset diplomatic engagement, proscription of the IRGC and the rest. These are all important themes and I am glad that our committee was able to bring some of them out. I am grateful to all noble Lords who developed the arguments and delved deeper as we have proceeded.
I shall end on a personal reflection, which is that I always enjoy listening to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. We have talked today about maiden speeches. He may not remember but in 1979, a brash new young MP who had just been elected in a by-election and became the shortest-ever lived MP, for two and a half days flat, had to make his maiden speech within two hours of arriving because the House was being suspended so that people could go back and fight a general election. It fell to the noble Lord, then Jeff Rooker, to respond to the new youngest Member of the House of Commons and say nice things about him. He has always given me encouragement as the years have proceeded, and it is always a pleasure to hear him speak in debates such as our own today. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, will also feel encouraged by all the commendations that have been made to him from around your Lordships’ House. With those words, I conclude my remarks.