El Niño

Lord Katz Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact of El Niño on climate patterns, flooding and food security in the UK.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Met Office is continually updating forecasts for the ongoing El Niño event. Work is under way across government to assess any potential direct and indirect impacts. El Niño is expected to increase the likelihood of wetter and stormier conditions this autumn and winter. The Government are therefore monitoring potential implications for flooding, international food supply chains, energy resilience and food security. El Niño highlights the importance of climate adaptation and resilience planning work that is under way across government.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his detailed Answer. Only last week, the Secretary-General of the United Nations indicated that the El Niño effect will be more pronounced in the next few months and will have direct implications for food security. I know, and welcome the fact, that our Labour Government have been working on that multi-departmental approach to dealing with the impact of climate change. Therefore, when will the Government unveil the strategy in 2026 to bring the UK closer into line with the EU in terms of emergency preparedness, and what they are likely to recommend to protect food security and to ensure that our rural communities are more resilient to the impact of El Niño?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to highlight the attention that is being paid to the impact of El Niño. Indeed, the Government Office for Science is undertaking work to assess the potential impacts on the UK, including implications, as I said, for the food system. Defra is working with the Met Office and other government departments to understand this and the wider risks to our national resilience. There is no current evidence that this event will lead to food security issues for the UK, although we continue to assess emerging evidence and forecasts, as well as industry intelligence. The Government published their annual statement on national resilience on 14 July this year, in which we announced a multi-year campaign to direct the public to updated guidance on simple steps that they can take to make sure they are prepared for risks such as power cuts or storms. This campaign, which builds on existing guidance that we already publish on GOV.UK/prepare, will launch later in the year and will indeed bring the UK into line with European peers, most of which already run similar awareness activity.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, with consecutive droughts followed by a flood, the consequences for the UK are severe. The Government have tools in their toolbox, such as the Cunliffe report and the forthcoming clean water Bill. For what reason has the clean water Bill been delayed until next year, if that is the case?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right to point out the importance of the Cunliffe report and the need to reform the water industry, but this is a very complex matter. As she noted, or at least implied, we are due to have a water Bill and, as was announced in the King’s Speech, it is coming. We will unveil further reforms as part of that process.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is faintly ironic for the Secretary of State to advise households to stockpile food when the UK has fallen to being 65% self-sufficient in what we eat? Given the UN’s warning that 50 million people worldwide face acute hunger from this super El Niño, what assessment have the Government made specifically of risks to British food security?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The comments my colleague the Secretary of State made simply called for awareness and preparedness. That is a precautionary route to take, rightly. As I said in answer to my noble friend, as it stands, the intelligence we have is that there is no evidence that the El Niño event will lead to food security issues for the UK. Of course, we work with organisations, including the UK Agriculture Market Monitoring Group, which monitors UK agriculture markets around issues of price, supply, inputs, trade and other recent developments, to keep this under review. As I said, as it stands, there is no evidence that this event will cause food security problems for our country.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Sharma (Con)]

My Lords, given the increasingly challenging impact of climate change on households, public services and business, have the Minister and his department given any consideration to ensuring that the UK’s national adaptation plan is a dynamic document that is regularly updated, rather than something that is static and updated every five years? Could he also update the House on any representations that he and his department have made to the new Chancellor to protect long-term funding, for instance for flooding, at future fiscal events?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

We are very clear that although there is no clear evidence that climate change is making El Niño events more frequent, it is certainly the case that they are taking place against a backdrop of rising global temperatures and increasingly extreme weather, so they can indeed intensify existing risks. On the noble Lord’s point about the Treasury, we are committed to investing in improvements to water infrastructure and resilience. Indeed, I believe I am right in saying that we expect more than £100 billion in investment to come in to improve the water infrastructure system, which will go some way to help improve the country’s resilience.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. I recall that I asked a very similar Question to my noble friend’s a couple of months ago. I am slightly disconcerted by the assumption that this will somehow not have an impact on food supplies, because directly and indirectly it will. The most likely outcome of the enhanced El Niño—the once-in-a-millennium event that we are now being told it may be—is that far more extreme storms will affect us. My noble friend the Minister has responded very much on behalf of Defra, but I wonder what other departments are doing to prepare the sectors that they are concerned about. How will they withstand and respond to what may be extremely severe weather conditions?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question and for all his work on national preparedness. To be clear, I am not saying that there will not be any impact on supply chains but, on wider food security, we can at the moment have greater certainly around the evidence that there will be an impact. He raised a very important point about cross-government preparedness for the consequences of wetter weather and flooding. Activities are currently under way. The national flood response centre will be stood up for a testing exercise very shortly. The Floods Resilience Taskforce, which is across departments, government, and local, regional and devolved national Governments, is preparing an assessment of flooding risk and preparedness. It will meet in October to discuss those plans. I also note that Flood Action Week begins next month on 12 October and it coincides with national resilience week, which will help combine the importance of these messages.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, given that we will see some effects from these weather patterns and that they will devastate parts of the country, can the Minister assure the House that, in preparing for this, proper consideration is being given to planning and training of Reserve Forces in response to local flooding and other severe weather conditions, given that the military will almost certainly be called on to support the other emergency services?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point. The use of both normal and Reserve Forces in these situations is important. That is exactly the sort of issue that the Floods Resilience Taskforce will look at in its preparedness.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, when will the Government accept that it is our own brilliant British farmers who can provide food security, but they are being punished for their efforts by the family farms tax? Why are the Government refusing to listen to the NFU and its 43,000 farming members who remain opposed to the policy as the wrong approach, or to major accountancy firms that confirm that the policy will introduce considerable challenges for those affected?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I fear I will repeat the Answer that my noble friend Lady Hayman gave from the Front Bench yesterday. We recognise the importance of our farming sector. We are finding policies that work for rural areas, which include support through rural rate relief, small business rate relief, a high VAT registration threshold and small profits corporation tax rate, as well as things such as reduced red diesel rates. We are working to support the farming sector.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

It is lovely that we have had the opportunity to hear from the noble Baroness. A little bird made me think that we might get on to Jackdaw and Rosebank. I want to be very clear: both those fields are subject to a lot of regulatory processes. The public notice periods were open and closed on 10 August and 17 August respectively. We are part of that regulatory process. My colleague, Miatta Fahnbulleh, the Secretary of State, will consider the representations that have been received and will make decisions on each project in due course. I am afraid that noble Lords will not hear anything further from me on that subject.

Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Katz Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost]

That this House regrets that the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 involve the alignment of Great Britain with European Union law, which the Windsor Framework does not require.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we begin, as set out in Today’s List, I remind noble Lords that speeches should be limited to two minutes, with the exceptions of the mover and the Minister. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all noble Lords when I say that if everyone can stick to this advised speaking time, we will ensure that the Minister has adequate time to respond to all the points that are raised.

[Lord Frost (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise to speak as quickly as I can to my regret Motion on the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. Despite its title, this is at one level a very simple piece of legislation: it just adds two plant types to certain lists in assimilated EU law, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. However, at another level, it raises some major issues of principle, and that is why it is right to debate it and perhaps even vote on it—who knows?

I want to look at three areas in the short time available: first, the specifics of the legislation; secondly, its wider significance; and thirdly, how it relates to the wider EU reset.

First, on the legislation, when HMG legislate on plant health, one normally assumes it is because they think that there is an issue to be dealt with, but this legislation does not actually deal with that at all. The Explanatory Note signed by the Minister says:

“These regulations implement the Windsor Framework”.


The Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The purpose of this instrument is to bring Great Britain (GB) into alignment with European Union (EU) import requirements”,


and says that it is “necessary” to keep certain goods available for the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme. It does not say anything at all, as far as I can see, about the substance of the matter, or any UK risk assessment on the products concerned. My first question to the Minister is: are we right to understand that this legislation is entirely about compliance with EU requirements, or has Defra looked at the merits of what it is trying to do? If so, what is its view on the substance?

What is the broader significance of this legislation? The significance, of course, is that it concedes wider points of political concern. We are all familiar with one element: the Windsor Framework stops the UK Government legislating in Northern Ireland in certain areas, giving the power to the EU instead. One consequence of that is growing separation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Without rehearsing all the history, there is a clear line to be drawn between the 2017 joint report, the 2019 agreement of the protocol —more or less under duress once this Parliament had closed off the option of leaving the EU without a deal—and all the problems that have since followed.

As I have often said, the Johnson Government never wanted the protocol arrangements. We expected that they would be difficult to work in practice, and that the protocol itself would end up being removed or overridden. We sought to achieve this, first by negotiation, and then through the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. As we know, that fell, and so fell with it any effort to deal with the situation that it created. Now we have the Windsor Framework instead, and there is a crucial difference in this framework. In return for some arguable and minor improvements to the Irish Sea border, the Government are now committed to defending the protocol-like arrangements, instead of trying to remove them, and that makes a huge difference to the politics. For one thing, other actors come to see it as semi-permanent, and adapt to it; hence the trade diversion that we are already seeing.

But, more than that, there is politics. Those in Northern Ireland who do not want the bond between Northern Ireland and Great Britain to be weakened still further are left without political support on matters that deal with the Windsor Framework. That is what we are seeing work out.

This is not the only problem. The Windsor Framework may be about Northern Ireland, but it has big effects in Great Britain too. It creates an incentive to align. This SI and all those like it make clear that not only does the Windsor Framework abrogate the Government’s lawmaking capacity in Northern Ireland but it also means that, in practice, there is a huge incentive for GB to follow the EU in all the areas covered by the Windsor Framework. If we do not, we lose the benefits graciously granted to us in operating the border within our own country. That loss of national power is why legislation such as today’s is so significant.

We have debated this many times already and will do so a couple of times yet, even before the Recess. A pattern builds up: the EU leads on something, we follow and Britain’s national independence is gradually watered down. If we do not want to follow, or if we want to change our own rules, Northern Ireland pays the price. All the incentives are for the Government to acquiesce in the EU’s political need and to comply for fear of benefits being removed.

Today’s legislation may be on a relatively minor point, but some future foreseeable cases are not. Northern Ireland is about to be deprived of the benefits of Brazilian beef and much else under the EU’s so-called health ban on imports, and there is already pressure for GB to follow suit. Does the Minister foresee similar legislation in this area? If not, why must we align on peppers and ginger? Perhaps the Minister could explain what the Government’s plans are in this area and whether they take the same view as the EU on the substance of the matter.

Similarly, looking a little more widely, on AI the Government are currently considering delaying a firm reaction to the EU’s insistence that the AI Act should apply in Northern Ireland. But some of it already does: Articles 103 to 107 and 109 already apply in Northern Ireland to vehicles, rail and other machinery. The digital omnibus law, just passed, will raise similar issues, and so, no doubt, will future legislation. If the Government’s overriding policy is the pursuit of alignment with the EU in areas covered by the Windsor Framework, they will end up aligning in GB too with some or all of the EU’s AI Act. Are the Government happy with that? If they are not and intend to resist, why can we not resist in other areas as well?

I turn briefly to the Government’s so-called reset. Will anything in this change? No, it will get worse. At least now we have the theoretical choice on aligning in GB. In future, the reset and the eventual European partnership Bill will remove much of that choice in many areas. GB will have to comply with EU SPS rules, just as Northern Ireland must. This will not remove the awkwardness of days like this; it will make them worse, in fact, because Ministers will have to admit that this House has no choice in the matter. The fig leaf of parliamentary power will be entirely removed—not even in return for free-flowing trade because, after all, the customs border will remain in place. I really wonder whether the Government are content with this and happy that we are giving away the British birthright of freedom for a mess of EU pottage.

This Heath Robinson set of arrangements cannot last. Either it will do what we always feared and its proponents always hoped—drag the whole country back into an EU alignment arrangement like the May Government’s ill-fated Brexit deal, with national independence in name only—or it will be seen as what it is: a monstrosity that is entirely incompatible with being a properly independent country. The Windsor Framework is leading this country into deeper and more dangerous waters with every day that passes. It must one day be removed and, one day, I hope it will be. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion withdrawn.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, we are not due to return to the Bill Committee until 8.12 pm, and we are running five or six minutes ahead of that, so the House will now adjourn during pleasure until that point.

Artificial Intelligence: Impact on Human Relationships and Society

Lord Katz Excerpts

Friday 5th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Magan of Castletown (Con)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the most reverend Primate for initiating this most timely and extremely relevant debate. It is hugely appropriate that the Church of England is taking the lead in addressing the fundamental issues of the impacts of artificial intelligence—AI—on human relations and society as a whole.

I declare my personal interests. I have been a member of the Church of England since the mewling and puking stage. Further, with homes in both England and Ireland, I have also been a lifelong member of the Church of Ireland. This is therefore a fitting moment to pay tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, whose 20 years as Primate of All Ireland was so remarkably outstanding. The people of all Ireland owe him a very great debt of gratitude.

AI remains an enigma for many. Even the most hardened and experienced members of the fourth estate still question whether AI is a boon, a bane or a bubble. We here should have no doubts; AI is a gigantic, inflated bubble. Sooner or later, it will burst, with momentous and even catastrophic consequences, but we have seen this all before: in the 19th century, with railways and electricity, and more recently, with the internet and the dotcom boom. Every transformative technology arrives surrounded by both utopian promises and existential fears. Many companies disappear and many valuations collapse, but the underlying infrastructure changes society forever. The question is not whether AI is a bubble, which it undoubtedly is; the question is, which parts are the bubble and which parts are the next internet?

Three key questions have to be addressed— first, the economic question. Everyone in this speculative frenzy is asking, “How do we monetise AI?”. A vast tsunami of money has been rolling over the global AI sector, and further huge funds flood in daily. Levels of valuation are now absolutely crazy and completely unsustainable. Yet, this huge speculative financial bubble will burst, and the wreckage will be enormous. History suggests that there will still be big winners, but the biggest may not be the companies building the technology; they may be the organisations that reinvent education, healthcare, commerce, and government and the culture around it. Just as the dotcom era created Amazon, Google and entirely new markets, AI will likely create industries that we cannot yet see. The economic and business question is important, but it is not the most important question.

The second key question is the human question. The question that interests me most is what happens to human relationships when intelligence becomes abundant? For centuries, access to knowledge was power. Today, knowledge is everywhere. Tomorrow, intelligence may be everywhere. If an AI can be your doctor, therapist, financial adviser, teacher and companion, what happens to trust, expertise and human connection? AI girlfriends are a hit already. This is not a joke. See a very recent article in Forbes magazine:

“Sociologist and MIT professor Sherry Turkle has described this phenomenon as artificial intimacy, where technology simulates empathy and attentiveness, creating the emotional experience of companionship without the complexity of another human being”—


which sounds interesting. We are not simply automating work; we are potentially automating aspects of human interaction itself. This is historically unprecedented.

The third key question is the societal question. The internet democratised information. AI is democratising intelligence, but democratisation does not automatically create equality. Access is not the same as opportunity. Algorithms still shape visibility, platforms still centralise power and bias still exists. The question for policymakers is not simply how we accelerate AI—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

I would be grateful if the noble Lord could wind up. Thank you.

[Lord Magan of Castletown (Con)]

One second—I am sorry.

It is about how we ensure that participation, dignity and opportunity remain widely distributed, so I say yes to the most reverend Primate and her formidable phalanx of right reverend Prelates. Perhaps the deepest questions are not technological at all; they are philosophical. For the first time in history, humanity is interacting with something capable of simulating aspects of intelligence and creating at scale.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

Lord Katz Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, we have time to hear from both Benches. Let us go to the Labour Benches first and then the Conservative Benches.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, this is not the first political appointment to an ambassadorship, including that in Washington, which has not been without controversy. But would the Minister confirm that there are some circumstances in which it is appropriate for there to be a political appointment, rather than one which is selected from Civil Service ranks, provided it is quite clear that that is the responsibility of the Ministers making the appointment?

Secondly, could she confirm that it is quite common for organisations that are facing what may seem quite unreasonable severance requests from individuals to make a judgment about what the cost is of fighting those arrangements and to reach a balanced decision?

In the circumstances where people are criticising the nature of some of the material being published and trying to read too much into it, is it not the case—as Bismarck said, if you ever like laws or sausages, never watch either being made—that this minute inspection, which quite properly the Opposition have demanded should be released, will reveal the imperfections of any process in government, or indeed anywhere else?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, we will hear from somebody on the Conservative Benches.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords—

UK-EU Customs Union

Lord Katz Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, for that absolutely excellent speech, revealing her rich experience in many areas across both the European Union and localities in the UK. She has already made one significant mark on our work: I was not aware that you could have two locations in your title. I am sure there are precedents for it, but the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, has certainly established that. I am pretty sure that, if the citizens of Jewellery in Birmingham and Southall in Ealing get to read that speech, they will be very proud of their girl for what she is achieving on their and other people’s behalf in this country.

We are proud of her on these Benches, too. She is going to bring a fresh perspective on a number of things, including housing and inequality, and perhaps on the EU as well. She was not exactly on any party line with her remarks at the end, but her basic pro-Europeanism shone through very strongly. We look forward to further speeches to come, which again will make us think and take us forward. We have a new colleague who will be a big hitter in this Chamber. While I am on my feet, I wish the other noble Lords who will be delivering their maiden speeches today all the very best for the future. If they do as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, they will be doing very well.

I follow the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in a number of ways—not all ways—and I appreciated his opening speech very much. It set the scene for this debate very well and the scene for the country more generally. I, too, like him, remember vividly in the EU referendum that not everyone on the leave campaign thought that leaving the EU necessarily meant leaving the customs union and the single market. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, was among those who initially thought that. Reference has been made to Boris Johnson’s famous remarks that we could have our cake and eat it, keep the benefits and still leave—one of the biggest whoppers told in that very bitter campaign.

Now, we are faced with reality, and a hard reality it is, too, as the evidence of the costs of leaving the EU continues to pile up. I am not going to repeat all the statistics that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, other than to say that goods exports are still languishing below pre-2019 levels. I am particularly concerned about small firms, bewildered still by increased paperwork and customs-related red tape.

Nor are non-EU countries filling the gaps. The new trade deals have so far been disappointing. The one with India is unfortunately not yet in force. Others, such as the one with Japan, replicate the EU arrangements; Canada is more interested in a deal with the EU than with us; and the deal with Australia is very good for Australia, but reflects a desperation on our part to get some agreements over the line. As for a deal with the US, as Mark Carney said at Davos recently:

“We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition”.


I acknowledge warmly that the US has helped rescue us and other Europeans in the past, but can we still rely on it, given the capricious behaviour of the present White House Administration? Well, nobody is too clear about that.

So it seems to me that this can be used in a number of ways, with a number of opportunities as well as a number of threats. It can be used to open a new chapter with the EU, as we huddle together with our neighbours and allies and try to make common cause on a wider range of issues. Defence is an obvious priority area at the moment, but trade should also be another. Prime Minister Carney’s call for medium-sized powers to come together should be heeded and used by the UK as a way to approach our problems in a new way. We need that new way and we need it quickly: we need this reset of key relationships, as the Government are at last exploring.

As the excellent Library briefing for this debate reminds us, the Office for Budget Responsibility reckons that UK imports and exports are both 15% lower than if the UK had remained in the EU. That is a heavy blow to our growth prospects.

I live in hope that people on the other side of this House will begin to acknowledge that the history of our brief time outside the EU has not been good; it has been bad. There have been failures all around, and it was precipitated by us leaving the EU. I look forward, not backward. I do not want to replay old arguments, but I hope that the reset will be bold and wide-ranging. It should challenge those in the Conservative Party—and, I guess, the Reform party too—to recognise the reality that we need a new deal with the EU and perhaps follow up the Carney speech.

There are four major claimed benefits of Brexit, as set out recently by the Conservative Party leader, particularly the freedom to negotiate our own trade deals.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

Order. We have quite a tight time limit, and everybody wants to hear from my noble friend and for her to be able to respond, so if my noble friend could finish—

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

I finish with an appeal to the other side to open their minds and maybe open their hearts a little bit, recognise the situation we are now in, not the situation we were in, and take the country forward on that basis.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me on behalf of these Benches, this side of the House, to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, on her admirable maiden speech. She referred to feeling a little intimidated coming here and to the experience and depth of knowledge in this House, but from her speech, it was perfectly clear that she is going to add considerably both to the experience and the depth of knowledge, and we strongly welcome her for that. She has huge experience in the European Parliament—as she said, she spent 16 years there. That is one area of expertise, but she also has expertise on housing, because she was the chief executive of a housing association. Her maiden speech was both eloquent and moving. She referred to her love of jewellery, and I am sure she will be a jewel in your Lordships’ House for a long time to come.

As was said in the noble Baroness’s excellent maiden speech, and by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, of course, it is a good idea that Britain should seek to improve its relations with the EU. But a customs union is emphatically not the way, and quite rightly, the Prime Minister has said that a customs union is a red line. We just hope that it is one of these red lines that he does not actually cross.

Brexit can be, has been and was blamed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for almost everything. Ministers refer to the OBR, which said that Brexit has already caused a 4% decline in GDP. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, admitted, the statistic actually was that the 4% decline would happen over 15 years. Some 4% over 15 years is, on an annualised basis, a very small amount, difficult to measure accurately, especially when the effects of Brexit, as the OBR has admitted, can hardly be distinguished from those of Covid, energy prices or the war in Ukraine.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, pointed out that goods exports to the EU remain below pre-pandemic Brexit levels. In 2024, as he said, they were 18% below the 2019 level. However, goods exports to non-EU countries over the same period were also down by 14%. So what do we conclude from this—that Brexit has caused damage to exports outside the EU? That seems rather improbable.

Over the same period, the UK’s performance in services was much better and well above its pre-epidemic levels. The fact remains that since Brexit, the British economy has moved largely in line with the larger EU economies. Italy and Germany have performed worse than Britain, France slightly better. Germany and Italy did not leave the EU and yet have performed worse than us.

A customs union is not the answer. If the question is growth, there must be a different way, and a customs union could do great harm. There would be very little gain from lower tariffs, because most UK-EU goods trade is already tariff-free. If we joined a customs union, we would have to accept tariff-free imports from those countries that the EU had negotiated trade agreements with, but we would not have the reciprocal benefit of being able to export tariff-free to those countries.

Our ability to do independent trade deals would end. We would have to renegotiate or cancel trade deals done since Brexit. The loss of the US agreement would be significant. It is actually our largest single trading partner. The pharmaceutical industry sells 25% of its exports to, and enjoys free access to, the US, while EU pharmaceuticals pay a tariff of 15%. Are we going to put this hugely important industry in danger through leaving that agreement or having to renegotiate it?

Alignment, a favourite subject of noble Lords, of regulations makes sense where individual sectors actually want it, provided that it is repealable and changeable if conditions change. Dynamic alignment, where we permanently hand over control of our laws, is a step too far and unnecessary.

It is interesting to recall how the financial services sector, which we were told after Brexit must align with the EU to survive, is now, according to recent reports in the FT—

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Order.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

I am just finishing—is now pleading for exclusion from any steps towards alignment. The Liberals claim a customs union would boost government revenues. They have suddenly become followers of Donald Trump, believing that “tariff” is the most beautiful word in the English language, but a customs union would mean that we would be obliged to share our customs revenues with the EU.

A customs union does not make any sense. The Prime Minister is quite right. It ought to be a red line. Gladstone would have been horrified at the stance of the Liberal party. He would have called what it is putting forward the road to servitude. It makes no sense.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, before we come to the next speaker, I just remind your Lordships’ House that this is a time-limited debate, and we also have a number of maiden speeches, which will obviously go a little over the speaking limit. We want to leave enough time for the Minister to respond to the many questions that your Lordships will have. We ask speakers to please stick to the four-minute speaking time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my offshore wind interests as declared in the register. I add my congratulations to those offered to the excellent and entertaining maiden speakers that we have already had. Perhaps I may ask for the discretion of the House in mentioning a maiden speech still to come, from the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson. I remember, as a young Liberal in Aberdeen, attending many hours of meetings with Helen Pitt-Watson, which brings back very fond memories to me. I very much look forward to the noble Lord’s speech.

I also welcome the co-operation that was announced on Monday this week by the UK and EU nations in relation to offshore wind and North Sea interconnectors. The headline from the so-called Hamburg declaration was the joint development—the co-operative development—of 100 gigawatts of new projects based around a shared, Europe-wide grid system. Much more co-operation of this kind is surely sensible and badly needed—a significant step, perhaps, on our way to a new single market and customs union.

My friend the late Eddie O’Connor was a very big figure in offshore wind who founded Airtricity and then Mainstream Renewable Power. He championed the idea of a European supergrid with huge energy and passion. The challenge is simple: to create and deliver a renewable energy network across the UK and Europe that is fit for the 21st century and beyond. With determination and drive, I am certain that we can make it happen.

It is also great to see plans announced across several EU countries to adopt contracts for difference to underpin and anchor their own offshore wind developments. These so-called CfDs were first introduced in the United Kingdom in 2012 by then Secretary of State for Energy Sir Ed Davey. They have saved the UK electricity consumer billions compared to the previous ROCs system. Despite one serious and, sadly, completely avoidable misstep in relation to CfDs back in 2023 with AR5, contracts for difference have continued to be a big success in the UK, and AR7, announced on 14 January, just completed with 8.3 gigawatts of new capacity awarded—the biggest ever.

In contrast, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands have recently struggled with their own power auctions. This is not good for the climate emergency, and Governments together must do better. Nations can learn from each other; they can work together. They can—we can—get better at all of this.

In the UK, it is not perfect, but it is generally positive. All the mainstream UK parties have supported the energy transition, net-zero targets and the importance of real and rapid progress. The only party to stand out is Reform UK. Its policies are strident, negative and hostile. In July last year, the party’s deputy leader, Richard Tice MP, wrote to the chief executives of all the major offshore wind developers threatening to strike down all contracts for difference signed under auction round 7 if the party ever won power—an astonishing, aggressive, anti-business move threatening to break binding commercial and legal agreements being entered into right now.

Such a move is in stark contrast to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, Reform’s new Scottish leader, when he gave his maiden speech in this place in January 2022. He spoke warmly about his attendance at COP 26 and the tremendous achievement of the UK presidency in increasing commitments to net zero from 30% to 90% of world emissions. It will be interesting to learn whether Reform UK has—

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I ask the noble Lord to conclude. He is getting over the time limit, and it is a time-limited debate. I keep on having to stress that.

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

I apologise. It was my reference at the beginning to some personal matters that have taken me over. Across the UK and the EU, all this is very important, yes, for the economic benefit for our nations, but, more importantly, for the future of our planet.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, for those immediately following those giving a maiden or valedictory speech, an allowance is made for the tributes being paid and the clock does not start until their remarks start. For others speaking in the debate, the time starts when they stand up, and that needs to be no more than four minutes.

NHS 10-Year Plan

Lord Katz Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, we have had three Cross-Benchers; perhaps we could hear from a Liberal Democrat.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, we are not due to return to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill until 8.42 pm. The time allocated for Statement repeats is very clear in the Companion: 20 minutes for Front-Benchers and 20 minutes for Back-Benchers. We have now exceeded that allotted time so, as we were not due to return to the Bill until 8.42 pm, the House will adjourn during pleasure until that point.

Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill [HL]

Lord Katz Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Yachad Ltd, a British Jewish organisation supporting a political resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a proud progressive Zionist, I believe in the right of Jewish people to national self-determination and that Palestinians have the same right. We all, I hope, share the Government’s policy of a two-state solution. We need to be a strong advocate for that in the region, because too many people there, on both sides of the conflict, now talk only of a one-state solution.

Given the facts on the ground and the legacy of Hamas’s terrorist pogrom on 7 October, together with everything that has followed, I fear it is simply wishful thinking to say that immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, which the Bill advances, would advance the peace process. It might feel like the right thing to do, or indeed a wise diplomatic signal to send, and it might win praise here in the UK, but would it advance peace in the region? Experience of unilateral action suggests not. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, last year Ireland, Spain and Norway recognised Palestine as a state. Israel recalled its ambassadors to those countries in response. I fear that if we followed those examples then our long-standing locus, through both history and international standing, would be severely impaired—and if that was not true before President Trump’s election then I fear it certainly is now.

Recognition is a card that you can play only once. Timing is everything. As the Oslo accords state, any dispute must be resolved through direct negotiations. Only through such engagement and mutual agreement, which Britain can and must support, will we deliver lasting peace. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, alluded to, this requires fundamental change on both sides. First, it seems otiose, as others have said, to point out that Hamas simply can never be a partner for peace. But there are also progressive forces in mainstream Israeli politics that are thinking productively as to how best to move forward towards peace from this fragile ceasefire. Yair Golan MK, who is leader of the Democrats—Labor’s sister political party, formed out of Avodah and Meretz—a retired major-general in the IDF and an absolute hero of 7 October, is clear-eyed in his view of the Israeli Prime Minister’s current policy of strengthening Hamas to weaken the PA. Writing in Haaretz on 26 February, Golan said:

“The simple truth is that Hamas has survived thanks to Netanyahu and Netanyahu has survived thanks to Hamas”.


He argues that the regional struggle is not about territory so much as one of moderate forces that want stability and prosperity versus extremist forces that want anarchy and terror. Israel should lead that moderate alliance. The UK should urge that moderation on Israel. Would we have the agency to do so if we unilaterally declared Palestinian statehood?

Golan outlines a three-stage progress process towards peace. Time prevents me going into detail, as it prevents me talking about Yair Lapid’s credible alternative, called the Egyptian solution. These are not the awful plans we have heard from President Trump, those shocking pipe dreams for Gaza, but neither are they a counsel of despair. They hold out the prospect of statehood at the right time—not at the end, but not now.

I will conclude by reporting a conversation with a high-ranking official in the Democrats. He asked me to make it clear in this debate that there are indeed Members of the Knesset who have the strong desire to push forward for peace, spearheaded by his party. Because of that, not despite it, my left-wing peacenik friend said that recognition would be a “huge failure of British foreign policy, making the UK totally irrelevant”. We should listen to our partners for peace when they ask us not to do something.