UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, there is little doubt across the House that the opportunity to live, study and work abroad can bring real benefits for young people. It enables them to experience different cultures, encounter new ways of thinking, build confidence and form relationships and friendships that can last a lifetime. Those objectives are, in themselves, entirely laudable. However, good intentions are not enough. If this arrangement is to command confidence, it must be fair, accessible and genuinely mutually beneficial. It is therefore right that we scrutinise carefully both the financial and practical implications of what His Majesty’s Government have agreed.

One of the most immediate questions raised by this announcement is whether it will represent genuine value for money for the British taxpayer. It is concerning that the Government have been unable to define any cap on the number of EU students who may come to the United Kingdom under this arrangement, nor have they ruled out a wider youth mobility scheme that could further increase the inflow of young people from the EU. Under the proposed deal, European students would be able to study in the UK for up to a year while continuing to pay tuition fees to their home institutions.

When this scheme last operated, the imbalance was stark. In 2018, almost 32,000 young people came to the UK through Erasmus, compared with around 17,000 UK students who travelled in the opposite direction. The result was an estimated net cost to the UK taxpayer of more than £200 million per year. The media reported this morning that the total cost to the British taxpayer from this new scheme could be as high as £8.75 billion. At a time when young people in this country are already facing rising living costs, spiralling unemployment and diminished opportunities to buy homes and to save and invest their money—problems largely stemming from this Government’s own policy choices—we must be extremely careful about entering into arrangements that risk British taxpayers subsidising European students to study here.

Whether or not a taxpayer’s own child benefits from this scheme, the cost is borne by everyone. If parents across the country are being asked to help fund opportunities for other people’s children to study abroad, we must be confident and able to demonstrate that this delivers benefits not just for the individual participant but for the country as a whole. What assurances can the Minister give the House that this will not again become an asymmetrical arrangement? Can she guarantee that participation in Erasmus+ from 2027 will not result in a net cost to the British taxpayer of the kind we saw previously? Can she please tell us how value for money for the taxpayer will be assessed and communicated?

Closely linked to this is the question of equitable access. It is easy to predict who is most likely to benefit from schemes of this nature: those who studied languages at school and travelled abroad with their families, and whose educational and social background already equip them to take advantage of international opportunities. Without careful design, Erasmus risks becoming little more than a publicly subsidised gap year for young people who already enjoy significant privilege. Although the Government have said that financial support will be available for disadvantaged students, funding alone is insufficient if those disadvantaged students are unaware of the scheme, lack institutional encouragement or do not see it as something for people like them. Can the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that this scheme is actively promoted and supported in schools, colleges and universities serving disadvantaged communities? What concrete steps will be taken to ensure that those who would benefit most from international mobility are not, once again, the least likely to access it?

I would also welcome the Government’s response on how the new arrangement will sit alongside existing UK mobility programmes. The United Kingdom currently operates the Turing scheme, which was designed to expand opportunities for students to study and work abroad, well beyond the European Union. Against that background, it would be helpful for the House to understand what the future holds for the Turing scheme once association with Erasmus+ begins in 2027. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can tell us how, in choosing to reassociate with Erasmus+, the Government intend to preserve the broader international reach that Turing was specifically designed to support. Will opportunities for global mobility beyond Europe be maintained at their current level, or do the Government envisage a narrowing of focus back towards the EU alone?

As I indicated earlier, this scheme must be able to not only deliver benefits but demonstrate clearly that it represents value for money for the taxpayer. Although the Government have outlined the initial cost of association, experience tells us that such programmes can become significantly more expensive over time, particularly where participation is uneven or demand exceeds expectations. It would therefore be reassuring to hear what safeguards are in place to prevent costs escalating in the years ahead.

The Government have said that rejoining Erasmus will cost £570 million in 2027 for a one-year membership but declined to say what the future costs will be. Can the Minister now tell us what they will be? It is reported that Brussels plans to increase funding for the scheme from 2028 by more than 50%, from around €26 billion to €41 billion. This, plus the extra costs associated with joining EU programmes after Brexit, means the bloc could charge Britain £1.25 billion a year between 2028 and 2034. Can the Minister confirm whether these figures are correct?

Also, if participation once again becomes markedly unbalanced, with substantially more students coming to the UK than travelling abroad, what mechanisms will exist to address that? Will the Government be able to renegotiate the terms of participation, adjust financial contributions or take corrective action to ensure that the UK is not locked into a persistently disadvantageous position? Can the Minister tell us what projected cost this programme will have to universities, which may lose out on international student fees as a result of this policy?

Finally, there will understandably be concern in this House and beyond that this EU reset could amount to a gradual reversal of the settlement reached when the United Kingdom left the European Union. What protections are in place to ensure that the UK is not drawn into open-ended financial commitments, regulatory alignment or governance structures over which it has limited control? Crucially, what clear mechanisms exist for the UK to withdraw or adjust its participation should this arrangement cease to serve our national interest?

There is broad consensus across this House that international mobility can be a powerful force for good, but good will must be matched by responsibility. If this scheme is to succeed, it must deliver value for money, widen opportunity rather than entrench privilege, and sit comfortably within a UK-EU relationship based on co-operation without dependency. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these points and to greater clarity on how the Government intend to ensure that this agreement works not just in theory but in practice for young people across the whole United Kingdom.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement and the achievement. We regret only that the Government are moving so slowly. I note that this means we differ considerably from the Conservative Front Bench, although I was relieved that the noble Earl’s words were a little less hysterical than the front pages of the Telegraph and the Mail today. If we are going to pursue the reset further, as my party strongly supports, and move towards dynamic alignment across the board—and, therefore, closer association with the customs union, which will have to come next—the Government will need to change their language and spend more time discussing the benefits as against the costs, which my Conservative colleague, the Telegraph and the Mail have stressed so heavily this morning.

I declare an interest. I taught many students from other European Union countries in my last two jobs in universities, one of whom is the President of his country and extremely active on European security; a number of others are now in leading positions in public life in their countries and good friends of the United Kingdom. That is one of the benefits we get from exchanges. On the imbalance we had last time, an active scheme to encourage British students to spend time in other countries would be of enormous benefit to this country. It would lead to people who understand other countries, can do business with them, understand their politics and then enter public service here or elsewhere, to our mutual benefit.

I regret the language of the Statement. It is defensive and therefore wrong. It talks about only “the national interest” and “sovereignty”. I am sure the Minister will agree that the only country in the world that is fully sovereign is North Korea. In other countries, sovereignty has to be compromised by international co-operation. As the leader of Reform in effect makes clear, the alternative to membership of the European Union is not full sovereignty but dependence on the United States, which is not an easy alternative at the present time.

I suggest that the Government should be talking about shared interests, common security, the benefits as against the costs and the fact that our contributions helped save this country money in many ways. When the Conservative Government took us out of the European Union, we had to set up separate agencies and recruit additional public servants. We lost the European Medicines Agency in London, which was a great boon to our pharmaceutical industry, and a number of other things. The benefits absolutely need to be stressed and I encourage the Minister to say to her colleagues, in particular Nick Thomas-Symonds, that the sort of language they are using will not persuade the bulk of the British public that we need to be closer to the European Union.

We now know, on very strong evidence, that we have lost a lot of economic growth since we have left, which means we have also lost tax revenue. On goods and services, we know that we need to go back to closer relations. I encourage the Minister to go further.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, maybe this was not the Statement to bring some Christmas good will, cheer and unanimity across your Lordships’ House. It is a good thing that my language, I hope, will be both positive for the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and slightly more circumspect for the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. I thank both noble Lords. We will continue to rehearse these arguments, as we have done for many years since the referendum, as we seek to undertake our reset. A number of important issues have been raised, which I will address in some detail. I will also reflect on Hansard to see which questions I have missed, either intentionally or by accident—never intentionally, as I am being reminded—and will write in due course.

I would like to engage with this in a spirit of good will. This is a positive thing we are doing: £500 million of additional investment in our young people in one year. It is something to be celebrated. I will engage in the promise of positivity at this time of year and I view it as my own Hanukkah miracle. I will touch on some of the issues raised.

On the UK-EU summit, our manifesto promised to reset our relationships with our European partners to improve our diplomatic, economic and security co-operation following Brexit. Earlier this year we hosted the first annual UK-EU summit, where the Prime Minister and the European Commission President welcomed our new strategic partnership and a landmark deal that is good for bills, borders and jobs. That is what we are seeking to deliver—a partnership that enables us to tackle the shared challenges we face, to boost the prosperity, safety and security of both our peoples, and to help strengthen European-wide defences.

I turn to the core of the announcement. We have made good progress on talks with the EU since the summit, working to implement the joint commitments we made in May. I am therefore pleased to inform the House that, yesterday, the UK and the European Commission concluded negotiations for the UK’s association to Erasmus+ from 2027 for one year—with, as I said, £500 million of investment in our young people. Our association to the programme will open up opportunities for learners, educators, youth workers, sports sector professionals and communities of all ages in our education, training, youth and sport sectors, for both the professionals who work in these sectors and, crucially, our young people. Participants can travel to any European Union member state and to several countries outside it, opening doors to tens of thousands of people across the UK, renewing our people ties with Europe and beyond.

At the summit, we also agreed to work towards participation in Erasmus+ on the basis that there will be a fair balance between our financial contribution and the number of UK participants receiving funding. We are pleased that the EU has agreed financial terms—a 30% discount in 2027 compared with the default terms in the trade and co-operation agreement. This is a fair balance between our contribution and the benefits of the programme. It has also been agreed that the UK’s participation in the programme will be reviewed 10 months after our association, which will include data on the demand for funding in the UK. Any continued participation will be informed by our experience of association in 2027. The Government will now work quickly to ensure that there is maximum take-up across all sectors and groups and that the benefits of our association to Erasmus+ can be felt.

The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, raised an important issue about people’s awareness of the scheme. I live in Stoke-on-Trent, and we must make sure that people from up and down the country are able to access these schemes, so that it is not, as historically it could have been considered, a boost for middle-class children, but is accessible to everyone. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have associations with further education facilities and schools up and down the country; there is a responsibility on each of us to make sure that people are aware of this scheme. I urge all noble Lords to reach out to their communities. The funding streams open in October 2026 and we have time to make sure that people can access this. One of the things I was most delighted to see yesterday was a quotation from the Association of School and College Leaders, which was delighted about this scheme.

The Turing scheme has wider international reach since we left Erasmus, though it was not the scheme that we left. I reassure noble Lords that the Turing scheme will be operating as normal next year and that we will continue to learn lessons from it. Any future decisions on Turing will be brought forward to your Lordships’ House in due course. On international fees to the EU, I am not sure that is something that I recognise, but I will reflect on the noble Earl’s exact question and come back to him.

On today’s coverage in the Mail and Telegraph, it will not surprise noble Lords that I anticipated such a question. The reality is that the European Union has not yet determined any costings for the next scheme, so nobody recognises the numbers that were in the papers today because no such scheme has been rolled out with any such budget. We have been clear to commit to 2027. We will make sure that it works and proves to be good value for money for the United Kingdom and is of huge value to our young people. We will continue to negotiate with the European Union on next steps.

The noble Earl raised the youth experience scheme. As I have made clear in other debates in your Lordships’ House, the Government recognise the value of such schemes. One of the things I find exceptionally difficult when we discuss youth mobility schemes is that the previous Government signed a youth mobility scheme with Uruguay. I do not understand why a youth mobility scheme with the European Union is so contrary to our values that we would not want one. If we can have one with 13 other countries, we can have one with the European Union.

On the Labour Party’s red lines in our manifesto, I hate to disappoint the noble Lord but we have been very clear that we are not rejoining the customs union. Our manifesto set out exactly what we were prepared to do in our negotiations. All our negotiations are through the prism of our red lines. We will not be returning to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement.

On whether the UK is becoming a rule-taker, we have made a choice to align in some areas where it makes sense for our national interest. The EU has accepted that there will need to be a number of areas in which we need to retain our own rules as we make alignment going forward. The details of these are all subject to negotiation. We will be involved in forming the regulations that apply to the UK at every stage, and Members of your Lordships’ House will have appropriate scrutiny arrangements in place.

I will finish on a positive. The expected financial benefits for our economy from having a closer relationship with the European Union are hugely significant. The SPS and carbon-pricing agreements which we are currently negotiating will add nearly £9 billion a year to the UK economy by 2040. The carbon-pricing deal avoids the risk of UK businesses paying tax to the EU on £7 billion-worth of trade. We are seeking to reset our relationship based on what is best in our national interest as a sovereign country. The European Union is our biggest trade partner and the biggest source of economic growth for this country. We continue to work closely with it, in a spirit of good will at this time of year.

Office for the Impact Economy

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, the office is already building partnerships to benefit people in exactly the way my noble friend has outlined. We are working with MHCLG to secure match funding for the £5 billion Pride in Place programme, and with DHSC on the neighbourhood health implementation programme. In the early years space, we are supporting the DfE’s Blended Finance Facility and working with it on the Best Start Family Hubs match fund and of course the better futures fund, the biggest outcomes fund in the world, which will change the life chances of over 200,000 children over the next decade. This is only the beginning. The Office for the Impact Economy really will help us deliver on our promise of national renewal.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of a larger third sector—mutuals, non-profits and charities—rather than outsourcing, for example, special needs or care homes to the private equity sector instead. The Social Impact Investment Advisory Group’s report, which foresaw the setting up of this new office, said priority one was to establish

“visible leadership at both ministerial and senior civil service levels”.

Does the Minister agree that visibility has been rather blurred so far and that, if one wants to attract the wealthy philanthropists into partnership with the government to strengthen the third sector, a great deal more visibility is needed?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought it was the season of goodwill and I genuinely thought there was going to be a positive question. In terms of visibility, let us be clear that the Office for the Impact Economy was announced by the Prime Minister—I am not sure how much more visible or committed we can be. Also, the main Minister leading this is the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, who will be overseeing its implementation, along with my right honourable friend Lisa Nandy, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. This is being led at the highest level, with huge commitment. This is an excellent report, led by Dame Elizabeth Corley. We thank her for her work. We are now seeking to work with her and the wider team to co-design what happens next, to make sure that we can deliver on the promises that can come from the impact economy.

Ministerial Code

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the noble Viscount. Everybody in your Lordships’ House, whether they hold ministerial office or not, has a responsibility to help us rebuild trust in politics. It is incredibly important in a world of misinformation, in a world where we have seen the Horizon scandal and the infected blood scandal, and where we are trying to fix some things that were genuinely broken, that the general public have faith and trust in us, both as the Government and as the establishment, and that we collectively work together to make sure that people can trust their Government.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches see a very large pot attacking a rather smaller kettle. The Conservatives, as a responsible Opposition, must own and admit their own past record on this; on public appointments, including to the BBC board, the Conservatives have a number of answers to give. I am constantly amazed at the Conservatives’ denial that they were in office for the last 10 years.

The Minister will not have seen this morning’s publication by UCL’s Constitution Unit—one of the best sources of comment on constitutional matters—which has the headline, “Starmer’s constitutional timidity”. I encourage her to look back at what the Labour manifesto said on this, because much of what that manifesto promised on public appointments, a stronger role for Parliament and modernisation simply has not been pushed through yet. On public appointments, it seems clear, particularly after the current BBC arguments, that Parliament should be given a fuller role in checking public appointments—Select Committees, for example, which have been strongly supported to vet public appointments as they are made. Do the Government not intend to push through some of the commitments they made in their manifesto, such as proper modernisation of the Commons and thorough reform of the Lords?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for bringing my attention to the report; I look forward to reading it. He will not be surprised that, on Budget Day, I have yet to reflect on the report, but I will do so. We are 18 months into a Labour Government that have delivered on strengthening the Ministerial Code by setting out new financial penalties and new terms of reference for the independent adviser, establishing a new monthly register of Ministers’ interests, and establishing a new Ethics and Integrity Commission, which was in our manifesto. Having sat through every moment of our debates, I know that we have been in your Lordships’ House for over 50 hours discussing the future of the House as well as other areas of modernisation. We are acting. This is a hugely ambitious Government with a great deal to do, and we will continue to move forward.

Office for National Statistics

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, the drop in the response rate is of deep concern, and I thank my noble friend for asking. Concern about the Labour Force Survey and our economic statistics more widely was a key reason for the Devereux review, which was commissioned earlier this year. As I said, since then the ONS has published a survey improvement enhancement plan on economic statistics. I assure my noble friend that this is something that we are taking very seriously, not least because having clear data, especially in an age of misinformation, ensures that the Government can act. This is always the case with the gender pay gap—but, regardless of the data, what is clear is that the underlying message on the gender pay gap is the same. There is a persistent gender pay gap that is bad for women, businesses and growth, which is why this Government are taking the necessary steps to ensure that it narrows more quickly.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, when I was attached to the Cabinet Office well over a decade ago, I was told that the Government, locally and nationally, have a very large amount of administrative data which is not shared because of systemic barriers between different departments. I note that this was recommendation 6 in the Lievesley report last year, but nothing much has been done in that regard. I note also that the Devereux report suggests that we may need legislation to correct this. How do the Government plan to integrate administrative data much better than we have so far achieved?

Youth Mobility Scheme

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. One of the reasons why we have these schemes is the shared cultural and social norms with our nearest allies that develop from them. There are 13 of these schemes already in existence, ranging from New Zealand and Canada to Uruguay, ensuring that people have access. So far this year, 12,000 visas have been issued. This is active participation to make sure that young people view the world in the broadest possible way.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to “a balance”. We are very conscious that when we were in the EU, more students and young people from the EU and elsewhere came to Britain. What are the Government doing to encourage young British people to spend time on the continent taking apprenticeships, a year in universities or whatever? On the question of balance and improving languages, are we considering a teaching assistant exchange whereby people with native languages might be able to teach in British schools, with people here teaching English there?

Civil Service: Interns

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question and for her work in this area. She will be aware that the fast-track internship programme started in 2000 and has had many different iterations, and therefore there are well-established assessment processes in place to make sure that changes work effectively. With regard to how we are doing it, we are adopting this scheme through our test-and-learn approach within the Cabinet Office to make sure that if we do not believe it is working then we will change it. We will be using the criteria that have previously been used, which is why we are using the definition I cited. That is how I can tell your Lordships that in 2022 the internship scheme had people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds at a level of 33% of applications, but that fell to 19.7% and now has fallen even further at this point. We have the data to demonstrate why we need to do this.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister reminding us that the original scheme had a diversity element, which was abolished by the Conservative Government in 2023 in a rather Trumpian attack on the whole idea of diversity. Does the Minister recall that when Oxford and Cambridge introduced similar diversity schemes for children from deprived backgrounds in poorer state schools there was an enormous amount of criticism? I was on the staff of Oxford University at the time and remember being almost physically assaulted. After 30 years, these are widely accepted to have brought a number of extremely bright children from poor backgrounds up into very successful academic, administrative and other careers, and I think this scheme is likely to have the same sort of effect.

UK Constitution: Oversight and Responsibility (Report from the Constitution Committee)

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Friday 4th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for the committee’s work and for his clear and comprehensive introduction today. I thank the committee for taking on the difficult—indeed, impossible—task of trying to find ways, within the limits of its mandate, to prop up a tottering, failing system. I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, for reasons I will come back to later.

If we start where the committee starts, paragraph 3 of the report says that the system is “uncodified and flexible”, and cites the Supreme Court from 2019: our system

“remains sufficiently flexible to be capable of further development”.

I am afraid that there is a tone there of protesting too much. The vehemency is a measure of desperation. We are stuck, rather visibly, somewhere between the 16th and the 19th centuries. That is rather acknowledged in paragraph 5, where the committee says that the constitution is

“vulnerable to erosion and challenge, and relies to a considerable extent upon individuals respecting and complying with constitutional norms”.

The noble Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, very clearly set out how much that is not happening.

I begin with a practical example. This week marks the 10th anniversary of the slaughter of Cecil the lion by a vile American trophy hunter in Zimbabwe. That reminds me of a disgraceful evening in your Lordships’ House, on 12 September 2023. A Bill had gone through the elected House with the support of all sides. We saw in this House 12 former public schoolboys drive a cart and horses through what we have always been told are the respected traditions of the House—the unwritten, uncodified rules—to filibuster the Hunting Trophies (Importation Prohibition) Bill. The unwritten rules demonstrably were not worth the paper that they were not written on.

The committee’s report refers to the

“primacy of the Prime Minister in safeguarding the constitution”.

There is an obvious, glaring weakness there if our constitution relies on one person. That is not the way for a constitution to organise a structure. More than that, I point out the position of the Prime Minister. Our current Prime Minister and his party, after a landslide election, have the support of 34% of people who voted in the general election last year. If we look at eligible voters, we find that the Prime Minister has the support of 20% of them. Of course, we do not elect the Prime Minister; we elect MPs. If we look at who elected our current Prime Minister, of the people of Holborn and St Pancras who voted, less than half of them voted for Sir Keir Starmer. We are putting all the weight of our constitution on this one person, on those incredibly fragile foundations.

Is it any wonder—a lot of Members of your Lordship’s House commented on this—that, at the start of this year, there was a Channel 4 poll in which 52% of 13 to 27 year-olds said that the UK would be in a better place with a strong leader who does not have to bother with Parliament and elections. I remind your Lordships that that is where we are today. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, a wide range of people now regard the idea of coming into Parliament as poison. That is a measure of the problems with where we are.

How about, instead, we start to think much more broadly? I absolutely do not fault the committee for not doing this—I am sure it did not regard this as within its mandate. How about we think about having a proper, modern, democratic, functional constitution? That is where we have to go, because it is not what we have now. We can see the impact of this in the state of the nation—we could even say in the state of this building. It is easy to blame individuals—and I do, very often—but why do we keep having failing Government after failing Government after failing Government? We have to look at the constitutional and institutional structures.

I come to a more specific point. In chapter 5 of the report, about the Council of the Nations and Regions, the committee says:

“The Government should set out who within the UK Government is responsible for the Council of the Nations and Regions”.


It is clear that this is being taken so seriously that we have no idea who is responsible for something that will meet every six months and bring together elected mayors who represent some parts of the country. Again, we are going to see first past the post elections, with elected mayors who may well be elected with 25% to 30% of the vote. That is who is going to be speaking for their regions. These are devolution plans imposed from Westminster.

I come to a very specific point here. It is interesting that this entire report makes no mention of local councils, which are at least rather more representative local organisations. They are not included in the Council of the Nations and Regions. I point to a ministerial Statement in June, when the Government declared that councils must have a leader and cabinet model. This is Westminster directing how local councils should work. This is supposed to ensure that local communities will have the right mechanism to engage with their council. I have a question for the Minister directly. The people of Bristol in 2022 and the people of Sheffield in 2021, through a grass-roots campaign and a referendum of the whole city, decided that they want committee structures in their councils. Are the Government really going to overrule that basic piece of democracy?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Probably.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I hear “probably” from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, and I fear that that may be right.

Having just been at the Local Government Association conference in Liverpool, I warn the Minister and the Government that there will be resistance to the plans to abolish district councils—the form of government closest to the people. People are going to fight.

I come to my concluding sentence. We cannot rely on good chaps suddenly discovering a sense of responsibility and honesty. Institutional structures do not support “good chap” behaviour. The Select Committee is trying valiantly to shore up something that is not working. We need to think about getting a modern, functional, democratic constitution for the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lord, the UK is a constitutional democracy without a written constitution. It is a very odd constitution. The integrity of our system of government therefore depends on the willingness of those in power to accept the constraints of constitutional conventions: to behave like gentlemen. This report states in its opening paragraph,

“the actions of Ministers and Prime Ministers”

in the last decade have placed “strains” on our constitution —that is a very modest way of putting something about the behaviour of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. However, that sets the context for the report’s recommendations. Furthermore, evidence from opinion surveys that shows that public distrust of Westminster, Whitehall, Parliament and government is at an all-time high makes it even more important to re-examine the mechanisms for maintaining appropriate and ethical behaviour and the “ancillary structures”, as the report puts it, that provide the constitutional guardrails against inappropriate behaviour.

I found the Government’s response to this report flabby and complacent. It ignores the acute strains that Johnson and Truss placed on our constitutional conventions, and so draws no lessons from them. What we read is a defence of the current messy distribution of tasks across Whitehall with no indication of concern that improvements might be needed. Ten days ago, I listened to a speech by the current “Minister for the Constitution”, Nick Thomas-Symonds, at a Constitution Unit conference. His message was that better delivery of public services would be enough to

“restore the public’s faith in our constitution”,

although he added in passing that we should always be looking at the adequacy of checks and balances.

Some noble Lords will have seen today’s Times cartoon, which depicts President Trump declaring 4 July the day of independence from checks and balances and of getting away from constitutional constraints—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, is extremely happy that Trump is behaving in such a fashion.

Reading this report on Wednesday morning and then going into the debate on Report on the hereditary Peers Bill, I was also reminded of the parallels between this and that debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, argued that a popular democracy should not create bodies of unelected people to hold back an elected Prime Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, warned against an “activist judiciary” of unelected judges constraining prime ministerial power. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, has just repeated that we should not try to constrain future Governments. The whole point of constitutions is indeed to constrain future Governments. I have read much of the many writings of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, including that wonderful but entirely inaccurate book on how the Anglo-Saxons invented freedom. Actually, the history of the United States in its relationship to Britain is about the invention of constitutional democracy with all the constraints that President Washington, The Federalist Papers and others put on that, which President Trump is now doing his utmost to tear away. The difference between popular democracy and constitutional democracy is important. I stand on one side of it; the noble Lord very clearly stands with President Trump, Viktor Orban and others, apparently, on the other side.

Our unwritten constitution has executive dominance, within context which it is hoped the Prime Minister will observe, and a number of parliamentary, judicial and advisory checks and balances that are intended to strengthen those constraints. Some of those present may already have registered for the Policy Exchange meeting on 16 July entitled “Is Populism the Future of the Right?” I hope that most of us here will say, “We hope not”.

This report refers to the complex framework of institutional guardians that safeguard the UK constitution. It nevertheless notes that since the abolition of the Lord Chancellor’s office, the various bodies within Whitehall have been shuffled around from the Department for Constitutional Affairs into the Cabinet Office on to the ministry for local government and so on without really having the importance which they have.

In their manifesto last year, the Government promised a number of things on which they have not yet begun to deliver. Where is the ethics and integrity commission that we were promised? What is happening to the revision of the Cabinet Manual? It is particularly important that the Cabinet Manual is revised because it was sparked by Gordon Brown in 2008-09, partly because he believed that we might not have a single-party majority in the 2010 election. It was not completed for that, but it was a useful help. It now looks highly likely that in the 2029 election we will have a non-majoritarian outcome. At the moment, we have five parties in England effectively competing, six in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and today we have had the announcement of a seventh. That might well lead us to a messy outcome. When I look at politics in Yorkshire, I can see the party that Zarah Sultana has spoken of winning several seats in Yorkshire under current conditions. We will need an updated Cabinet Manual to guide the negotiations that may then have to follow. I hope the Minister will be able to say something about progress with the Cabinet Manual, which in an unwritten constitutional situation becomes all the more important.

I was interested in the number of Peers who spoke about oaths. As I swear at the beginning of each Parliament to be loyal to the King, his heirs and successors, I wonder whether I should not actually be swearing to obey the constitution and the laws of this country instead. I think that when a Prime Minister comes into office, it would be appropriate for them to swear an oath, perhaps in front of the House of Commons, that he or she will respect the laws of this country. It would be a very good idea for the Constitution Committee to look at the oaths Act 1868—rather a long time ago—and consider how the taking of office of one sort or another in the various parts of the British constitutional machinery should perhaps now be updated.

On the Council of the Nations and Regions, I am one of the very small number of people who have actually read the Gordon Brown report—I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, has also read her way through it—which put forward the idea of an alternative second Chamber. It would indeed have created a very different, and I think much more constructive, second Chamber than we currently have. It had some relevance to the 2011 proposals that the coalition Government put forward, which I as a then Minister struggled to persuade this House, unsuccessfully, were a good idea.

What we have now in the Council of the Nations and Regions is really almost nothing. It has met twice. We are not quite sure who goes to it nor where the secretariat is. I strongly agree with those who have said that the problem of local democracy in England in particular is a real problem, and it is a constitutional problem. I encourage the Constitution Committee to look again at what is meant by devolution and why we are losing so much of our local democracy within the English part of this country in particular.

Lastly, I want to touch on the role of the monarchy. Over the last few months, watching Trump in the United States, I have for the first time begun to appreciate the usefulness of the ambiguous relationship between the monarch and the Prime Minister. There is no one to say to President Trump, when he wishes to behave without any constraints whatsoever, “Are you sure you’re doing the right thing?”, or, “I’m very sorry but you cannot see me at the moment—perhaps in two or three days’ time”. I well remember that when there was an attempted military coup in Spain, it was the King’s refusal to agree that prevented it. For the first time, in a sense, I see that the role of the monarch and his advisers, as well as of the Prime Minister and his advisers, perhaps forms one of the few backstops we might need in an emergency.

Our constitutional issues are, as we can see from the thinly attended Benches, dry and not of interest most of the time to most people. However, British politics is in a very confused situation. The public mistrust Westminster and Whitehall, and after the next election we are likely to face considerable constitutional confusion. For that reason, the Government need to take constitutional issues much more seriously in order to fulfil some of the promises in their manifesto, which they have not yet done, and to produce, in consultation with the appropriate committees in the Commons and the Lords, a revised Cabinet Manual.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I absolutely did, but I think on this occasion we can suggest that this Government are very clear in their commitment to the rule of law and the people who are in post.

There was a great deal of discussion about good chaps—I like to think chaps and chapesses—at the heart of which, as touched on by my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley, was the culture of stewardship that we have a collective responsibility to deliver with regard to our constitution. We all have an extraordinarily privileged position in sitting in your Lordships’ House and being part of our constitution. Therefore, the onus is on us to make sure that we work as members of the Government and as Members of Parliament to deliver on it.

I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about Bristol City Council. I went to school in Bristol, so I have a particular interest there. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, gave us a masterclass; I loved his historical comparisons and imaginative use of ChatGPT. I speak in your Lordships’ House on many different issues, and AI always manages to get into the debate. I did not think it would do so today, but I appreciate the ingenuity.

My noble friend Lady Alexander made a fascinating and very important point on the devolution settlement and the role of the Lord Chancellor. It is a position we have discussed in great detail in recent days and which I will reflect on, given the responsibilities we place on it. I am proud of the work that our party has done to drive the devolution agenda to deliver for people. We will continue to do so through the English devolution settlement and by making sure that devolution continues to work.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, raised a very interesting point about ensuring deeper public understanding of our constitution. As I said, there is an onus on all of us to do that; it is incredibly important for all citizens and lots of parliamentarians do extraordinary work to support public understanding. I will take away his suggestion, but I am not sure that a single programme led by government on promoting the constitution would be effective.

Having said that, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, touched on active citizenship. Citizenship is on the national curriculum. We are currently undertaking a review of the national curriculum and I hope that when we get the outcome of the review, we will be able reflect on this and other issues related to citizenship.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, knows that I genuinely enjoy his oratory in your Lordships’ House, not least because it forces me to question my own opinions every time to make sure that my views are in line with my values as much as his align. It will not surprise him, therefore, that although his speech was fascinating as ever, I still believe in the role of the Human Rights Act in ensuring that there are safeguards for the operation of government and the other safeguards that were touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.

Returning to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, I thank him for his decades of work on constitutional protections. The Government have well-established parliamentary and devolution capability programmes for civil servants, but there is always more to be done. I will go back and look at exactly what we need to do and the suggestions we need to follow.

I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the current political environment. I remind noble Lords there are four years until the next general election, and we will see how many political parties we will be facing in four years’ time, but I do reflect upon the seven that are now in existence. Noble Lords who are aware of my own personal travails will be aware of what I think of the establishment of the most recent of those political parties. His suggestion regarding the 1868 oaths Act is an interesting one, and I will have a conversation about it in the department. I also thank him for reminding us of the important role the monarch plays within our constitution, but also the subtle way that conversations can be had that give a level of importance to the Prime Minister.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I say that the Cabinet Secretary’s filing system sounds all too familiar and similar to my own. All members of the Government should reflect on our own filing systems, in both our emails and on paper. She had interesting thoughts on the Propriety and Constitution Group, and I would welcome a further conversation with her outside your Lordships’ House to consider what next steps we might need to take and possible areas of reform. I reassure all noble Lords that members of the Propriety and Constitution Group are accountable to the relevant Ministers, as is normal for all civil servants. For a moment during the noble Baroness’s speech, I thought she was about to suggest that we need another arms-length body, and I was amazed, but absolutely not—she did clarify that that was not something she would welcome.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, also raised a point about the Propriety and Constitution Group. I reassure him that while the union and devolution teams have moved from and back to the Cabinet Office, the Propriety and Constitution Group has consistently been in the Cabinet Office. This gives us the opportunity to preserve institutional memory, as was touched upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger.

On the Cabinet Manual, the Government are focused on delivering the commitments outlined in our manifesto. We know the importance of the Cabinet Manual and while we do not currently have plans to update it, we are keeping it under review.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I ask for an assurance that when the Cabinet Manual is renewed, there will be consultation with the appropriate committees in both Houses before it is published.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I am going to say yes, and we will see how much trouble I have just got myself in.

NHS, Armed Forces and Civil Service Staff: Public Meetings

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, before I joined your Lordships’ House, I ran an organisation called Index on Censorship. We should be very careful about the use of that word and how it applies here, versus the political dissidents I used to represent. The noble Baroness talks about something that everybody in this Chamber has participated in—a Chatham House rules discussion. On the point she raised about the RUSI Land Warfare Conference, it was completely appropriate that the head of the British Army led the discussion. She will also be aware that this is a cyclical news story that appears regularly. After all, in 2020 the former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was accused of gagging his head of the Navy.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, politics and government are necessarily an informed dialogue between Ministers and civil servants and between senior civil servants and outside experts. We need to maintain the ability of expert policymakers to have that dialogue. If it is felt that senior civil servants cannot honestly discuss with outsiders—I declare an interest as someone who used to work at Chatham House and do such things—decent policy-making will deteriorate. Can the Government make it absolutely clear that senior civil servants have to engage with outside professions with which their policy-making responsibilities interact?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, ongoing engagement with stakeholders, whoever they may be, is key. Noble Lords will be aware that one of my responsibilities in your Lordships’ House is to discuss the Infected Blood Inquiry. There is a responsibility on our civil servants to engage every day both with those in the infected community and with the charities that represent them. That is true of every part of government business and it is vital that civil servants are available to do so, which is why this Government have not changed any such policy.

Ethics and Integrity Commission

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to establish an Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure probity in government.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are committed to establishing the right structures to uphold the highest standards of ethics and integrity. Steps we have taken already to improve probity and transparency include the new Ministerial Code, the strengthened terms of reference for the independent adviser and the new monthly Register of Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality. On an ethics and integrity commission, Ministers are assessing all the options and we will update Parliament on decisions in due course.

While we are discussing processes related to ethics, integrity and standards in public life, I should declare that my husband is a member of the Committee on Standards in the other place.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I congratulate the noble Baroness.

This was a clear pledge in the Labour Party’s manifesto, and Liberal Democrats agree that it is essential to re-establishing public trust after the many unethical actions, and even corruption, that we saw particularly under Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. On my shelves at home, I have a whole file of reports from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and from outside commissions, think tanks et cetera, setting out the options on this. There are some very clear and simple choices. If I were asked to write the consultation paper, I think it would take me a weekend. Why have the Government delayed so much in doing so?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, we should discuss bookshelves. As for what we are doing, we have taken immediate action, but we want to make sure that, given how important ethics and integrity are in public life, and especially as—and I think the noble Lord agrees—one of the main ways in which we can challenge and counter the politics of populism is to make sure that people can genuinely trust their politicians, we need to make sure that the structures we put in place work and are right and effective. We are working on it, and I will update the House in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an excellent point, which I am just assured by my noble friend sitting to my right that we are working on in the English devolution Bill and that conversations are ongoing.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this clearly involves considering a large number of bodies which are concerned with standards in government, Parliament and local government. Does the Minister consider that the process of establishing an ethics and integrity commission will require legislation, or can it be done through executive decisions?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, work is currently ongoing about what we will bring forward and how we will bring it forward. I will update the House as soon as I can.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting
Monday 20th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has remarked on the fact that the ambition and scope of this amendment are quite modest compared to the amendment that we debated last week in Committee. The redrafting has been wise. Gone is the requirement that Parliament should approve the negotiating mandate and stance of the Government and in effect give them their marching orders in the negotiations. The Executive must be allowed to do their job and in turn Parliament should do its job, and we should respect the separation of powers. It is for the Executive to negotiate the future relationship and it is for Parliament to hold the Executive to account. Parliament has numerous means of holding the Executive to account in the form of Questions, debates, Select Committee inquiries and many other procedural resources, and I anticipate that it will use that array of resources very extensively in the months to come.

I would add that I do not think that it is appropriate for parliamentary procedure to be prescribed in statute, and it is particularly inappropriate that this unelected House should make proposals of this nature to the House of Commons, which I suspect will not take very kindly to being told how to do its job.

All in all, I welcome the modification of the approach that is reflected in the amendment and I congratulate my noble friend and her colleagues who have thought it wiser to proceed on this basis rather than the one proposed the other day.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this is an unusual Bill in a number of ways. We were debating in Committee that it has a clause which restates that parliamentary sovereignty has been established, so we are talking about some fairly fundamental constitutional issues. The relationship between Parliament and the Government is one about which I have heard Ministers make a number of self-contradictory comments in the days and weeks since the election in the rather triumphalist tone they have adopted. One Minister referred during the Committee stage to restoring the “normal relationship” between Parliament and the Government, by which I think he meant a nice safe majority in the Commons so that it does not criticise too much what the Government want to do.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, talked about the dualist approach to international negotiations whereby treaties, once they have been agreed, have to be transposed into domestic law and thus Parliament comes in, as it were, after the event. Given the importance of this negotiation, if one does believe in the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, the Government need to carry Parliament with them. That is the constitutional set of issues here, and we look forward to further discussions on what the constitution commission the Government are going to set up will be about. If it has the sort of forethought and consideration which was shown in the suggestion thrown out this weekend that the House of Lords might move to York, I have to say that it is not going to be a very good commission because it is quite clear that there was no thought behind that whatever.

It is not just the constitution; it is also about wisdom. Some of us heard the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, remark in Committee that in his long career he had noted that it is when Governments are most self-confident and convinced that they can survive criticism that they are most likely to make mistakes. Here we are after an election in which the Government have established a majority on less than 45% of the vote, but it is a majority in the Commons according to our current antiquated rules. The wisdom of carrying the public and Parliament with them as they negotiate—particularly if they are going to negotiate for as hard a break with the European Union as the Chancellor has suggested—seems to me very powerful.

While I was at Chatham House, I was much involved in the various discussions about establishing the single market, and I remember all the talk then about why the Prime Minister was persuaded that the single market was in Britain’s interest and the extent to which we were taking our regulations for a large number of industrial and other standards from the United States extraterritorially. The Government are now suggesting that we will establish our own independent standards. An editorial in the Times this morning said that maybe we should not exclude chlorinated chicken, so we can begin to see that, if we move away from European standards, we will move under American standards, and that will be part of what emerges from the US/UK trade agreement.

I support this amendment on constitutional grounds and on the grounds of political wisdom. Parliament deserves to be carried along with the Government and the Government need to explain and justify their objectives as they proceed.

[Lord Bowness (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this simplified amendment. In Committee, I appealed to the Government to recognise that many people remain concerned about the nature of our future arrangements with the European Union. This is not about for or against Brexit but about the future. The Government appear to want us to take everything on trust, but we need to know in advance not the details of their negotiation but the approach they will take in negotiations.

This is not a novel idea. I know that in the United Kingdom we are not keen on adopting approaches taken by other countries, but—without going into the details—I refer Ministers to the working of the grand committee of the Finnish parliament. It is a good start to learn how other parliaments reconcile coming to an agreement with their Governments about their approach to European Union matters and the attitude we seem to be taking. That approach, with modifications, is to be found in the proceedings—and indeed, so far as Finland is concerned, in the constitutions—of member states. It is not a novel idea.

Statements, Questions and take-note Motions in arrears of events are no substitute for the kind of procedures to which we refer. The citizens who accept Brexit but want to ensure that we try to keep as many of the benefits of the last 40 years as possible need to be listened to. If the Government do not bring forward any amendment at Third Reading to deal with this, I am afraid many people will feel that the Government, in the name of an ideological pursuit of a hard Brexit and possibly no deal, have no intention of healing the divisions in the country. The Government need to establish some trust among the rest of us.