Grand Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

Thursday 30 January 2025

Rape: Prosecutions

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

13:00

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what are the main factors that have led to decades of low levels of rape cases being prosecuted, and continue to prevent such prosecutions, and what steps are they taking to resolve this.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I would like to thank in advance all noble Lords who are speaking today. I will be listening very closely to the two former Met Police Commissioners here today, because they probably not only understand the problems but know exactly where the solutions lie. I hope the Government will be listening to them as closely as I will.

We all know that our country is failing rape victims, who are mainly but not exclusively women. I could stand here all day and quote figures that show how bad things are now, and how bad they were a decade ago or even three or four decades ago. Misogyny is not new, and it is the root of most rapes. There have been times when women could be priests, or even gods, but extreme misogyny arose in Assyria two and a half thousand years ago and brought it into politics and religion.

I could talk about the way that young working-class girls in Rotherham were not believed and were ignored. We could explore the allegations of police collusion and corruption, with links to local drug gangs, or I could go back a decade and talk about the failures of the police when the Yorkshire ripper was killing sex workers. There is the scandal of Jimmy Savile, operating as a sexual predator in plain sight, with powerful friends in the BBC and Downing Street; or Worboys, the taxi driver who the police believe had 100 victims, some of whom had reported being assaulted before he was finally caught.

Each of these cases has the common threads of women and girls not being believed or fearing they would not be believed. There are the half-hearted investigations of women who do report and the professional scepticism of Crown Prosecution Service staff about whether a jury is going to convict. There is the character assassination of survivors and the intrusive exploration of their personal lives by the authorities, which are meant to be supporting them in getting justice. These high-profile cases open up the public debate, but they are the merest fraction of the lived experience of hundreds of thousands of women and girls who have reported, or not reported, gone to trial, or tried to, and then given up in despair.

What is striking in reading through the library of previous reports, inquiries and ministerial speeches is the repeated themes and recommendations. They tend to broadly agree with the existing policy relating to the investigation and prosecution of rape and then state that this policy is not being properly implemented. These kinds of failures are long standing. It can feel as though the repeated commissioning of these reviews and inspections is a way for government and other authorities to indicate concern, while never following through with the action and resources needed to make change. I am absolutely positive that this Labour Government will do better than that.

From the 1980s onwards, we had a slow but positive shift in the way the police and Crown prosecutors handled rape cases—from the setting up of rape investigation rooms and the swift collection of forensic evidence, to a merit-based approach to prosecution that looked at the evidence, rather than second-guessing what a jury might or might not decide. Coming out of the scandal of grooming gangs in several northern towns, Sir Keir Starmer, the then head of the Crown Prosecution Service, argued that it was not a question of the victim’s behaviour or criminal record, but whether the crime had happened. He said:

“if the yardstick traditionally used by prosecutors for evaluating the credibility of a victim in other cases were used without adaptation in cases of sexual exploitation, the outcome would potentially be a category of vulnerable victims left unprotected by the criminal law.”

He was absolutely right.

These changes, combined with the #MeToo campaign and a series of high-profile historical scandals, led to a huge increase in the reporting of rape cases. This was a success, but it came just as austerity led to the slow collapse of the criminal justice system. The result has been a disaster for rape victims—rape survivors—who have been seriously let down by an overstretched judicial system that has responded in the worst of all possible ways. It is a system that promises justice but delivers delays and failure.

The numbers of rapes recorded by the police increased steadily from the 1980s but tripled between 2014 and 2018, reaching their highest-ever volume. The number of reported rapes being successfully prosecuted has, however, dropped from 25% in 1981 to 1% or 2% in recent years.

Instead of our society recognising the scale of a hidden scandal and putting resources into achieving justice when hundreds of thousands of people started reporting this horrendous but regular, everyday crime, what the last Government did was to cut police, lawyers and police time. The Crown Prosecution Service quietly dropped the merit-based approach and rationed cases going forwards based on a Ladbrokes betting shop analysis of the odds of a jury convicting the alleged assailant—I am going to be very careful about naming the person I believe is responsible for that, because I am not sure whether saying it in the House of Lords gives me cover from prosecution.

The solution is more resources, and that means making it a priority within the judicial system—no more delaying trials for a year or more, so that the rape survivor gives up all hope of justice and drops out from emotional exhaustion. As long as rape is a crime that people think they can get away with, they will do it. Do this Government, or any Government, want rape legalised? The year-on-year failures make that appear, near enough, the outcome of austerity.

The other thing the Government can do is education and changing the culture. This is incredibly important and I feel that this avenue of recovery has not been explored. In France, Gisèle Pelicot has done this and changed the culture of shame from being all on the survivor to the shame being directed at all the men who raped her, all those who colluded and all those who did not report to the police what was happening. We need Ministers to get behind survivors and make it clear that rape is not just about grooming gangs, spiked drinks, dodgy taxi drivers or even police officers. All those need dealing with but, distressingly, most sexual assaults are about familiar and comfortable environments and people whom you know. Therefore, education is absolutely basic to sorting out this problem. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister will say in reply. If he could pick up that point about education, I would be very grateful.

13:07

[Baroness Wyld (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on securing this debate and on her powerful speech. I regret very much that it is needed. During my research for this debate, my feelings were of—I do not use this word lightly—anger and incredulity that it is 2025 and we are still talking about this. I have three young daughters. My eldest is 14 and is just at the stage where she is travelling around London on the bus on her own. She asked me what I was doing today and I said I was coming to talk about this: the failure of the criminal justice system to protect victims and survivors of one of the most brutal and degrading offences.

Looking at the last Parliament, there was a recent victory for campaigners in last year’s change in the law to better protect survivors’ counselling notes. The cross-party work done by my noble friend Lady Bertin and others in the House—supported by the Minister when he was in his shadow role, as I remember—highlighted the uphill battle to ensure that survivors are treated with dignity and care.

I want to focus my remarks today on the first stage of the reporting process: the early stage, when victims and survivors of rape decide whether they are able to go to the police or, indeed, whether they are not. We can see the barriers: the ONS Crime Survey for England and Wales reported that of respondents who had told someone that they had been raped but not the police, 38% thought that the police could not help them and a quarter thought that the police would not believe them. The last Government’s rape review reported that the percentage of victims who withdraw at the police stage has never fallen below 41% and, at the time of its report, it was sitting at 61%.

I acknowledge the action taken by the previous Administration and picked up by this one to improve processes. I welcome the progress made by Operation Soteria, the College of Policing and others, but it has taken far too long for victims’ voices to be heard and longer still for this to be translated into action.

We have a strategic policing requirement, which includes requiring violence against women and girls and domestic abuse to be tackled, but it is a depressingly patchy performance at best. Operation Soteria recognised that good practice was observed but was dependent on individual officers rather than built into systems and policies. I very much welcome this Government’s commitment to establishing specialist teams and the other commitments they have made on vetting, et cetera. I urge them to continue at pace, but the fundamental issue here is one of trust. While systems and processes are core to that trust, there is a deeper issue at play.

What really drove me to sign up to today’s debate is the need to spend more time talking about the culture within police forces, specifically attitudes to women and girls. Of course, given the topic today, it is important to acknowledge that men are also victims of rape, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, and I would never seek to minimise that. As the Home Affairs Select Committee recognised, women are more likely than men to experience rape, and the majority of perpetrators are men. I feel unable to strike an optimistic tone in this debate because too many revelations—from the 2022 IOPC review and the 2023 Casey review of the Met—have highlighted sexist and misogynistic behaviours in policing.

I am aware that many police officers do an excellent job. Like everyone in this Room, I am sure, I was brought up to respect and trust the police, and I am bringing up my own daughters to do so. They do a very difficult job. I am not saying that the failures on this specific issue are directly related to misogynistic behaviour—mistakes are made and the two are not necessarily linked—but the fact that the College of Policing is, in 2025, running a strategy to tackle misogynistic behaviours within policing tells us a lot, surely, about the impact of culture on performance. If women are to come forward, trust comes first. If their experiences when they come forward are to change, then culture is at the heart of it. Surely, given that our police forces clearly want to be able to recruit the best people to tackle violence against women and girls, they need to ensure that their culture supports this without fail.

Having listened to Ministers in the previous Administration and this one at the Dispatch Box, I believe that there is the political will to end violence against women and girls. That will require commitment to supporting police leadership to drive change, but also holding them properly to account by asking what exactly they are doing to call out such behaviour when they see it and hear it.

I finish by paying tribute to the victims and survivors. I hope that we can continue to work cross-party to do better.

13:12

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for this well-timed opportunity to debate this issue. I did not disagree with anything that the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, just said. The problems of rape investigations, prosecutions and convictions are well known and understood; they have been there too long. What is less well developed are the solutions, and I will try to address that today.

Only one in six rapes is reported and of those reported, only one in 50 leads to a charge. Of those charged, only one in two leads to a conviction. That is a terrible pyramid, I am afraid, of failure, and a quite pathetic outcome. When we consider that crimes of violence—which these are—are crimes where the victim was present, is able to provide a description of the offender and perhaps even the name, and can say where evidence may be found, it is even more bizarre that we are not getting better outcomes from our system. The investigation is less likely to identify the suspect in a stranger attack, but less likely to see a prosecution where there is an existing relationship. The issue becomes one of proving consent, unless, of course, the victim is too young to provide that consent in law.

The whole process is hindered, in my view, by three things. First, this offence involves the most intimate and private of events: sexual activity. That makes it difficult to recount in public, to talk about to anyone else and to talk about exactly what happened. That is a challenge for anybody. Secondly, it takes a long time for an investigation to get to court, which causes obvious problems for the victim in recounting the evidence and persuading a jury that something happened. Finally, proving lack of consent requires careful collection and presentation of evidence. I believe that we must deal with these three issues in a radical way if we are to overhaul the system.

My suggested improvements are these. First, the police are most efficient and effective when they deploy in teams. We see that in counterterrorist investigations, murder investigations and complex fraud cases. However, with rape offences, single officers are often deployed. There are some great officers who can make progress, despite the challenges, which we all know about, but I am afraid that, increasingly, we need a team approach. This is a resourcing issue: you must either move them from what they are doing or give them more, but it needs to be addressed. The time for a team approach has come. We could get the same sort of outcomes that we see with murder cases. During my time and now, murder investigations in London had a detection rate of around 95%. It is entirely possible to have good detection rates—if you apply the right resources and the right skills to make sure that you have the right person and can convince a jury.

Also, rape has become a more complex crime to investigate. Far more digital evidence is now available, which is great, but you have to find it and share it with the defence. It has to be sifted, and presented in a way that a jury will understand. These are new and significant skills that the police are going to have to learn.

The police also need to investigate the history of the suspect’s prior relationships. We have a history of investigating the victim’s prior relationships. That has stopped—in a good way—but we do not do enough to check whether the suspect’s previous behaviour and relationships indicate that this incident was likely to happen. Often, obviously, we do not know who these people are, but we could investigate and discover who they might be.

As has been said, rape reporting and charging have been inhibited by the victim’s experience of reporting. Police attitudes have improved drastically over the past 20 years, but they are clearly still not good enough. People are trying to make progress, but one of the challenges for prosecutors and investigators is that they anticipate the victim’s experience in court. We have, I am afraid, an adversarial system that tries to destroy the victim and their evidence, albeit not as directly as it used to. Why cannot the adversarial system become more of a search for the truth in these cases? It is entirely possible. Iceland has a good method of dealing with child victims of crime: it carries out a search for the truth, not an attack on the person who claims they were attacked.

Sadly, juries tend to make moral judgments, even if the law says that they should not. Investigators and prosecutors overly anticipate the jury’s conclusions and therefore do not even get to the charging stage. That also infects the whole investigation process. I would argue that the adversarial legal system does not provide a good context in which these cases can go forward.

Of course, 70% of victims are vulnerable at the time of the attack. They are vulnerable because they experienced an attack, but they might also have had alcohol. They might be very young, very old, or mentally ill. That is often the reason why they are picked—because they are vulnerable. However, this does not make them a consistent witness later, I am afraid. Consistency is a test of truth. Any of us might ask, “You didn’t say that then, so why did you change your mind?” Unfortunately, some victims just do not have sufficient recollection to make them a powerful witness. The system has to acknowledge that and make sure that, if they are particularly vulnerable, the balance of the defence is put on to the suspect, so that we ask, “Was consent present or not?” We do that with children. A child below the age of 16 cannot legally consent to sex. What about somebody who is mentally ill? What about someone who is very old? What about somebody who was intoxicated because the suspect made them intoxicated? Should we look at shifting the balance of proof in those cases?

Does the CPS have the right charging threshold in these cases? At the moment, it is broadly 51%—the case is more likely to succeed than fail. Secondly, there is a public interest test: even if that is true, should we charge in this case? Perhaps we should consider whether there is a prima facie case and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute; or is there somewhere between prima facie and a reasonable chance of success? We have to look at making it easier to get these cases, which we know involve complex legal issues, to court. We should experiment with prosecutor-led investigations. People have said that that means the prosecutor is therefore less independent, but Scotland seems to manage with a procurator fiscal system. Why can we not do that here in England and Wales?

The Government are talking about dedicated rape courts. Perhaps we could arrange to have such courts, which would work quicker. In Scotland, murder cases get to court within 100 days for committal, so why can we not do that for rapes? Why can we not say that they have to be in court within 90 calendar days? It could be a different time limit, but the Committee knows the point I am making about a timely deadline. The courts could sit more often; they sit for only 220 days out of 365. Perhaps the judges could take shorter holidays, or we could have more judges. By getting more court days in these cases, we could make a real difference.

Finally, these cases might benefit from the researching of jurors. At the moment in this country, it is illegal to research jurors. Why can we not do that in these cases, in order to find out what evidence persuades a juror and what evidence does not? America can do it but for some reason, we deny the possibility of investigating jurors’ decision-making processes. Particularly in these cases, where privacy and intimacy are such big issues, perhaps we ought to consider more how a jury reaches its decision.

13:20

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on bringing this matter before the Committee. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I agree with everything that my noble friend and colleague Lord Hogan-Howe has said, but I have some additional things to say.

The year 1988 was a seminal time for the investigation of rape. A television programme was produced on Thames Valley Police, much against the views and opinion of the Association of Chief Police Officers. It created absolute mayhem by showing the way police officers were approaching and tackling rape. I happen to believe that it is now time for another seminal moment. Why would I say that?

In his recent report, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary said that the loss of public trust is about the failure

“to get the basics right”.

Surely, the investigation of rape is one of the primary things the police could deliver. There have been improvements since 1923—I mean 2023; that shows you how old I am. There has been an increase in the charging rate of 51% compared to the previous year. However, the success rate does not follow, so there are some strange figures around; I could not make much of the ones I have here myself. Although the conviction rate decreased, the volume of convictions increased, which means that the quality of cases going to the CPS and the courts, and being investigated by the police, is not quite reaching the level it could.

Rape has recently been a very important issue, and how we handle it has been shown to be not up to scratch. In her 2021-22 report, the Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, said:

“The distressing truth is that if you are raped in Britain today, your chances of seeing justice are  slim”.


I do not believe that is quite the position now. Protections have increased but, as the Committee will hear in a minute, there are massive deficiencies in relation to the people charged with doing the job itself and, more importantly, taking these cases through the courts.

I did my own research last night and the day before, with barristers who are prosecuting and defending, as well as two solicitors who are responsible for dealing with prosecution in these cases. One of the weaknesses they identified, my noble friend and colleague Lord Hogan-Howe has already talked about: victim attrition. It is said that it takes 10 months to bring a case from arrest, through investigation and questioning, to prosecution. My short and maybe faulty investigation shows that it now takes 18 months. That is what I have been told, but it cannot possibly be right. One of the reasons for that, which my noble friend and colleague has talked about, is the expertise of the people doing these investigations. You cannot have someone with no experience of detective work, investigation and forensic science doing a complicated rape case. You have to have one of the best detectives, who we use for terrorism and organised crime.

Returning to victim attrition, last year, 77 people decided that there was no point in going forward with a prosecution. They had to wait a further three to four years after the police had taken 10 to 18 months to get to court. That is an absolute disgrace and a scandal, and I know this Government accept that. How has it come about? I could go on about what has been done to the police over the past 25 to 30 years, and produce evidence of that, but this is not the time for that.

So, in view of where we are, my noble friend and colleague is right. We need expertise in the front line in investigating rapes, in order to do it in a proper way. The forensic side is massively important, because a lot of that will be what I call first-hand evidence. That has to be done by properly trained detectives, but there is a massive shortage of them in this country at the moment, for a number of reasons. Let us get that right. Then, let us consider how long it takes to prosecute, and the fast-tracking of CPS decisions. Equally important—although it is harder to do this in the present circumstances because of the state of the courts and the lack of barristers—is rapid charging: taking a case to court quickly, so that people’s memories of the trauma and violence they have experienced are fresh.

At the end of the day, we are all here for the Minister. We are here to help, not to criticise. Of course, we know about the terrible, tragic scandals involving people such as Couzens—that monster who was stalking the streets. But on this issue, things can be taken forward. We are not going to create Rome in a day, but we want to go stage by stage, improving what we are doing for victims. My message is similar to Bernard’s—how dare I refer to him by his Christian name!—we are here, it can be done and, if I may say so, this Government have made a very good start. I know the Minister and the Home Secretary are behind it, so let us get on with it, stage by stage. Your Lordships’ House needs to keep a watching brief on this, because it is too important to fail.

13:27

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for convening this debate, which is very necessary and comes at a very appropriate time. Before we even start, however, digital research from the CSEW showed that fewer than one in six victims—16%—of sexual assault by rape or penetration had reported the incident to the police. The most common reasons given for non-reporting were embarrassment, at 40%; that they did not think the police could help, at 38%; and that they thought it would be humiliating, at 34%. All of those may well be true, but also, one-quarter of victims thought that the police would not believe them. That is something we can start working on strongly with the new Government.

I think we can safely assume that, whatever the final numbers are, the number of charges, let alone convictions, is infinitesimal compared to the number of rapes perpetrated. The number of prosecutions is increasing, although, as we have heard, conviction rates are decreasing. However, there is also an increase in what the CPS calls victim attrition, which a number of colleagues have mentioned this afternoon: prosecutions that stopped because the victim no longer supported, or was unable to support, a conviction. No wonder many perpetrators continue with impunity, given that they are never likely to be prosecuted. That is one of the most fundamental things. We know that certainty of prosecution is a big issue when it comes to perpetrators considering what they are doing.

What steps would make a difference? The causes and outcomes are very complex. First, there is the “He said, she said” argument. Police must gather enough evidence to refer a case to the Crown Prosecution Service, but there has been a great increase in the information available to consider: mobile phones, social media, et cetera. This does not always work out in the victim’s favour; it is a continuation of the “She must have been asking for it” type of argument. Being asked to hand over their mobile phone has led many victims to withdraw their complaint. In the words of Dame Vera Baird:

“They cannot face the unwarranted and unacceptable intrusion into their privacy”.


Charges for rape are as low—or nearly as low—as ever. The number of cases that have collapsed after failures in the way they were prosecuted is too high. That is totally inappropriate, and it is depressing. Then there are the time delays. According to the Home Affairs Committee, many victims say that if they had known how long it would take—we have heard that it can take 10 months, possibly now even 18 months—they would not have called the case to the attention of the police in the first place. That puts other victims in greater danger, too.

If there is enough evidence, only then can the accused perpetrator be charged. In the year to September 2021, just 1.3% of rape cases resulted in a charge, compared with 7.1% for all other recorded crime. Considering that we so frequently know the identity of the perpetrator, I am sure that everyone in this Room would agree that that is totally unacceptable. The CPS is bringing fewer rape prosecutions, often because the police do not put them forward. Why are fewer cases being put forward? In some cases, it is because the police have heard that the CPS is making fewer prosecutions. There is a self-fulfilling prophecy for noble Lords.

Then there is the funding. The Institute for Government estimated that the CPS budget was cut by 28% between 2009 and 2018. We are told that the Government have announced £40 million to support victims of crime, at least half of which is for community-based sexual violence and domestic abuse. Is that enough? I am sorry to say that I do not think it is—not by a long chalk. Cuts are still being made. RASA Merseyside, which supports victims with advice, counselling and guidance through the justice system, says that its funding has been reduced in real terms by 18%. There is more demand but fewer staff, leading to less support.

What is to be done? We have had some great suggestions this afternoon, all of which I am sure the Minister will carefully consider. The new Labour Government have described prosecution rates for rape as “shamefully low” and pledged “tougher enforcement and protection”. They said:

“The most prolific and harmful perpetrators will be relentlessly targeted, using tactics normally reserved for terrorists and organised crime”.


That is fully justified, given the amount of terror they cause.

The Government have also pledged to fast-track rape cases, with specialist courts at every Crown Court location in England and Wales, which sounds good. I would be interested to know within what timescale the Minister thinks we may get those specialist courts up and running.

I certainly welcome the Government’s announcement of plans to

“roll out free, independent legal advocates for victims and survivors of adult rape”

from 2025. They said the advocates would ensure that victims

“have support to enforce their legal rights, for example, in relation to the use of personal records during an investigation or in court”.

Many fundamental assumptions are holding us back. I am intrigued and heartened by the suggestions we have heard this afternoon. So come on, Labour, let us get on with the job. Can we not think a little bit more outside the box?

13:35

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for securing this debate. It addresses a matter of profound urgency and importance, and one that speaks directly to justice, safety and equality in our society. The stark reality remains that too many victims of rape and sexual assault in the UK are being denied justice.

The figures are sobering. Although thousands of rape cases are reported every year, only a small fraction result in charges being brought. In the 12 months to July last year, the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued 496 rape cases. The proportion of rape prosecutions being dropped has also risen in recent years—up from 9.3% in 2022 to 12.8% at the end of last year. Low prosecution rates erode trust, silence survivors and result in crimes going unpunished. It is essential that we confront this issue with both urgency and compassion—a point made by all noble Lords who have contributed thus far.

Crippling court delays are thought to be a major contributing factor in why victims choose to abandon the process before a trial takes place. Victims face resource constraints in policing. In the Crown Prosecution Service, concerns have emerged that the changes to the rules about how digital evidence is handled have the potential to have adverse impacts on victims seeking justice. However, this has been disputed by representatives from Rape Crisis, who have said that the protections afforded to victims regarding digital evidence were vital in keeping them engaged—a point already raised in this debate.

Others have expressed concerns that although rape convictions have doubled over five years, the number of prosecutions that have been dropped has tripled. The importance of resource to deal with rape cases has been made very well today, and I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that.

The previous Government took steps to support victims, ensure justice is delivered and restore public confidence in the system. First, we made record investments in victim support services, providing survivors with more resources. We increased funding for rape crisis centres and nearly doubled the number of independent sexual violence advisers.

Secondly, under Conservative leadership, an action plan for improving the criminal justice system’s response to rape in England and Wales was published, and reports have been published every year since then to update Parliament and the public on the progress made in implementing recommendations in the action plans. It would be good to have an update on this.

Finally, we legislated to end the automatic halfway release for offenders sentenced for crimes such as rape, manslaughter and grievous bodily harm.

As a result of the implementation of these measures, progress was made in the prosecution of rape cases. Data from July to September 2023 showed that adult rape cases referred by the police to the CPS continued to increase: there were 1,470 police referrals in this period. In fact, we increased rape prosecutions by 56% since 2010 and pledged that rape victims would get the justice and support they deserve, with a new investigatory model for police forces and prosecutors, as well as pre-recorded cross examination for victims in all Crown Courts.

However, this is not enough, and we can all agree that we must go further. At present, adult rape cases take an average of two years to complete in court. I am sure everybody in this debate agrees that this is not good enough. It can leave survivors feeling as if they are in limbo, and lead to their withdrawing from the process before the cases reach trial. Statistics have been given today as evidence of this.

In their manifesto, the Government promised to appoint legal advocates to provide free legal services and support to rape survivors across England and Wales by redirecting PCC grants for victims’ services. Yet it is deeply concerning that, to date, progress has been slow. They appear to have stalled on their promise to set up dozens of specialist rape courts to deal with the court backlogs. Can the Minister confirm that they will continue to build on the efforts made by the previous Government? What attempts have the Government made to use vacant rooms and buildings on Crown Court sites to fast-track rape cases, as pledged during the election campaign? Will the Minister confirm that fast-track rape cases are indeed a priority for the Government in their commitment to tackle violence against women and girls?

I would also like to support, at this stage, the important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in relation to education. It would be good if the Minister was able, either today or in writing, to tell us of any progress that has been made in this.

My noble friend Lady Wyld ended her excellent contribution by saying that there is cross-party support for this. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made the point that we are here to help. I think this is something we can work on together, not fall out over, and make life better for the people who suffer.

13:42

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate, particularly, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for bringing this debate here today. One main theme in the debate has been the issue of trust: trust within the criminal justice system and, particularly, trust in women when they report rape. That underlies all the speeches made here this afternoon.

Rape and other sexual offences are among the most serious crimes that can be committed. It is right that we work hard to ensure that survivors receive the swift and compassionate response from our criminal justice system that they deserve. This Government were elected on a clear, landmark pledge to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade. Improving the criminal justice system’s response to rape is central to that pledge. Although our pledge necessarily focuses on the disproportionate impact of these crimes on women, we recognise that men and boys can also be victims of sexual offences, including rape. Noble Lords might note that I introduced the relevant amendment for male rape in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and that has changed the perception of male victims of sexual offences.

As we have heard, if you are a victim of rape in this country today, your chances of seeing your case reach trial are low, despite the courage it takes for survivors to come forward. Only a fraction of reported cases end in prosecution and, if charges are brought, it may take years for your case to come to trial. While the number of rape prosecutions has increased over recent years—now at the highest level since 2010—they continue to fall short of what victims, and the wider public, would expect. This Government are determined to transform the response to rape in this country, so that victims are supported and perpetrators brought to justice swiftly. That is our goal. It is a simple one, even if the task itself is not.

Let me set out the factors that have led us to this point. In 2019, charges and prosecutions for rape had fallen to an historic low, prompting the previous Government to carry out an end-to-end review of the criminal justice system’s response to adult rape offences. This review found that the system had, in fact, faltered from around 2016 onwards—a year that saw a sharp decline in rape prosecutions, coupled with a decline in convictions. The reasons for this drop are varied but well documented.

The first concerns systemic issues. When this Government took office, we inherited a justice system under intense pressure and a growing backlog of cases in the courts. The volume of outstanding cases in the Crown Court now stands at over 70,000—a record high. When the justice system is under this level of strain, everyone feels the impact; it is a sad fact that this includes victims, particularly victims of sexual offences. For many victims, the wait they might face is simply too much to bear. As it stands, around 55% of rape complainants, despite coming forward, eventually withdraw from the criminal justice process. Understandably, they want to focus on their own mental health and rebuilding their lives.

Rape cases also require specialist expertise; this point was made by both previous commissioners, who gave, if I may say so, some interesting ideas. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, talked about group police work as the way to tackle this issue; he compared it to terrorist offences and the like, and I found it an interesting idea. Of course, this is a resource issue. These resource issues include the challenge of having enough specialist barristers, both prosecuting and defending, willing to take on these highly sensitive and difficult cases.

For prosecution volumes to improve, victims must also have the confidence to come forward and report what has happened to them, knowing that they will be taken seriously and, crucially, be given the support they need. Sadly, this is not always the experience of rape victims. This means that improvements in training, culture and local policing practices must all come together in a seamless and consistent manner. Victims will have confidence in the system only if they see it working effectively and compassionately.

I have set out some of the systemic issues. Now let me briefly highlight the challenges particular to this category of offences. First, many rapes are committed by someone known to the victim—often a current or former partner. Estimates suggest that more than 40% of adult rape victims are, or have been, in a relationship with their attacker. This complicates the investigative process.

Secondly, it is widely acknowledged that sexual offences, in particular rape, are often under-reported. Many victims fear the stigma of speaking out. Others lack confidence in the criminal justice system itself, feeling as though they are not being listened to or taken seriously—and, indeed, that they are the ones under scrutiny, not the perpetrator. During an investigation, it is not unusual for the police to request a victim’s personal records. Noble Lords will know that these requests have, at times, gone too far, causing unnecessary upset to victims, compounding their trauma and causing them to drop out of their case altogether.

I have outlined some of the challenges; now let me set out some of the commitments that this Government have made to begin addressing them. First, we have committed to ensuring swifter justice for victims and reducing the wait times that contribute to so many withdrawing from the process. One of the most vital steps in addressing this is reducing the time it takes from a charge being laid to the actual trial; we are working with the judiciary on how we can best fast-track rape cases through the courts.

More broadly, we have taken decisive action to drive the outstanding case load down, such as funding extra sitting days, which will see courts sit for a total of 108,500 days this financial year—the highest number in almost a decade. We have also increased the sentencing powers of magistrates’ courts from six months to 12 months for a single triable either-way offence. We expect this to free up around 2,000 sitting days and allow judges to deal with the more—indeed, the most—serious cases.

However, if victims are going to see justice done more swiftly in this country, we cannot simply do more of the same. We must go further. It will take once-in-a-generation reform, which is why the Lord Chancellor has commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to carry out an independent review of the criminal courts. Sir Brian will consider the merits of longer-term reform, as well as how our courts can operate more efficiently. I am sure that noble Lords will await the review’s findings with interest.

The Government’s second commitment is that every victim of adult rape should have access to a free, independent legal adviser. Later this year, we will introduce new independent legal advisers, who will offer free legal advice to victims of adult rape at any point from report to trial. These advisers will help victims understand their rights, including in relation to the use of personal information, as well as offering clarity about the court process, timelines and what to expect. These advisers will not undermine the right to a fair trial or prevent evidence coming to light. They will simply help victims understand and, if needed, take steps to protect the rights that they already have.

Our third commitment is that specialist rape and sexual offences teams will be introduced into every police force, ensuring that the right capabilities are in place properly to investigate these offences. Victims must have a positive experience when dealing with the police, which will in turn increase reporting and deliver better outcomes for victims. We are working closely with policing partners to make this a reality.

Encouragingly, the volume of rape cases being reported to the police has followed a significant upward trend in recent years despite the prevalence of rape remaining flat, as measured by the Crime Survey for England and Wales. This means more brave victims feeling confident to report their offence to the police without increases in the number of incidents of rape.

Those are just three of our commitments. They will be underpinned by a new strategy to combat violence against women and girls, to be published later this year, which will help us transform how government, and the justice system as a whole, responds to these horrific crimes.

Let me emphasise again that rape is an abhorrent crime. It has no place in our society, and far too many survivors have suffered without seeing justice or receiving the support they so desperately need. A combination of factors, including strained court capacity and inconsistent resourcing, have contributed to the level of rape prosecutions we see today, but it is not enough simply to reel off the complexities. We must act, and that is what the Government are doing. We are under no illusion about the scale of the challenge before us, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this issue for debate.

I shall now answer some of the specific questions asked by noble Lords. First, education is a cross-government endeavour that starts with prevention. My colleagues Ministers Davies-Jones and Phillips are leading on this issue, as are colleagues in the Department for Education. Relationship, sex and health education is now a statutory part of the curriculum, and within that, people are learning about domestic abuse and consent. So there is a cross-departmental approach to this important part of the solution to the problem.

Other noble Lords asked about attrition—women dropping out of the process. The answer to that is in the three specific promises I made: to support women through legal advice, to speed up the process, and to ensure that women understand the reality of the court process they will go through.

Other noble Lords asked about the experience in court. Trauma-informed training has already been delivered at Snaresbrook, Leeds and Newcastle Crown Courts, with over 400 professionals trained so far, including court staff, CPS staff and the police. In addition, witness waiting rooms and in-court technology have been upgraded in selected courts, and Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act also addresses the way victims are treated as they go through these types of cases.

I might say that I have dealt with these matters myself. Very unusually, I have dealt with a youth rape. Magistrates would not normally deal with rape, but on appeals in the youth court a magistrate would sit as a winger. I dealt with one at Harrow Crown Court, and I thought it was handled as well as it possibly could be. Interestingly—I will close on this because I am being looked at by my Whip—the young woman concerned chose to be in the courtroom while the case was proceeding because she wanted to be part of the whole process. The technology was available for it to be done in a different way, but that was her choice, and I thought it was a very powerful one on her part.

If I have not answered noble Lords’ questions, I will write to them.

13:55

Sitting suspended.

Creative Industries: Rights Reservation Model

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

14:00

Asked by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on creators and the creative industries of the rights reservation model proposed in their consultation paper “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence” published on 17 December 2024.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for meeting me earlier in the week. I accept that he wants genuine consultation, although, as I will come to in a moment, the Government appear, in some aspects of the consultation, to have predetermined the direction of travel.

I accept that it seems somewhat odd to be returning to this issue so soon after Tuesday’s debate and the passing of the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who deserves great praise for the work she has been doing. In my defence, I point out that I entered the ballot before the date had been set for Report stage of the Bill. Anyway, I am absolutely confident that we will need to keep returning to this issue many times, given the pace of development in AI. It is worth reflecting that on Tuesday evening, we were only just learning of the allegations by large AI firms that DeepSeek had been freeloading off their models to train its own model—an infringement, they claim, of their IP. How they have the gall to say that is beyond me, frankly, given that they have been responsible for the theft on a grand scale of the IP of UK creators.

I am not trying to join the debate retrospectively, but I must make my own position clear: the theft I have described must stop. I supported the noble Baroness’s amendments. The enormous success of our creative industries, much lauded on Tuesday, is in no small measure due to our gold standard IP regime, which has been the bedrock of growth, investment and innovation. We weaken it at our peril.

I want to make three things clear. First, this is not an IP v AI debate. The creative industries have been early adopters of AI and see the real benefits of its development. Indeed, they have been working with AI developers as fellow travellers. But if UK creators, many already poorly paid, are to earn even less because their IP is not remunerated, they will stop creating and so stop the flow of the high-class data needed for AI development. As Sir Paul McCartney said over the weekend,

“make sure you protect the creative thinkers, the creative artists, or you’re not going to have them”.

Secondly, I am unconvinced by arguments of legal uncertainty. Rather than sowing seeds of doubt, I would prefer to see the Government supporting the creative industries in upholding the law against unprecedented theft of their IP. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, said on Tuesday:

“This is not about balance”


between AI and IP,

“it is about implementing and upholding the rule of law ”.—[Official Report, 28/1/25; col. 167.]

But I also accept the need, as has frequently happened in the light of technological development, to update legislation, not least in terms of transparency and enforcement.

Thirdly, any updating should be based on detailed assessment of the implications. The question for this debate is:

“To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on creators and the creative industries of the rights reservation model proposed in their”


AI consultation paper. Sadly, Tuesday’s debate made it clear that the answer is, little or none.

The creative industries’ own assessment argues that the Government’s proposed option of a text and data-mining exception will weaken our gold-standard IP regime. They argue that it could mean that AI companies, most of which are large US tech firms, can effectively take British creators’ work to train their models, profit from it and, in many cases, not repay the creator. Bizarrely, having circumvented the IP protection of others, the AI companies can get IP protection for their own creations.

But instead of rehashing the debate, I want to offer the Minister an opportunity to give reassurances to this Committee and the creative community that the Government are listening to the concerns, and to offer further comments that Members in another place will read before the Bill is debated there—where, incidentally, I hope we might see a shift in the Official Opposition’s position.

The Minister and his colleagues in the other place have been keen to reassure us that any new TDM exception with opt-out or rights reservation would be introduced only once a workable opt-out was found. He and his ministerial colleagues must therefore have some confidence that these systems are at least emerging, so what examples can he provide? To get to a stage of actively promoting a particular option for reform, one must assume that the Government have received assurances that, if that option is in place, AI developers will proactively enter licence agreements for content. Can the Minister say whether such assurances have been received?

Ministers have also accepted that different types of work will need different systems of opt-out. Is the thinking that there will be a phased approach to the introduction, as each different system is agreed? How could that possibly work? Will the Minister offer reassurance that this will not lead to different works having different levels of copyright protection?

The Government have said that any system must be workable. How will that be assessed? On Tuesday, the Minister in the other place said before the DCMS Committee that it would not be a decision just for Ministers; rather, it would be one for them and industry. Can the Minister shed some light on how such a decision on workability might be agreed, and, in particular, give a categorical assurance that rights holders will have a formal role in approval?

The Minister in the other place also talked about the need for ease and accessibility in any new system. The creative industries have argued that the Government’s preferred option would create huge bureaucratic burdens for artists, particularly independent artists and small music labels, who would end up wasting hundreds of hours on paperwork and translating legal jargon rather than, for example, making music or writing books. Can the Minister explain what “easy” and “accessible” look like?

On other areas of the consultation there is more widespread agreement about the need for updating legislation. For example, some AI developers have publicly claimed that they can use temporary copying exemptions as a legal basis for using data for model training without paying. Will the Minister confirm that this is not intended and will be clarified in law? There are strong arguments in favour of changes around metadata, with legislation prohibiting the stripping of rights reservation protocols to help better protect so-called floating content. Again, will such prohibitions be included in any changes to the law?

I know that the Minister agrees on the need for far greater transparency, and the consultation contains proposals to implement some form of transparency mechanism for AI developers to follow, but does he agree that, to be effective, it will need to be transparency that provides a granular level of detail of the works that have been ingested? Without it, there will be no way for those developers to prove compliance with any opt-out. Does he also agree that developers should be required to provide details of the crawlers they have used, coupled with an assurance that the crawlers have been designed to interpret and respect machine-readable rights reservation notices?

On enforcement, transparency will only help to provide evidence of compliance—or non-compliance—with the law. It will not offer a route for creators to receive any form of compensation for the misuse of their works. If those rights holders have to go to court to receive any compensation, how will that move us on from where we are today? Again, the Minister in the other place told the DCMS Committee that he did not think that accessing justice through the courts should be the preserve of deep-pocketed rights holders. I agree. Can the Minister suggest how the Government foresee rights holders being able to access justice, if not through the courts?

Finally, little has been said about how any new law will co-exist with the laws we have now. Will the Minister confirm that any existing infringement would have to be dealt with under existing law? There are understandable concerns among our talented UK creators. I hope that when he responds the Minister will acknowledge those concerns and, in some areas at least, provide some assurances, not least a willingness to reconsider the potentially hugely damaging proposal for a new text and data-mining exception. Without it, we risk sacrificing a known success story—the UK’s £124 billion creative industries—for a leap in the dark.

14:10

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I want to address the impact of the Government’s proposed rights reservation model on the media. I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and note my other interests in the register. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, on securing this debate and on his powerful speech. Hard on the heels of Tuesday’s vote on the data Bill, it presents another opportunity to send a powerful signal that the Government’s preferred option for an opt-out model is deeply flawed and would profoundly damage the whole creative economy.

The crushing onslaught of digital media has impacted every aspect of life but nowhere more acutely than on the media, as advertising revenues, which support quality journalism, have haemorrhaged to the giant, unaccountable tech platforms. The UK’s advertising market was worth more than £36 billion in 2023, but £14 billion of that went direct to Google’s search service alone. By contrast, less than 4% of the value of the entire ad market—yes, 4%—went to news publishers. Media businesses have therefore been in a race against time to find a new business model, but just when many are so successfully doing so, the exponential growth of AI has brought huge new challenges with it, and this proposal will turbocharge that.

The reality of the current media landscape was set out recently by the Economist, which noted that social media had transformed the market by reducing the cost of the distribution of news to zero, and now AI is going to do the same by potentially reducing the cost of generating so-called news to zero. Between the two of them, we are being led into TS Eliot’s “wilderness of mirrors”, where it is impossible to tell the difference between truth and illusion, with profound ramifications for our democracy.

In some ways, it is impossible to reach conclusions about the Government’s opt-out model, as we know so little about it. There has been no impact assessment, and there must be. It is entirely untested and unevidenced, and we cannot learn from other jurisdictions because a working rights reservation regime does not exist anywhere else on the planet. Given the enormous repercussions of this, there must be clarity—and none exists, but of some things we can be certain.

One is that were it even possible to produce a practical and effective opt-out mechanism, and I have severe doubts about that, it would place an immense administrative burden and therefore unsustainable cost on even the largest news publishers. Already, more than 40% of the top 100 English-language news websites do not block any AI crawlers, and they are the ones that have the knowledge and resources to do so. Smaller news publishers, including hard-pressed local media or a freelancer writing on their Substack, simply would not stand a chance. One other point on which we can be certain is that while these proposals may seem attractive to big tech in the short term, over the long term they could end up significantly weakening AI and, as the noble Lord said, we are all pro AI. It has enormous potential but it must be done and dealt with properly.

The problems for AI will spring because it is totally reliant on large volumes of high-quality data. It needs a sustainable and fresh supply to function—something that is especially true for search engines such as Google’s AI Overviews, which rely on retrieval-augmented generation and feed off up-to-date news content to provide accurate, relevant information. Yet researchers predict that, if current trends continue, AI developers will deplete the available stock of public, human-created text data sometime between 2026 and 2032. It will inevitably be replaced by what? By AI-generated content—in other words, it will feed off itself in a way which will degrade the quality of large language models, as they begin to rely on their own inferior data. It would become a modern-day version of the fabled Greek king Erysichthon, whose hunger—forced on him by the goddess Demeter, I am told—was so insatiable that he squandered his entire fortune and ended up eating himself. That is what could happen with AI.

It need not be like this. There is a way forward that will allow both AI and the original content creators to flourish together: simply by ensuring that the existing copyright laws we have are properly and transparently enforced, with effective mechanisms to build a dynamic licensing market. This would be in the interests not just of content creators, who are so desperate for change after years of copyright theft by the GAI firms; of the public, who overwhelmingly believe that these companies should pay to use the content that trains them; or of the media, whose quality journalism is absolutely vital for our democracy. It would, as I have said, be in the long-term interests of AI, too. If the Government really want to make the UK an AI powerhouse and protect our creative industries, which are the envy of the world and will power growth in future, they must think again. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

14:17

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Black. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on securing this timely and excellent debate. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register—in particular my technology interests, not least as an adviser to Socially Recruited, which is an AI business.

As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, has already set out, we had an excellent debate on Tuesday night. My question for this afternoon is: how much does it cost to develop and train a foundation model? Is it £500 billion or £5 million? Is it somewhere in between? I do not know, but here is what we do know. The cost of current foundational models is felt by our creatives: the musicians who make sounds where there would otherwise be silence; and the writers who fill a blank page with words that touch our human hearts and souls and, sometimes, change the course of human history. They are paying the cost of the current “model” that we have.

How can it be not only that they are currently footing the cost but that the potential, proposed approach to this issue will put the onus on them to assert their rights? There is that onus, the cost, pressure and stress and, ultimately, the impossibility of doing this with an opt-out model. My first question to the Minister is: can it ever be so that opting out could work? How could it ever bring the certainty, clarity and consistency that we require? As a helpful example, can the Minister say something about the recent LAION case and the light that that throws on this matter?

There is a real tedium to this TDM discussion. It is just that an obvious and irrefutable truth is wilfully ignored and pushed to one side. If you own a copyright or have IP rights, you hold and own those rights. If you do not, the truth is simple and unquestionable: those rights are not yours. That should be the guiding principle when considering any potential approach to IP and copyright in relation not just to AI but to the fact that we have hundreds of years of legal certainty which comes from this.

How would the Minister define a proper and workable model for the preservation of these rights? What would he say to individuals and small entities about the cost, pressure and impossibility of seeking to enforce their rights? How does he intend transparency to be an important thread that runs through this alongside the technical? What about post-ingestion and, if we get to the point of some potential change, what about all that protected material already ingested deep into the engine room of these models?

What attracts businesses, investors and innovators to the UK from a regulatory and legislative perspective? It is certainty, clarity and consistency. In no sense can we say that we have those right now in our country. That is why I believe, not only when it comes to IP and copyright, that given all the issues we are currently grappling with in these new technologies, not least AI, we should have overarching AI legislation and right-sized regulation, which is always good for all elements of our economy and society. Yes, look at IP and copyright, but we should have an AI authority with AI-responsible officers labelling sandboxes and, crucially, a complete transformation of public engagement.

It seems clear at this stage that when it comes to the Government’s plans for IP and copyright in relation to AI, we should all have serious reservations. I go back to that fundamental truth that there is no question, debate, difficulty or complexity. You either have the rights set out at law or you do not. That should inform all discussions and points around IP and copyright. We should have an approach that goes to the heart of this fundamental truth: it is our data. We decide, determine and choose and then, for citizens, consumers and creatives, we have a real opportunity to say positively, with a hashtag, “#OurAIFutures”.

14:23

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for initiating this timely debate following Tuesday’s vote on the Data (Use and Access) Bill. As someone with a background in the visual arts and as an artist member of DACS, the Design and Artists Copyright Society, I speak with direct knowledge of these challenges.

The overwhelming majority of creators, whether visual artists, writers, actors or filmmakers, are freelance or self-employed. Recent research from The University of Glasgow’s Centre for Regulation of the Creative Economy reveals a stark crisis: visual artists now earn a median income of just £12,500, a devastating 47% collapse since 2010. Most creators must juggle multiple jobs to survive, and even successful artists are earning only £17,500 annually.

The proposed rights reservation model fundamentally undermines the viability of visual artists’ careers across the country. It does this through a dangerous inversion of copyright principles, principles that creators have long relied upon to secure royalties and safeguard their work. Instead of protecting creators’ existing rights, it imposes costly new burdens requiring them to actively defend protections historically held by default.

As the EU’s AI Act demonstrates, this approach faces insurmountable technical and legal barriers, creating a labyrinth that benefits neither creators nor users. Consider the practical impossibility of an artist enforcing a comprehensive opt-out in our interconnected digital age. Picture a scenario where a museum visitor photographs an opted-out artist’s work and shares it on social media. These platforms routinely permit AI training on user content, inadvertently exposing the artist’s work to the very AI systems they sought to avoid. The artist’s intended opt-out becomes meaningless within seconds of a single smartphone click. This forces creators into an impossible choice: accept unwanted AI training or demand photography bans, unravelling decades of progress in democratising art access.

In today’s digital marketplace, an artist’s online visibility is not merely advantageous but is essential for survival. Their digital presence serves as a virtual gallery, portfolio and business card combined connecting them with collectors, commissioners and collaborators worldwide. Yet the proposed opt-out system creates an impossible dilemma: how can artists protect their work from AI training without simultaneously vanishing from search engines and potential clients? The distinction between beneficial visibility and unwanted AI scraping becomes a technical impossibility. This challenge is compounded by the breakneck pace of technological change in AI development. Web-crawling technologies evolve almost daily, rendering today’s opt-out mechanisms obsolete tomorrow. More troubling still is the retrospective futility of such measures: countless AI models have already ingested vast archives of artists’ works.

At the heart of the visual arts sector lies not corporations but individuals: freelance artists navigating an already complex professional landscape. The opt-out system would drown these artists in administrative complexity, forcing them to master an ever-shifting maze of technical decisions while trying to create art. This crushing burden falls heaviest on those least equipped: individual creators lacking corporate infrastructure and legal expertise. The system presents a cruel paradox. Artists would need to become experts in rapidly evolving AI technologies just to protect their existing rights. They would be forced to make critical decisions about their creative futures under intense time pressure without adequate information or support. How can we expect individual creators to navigate this labyrinth while simultaneously maintaining their artistic practice and earning a living? The answer is simple: we cannot. This system would create an unsustainable burden that disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable members of our creative community.

Consider a professional photographer capturing thousands of images daily. Each photograph represents a separate copyrighted work, yet these images reside in cloud storage vulnerable to AI scraping. Under a rights reservation system, protecting each image becomes a Sisyphean task, turning a day’s creative output into weeks of administrative burden, as the noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Foster, rightly highlighted. This inversion of creative priorities is fundamentally flawed. Instead of forcing artists to become full-time guardians of their intellectual property, our systems should empower creation and ensure fair compensation. Responsibility for respecting copyright should rest squarely with AI companies that seek commercially to exploit artists’ work, not with the creators themselves. We must reject any framework that transforms artists from creators into perpetual copyright administrators defending their rights against technological encroachment.

The amendments to the data Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, chart the only viable path forward, one that brings fair value and legal certainty to creative industries and tech sectors alike. This Government must not succumb to pressure from US-based tech companies peddling the false promise that gutting copyright protection will somehow enrich Britain.

14:29

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath on securing the debate today and on his penetrating introduction, which included a number of extremely important questions for the Minister.

AI clearly has many creative uses, as Sir Paul McCartney himself emphasised last Sunday. But it is one thing to use the tech and another to be at the mercy of it, as so many noble Lords emphasised in their thoughtful but passionate speeches, both on Tuesday and today. So many outside organisations—I thank them for their briefings—have also made that very clear in what they have said.

The use of IP-protected content for training is a key issue, which has also arisen in relation to generative AI models outside the UK. It is rather a delicious irony that Open AI is now complaining of its own IP being used to train DeepSeek, as my noble friend said. Here in the UK, the Government’s intentions are clear. The new consultation on AI and copyright, reinforced by the AI opportunities plan, has set out a preferred option—this is the key thing—to change the UK’s copyright framework by creating a text and data mining exception where rights holders have not expressly reserved their rights: in other words, an opt-out system.

We all thought this had been put to bed under the last Government, but this Government seem even more intent on creating a Singapore-on-Thames. In response, we have seen the creation of a new campaign across the creative and news industries, Creative Rights In AI Coalition, and Ed Newton-Rex has raised over 37,000 signatures from creators and creative organisations.

Frankly, the creative and news industries are in uproar. As my noble friend Lord Foster says, the proposals were not underpinned by a robust economic case, but the consultation also starts from the false premise of legal uncertainty. As we heard in the debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on Tuesday, there is no lack of clarity over how AI developers can legally access training data. UK law is clear that commercial organisations, including gen AI developers, must license the data they use to train their large language models. AI developers have already reached agreement with news publishers in a number of cases. Open AI has signed deals with publishers internationally, such as News Corp, Axel Springer, the Atlantic and Reuters. There can be no excuse of market failure. There are well-established licensing solutions administered by a variety of well-established mechanisms and collecting societies.

The consultation says:

“The government believes that the best way to achieve these objectives is through a package of interventions that can balance the needs of the two sectors”.


But what kind of balance is this when it is all take and no give on the part of creatives? The Government have stated that they will move ahead with their preferred “rights reservation” option only if the transparency and rights reservation provisions are

“effective, accessible, and widely adopted”.

However, as we have heard from across the Room today, no effective rights reservation, no system for the use of content by gen AI models, has been proposed or implemented anywhere in the world, which makes the government proposals entirely speculative. The technology does not exist.

The laws around transparency of these activities have not caught up. At present, developers can scrape content from the internet without declaring their identity, or they may use content scraped for one purpose for the completely different commercial purpose of training AI models. How can rights owners opt out of something they do not know about? Once used to train these models, the commercial value has already been extracted from IP scraped without permission, with no way to delete data from these models.

We need transparency and a clear statement about copyright. We absolutely should not expect artists to have to opt out. AI developers must be transparent about the identity and purposes of their crawlers, and have separate crawlers for distinct purposes. Unless news publishers and the broader creative industries can retain control over their data, this will not only reduce investment in creative output but will ultimately harm innovation in the AI sector and, as we have heard, tech developers will lack the high-quality data that is the essential fuel in generative AI.

Retaining the Kidron amendments to address the challenges posed by AI development, particularly in relation to copyright and transparency, is in my view, and that of those on these Benches, essential. This should apply regardless of in which country the scraping of copyright material takes place if developers market their product in the UK. It is clear that AI developers have used their lobbying clout to persuade the Government that a new exemption from copyright in their favour is required. As a result, the Government seem to have gone soft on big tech. In response, my party, creators, the creative industries and many other supporters will be vigorously opposing Government plans for a new text and data-mining exemption.

The Minister has been posed a number of key questions by my noble friend Lord Foster and many others, including the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood. I put another question to him: will he now agree to withdraw the TDM with an opt-out as the preferred solution? That is one of the key requests of the creative industries; they would be dancing in the streets if the Minister said that today.

14:35

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords for their uniformly brilliant contributions to this important debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for securing this debate and introducing it so powerfully. To start with a statement of the obvious: artificial intelligence can do us great good and great harm. I know we are hare mainly to avert the latter, but I open with a few thoughts on the former.

I should like to make two points in particular. First, the UK is often said to have a productivity problem and AI, even at its current level of capability, offers a great chance to fix this by automating routine tasks, improving decision-making and streamlining workflows. Secondly, it was often said, since the early days of e-commerce, that innovative use of technology was the preserve of the private sector, whereas the public sector was less nimble and consequently less productive. Those days must soon be over. Some of the best datasets, especially in this country, are public: health, education and geospatial in particular. Safely exploiting them will require close public-private collaboration, but if we are able to do so—and, I stress, do so safely—the productivity rewards will be extraordinary. This is why we, on these Benches, greatly welcome the AI action plan.

AI’s potential to revolutionise how we work and create is undeniable. In the creative industries, we have already seen its impact, with more than 38% of businesses incorporating AI technologies into their operations as of late last year. Whether in music, publishing, design or film, AI offers tools that enhance productivity, enable innovation, and open new markets. However, the key to all these prizes is public acceptance, the key to public acceptance is trustworthiness, and the key to trustworthiness is not permitting the theft of any kind of property, physical or intellectual.

This brings us to copyright and the rights of creators whose works underpin many of these advances. Copyright-protected materials are often used to train AI systems, too often without the permission, or even knowledge, of creators. Many persuasive and powerful voices push for laws, or interpretations of laws, in this country that prevent this happening. If we are able to create such laws, or such interpretations, I am all for them. I am worried, however, about creating laws we cannot enforce, because copyright can be enforced only if we know it has been infringed.

The size and the international distribution of AI training models render it extremely challenging to answer the two most fundamental questions, as I said on Tuesday. First, was a given piece of content used in a training model? Secondly, if so, in what jurisdiction did this take place? An AI lab determined to train a model on copyrighted content can do so in any jurisdiction of its choice. It may or may not choose to advise owners of scraped content, but my guess is that for a large model of 100 billion parameters, the lab might not be as assiduous in this as we would like. So, enforcement remains a significant challenge. A regulatory framework that lacks clear, enforceable protections risks being worse than ineffective in practice: it risks creating false confidence that eventually kills trust in, and public acceptance of, AI.

So, although we welcome the Government’s decision to launch a public consultation to address these challenges, it is vital that it leads to an outcome that does three things. First, needless to say, it must protect products of the mind from unlawful exploitation. Secondly, it must continue to allow AI labs to innovate, preferably in the UK. Thirdly, it must be enforceable. We all remember vividly Tuesday’s debate on Report of the DUA Bill. I worry that there is a pitfall in seeing AI and copyright policy as a zero-sum struggle between the first two of those objectives. I urge noble Lords, especially the Minister, to give equal emphasis and priority to all three of those goals.

I shall close with a few words on standards. As the Minister has rightly recognised, the key to an enforceable regime is internationally recognised technical standards, particularly, as I have argued, on digital watermarks to identify copyrighted content. A globally recognised, machine-readable watermark can alert scraping algorithms to copyrighted materials and alert rights holders to the uses of their materials. It may even allow rights holders to reserve their rights, opt out automatically or receive royalties automatically. In Tuesday’s debate, I was pleased to hear the Minister confirm that the Government will consider such standards as part of the consultation response.

Of course, the challenge here is that any such standards are—this is the bluntest possible way I can put it—either internationally observed and accepted or pointless. In this country, we have an opportunity to take the lead on creating them, just as we took the lead on setting standards for frontier AI safety in 2023 at Bletchley Park. I urge the Minister to strain every sinew to develop international standards. I say now that I and my party are most willing to support and collaborate on the development of such standards.

14:42

[The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for introducing this debate and everyone who contributed. Clearly, several of the amendments that we discussed earlier in the week have been touched on in one form or another in today’s debate. The fact that those amendments were voted through demonstrates the intensity of noble Lords’ passion for and interest in this topic; of course, that is recognised. I acknowledge clearly, because I was asked this question, that I recognise the importance of these issues and I absolutely understand the concerns of the creative industries and, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned, the media sector.

In some ways, what we have discussed today speaks directly to the question of whether we need a consultation. On 17 December, we published a consultation that seeks to deliver a competitive copyright regime and a package of measures that support our creative industries and the AI sector. I do not want to sound like a broken record, but the proposals aim to deliver three objectives, and I agree with the way the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, framed objectives. The three objectives that we have put forward are: transparency about the use of copyrighted works to train AI models and AI-generated content, providing greater control for rights holders’ material so that they can be supported in protecting it and can be remunerated where it is used—again, I say that the aim here is quite the opposite of theft: it is to give more control—and enhancing lawful access to the material to be used to train world-leading AI models.

I reiterate what I said on Tuesday: this is a genuine consultation, and many people from a range of sectors are engaging to share their views and evidence. The Government continue to believe that it is important that we have the benefit of that public consultation before we act. A central issue that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, set it in his Question is how to make sure that rights holders can easily reserve their rights and control the use of their material. These are the challenges that rights holders face today. Although they may have copyright on their work, they are often unable in practice to control how it is used or to gain remuneration. This is often particularly true for new or solo artists, the very people we need to protect, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and others made.

The rights reservation model proposed in the consultation aims to enhance rights holders’ ability to withdraw their content from being used. It would support their ability to license this content for use with AI if they wish to do that. To do this, we will need the right blend of technology and regulation, and the consultation seeks views on how this should be achieved. Importantly—many noble Lords raised this point—this model would have to be simple, effective and accessible for rights holders of all sizes, something that, frankly, is not available in the current position. The Government have been clear that we will not proceed with this model unless we are confident that these criteria will be met.

On transparency, we want to consider how to achieve this broadly, ensuring that rights holders understand how and where their content is used, while also ensuring any measures are not disproportionate for small businesses and individuals.

On our third objective, access, for all the reasons that the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, said, we want to ensure that there is a system in place that allows AI developers to access the high-quality material they need to train world-leading models in the UK. We want that access to be without uncertainty and without legal liability slowing down investment and adoption.

These are undoubtedly complex issues, and we need to strike the right balance to ensure that we are able fully to benefit from AI and guarantee the success of our world-leading creative industries. This is why we are asking about all these elements in the consultation.

The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, raises important issues about the impacts on creators and our assessment of these impacts. This was also something mentioned in the debate earlier in the week. I reassure noble Lords that gathering further economic impact evidence is one of the main reasons for conducting a full inquiry, but it is also worth pointing out that alongside our proposed paper on this, we published a 22-page summary options assessment that set out its initial analysis of the proposals that we have put forward, so it is not correct that there has been no options impact appraisal. This options assessment received a green rating from the independent Regulatory Policy Committee. It recognises, however, that quantitative evidence is currently limited in this area and highlights areas where the Government hope to receive further data during the course of the consultation.

The options assessment sets out the expected impacts of different options and assesses them against those three objectives in the consultation: control, access and transparency. The assessment does not provide detailed data on economic impact, as publicly available evidence in this area is currently rather limited. It is important that we let the consultation run its course so that we can gather evidence of impacts on the full range of affected parties. We are particularly keen for respondents to the consultation to provide further economic evidence to inform how we achieve our objectives. To answer partially, without being able to have singing in the streets, the question from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, depending on the evidence we receive through the consultation, we will revise, update and expand on the assessment of the options and better determine how we move forward with any potential legislative change. Acting without this would risk imposing legislation that does not have the intended effects.

Alongside our analysis, the Government of course continue to consider a broad range of external studies to assess AI’s economic impact. Modelling the potential economic impact of AI is complicated, and there are several external studies on this. We know that it is complicated, as we have seen just this week with the entry of DeepSeek and how that may change many of the things we think about, but AI adoption has the potential to drive growth across the economy, including, as many noble Lords mentioned, in the creative industries, where more than 38% of creative industry businesses have used AI technologies as of September 2024, with nearly 50% using AI to improve business operations. Earlier this week, I attended the launch of the Institute for the Future of Work’s report into the future of work and well-being, which looks at the impact of AI on work and well-being in all sectors. The Government have considered this external evidence alongside our internal analysis to inform our approach to AI and will continue to do so.

I will now move on to a few other areas. In passing, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Black, that the question of truth in the effect of AI is crucial. We are in an era where this is increasingly difficult; it is the first wave of the AI challenge. It is crucial for everybody in society and, of course, for the media. Technology will play an important part in delivering greater rightholder control. The Government are clear that any solutions need to be effective, proportionate and accessible to all parties of all sizes, and they must be easy to use. Again, I want to reassure noble Lords that we do not intend to go forward with this approach until we are confident that this is the case.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked whether anything is already available. Things are available; they are not good enough yet but coming along very fast. I know from my time as chair of the Natural History Museum, where we looked after vast amounts of data of huge potential value, that we had ways to try to block people getting hold of it. Things are available now but they need to be better; they also need to be simpler and usable by the individual.

The consultation recognises that more detailed work needs to be done, and an important function of the consultation is to help us work through this detail. A number of industry initiatives are already under way to deliver effective standards. As has been mentioned, these standards—international and national—will be crucial. These efforts, combined with careful regulation, will make it possible to deliver workable rights reservation tools, and a reimbursement mechanism that, again, should be easy to operate and not available only to the largest players or by going to court.

As noble Lords have raised it during the passage of the data Bill, I reiterate the central importance of transparency in the way that creative content is used. The use of web crawlers, metadata and watermarks as different forms of technological solutions could have a number of benefits for those who wish to control or license the use of their content with AI and could provide the very basis for a rights reservation tool.

We agree that a key issue to be addressed is the role of some web crawlers that are used to obtain content for AI training. However, it is important to recognise that web crawlers are used for different purposes, the most familiar being indexing online content so that it can be searched with a search engine. Standards on the use of web crawlers may also be important to improve the ability of rightholders to prevent the use of work against their wishes.

I spoke about workability, and several noble Lords made it clear that it must mean workability for the creative sector and creatives, as well as for others. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked about the temporary copy issue. We have asked about that in the consultation.

To conclude, I again thank noble Lords for contributing to this debate. They can rest assured that the Government understand the strongly held and legitimate concerns which creators and rightholders have about their content being used. We also agree that transparency is fundamental. However, it would be wrong to commit to specific legislation while the Government’s consultation is ongoing. Indeed, we should and must consider stakeholders’ responses fully and progress our package of objectives together.

We will consider all the points raised by noble Lords today and during the passage of the Bill. We will do this alongside the responses and evidence received as part of the consultation, before bringing further proposals. I end on the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on the LAION case, which is under German law. I will ask the IPO to give him a full answer on that.

14:54

Sitting suspended.

Office for Students

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

15:00

Asked by

[Lord Willetts]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Office for Students about (1) its strategy for 2025 to 2030, and (2) its decision to pause applications regarding registering institutions, degree-awarding powers and university titles to allow greater focus on the financial sustainability of the sector.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to open this debate and to give a warm welcome to the Minister opposite, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent. She is the Education Whip in the Lords. I had over two years as a Whip in the other place during which time I had to remain totally silent, which was extremely frustrating. It is yet more evidence of the more liberal and tolerant approach in your Lordships’ House that we will hear directly from the Education Whip. We are all looking forward to that, especially as today is the day when she became engaged, on which many congratulations.

I declare my interests as a visiting professor at King’s College London, a member of the council of the University of Southampton, and for helping Norland College to grow in Asia.

This debate in many ways picks up from one of the very last debates of the previous Parliament. Indeed, in Grand Committee in this very Room on 21 May 2024, we debated the powerful report by the Industry and Regulators Committee on the Office for Students. In that debate there was a particularly trenchant contribution from my noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone. I know that he very much regrets that, because of a commitment to the British Council, he is unable to be with us today.

Since then, the Office for Students has produced its new strategy for consultation, with the priorities of quality, the student interest and resilience. Those are absolutely understandable priorities. Then, on 2 December, came its announcement of a pause in some of its key activities, including registering providers and considering new candidates for degree-awarding powers and for university status. Its argument was that focusing on those responsibilities was inconsistent with its priorities, as set out in its strategy. That is a deep misunderstanding of the implications of those priorities; it is also a regrettable failure to discharge one of its statutory obligations.

The task of registering higher education providers and considering them for degree-awarding powers and university titles is fundamental. Ironically, that is made clear by a third announcement—today’s announcement by the Government about tackling the understandable problem of franchising not always leading to high-quality provision. I completely support their engagement with that problem, which is a real problem. They say that they are—and this is out for consultation—proposing

“a requirement that franchised providers with 300 or more students should be directly regulated by the Office for Students”.

That will, of course, require yet more registration activity by the Office for Students, which then says, slightly shamefacedly, that after the pause it expects to start engaging in even more activity, registering those franchised providers. There could be dozens of those—it would be interesting if the Minister could tell us more about them—if not over 100. But my understanding is that, in the last year, it managed to register 12 new providers, so all that is happening is that the backlog of important work is getting worse and worse.

Will the Minister assure us that the OfS will return as soon as possible to its key statutory responsibilities in this regard, and explain to the Committee why it can suspend its discharge of a duty set in legislation? I remember debating this issue at considerable length when the original legislation went through in 2016-17.

Hardest hit by this pause in the process are providers which had been applying to register for degree-awarding powers. It looks as if the pause may mean that some of them have to go back to the beginning. The evidence that they are submitting will have become out of date. They will have to start all over again. This would be very regrettable. It looks from some of the OfS’s comments as if some of the existing cases under consideration will continue. Will the Minister ask the OfS at least to complete the consideration of applications that have already been submitted to it?

The OfS says that it does not have the resource to do this and that it has to focus, therefore, on financial pressures facing universities. This is yet more evidence, of course, of the financial issues that universities face, and I, for one, think there is one obvious solution to this, which is to start once again raising fees, in line with inflation as a minimum, as the previous Labour Government did with surprisingly little fuss.

However, there is a connection between financial resilience, the financial difficulties facing the sector and the registration function of the OfS, because some universities and other higher education providers that get into financial difficulties may then look at a rescue package that includes the reallocation of degree-awarding powers, a new partner entering the registry or a new entity being created, perhaps as a result of a merger or something else, which itself requires registration. The degree-awarding powers and university title are assets that a university could deploy if it were trying to avoid the total disaster of running out of money and going bankrupt, so these provisions for permitting new degree-awarding powers registration may be exactly what is needed as part of a financial rescue package for providers in difficulties. Will the Minister assure noble Lords that where a rescue package for a higher education provider in financial difficulties involves some transfer of degree-awarding powers or university title, or some other creation, perhaps of a new body on the register, that she will request the OfS as a matter of urgency to engage in the necessary process to consider that application?

Finally, as time is tight, I just want to make one wider point about how the Department for Education and the OfS see higher education. There is a big, wide world of higher education out there, which includes very substantial global chains. I am a believer in the growth of higher education, and it seems to me very likely that part of the growth of higher education is bringing in much more professional management. Access to external finance involves those types of business models in higher education. They have not so far taken off in Britain—from a global perspective, ours looks like a cottage industry—but there are global chains of higher education providers that are very keen to invest here. I hope to see British higher education providers growing to a global role.

For example, one of the bids reportedly delayed is an application by the Engineering Institute of Technology from Australia, which is a substantial provider of engineering courses and already has an engineering college of technology here. My understanding is that it was applying for degree-awarding powers, but that application has been paused. OMNES in France is a group of 12 French universities. It wanted nine further international campuses. It has been seeking to register and get degree-awarding powers for more than a year, but that is apparently paused. The IU group in Germany has a range of campuses with 150,000 students currently enrolled. It was trying to set up in Britain. We should be open to this type of high-quality provision. I completely accept that in some of the supply-side reforms that I tried to promote as a Minister, as did subsequently my noble friend Lord Johnson, sometimes the quality was not good enough, and it is right to crack down on that. I very much regret that we did not have a regulatory regime in those early days, but when we have got these big global chains coming in, surely we should welcome them. There are also some British potential candidates; the Oxford International Education Group, for example.

I have been reading the Chancellor’s excellent speech, made yesterday, about the Government’s commitment to growth and their commitment that regulators should not stand in the way of growth opportunities. I wonder what would happen if these international higher education providers that want to invest in Britain, want to come and provide higher education in Britain, were to approach the Minister’s colleague, the excellent noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, who is the Minister for Investment and is supposed to be attracting international investment. How will the DfE and the OfS explain that, meanwhile, they are busy refusing to consider applications for international investment in a significant British growth sector? I think that we should honour the spirit of the Chancellor’s excellent speech yesterday and not allow the OfS to stand in its way.

15:10

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for his masterly introduction of this important debate. I regret that there are only four of us speaking today, but I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson. In the glorious days of the coalition, I was appointed Minister for Olympic Sport and Media and as the Whip for Higher Education; I was never happier than when I had to stand in for the Minister because we had a number of people who transferred through that role.

We are all aware that universities are going through a very difficult time financially. Student fees have not kept up with inflation and the previous Government made a number of difficulties for overseas students; this has resulted in a large decline in those very students who make such a significant contribution to finances. Since we were stupid enough to leave the EU, there have been considerable drops in EU students, too.

I must say that, in reading this document, the mind boggles at the amount of additional administration that will be required

“to gather and analyse data to understand student experiences, enhance and protect students’ rights, and address barriers that prevent students from fully benefiting from their education”

—let alone all the financial data that will also be required. Thank goodness I was at university when we just got on with it.

I ask the Minister what impact will these demands have, particularly on the further education sector? Colleges have been the main providers of publicly funded higher education at levels 4 and 5 for 90 years. If university staff feel that they are not adequately paid, spare a thought for college lecturers, whose pay compares poorly with that of schoolteachers and university staff.

The pause in registering institutions for degree-awarding powers—DAPs—has had a dramatic effect on a number of colleges. Surely the financial sustainability of some providers should not come at the expense of limiting the possibility for others who could meet national and regional skills priorities. Collaboration between HE and FE is essential if we are to have any hope of meeting the Government’s ambitious growth strategy. Of course, HE is a relatively small part of college provision, but the regulatory costs and burdens are disproportionately high and risk limiting student choice and stifling innovation. Many students who study at higher levels in FE would not consider going away to university, yet their skills and aptitude may be just as good or even better than those of university students. Can the Minister say what consideration has been given to FE colleges in the Government’s grand plans?

Seeking financial sustainability has led to universities suspending some of their courses. As a modern linguist, I dread reading that yet another university has dropped modern languages. I declare an interest: I was a child in France and a student in Spain, and I lived in Germany with my RAF husband. I have always felt European; Brexit was for me a sort of bereavement. It is now more important than ever that we speak the languages of our near neighbours, but the global markets also call for proficiency in Mandarin, Arabic and Japanese if we wish to trade in countries further afield. As Willy Brandt put it so powerfully:

“If I’m selling to you, I speak your language; if I’m buying, dann müssen Sie Deutsch sprechen”.


I apologise for flouting the rules of the Committee to say something in a foreign language—just to translate, that means, “You must speak German”.

It is imperative that if we are trying to sell British goods and services, we must do so in the language of the buyer. The OfS is rightly concerned that on current trends 72% of providers will shortly be in deficit. Why have Governments not done more to safeguard our higher education providers, be they universities or colleges? Our UK universities regularly top the charts in international measurements. They are national stars, so what has gone wrong?

I thank the Library, the Association of Colleges and, at the last minute, the Office for Students, for their helpful briefings, and note the criticism from Mr Alex Proudfoot, who is chief executive of Independent Higher Education, that:

“The decision to suspend registration and”


degree-awarding powers

“processes until late in 2025 is a clear enough dereliction of their statutory duty. But to extend this to providers already in the process, effectively backdating this decision to the spring of 2024, is completely unjustifiable”.

He goes on,

“what the OfS is actually doing is picking winners and losers: deciding which providers are worth prioritising for financial sustainability, which students are deserving of the protection of the regulator and the funding to support their studies, and which are not”.

These are fighting words, and we all know that the losers will be the most disadvantaged.

We hear from the Office for Students that students want fair treatment from institutions that will listen to them, respond when things go wrong and set them up to succeed. They assume their education will be high quality, expect tailored learning experiences and access to academic resources and support, delivered in supportive and enriching environments. What students expect from higher education in the longer term is to acquire knowledge and develop skills that open doors to well-paid and rewarding employment and other opportunities. They expect higher education to have a positive and enduring impact on their lives and careers. The Office for Students states that it feels it is important to,

“prioritise managing risks for students already in the system, ahead of the benefits that new institutions, or institutions with the ability to award their own qualifications, bring”.

It points out that, despite the pause, it has continued with 17 DAP applications, 22 registration applications and six university title applications. So broadly its view of these measures is supportive, but they are, of course, already in the system, and we recognise that it will also need to care for those that follow them.

We are all well aware of the parlous situation of many universities and colleges. It is shameful that government has let this happen. Successive Governments have been prepared to ignore further education, partly because virtually all Parliamentarians and civil servants have been university educated. I know I was completely unaware of the richness and value of colleges until I went to work for City & Guilds and discovered people with skills vastly greater than my own. My Oxford degree enriched my love of medieval French, which has not helped me in any way later in life.

Finally, will the Minister say why there is no provision for integrating the lifelong learning entitlement funding model and what positive help the Government are prepared to offer to the beleaguered parts of this vital sector? Will they please rein in the OfS from the most damaging parts of this edict?

15:18

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Willetts on securing this debate. His two brains have been working on overtime. I add my Benches’ congratulations to the Minister on her engagement. It is good to see her so happy.

I speak in this debate on the recent report published by the Office for Students that identifies three key priority areas for the next five years: quality assurance, wider student interest and sector resilience. The Office for Students is focusing its efforts on monitoring financial sustainability to help create a secure future for our world-leading universities. This is in response to growing concerns about declining student recruitment, increasing operational costs and wider economic uncertainty. I want to explore the significant changes proposed by the Office for Students in its strategy for 2025-30, particularly its decision to close the register for new higher education providers and pause granting degree-awarding powers until August 2025. While these changes are framed as necessary to strengthen the financial sustainability of higher education, they also raise important questions about their impact on innovation, access and diversity in the sector.

The Office for Students has decided to pause new entries in the register of higher education providers and temporarily halt the granting of degree-awarding powers. This decision is in direct response to the severe financial pressures facing many universities, particularly small, medium and specialist providers. New analysis suggests that up to 72% of higher education providers could be in financial deficit by the 2025-26 academic year, prompting the Office for Students to focus its resources on stabilising existing institutions rather than admitting new ones.

I confess today that, unlike others in this Committee, I was not educated in a university. Instead, I attended the Salvation Army’s William Booth College, an international college at Denmark Hill. It is a great building, and I congratulate the Salvation Army on not selling it to some big developer to develop “Denmark Hill Village” but investing heavily in the college and its educational achievements.

William Booth started the Salvation Army—I have time, I will do it—in 1865 as he was absolutely distraught at the poor educational attainment of the people, particularly in the East End, and their attraction to alcohol. They could not work because they could not keep their feet on the floor all the time. The first thing he did was get them off alcohol, off the grog, as he called it. The second thing was to find them a job. He persuaded somebody to buy a farm near Epping Forest, and people went to live there with their families, they were educated, they worked on the farm, and they got a life together. He even went as far as to buy land in Australia, and people, if they really did well, were able to have that land as a gift and develop their own business. He really was a social entrepreneur very early on in the whole setup. The college educates Salvation Army cadets, as they are called—officers—and it has now been an international college for some time. People come from all over the world to train there, and the impact that the Salvation Army has on people’s lives can never be underestimated. I guess that it also has great plans for the place. If noble Lords want to visit, I am happy to fix that up. It would be a travesty if something such as that that is managed well, has good people and does not have government money were not allowed to start today. Let us bear that in mind.

Can the Minister explain how the Office for Students intends to balance the need for financial stability with the need for ongoing innovation in higher education, particularly in industries such as health, engineering and the creative arts, given that smaller specialist providers often cater for niche demands? Does the Office for Students risk limiting innovation and diversity of provision by closing the register to new providers? Will doing so have an impact on the economy growing? Furthermore, we must acknowledge the broader context of this financial instability, which is the growing student recruitment crisis in the face of declining recruitment numbers and rising operational costs. British universities are grappling with the challenge of attracting students. How does the Minister plan to address the issue of declining student recruitment, particularly considering the financial pressures many universities face? While stabilising the sector is necessary, what is being done to ensure that institutions are still able to offer the courses and opportunities that will meet future demand in student and workforce markets and in wider society?

In conclusion, while the Office for Students’ strategy is designed to safeguard the financial sustainability of the sector and prevent further closures or disruptions, we must remain vigilant about the potential longer-term consequences. As we move forward, it is crucial that the Office for Students balances its financial oversight with a commitment to innovation, student access and diversity. The sector needs to be able to adapt to changing demands, and a robust plan to tackle the student recruitment crisis must be a central part of that strategy.

15:25

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

My Lords, what a genuinely engaging debate—I am also going for “joyful” today. I thank noble Lords for their congratulations. I am having a very good day, even if my husband-to-be’s credit card is probably not.

Moving on to the debate, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for opening the debate and, moreover, for the significant role he has played in shaping our world-class higher education. I never for a moment thought that I would ever be responding to “Two-brains” in an education debate, but I am delighted to do so. I agree with him on the joys of being a Whip at this end of the building. We are allowed to speak; the Chief Whip will decide whether that is for good or ill. The noble Lord’s ongoing contribution to the broader debate about the future of our universities is deeply valued.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, for requesting this debate. I know that he, having been instrumental in setting up the Office for Students, continues to have a keen interest in the future of our universities and in securing the future of our higher education system for the benefit of our students, the taxpayer and the economy. Higher education is vital to the future of our country. Our universities are revered globally for excellence and act as one of the country’s greatest enablers of two of this Government’s missions.

First, higher education is the engine for growth. It ensures that we have a highly skilled workforce and delivers world-class research that underpins long-term innovation and economic growth. In many communities, it acts as an anchor for local economic development and civic impact. It adds billions of pounds of value to our economy each year, supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and generates over three-quarters of all our education exports.

Higher education also provides opportunity. It enriches the lives of learners, regardless of their background, and how they access education—including at the Salvation Army, which, for the record, is where my mother was born. For many, it is a truly transformational experience. Graduates have better choice, better paid employment and are better able to contribute to the economy and society as whole, challenging understanding and developing new ideas. This contributes to a healthier, more cohesive society for us all. I have first-hand experience of this. I am the first person in my family to have gone to university. My grandmother, from the East End of London, would have been somewhat confused by where I ended up, but I know only too well how higher education can transform lives to ones of aspiration and achievement.

Secondly, higher education is an engine not only for the economy but for social mobility. This lies at the heart of the Government’s commitment to build skills for opportunity and growth, so that every young person can follow the pathway towards a better future that is right for them, whether at university or elsewhere. Technical education and further education are also key to ensuring that people have the right role for them and are able to find joy and happiness at work, which is what we are doing today.

The Office for Students is fundamental to all this through its effective and independent regulation of the sector. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, touched on the fact that there was no regulator in place when some genuinely challenging elements came into being. It is vital that we now have one, making it work in a way that delivers for the sector and the country.

The primary purpose of regulators is to protect the public. At the point when most students enter higher education, through tuition fees, they make the single biggest investment that they are ever likely to make. These fees are, of course, largely underwritten by the taxpayer through the student loans system. Therefore, it is vital that our universities and colleges offer high-quality provision that ensures a good return on that investment for students and the country, and it is right that independent regulation should seek to ensure this, while protecting and promoting the student interest.

What is the need for stronger regulation and the new strategy? We need to take a step back. Noble Lords will recall the report from the Industry and Regulators Committee on the Office for Students, published in September 2023, which provided a stark assessment of the regulator’s past performance. Indeed, it was entitled Must Do Better.

Last July, the Government published the report of Sir David Behan’s review of the OfS. The review sought to be forward-looking and create a platform for change, but Sir David was very clear that the environment within which the OfS operates has changed considerably since the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, first made the case for the regulator in 2010 and, indeed, since the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, articulated his vision for higher education in the 2017 White Paper Success as a Knowledge Economy.

The current situation is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. Navigating this uncertain terrain will be a challenge for many providers, their students and, as it has proved, the OfS itself. Sir David found that the case for regulation was clear. He recognised the improvements the OfS had made since the publication of the Industry and Regulators Committee report but recommended that the OfS should focus on the key priorities of quality, financial sustainability, acting in the student interest and protecting public money. In short: do less but do it better.

Following the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Wharton, as chair of the OfS, and while a permanent replacement is recruited, the Secretary of State has appointed Sir David as interim chair to oversee the implementation of his review. The OfS has begun this work, setting out a proposed road map for the next five years in the consultation currently running on its strategy, which are discussing today. However, while this important long-term work progresses, immediate priorities and risks must be assessed and addressed.

Central to Sir David’s analysis was a focus on the financial sustainability of the sector. Concerns about the sector’s finances have continued to grow, even appearing in the news this week. In November, the OfS published analysis of the higher education sector’s financial health for the 2022-23 financial year and forecasts for the next four years. It made for troubling reading, finding that both domestic and international recruitment are below the sector’s expectations; that by 2025-26, income could be £3.4 billion lower than provider forecasts; and that up to 72% of providers are expected to be in deficit if they do not take significant mitigating actions.

As a result, the OfS made the decision to temporarily pause the processing of applications regarding the OfS register, degree-awarding powers and university titles, to refocus their resources on managing the critical risk of financial sustainability in the sector. I reassure noble Lords that Education Ministers and officials meet with the OfS on a regular basis, and this specific issue was discussed with the OfS in November and again in December.

Of course, this is not the ideal decision for the OfS to make, and I do not underestimate the impact on those providers whose business models rely on achieving registration or progressing with degree-awarding powers, but it is a decision for the OfS as an independent regulator, not for Ministers. Furthermore, it is in line with the recommendations of the independent review and with expectations set out in the regulator’s code to prioritise resource to manage the greatest risk.

The pause is limited to new and early-stage applications. The OfS expects to restart the process in August, or earlier if possible, and will review every three months until then. Affected providers have been contacted individually and will be informed of progress and changes. I recognise the concerns that this stifles growth, but it is about keeping the show on the road while we deliver our long-term strategic ambitions for higher education. On that note, I will answer some of the specific questions put to me by noble Lords.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, there are unlikely to be more than 100 applications from franchised providers. We require only those with over 300 students to register for the new franchising model, and the largest 10 unregistered providers account for 58% of all franchised students at unregistered providers. This will work quite quickly and effectively with the largest suppliers.

With regard to the “Strengthening oversight of partnership delivery in higher education” consultation, we think that it is important to make progress towards strengthening the regulation of franchised higher education. The OfS has currently paused the registration of new higher education providers in order to support the sector with financial sustainability concerns, as I said, but this is being reviewed every three months.

With regard to institutions that are already in process, which the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, touched on, the OFS has said that it will process applications that are already well advanced. If the noble Lord has knowledge of where that is not happening, I would be grateful for the information. It will also review that every three months. Given what we are talking about between now and August, that seems proportionate, but, if there are specific concerns, I would like to hear from the noble Lord.

On global chains and the pause, I think it is fair to say that education is global. The best of education, as we discuss regularly in the House, allows people’s brains to flourish. Universities are cathedrals for learning, whether they are here or elsewhere; the more exposure we have to more people, the better position we are in to move society forward.

On global change, it is for providers and universities to make decisions about business models, including international investment. However, I can reassure noble Lords that this is temporary to address a critical risk. If there are people with whom we need to engage in the interim, we will endeavour to have those relationships to reassure those institutions. The OfS will consider such applications as soon as the process restarts but will, I hope, seek to work with partners as the pause is ongoing.

I believe that I have answered on the next bit. We are getting through the questions.

All three noble Lords asked: why so much regulatory burden now? Individuals and the taxpayer have invested hugely in higher education. It is right that this should be regulated. However, regulation has to be proportionate and not stifle growth. I agree that the Chancellor’s speech yesterday was excellent. We must also make sure that we are all contributing to the delivery of growth in order to continue to invest in the public services that I, for one, care so much about.

The Office for Students must, and does, abide by the Regulators’ Code and should not impose unnecessary burdens, but students’ experience and outcomes are critical. We need to ensure that students are getting what they pay for.

With regard to further education colleges, as raised by the noble Baroness—am I okay for time, Mr Whip?

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

Yes.

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

Thank you. It is quite nice to be on the other side.

FE colleges form an essential part of the HE landscape. We are very aware of the burden on colleges that are regulated by a number of different bodies. That is why, for example, we are proposing to exempt FE colleges from the new proposed requirements for franchising. I emphasise again that the pause is temporary. If FE colleges wish to register, they will be able to do so from this summer.

On the wider education strategy, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, the Secretary of State has been clear and has announced five priorities for the reform of higher education. Given the time, I will not outline them but will write to the noble Baroness with the details.

I am very grateful for the thoughtful contributions that noble Lords have made during this debate. There is a great deal of higher education expertise in your Lordships’ House—some of which is a little terrifying—and I welcome this opportunity to benefit from it. I conclude by commending the efforts of the OfS. The Government continue to maintain their strong support for the regulator and its important work in protecting the interests of students. I also recognise the risks that universities and, by extension, students are facing. I assure noble Lords that both the Government and the OfS maintain a keen focus on overcoming these challenges to ensure that we maintain the secure, stable and world-class higher education that we are all so rightly proud of.

15:39

Sitting suspended.

Terrorism: Glorification

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

16:00

Asked by

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to deal with the glorification of terrorism and terrorists in the United Kingdom.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

Before the noble Baroness starts, I remind noble Lords that this debate is time-limited. We have one speaker in the gap. If any speakers go over their time, that will eat into the time for the Minister to respond to the points made by noble Lords.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, I thank noble Lords who have stayed to take part in this debate, late on a Thursday afternoon. It is a timely debate because, as we all know, this week sees the beginning of the Omagh bomb inquiry. As it has begun, we have heard from the families of the victims of that bomb about how terrorism has destroyed their lives. The families of the victims have always behaved with decorum and dignity; my prayer is that they finally receive the answers they have been searching for and a modicum of closure. That dreadful day in August 1998 has much been in my mind this week.

I particularly want to thank the Minister, who is very knowledgeable of the threat of terrorism. This is in no small part due to his service as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, and I look forward to his response later. Of course, he is not here today as an NIO Minister but rather as a Home Office Minister, because the glorification of terrorists and their organisations is certainly not confined to my part of the United Kingdom but is a threat to the security of the nation as a whole.

I want to speak principally about Sinn Féin’s continued glorification of the terrorist organisation the Provisional IRA, and the consequences of that. However, recently, on the streets of some of our major cities, we have seen other proscribed organisations, such as Hamas, being lauded. That too has its consequences, particularly around radicalisation. I am sure that other colleagues will want to speak to that issue.

As someone who has lived with and through terrorism, I am always alert to anything that would encourage it and bring back those dark days of intimidation, murder and mayhem. Unfortunately, in the years since the cessation of IRA violence, there has been a strategy to lionise terrorists, putting them and their actions on a pedestal. There are many examples of Sinn Féin politicians, many of them senior people, attending commemorations and celebrations of the lives of those who sought to murder their neighbours. In the interests of time, I bring noble Lords the most recent example of a senior Sinn Féin figure glorifying the past deeds of terrorists.

Before Christmas, Michelle O’Neill, the vice-president of Sinn Féin and the current First Minister of Northern Ireland, attended a Provisional IRA commemoration in County Londonderry. The men she was commemorating before Christmas were killed by their own bomb as they travelled through Magherafelt in December 1971—long before Michelle O’Neill was born. Their names were Jim Sheridan, John Bateson and Martin Lee, all members of the self-styled South Derry Brigade of the IRA; it was announced after their deaths that they were on “active service” at the time. Here were three young men with murder in their hearts, who had been dead for 53 years in December, and the current First Minister of Northern Ireland thought it appropriate to commemorate them.

It goes without saying that, as on every occasion when this happens, the deep offence and hurt to those who have suffered at the hands of the IRA is revisited. The retraumatisation of victims is unforgivable and needs called out on every occasion it happens, but this public act of commemoration also sends a very clear message to young republicans that what these young men did was honourable. It glamorises what they did and, to young and impressionable people who have little knowledge or life experience of the brutality of the IRA, it makes them sound like heroes, which patently they were not.

The often-chanted “Ooh ah up the Ra” is a symptom of the continuing republican glorification of dead terrorists. It is, some argue, just a bit of fun, but nothing could be further from the truth. I will never forget being at a black-tie event in Belfast and being asked for a picture by a glamorous young woman, only to have her sing “Ooh ah up the Ra” into my face as she took a video. The fact that my father had survived an IRA attempt on his life, or that as a teenager I was on a school bus that was blown up by “the Ra” because our bus driver was a member of the security forces, was irrelevant to her. She thought that it was funny. I did not.

There is the issue. If we allow people in positions of authority to glorify terrorism in the way that the current First Minister of Northern Ireland does, it normalises and sanitises terrorism, and, in a cyclical way, this will lead to young people being radicalised again. Witness the radicalisation of those currently on our streets supporting the actions of Hamas. Many of the young people doing so know little about the Middle East but think it is quite hip and trendy to support Hamas, because they hate Israel.

A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. If all you know about the IRA is that they took on the Brits and that the First Minister said they were a “great bunch of lads”, you will think that “Ooh ah up the Ra” is a grand wee chant. These young people know little of the devastation, murder, intimidation and barbarity of the IRA, because it is not something that the current First Minister talks about.

There have been conversations in the past about making the glorification of terrorism a criminal offence. Indeed, the Terrorism Act 2006 makes provision for a person to be charged with an offence if they make a statement that encourages a person to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism. There have been no prosecutions under this section, to my knowledge, in Northern Ireland to date because, when challenged about such behaviour, Sinn Féin will argue that it is just honouring its dead. But of course it is much more than that. Its senior leadership is sending a message to wider republicans that violence and terrorism can be justified and that what the IRA did was justified. Of course it was not; there was never any justification for the violence, despite what the current First Minister claims. She will continue to claim that, and indeed to support the actions of these terrorists publicly, until she is prevented from doing so under law.

On Tuesday in the other place there was an Urgent Oral Question on the Government’s extremism review. During that Question, the member for North Antrim, Jim Allister MP, asked the Minister for Security about the glorification of terrorism by the current First Minister of Northern Ireland. The response he got from the Security Minister was disappointing, as he said:

“I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to delve into matters in Northern Ireland in the context of this response”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/25; col. 165.]


Why not? If the current First Minister of Northern Ireland is intent on continuing her glorification of terrorism and, at best, is reckless about the consequences, surely that should be a matter that a Security Minister should delve into. I hope the Minister here will be able to be a little clearer on that issue.

The IRA were defeated by the security services across the United Kingdom, not least the brave men and women who served in the RUC, the RUC Reserve, the PSNI, the Ulster Defence Regiment and then the Royal Irish Regiment, and of course colleagues in the mainstream Army. As the daughter of an RUC officer, I was always incredibly proud of how he served without fear or favour. For him and for many others to have their memories sullied by glorifying the terrorists who sought to murder them makes me very angry. We cannot allow the propaganda of the IRA’s political wing to rewrite what happened in Northern Ireland. That is why a change in the law is required, especially to deal with those in authority who continue to exalt and deify terrorists who have caused so much hurt and pain.

I am aware that, in 2023, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation considered whether the legislation on the encouragement and glorification of terrorism under the 2006 Act should be amended. He concluded that it was not possible to formulate a mere glorification offence within acceptable limits, and therefore recommended against amending Section 1 of the Terrorism Act. However, this conclusion was before the onslaught of the glorification that we have seen on our streets in respect of Hamas, and perhaps Mr Hall KC may want to review this section again. However, I acknowledge his expertise and instead propose a more nuanced approach.

I submit that the Government should consider an amendment to the legislation so that persons in authority or holding a particular office, such as a Minister in government or in the Northern Ireland Executive, should not be allowed to glorify past acts of terrorism, or terrorists, and that if they do so, they are committing an offence. This amendment is narrow in scope but would deal with the specific issue of people in authority sending skewed messages to young people about terrorism and the terrorists of the past. It falls within the counterterrorism strategy’s first principle of Prevent,

“to stop people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism”,

and therefore aligns with the Government’s strategy. I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts on that proposal.

I also note that there is a new interim Prevent commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who was appointed very recently, and I am more than happy to discuss this matter with him. He is here today, and I am very glad about that. I will leave my remarks there, and I look forward to hearing from noble Lords in relation to this issue.

16:10

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, on obtaining this important debate and on bringing all her expertise and incisiveness to it in her opening remarks.

I declare my interest as set out in the register as a senior fellow at Policy Exchange, although my role there is unconnected with the issues of security, law and order, cohesion, integration and extremism that we will be discussing today. However, I was MP for Wycombe for nine years where, at that time, I represented more Muslims than any other MP from my party, and for several years I spoke as my party’s spokesperson in the Commons on integration and cohesion. So, although I will not discuss Northern Ireland today, I have an interest in the other matters raised by the noble Baroness.

I want to make five points and to ask the Minister some questions in the brief time I have. First, Hamas and Hezbollah are proscribed organisations. Secondly, there can be no doubt that they have been and are being glorified, on marches, online and, I am afraid to say, in mosques throughout the UK. If the Minister has any doubts on that last point, I recommend to him the excellent account on X called habibi, where he will see some of the most egregious instances laid out. However, I hasten to add that in my view—it is important to say this—most marchers and worshippers in mosques are not supporters of Hamas or Hezbollah.

Thirdly, this glorification reflects the import into our domestic politics of foreign strife abroad, particularly in relation to Kashmir and, as we all know, the Middle East. Fourthly, there can of course be no objection to anyone seeking to march or express views online, or even discussing in a religious setting the Middle East or Kashmir. I became very interested in the Kashmir issue when I was in the Commons and have raised it myself. However, there can be no room in our domestic politics for thuggery, abuse, violence or intimidation, all of which we are now beginning to see in some of our inner-city constituencies, especially during general elections, as the Minister will be well aware. Fifthly, and finally, this glorification and the issues that arise from it are fuel for the far right and the far left, both of which seek to undermine and collapse our democratic politics.

I move on to some questions for the Minister about policing. I pay tribute to the work of the police, who have very difficult decisions and judgments to make. I introduce these questions with a quote from Matt Twist, Assistant Commissioner at the Met, who said:

“When we look back at the policing of protests over the last eight months, we know we didn’t get everything right”.


He said that while being interviewed for the Policy Exchange report, Might is Right?, by David Spencer, Sir Stephen Laws and Niamh Webb. My questions arise from recommendations in the report. I am not expecting the Minister to provide detailed answers today but if he does not have them, I would be grateful if he would write in due course.

Will the Government change the criteria to prohibit a protest march under Section 16 of the Public Order Act 1986 to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, explicitly including the impact of cumulative disruption? Will the Government introduce a provision to prohibit a march if it would place any undue demands on the police or military forces, replicating Section 11 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998? Will the Government amend Section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 to increase the notification period for all protest marches to 28 days, replicating the requirements in Northern Ireland? Will the Government legislate to expressly reverse the DPP v Ziegler Supreme Court verdict to ensure that no protester has a lawful excuse for obstructing the highway and for any public order offence, if he or she intends to obstruct, harass, inconvenience or harm others? Will the Government legislate to make it unlawful for individuals at protests to wear face coverings wholly or mainly with the intention of concealing their identity? Will the Government consider introducing a parades commission in London, and perhaps elsewhere, modelled on the commission in Northern Ireland?

Our liberal democracies depend on trust in order to function, and it would appear that trust is in decreasing supply, I am afraid, in countries that maintain high migration, have low growth and have high tech. I look forward to the Minister answering questions.

16:16

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for securing this important debate. I am well aware of her intense personal interest and, to be frank, at times her suffering on account of terrorism in Northern Ireland. I am very grateful to her for securing this debate. I am also delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, will be replying. He was a distinguished Minister in Northern Ireland. It is now, I think, 15 years or so since he was a Minister, and I am interested in reflecting on how he sees the evolution of this question of the public perception of the glorification of terrorism—how he thinks things have happened, whether he is surprised or whether it is pretty much what he was expecting when he was a Minister.

I was a civil rights marcher and I speak from the point of view of John Hume. There is no grievance in Northern Ireland that was worth the loss of a single life. Even more importantly, in terms of political structures, these were all clearly, essentially in place in the 1974 Sunningdale Agreement. There was absolutely no need for the thousands of lives that were lost. The largest single purveyor of death was the Provisional IRA in this period by some way, although there is a dreadful record of loyalist crime, and there were also instances where the British state forces let themselves down. But there is no question about who the largest purveyor of death was.

In recent times, there have been a number of cultural phenomena that tend to recreate and glorify that campaign. The most obvious example is the phenomena around the group Kneecap and their very successful film. The Sunday Times and the BBC—all these official organs of our culture—celebrate Kneecap and their work.

I cite the verdict of Professor Liam Kennedy from Tipperary—an old colleague of mine at Queens. What he says, and with some acuity, in his review of Kneecap’s film, is that

“in subtle ways … Kneecap serves to validate the Provisionals’ murderous assaults on their … neighbours and the British state”

and validates the idea that the decades of terror were

“inevitable and necessary, the last recourse of an historically oppressed people suffering from intergenerational trauma”.

I should say something else about my friend Professor Kennedy. More than any other academic in Belfast—I suspect that the Minister remembers this—he cared about the fate of those who were actually kneecapped in east Belfast in large numbers by the Provisional IRA. Nobody put themselves more at risk in speaking out against these crimes.

There is also the poem “The Knee” from this era by Ciaran Carson. I will read only the last section, which describes a kneecapping:

“It seems he was a hood, whatever, or the lads were just being careful.

Two and two were put together; what they added up to wasn’t five.

Visiting time: he takes his thirteen-month-old son on his other knee.

Learning to walk, he suddenly throws himself into the staggering,

Distance between his father and his father’s father, hands held up high,

His legs like the hands of a clock, one trying to catch up on the other”.

This is the cruelty which is now apparently a subject for critical acclaim in our mainstream media. This is why we are disturbed about the glorification of terrorism.

We have all made concessions, and the Minister was particularly important in defending the achievements of the Good Friday agreement when he was a Minister. But, as I say, I speak as somebody who was a civil rights marcher and who has never changed my mind on John Hume’s dictum that there is not a single political failing in Northern Ireland that justified or even began to justify the loss of a single life. But, somehow, Hume’s wisdom seems to be eroding now, and that is what is so worrying.

16:20

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, on securing this debate. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, will respond, because he comes with tons of experience of the Northern Ireland situation. I know that this debate in general is about terrorism and the glorification of it at large, but on my immediate left is a victim of terrorism in his family, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, was directly a victim of terrorism when she was a youngster at school. Her father escaped, thank God, but not unscathed. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, was also a victim of terrorism, so we know this awful situation at very close hand. We do not have to run around and seek someone. People in my own family and my family circle were victims too. It seems that nearly everybody you know in Northern Ireland was in some way connected and got what I would call the sharp end of paramilitarism in Northern Ireland.

Not that this is very important, but I want to say it anyway, I come from a town in County Tyrone where I worked the best part of my life. The street I worked in was known as the most bombed street of any provincial town in Northern Ireland. In the Troubles, it had 18 500-pound car bombs planted on it. As soon as businesses were put together, another one arrived and the whole thing was blown. But, in the main, people did not turn to violence. They put their heads down, they got on with things and they rebuilt.

We now have a First Minister who tells us that there was no alternative to violence. That is an absolutely outrageous statement. Someone who holds that position should just stop and reflect on what they are saying and the impact that that has. We have lost thousands of people from both sides of the community. The IRA is responsible for 60% of those deaths, 30% are attributable to the loyalists and it is said that 10% are attributable to the forces of law and order, which is not strictly correct in this respect: that 10% figure includes where the security forces intervened or intercepted people on a mission to kill.

For example, there is a small village by the name of Coagh. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, would know it, as he would have represented it at one time when he was the MP for Mid Ulster. Indeed, Stewartstown, where he grew up as a young fellow, is not far from it. The IRA made a mission to kill in that village on one occasion, and the security forces intercepted it. Now we have a demand asking why these IRA people have not had an inquest.

However, the story does not end there, because in that same village, Coagh, three Protestant workmen were having a conversation one day in a garage repair shop. An IRA squad arrived and just annihilated them as they were standing there having a conversation. That, of course, was designed to create as much antagonism as possible and to get a reaction, but there is no demand for an inquest into their deaths. Why is it that the terrorists are so important that they must have an inquest, but not these three unfortunate souls, who were just having a conversation on a summer’s afternoon when they were gunned down? No, they are dispensable.

In the report that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, referred to, reference is made to the Terrorism Act 2000. That Act established several proscription offences, including addressing a meeting wearing clothing or displaying articles in public which

“arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation”.

That is still going on. We now have what are called the dissident republicans, who are trying to carry on where others have left off. The PSNI, which would be the enforcement body, are under-resourced and underfunded. If we are going to get on top of the situation, the PSNI has to be given the materiel and the money to ensure that it can give reliable service to the community. Otherwise, we could drift back to terrible times, and not one of us in this Room today wants that to happen.

Surely, it is time. We have a very delicate situation in Northern Ireland and sometimes, we do not fully appreciate in your Lordships’ House just how delicate things can be. If it gets to the stage where terrorism is celebrated, which does happen, and no action is taken, there will be a bad ending. The situation we are in, and where we have come from, needs to be fully appreciated. I hope the Minister will take note, and I am sure he will, because he knows the situation quite well. He has tons of experience and I welcome him to his new post. I cannot think of anybody better to do it than him.

16:27

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Foster for securing this debate asking His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to deal with the glorification of terrorism. Page 3 of the helpful House of Lords Library paper outlines the definition of terrorism. It says that the 2000 Act covers anyone who

“promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism”.

Section 1.2 is headed “How is glorifying terrorism defined?” and says:

“Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 makes the encouragement of terrorism an offence”,


including any offence that

“glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences”.

Michelle O’Neill, who is now First Minister of Northern Ireland, stated in a BBC interview in 2022 that there was “no alternative” to the IRA campaign of violence before the 1998 Belfast agreement. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people were appalled at that sickening statement in her BBC interview. The continuing campaign by Sinn Féin to seek to justify and glorify the IRA campaign exposes what Sinn Féin leaders still believe. She said that

“the war came to Ireland”,

which is republicans’ effort to rewrite historical reality and must be strenuously challenged, not only by unionist politicians but by this Government.

There has always been an alternative to terrorism and there has never been a justification for such murderous activity. Does Michelle O’Neill believe that there was no alternative to shooting the innocent, butchering those whom the IRA interrogated, planting bombs to blow up men, women and children indiscriminately, kidnapping mothers such as Jean McConville in their own community, destroying families, targeting neighbours, terrorising communities and causing mayhem? Sinn Féin/IRA may try to sanitise itself but it must never be allowed to forget the devastating legacy of its violence, which is inflicted on the people of Northern Ireland and the mainland. Does she really think that there was no alternative to taking 10 innocent workmen off the bus at Kingsmill and shooting them like dogs along the road, simply because they were Protestant? The remarks made by Michelle O’Neill inflict further pain and suffering on the families of the victims who died as a result of the IRA’s murderous campaign.

It should also be remembered that the IRA holds the distinction of killing more Roman Catholics in the Troubles than any other protagonist in the conflict. So much for its claim that the IRA was established to defend the Catholic community from the British invaders. The IRA has a toxic legacy of murder; to suggest that there was no alternative seeks to poison future generations and to normalise terrorism, making it a legitimate way to get your way if you claim to be denied your political ambitions or aims. No wonder that, even today, across many nationalist areas, young people in clubs shout “Up the IRA” et cetera, as though what the Provos did should be glorified.

When challenged, Michelle O’Neill dismissed criticism by saying that

“we need to be mature enough … to agree to differ”,

glibly casting aside the hurt of her words. Of course, in reality, the mask slipped and exposed the heart of Sinn Féin philosophy: her shameful and arrogant defence of IRA terrorism for more than 30 years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, mentioned, even as First Minister, Michelle O’Neill attended a commemoration in December to mark the deaths of three IRA men in my town, where I live, who killed themselves with their own bomb while on a murder mission more than 50 years ago. The men were said to be on a so-called active service mission at the time, but it was worthy of the First Minister of all the people of Northern Ireland to commemorate it—a further illustration of Sinn Féin being an integral part of the IRA.

Two weeks ago, I took part in a service along the roadside near Cookstown to mark the 33rd anniversary of the murder of eight innocent workmen at Teebane. I will never forget that night, for I assisted the injured in getting into the ambulance after that atrocity. I witness to this day the scars of some of those on that workmen’s bus who survived.

Never forget that I and other noble Lords here today lived through those 30 years of terror. We are not speaking about something we do not know. I know what it is to have my heart broken by the murder of my loved ones—to see them lying on a slab, with their bodies blown asunder. I know what it is to see a 16 year-old boy with only parts of his head and a few bones left because the rest of his body was blown to bits. He was not nothing; as a matter of fact, the one he was with was engaged to be married that day and was going to show her engagement ring to her aunt. I know what it is to see my children terrorised: 40 to 50 bullets were shot at our home when they were in it, and I received a real bomb packaged as missionary material.

There is nothing glorious in terrorism, irrespective of which community it comes from. We must unreservedly condemn it and ensure that our grandchildren never face that evil ever again, but we must also learn the lessons of the past. Because Governments failed to protect our people, innocent people faced the tragedy of 30 years of terrorism. May we learn the lessons of the past and never allow a generation to suffer such consequences again.

16:34

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, not just on securing this important debate but on the powerful and moving speech that she made, as well as all other Members. It has been very moving to listen to the contributions this afternoon.

I want to pick up on the point about people chanting support for the IRA. Yesterday on the streets of Birmingham, and last night at Villa Park, where I was watching the Villa-Celtic game, there were disgraceful scenes of people chanting support for the IRA. That, in a city where 21 people were murdered in the 1974 pub bombings and hundreds more were injured, is a complete and utter disgrace.

The CPS has said that tragedy chanting about Hillsborough or the Munich air crash can be treated as a public order offence, that fans responsible should be banned and that people can be arrested. I would like the Minister to find out why the police seem to have taken no action yesterday in Birmingham. I would like him to speak to the police and the CPS to ensure that the people responsible can be identified and prosecuted. Does he agree that Celtic must deal with this? They have to condemn it—it is an absolute disgrace. They know who they sold the tickets to, they can identify them and ban them. If Celtic will not do that, does the Minister agree that they should be banned from European competition in future? They can chant what they like—well, they should not, but what they do at Parkhead is a matter for them. Coming to Birmingham and chanting support for the IRA in that city is a complete and utter disgrace, and I would like the Minister to look at this.

16:36

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, for bringing such a timely and important debate, and indeed all other noble Lords for their touching contributions.

The glorification of terrorism and terrorists in the United Kingdom is an issue that of course affects us all, but in particular the victims and survivors of these heinous acts. I start by emphatically stating that my heart goes out to those affected by terrorism, and in particular today to the Jewish community. When people march in London singing anti-Semitic slogans that glorify the terrorist atrocities of Hamas and 7 October, I consider it to be a dark day indeed. That applies equally to those who seek to glorify the appalling terrorist acts of the Troubles—as we have heard today, some of them were absolutely appalling—or indeed any other heinous acts which have happened in our nation and seek to undermine the fabric of our society. We should call out the glorification of terrorism at every opportunity.

First, under the Terrorism Act 2006 it is already an offence to glorify acts of terrorism. However, enforcement alone is not sufficient. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to root out the ideologies and cultural narratives that allow such glorification to thrive? Can the Minister also say whether the Government have a plan in place to ensure that all cases of glorification are treated equally, so as to protect the victims and survivors?

Secondly—this is an important point—we must ensure that our educational institutions are not unwittingly providing a platform for extremist ideologies. Schools and universities are critical places where strategies can be implemented that are hugely important in addressing radicalisation. What steps have been taken to strengthen the implementation of anti-terrorist strategies and address the growing challenges posed by online radicalisation?

Thirdly, the role of social media can hardly be overstated. Platforms that allow the dissemination of extremist propaganda must be held accountable. So, how are His Majesty’s Government working with technology companies to ensure robust enforcement of policies which ban hate speech? Are we doing enough to educate young people about the dangers of consuming and sharing such material?

Finally, we must confront this issue at the societal level. This requires more than legislation; it requires leadership. I urge His Majesty’s Government to take a stand against those who seek to manipulate grievances for the purpose of sowing division and hatred. Counterextremism efforts must be community-led, with a focus on fostering a shared understanding of our values in Britain, which unite, rather than divide, our diverse population.

We cannot, and must not, allow the glorification of terrorism to gain a foothold in our society. It is a matter of not just security but moral clarity. I call on the Government to redouble their efforts in order to address the growing menace with the urgency and determination that it demands.

16:40

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this debate today, which has been full of emotion and concern. It has raised issues that deserve to be respected, and I hope to be able to answer them in part.

I am particularly aware that this week, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, mentioned, sees the commencement of the Omagh bombing inquiry. I had the privilege of attending the Memorial Garden in Omagh some 15 years ago. I met victims there and learned of their continued pain, anger and desire for answers. The noble Baroness has herself been a victim of terrorist activity, and I understand the pain, anger and wish for answers that she brings to this debate. I have met with victims of Omagh. I have sat in a room with the widows of police officers who were murdered. I have met those who were killed by the IRA—and, indeed, those who were shot dead by loyalist paramilitaries as well. I have sat with, and looked into the eyes of, people who have undertaken those killings, both from the IRA and from the loyalist community. I did so to try to understand and resolve some of the issues that underpin this debate today.

I am grateful for the comments from a number of noble Lords and Baronesses. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, mentioned my service in Northern Ireland. I had a fleeting period in Northern Ireland, but it left a deep impression on me and on my examination of the issues that still affect us today. Even in this Home Office job, just before Christmas, I attended the 50th anniversary of the Birmingham pub bombing. People still wanted answers and still did not understand; they were still the victims of violence that took place in the context of our discussions today. So I understand that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, asked what has changed since I was there. I would be interested to see what has happened since I left. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, mentioned this as well. One thing has happened since I left. When I was in Northern Ireland, I was the First Minister; I was the Deputy First Minister; I was the Treasury Minister, for a while; and I was the Culture Minister and the Housing Minister. Now, Michelle O’Neill and Emma Little-Pengelly hold those posts in a devolved Administration salvaged from the trauma of that not occurring. They have got local decision-making back in place, as envisaged by the Good Friday/Belfast agreement—call it what you will—of 1998. So, there has been progress in many ways, but pain—it has been visible in the Room today—still exists as a result of that activity.

In a sense, I would like to look to the future as well. We have the legacy of the Troubles, which, again, is self-evidently visible in this Room today—the trauma experienced by individuals and communities, and by some noble Lords and Baronesses in this Room, some of whom have represented such individuals in Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe.

Addressing the legacy of the Troubles is one of the aims of the Good Friday agreement. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government, through my right honourable friend Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, are looking at how we can build on that legacy in order to ensure that we understand and find a way through those difficult issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has given a view on the First Minister, as have other noble Lords here today; that is in the Room and on the record today. I hope that we can look at some of the issues as we go forward, while recognising that there is still a very deep scar in Northern Ireland as a whole.

That brings me to two points in relation to this debate. First, there is a Section 1 Terrorism Act 2006 offence of encouraging terrorism, including unlawful glorification. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned it. I will come to the other points he raised in a moment. For individuals who glorify acts of terrorism, whether online or offline, whether with reference to proscribed organisations or individual acts of terrorism, such behaviour has no place in our society. There is a legal definition of that act of glorification currently on the statute book. Police forces in Northern Ireland or elsewhere can seek to examine it and can bring prosecutions accordingly. It may not be satisfactory to the noble Baroness, and she may worry about the number of prosecutions made—I understand that—but that framework is there in law.

In that sense, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Austin, who I still call my noble friend, that the incidents at a football match this week, which I was not party to—I have read about them, I have not seen them personally, but I take his word for what happened—can be referred by the police if they feel a criminal act was committed under that offence. I urge him to draw it to the attention of the West Midlands Police because that is where the appropriate response lies. It is not for Ministers to determine whether criminal action has taken place, it is for Ministers to put legislation in place.

The second important area is Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which makes it an offence to support a proscribed organisation. Again, this was referred to by a number of Members. There is a whole list of proscribed organisations which the Government have determined are beyond the pale, owing to their activities. Hamas is included in that. I was not in Parliament at the time, but in 2019 the offence was widened to ensure that it captured such statements even where the speaker is reckless as to their impact. The penalty for that proscription offence is a maximum of 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. Again, there is legislation on the statute book now, and it is not for Ministers to determine whether that legislation has been broken. It is for the police to make an arrest, prepare a case and put it to the Crown Prosecution Service; and it is for the CPS to determine whether charges should be made. Those charges are either made or not. If they are made, they go to court. If they go to court, they are in front of a jury and the jury determines whether the law has been broken.

So, currently, there is a mechanism in place for any of the instances noble Lords have raised concerns about today. Are those two mechanisms currently satisfactory, given the nature of the changes in the threat and the activities? Well, the Government have done two things since 4 July. We organised what we called a sprint to review counter-terrorism legislation. There was a leak of some discussion this week. That is not government policy—I put that on the record—but we have asked Jonathan Hall KC to look at current legislation and I think it is important that this debate can form part of assessment for the Government. He will make that assessment and produce a report on current terrorism legislation, by which I mean Section 12 of the Terrorism Act, Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 or indeed some potential new legislation to cover any issues raised today and elsewhere. He will present that report to Ministers at a date to be determined, we will make an assessment and either accept or reject any recommendations, and we may or may not bring forward new legislation during the many opportunities we have this year.

I am pleased, again, to see the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in his place because I am grateful to him as he has accepted a commission from the Government to review the current operation of Prevent. It largely does not deal with the Northern Ireland situation, I accept that, but it deals with some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and other noble Lords in this Committee have mentioned. So, without wanting to influence the determination of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, he has a mandate independently to review this and make recommendations, which, again, the Government can reject or accept, that will be brought to this House in due course.

I say to all noble Lords here today that I understand the pain seen by the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord McCrea and Lord Bew, and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, and my noble friend Lord Austin. I particularly understand the sentiments of the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. However, those issues are, in a sense, up for review. If the legislation is not sufficient or appropriate, then that will be reviewed, and recommendations will be made. We will respond to that in due course.

I will refer to a couple of other points that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, raised a series of questions effectively about marching, parades and determinations. There is legislation on the statute book, and I have referred to it in the Chamber of this House recently. Legislation about marches is there. It gives powers to police officers and Gold Command to determine marching routes and whether they are suitable or if they cause difficulties. It is not the Parades Commission, but it a determination.

As a Government, we are currently looking at number of issues relating to the position of legislation. We have already publicly announced that there is legislation coming this year in a police and crime Bill that will look at the issue of war memorials and people who abuse them or stand on them. That is an issue. There are a number of other challenges that are on the radar. I am not in a position to announce policy today, but I assure the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that we are working on a number of policy options that will address some issues to do with the management of parades and marches in due course. When we are in position to announce them, we will do so in the police and crime Bill.

The Government are committed to ensuring that police have appropriate powers to maintain order. There are a range of powers already on the statute book for the police to do that. We are keeping all that public order legislation under constant review. Where there are gaps, we will identify them. I will look at the points that the noble Lord mentioned, and I will write to him in detail in response to them.

My time is up. I could add a few more points, but I want to touch on the contribution from His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front Bench. It is important that we look at the internet. It is important that we look at radicalisation on the internet. Again, that forms part of reviews that are taking place currently. Also, the Government are committed to reviewing that with the platform companies to make sure that we remove content that is encouraging terrorism or, indeed, encouraging the abuse of children or sexual abuse in other ways. That is all on the agenda as well.

Given that I am one minute over, I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue. I may not have answered all her points, but she has a right to raise those issues. She has done in that in an effective way that has left a legacy on this Committee in terms of its discussion. If I have not picked up points made by noble Lords today, I will do so and respond according. I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues from Northern Ireland and beyond to ensure that the next generation of children has a peaceful and productive future in a society that respects differences and rejects violence.

Committee adjourned at 4.54 pm.

House of Lords

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Thursday 30 January 2025

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Peterborough

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

11:06

Deborah Mary, Lord Bishop of Peterborough, was introduced and took the oath, supported by the Bishop of Gloucester and the Bishop of Chelmsford, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Baroness Levitt

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

11:10

Alison Frances Josephine Levitt KC, having been created Baroness Levitt, of Beachamwell Warren in the County of Norfolk, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Oaths and Affirmations

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

11:15

Lord Woolf took the oath, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Musculoskeletal Health

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:16

Asked by

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve musculoskeletal health.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I note my interest as co-chairman of the APPG on osteoporosis.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, improving health outcomes for the more than 17 million people in England with musculoskeletal conditions forms a key part of this Government’s missions to build an NHS fit for the future and kick-start economic growth. We are making a start by delivering a joint programme with the DWP—entitled Getting It Right First Time, the MSK community delivery programme—and working with integrated care board leaders to reduce NHS community waiting times and to improve data metrics and referral pathways.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, osteoporosis is one of the gravest musculoskeletal conditions, because fractures ruin lives and kill people. Can the Minister understand the frustration so many feel that, after years of promises, there is still no prospect of universal access to life-saving fracture liaison services in England? Each time this House debates osteoporosis, there is unanimous support and Ministers of both parties stand here and promise action. Each time there is an election, commitments are made, including one by the Secretary of State that rollout would be one of his first acts in post. Well, it was not, and 1,100 people have died since then. Will the Minister, without prevarication or diversion about widening access, specifically restate the Government’s commitment to universal rollout of FLS in England by 2030? If not, could she explain to thousands suffering often intolerable pain or grieving loved ones why they have reneged on it?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s campaigning, which is impressive in maintaining focus on what I regard as a very important area. He may be aware, but I draw it to his and your Lordships’ House’s attention, that a Written Ministerial Statement about addressing urgent challenges was laid today. It outlines the fact that planning guidance is soon to be published—it was not published as I entered the Chamber—and will reflect patient priorities that are important to those who have to contend with osteoporosis. These include cutting waiting times, improving access to primary care—bearing in mind that 30% of GP appointments are related to MSK—and improving urgent and emergency care. On the point the noble Lord asks about, as I have said before, we are working closely to consider a whole range of options to provide better quality and access to important preventive services as part of ending the postcode lottery. I will be pleased to keep him informed.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

We will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

I am a member of the APPG on osteoporosis, and we are very worried that fracture liaison services have been deprioritised in the recent NHS planning guidance. We know that the pump-priming transformation fund works because we have seen it working in Wales. It saves lives, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, releases people into the labour market, releases beds in hospitals and improves quality of life for thousands of people. Can the Minister give us an assurance? If this milestone has been missed in the planning guidance, we need urgent clarity on how the 2030 target will be reached.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a number of important points. In reference to the planning guidance, I hope she will understand that at this stage that is leaked information and I am therefore not in a position to comment. The Secretary of State has confirmed that planning guidance will be published in due course. I agree that patients around the country are waiting too long for care and treatment. I draw my noble friend’s attention to the plan for change, which will get the health service back on its feet. Part of the elective recovery plan, published just a few weeks ago, sets out funding to boost DEXA, which is bone density scanning capacity to support improvements in bone health and early diagnosis, including for osteoporosis. That will provide an estimated 29,000 extra scans per year, so I hope my noble friend will take heart from that node of direction.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I declare a family interest in this condition. Will the Minister recognise that the failure to roll out the much-needed early diagnostic service, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, was promised during the general election campaign, will inevitably result in greater cost to the NHS in the years to come?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly agree with the noble Lord that without the right services in place at the right time and in the right location, there is additional cost—not just to the NHS but to the economy and to individuals. We have found that musculoskeletal community services have the largest waiting lists in England, and I refer the noble Lord to our forthcoming 10-year plan on the move from hospital to community. That will be a key part of cutting waiting lists, and the measures I have already announced will also assist.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, did not the Health Secretary give an unequivocal commitment at last year’s general election that there would be universal fracture liaison services by 2030, with implementation starting immediately? Does that commitment still stand?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to reiterate that the department is working closely with NHS England to look at a whole range of options to provide better-quality care and access to those important preventive services. I emphasise that this is part of ending the postcode lottery. I remind your Lordships’ House that integrated care boards are responsible for the delivery of these services. We will continue with the further actions that we are taking, some of which I have already referred to, which will ensure that patients are getting the service they need.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

Integrated Care Journal has indicated the potential to improve access pathways, giving an example of an AI physiotherapist service at home and covered by CQC. Will the Government develop and adapt something like this?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises an interesting point and I will be happy to look into what she suggests. I know she is aware that one of the main pillars of change will be about analogue to digital, and in that I put the contribution of AI. Just this afternoon I will speak to a conference about the role of AI in respect of women’s health, and osteoporosis will be very much part of that.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to speak remotely.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

As a sufferer of ankylosing spondylitis, a painful spinal musculoskeletal condition aggravated by a lack of physical movement, I can report that inactivity in underemployment can severely aggravate the condition. Would the state benefits system not be far better served if multi-patient group physio services and collective patient gyms—even open-air ones, as in the Far East—were available on a wider scale? Greater collective patient activity for this and other similar groups in large public venues would save money in the benefits system.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a very important point from a position of a lot of experience. I can confirm that we recognise the importance of regular physical activity for those with MSK conditions. It helps to reduce pain and disability as well as improving well-being and helping with other conditions. The existence of MSK hubs with a non-healthcare workforce delivering physical activity-based interventions has been extremely helpful, and we will continue to encourage that and explore the role that hubs can play.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, we should pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Black for all his hard work in this area. I do not think the Minister answered his Question. On Tuesday evening she told the House she wanted to be honest, so in that spirit can she tell your Lordships whether the Government have agreed new dates, first, to begin the rollout and, secondly, to achieve universal fracture liaison services? If so, what are those dates? If not, can she tell us when we will have those dates, so that all the people waiting for these services are clearer about what they can look forward to?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord the dates that he seeks, but I will be pleased to keep him updated on the development of services.

Afghanistan: Women

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:27

Tabled by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with international partners about the Taliban’s restrictions on women in Afghanistan, including a ban on women attending medical schools.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, we remain in regular dialogue with international partners on Afghanistan, including using international mechanisms to maintain pressure on the Taliban to change course. The Minister for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan hosted a round table in New York on 20 January with the UN and permanent representatives of key countries. This month, we also pledged our political support to refer the Taliban to the International Court of Justice.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to His Majesty’s Government for referring Afghanistan’s violation of human rights to the International Court of Justice. However, the women of Afghanistan are in desperate need of urgent action to prevent the ban on attending medical schools having a long-term impact on the availability of female medical staff. It will have far-reaching consequences for women’s health outcomes, which are already dire. Can the Minister expand on what steps the Government have taken to ensure that women in Afghanistan will continue to be able to access women’s health services, despite the ban?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As my noble friend says, the situation is extremely difficult, and we are relying in large part on our partners on the ground to be able to support women in the most horrendous of circumstances. Let us remember that the ban that she refers to comes on top of laws requiring women to be veiled at all times in public, banning women from singing, reciting or reading aloud in public, forbidding them to look at men they are not related to and strictly enforcing male escorts for women. The situation is intolerable, and it is good that we have supported taking this to the ICJ. In the meantime, we are doing everything we can on the ground to support women in Afghanistan.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, the brave Afghan women who peacefully protest against these brutal policies have been threatened, arrested, forcibly disappeared, detained and tortured. Their voices must be heard. They want concrete and effective measures against the Taliban. They do not want the Taliban to be granted any legitimacy and normalisation of their oppressive rule under the guise of engagement—those are their words. Do His Majesty’s Government agree that targeted sanctions, refusal to recognise this repressive regime and unwavering support for women’s resistance in Afghanistan are the minimum actions that the international community must take in good faith?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are extremely careful about the way that we engage with Afghanistan. The noble Baroness knows that we recognise states and not Governments. On sanctions, we implement the UN sanctions. We have some very limited engagement with the Taliban to bring about some of the changes that we want to see and to make these points about women and human rights, but as she will know, this is incredibly difficult. We are working for the large part through international partners on the ground to make sure that we get humanitarian aid to support people today.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, these measures are taken by men with an absolute lack of transparency and without any involvement of those concerned, and they are clearly aimed at excluding women and girls from public life. Following on from what has been said, are the Government actively meeting female Afghan leaders to hear their perspectives? Will the UK Government help female Afghans to be part of the international talks so that they are able to play a part in the future of the country?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is such an important point. The voices of Afghan women are suppressed in their own country, but we must provide platforms whenever we can to make sure that those voices are heard. I was very grateful to the Leader of the House recently for her enabling me to meet Malala here in our House. The right reverend Prelate is right, and we will continue to find whatever means we can to make sure that women in Afghanistan have the opportunity to speak on their own behalf.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, how are we using our influence at the United Nations to deal with these issues, particularly around education? Without education, those young girls will continue to be exploited, be badly treated and be at the risk of being married off.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful for that question. My noble friend the Minister for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan is using his convening mechanisms at the UN to raise these issues, garner international support and keep the spotlight on them. It is principally through these multinational fora that we are able to bring about the pressure that may be needed.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister outline which areas of the Government’s influence are more likely to have effect in dealing with the Taliban? By mechanisms of influence, I am talking about direct interaction with the Taliban.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

For reasons that we have touched on today, that is incredibly difficult. The focus for us when it comes to Afghan women is to make sure that the eyes of the world are on this issue and that we get the aid to them now, because the need is desperate. That is why we are planning £161 million in aid to Afghanistan this financial year.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the situation for women in Afghanistan is truly dreadful, and I am sure the whole House agrees that there are no easy or simple solutions. Perhaps the Minister could expand on the answer she gave earlier on whether the Government have considered targeted sanctions or providing diplomatic incentives to encourage the Taliban to change course.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We consider anything that might work. Obviously, we do not comment on future sanctions designations, but I can say that we keep the situation under very close review.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest that I share with many Members of your Lordships’ House in that I am an ambassador for the Halo Trust. In a speech 10 days ago, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Afghanistan described his own Government’s prohibitions on female education as

“committing an injustice against 20 million people”

and he asserted that restrictions on female education run counter to both the wishes of the Prophet and sharia law. What assessment have the Government made of internal divisions within the Afghan Government on this question, as well as our diplomatic capacity to encourage those who seek to widen the parameters of women’s rights under the Taliban? On extending the parameters of women’s rights and other rights under the Taliban, if the Government have not done so, I suggest that they would do well to speak to James Cowan, the CEO of the Halo Trust, who has established a great spread of engagement in that regard.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I support everything my noble friend has said about the Halo Trust and the phenomenal work that it has been able to do in the most difficult circumstances. I commend to the House the initiative taken in Pakistan recently on the importance of education of women and girls within Islam and how it is such a concern. It is a strong initiative. It is difficult to say that any one event, conference or intervention is going to have the effect that we all wish to see, but I hope that, by continuing to support such gatherings and the making of these cases, we can, over time, have the impact that we want.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, we have had the 2020 Afghanistan sanctions for four years now. There are a number of exceptions to those sanctions, justifiable for assuring the delivery of humanitarian aid, but any exceptions can be abused. In light of the more recent examples that my noble friend gave, have the Government reviewed the exceptions and the sanctions that have been in place for four years to ensure that they are up to date and there is no circumvention, and that those individuals who are restricting the rights of women, as we have been discussing, are not able to profit from circumventing sanctions?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As I have said, we keep this issue under close review. The noble Lord is right to highlight the most recent restrictions around medical education. We are working as hard as we can to make sure that we are still able to get the aid to where it needs to get to, and we have made a point of making sure that at least half the aid that we get into the country goes directly to women and girls.

Schools: World War II Anniversary

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:37

Asked by

[Lord Evans of Rainow]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to involve schools in the commemoration of the 80th Anniversary of the end of World War II.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Question. We owe our freedom to those who fought in World War II. The 80th anniversary of VE Day and VJ Day will be marked with a series of events paying tribute to the millions of people across the UK and the Commonwealth who experienced the war, from the front line to the home front and beyond. It is vital that children understand the important roles played by their forebears. Resources and educational material are being developed for schools to help young people learn about the Second World War, and children and young people will be involved in a range of commemorative events.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that excellent Answer. She will know well that her government department did an excellent job of commemorating the 100th anniversary of the First World War, as noble Lords will remember, between 2014 and 2018. With that in mind, given that it is the 80th anniversary of the ending of the Second World War, what plans does her department have to engage with all schoolchildren, but particularly those in state schools, to make sure that they interact with surviving veterans in their communities before it is too late?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that the 100-year commemoration of the First World War was indeed powerful. Whether through activities in schools, conversations in the home with older relatives or the work of some of our fabulous museums, such as the Imperial War Museum, I wholeheartedly agree with him that living history is a hugely powerful way for children to gain an understanding of the past. Sadly, we will soon be at the point where we will not have the voices of people who experienced the Second World War, whether as veterans or as children. I am very clear that that should be incorporated into how schools, and we more broadly, mark these important 80th anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Memorial Gates foundation. Over 600,000 African service men and women served alongside the British forces in World War II. Some are still living, including Warrant Officer Joseph Hammond, who served in the “Forgotten” Fourteenth Army in Burma. Will she meet with the foundation, the legion and others concerned to see how we can best facilitate the witnesses who are still living to make their contribution to the education of young people during the 80th anniversary?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are keen at DCMS and across government to make sure that all voices are heard. I would be very happy to meet the organisations my noble friend has raised. We are clear that there were a huge number of troops and people deployed and that their voices and stories should be part of the commemoration of these important events.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I was a member of the Government’s advisory committee for the commemoration of World War I. I felt that my Conservative colleagues were reluctant to emphasise the role that the 1.5 million Indian soldiers played in World War I. In our schools, we now have the grandchildren and, in some cases, the great-grandchildren, of the 2.5 million Indians who served in the British Imperial Army in World War II—not to mention the many West Indians who served mainly as ground staff in the RAF and the Poles who were unable to go home afterwards. Can we make sure that we emphasise how much today’s society and schoolchildren are descended from all of those who fought with us in World War II?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are clear that this is an important part of the commemoration. As the noble Lord has identified, our victory and our freedom relied both on the 365,000 British troops and the 1.5 million Commonwealth troops who were deployed alongside 2.5 million soldiers from the pre-partition Indian army. It is right, as the noble Lord makes clear, that the sacrifices made by those serving across Europe, Asia and the Pacific, and all the troops who fought as part of the British and Commonwealth response, will be very much at the heart of the commemorations.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I am probably the only person in this House today who was a child during the Second World War, between the ages of six and 12.

[Noble Lords]

Alf!

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

And the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—of course. But there are not very many of us, I have to say. Does the Minister think it might be useful to have some views from those of us who lived through it on what happened: for example, on rationing?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not going to comment on how many noble Lords were children during the Second World War. I still have my great aunt’s ration card, which is one of my very valued family memories of the Second World War. I agree with the noble and learned Baroness that the stories of children from the Second World War, as told to children, will help them understand the full experience of what war was like. There are children still going through war situations now, including, very sadly, some of the children who may be in our schools. I will not go into the story about my mother talking about the first time she managed to eat chocolate and a banana and hated them, but all of this adds flavour and colour to the stories that we would all want children to learn from and understand.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I am proud to say that my father was president of the Royal British Legion. He loved his time working under the direct command of Admiral Lord West—the noble Lord, Lord West. So I must declare an interest: for them, and for the honorary captain of the Royal Navy Reserve, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, and every other reservist, active and retired Armed Forces personnel, I want this to be an amazing anniversary. Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways of doing this is via the cadet force, which encourages children between the ages of 12 and 18 to be the best they can be?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the noble Earl’s father’s role and to all those in your Lordships’ House who have served or are serving in various capacities in our Armed Forces. I am happy to agree with the noble Earl about the cadet forces. The Combined Cadet Force programme will continue to receive £3.6 million in government funding through the Ministry of Defence for this academic year. This funding supports the ambition for it to grow to 600,000 cadets in 500 school cadet units across the UK. It is in addition to the annual cost to the MoD of the Combined Cadet Force, which is estimated at over £42 million per year. I ought to note that my nephew benefits hugely from being a member of one of the cadet forces.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, as the Culture Minister who was responsible for the World War I commemorations, I first utterly reject the notion that Ministers were reluctant to commemorate the contribution of Commonwealth soldiers. I felt very strongly that their contribution was very much to the fore.

The Minister mentioned the Imperial War Museum. I urge her to include all our cultural institutions in the 80th anniversary commemorations, in particular our regimental museums, which are central to the services and their identity. They are funded by the Ministry of Defence and—this is not a criticism—I always feel that they are a bit of an orphan when it comes to thinking about our cultural strategy. So this will be an opportunity to really recognise the cultural contribution that our regimental museums make.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

At DCMS, we are really keen for all museums with a relevant interest and those with a broader social role in telling the story of the people of Britain to take part. I had an initial conversation about the celebrations yesterday with my noble friend Lord Coaker and I will be happy to pick up the point the noble Lord raised.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome what has been said about the plan to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. On this day in 1933, Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. In those commemorations, when we look at and celebrate the end of World War II, we should not forget about the conditions that gave rise to World War II. The next generation needs to be just as aware of that as of the ending of it.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am absolutely confident that Members from across your Lordships’ House will agree. This week has also marked Holocaust Memorial Day and this year will also mark the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp. I am confident that those stories will be told. His Majesty the King recently visited Auschwitz. It was the first state visit by our head of state and it is really important that those stories are told as part of this. It is a commemoration of all the events of the Second World War.

European Union: Trade

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:48

Asked by

[Lord Liddle]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the European Commission on securing better trade terms with the European Union, including through a possible customs union as suggested by Commissioner Šefčovič.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to resetting our EU relationship, including by reducing barriers to trade. We will negotiate a veterinary sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks. We aim to secure mutual recognition for professional qualifications, and we will work to help our touring artists. We look forward to exploring these issues with the EU, but we have been clear that there will be no return to freedom of movement, the customs union or the single market.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Since I tabled this Question, we have had the Chancellor’s growth speech, which recommitted the Government to this reset of our relations. Does my noble friend agree that this is a means of lessening unnecessary barriers to trade, in a shorter timeframe than many big infrastructure projects, that would lead to better growth prospects and greater overseas-investor confidence in Britian and help the tens of thousands of SMEs that have ceased to trade with Europe because of the Brexit barriers? Does she also agree that, now that the new Conservative leader has said that Brexit was ill-planned, this presents an opportunity to overcome the blockers to a better trading arrangement?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for raising the comments made by the leader of the Opposition. I understand she has criticised her predecessors for mishandling Brexit, saying that leaving the EU without a growth plan was a “mistake”. I hope this means that we can work on a cross-party basis on these issues, because resetting our relationship with the EU will be key to delivering our plan for change and our plan for growth. The Chancellor has been clear that removing barriers to trade with the EU is critical to support growth and help our businesses. As the Chancellor said recently in her Mansion House speech, our biggest trading partner is the EU. We must recognise that our markets are highly interconnected and ensure that our approach to the EU reset supports growth and delivers investment for the economy.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have said on many occasions that they want to reset our relationship, and this Minister is no exception. Largely speaking, that means ruling things out as far as ruling things in. I understand that negotiating in detail in public is not a good practice. However, a good practice is telling your counterparty what you want. So far, there have been no specific demands or requests from the UK to Brussels. When will that start, and when will this reset actually happen?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. We are not going to give a running commentary on negotiations.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I did not ask for that.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord suggests that he did not ask for that. However, if we were to start putting demands in the media, I am not sure that is resetting the relationship with our European friends and neighbours; it sounds like more of the same that we saw from the previous Government.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister just told the House that there would be no return to freedom of movement. The Prime Minister is travelling to Brussels next week to meet with EU leaders. According to media reports this morning, they are going to ask him to agree to a new youth mobility scheme. Can the Minister say whether that is not a return to freedom of movement?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

A youth mobility scheme is absolutely not a return to freedom of movement. If the noble Lord wishes to have a longer discussion about the youth mobility scheme, there will be a longer debate on this issue later today. We will obviously be looking at EU proposals on a range of issues, but there are no plans for a Europe-wide youth mobility scheme.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister recognise that the remarks made by Commissioner Šefčovič do not involve the UK joining a customs union? They were about rules of origin, mainly for Mediterranean countries, of whom only one, Turkey, is in a customs union—the others are not. Will she therefore confirm that the Government will give urgent and positive consideration to this proposal?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention is, as the noble Lord makes clear, not a customs union, nor is it an EU scheme. We are always looking at ways to reduce barriers to trade within our clear red lines, because having a smooth trading relationship with the EU is absolutely essential to driving growth at home. This is one of the options, and it is right and responsible that we are looking at it to determine what is in the UK’s national interest. But nothing has been agreed yet and, as ever, I am not going to give a running commentary on these talks.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

My Lords, while I do not require the Minister to respond in song—wonderful though that might be—would she remember when she is in Brussels this week to focus very hard on the need for musicians and their instruments to be able to travel much more freely? Music is one of our most wonderful outcomes from the United Kingdom in the whole art field, and it is one that has been really damaged by the way in which movement is not allowed. That is hampering all sorts of things, not just the young. She can of course respond in song if she feels like it.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I genuinely think noble Lords would be very keen for me not to respond in song; they can all speculate on what type of song I would respond with. The question the noble Baroness raises around touring artists is a good one, and I look forward to talking about this in greater depth this afternoon.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, now that we have talked about the Second World War, it should remind us that the whole development of the EU, and the Common Market before it, was based on very close Franco-German co-operation and reconciliation. Now that that co-operation is not what it was, by any means, and that new forces are emerging in Europe, should we not work for new ideas and relations with our European neighbours? We certainly want good relations through the European Political Community organisation, where we have good status and standing, and where a number of completely new ideas, free of some of the old prejudices, are available and should be developed.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

These two Questions I have been responding to today do have an element of similarity. I agree with the noble Lord that our relationships with Europe are related to trade but they also have to be related to security. We want to deepen co-operation within areas where the EU has unique capabilities, such as sanctions, countering disinformation, military mobilisation, and civilian crisis management and support—particularly to Ukraine. It is quite sobering to remember and recognise that, while we are talking about commemorating the Second World War, we do have war in Europe currently.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister give a couple of economic arguments for why we would not want to be in a customs arrangement with the European Union?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We had an election, and this Government stood on not rejoining the customs union. We keep our promises as a party, and I make no apology for doing so.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

Can the Minister tell your Lordships what involvement there is with the devolved Administrations? Are there consultations with them in relation to these discussions with the EU, since the outcome of those discussions will have a major impact on internal UK trade, not least because of the Windsor Framework?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

In relation to the Windsor Framework, and with regard to Northern Ireland in particular, this Government are committed to delivering for the people of Northern Ireland and protecting trade flows. The noble Lord will be aware that my noble friend Lord Murphy is currently undertaking an independent review of the Windsor Framework to ensure that it is delivering for all communities in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, may I endorse and support the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and say he will have considerable support from this side?

[A noble Lord]

No!

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, that concludes Oral Questions for today.

Built Environment Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

House of Lords Commission

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Communications and Digital Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Conduct Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Constitution Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Deputy Chairmen of Committees

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Economic Affairs Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Environment and Climate Change Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

European Affairs Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

European Affairs Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Finance Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Industry and Regulators Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

International Agreements Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

International Relations and Defence Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Justice and Home Affairs Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Liaison Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Procedure and Privileges Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Public Services Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Science and Technology Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee of Selection

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Services Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Autism Act 2009 Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Home-based Working Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Social Mobility Policy Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

UK Engagement with Space Committee

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Membership Motions

12:00

Moved by

[The Senior Deputy Speaker]

Built Environment

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Cameron of Dillington, Lord Gascoigne, Lord Porter of Spalding and Viscount Younger of Leckie be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Baroness Eaton, Lord Greenhalgh, Lord Mair and Lord Moylan; and that Lord Gascoigne be appointed Chair of the Select Committee.

Commission

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Baroness Pitkeathley be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall.

Communications and Digital

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Viscount Colville of Culross, Baroness Fleet, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Baroness Keeley, Lord Mitchell and Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Hall of Birkenhead, Baroness Harding of Winscombe, Lord Kamall, Baroness Primarolo, Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Young of Norwood Green; and that Baroness Keeley be appointed Chair of the Select Committee.

Conduct

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Earl of Devon, Baroness Grender and Baroness Stowell of Beeston be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Garnier, Baroness Kidron and Lord Scriven; and that, with effect from Thursday 20 March, Lord Etherton be appointed Chair of the Select Committee in place of Baroness Manningham-Buller.

Constitution

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Bellamy, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, Baroness Hamwee, Baroness Laing of Elderslie, Lord Murphy of Torfaen and Lord Waldegrave of North Hill be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Baroness Drake, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Baroness Finn, Baroness Goldie, Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Thomas of Gresford; and that Lord Strathclyde be appointed Chair of the Select Committee.

Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Viscount Goschen, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath and Lord Rowlands be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Carlile of Berriew, Lord Cunningham of Felling, Lord McLoughlin and Lord Rooker; and that Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath be appointed Chair of the Select Committee.

Deputy Chairmen

That Baroness Wilcox of Newport be appointed to the panel of members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this session.

Economic Affairs

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Agnew of Oulton, Lord Liddle, Lord Petitgas and Lord Wood of Anfield be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Bridges of Headley, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, Lord Layard and Lord Rooker; and that Lord Wood of Anfield be appointed Chair of the Select Committee.

Environment and Climate Change

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Ashcombe, Lord Krebs, Lord Layard, Lord Lennie, Lord Mancroft and Lord Rooker be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Baroness Bakewell, Baroness Bray of Coln, Lord Frost, Lord Giddens, Lord Grantchester and Lord Ravensdale.

European Affairs

That the orders of reference for the European Affairs Committee agreed by the House on 29 July 2024 be substituted with the following orders of reference, in light of the establishment of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee: “To consider matters relating to the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union and the European Economic Area, including the implementation and governance structures of any agreements between the United Kingdom and the European Union save for the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and the Windsor Framework; to consider all European Union documents (except matters falling within the scope of the Protocol/Windsor Framework) deposited in the House by a minister; and to support the House as appropriate in interparliamentary cooperation with the European Parliament and the Member States of the European Union.”

European Affairs

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Frost, Baroness Suttie, Lord Whitty and Baroness Winterton of Doncaster be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Adonis, Baroness Blackstone, Baroness Lawlor and Baroness Scott of Needham Market.

Finance

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall be appointed a member of the Select Committee.

Industry and Regulators

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Baroness Drake, Baroness Harding of Winscombe, Lord Teverson, Lord Udny-Lister and Baroness Valentine be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Agnew of Oulton, Lord Altrincham, Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Cromwell.

International Agreements

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Baroness Lawlor, Lord McDonald of Salford, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Verma be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Etherton, Lord Grimstone of Boscobel, Baroness Kingsmill and Lord Udny-Lister.

International Relations and Defence

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Baroness Blackstone and Lord Darroch of Kew be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Lord Wood of Anfield.

Justice and Home Affairs

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Baroness Bertin be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Lord McInnes of Kilwinning and Lord Sandhurst.

Liaison

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Baroness Fookes, Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon and Lord Smith of Hindhead be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Bach, Lord Blencathra and Lord Taylor of Holbeach.

National Security Strategy

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Boateng, Lord Hutton of Furness, Baroness Kidron, Lord Sedwill and Lord Watts be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Butler of Brockwell, Baroness Crawley, Lord Dannatt, Lord Snape and Viscount Stansgate.

Northern Ireland Scrutiny

That a committee be appointed to consider matters related to the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and the Windsor Framework, including scrutiny of: (i) EU legislation falling within the scope of the Protocol/Windsor Framework; (ii) relevant domestic UK legislation and policy; (iii) the Northern Ireland-related work of the governance bodies established under the UK–EU Withdrawal Agreement and the Windsor Framework; (iv) the work of the bodies established by the UK Government to oversee and implement the Protocol/Windsor Framework; (v) the Protocol/Windsor Framework’s political and socio-economic impact on Northern Ireland; and (vi) its impact on UK-Irish bilateral relations; as well as conducting interparliamentary dialogue, including with the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, and the Irish Oireachtas; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Carlile of Berriew, L. (Chair), Dodds of Duncairn, L., Empey, L., Foster of Aghadrumsee, B., Goudie, B., Hain, L., Lexden, L., McInnes of Kilwinning, L., O’Loan, B., Ritchie of Downpatrick, B., Thomas of Gresford, L., Willis of Knaresborough, L.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Windsor Framework Sub-Committee in the last Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

That Lord Mair be appointed to the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), in place of Baroness Brown of Cambridge.

Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission

That Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court be appointed as members of the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission.

Procedure and Privileges

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Goddard of Stockport, Viscount Goschen, Lord Jones, Lord Mancroft and Baroness Morgan of Drefelin be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Baroness Humphreys, Baroness Pitkeathley, Baroness Sanderson of Welton, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury and Baroness Taylor of Bolton; and that Lord Bradley be appointed an alternate member of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Goddard of Stockport.

Public Services

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Bradley, Baroness Cass, Baroness Coffey, Baroness Pidgeon and Baroness Wyld be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Bach, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, Lord Porter of Spalding, Baroness Stedman-Scott and Lord Willis of Knaresborough.

Science and Technology

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Mair, Lord Ranger of Northwood, Lord Stern of Brentford and Baroness Walmsley be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Baroness Brown of Cambridge, Lord Rees of Ludlow, Lord Strasburger and Lord Wei; and that Lord Mair be appointed Chair of the Select Committee.

Secondary Legislation Scrutiny

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Bethell, Lord Kempsell, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Watson of Invergowrie be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord De Mauley, Lord Hunt of Wirral, Lord Powell of Bayswater and Lord Rowlands; and that Lord Watson of Invergowrie be appointed Chair of the Select Committee.

Selection

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Jones.

Services

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord McLoughlin and Baroness Wilcox of Newport be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Howard of Rising and Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall; and that Lord McLoughlin be appointed Chair of the Select Committee.

Statutory Instruments

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Brady of Altrincham and Lord Kakkar be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Beith, Lord Chartres and Lord Haselhurst.

Autism Act 2009

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Autism Act 2009, and to make recommendations; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Addington, L., Browning, B., Crisp, L., Elliott of Mickle Fell, L., Goudie, B., Hodgson of Abinger, B., Hope of Craighead, L., Pitkeathley, B., Ritchie of Downpatrick, B., Rock, B. (Chair), Scriven, L., Wigley, L.

That the Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee do report by 30 November 2025;

That the report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Home-based Working

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the effects and future development of home-based working in the UK, and to make recommendations; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Farmer, L., Fink, L., Featherstone, B., Freeman of Steventon, B., Fuller, L., Manzoor, B., Monks, L., Nye, B., Parker of Minsmere, L., Scott of Needham Market, B. (Chair), Stevenson of Balmacara, L., Watkins of Tavistock, B.

That the Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee do report by 30 November 2025;

That the report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Social Mobility Policy

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider how educational and work opportunities could be better integrated to improve social mobility in the UK, and to make recommendations; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Blower, B., Evans of Rainow, L., Garden of Frognal, B., Hampton, L., Harlech, L., Hussein-Ece, B., Johnson of Marylebone, L., Lincoln, Bp., Manningham-Buller, B. (Chair), Ravensdale, L., Ramsey of Wall Heath, B., Shephard of Northwold, B., Watts, L.

That the Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee do report by 30 November 2025;

That the report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

UK Engagement with Space

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider UK policies relating to space, and both the opportunities and challenges related to the UK’s engagement with space, and to make recommendations; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Ashton of Upholland, B. (Chair), Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B., Booth-Smith, L., Clement-Jones, L., Cromwell, L., Donaghy, B., Mobarik, B., Shamash, L., Stansgate, V., Stowell of Beeston, B., Tarassenko, L., Vaizey of Didcot, L.

That the Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee do report by 30 November 2025;

That the report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, these 32 Motions give effect to the rotation rule, which is applied each January, following the recent meeting of the Committee of Selection to secure a regular turnover of Select Committee memberships and to establish the membership of the 2025 special inquiry committees. There are also Motions to appoint members to the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, following the decision of the House to establish such a committee, and to amend the terms of reference of the European Affairs Committee to reflect the establishment of this new committee.

The Committee of Selection has considered that it was in the best interests of the House that the current chair of the Conduct Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, lead the debate on the most recent report of the committee, which reviews and makes recommendations for changes to the Code of Conduct. It is therefore proposed that she remain on the committee until the debate has been held, which will be no later than Thursday 20 March, at which point the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, will join the committee as the new chair.

I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lords who are rotating off committees for their committed service, and to welcome those noble Lords who will join the hard-working committees of the House. I beg to move.

Motions agreed.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 28 January.

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on the ceasefire agreement in Gaza and detail our latest efforts to get aid to those in desperate need.

This is a fragile ceasefire, but it brings much-needed hope for Israeli and Palestinian people. The agreement to end the fighting and release the hostages is what this Labour Government have been pressing for from the moment we came to office. I thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for their tireless efforts, and echo the Prime Minister in wishing Emily Damari and the other former hostages well as they begin to recover from their horrific ordeals. We continue to call for the immediate release of all those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones, including the remaining hostages with links to the UK.

Civilians in Gaza have endured suffering that defies belief, and this deal brings hope that they can start to rebuild their lives. In the days since the guns were silenced, Israel has opened up mechanisms to surge in aid. The UN and aid organisations have been working tirelessly to deliver the humanitarian aims of the ceasefire agreement. After so much time waiting at the border—delays that I saw for myself in December—trucks are now streaming in. Partners on the ground report that more than 200,000 food parcels have been dispatched to more than 130 distribution points since the ceasefire. This Government have been at the forefront of the humanitarian effort in Gaza since we came to office—overturning the suspension of funding to UNRWA, and then boosting our support; assisting UK-Med field hospitals to help the injured; working with Egypt to support those medevac-ed out of Gaza; and providing vital resources to UNICEF and the World Food Programme.

Today I am pleased to announce that the UK is investing in the ceasefire. UK support will be distributed to the UN and key medical partners, so that tens of thousands of civilians receive the healthcare, food and shelter that they need. That support will amount to £17 million to get more aid into Gaza and restore services. The figure also includes £2 million for the World Bank to support the construction and restoration of critical water and energy infrastructure. The UK has already helped about 284,000 people in Gaza to access water, sanitation and hygiene services. Today’s uplift brings our commitment for the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian refugees in the region to £129 million this financial year.

I am also pleased to announce that, this morning, Jordanian air force helicopters started landing in Gaza with UK-funded medical supplies and logistical support from UK Armed Forces. I thank Jordan for its excellent commitment to getting aid in, in such challenging circumstances, and we will continue to support our Jordanian partners in this initiative. However, more action is needed. The air bridge to Gaza is no substitute for road routes, which must remain open. We also call on Israel to allow in more essential items such as tents, mattresses and medical equipment. As people start to move home, basic services need to be put back in place, and unexploded bombs and mines cleared. Without that, even more lives will be lost—and, of course, the UN and humanitarian agencies must be able to operate freely.

The Government have repeatedly stated the need for UNRWA to continue its lifesaving assistance to the people of Gaza, Jerusalem and the West Bank. The Knesset legislation taking effect on 30 January risks impeding the progress made since the ceasefire; Israel must allow the agency to continue to operate. The legislation does not and cannot change the fact that Israel has a responsibility under international law to facilitate humanitarian assistance. As the UN Security Council heard last week, 1 million Gazan children need support to process their traumatic experiences—their suffering cannot be understated—and about 15,500 patients need medical evacuation, according to the World Health Organization. Routes must be opened for them to obtain that treatment.

The UK and the wider international community stand ready to support Palestinians as they begin to rebuild their lives, their homes and their communities. We are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge ahead. The overwhelming majority of homes in Gaza are damaged or destroyed, the economy has collapsed, and basic services, including energy and water, have been knocked out. We are therefore working with partners urgently to find the best ways in which to finance and support recovery and reconstruction efforts. It is essential that the coming surge of assistance is properly co-ordinated, and with the access and security to reach those in need. The Palestinian Authority has a crucial role to play, and we are providing technical and financial assistance to the authority, including assistance to support the urgent recovery of basic services.

The UK has always been clear about the fact that this ceasefire is just the first step. We must build confidence on all sides to help sustain it, progress through all its phases, and turn it into a lasting peace that assures the security of Israelis and Palestinians alike. We in the UK will focus all our efforts on keeping up the momentum, using every diplomatic channel available. As Members will know, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East kept up the drumbeat of engagement during their visits to Egypt and the United Nations last week. We will keep up the pace until every hostage is released, aid reaches all those in need, and Palestinians are able to rebuild their homes and their lives. I commend this Statement to the House”.

12:02

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, since the heinous terrorist attacks of 7 October, we have stood united across the House in calling for the unconditional release of all hostages by Hamas as the only way to reach a sustainable end to this abhorrent conflict. We now feel both the anxiety and the hope of the families who have waited, anticipating the release of the remarkably brave women hostages who have been returned thus far under the ceasefire agreement. We saw this morning the release of the hostage Agam Berger, with, we hope, seven more set to be freed today. We pay tribute to all their families through their suffering.

It is important to remember the hostages who we learned on Monday will not return home alive, having been murdered at the hands of Hamas. This is the most devastating news for their families, and we must have them in our thoughts during the uncertainty in the days and weeks ahead. As the Minister said in the other place, we want the ceasefire agreement to hold, but we stress that every single hostage must be released.

The Minister rightly referred to UNRWA. Although no one can doubt the size of the distribution network, we cannot ignore the problems within that organisation. It is in no one’s interest to pretend that they have not happened. We know the facts: UNRWA staff and institutions have been infiltrated by Hamas, and there have been shocking allegations of UNRWA staff involvement in the 7 October attacks. Following the UN internal investigations and the subsequent sackings, the Colonna report and the reforms need to be implemented in full. The Minister in the other place said:

“I have discussed this directly with the head of UNRWA, and I know that my colleagues have done so repeatedly”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/25; col. 188.]


Does the Minister have any update for the House on how these discussions are going, and can she tell us what progress has been made on the implementation of the Colonna report?

The reconstruction of Gaza is obviously a huge task. What discussions have the Government had with regional neighbours? What role does the Minister envisage for the UK in this reconstruction? Will we be contributing financially, and is she pushing for multilateral institutions to be involved?

On the future governance of Gaza, I have said that I would like to hear more about the Government’s day 1 plan. The Foreign Secretary previously told the House—and I think we would all agree—that

“there cannot be a role for Hamas”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/25; col. 516.]

As my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said in the other place, we echo those words, but the sickening sight of Hamas gunmen parading around hostages just last weekend—we saw it again this morning—caused great alarm. What steps are being taken to end the reign of terror that Hamas has unleashed upon the Gaza Strip?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, in a week where we have all acknowledged as a country, including our Head of State, the horrors of 80 years ago, we should be sensitive to the ongoing humanitarian crisis and conflict in the Middle East. There is no place for anti-Semitism in the UK or anywhere, and we should learn the lessons of dehumanisation. That is why we should condemn President Trump when he describes the cleaning out of Gaza, and condemn extremists who called Palestinians human animals. Language is important, and therefore sensitivity should be part of our policy-making.

It is worth recognising, as the noble Lord did, that Hamas continues to dehumanise hostages. For the families of hostages who will have their loved ones returned alive, we give thanks for the ceasefire, and we commiserate with those who will receive their loved ones’ bodies. We should hope that the ceasefire holds, because it should provide—even though it is very hard to see—a basis for future and further political dialogue. But two things are actively working against that.

The first is the implementation, today, of the ban on UNRWA in Israeli sovereign territory. I welcome that this has been condemned by the Government. What actions will the UK take? UNRWA operates under a mandate. The Israeli Government have obligations under that UN mandate, and UNRWA should be free to provide humanitarian assistance within the Occupied Territories, unfettered at the border areas within Israeli territory. I would be grateful to hear what actions the Government will now take. While we welcome the fact that Ministers can condemn and raise concerns, there should not be impunity for breaching the UN mandate.

In the West Bank, we continue to see unacceptable violence, not only with regard to the settlers but in the impunity of those within the outposts, and the violence there, which is illegal under Israeli law. There can be no two-state solution if one of the authorities is systematically losing territory day by day. What actions will the Government take on expanding the sanctions on those who are perpetrating the violence, as well as ensuring that there is no impunity for those who are carrying out actions against Palestinian settlements?

On recovery and construction, I welcome that there is now a dedicated official within the FCDO to lead the UK official response to the consideration of reconstruction. I hope that the Minister might be prepared to offer a briefing on the actions in detail and what officials are doing. I welcome that we are co-ordinating that work. Previously in the Chamber, we have discussed the scale of rubble clearance, body recovery and the humanitarian catastrophe, from which the recovery will be enormous.

The Minister will not be surprised that I again raise the fact that there needs to be intensive work on child trauma, and especially on the restoration of education facilities. I have welcomed the UK support through multilateral funding. I appeal to the Government that one area where the UK can play a considerable and direct role, bilaterally, is the establishment of education support and child trauma and psychosocial support within these areas. I have raised before in the Chamber the 17,000 children—the equivalent of the entire under-10 population of London—who are homeless, without shelter or education.

I welcome the increased funding for the Palestinian Authority, but it is still lower than before the 0.7% ODA cuts. I hope the Government will now reconsider the overall envelope of UK assistance to ensure that we can play an increasing role in the recovery.

Finally, I hope that the House will allow me to raise two other brief aspects—one is Lebanon, and the other is the concerning news about conflict prevention. If we have learned anything during the last two years, with the conflicts in the Middle East in particular, it is that conflict prevention is one of the most efficient investments we can make. Where it fails, the cost is extreme. There are very worrying reports of a proposed one-third cut in conflict prevention funding. I hope that the Government will reconsider this.

Other reconstruction is needed in Lebanon. Yesterday, I and some colleagues met with Halima Kaakour, a Lebanese MP. I hope that Ministers will meet female Lebanese MPs who now want to work in a cross-party, cross-confessional and cross-community way in the Lebanese Parliament to ensure that reconstruction is part of the hoped-for peace and recovery, rather than entrenched division. If that is done badly and corruptly, unfortunately it will not bring about sustainable recovery.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments and questions. I echo the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about Holocaust Memorial Day and the ever-vigilant way that we must think about anti-Semitism across the world, not least here in our own country.

The noble Lord opposite mentioned how united we have been at various points throughout this conflict. It is important that we maintain that unity whenever we can. As the noble Lord said, we need to support those hostages who are now released and are trying to rebuild their lives after the most traumatic events that they must have endured.

As the noble Lord said, our thoughts too must be with those who are enduring the most unconscionable grief at the loss of their relatives in these circumstances, as well as with those who continue to wait. Every hour that passes, they must experience agony waiting for news of their loved ones who are still held.

I am pleased that we made a decision early in the Government to restore aid to UNRWA. It is difficult to see how getting sufficient aid on the scale needed and to the places and people who so desperately need it can be achieved without UNRWA. However it is done, that aid must get to those people.

As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, reminded us, the Foreign Secretary has said that it would not be right for Hamas to lead the work of rebuilding. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, that work will be extensive. It must not just address the physical infrastructure; it needs to think too about the trauma that the community in Gaza has been through and, most of all, about the experience of children. Sometimes it will be right for the UK to take the lead and sometimes it will right that we work through others. We have some expertise we can lend to this, so I can promise the noble Lord that, where it is right for us to take the lead, then this is what should happen.

I was asked whether the population of Gaza should be able to return. Of course, if that is their wish, then they should be able to return to their homes, rebuild their lives and live peacefully in the land in which they have lived for years and built their lives. For them to be able to do that, it is important that the ceasefire holds. Without the ceasefire holding, it is impossible to imagine how the next steps towards the peace that we all want to see can ever be secured.

We remain committed to the two-state solution. Nobody should be doing anything to undermine the prospects of achieving that solution, however far away it seemed at some point. Perhaps it seems a tiny bit closer today than it did when we last discussed these matters last week or the week before, but it is still a very long way away.

I will take away the request for a briefing on reconstruction. It is a very good idea to have more engagement and detail. Sometimes it is difficult to get a meaningful discussion in this place, but briefing is a good suggestion. With noble Lords’ permission, I will take this away and invite noble Lords to the department to answer some of their more detailed questions.

12:15

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will pick up on something that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said about education. Understandably, much of the emphasis in the humanitarian response to what has been going on in Gaza has been about providing food, fuel and medicines. Under the United Nations, education is a right for all children. There are thousands and thousands of traumatised children living in Gaza who desperately need to get back to school. Would the Minister agree that this should now be given very high priority in all our reconstruction work with the international community? UNRWA has a huge amount of experience in providing education and schools across Gaza and the rest of the Occupied Territories. Would she agree that it should be restored and allowed to continue its work so that children in Gaza and elsewhere in the Occupied Territories should be able to get back to school and learn, to gain the skills and knowledge that they need to establish themselves in future?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is important to remember that our priority is to get the food, medicine and shelter to the people in Gaza who need it—most of all the children—but every day that is lost in education is a barrier to that community being able to support itself and to prosper and thrive. The only way that peace can be achieved is with a secure Israel and a prosperous Gaza. This seems such a long way from where we are. The noble Baroness is right to remind us that the need to get food and medicine in should go alongside the need for education. It seems very difficult from where we are, but it is important that we do not lose sight of the needs of young people to have the education that is their right.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very sensitive response to these extremely difficult problems. I know that a number of other noble Lords share my concerns as to how the Government will ensure that the much-needed reconstruction aid for Gaza is not appropriated by Hamas or other military groups to use to prepare for further attacks on Israel.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Of course this is a concern. We want all the aid that we and others provide to go to those people who need it so desperately. How we can make sure of anything is a very interesting proposition when it comes to Gaza. We will do everything we can, working through partners. We think that the best way to do this is through UNRWA. If there are other ways then we must use whatever we can find. As reconstruction begins—which we hope will be soon—it is important that this is done responsibly and sustainably so that the peace we may be about to achieve can last.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I am grateful for this Statement and thank the Minister for her sensitive and careful comments. Would she accept that, although the ceasefire agreement offers a glimmer of hope that a different future is possible, the situation in the West Bank continues to go from bad to worse? What assessment have the Government made of Israel’s intensification of military action in the West Bank? The fear held by many, including those on these Benches who have just returned from that region, is that this is a precursor to full or partial annexation. What is the Government’s strategy for dealing with the deteriorating situation in the West Bank?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is right to remind us of this. This is a very complex situation and it is moving. We speak regularly with partners in the region and directly with leaders in Israel; we also use our presence in multilateral fora to make sure that these concerns are raised as often as we can, in the right way. It is difficult to imagine a situation where there is some progress only in one situation—these things are not completely separate, of course, and we must use every tool of influence that we possess in order to bring about the peace that we need.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, to follow on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, can the Minister elaborate on reconstruction in Gaza? We were all horrified by the videos that we saw when the hostages were released, which showed us that Hamas is in control and has a presence and military arms. I cannot see how there can be a long-term peace if Hamas is in control of Gaza. It will do everything it can to take the aid that we are giving. Does the Minister agree that it is impossible to imagine the long-sought two-state solution if Hamas is in control? So what steps will the Government take to create a democratically elected and governed Gaza and the West Bank?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

What is important is that the reconstruction of Gaza is led by the people of Gaza—yes, with support. There is a huge difference between the people of Gaza and Hamas. We want to work with international agencies to make sure that the people of Gaza are given the support that they need. Let us be under no illusions about how difficult that will be, partly because of the issues that the noble Lord alluded to, but also because the majority of the homes in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. The extent of the work needed means that it will take many years; we will have to support this work for quite some time.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the Government have made any representations to the Government of Israel about the law that is about to come into force to remove the possibility of UNRWA having any access to the State of Israel? Can she say what rough impact assessment we may have made of the likely effect of that move, which is of course to frustrate a mandate given to UNRWA by the United Nations General Assembly? Can she also cast light on the discrepancy between the views of the Government of Israel that they have in fact provided evidence about the nine members of UNRWA staff who were thought to be acting with Hamas and were dismissed, and the view of UNRWA itself that it has not received any evidence whatever from the Government of Israel as to the guilt of these people?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is our view that the best way to get aid in as efficiently as is needed is through UNRWA. It is good that some aid has started to get in over the past few days but, without UNRWA, it is very hard to see how that will be sustained. To answer his specific question, yes, we have made that case very clearly to the Government of Israel.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s comments on UNRWA. It is reported that, in the first week of the ceasefire, UNRWA delivered 60% of all food aid into the Gaza Strip. It is therefore very difficult, without any other information from the Israeli Government, to know how they propose to replace that. Or will they literally leave people to starve in the Gaza Strip? We saw the horrific footage of hundreds of thousands of people returning to their land without much to go home to after the destruction there. The need is absolutely critical and, at a time like this, to outlaw UNRWA is completely irresponsible.

Can the Minister say whether the British Government have yet commented on the Trump Administration’s desire to “clean out” Gaza? I note that the French President and the German Chancellor have said that they do not support it and have condemned it. Indeed, in Egypt, Jordan and across the Arab world, it has been condemned and not supported. Will the British Government join those voices and utterly condemn what has been described as potential ethnic cleansing?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We do not agree that the people of Gaza should be prevented from returning to their homes. We are very clear about that. On what the noble Baroness said about UNRWA, yes, it is very difficult to see how the aid will be delivered and received without UNRWA. If there is another way of doing this that can be done straight away, on the scale that we need—clearly, the only important thing is that the aid gets where it is needed, not who does it—it is difficult to imagine how that could be achieved. So we continue to make that case; we know what the date is and what the law says. We will continue to make the case to the Israeli Government, but we are concerned, as the noble Baroness indicates we should be.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend the Minister. We must do everything that we can to provide humanitarian aid. COGAT has provided figures on who provides the aid: UNRWA in fact has recently provided only 13% of the aid that goes in. Much more comes from other organisations. The World Food Programme, for example, provides more than 30%. In view of the problems that UNRWA has with its relationship with Hamas, should we not be ensuring that the aid that we provide goes through the World Food Programme and other organisations, rather than UNRWA, which is suspect?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am sorry, but I do not agree with that. UNRWA has been by far the most effective organisation at delivering aid in Gaza for very many years. There are other organisations and they may need to do an awful lot more, very, very quickly. We all should appreciate just how unlikely and difficult that will be.

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The world has rightly been focused on the horrors of the past 16 months in Gaza. As the right reverend Prelate said, during that time the situation in the West Bank has been rapidly deteriorating. In October, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, I hosted a group of young Palestinians from the West Bank. Two weeks ago, one of those young people, Amir, was shot in the knee and his friend was killed. A secure and prosperous West Bank is as important a component of a lasting peace as everything else that is happening. I ask the Minister: as well as speaking to people on the ground and our international partners, are we also speaking to the charities and wonderful organisations here in the UK that have been doing so much, for many years, to help bring both sides together for a lasting peace?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Yes, we are, but let me first convey my sincere condolences to Amir, who lost his friend in such circumstances; I also hope that he recovers quickly and fully soon. The noble Baroness is right to highlight the sterling work that has been done for very many years by charities and other organisations here in the UK that care so deeply about what is happening in the Middle East. Their work, I know, has saved lives and has enabled people to rebuild their lives and live more fully. There things are led by Governments—there are diplomatic routes and the conversations we are able to have—but nothing will substitute for the work of people-to-people connections and the links that are made between individuals and their families across the world. It is such a powerful thing and I thank her for reminding us of that.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, among the numerous shocking statistics that have come out of Gaza is that there are now over 100,000 wounded people there, that Gaza has the highest proportion per head of child amputees of any country in the world, and that 60% of people in Gaza have lost at least one member of their family.

Does my noble friend agree that maybe we have a harder job on our hands than we think? It is not just the homes, the schools and the hospitals that need rebuilding; it is the shattered lives of a profoundly traumatised people.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I could not agree more. We are doing what we can. As my noble friend says, this is not something that you just fix. It is a trauma that can be felt through many years—indeed, through generations. UK support has meant that more than half a million people have received essential healthcare, 647,000 have received food and 284,000 have improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene. As we have said today, whether or not UNRWA is able to continue will in large part determine whether some of that work can happen in the future.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, is it not time to remind ourselves of the obligation that this country made through the Balfour Declaration? It stated clearly that

“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

Does the Minister agree that that includes the population of the West Bank and Gaza? Will she update the House on the noises coming from Washington about the possible emptying of Gaza into neighbouring countries—namely, Jordan—and does she agree that not a penny of British taxpayers’ money should be spent on the reconstruction of Gaza if it is to be forcibly emptied of its Palestinian population?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord might be getting ahead of where I was planning on going today, but I have been very clear on our view of the importance of Gazans being able to return to their homes should they wish. That is our position and, I think, something that the noble Lord will probably agree with.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I refer to the answer that the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, when he raised the very important matter of preventing aid going to Hamas and preventing Hamas hijacking that aid, looting it and using it for future attacks on Israel. I think the noble Baroness said that this was an interesting issue. She referred to UNRWA and its role. Can she give a bit more detail about what is being done with international partners, with Israel, to prevent this outrageous movement into terrorist hands of aid that should go to the people of Gaza?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is not interesting; it is urgent. Aid needs to get to the people who need it. One of the problems when a place descends into such desperation is that lawlessness always inevitably follows. That is what has happened, but we are still able to work with partners on the ground to get the aid to where it is needed. That is what we must continue to focus on. We have proven that we are able to get the aid where it is needed. We managed to vaccinate children against polio, where they needed two vaccinations. We managed to deliver that; it is not beyond us to get food, medicine and shelter to children in Gaza.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that measures must be taken now to protect and document locations where mass graves have been reported in Gaza? With that in mind, I suggest that we consult the International Commission on Missing Persons, which stands ready to support all efforts to protect and investigate mass graves and reliably identify human remains, for the sake of the dignity of the people of Gaza but also for the sake of peace and security in the long term.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Yes. That is a very good suggestion, and I will take it up. The noble Baroness is of course completely right that it is essential to be able to identify remains and to have an accurate picture of what has happened, for there to be consequences where appropriate and for loved ones to be able to identify the bodies of people they have lost. It is a bedrock without which it is very difficult to imagine how any peace could be achieved in the future.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

I refer the House to my registered interests. It was deeply shameful this morning to see that young girl, Agam Berger, come out after 15 months, surrounded, harassed and jeered by masked, armed gunmen. As I said in the House the other day, Israel is not negotiating with the UK or the UAE. Israel has to negotiate or do a deal with these thugs and terrorists called Hamas. Before everyone bemoans Israel’s decision regarding UNRWA, does the Minister agree that UNRWA has been in situ for many years, and during that time the aid that we and the rest of the world have given was used for what? It was used for building underground tunnels and amassing rockets to send to people. That is what UNRWA has done. Before we talk of the holy grail that is UNRWA, it is also responsible because it was there when all this was happening.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I will start by agreeing with the noble Lord about the scenes on release: the trauma is compounded by the way it is done. It is wrong, and it is not something that anybody, whatever your views on all this, should ever wish to see. On UNRWA, it is not a holy grail; it is a practical way of getting aid to a community that needs it so desperately. If there is another way of achieving the same, and if it is better or can do the same job, we must use that, but I genuinely do not see how other agencies will be able to get that aid into Gaza and to the people who need it as quickly as we need them to and at the scale we need them to.

Low and No-Tax Jurisdictions

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

12:37

Moved by

[Lord Sikka]

That this House takes note of the tax implications of corporations shifting profits to low and no-tax jurisdictions.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to this House. I really look forward to hearing her maiden speech.

It is a good time to talk about profit shifting, as the US is tearing up tax treaties and the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting—BEPS—project has stalled. HMRC states that since 2010 some £500 billion of tax has not been collected. A methodological annexe issued by HMRC, dated 20 June 2024, states:

“Some forms of base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) are included in the tax gap where they represent tax loss that we can address under UK law. The tax gap does not include BEPS arrangements that cannot be addressed under UK law and that will be tackled multilaterally through the OECD”.


Basically, HMRC does not really know how much profit is shifted out of the UK and what the related tax losses are.

Multinational corporations are shifting annual profits of around $1.4 trillion into tax havens, causing Governments around the world to lose $348 billion a year in direct tax revenue. I am sure the Minister will be able to tell us how much the UK is losing. Over $329 billion of profit is shifted into the UK’s Crown dependencies and overseas territories by multinational corporations every year, causing a tax loss of $80 billion.

This daylight robbery is facilitated by financial engineering and opacity from a rapacious tax abuse industry located in the UK and its global dependencies. The Criminal Finances Act 2017 was introduced to tackle corporate tax evasion but, to the best of my knowledge, to date no one has been charged or prosecuted under it. So how exactly are profits shifted? I have a couple of examples.

Consider the case of BHS, which collapsed in 2016. I declare an interest as an adviser to the Work and Pensions Committee during its investigation into BHS. Lady Green, spouse of the chief executive, held 98% of its shares. In 2001, BHS sold some of its properties for £106 million to Carmen Properties Ltd, a company based in Jersey and under the sole control of Lady Green. The properties were then immediately leased back to BHS in England. Between 2002 and 2015, BHS paid £153 million in rent to the company in Jersey. These rents were tax-deductible expenses in the UK and reduced the tax liabilities of BHS. The rents booked in Jersey were not taxed because the profits were not made on the island. The profits of Carmen, the Jersey-based company, were then paid as dividends to Lady Green, who resided in Monaco, which levies no income tax at all.

Through this related-party transaction, BHS was able to manufacture a tax-deductible expense and reduce its tax liability. Lady Green received dividends on which no tax was paid in the UK or anywhere else. This type of financial engineering is not uncommon and the resulting losses do not form part of HMRC’s tax gap numbers, which are grossly understated. Governments can easily check the leakage of tax revenues by deducting tax at source from dividends, interest and other payments to entities in low and zero tax-rated jurisdictions. If the recipient can show that he or she paid the tax on the transaction elsewhere then the tax withheld can be refunded, but successive Governments have made no effort to curb this sort of tax avoidance.

My second example relates to the use of affiliates and subsidiaries in low or no-tax jurisdictions to shift profits. Starbucks, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, oil, gas and numerous other entities use complex corporate networks to shift profits. Apple’s profits are parked mostly in Jersey, where it really has no physical presence. Transnational corporations have huge opportunities for profit shifting and tax abuse. A microchip company has its product designed in country A, manufactured in B, tested in C and patented in D, and has its marketing rights located in E. Determining the cost, profits and allocation to each country is highly problematic.

Companies adjust their import and export prices and shift profits, especially as around 60% of world trade is internal to companies. The OECD’s transfer pricing rules require the use of arm’s-length prices, but in the absence of active independent markets such prices are almost impossible to ascertain. The top 500 companies in the world control around 70% of world trade; 80% of global sales of coffee are attributed to just three multinational corporations; and two companies control 40% of the global commercial seed market. Around 10 companies dominate the global pharmaceutical industry, four dominate the agricultural commodities market and around 14 dominate global auto manufacturing. This gives them huge opportunities for profit shifting and tax abuse.

I will illustrate this with an example relating to bananas. I am sure that all noble Lords have had bananas and have wondered where exactly most of the UK’s bananas come from. The UK’s bananas come from an island that does not grow any bananas and which no banana-laden ship has ever visited—that is, Jersey. Companies such as Chiquita, Dole, Fresh Del Monte, Fyffes and Geest control banana production in west Africa and Latin America, but all the paperwork is routed through Jersey.

For bananas selling for £1 in a UK supermarket, 13p goes to the growing country, of which 10.5p is for the cost of production, 1.5p is for labour and 1p is profit. After that, the games begin: 8p goes to a purchasing network located in the Caymans, within the same group of companies; 8p goes to a Luxembourg subsidiary for providing financial services, including interest payments on intragroup loans; 4p goes to Ireland for the use of a brand name; 4p goes to the Isle of Man for providing insurance; 6p goes to Jersey for management services; and 17p goes to Bermuda for providing a distribution network, even though no ship ever visits there.

By the time the bananas are unloaded in the UK, the 13p-worth of bananas magically has a cost of 60p and is sold in the supermarket for £1. The supermarket incurs costs in selling those bananas and will eventually declare a profit of 2p, which if taxed at the rate of 25% will yield half a penny for the Chancellor, out of the £1 that the customer has spent. So 47p of the profit made from UK customers is booked in low or no-tax jurisdictions and those profits are not taxed anywhere in the world. These numbers do not form part of HMRC’s tax gap calculation. Almost every multinational company is engaged in this type of profit shifting and tax abuse. I used to work for an oil company; another day I can maybe give the House examples of what the oil companies get up to.

Profit shifting requires urgent attention. The Companies Act 2006 does not require company accounts to provide any information about profits shifted. Accounts are totally opaque. Can the Minister say what plans the Government have to give visibility to profit shifting? Some visibility can be provided by public country-by-country reporting, which would enable proper transparency on both the amount of taxes avoided by multinationals and how far the UK’s measures have been effective in tackling that.

Section 122 of the Finance Act 2015 contained a requirement for multinationals operating in the UK to publish a public country-by-country report. But the legislation was never implemented and was subsequently repealed by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023. The UK is now way behind other countries. The EU and Australia now require companies to make these disclosures through public country-by-country reporting. Can the Minister explain why the UK shuns tax transparency?

The UK Government have signed up to the OECD global tax deal, requiring a 15% minimum effective tax rate on multinational corporate profits, but President Trump has withdrawn from that agreement and threatened sanctions against Governments which levy 15% minimum tax on US companies operating in their countries. There is a way forward in the UN framework convention on international tax co-operation, but, unfortunately, last November the UK Government voted against it. It would be helpful to know what their strategy is.

Finally, it would be helpful if corporate tax returns are made publicly available, so that we can all see how they are shifting profits and what kind of taxes are being abused. That would empower the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise those corporations and any sweetheart deals done by HMRC. I beg to move.

12:49

[Baroness Coffey (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is a huge privilege to have been introduced to this House last week, thanks to the recommendation to His Majesty the King by the leader of the Opposition, the right honourable Kemi Badenoch. I want to thank everybody who has made me feel most welcome. That starts with Black Rod and her team of excellent doorkeepers, under the stewardship of Mr Ingram; to the security team who keep us safe; to the Library, who feed our minds; to the catering team, who feed us and keep us going; to the cleaners, who keep this space spotless and sparkling; to all the clerks, who have helped me navigate this familiar, yet new, territory; and indeed everyone who contributes to enable this extraordinary, hallowed atmosphere in which we operate and seek to do our level best in the important constitutional role that we undertake.

I also want to thank my supporters who introduced me last week: first, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, whom I first met when I unexpectedly became Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. She was my absolute rock and I learned so much from her, as I am doing now. As for the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, I first met her over 20 years ago and we have been friends ever since. She has been a constant source of encouragement to me.

However, I would not be here at all if it were not for my family. It was particularly emotional when I was introduced last Tuesday, as it was precisely six months after my dear mother passed away. She loved Parliament and she loved politics. She loved coming to Westminster, particularly to the River Restaurant, where she would be called “M’Lady”—she loved that. She was a teacher, as was my father, who had passed away some years earlier. I held his Bible in my hand as I swore the oath. My sister was in the Gallery, and she genuinely saved my life seven years ago when, thanks to her tenacity with the NHS, I had an emergency operation for a brain abscess, which thankfully was successful.

As a family, we were all involved at some point in the Conservative Party in Liverpool, where I grew up in Grassendale, leading to its inclusion in my longer title. My political awareness was triggered by Militant Labour’s running of my home city, when, yes, my parents, as teachers, were part of the thousands who received their redundancy notices. That was when I realised that politics—who ran the council or country—mattered.

I certainly enjoyed my time as a Back-Bencher representing the people and businesses of Suffolk, and I reflect my love for Suffolk in my longer title with the town of Saxmundham, where I live. I should alert your Lordships that, when I left government, I became the Back-Bencher who spoke the most in the final six months of the last Parliament. I think it was the ability to speak for the first time on any topic that inspired me to pronounce on a variety of issues, recognising that I had been a Minister continuously for over nine years—two-thirds of my parliamentary career there. But I have that out of my system and I expect to be able to focus on some particular areas—but those will be of my choice in this House. Prime Ministers have made choices for me, on where I specialised and gained most experience and expertise, particularly in three departments—Defra, Health and Social Care, and Work and Pensions—where I had the privilege of being Secretary of State. I will endeavour, to the best of my ability, to really embrace the huge positivity of this House in its key role of scrutinising legislation and the Executive.

I know government is hard. I actually want the Government to do well, for the sake of the great people of our great nation. While I am sure we will disagree on certain aspects of policy or how we can improve the performance of our public services, I am united in wanting a strong NHS, a strong economy and for our country to succeed. I have long admired the tone of this House, with keen and courteous scrutiny at its heart, somewhat in sharp contrast to the other place where, sadly, the focus has become the social media clip rather than the social discourse and debate we used to have.

I hope that I have already accrued some credits in my apprenticeship for this place, by learning from all the Lords Ministers with whom I worked in government. There are several to name. However, I will save that for another day, but I can assure noble Lords that I recognise both how hard Lords Ministers work and the contribution to scrutiny made by this House, with its gentle peer pressure in trying to improve the legislation and performance of government for the greater good, even if, at times, it did not feel quite so gentle.

I am conscious that beyond the Chamber there is a wider community of Parliament in which I seek to play to a role. I have already started attending APPG events on the ocean, nature, trees and energy, and I look forward to the annual tug-of-war for charity. I certainly hope to provide some balance—if not some ballast—to help the Baronesses defeat the Commons for the first time.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I know that I am making my maiden speech in this House perhaps much earlier than the norm. I could say it is because I am interested in the topic, as I worked as a finance director for a subsidiary of the multinational company Mars, Incorporated, so I am fully aware of the issue of corporate taxation and transfer pricing—more on that later. But I confess that the real reason for speaking today is that I am really keen to speak in Monday’s Moses Room debate on the statutory instrument about bins—yes, bins. Bins, potholes and pavements are the basics of local political life and, when they are not working well, people notice and get fed-up very quickly. However, I shall save my further remarks until next week.

I turn now to today’s debate on multinationals and corporate taxation. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on securing this debate. As a Professor of Accounting at the University of Sheffield, I know he has focused considerably on this issue. I bring my experience from business. I qualified as a chartered management accountant while working for Mars, Incorporated, and I certainly enjoyed the intellectual challenge of taxation. I think it wise at this point that I declare that I have a deferred pension with Mars, which is a multinational corporation.

My curiosity about corporate taxation was triggered when I did a summer placement with Ernst & Young. I had the joy of spending a week with the VAT team just as they were in court helping their client to persuade the judiciary that, yes indeed, a Jaffa cake is a cake, not a biscuit. With that, their product would continue to be zero-rated for VAT and therefore cheaper to the consumer. There is a saying in accountancy that “Profit is vanity, balance is sanity and cash is reality”. The reality for business is that tax is cash and, whether it is cash flow keeping the business afloat, paying salaries and bills, or investing cash in new capital equipment or intellectual capital, every good business will have a focus on tax, tax rates and the rules set out by legislatures around the world on how it manages its operations.

We also know that Governments require steady tax receipts in order to provide good public services. It was my tax training and business experience that gave me the confidence early on in my parliamentary career to point out to the then Chancellor, George Osborne, that several of the banks, particularly RBS, probably would not pay any corporation tax for a very long time as they could roll over all their losses from the financial crash, year after year. I am pleased to say that then led to a change in policy, so tax losses can only be rolled over for six years.

It is important that tax be fair. We should recognise that corporate tax rates and the overall tax burden on companies need to be fair and competitive if we want the economy to grow. We saw how the economy of the Republic of Ireland was massively boosted when it cut its corporation tax rate to12.5% and many companies flocked there, particularly IT companies. That is why the work on transfer pricing, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, referred, has been so important, as ultimately businesses can choose where their headquarters or their science and innovation hubs, or their other key assets, are.

Transfer pricing is a fundamental concept in international taxation and corporate finance. It is the way that profits are shared around the world. It involves the pricings of goods, services and intangible assets when they are exchanged between related entities within a corporate group—inter-company transfers of goods or services. Transfer pricing delivers the necessary compliance on taxation and it can be a valuable tool for companies to become more efficient, to manage risk and to bolster economic development in countries and communities.

Importantly, especially with the OECD guidelines, transfer pricing is designed to ensure fair competition. It was the Conservative-led Government, using their leadership of the G8 back in 2013, who first brought this issue to task on the global stage after the financial crisis of the late noughties. It was agreed at the G8, and then at the G20 later that year, to have the OECD establish guidelines, as the useful Library briefing points out. The OECD completed its guidelines on BEPS—base erosion and profit shifting. A significant element was introducing the arm’s-length principle, which suggests that intercompany prices should align with those charged between unrelated parties in a competitive market. This principle serves as a cornerstone for many countries’ transfer pricing regulations, promoting fairness and transparency.

By appropriately allocating profits and costs among subsidiaries, companies can mitigate the risk of double taxation, which occurs when two or more jurisdictions impose taxes on the same income. Additionally, transfer pricing can help manage operational risks associated with currency fluctuations, and by adjusting transfer prices to account for exchange rate movements companies can stabilise their financial results, providing greater predictability in earnings and cash flows. This stability is crucial for long-term strategic planning and investment decisions.

Another important merit of transfer pricing is its contribution to promoting fair competition. By adhering to the arm’s-length principles, companies are incentivised to price their goods and services fairly. That practice helps prevent anti-competitive behaviour for local businesses which otherwise could be undercut by aggressive tax planning.

Overall, this is all useful in trying to make sure that we keep up to date in having that level playing field around the world. In June 2019, G20 Finance Ministers agreed to update the OECD proposals, known as BEPS 2, with two main interlocking pillars. Pillar 1 re-allocates part of the profits of the largest and most profitable multinationals from where they earn income to where they sell products and services; pillar 2 would impose a 15% minimum tax on global corporate profits based on the residence of the corporation. I understand that the 15% minimum tax has been controversial, as it removes one of the levers of agile, growing economies. I am also aware that the new US Administration have expressed concerns. However, this is a useful mechanism to make sure that there is fairness around the world.

For what it is worth, I think our time would be better focused on making the most of our investment zones and freeports, as well as stabilising tax legislation to give businesses certainty and confidence to invest here and help boost our economy. We should continue to welcome the many corporations that are based here and be mindful of the reasons why some companies are moving their corporate headquarters elsewhere.

Companies and communities need each other. Together, companies and communities can and must profit from each other—something on which I hope all noble Lords would agree.

13:02

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on securing this debate. He has allowed me to claim in the future that he has been talking bananas, but he knows I have too much respect for him to do that.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Coffey on a truly excellent maiden speech. She has served as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, while representing her Suffolk coastal seat. She is known to love jazz, and as anyone who has been to the Conservative Party conference—which I thoroughly recommend to all noble Lords—knows, she excels at karaoke. In this House, I am sure she will have “the time of her life”—some will know why I say that—which, had I sung it, Hansard would not have recorded, so I think I got away with it.

I hope my noble friend has turned off the alarm on her phone, because I do not want my speech to be interrupted by “I Vow to Thee, My Country”, which I gather has happened in the past. There is a rumour that she and the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, are lobbying for a cigar smoking room to be created on the Terrace—I am not sure about that—as she brings gender equalisation even to this area. What she brings to this House, apart from anything else, is much-needed business experience. She is really welcome; it was an exceptional maiden speech, on which many congratulations.

This debate features one of my favourite subjects. The Minister knows of others, which he will be pleased to know I will not refer to, but I will focus on two areas, which I believe will generate more tax and revenue for the United Kingdom, because we are keen to work together so to do. The subject that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has put forward was the subject of my maiden speech in 2013, made in response to the report from the then Economic Affairs Committee. I have spoken a few times on BEPS, as explained so well by my noble friend Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is quite right to bring it up.

The UK has implemented several legislative measures to address profit shifting by multinational companies and has adopted BEPS measures recommended by the OECD, including the hybrid mismatching rules. These rules prevent tax advantages from differences in tax treatment of entities or instruments between countries. For example, a payment can be treated as a tax-deductible expense in one country and the receipt considered a tax-exempt dividend in another.

Then there is the UK corporate interest restriction, which limits the amount of tax relief that companies can claim on their net interest expenses to the higher of £2 million or 30% of EBITDA. It is a very powerful method of preventing private equity avoiding tax. Then there is the diverted profit tax, which was introduced in 2015. This targets profits artificially diverted from the UK, as it imposes a 25% tax on profits deemed to be diverted through schemes.

When I first qualified as a chartered tax accountant—which was much to everyone’s surprise, particularly my father’s, at the time—it was the controlled foreign companies rules which were the hot new area. They came in in 1984—I qualified in 1985—and were significantly reformed later, in 2012. These rules aim to prevent UK companies shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions by taxing the income of foreign subsidiaries of UK resident companies. There has of course always been the transfer pricing rules, which ensure that transactions between related parties are genuinely conducted at arm’s length, and HMRC has issued guidance on that as recently as September 2024.

With all this going on, why are we having this debate? It is because of the OECD’s pillars 1 and 2. The UK has one of the most robust anti-BEPS regimes in the world, largely due to measures taken by the previous Conservative Government, but also subsequent actions by the Labour Government. The OECD has led moves to eliminate BEPS since 2012. From the BEPS report in 2015, the UK has implemented pretty much all the material recommendations and closed a number of loopholes. The UK has implemented the first phase of pillar 2 and is implementing the second phase. The UK was one of the group of nations implementing at the very earliest date, along with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and all of the EU countries.

But now, as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has indicated, somewhat shockingly perhaps, the US has pulled out of both pillars, and this leaves our Government in a quandary. Do we want to avoid retaliation or do we stick to our guns? We have discussed pillar 1 and pillar 2 at length in this House. A number of us were keen on the digital services tax, or DST, and we tried to persuade the Government that it was time to tighten it up. The argument given to us against this was the John Lewis argument: that if you are not careful, you attack shopkeepers trying to sell their products online, as opposed to marketplace providers which simply facilitate a sale.

At the time, I worked very hard with a very able tax adviser, Glyn Fullerlove, who drafted the legislation—which would have worked—but there was no political impetus to implement it, mainly because we all thought that DST would be a temporary tax while pillar 1 and pillar 2 were properly implemented. This does not look like it is going to happen. Will the Minister look at the DST rules afresh? In his opinion, are they still fit for purpose? Hard choices need to be made on DST—I believe it raised only £380 million last year and might raise about £800 million this year. Given that the Minister wants to help companies grow and raise more revenue, perhaps he might have another look at DST and see whether or not it should be enhanced.

On a practical matter, will a consequence of pillar 2 having no force or effect in the US be that US multinationals will no longer share information with non-US subsidiaries? If they do not share this information, it makes pillar 2 compliance and in particular the understated profits rule tax—UPRT—almost impossible. Has the Minister asked the US multinationals with a presence here whether they will have this information from their head office? I appreciate that the UPRT, which yields some £2.8 billion, will be harder to give up—indeed, it should not be given up—but it would be helpful to hear the Government’s plans for it, given that the information collation may be extremely difficult.

Another related area that I also believe can be of assistance to HMG in raising revenue is the undertaxation of profits in the UK by VAT evasion of offshore online retailers, which is a form of profit shifting. I am very grateful to Richard Allen, the heroic figure of RAVAS, for all his hard work in this area. As we know, bad actors are selling goods online under £135 to evade VAT and to gain a competitive advantage over law-abiding businesses both abroad and in the UK. Distortions of competition caused by the evasion of VAT cause significant harm to domestic retail, both on the high street and online. This harm in turn damages the UK economy through reduced tax revenue, subsequent employment and so on.

Despite recent legislation, which a number of us worked on, there are still obvious flaws in the ID verification system operated by Companies House, and HMRC has essentially enabled bad actors to easily obtain UK company registrations and thus VAT numbers. We have all read about thousands of letters arriving at a flat in Swansea as a result of overseas actors trying to create artificial UK companies. They are pursuing negative and fraudulent behaviour that is essentially the evasion of VAT, and thus shifting profits overseas.

Currently, HMRC has no effective mechanism for enforcing VAT on imports below £135 in value. Import VAT is no longer due on business-to-consumer non-excise goods sent in consignments valued at £135 or less. It is assumed that overseas businesses have complied with the UK legislation that obliges them to register for UK VAT, but that assumption is entirely unenforceable and a coach and horses are driven through it.

Some constructive ideas—such as a passport scheme where you simply put a sticker on every good that can be scanned as it comes in—are around but have not been enforced. It is true that some measures have been introduced, but there remains a significant and immediate problem. Can the Minister look at this urgent issue afresh and perhaps accept a meeting with Richard Allen of RAVAS, so that we can generate the appropriate and correct revenue for HM Treasury and continue the fight against evasion of VAT?

13:12

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, many of the large corporations that affect our lives are multinational enterprises. This circumstance is a product of the process of globalisation that has taken place over the last half century, albeit that some multinational corporations have far longer histories. Most of the multinational corporations originated in a single country to which they may continue to owe a partial allegiance, but this might be regarded as an historical circumstance that is of little relevance today.

The Ford Motor Company is an early example of a multinational corporation. The company was incorporated in 1903. The headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan no longer commands its European offshoots, but the headquarters has nevertheless been responsible for major financial decisions. This has detrimentally affected some of the former subsidiaries of the company outside the United States.

Two such former subsidiaries were Jaguar and Land Rover, acquired in 1989 and 2000 respectively. Our Government should have intervened to prevent the foreign purchase of these leading British firms; many other Governments would have done so. In 2008 the two companies were sold on to the Indian company Tata Motors when the American Ford company was in financial distress.

Tata had previously been involved in a joint venture with the Fiat motor company, which is now part of a multinational Italian, American and French conglomerate known as Stellantis, which comprises Fiat, Chrysler, Citroën and a host of other marques. This conglomerate was created in 2021 and is headquartered in the Netherlands. It is a paradigm of a modern multinational corporation. The question arises of whether there are disadvantages from this sort of globalisation that might be experienced by the subsidiary companies and by the countries in which they are located.

The history of Jaguar Land Rover demonstrates the manner in which a native enterprise can acquire a global reach. The firm is now set to penetrate the Chinese and Indian markets. It is arguable that it would not be in such a position if it had remained solely in British ownership. However, when such a company becomes part of a much larger organisation it is in a dangerously subservient position. It can be affected by circumstances within the larger organisation over which it has no control, and which can be to its detriment. The sale of Jaguar Land Rover to Tata was occasioned by the financial distress of the Ford Motor Company, which had purchased the firms in an attempt to enhance its own profitability.

The professor, my noble friend Lord Sikka, has highlighted some severe abuses arising within multinational corporations that can affect their subsidiary companies and the nations in which they reside. The profits of a firm can be used by the parent company to sustain other, less profitable parts of the enterprise, when they might have been used for the firm’s own investments. He has pointed to the ways in which multinational corporations can conduct internal trade at fictitious and exorbitant prices to enable them to evade taxes on a massive scale. They can assign the costs of their enterprise to subsidiaries in countries where there are high taxes, and they can assign their profits to subsidiaries in countries in which there are low taxes. By appearing to make losses in the high-tax domains, they can avoid being taxed, and by declaring them elsewhere, they can retain a large part of their profits. To overcome these abuses can require considerable resources and strong co-ordination between the affected nations, which may have vastly different tax regimes.

The UK has a financial services industry of a disproportionate size when measured against the size of its gross domestic product. It is inevitable that it should be in the forefront of advising and facilitating the stratagems of tax avoidance. A dramatic case of tax avoidance that has recently come to light concerns the Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich. He has been residing and trading within the UK. However, his trades and hedge fund operations have been attributed to the British Virgin Islands, a so-called tax haven. In a defence against the charges of tax evasion, the oligarch’s lawyers have declared that he has

“always obtained independent expert professional”

opinion and legal advice, and has

“acted in accordance with that advice”.

This brief assertion reveals two things. The first is that there are plenty of people at hand in the City of London to advise on how to evade the British laws of taxation. The second is that those laws are weak and easily exploited. Our financial sector has mediated many of the acquisitions and takeovers that have created large multinational corporations. In the process, we have lost the ownership of many of our premier enterprises. Our national interests have become subservient to the interests of the multinational corporations to an extent that is probably unprecedented in the developed world.

The UK has lost ownership and control of its major public utilities and of its strategic industries. Utilities in which foreign ownership dominates include electricity generation, water, seaports, airports, railways, rolling stock and much more. The majority of motor manufacturers in the UK are under foreign ownership, a large part of our aviation industry has been sold to foreign owners, we are no longer the owners of our steel industry and most of our cement manufacturing is in foreign ownership—the list could be continued almost indefinitely.

The British financial sector and British banks differ markedly in their behaviour from those in adjacent countries. They have had a long history, and they were originally involved in trade and financial intermediation. Formerly, continental banks were involved principally in agricultural credit, and then they began investing in manufacturing. This may partly explain our nation’s comparative failure to invest in manufacturing, despite the fact that we were the original industrial nation.

Our banks and financial sector invest preponderantly in property and financial assets. The profits are derived from the commissions earned in mediating mergers and takeovers among firms. A major source of income has come from selling our industrial assets to overseas owners. The sale of our assets to foreign owners has enabled us to maintain a large deficit on our current account; the value of the goods that we import far exceeds the value of those that we export. The sale of our assets has also sustained a demand for the pound in international currency markets. This has inhibited our exports by raising their prices for foreign purchasers, which has also been a factor in our industrial decline.

A nostrum to alleviate those problems, propounded by the previous Government, has been to encourage foreign direct investment, which was the theme of the Harrington report that was commissioned by the Conservatives. Such a strategy will invite multinational corporations to enter the British economy. It will add to a deadweight loss, which is the remittance overseas of dividends and interest payments. Those are an incalculable drain on our national income. The noble Lord, Lord Harrington, observes that, when the Government invest, the private sector follows, and that £1 of government investment can unlock between £7 and £10 of private sector investment. He recommends that the Government should become an active investor. The present Government are also pursuing foreign direct investment. However, they seem to be unwilling to become an investor; they would prefer to rely almost completely on foreign capital.

13:21

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I will speak briefly in the gap. I want to ask my noble friend the Minister about the measures that can be taken. The issue has been set out very clearly, but is the Treasury considering steps such as strengthening HMRC’s enforcement of transfer pricing? Is it considering the idea of withholding tax on intergroup payments and generally tightening its anti-enforcement rules?

13:22

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. She made a fascinating maiden speech; I thank her for it. Her interest may be in bins, but by speaking in this debate, she has, either voluntarily or involuntarily, joined the society of financial geeks who speak about tax issues in this House. I am the least expert of them, so I am glad that she has now joined the cast.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for obtaining this debate; it is very timely and important. He helped us all by explaining base erosion and profit shifting— BEPS—which is, in essence, the use of artificial transactions to shift profits into tax havens or lower-tax jurisdictions and avoid the taxes that would otherwise have been payable in the country where the profits arose. At the global level, the OECD estimates that, annually, some 4% to 10% of global corporate tax revenue is lost through BEPS. The Tax Justice Network alleges that the losses are almost double the OECD estimate and that a network of British Crown dependencies and overseas territories is responsible for some 23% of those losses.

Discussions of Crown dependencies and overseas territories are for another day—there is a very complex debate to be had—but I point to the experience that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred to: the exposure yesterday of the Abramovich tax avoidance scandal. It was exposed publicly by a group known as Cyprus Confidential. It underscores how limited HMRC’s capability is to pursue large tax avoiders and their enablers. I join the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in asking: what kind of remedies could be put in place? As the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said, we could use a great deal more clarity on what exactly is being lost to the UK; the tax gap is not an adequate way to try to analyse or to expose this set of problems.

We need to take some credit here in the UK, because under different Governments we have sought to join international efforts to tackle BEPS. In many ways, we have been a leading voice in developing the OECD’s two-pillar strategy, which is supported by 135 countries and jurisdictions. Under it, pillar 1 would reallocate part of the profits of the largest and most profitable multinationals from where they “earn income” under accounting rules to where they “sell” products and services. Pillar 2 would impose a 15% minimum tax on the global corporate profits of multinationals with over €750 million in turnover based on the residence of the corporation. The OECD estimates that, by implementing pillar 2, global tax paid by the world’s biggest multinationals would increase by $192 billion per year.

Although multinationals in a number of sectors use profit shifting—the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, talked about the motor industry—the sector of most concern, by far, is the technology sector, which has so many tools to use in profit shifting. Frankly, here we are primarily talking about US-based corporations. I looked at the actions that the UK has taken. As the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, said, in 2015 there was the diverted profits tax; it did not raise a lot of money, but it led to some changes in behaviour. I join the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, in asking: why has country-by-country reporting ended up getting dropped? Perhaps the Minister can help us with that.

In 2020, the UK implemented a digital service tax of 2%, reflecting its concern that foreign—again, primarily US—technology multinationals were profit shifting to reduce their UK tax bill. The DST raised £678 million for the Treasury last year, predominantly from Google, Amazon and Apple. The tax also provides a more level playing field for UK-based technology firms. As the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, said, it is described as a temporary measure until pillar 1 is completed, which, I think, is why attention has not been paid to it. I join him in suggesting that it is time that the Government looked at the DST, to see if it could be enhanced in ways that would better represent both the loss of gross revenue and the unevenness of the playing field.

To enact pillar 2, the UK introduced in 2024 a multinational top-up tax—MTT—and a domestic top-up tax, DTT. The Finance Bill, which is now making its way through Parliament and which we will receive although we will be unable to amend it, is intended to complete the UK legislation for pillar 2 by introducing the undertaxed profits rule, UTPR. This is the bit with teeth. As the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, said, it is estimated to bring in about £2.8 billion a year.

There is a real question, as far as I understand, about when this will be implemented, once the legislation is passed. Can the Minister give us some clarifications on the date? There are growing concerns that, potentially, it could be kicked into the long grass. The problem is, as we can all anticipate, the arrival of President Trump. He very clearly said that the OECD agreement on BEPS has

“no force … in the United States”.

It has withdrawn from all the relevant treaties, but this is a far stronger statement.

In November, the FT printed an article entitled

“Trump win puts global corporate tax deal ‘in peril’”.

It suggested that countries would be too scared to apply UTPR to US-based companies for fear of punitive tariffs. Indeed, the big tech companies, which have the US President’s ear, as we all know, have said very clearly through their lobby groups that they plan to use trade negotiations to push back strongly against even the UK’s existing 2% digital services tax.

To add another complication to all this, in a rapidly changing world, we have cryptocurrency. I regard cryptocurrency basically as pyramid schemes masquerading as technology, but they can certainly provide a mechanism for bad actors who want to carry out any kind of tax avoidance, including profit shifting. I am interested to know how this changes the thinking of the Government and HMRC in trying to keep a grip on the profit-shifting strategies that are increasingly employed.

One thing I would suggest is that it is time to make sure that we link up with potential allies who are also willing to stand firm against base erosion and profit shifting. We know it is the EU; I suspect it is also Canada and Japan, and there should be others. My party has called for the Government to seize the opportunity of a pan-Europe customs scheme as a mechanism which would perhaps help us pull together our relationship with the EU but then also engage with other allies around this issue. I ask the Minister: are we in discussion with others who share our worldview on how we keep alive the strategy to end base erosion and profit shifting in this new Trump era? This really has to be done collectively, because it is one of those areas where we either hang together or, frankly, we hang separately.

13:32

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady Coffey on her excellent speech. I eagerly look forward to working with her and taking advantage of both her ministerial and business experience. It is not every day that one speaks after a former Deputy Prime Minister, and I share her love of culture, racing and music. I was pleased to hear her refer to our own noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott and to her time at the DWP, where I undertook a review of the state pension age, which, at the time, was quite widely welcomed. I always wondered who was behind that amusing judgment on Jaffa cakes—now we all know.

I also agree with my noble friend that where companies are headquartered is very important. In my own experience, there are pluses, such as R&D centres and community outreach, which are usually lost when companies move abroad. We need a Government who promote investor confidence and certainty, as my noble friend explained, in order to keep our innovative companies in the UK and attract new ones.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, did, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for initiating this debate. He and I sometimes agree on what the Government are doing wrong, although our philosophies are different. He has set out a coherent set of principles from a left-wing perspective. I think differently, not least because I believe in the importance of the private sector and innovative companies in driving growth, but that does not detract from his consistency and persistence.

For decades, some multinational corporations have funnelled billions of pounds in profits to minimise tax, especially to lower their exposure to corporation tax. This is achieved by various methods. For example, a company may sell intellectual property to a subsidiary in a low-tax country and pay the subsidiary for the use of that intellectual property, or goods and services may be traded between subsidiaries at manipulated prices to allocate profits to the tax haven entity. We have heard examples from the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, including the reports this week about the arrangements for the Abramovich yachts. What is the Government’s attitude to that arrangement? That said, it is imperative that businesses and their capital should be able to move freely so that there is international investment and the benefits of comparative advantage are realised.

The previous Government made significant progress in tackling the transfer of businesses’ profits to low-tax and no-tax locations. We constantly stressed our commitment to combating tax avoidance and pledged to raise an additional £6 billion annually. In 2018, we announced a digital services tax to ensure that digital businesses paid tax that reflected the value they derived from UK users, as an interim measure, pending an international agreement to reform the corporate tax framework. I supported it in this House, drawing on my own experience in the retail sector, where the tech giants held an unfair advantage because they did not pay much VAT and had much lower business rates. That reality has not changed. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that it was the sector of most concern to her.

Then, in 2022, as we have already heard, we confirmed that we would implement the OECD pillar 2 rules for a global minimum corporate tax rate, for accounting periods beginning after 2023. Pillar 2 applies a “global minimum tax” of 15% to the profits of multinational groups whose revenue exceeds €750 million per year. Provision to this effect was included in the Finance Act 2023 and further provisions were included in the Finance Bill 2023-24. As a result, the OBR estimated that the implementation of these reforms could raise £2.8 billion in 2028-29.

Due largely to measures taken by the previous Government, as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley said, the UK has one of the most robust anti-base erosion and profit shifting regimes in the world.

That was the position until very recently. But the US has always been unenthusiastic about this whole process and this attitude is most marked in the Republican Party. The US has very recently withdrawn from the OECD deal in full. This is explosive stuff. US firms are some of the most prominent among those whose activities have caused the problems to which I have referred. The US announcement upends all plans and expectations. There are strong hints that UK interests might be adversely affected as a consequence. For example, our digital services tax and the undertaxed profits rule might be in the present Administration’s sights. The Minister may be able to confirm the sums involved. As I understand it, DST was forecast by the NAO in 2022 to raise £862 million by 2024-25. UTPR is only just beginning to take effect but is due to raise £550 million by 2029-30, according to the HMRC policy paper of last October on multinational top-up tax.

In short, the path along which we were proceeding now looks to be full of problems. An alternative to sticking to these taxes is the risk of costly tariffs if an accommodation cannot be found with the Trump Administration; in other words, the world has changed and we need to reflect how best to respond to this change. What is the Government’s assessment of all this—including my noble friend Lord Leigh’s question about the impact of the future lack of information sharing? How will they respond and, most importantly, how will they protect UK interests? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on this extremely important issue.

The disadvantages of corporations shifting profits to low-tax or non-tax jurisdictions are well known; there is no need for me to go on about them, except to say that they represent a serious problem for UK economic interests. These disadvantages apply whatever the US Administration might do, but we now need a fundamental rethink about how we can best deal with these disadvantages in the world as it now is and tackle the problems that we jointly see.

My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has come forward with various alternative proposals on VAT and its enforcement. In 2021, the Conservative Government introduced changes to limit profit shifting, from which the OBR then scored substantial revenue. If there is good reason to believe that these have not been as effective as they should have been, as my noble friend suggested, I would encourage Ministers to look at them again. I believe that his points merit serious consideration.

I had intended to end by outlining how the Government’s recent actions have damaged the economy. It remains true that, by talking the economy down, making large increases in employment taxes and crushing companies under new employment regulations, the Government are making fundamentally wrong and anti-growth choices. The consequence is a flat economy killed stone dead by the Budget—even Tesco followed Sainsbury’s with job cuts this week—and a potentially chilling effect on investment from overseas.

Yet these actions—foolish as they were—are only marginally relevant to today’s subject. It is well-run businesses in a thriving public sector that create jobs and wealth. They rely on the Government of the day to deal with the complexities of international tax and negotiate arrangements that are effective and fair to UK plc. The Trump challenge on tax is serious and I look forward to hearing how the Government plan to address it.

13:41

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on securing this debate, and thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I also take this opportunity to join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on her maiden speech and welcoming her to your Lordships’ House.

I will seek to set out the work that the Government are doing to uphold internationally agreed principles of fair tax competition and protect the UK against profit shifting by multinational companies. If there are any specific questions raised during the debate that I am unable to answer now, I will happily write to noble Lords.

I start by underlining our commitment to growth—the number one mission of this Government—and how the corporate tax system can help deliver this mission. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned, we had to take some difficult decisions in the Budget last year to restore stability to the public finances. These were not decisions that we wanted to take, but they were necessary to clear up the mess we inherited. We recognise that this has impacted some businesses and has had impacts beyond business, too.

However, in last year’s Budget we also published a corporate tax road map to provide the best possible conditions for incentivising business investment, which is the lifeblood of a growing economy. That road map caps corporation tax at 25% for the duration of this Parliament—the lowest rate in the G7. It maintains our world-leading capital allowances system, including permanent full expensing, and the £1 million annual investment allowance. As a result of permanent full expensing, the independent OBR has forecast that business investment will increase by an extra £3 billion each year. Permanent full expensing solidifies the UK’s position at the top of the rankings of OECD countries’ plant and machinery capital allowances and among the most competitive capital allowances in the world.

The corporate tax road map also maintains generous R&D tax reliefs that will support an estimated £56 billion of business R&D expenditure. It is a road map to provide predictability, stability and certainty to business and investors from around the globe, while generating the revenue needed to invest in Britain. It comes after several years of cliff edges in investment allowances and multiple changes in rate policy, all of which have undermined global confidence in our corporate tax system. Despite the difficult fiscal position, our capital gains tax rate also remains internationally competitive and the current top rate is lower than it was between 2010 and 2016.

The Government’s objective is to maintain an internationally competitive tax system, where businesses pay their fair share of tax in the UK. As noble Lords know, under the current international framework, taxing rights are generally allocated to countries based on where the physical activities of a given business are undertaken. However, businesses rely increasingly on remote business models that allow companies to operate in and make considerable revenue from a market without a physical presence there. This is particularly true of firms providing digital services.

Added to this, business models are increasingly complex and globalised in nature, with businesses often operating in a number of jurisdictions. Intangible assets, such as intellectual property, can also be transferred to low-tax or no-tax jurisdictions more easily than physical goods. These changes are improving competitiveness and dynamism in the global economy, but we now need to ensure that our tax system, much of which dates back over a century, adapts to this changed environment.

According to the OECD, lost global tax revenues now total $100 billion to $240 billion annually—equivalent to between 4% and 10% of global corporation income tax revenues. This is why the Government are committed to addressing unfairness in the international tax system and protecting the UK against base erosion and profit shifting, where it exists.

We have a range of different measures in the UK tax code to ensure that this is the case. For example, measures on transfer pricing ensure that companies do not manipulate prices between related parties for tax reasons. Controlled foreign company rules, which the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, mentioned, prevent multinationals shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions using controlled foreign subsidiaries. Our anti-hybrid rules tackle tax avoidance strategies that exploit differences in the tax treatment of financial instruments or entities across jurisdictions, and our corporate interest restriction rules limit the amount of interest expense that a UK company can deduct from its taxable profits. HMRC conducts rigorous in-depth inquiries to ‎ensure that multinational companies comply with these rules, and it also works closely with international partners to gather intelligence and tackle serious and deliberate non-compliance.

Profit shifting and base erosion is a global issue by its very nature, which is why the UK has supported efforts to strengthen the international tax framework. The most significant of these is the OECD’s inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting project, as explained by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lord Sikka. As other noble Lords have set out, this framework is the result of over 135 countries and jurisdictions working together, and comprises two pillars.

Pillar 1 looks to provide for a more stable and certain international tax system by addressing the issue I raised previously; namely, updating the system of international taxing rights to reflect the digitised nature of the economy. Under plans currently being discussed, a new system would be introduced whereby certain taxing rights are reallocated to market jurisdictions, as opposed to where the company is based.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, asked about the Government’s position on pillar 1 and the digital services tax. The Government continue to support an agreement on pillar 1 and, as a temporary measure, the UK’s digital services tax currently applies a 2% levy on providers of search engines, social media platforms and online marketplaces, reflecting their UK activities. We look forward to working with the new US Administration to understand their concerns around the digital services tax and consider how these can be addressed in a way that preserves the policy objectives.

The noble Lord also asked about the VAT paid by online retailers. To summarise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, set out, since 2021, overseas retailers are requested to register for VAT on supplies of low-value imports below £135. Where an overseas seller sells goods via an online marketplace, the marketplace is liable for VAT on goods of any value. The OBR continues to estimate that this will raise £1.8 billion by 2026-27.

Pillar 2 of the OECD inclusive framework reforms, also known as the global minimum tax, is already an internationally agreed common approach. It creates fair conditions for attracting inward investment, while protecting countries’ tax bases from large multinationals shifting their profits to low-tax jurisdictions. It does this by requiring multinationals that generate annual revenues of more than €750 million to pay an effective tax rate of 15% on their profits in every jurisdiction where they operate. Where their effective tax rate falls below this, these companies will pay a top-up tax. This effectively imposes a floor on tax competition between jurisdictions.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, the Government are currently legislating for the final part of the pillar 2 agreement through the Finance Bill. The undertaxed profits rule will ensure that firms cannot evade their responsibilities under the global minimum tax.

The pillar 2 agreement is historic in its scope and reach and has been implemented, or is in the process of being implemented, by the UK, all EU member states, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and others. The UK is forecast to raise more than £15 billion over the next six years from pillar 2 to support our public services and help grow the economy.

My noble friend Lord Sikka and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about executive orders relating to pillar 2. While I know that they would not expect me to give a running commentary on every executive order or decision made by President Trump and his Administration, the UK will of course be open to discussing concerns and ways to alleviate these in a way that upholds the policy aims of pillar 2. To reiterate—here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—this is an international agreement signed by over 135 countries after many years of detailed negotiation. We believe it represents a fair approach to how countries compete for cross-border investment.

The UK operates a comprehensive network of tax treaties to ensure the correct allocation of taxing rights between jurisdictions. Alongside pillars 1 and 2 of the OECD scheme, we participate in a range of other tax transparency arrangements to protect the UK tax base. These include the country-by-country reporting arrangements, which require large companies to provide a detailed report of their income, taxes paid and other financial activities on a country-by-country basis.

We have committed to implementing the crypto asset reporting framework to facilitate the automatic exchange of information on ownership and transactions in crypto assets. The UK is leading international efforts to co-ordinate transparency and the exchange of beneficial ownership, including through registers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, touched briefly on the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. I recognise that that is a much longer debate but I will briefly say this. The elected Governments of the Crown dependencies and inhabited overseas territories are responsible for many fiscal matters, including tax. They are committed to upholding international tax standards. All Crown dependencies and those overseas territories with a financial centre have become members of the OECD/G20 inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting. They have implemented the common reporting standard, and they all meet the standard necessary for the exchange of information on request.

My noble friend Lord Sikka and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about country-by-country reporting. As I have said, the Government are a strong supporter of greater tax transparency and efforts to ensure that multinational groups are appropriately taxed in the jurisdictions in which they operate. While public country-by-country reporting could have a role to play in supporting those objectives, the Government believe it is important that any action be co-ordinated at the international level to ensure that it is comprehensive and consistent and avoids competitive distortion.

The arrangements I have already set out sit alongside the steps this Government took at the Budget last year to protect the UK tax base and close the tax gap, which is the difference between the amount of tax owed and the amount that is collected. The measures in last year’s Budget represent the most ambitious package ever to close the tax gap, making sure that everyone who should be paying their tax is doing so. Overall, the package is expected to raise £6.5 billion in additional tax revenue per year by 2029-30. We will achieve that by investing £1.9 billion in HMRC staff and modernised IT systems, including recruiting an additional 5,000 compliance staff. This includes additional resources for HMRC transfer pricing specialists, focused on preventing multinational profits shifting.

I will briefly address the question asked by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. Our plans include new proposals to close the offshore corporate tax gap. We will consult on lowering the thresholds for exemption from transfer pricing for medium-sized businesses to align with international peers, and we will seek views on introducing a requirement for businesses in scope of transfer pricing rules to report cross-border-related party transactions to HMRC.

My noble friend Lord Sikka questioned the size of the tax gap. The Government have set out data for the domestic tax gap, which has been published online, as well as initial statistics on individuals with undisclosed foreign income. We will continue to be led by this data, and we remain committed to closing the tax gap, both domestic and offshore.

This Government support fair global rules on tax competition which protect the UK against profit shifting and base erosion. Through the action we are taking domestically and through international bodies, including the OECD, we are ensuring that these rules keep pace with the changing nature of global trade and the development of digital technology. In doing so, we are being guided by our number one mission: higher and more inclusive economic growth. That growth must be underpinned by fairness in the global tax arrangements, which is at the heart of our approach, and it must be delivered through a competitive domestic tax regime, which is precisely what our world-leading corporate tax road map will help to achieve.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down—admirably well within his time—I think his answer in respect of my VAT point relates to NETPs, non-established taxpayers, rather than taxpayers who falsely claim to be in the UK. I invite him to consider that particular point further, because I believe it will raise billions of pounds for HMRC if that loophole is addressed. Secondly, he very elegantly sidestepped the issue of the digital services tax. Again, while the Government are in negotiations with the US, which could stretch on for years, there is an opportunity in the meantime for us to have a look to see what extra revenue we can raise through digital services tax.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I have set out as much as I am able to at the moment on the noble Lord’s latter point on the digital services tax, but I will happily raise his point on VAT with my colleague the Exchequer Secretary. We will write to the noble Lord on anything that we can usefully add.

13:55

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her excellent speech. I look forward to interacting with her in the months and years to come. I also thank all other noble Lords for their contributions. I think this issue will become more, acute because successive Governments have shifted profits away from corporations to what I call normal people. They have been given the choice: either pay more for crumbling services or lose hard-won social rights completely. Therefore, the way we treat corporations and corporate power will become a vital issue for debate.

Transfer pricing rules are now broken, because world trade is dominated by a handful of companies, as I indicated earlier. Numerous actors are dominated by very few companies, which means arm’s-length prices are almost impossible to find. Some noble Lords may have noted that the BRICS countries, especially Brazil, and others have developed their own way of applying arm’s-length prices because companies have been abusing them. That is also worth looking at.

I am sure there will be lots of reflection on the various contributions, but my final point is that a UK resident company is liable to pay UK corporation tax on its global profits, subject to tax treaties and double taxation agreements—in other words, giving benefit after credit for the taxes paid somewhere else. If those companies’ profits are not taxed anywhere that means the UK Government can tax them, but I have not come across any example of where any Government have actually done so, so there are billions of pounds waiting to be collected. Perhaps in the next debate—I might try my luck next year—we can have this point clarified. Once again, I thank all noble Lords.

Motion agreed.

Europe: Youth Mobility

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

13:58

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

That this House takes note of the case for a new youth mobility scheme with European countries.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, youth mobility schemes are a topical subject in this Parliament at the moment. A Private Member’s Bill on this very subject is making its way through the other place, which yesterday held a debate on youth mobility schemes with the EU. In this Chamber, we had a Question on it from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, last week and a Question today from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. I am aware that a number of noble Lords have already asked supplementaries and I look forward to the opportunity for them to develop some of those points more fully in this debate. In particular, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moraes.

I believe that the need for closer ties with our European neighbours is more pressing now than it has been for some time. There are many reasons for that, but, with the Ukrainian war and increasing geopolitical instability likely to exacerbate existing migration issues, the need for international co-operation is all the more important, especially with those countries that are quite literally our neighbours. I hope this debate will provide an opportunity to think how we might maximise the opportunities for our young people to experience study, work, leisure, sport, music and so on in the wider world beyond our shores.

However, building mutual trust and respect with our European allies, both those in the EU and those that are not members, cannot be achieved simply in political fora or via policy decisions only. Indeed, sometimes they can be a source of much wrangling and entrenched resentments, which both led to and were a result of Brexit. That decision has been made, and I hope this debate is not about that. If we want to build trust and mutual understanding, we need a whole host of positive engagements and relationships at all levels in science and research, education, culture and sport, and, critically, opportunities for citizens to live and work together, both here and across mainland Europe.

Quite apart from the fact reintroducing youth mobility and cultural exchanges would be expedient for our foreign policy, there is the sheer demand for the restoration of these opportunities for our young people and the broader public. Polling in August 2024 found that 58% of the population think a youth mobility scheme is a good idea. There is a real demand for something like this. There has been a great loss to our young people just at the very time when they should be gaining new experiences and broadening their worldviews, making friends from people of other nations and cultures, with opportunities for travel, education and study abroad with our European partners. Those opportunities have gradually diminished and, where arrangements exist, they are usually more complicated and even more competitive.

There are broadly two strands of argument that I intend to cover when it comes to making the case for a new youth mobility scheme with European countries, although I also hope to touch on some of the challenges facing our creative industries, especially touring musicians. I have to confess that I feel rather daunted by the expertise of so many in your Lordships’ House on this topic. I come to this debate not as an expert but as someone who has greatly benefited from rich experiences in other cultures over extended periods and as someone who cares deeply about the opportunities for our young people to travel, learn languages and be exposed to the world and the cultural exchange of ideas and for our creative industries, one of the great success stories of our nation, to thrive. I look to listen and learn about the various challenges and opportunities that exist when it comes to negotiating youth mobility, and to better understand the position of His Majesty’s Government.

This Motion was deliberately worded to say “European countries” rather than “the EU” as I hope to avoid us becoming mired in old debates. However, the question of bilateral agreements with the EU versus individual approaches to EU member states is likely to be an integral part of this debate. In spite of that, I hope we can be open-minded as we think about how best to renew the rich landscape of cultural, educational and civic ties that we have shared with mainland Europe in the past, whether that be through rejoining the Erasmus scheme or by agreeing a new youth mobility scheme altogether.

Another point I would like to stress is that sometimes people conflate youth mobility schemes with freedom of movement. This has cropped up repeatedly, including in this House recently during Oral Questions. Will the Minister confirm that the Government understand that youth mobility schemes are not the same thing as freedom of movement? Indeed, the proposal for a new youth mobility scheme from the European Commission last year was both age limited and time limited. I appreciate that that scheme was rejected by the previous Government, and indeed the current one, but even had it been accepted, it would not have been a return to free movement.

I note that in these parliamentary exchanges His Majesty’s Government frequently point to the Turing scheme as the answer, which offers funding for UK students to go abroad on placements. The focus within this scheme of ensuring that disadvantaged students are able to access this funding is admirable, and I totally support it—indeed, it is appropriate. But still this does not make it a substitute for the Erasmus programme, which was much broader in scope and scale. For example, the Erasmus+ scheme includes specific partnerships and funding streams to promote sport and physical activity. The Turing scheme is also, critically, not an exchange programme.

His Majesty’s Government have committed to a reset in relations with the EU. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, led a debate on EU relations last October. The government spokesperson for that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said:

“This is about turning the page, reinvigorating alliances and forging new partnerships with our European friends, rather than reopening the divisions of the past”.—[Official Report, 10/10/24; col. 2210.]


In that spirit, His Majesty’s Government recently successfully negotiated the UK rejoining the Horizon programme post Brexit. There are positive examples here of how this can be done. The Erasmus scheme does not consist only of EU member states. Norway, for example, is a country which has developed extremely close and collaborative relationships with the EU despite not holding member status. If that is not going to work for us, let us at least propose something new, given that we have turned down the most recent proposal.

Like all Members of your Lordships’ House, I am acutely aware that the public purse is under strain and that one of the arguments against Erasmus was the cost, due to more students coming to the UK than UK students going to Europe. I for one am not sure that that is an argument against the Erasmus scheme, but rather the result of our embarrassingly poor foreign language learning and teaching here in the UK. If anything, it is an argument to encourage more of our young people to go abroad to study at European universities and improve their foreign language skills. Speaking a second or even a third language is a vital skill that is only becoming more and more important in our globalised world, yet the number of students and pupils taking language courses continues to decline.

I would like to pick up on a few points from the excellent debate on EU relations I mentioned. First, the facilitation of overseas school trips has been complicated by regulations on the UK-EU border post Brexit. Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, committed to:

“ensuring school visits and other opportunities for exchange”

and eradicating

“some of the challenges that have arisen”.—[Official Report, 20/1/25; col. 1479.]

Can the Minister update the House on whether there has been any progress on that issue? What specific takes are being considered or taken?

Secondly, there are challenges facing the creative sector, particularly musicians. This was raised this morning by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, in one of the Oral Questions. This is an issue that first came to my attention through the particular challenges facing choirs that have tried to arrange overseas tours. I understand that DCMS is working closely with representatives from the industry to try and find solutions to the challenges facing the sector after leaving the EU, and this is welcome news. Will His Majesty’s Government, in the short term, do their utmost to secure an EU-UK visa waiver agreement for performing artists and their staff? This is widely supported within the creative industries, and there is precedent for these kinds of agreements with the EU.

In the longer term, it is vital that some music performers are able to stay for periods of more than 90 days. It is particularly important for orchestras, choirs and the theatre sector, which generally have longer touring periods. Can the Minister tell us what steps His Majesty’s Government are taking towards negotiating such an agreement with the EU?

Finally, the Government have said that they do not want to commit to a specific programme regarding youth mobility in the UK at the moment. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to say much today in the light of future negotiating strategies, and that there are a number of obstacles we are seeking to resolve with the EU—for example, concerning Northern Ireland. However, as they enter the first EU-UK summit, I hope they will bear in mind how much the UK stands to gain from renegotiating a youth mobility scheme, which could be a real win-win and be of mutual benefit, in particular for our young people. Can the Minister confirm when we might expect an update on this issue?

I will conclude my opening remarks by reiterating that close ties with our neighbours are essential to UK interests in the current global climate. These have to be underpinned by a mutual understanding of and respect for other nations, cultures, languages and customs if they are going to be sustainable and resilient. There are so many difficulties facing our young people today. The opportunity to travel, live and work abroad has enriched the lives of so many in the past, as well as proving essential to their future success. I hope we will ensure that we are not depriving Britain’s young people of these experiences and those opportunities to thrive.

14:11

[Lord Moraes (Lab) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, I am honoured to make my maiden speech today in this debate. It is somewhat daunting. The doorkeeper steadied me just now and said, “Every one of the noble Lords in the Chamber today has been in the same place”. I am not sure if that helped. I did notice also that there are noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have had connections with the European Union and who have been MEPs.

I want to start my remarks in this maiden speech with some comments on the approach of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans to these mobility schemes. Many noble Lords and Baronesses in this Chamber will have had experience of those reciprocal mobility schemes in their work. In my experience over 20 years, I helped many young constituents with these reciprocal schemes and how to navigate them. Over the years I saw UK students, some from disadvantaged backgrounds who would not otherwise have afforded to access those schemes to study, benefit from Erasmus and other mobility opportunities. Those schemes were not perfect. For example, there should have been more UK take-up between 1987 and when we left in 2020—that is clear. But, very objectively, I saw a lasting benefit for those students in the UK, and I also saw measurable economic benefit and benefit to our academic institutions in the UK.

On this vexed point that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans raised about free movement, I would love to hear other opinions on it in this debate, but my understanding was always that the legal base of these reciprocal mobility schemes was never anything to do with free movement because they did not involve settlement and that was the key legal element that would make such schemes “free movement”. These schemes are not free movement; they are reciprocal schemes that generate advantages in all aspects of our lives. I will limit my comments on the debate to that and will now proceed with my maiden speech.

I thank your Lordships for the kindness and support I have received since entering the House. I thank my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lady Smith of Basildon for introducing me. I was only introduced on 16 January, but already I have received so much help and kindness from the remarkable staff in every part of this House.

I feel the honour of being in this House very keenly, not least because of my own background. I was a first-generation immigrant to this country. I was born in Aden, but my family had to leave during the Aden Emergency. My family were then split—my mother took us back to her country of origin, India, while my father gained entry to the UK as an overseas student, where he trained as a teacher and became a key worker in Scotland. We were eventually reunited. My parents were part of that generation which, some noble Lords and Baronesses will understand, was a generation of Commonwealth immigrants of the 1960s and 1970s who came to this country to give their children opportunity—and that certainly happened to me.

I then grew up in Scotland, first in Dundee and then Stirling, and this of course explains my accent, which has been somewhat commented on. As a new member—I am sure other new noble Lords and Baronesses will have had this experience—I am open to all sorts of advice. The first piece of advice I got on the first day that I came was from a noble Lord, who will remain unnamed, who said, “That’s a very nice soft Scottish accent”. Then he paused and added, “But nobody’s going to hear it if you don’t speak up”. So I immediately raised my volume and I have kept to that volume, hopefully, for noble Lords and Baronesses.

I came to London to further my law studies but could only do so because I had the opportunity to work for John Reid, then an MP, and later Paul Boateng, then an MP—now my noble friends Lord Reid of Cardowan and Lord Boateng. I thank them both for the start they gave me. I then stayed in the capital, working at the Trades Union Congress—the noble Lord, Lord Monks, allowed me to work at Congress House and I thank him for that—and, later, as director of JCWI, an independent legal protection NGO in the area of immigration, nationality and asylum law. In some ways, I was returning to the issues that had affected my family, but your Lordships may well recall that, during the period of the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, the UK experienced the most significant refugee arrivals since the war—from the former Yugoslavia, the Kurds, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. Working on these refugee issues individually, and on the policy, was a very formative experience. I did, of course, encounter many colleagues during that JCWI period and I am very honoured that they have come to listen to my maiden speech.

In 1999, I had the honour of being elected to the European Parliament for London. I shared this honour for a period with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who was also on my London list. I am really gratified that a number of colleagues who also served in the European Parliament are present in the Chamber. I chaired the Parliament’s justice and home affairs committee, and that legislative committee became enormous. It covered security, migration and the rule of law, but, because the Lisbon treaty gave it the competences and powers, it ended up reaching into data and privacy. As a result, I was able to chair the Facebook inquiry and work on data adequacy agreements, and I started work on the EU AI White Paper before we left the EU in 2020.

That brings me to a second reason why I am so happy and honoured to join your Lordships’ House. Over that whole period, I regularly gave evidence to committees of your Lordships’ House. This peaked in 2018—some noble Lords and Baronesses will recognise this—at a time when we were having heated discussions on how we were going to resolve issues post Brexit. How were we going to continue to share security databases such as SIS II or remain involved in Europol? Were we going to achieve data adequacy with the EU and were we going to adopt the European arrest warrant? Some of these issues are still not resolved and are still being considered by the House.

My point is that I gave evidence to Lords committees, whether it was the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee or the European Union Scrutiny Committee, as it was, in front of noble Lords who actually understood the issues—I am not making any comparisons with the evidence I gave to the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other House, which is a fine committee—and in some cases had actually put the issues together. I will give one example: the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, negotiated the passenger name record security agreements in the EU, and then he was the noble Lord asking me questions about it—which was kind of defeating, but there we go. It does give a sense of how this House can often be incisive and in the moment but can also, in my view, take a longer view of some of the most sensitive issues Parliament has to deal with, in an age when everyone wants instant solutions but when it is sometimes important to think through the most sensitive issues if we possibly can.

In conclusion, it has been an honour to make my first speech in your Lordships’ House in this debate and on this subject, and I very much look forward to making contributions in the future.

14:19

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an honour and a particular pleasure for me to follow the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Moraes. We share something, inasmuch as we spent our early years in the fine city of Dundee. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is here today. I am not sure that he can say he spent his early years in the city of Dundee, but there we are.

My title, and that of my noble friend Lord Moraes, reflect that city’s heritage. For those noble Lords who do not know, although it is not visible, his title is Baron Moraes, of Hawkhill in the City of Dundee. Hawkhill is one of the longest-established thoroughfares in the city and contains much of his alma mater, the University of Dundee. It also contains a lot of hostelries in which he and I—at different times and at different ages, because we were a decade apart in our early years in Dundee—found much pleasure and often had some raucous nights out.

As my noble friend said, after he left university he came to London. It is important to note that he is qualified to practise in Scots and English law, which is not something that all that many people accomplish. He has achieved a wide experience over the years. I think it is appropriate that, having come here to act as a humble researcher to two MPs—now the noble Lords, Lord Boateng and Lord Reid of Cardowan—he now enters your Lordships’ House on an equal basis with them. It is very well merited.

My noble friend outlined his work, particularly as a national officer with the Trades Union Congress. This is nothing to do with my noble friend, but he mentioned an anecdote about the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, effectively being on two sides of the fence. It reminds me of the time when I was a full-time trade union official. One of my colleagues submitted a claim for pay and conditions to a particular company. Soon after, he joined that company in the department where he had to answer his own claim—which he did not do in full. It was similar to the situation with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope.

My noble friend Lord Moraes has gained many awards for the work he has carried out—most notably, of course, the OBE. He mentioned having been warmly greeted by many Scottish Members of both Houses in the months since he joined us. It is appropriate to say that not many of them realised his Scottish roots until they heard his dulcet tones. It brings to mind the phrase, “Ye can tak’ the laddie oot of Scotland, but ye cannae tak’ Scotland oot of the laddie”. That is very much the case as far as my noble friend Lord Moraes is concerned. It is a pleasure to have him here. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in looking forward to the many powerful contributions he will make to debates and to the wider work of your Lordships.

I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this important debate. As he said in his comprehensive opening speech, this is a topical subject that I sense is beginning to gain some traction. Last year, as we know, the European Commission announced a proposal to open negotiations with the UK on a youth mobility scheme for all EU citizens, which would give 18 to 30 year-olds the opportunity to work or study in the UK for up to four years and offer the equivalent entitlement to young people from the UK. The Commission stated that the proposal would not be a return to free movement because it would be time limited, but it would enable studying, training, working and travelling. However, that proposal did not get very far. Although the previous Government rejected it, it is only fair to say that the EU was insistent that it must apply to all EU member states and not just be on an individual basis. That was the rock on which it foundered at that time.

Young people who become involved in exchanges with EU countries would return home at the end of them. That is the purpose of these exchanges: to gain experience of living and working in another country but then, at the end of it, to return home and bring what experience they gain into their working life in this country. That is a straightforward premise and it is disingenuous, to say the least, to portray it as somehow amounting to freedom of movement, as some do. Those who do so are, I believe, fully aware that that is not the case, yet they continue with what is, in effect, a distortion to fan the flames for those who are naive enough to believe that there is some nefarious attempt to reintroduce freedom of movement by the backdoor.

Let us be clear: the EU has not approached the UK with a formal proposal regarding a reciprocal youth mobility scheme. Rather, it should be our Government making the approach, because to do so would benefit thousands of young people in the age group characterised as Gen Z. It was rather dispiriting to hear my noble friend say earlier today, during Oral Questions, that the Government have no plans to seek a youth mobility scheme. No doubt she is duty bound to repeat that at the end of this debate, which is regrettable. To maintain such a cautious stance is to dance to the tune of those who want to feed the fears of those willing to buy fake news about some form of weakening of our current position vis-à-vis the European Union.

As noble Lords may know, the Prime Minister is meeting EU leaders next week and No. 10 has briefed that it is an opportunity to discuss “enhanced strategic cooperation” with the EU. I suggest that a youth mobility scheme should be part of that and should be less complicated to agree than other areas, such as dismantling trade barriers.

Maroš Šefčovič, the European Union’s new trade chief responsible for post-Brexit negotiations, said recently that a pan-European customs area

“is something we could consider”

as part of a reset in discussions between the UK and the EU. That might enable the UK to join the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. That created quite a bit of media stushie—as we say in Scotland—but such an idea is, I believe, non-threatening to the outcome of the 2016 referendum. That is underscored by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is with us today, has effectively given it the green light. I do not think that it is in any way a threat.

That may help to open up possibilities for an EU-UK youth mobility scheme but, even it does not, it is not as though youth mobility schemes are in any way unusual for this country. We of course had them when we were part of the EU, as my noble friend Lord Moraes mentioned, and today the UK has a youth mobility visa open to people from 12 different countries, which involves a quota system for each. In 2023, the last year for which figures are available, about 23,000 people came to the UK under these agreements.

These youth mobility schemes provide valuable cultural exchange opportunities for Generation Z to experience life in another country for up to two or three years and then return home. Those participating in schemes are able to work if they wish to do so, which provides valuable opportunities that help to prepare them for working life. The schemes involve countries some distance from these shores; there should be an equivalent for countries nearer to home, including countries in the European Union.

For the benefit of journalists, some of whom seem to be easily alarmed, these schemes are not designed, nor intended, to be a route for economic growth or to address specific labour shortages. They are about giving young people the best early chances in their life and working life. Recent polling for Best for Britain showed that 59% of UK citizens thought that the Government should prioritise negotiating a reciprocal relationship with the EU for Gen Z, with only 15% disagreeing with that proposal.

Although the EU Commission proposal was for any new scheme to involve all member states, as I said earlier, this need not be a deal breaker. EU member states can reach bilateral agreements on labour mobility with non-EU countries, and it is surely much easier and swifter to strike a deal with one country than with the whole EU. The key will be the limits to any such agreement, but that would be the subject of negotiations. Surely, with good will on both sides, a suitable arrangement could be achieved.

The Government should review its position on this, develop a policy that stops finding reasons for not doing it and search, together with EU member states, for reasons for doing it. I urge my noble friend to convey this view to fellow Ministers, potentially as a first step towards the change that our young people need and deserve.

14:29

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and it is a particular pleasure to have been able to listen to the rather endearing maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Moraes. I am sure he will bring a lot to this House from his experience.

I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for securing and opening this debate. I listened to his speech with a good deal of interest, and he set out the positions very clearly. I was waiting, I confess, for the moment at which he would show how his positions derived from the doctrine of the Church of England or Christianity more broadly, but sadly, that point never came. Nevertheless, I take them as so derived, and he certainly made a very good political case for the changes in rules in our relationship to the EU that he set out. He referred to the reset, and I want to begin by talking a little about the so-called reset, because that is the context in which we are looking at this idea of youth mobility.

I confess that I am not completely convinced that we need a reset with the EU. The relationship seems to be working perfectly well for the moment, but I accept that there are many who think differently, and that is why the Government have taken us on the path that we are now on. I think it would be better if the Government could set out their objectives for that reset a bit more clearly. I refer the Minister to the comprehensive document that we set out in February 2020 outlining our approach to the free trade association negotiations. It is a pity, to put it no more strongly, that in a negotiation of this nature we have no real guidance on what the Government are seeking to achieve and why, so I guess we have to define it for ourselves.

The way I look at the reset and what may be on the table falls into two categories. The first category is a set of proposals that would be marginal but genuine improvements to the relationship as it now stands. None of them are game-changers, but they are things such as improving the mutual recognition of qualifications procedures, something to do with the arrangements on touring artists—which have been referred to and I am sure will be again—improvements to the conformity assessments, pragmatic relaxation of border processes, e-gates and things such as that. I would put at least some kind of youth mobility agreements into this category, and I will come back to that and explain why. That is one category.

The other category of things that might come up in the reset is more troubling from my point of view, and ought to be more troubling from the country’s point of view as well. Those are things that we are led to believe might be on the table, although we are not quite sure. They are issues such as free movement-like arrangements, participation in asylum or migration arrangements of the EU, application of EU law, alignment with EU rules or regulations in any way, ECJ monitoring in an SPS agreement or accepting EU rules on defence procurement. Those are the sorts of things that start to change the FTA-type relationship that we have into a different kind of relationship, one that involves a degree of subordination, acceptance of lawmaking outside the country, that we had hoped we had got away from.

Some of these things may be on the table for the Government; we do not know. I hope that if—and it is probably when—they come back with something from these negotiations, they will be honest about whether they have accepted changes to the free trade nature of the relationship and lawmaking outside the country through alignment with EU law. That is a fundamental point.

As I have said, youth mobility arrangements can, but do not necessarily, come into that category. They are a prudential issue rather than a problem of principle, at least in certain forms. One has to say that because, after all, the UK has youth mobility agreements with a number of other countries around the world already, so there can be no objection of principle to another such agreement. It all depends on the terms and the degree of control. If we are ever asked to judge whether a youth mobility agreement with the EU is sensible, I would look at four criteria.

First, what are the numbers? They are crucial. We all know that there is a huge debate about the number of migrants coming into the country. I will not get into that, but in that context some numbers in a youth mobility scheme would not be material and some definitely would. All our existing agreements have numbers below a cap of 10,000 per year, with the exception of Australia. That is the order of magnitude that we would have to think about in an EU arrangement. The EU’s proposal for such an agreement includes no cap at all; it is simply a criteria-based arrangement under which, in principle, many tens of millions of people would probably be allowed to come to this country. Maybe they would not—I am confident they would not—but it takes only a small proportion to cause a difficulty. Numbers and a cap are really important.

The second criterion is fairness and balance. One has to laugh slightly at the nature of the EU’s proposal to us for such a scheme, which is so wildly unbalanced and tilted in its direction that it cannot think we would give it any serious consideration. Can it really be fair that everybody who meets the criteria in the entire European Union is allowed to come to the UK but that UK citizens are allowed to go to only one of the 27 EU countries? It makes no sense for the EU to say both “We can negotiate this only at EU level, because that is the way we do things” and “You can come to only one of our 27 countries, because that is also the way we do things”. We cannot have that. It makes no sense. If it is a UK-EU agreement, it would have to be done on that basis.

Thirdly, there can be no importing of EU concepts, by which I mean non-discrimination between UK and EU citizens. It is a big ask in the EU’s recommendation that we should accept that EU visitors under the scheme should not have to pay the NHS surcharge, for example, and that students should not have to pay the same fees as other foreign students. That too is not acceptable in such an arrangement. There should be and is a distinction, which we should maintain, between UK citizens and non-UK citizens. I see no case for assimilating EU citizens into that category.

Fourthly and finally, we are clear that this is an EU ask, and the Government have been quite clear that it is not something that they are looking to negotiate particularly, which is good. If we end up agreeing it anyway, what will we get in exchange for making concessions to the EU? How will it come up in the negotiations? There are many things that we ought to want from the European Union in any reordered arrangement, but unfortunately the most important of those, the Northern Ireland arrangements, are already off limits for the time being—more is the pity.

However, there are acceptable trades for this. The most obvious area is mobility; one can imagine a high-equilibrium arrangement, with some sort of youth mobility agreement in return for some sort of relaxation of the ESTA-type arrangements, better use of eGates, more pragmatic arrangements for service providers, including tourists, artists and so on. One can see we could find an equilibrium that could make sense and be of benefit for both sides. Whether that kind of thing is on the table, or whether the Government plan to concede more than that, we just do not know; we will have to wait and see.

To conclude, I set out these four tests for youth mobility. To be honest, I find it hard, in practice, to imagine that it is possible at the moment to negotiate a youth mobility scheme that would match all four of those things, but you never know. It is wise for the Government to have said they have no plans for such a scheme and it is probably best to stick to that, unless a really good offer is made to us.

14:40

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to have heard the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, which was absolutely charming. He will be a welcome addition to this House.

If we do not give young people the opportunities that we tore from them when we left the EU, then we will not only deny them all the wonderful broadening of mind and experiences that came from the EU mobility scheme; we will deskill them and reduce our own future, because if we limit young people, we limit ourselves. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this vital debate, and I could not agree more on the harm that is being done to the creative industries, tourism and all that area, and therefore to our country, for which the creative industries are an economic driver.

If we could restore to our young people at least some of the opportunities that they had when we were members of the EU, we would give them a whole range of advantages that will remain with them all their lives. Travel not only broadens the mind but gives young people independence and confidence. When you have to navigate a new country on your own, you are forced to step up, to solve problems and become self-reliant. You have to overcome challenges in an unfamiliar environment, and that builds resilience and confidence. Living and working in another country exposes you to different cultures, enables you to understand different perspectives and makes you more open-minded and reasonable—we could sure do with more reasonableness. You learn to be adaptable when you have to work and communicate with people from diverse backgrounds. For some young people, who have limited horizons because of the circumstances of their birth, this is a route to change. Getting away from an environment that is damaging or limiting is vital to life chances.

In terms of future prospects, working abroad improves soft skills, such as communication, adaptability and problem-solving. It can give you a competitive edge in the job market when you return. It expands your network: you get to meet people from all over. and you will create all sorts of valuable personal and professional connections. These networks can open doors to future job opportunities and collaboration.

Living in another country broadens your perspective on life and your future goals. It challenges your world view and may help you reassess what you want in life. In fact, that is what happened to me: I was hitching round Europe, headed for drama school, when I suddenly realised that I did not want to go to drama school—I wanted to go to art school. I went to art school at Oxford Polytechnic, which is where I led my first political campaign. That is how I ended up, 20 years later, going into politics, leading a campaign and introducing same-sex marriage. You see? It works.

You may discover new passions or career paths that you had not considered before. Dealing with different systems, languages and ways of life teaches you to think on your feet; you learn how to adapt to uncertainty, and that really stands you in good stead for the vagaries of your life ahead. Of course, it is also fun.

I am sure we all agree that those are good things. Indeed, as has been mentioned, the Government have bilateral agreements for youth exchanges with a number of countries outside the EU, so they obviously agree. But when it comes to the EU, somehow this Labour Government lose their bravery and are found wanting. It is all very well talking about a reset, but you have to be willing to enter the arena and deal.

In the other place on 15 January, my colleague, James MacCleary, the Lib Dem MP for Lewes, introduced the Youth Mobility Scheme (EU Countries) Bill to

“require the Secretary of State to enter into negotiations with countries which are members of the European Union”—

or are not—

“for the purpose of extending the Youth Mobility Scheme to applicants from”

the EU

“on a reciprocal basis”.

He pointed out the immense damage caused by the Brexit deal and the irony of young people now being able to live and work in Japan for two years but not hop across the channel to France. The Government are shouting their mantra about growth right now, but when growth comes from dealing with the EU, somehow it is dismissed, despite the UK facing acute labour shortages in several areas, including the hospitality trade. Young people visiting are just who we need for that industry.

So far, the Government’s reset with the EU is just talk. They seem to be afraid that if they get closer to the EU, that will be a threat to their electability, boosting Conservative and Reform votes, and be seen as a return to freedom of movement, which it is not. They run from that, but it is not that. We need to show the EU that we are worth allowing a closer and carefully designed youth mobility scheme. We could make sure that those taking part could come here as a clearly defined category on a tightly controlled time limit, but it would also be a signal that we have rejoined the world of reality and send out a message that we are open for business, for real.

I listened to the Chancellor’s “growth, growth, growth” mantra, but everything she said is undermined by these failures to move on the EU mobility scheme, to recognise the market that is Europe on our doorstep, and, indeed, as said by Ed Davey in PMQs yesterday, to enter a customs union, because red tape is killing growth.

Additionally, yesterday, my Lib Dem colleague in the other place, Sarah Olney, had a Westminster Hall debate titled:

“That this House has considered the potential merits of a youth mobility scheme between the EU and the UK”.


With the constant refrain from Labour now that they want a reset, she pointed out that we need to

“forge a new partnership with our European neighbours, one built on co-operation, not confrontation, and moving towards a new comprehensive agreement. A crucial step in that process is rebuilding confidence by agreeing partnerships and associations”—

whether it is Erasmus or whatever—

“to help restore prosperity and opportunities for British people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/25; col. 134WH.]

We also need to consider that President Trump is now in the White House. The Government have apparently woken up to the importance of building a closer defence and security agreement with the EU, but the EU, unsurprisingly, wants something in return and is insisting that those agreements run side by side with other arrangements, including a youth mobility scheme. The Guardian, on 25 January, reported on the MRP survey of almost 15,000 people by YouGov for the Best for Britain think tank, which showed that more people in every single constituency in England, Scotland and Wales back closer arrangements with the EU rather than more transatlantic trade with Washington.

Of course a youth mobility scheme will involve reciprocal migration obligations, but this is about an investment for the future, growth and well-being, and it will be carefully designed. I understand that the Government are scared of a political backlash, but what is the point of a 400-seat majority at the beginning phase of a Parliament, where brave governance will see people feeling better at the end of five years? Otherwise, I do not think they believe in themselves. Our world is descending into chaos and need right now, so please, Labour, use your power to stop this. The whole point of being in government is power, so please use it.

There will need to be administration and cost, but that is what investment is, and investing in our young people is the absolute best investment we can make. It is not a return to free movement. This is a scheme that would not replicate the original youth mobility scheme or—sadly, in my view—restore the full benefits that UK citizens had pre-Brexit, but it would help young people for a short period, unlike the open-ended rights they previously had. It is likely that, unlike the old system, a youth mobility scheme could or would require visas, fees and possible job restrictions, depending on our labour market. Although it would not be as flexible as the scheme we had when we had EU membership, it would be a step towards easing travel and work barriers. We could negotiate the age limits, the length of stay and the job restrictions if they are needed.

The Chancellor’s 45-minute speech was a heart-rending plea for growth, growth, growth. She admitted that we need to go further and faster in the pursuit of economic growth, and Liberal Democrats agree with her, but the route to a reset can start with this tiny, open-hearted step into a youth EU mobility scheme. One small step for young people; one giant step towards common sense, growth, security and power. The insanity of refusal and denial must stop.

14:49

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, to this House and look forward to his future contributions. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for securing this debate with its focus on young people and the opportunities of mobility and exchange.

Young people had the most to lose but the least voice in the UK’s decision to leave the EU. The opportunities afforded to previous generations to explore and experience life, study and work in countries on our shared continent, and to enjoy the well-evidenced benefits of international and intercultural exchange—of which more later—are no longer available. For them, it will be more difficult and more expensive to build international friendships, networks and partnerships, and we will never know what cultural, social and economic innovations might have been born from collaborations that can no longer take place.

There are growing calls on the Government to grasp the opportunity to put this right. The British Chambers of Commerce has described the absence of arrangements for mobility for young people in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement as a “serious omission”, affecting

“everything from school trips to summer jobs in both labour markets”.

ABTA has asked government to prioritise a youth mobility arrangement, arguing that it would rejuvenate opportunities for young people in the UK and foster growth for our essential businesses. YouGov polling from last year found that 68% of the British public would support a bilateral deal to allow 18-30 year-olds to live, work and study in countries across the entirety of Europe. Over half of those people who voted leave said that they would support such an agreement.

Nowhere is the mood music louder than among young people themselves. Last year, the European Economic and Social Committee of the EU published a report highlighting the challenges that young people on both sides of the channel are facing as a result of restricted mobility, and their aspirations for a future relationship between the UK and the EU. Based on extensive consultation among youth organisations and individuals, the report includes direct quotes from young people which express their deep sense of loss and a perception that the current relationship is broken, fractured and closed.

The EESC report makes a series of recommendations, echoing those from the European Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House and of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, of which I am a member. There is “universal and unanimous support” for the full reintegration of the UK into Erasmus+ and shared disappointment in the replacement Turing Scheme, with its limited offer and funding and no inward mobility—a scheme assessed as inadequate in the Government’s own analysis.

It is worth noting, as we have already heard, that Erasmus+ encompasses far more than funding for university students to undertake international placements. It is a vehicle for youth voluntary exchanges and a vital financial lifeline for thousands of young activist networks, organisations and youth councils. It has a proud 38-year record of delivering for young people and organisations across Europe, with a particular emphasis on marginalised groups. Post-Brexit, without access to Erasmus+, dozens of the UK’s youth charities have gone under, including the British Youth Council, which entered insolvency in April 2024, unable to meet ongoing financial challenges without the support that had come from Erasmus+.

This House has often discussed the loss of Erasmus+, but less attention has been paid to the impact of our leaving Creative Europe, the EU’s flagship programme to support the cultural, creative and audio-visual sectors. Between 2014 and 2019, Creative Europe delivered £100 million in funding to UK projects. The UK was the third most successful country in the number of funded projects over that period, with a particular impact on creative and cultural projects in the nations and regions. The Welsh Senedd’s 2024 Culture Shock report calls for government to prioritise association with Creative Europe at the forthcoming review of the TCA.

Rejoining Erasmus+ and Creative Europe would allow young people to apply for joint funding for projects that enable exchange at home and abroad. This would offset at least some of the damage of the current arrangement, helping today’s young people build and nurture the intercultural networks that underpin their development and careers and that inspire innovative new ideas. It would be a positive step on the journey towards a comprehensive and reciprocal scheme of the kind we are debating today.

The idea of a scheme that allows young people to live, work and study in the EU and the UK for a limited period is not a radically new concept. Indeed, according to the Library’s research, the UK already has such agreements in place with 13 countries around the world. Clearly, we believe in the personal, professional and social benefits that accrue from international and intercultural communication, and the increased understanding between nations that grows from this kind of exchange. However, the overwhelming majority of the exchange programmes already in place can be accessed only with a significant and costly long-haul flight, which likely puts them out of reach for many young people. Surely the Minister would agree that enabling exchange between the EU and the UK makes sense, not just because our histories are interwoven but because the relative ease and lower cost of access makes the benefits of exchange available to a wider and more diverse range of young people.

As we have heard, the introduction of a reciprocal arrangement would have significant benefits for the creative and cultural sector, which has been so severely impacted by an agreement that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, himself said, in March 2022, was “too purist” on youth mobility and touring artists, was

“making life difficult on both sides”,

and should be reviewed. The 90 in 180 days agreement, to which this and the last Government so often refer, does not address a fundamental issue, in that it does not permit artists to undertake work that is paid.

The hardest hit by all this are the younger, early-career artists, working on low profit margins and with limited administrative support. The bureaucracy involved in securing visas and permits for sets, costumes, instruments and merchandise is not only time-consuming but the cost is often prohibitive. Artists can no longer take up the last-minute engagements that have so often fast-tracked their careers. In some cases, visa restrictions disproportionately impact younger artists, because the waivers exempt only established artists or require minimum income thresholds, which of course younger artists cannot meet. A youth mobility scheme would not solve all the challenges for post-Brexit touring, but it could significantly improve the situation for early-career artists, who are more likely to be travelling alone or in splitter vans, to be carrying their own costumes and instruments, and to be transporting merchandise using the “merchandise in baggage” rules.

One of the most striking issues highlighted in the EESC report is the absence of institutional structures for youth engagement between the UK and the EU and in the groups that oversee and advise on the implementation of the TCA. I hope that this omission will be addressed at the review point next year.

Listening to young people and structuring their voices into the processes by which decisions are reached is more important now than it has ever been. Generational divides have always existed, but some of the factors that differentiate young people today from the decision-making generation are particularly profound. The climate and housing crises may well be unparalleled sources of intergenerational tension, as is the burden of future debt. Brains that have been shaped, quite literally, by the printing press technology of Johannes Gutenberg have to work hard to imagine how a generation whose brains are shaped by the technology of Gates—the “click to read more” technology—thinks, experiences and communicates. Therefore, it is all the more important to involve young people in policy development and to structure their voices into discussions and decisions about the longer term.

I welcome this Government’s commitment to reset our relationship with the EU. I hope that this includes fresh thinking, informed by the voices of young people, on intercultural and international exchange mechanisms, including Erasmus+ and Creative Europe, and an agreement that opens up the rich experience of living, working and studying across our shared continent.

A youth mobility agreement would not be a return to free movement. These schemes can be tailored to national interests and limited in terms of numbers or duration. But it would harness the transformative potential of youth connections in unlocking a closer bilateral relationship between the EU and the UK based on good will and intercultural understanding.

This is not just about restoring opportunities for individuals. A systematic review published last year determined that intercultural competence is one of the main requirements for success in today’s globalised world, and its absence a crucial factor in failure. The review found that these skills of cultural awareness, intercultural sensitivity, language proficiency, empathy and flexibility are best developed through studying and staying in different cultural environments and participating in cultural programmes across geographic borders.

This is the real win of exchange and mobility with our nearest neighbour and our key trading partner: not just a future generation enriched by the experience of studying, living and working in different environments and among different peoples, but a future generation better equipped to help ensure the future success and prosperity of the UK.

15:00

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing this matter before us today. My contribution will be to strongly support a youth mobility scheme between the United Kingdom and European countries. But, before putting forward my arguments for this, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his maiden speech—and thank him, actually, for mentioning me.

The noble Lord and I go back quite a long way, if I might use that phrase. We first encountered each other, I think, when I was the UK Immigration Minister—never an easy job at the best of times, as we all know—and the noble Lord was the head of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. We had some exchanges at that time and I am pleased to say that, despite our slightly different backgrounds and responsibilities, we had a positive relationship. Later, when we were both MEPs, the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, was, as he said, the chair of the LIBE Committee—the justice committee —of the European Parliament, with me as the lead Conservative. I can state categorically that, by working together, especially on security issues, we were able to demonstrate the importance of the UK in protecting not only our own citizens but all Europeans and the wider world. It was a most productive relationship. Sadly, of course, Brexit removed those activities, but I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, is now here with us.

In examining the Government’s stated wish to restore or reset our relationship with the EU, the matter we are debating today is of great importance, not only for our young people but for the economic, cultural and diplomatic ties that bind us to our closest neighbours.

Since the UK left the EU, young people on both sides of the channel have faced a stark reality: opportunities that were once taken for granted have disappeared. The ability to study, work and gain international experience in each other’s countries has been significantly diminished. This is not merely an inconvenience: it is a loss of potential, a restriction of opportunity and a barrier to future prosperity.

We have long argued that expanding youth mobility schemes to more countries—particularly those geographically and economically close to the UK—would be beneficial. Sectors with fluid labour markets, such as hospitality, have relied on the participation of young workers for years.

Of course, youth mobility schemes are not new, as other noble Lords have mentioned. The UK already has agreements with countries such as Australia, Canada and Japan, allowing young people to live and work in those nations for a defined period. These agreements are reciprocal, well regulated and mutually beneficial. There is absolutely no logical reason why a similar scheme cannot be agreed with Europe, especially with the EU itself. Of course, the specifics will need to be negotiated to ensure that we get a deal that is in our interests, but that is very much achievable.

The economic case is compelling. This is an initiative welcomed across business communities and across all sectors, and widely seen by labour organisations and the third sector as a serious omission from our current relationships. European interns have often been invaluable in helping British small and medium-sized companies expand into new European markets. The long-standing practice among UK lawyers—I speak as a lawyer myself— of spending time in an EU member state during training or after qualification has been crucial for professional development and career success. However, this pathway is no longer accessible to those lawyers employed by firms without EU offices, as they cannot take advantage of the intra-corporate transfer provisions contained within the TCA.

Similarly, for example, the horticulture sector has for many years sent students and young people to the Netherlands in the summer, while taking European students here—a system that has been fundamental to how they do business.

Polling evidence also shows very strong public support for a youth mobility scheme. In August 2024, research by More in Common found that 58% of people think that such a scheme is a good idea, compared with only 10% who oppose it. Breaking that down, 71% of those who voted Labour in the July general election supported the scheme, as well as a majority—56%—of Conservative voters. I should not mention it, but even among Reform UK voters, support stood at 44%, with only 27% against. Those numbers demonstrate a broad consensus in favour of restoring structured opportunities for young people.

A structured mobility scheme with the EU would enhance the UK’s soft power. Our influence in Europe and beyond is built not only on economic and security relationships—important as they are—but on cultural and personal connections. When young people live and work abroad, they form lasting relationships, break down barriers and build bridges—both literally and figuratively, I think. These connections contribute to Britain’s standing in the world, making us a more attractive and engaged partner on the international stage.

Some are arguing that concerns about immigration should deter us from pursuing such a scheme. One or two speakers have done that. As I have said, I speak as a former Immigration Minister and there is a clear misunderstanding of the proposals. A youth mobility agreement is not unrestricted migration; it is a temporary reciprocal arrangement that benefits both sides. Those coming into the UK must have financial means to support themselves and it does not offer a path to citizenship. It is not—I repeat, not—a return to free movement.

We know that the EU has expressed its openness to having an agreement. To a large extent, the ball is now in the UK’s court. If we fail to engage constructively, we risk further diminishing our ties with our closest allies and depriving future generations of the opportunities that all their predecessors enjoyed.

The benefits of youth mobility are clear, but we must place this in the wider context of our relationship with Europe. This is not just good for young people; it is good for the UK and good for Europe. The EU has already put an offer on the table and our Government should now engage, negotiate and reach a fair and beneficial agreement, without further delay. By doing so, we can secure meaningful gains across multiple sectors, foster a closer and more co-operative relationship with our European neighbours and, in doing so, enhance our collective security and economic prosperity.

In conclusion, this is an opportunity that we really must seize. I urge the Government to act in the best interests of our young people and our country.

15:08

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his maiden speech. Our paths crossed a little over 10 years ago when he, as a Member of the European Parliament, and I, as the chair of a committee of this House responsible for justice and home affairs, were doing our best to mitigate the somewhat impetuous effort of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to remove the UK from all justice and home affairs legislation. I am glad to say that we were successful then, although we were thwarted by the Brexit process. I welcome the noble Lord to this House, where I am sure he will make a major contribution.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans is also to be congratulated and thanked for securing this timely debate on the potential for a UK-EU mobility partnership as part of the Government’s reset of our post-Brexit relationship with the EU, and for his most helpful and illuminating introduction to the debate. This debate is all the more necessary as it provides an opportunity to clear away some of the quantities of disinformation that have swirled around the subject since the idea surfaced in Brussels early last summer, well ahead of the July election here.

To clear up one of those bits of disinformation, the idea has not yet been put to the UK by the EU in any formal sense. It was an idea that the Commission raised with the EU member states, and to which they got a reasonably positive response, but it was not put to us—except by journalists—because there are no current negotiations going on between the UK and the EU, so there was no need to respond to it, positively or negatively. The then Labour Opposition chose to react to it—quite unnecessarily, I have to say—in a way that was interpreted more negatively than was justified.

The second piece of disinformation is that the concept of mobility partnerships for particular age groups and professions is not understood as being as widespread as it is around the world. In no case does it amount to full free movement, and it is often numerically capped. So far as the EU is concerned, the Commissioner who will now be handling the matter in the new Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, made clear last week that any UK-EU scheme would not—I repeat “not”—amount to free movement.

Having got rid of those two main pieces of disinformation, it surely makes sense for the Government to consider carefully the pros and cons of such a mobility partnership. I hope the Minister will say that they will now do that, so that we are in a position to engage constructively if and when the idea is raised with us in the reset negotiations.

So far as your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee is concerned, the idea was studied in the process of preparing the report we made to the Government and the House in April 2023. I was serving as a member of the committee at the time, and we concluded that the idea made a lot of sense and would be in the UK’s interest. When the then Government reacted to our conclusion, they did not agree, but they were a different Government. Our report, which was subscribed to by a committee of all parties and none, is surely therefore worth looking at again now.

Since the time of that report by your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee, I would suggest that the case for giving positive consideration to a UK-EU mobility partnership has become much more compelling. Following our departure from the EU almost five years ago to the day, the opportunities for those in this age bracket to be likely to be covered by any mobility partnership have shrunk dramatically on both sides of the channel. Brexit has deprived them of many of the openings they had when we were a member of the EU.

School visits have virtually collapsed; access to the ever more successful Erasmus scheme, to which other non-EU countries belong, has lapsed; knowledge of other European languages in this country has continued to slide; the activities of performing artists of all kinds have been hit hard; and young professionals in a whole range of specialisations have ceased to have easy access to jobs on both sides of the channel. That is a pretty sorry litany, and I could go on. Moreover, the sign of interest in a mobility partnership with us, which we have heard from Brussels, means that there is a good chance that such an approach would fulfil one crucial characteristic for success in negotiation: mutual benefit to both sides.

The time has surely come to stop sucking our teeth, to stop repeating constantly the mantra “We have no plans for a mobility partnership”, and to give the whole idea a thorough and open-minded consideration. After all, we might discover some help there for the Government’s top priority of stimulating growth.

Finally, on a more general point, it does not make sense and is not in our national interest for us to debate every idea for improving the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU as if it was a rerun of the damagingly divisive debates we had between 2016 and 2019 over the principle of our EU membership. The debate we are having today is not part of that and should not be treated as if it was.

15:15

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this debate. It is not the first time and it will not be the last that we debate our relations with the EU and I thank him for making that possible.

I also welcome my friend the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, whom I have known for 26 years. He served in the European Parliament with me and had a distinguished career there, not only as deputy leader of the Labour group but also, significantly, as chair of the civil liberties committee of Parliament where he made a memorable contribution. The secret of success in the European Parliament is to get agreement across the chamber and the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, was excellent at that and well respected as a figure who could unify the chamber. He is very welcome here. I know he will make many contributions.

I am not giving anything away if I tell this House that I am an unrepentant supporter of the European Union. I voted yes in the referendum. Together with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, I headed up the Cambridge for Europe campaign and I have never regretted a single statement or anything that we did during that campaign. As has been said, this proposal is very modest. It is not going back into the EU. It is far more modest than anything I would personally be happy with.

We cannot keep on hearing that the Labour Government have no plans. The Labour Government have a large majority. They have a population, particularly the young, who want a closer relationship with Europe, so they had better find some plans unless they want to alienate all the youth vote in Britain—that is, the youth vote that is not alienated from the Conservative Party, which does not seem to have many plans either. Maybe my noble friend Lord Effingham will correct me on that and tell me that we are going to have a Damascene conversion, which should please the right reverend Prelate.

I was a European federalist. In 1981, when the Labour Opposition were campaigning to leave the European Union, which was being magnificently defended by Baroness Thatcher, I joined a small group in Brussels that set up the Crocodile Club to campaign for a federal Europe. The Conservative representative on that group was the French passport-holding Mr Johnson —Mr Stanley Johnson, with whom I enjoyed many meetings and dinners when we planned what we would like to have seen as Europe, which was a Europe that was very similar in its structure to the United States.

I say to this Government and to my friends in opposition on this side of the House that, if people want to come to Britain, is not that the same as them wanting to go to Texas or California—a sign of a country that is in demand, where they want to contribute? I certainly agree that we have to sort out the welfare bill, because we do not want welfare tourism, but the fact that people want to come and work and contribute to the wealth of Britain is surely something we should be rejoicing in. We should be pleased about it, not be a dog in the manger and say that we do not want to see them. My view is that moving from Spain to the UK should be seen as little different from moving from, say, Maine to Minnesota.

I always believed that all citizens of the European Union should have the vote where they live. The idea, which our party and Labour have, that we should enfranchise people who have been outside Britain for so long that they have probably forgotten the language is not the way forward. The way forward is that a European citizen in the European Union should have a vote where they live. If noble Lords look back a few years, they will see that I moved a Private Member’s Bill to that very effect. I can say, not unsurprisingly, that the Bill got absolutely nowhere, but there is a lot to be said for it.

If we are going to look to the future, as a relatively small population grouping in a not huge geographical part of the world, then we have to work together. We cannot have a constant dog-in-the-manger attitude to our nearest colleagues. We have to get back to the spirit of my good friend, the late Arthur Cockfield, who designed the Single European Act so that we could work and trade together, and of Mrs Thatcher—before she went bonkers—who was fully in support of us having a Europe in which it was easier for us to move around and trade.

We have all seen the ABTA report which shows how far the ability of British citizens to work in Europe has declined: 69%, it said in the briefing that it sent me. We have seen the YouGov report from April, which said that 68% support a youth mobility deal. We have heard that youth mobility, sadly, does not involve free movement; personally, I wish it did, but the fact that it does not surely makes it even harder for the major political parties to decide that they have no plans to do anything.

As I have said before in this House, if we want to represent the future of Britain, we have to change our attitude to the European Union. We have to move on. The majority that voted to leave have been cremated; they are not there any more. We have to start looking positively at Europe.

One of the saddest things in my 25 years in the European Parliament was, I am sorry to say, dealing with often Labour Ministers who quoted the Daily Mail to me. I well recall a meeting with Geoff Hoon, who was a Europe Minister—one of the 18 that we ran through in our 17 years. He lasted about six months. I went to see him because I wanted Britain to take up money from Europe to publicise the EU through our libraries, with documentation and material supplied by Europe. Geoff said to me, “I’m sorry, Richard, the Daily Mail wouldn’t stand for it”.

Yesterday, my wife drew my attention to the fact that the Labour Government now wish to invoke the spirit of Mrs Thatcher. Goodness knows where we go from here, but that is where we are. If we are going to move forward and be the Government of this country again, on this side and that side, we have to start doing what the younger voters in this country want. This is not a country of old men and women any more; it is a country in which we have to deliver for the up-and-coming generation who are going to create the wealth of the country.

I have said many times when I have talked to students through our schools’ programme that I came from a golden generation. We grew up in peace, with growth, and we are fantastically better off than we were when I was a child. If we are to deliver that for the next generation, it will require a fundamental reset with Europe—one that goes much further than either the Government or the Opposition are talking about. And noble Lords will notice that there is one party I have not mentioned in that sentence.

15:26

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and the pro-European words he has just shared with us. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for bringing this important debate to this House and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his maiden speech. He introduced today’s debate with such passion, and it was important to hear his own experiences of how mobility schemes have reached out to those from underprivileged backgrounds. That was an important note. I look forward to hearing more of his contributions and say croeso, welcome, to the noble Lord.

As the youngest Member of this House, I take a special interest in proposals that will offer young people more opportunities. Under-30s, who such schemes are aimed at, are a generation which has been most affected by the loss of work opportunities post-Brexit. This has been coupled with the isolating experiences that the Covid pandemic had on youth. Along with being locked out of the housing market with low wages, hopes are dashed for many in my generation. His Majesty’s Government have an opportunity to change this with an act of good will towards young people, establishing a new youth mobility scheme with the EU. This is not just about young people but about the other benefits to the economy and society, as has been shared by many noble Lords today.

We are not alone in this view. A poll conducted by YouGov for the European Council on Foreign Relations found that almost seven in 10 Britons, including a 55% majority of former pro-Brexit voters, would support a scheme that would allow 200,000 18 to 40 year-olds from the UK and the EU to travel, study and work freely in each other’s countries for up to four years.

I would like to talk about the broader context that this debate offers. Yesterday, Wales’s biggest university, Cardiff University, announced plans to cut 400 jobs. The proposals include completely axing courses such as nursing, music, ancient history and modern languages. Other schools will be merged to save money. I fear that Cardiff University will not be the last to make such an announcement.

After Brexit, the UK’s withdrawal from Erasmus and continuous cuts to fields such as culture and the arts mean that current modern languages students in particular undoubtedly get a markedly different experience from other alumni. However, language learning is no less important today than at any point in the past. It could be argued that mutual understanding is more crucial in today’s world than ever before.

The vice-chancellor has blamed these difficult decisions on the precarious financial position of many universities, particularly in the context of declining international student applications and increasing cost pressures—these issues are tied closely together. Cardiff University is not alone in this struggle; many universities across the UK have been warning of a crisis looming. In the case of universities in Wales, the Welsh Government and His Majesty’s Government have a lot to answer for. The recent decision on national insurance has made the situation worse.

Before I conclude, I will rebut claims that this would be a return to free movement. This is not the case for the youth mobility scheme already established with 12 non-EU countries, because it would be time limited and require people to meet certain conditions before and during their stay. His Majesty’s Government could set the quota and the length of stay. When the UK was a member state, UK nationals had the right to move and reside freely within the EU; that is not the case for this scheme.

Although it has been reported that the EU has been forthcoming with proposals for a mobility scheme with the UK, I strongly urge His Majesty’s Government to show leadership and proactively suggest their own proposal. As part of designing a proposal—today we have had several suggestions for what that could include—I would also make the case for expanding the age limit. Many people in their 30s and in their early careers would enjoy and benefit from an opportunity to work, study and live abroad. As the Prime Minister is set to meet EU leaders in Brussels on Monday, I hope that a youth mobility scheme is on the table and is progressed. I also hope that the future of our higher education institutions is considered as part of His Majesty’s Government’s reset with the EU.

I will close with a couple of questions for the Minister directly. Can she confirm whether a youth mobility scheme will be discussed with EU leaders next week? Furthermore, can she share with us what consultation His Majesty’s Government are undertaking or plan to undertake with young people regarding the UK’s reset with the EU?

15:32

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for securing this debate; it is clearly a popular subject. There have been Questions and other debates on it, but in this Chamber people have managed to provide many different answers to a similar question. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his interesting maiden speech. It showed humour and was, I think, a view of what we may come to expect from him in the future—insight and modesty—but he knows what he is talking about.

I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes. I am grateful to her for her advice on how to pronounce Llanfaes—so if I get it wrong, it is not my fault. Her point about widening the age range is one that I think many of us in this Chamber would take to heart. It is probably not quite the age she has in mind, but raising it at least to the mid-40s would be reasonable because, apart from anything else, it seems that the current younger generation seem to grow up rather more slowly than our generation had to.

It may have escaped the notice of some here, but earlier this month the Government launched the soft power council; it was so soft that nobody took much notice. Nevertheless, Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Lisa Nandy from DCMS got together to announce this new council because they believe that soft power is the one thing that is going to be incredibly important in making Britain great again. Of course, they are right.

As David Lammy put it:

“Soft power is fundamental to the UK’s impact and reputation around the world … But we have not taken a sufficiently strategic approach … Harnessing soft power effectively can help to build relationships, deepen trust, enhance our security and drive”—


you guessed it—“economic growth”. Well, nobody is going to disagree with that.

We all agree that soft power is delivered in massive quantities by youth mobility. Getting young people to see and experience this country, and getting our young people to experience life abroad, is all about delivering soft power. Tomorrow’s young people include tomorrow’s leaders. Previous leaders of the States, for instance, have been students in the UK and have reflected favourably on that experience once in office. So a youth mobility scheme should be an important part of any soft power initiative. Surely that will be a contributor to the growth that we are in search of and that is proving so elusive.

Yesterday, Chancellor Rachel Reeves said she wants a Government who remove barriers to growth “one by one”. She said she is intent on making it

“easier for businesses to trade”.

What happened just five years ago has not made it easier for businesses to trade. The right reverend Prelate said he hoped that in this debate we would not rehearse the arguments over Brexit, and I think we have all tried not to disappoint him. The latest poll from YouGov, published this week, shows that just 30% of people think that we were right to leave the EU—but let us not debate that now.

The UK is not going back into the EU, the single market or the customs union; we have heard that often enough to actually believe it. Instead, we are resetting the relationship—and we need to. In the interests of growth, we certainly need to reset that relationship as quickly as possible. Exports by small businesses are down by 30% since Brexit. Some 20,000 small businesses have stopped exporting altogether. The noble Lord, Lord Frost—I see him returning to his place—sees no need for this reset. He told us that he believes the relationship is working well, even though those small firms have stopped exporting altogether.

The noble Lord was at least a little more positive—just a little—on the subject of a youth mobility scheme. I confess that I share his view that the EU’s original proposal that we read about had flaws—not least the idea that we should be able to send people from the UK to only one EU country but then they would have Schengen rights to travel, which limits things somewhat and seems a little unnecessary. Nevertheless, it is a serious starting point for negotiations that the EU wanted to open. The majority of people in this country would be perfectly prepared to open those negotiations, and they would want them to lead somewhere.

In this debate we have heard much about the advantages for individuals of the opportunity to live and work abroad. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, would not even be in this Chamber, she tells us, had it not been for taking advantage of that opportunity. The advantage is not just in soft power but in young workers coming to the UK. Our young people get experience that is useful to bring back here. The hospitality industry and ABTA have been very clear that, without that experience, the pipeline of people to work in the travel industry in this country is very badly hit. In the more short-term rush for growth, those young workers—who work not for a great deal of money but with much enthusiasm, particularly in our hospitality industry and probably in our care industries as well—are much missed.

The choice of existing schemes is, to say the least, somewhat idiosyncratic. It is all very well to have a youth mobility scheme with Andorra or Monaco. South Korea and Uruguay may have young people who look fondly on the UK, but I have not come across many of them recently. Perhaps they find places closer to home that they wish to visit and that they can afford to visit.

Since we started these specific youth mobility schemes, some of which date back to 2008, half the visitors who have taken advantage of them have come from Australia. Much as we all welcome the Australians who come and work in this country, we need to broaden our horizons and encourage people from our nearest neighbours in Europe. Our estrangement from the EU— from Europe—has been hard on this country, not just for trade, but from an emotional point of view for many people. As other noble Lords have said, it is time for us to really start rebuilding those bridges.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has said, school trips have been decimated. That has had a terrible effect on the language schools in this country. There are grave fears that this situation could get even worse and that short-term tourists will be deterred too by the prospect of the ETA coming into force—not next year, nor the year after, but in April 2025. The ETA scheme is already operating for further flung countries. If it is to come into effect for European countries in April, can the Minister reassure us that everything is up and running to cope with it; that Operation Brock will not be needed again; that coaches will continue to flow through the port of Dover, and that there is nothing to fear? Can she reassure us that businesses, particularly in Kent, will not be hit, because they are fearful that they will suffer terrible disruption?

I will finish on a more positive note, as the right reverend Prelate asked us to do. We should take the concept of town twinning as far as we can and encourage towns to build close relationships in Europe; to get together and travel to Europe. Again, I fear that the ETA may be an obstacle in the way of this happening.

15:43

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this debate. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his charming and heartfelt speech. I know that he will make a significant contribution to this House.

In principle, I welcome the concept of a youth mobility scheme. While most noble Lords in the Chamber are against the Government’s position, I am in the rather perverse position today of defending it, unless the Minister disappoints me later. Even within the last two or three years, we have undertaken bilateral arrangements and discussions with different countries including, indeed, with the EU on a multilateral basis for a youth mobility programme. As other noble Lords have said, in the last few years we have secured arrangements with various countries—Uruguay, Australia, New Zealand and Andorra—so we can do it. It is to be hoped that we can secure a scheme again.

Let me talk about the Turing scheme; some noble Lords are rather insouciant and dismissive of it. In 2023, more than 40,000 people benefited from the scheme across 474 successful applications. In 2022, there were 373 successful applications and more than 30,000 students involved. To come back to the point that the right reverend Prelate made about Erasmus+, I am afraid that he is seeing the glass half-empty, not half-full. Yes, we are not proficient in foreign languages, but the reason that Erasmus+ did not work for us post Brexit is that we are number two in the world for soft power—as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said—and people want to come to the UK. Over a seven-year period, the programme would have cost the UK a net £2 billion. On pure cost grounds, it was not feasible to continue that system.

In the same way, there are opportunities for collaboration, such as we see with the Horizon programme. Tunisia and Israel, for instance, are not in Horizon, but they have relationships with the European Union. This is a laudable aim, and I do not blame the British Chambers of Commerce and ABTA for making a strong point. I think, however, that your Lordships’ House needs to look at the wider political and economic context of this very difficult decision.

There is much criticism of the failure to include a youth mobility scheme in either the withdrawal agreement or the trade and co-operation agreement. With all due respect to noble Lords, the Government at that time had limited bandwidth; they had other pressing priorities and there was a lack of political willpower on both sides by the EU and United Kingdom. Many in your Lordships’ House did everything in their power to obstruct and thwart the UK’s formal legal exit from the EU over many months, which of course impacted negotiations. As someone who was closely involved as chief of staff to the Secretary of State for Brexit and worked closely with the Article 50 task force, I know that the Government had other issues: the financial settlement, the transition period, the Northern Ireland protocol, Cyprus and the sovereign bases, governance of the withdrawal agreement, and Gibraltar, to name the most important.

That brings me to the issue of citizens’ rights. For the more than 5 million EU citizens living in the United Kingdom, we have established in legislation and via the independent monitoring authority the most generous and benign immigration regime for non-citizens anywhere in the world. Indeed, in the next few months, the EU settlement scheme will migrate hundreds of thousands of those non-UK citizens from pre-settled to settled status as a result of a High Court case in 2022. That will enable them to have indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, which is de facto citizenship—despite the UK being a third country. No such reciprocal EU-wide regime exists to protect and enhance the rights of British citizens in the European Union.

The UK was one of only three countries that, in 2004, imposed no transitional requirements in respect of the free movement directive. The significant numbers who moved to the UK thereafter were many more than were envisaged by either politicians or academics at the time. From 2021 to 2024, more than 4.5 million immigrants migrated to the UK. After five years, the vast majority will be granted indefinite leave to remain, meaning access to benefits, social housing and the NHS. Net migration last year was 728,000. It peaked in 2023, shamefully, at 906,000; no party had put that in their manifesto and it was not agreed by any electors.

I hope to explain that that is why the Government are rightly wary of any policy that might give rise to a return to de facto free movement. By 2032, in just seven years’ time, Britain’s population will have risen by 5 million and, in 22 years, by 9 million—a 13% rise in only about 25 years. The immigration system is, frankly, broken, but I will illustrate the many areas of dysfunction—the student visa scheme is a good example of short-termism and putting off difficult financial choices for another day.

A glut of student visas was issued in 2021 and onwards, motivated in many cases by the prospect of two years’ work on the graduate visa route. The explosion was driven by huge numbers of people from developing countries attending the lowest cost, least selective institutions, often on shorter postgraduate taught courses. Rather than selling education to future researchers, our universities are increasingly in the business of selling visas to delivery drivers.

Why did the Government do this? Short-termism, and it was my party that was in government, I accept that. The long freeze in tuition fees means that the real-terms value of the fees paid by domestic students has dropped by £2,800 since 2012 and, as the Migration Advisory Committee puts it, the sector has “an overreliance on immigration” because the higher fees charged to foreign students are what is keeping the sector from toppling over. While this is good for universities, the wages of those on the graduate route and their ability to switch to longer-term visas suggest that it is less good for the UK. Eventually, if we do not get a grip on this, we will see more pressure on public services, a fall in per capita GDP, a failure to train and upskill our domestic workforce and more welfare dependency—not good for the future of the country.

This is the economic context in which we are debating this very important issue today. It is not making a value judgment on whether travel and broadening the mind is generally a good thing; it is just being realistic and pragmatic about the challenges we are facing. That said, I welcome the position paper put forward by the EU Commission seeking a mandate from the Council of Ministers that was published in April last year. I think it is the right thing to do and it is right that we have a meaningful set of negotiations between the EU and the UK on the youth mobility scheme—and it is one which I have read with great care.

It is in many ways a sensible and pragmatic opening position, with its emphasis on limited in time mobility and the fulfilment of certain conditions, such as subsistence funding, health insurance and appropriate travel documents. For me and, no doubt, His Majesty’s Government, there are still major impediments before a deal can be secured. Being a third country is a shibboleth for the intransigent absolutists of the European Union and the EU Commission—but it cuts both ways. Professor Catherine Barnard, professor of EU law at Cambridge University, has described the proposal as “a defensive strategy”, as much to prevent the possibility of the UK striking more liberal and permissive youth mobility agreements with individual EU countries on a bilateral basis. Third country status is a two-way street. Why should the UK set aside healthcare surcharges for EU citizens when we have an NHS under huge pressure? Why should we forgo income from foreign students from the EU while charging enhanced fees to those young people from South Korea, India, South Africa, Canada and the United States? We should not accept that we have as an encumbrance single market indivisibility.

The youth mobility scheme is part of the Government’s mythical reset—but of solid details, red lines, bargaining points and strategic objectives there are thus far none. If, as the German ambassador has made clear, the EU sees a youth mobility scheme as a priority, the EU will need to de-escalate potential conflict, loosen the rigid negotiation guidelines and be more realistic—perhaps by giving ground on the length of the programme to, say, two years; on higher education fees; on fixing a cap or quota; agreeing a realistic visa cost; and explicitly ruling out the competence of the European Court of Justice.

To finish on a positive note, as we all have today, I will quote Oscar Wilde:

“Travel improves the mind wonderfully, and does away with all one’s prejudices”.


For the avoidance of doubt, I support a programme that allows thousands of young people to travel, work, study, play sport and live among people of different backgrounds and cultures in Europe. It will undoubtedly benefit and enrich their lives and the wider community—I myself have travelled throughout Europe for over 40 years—but it must be done for our national benefit, in our long-term, sustainable national interest and in a pragmatic and realistic way. For that reason, I find myself, unusually, supporting the Government’s position.

15:55

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, and very much enjoyed hearing his soft Scottish accent. In fact, we have heard a duo of Scottish accents.

We are discussing a hugely complicated area, as we have just heard, but the complications are essentially bureaucratic, economic and political. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Frost, talk about his perception of what the EU had offered. I take his point about our being able to go to only one country while others might be able to come here. However, I was also very pleased to hear him recognise, with all his knowledge and expertise in this area, that we need to do something for touring artists and musicians and, if we can, for youth mobility.

The ability to travel and experience the world is profoundly important. It is an important aspect of human behaviour and indeed civilisation. That is not complicated. Going back to the Renaissance and before, curiosity, that prerequisite of intellect, has led people to travel, learn and exchange ideas. Think of the Grand Tour—think of what Turner painted when he toured or what the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, found when she toured. Students of language improve their mastery by visiting and speaking to natives in their mother tongue. I doubt whether many noble Lords have not at some point improved their French, Italian, Spanish or German in France, Italy, Spain or Germany.

Perhaps I could refer to some personal reminiscences. My father, Lennox Berkeley, learned his trade as a composer when Maurice Ravel took him to Paris to study with Nadia Boulanger. That quintessentially English composer Ralph Vaughan Williams studied with Ravel and always paid tribute to what he learned. More recently, George Benjamin, one of our leading composers, immersed himself in French music in studies with Olivier Messiaen. Many British composers have benefited, as have I, from visits to IRCAM, Pierre Boulez’s research institute investigating electronic music in the Beaubourg centre. We need to protect our soft power and the voice of our leading artists is a soft power.

Talking of soft power, I am extremely concerned to hear that the British Council is heavily in debt, owing to loss of income from English language teaching during Covid. I hope the Government can reassure us that they will support the British Council, which not only helps with the exchange of ideas and helps us take works of art abroad—my opera with Ian McEwan would not have happened in Rome were it not for British Council support—but fosters the exchange of ideas.

The Government must try to make sure that the British Council does not sink beneath the waves of the English Channel. It is a really good advert for UK culture, as is the BBC World Service. I must tell noble Lords that I was informed today that it has had to institute some major cuts, despite Government investment.

Youth mobility is surely part of growing up, as we have heard. I fear that, if it is not protected and enhanced, it will become, like music education, the preserve of the well off. Reacting to initiatives from the EU, Priti Patel, the shadow Foreign Secretary, said that she thought youth mobility would be damaging to freedom of movement and that it would relax freedom of movement rules. What is the Government’s view of this? In my view, it is overly paranoid. Where would we be without our architects experiencing the work of European architects, without writers immersing themselves in foreign climes, or without cooks sampling international traditions? I would like to see us rejoin Erasmus; although it was quite right of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to talk in glowing terms of the Turing Scheme, it is not Erasmus and it is not reciprocal.

I want to see better rules about cabotage—these are utterly ridiculous. If you are taking a symphony orchestra or a ballet company abroad, you have to exchange your truck on entering Europe, and you then have to exchange it again after every two venues. That adds incomparably to the cost of touring.

There are things that we can do. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, intimated that there are things that could be tweaked, and that is a good start for all of us. As the right reverend Prelate said at the beginning of the debate, let us not get into well-rehearsed discussions about Brexit but let us see what we can do to improve where we are, and possibly move on from there. I want to see future generations have the opportunities that the right reverend Prelate mentioned. I want them to have the opportunities that we had—to go to Paris and to Berlin, and to discover things and exchange ideas with their counterparts in Europe. I hope that the Government may be able to move us in that direction.

16:02

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for his introduction to the debate. I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his excellent maiden speech. Along with him and the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, it is a very great pleasure for me to speak in this debate within a solid group of three Dundonians.

I will briefly touch on a few points: youth mobility schemes, which are different from those of freedom of movement; how these still benefit international culture as much as national economies; and the current availability of help to us from the 46-state human rights and think tank affiliation of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a prominent member. I am a recent chairman of its Education and Culture Committee.

Since Brexit, youth movement numbers from Europe to the United Kingdom have dramatically declined, as many have drawn our attention to. Clearly, this negative trend should be reversed. Does the Minister agree that, if accepted, recent European Commission proposals for a UK-EU youth mobility scheme would achieve two purposes—first, improving numbers, and, secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, and others have pointed out, so doing without causing freedom of movement?

Through the proposed EU scheme, individuals can come only for a limited period and thus are not permitted to settle in the United Kingdom, as conversely UK participants are equally restricted from so doing in European Union member states. Do the Government aim to secure a deal with the European Commission very soon? What are their current reservations? Which further concessions, if any, will they then seek to gain from the Commission?

Then there are the existing youth mobility schemes which the United Kingdom already has, and which we have heard about in this debate, with 12 different countries, including Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Iceland, Uruguay, Hong Kong and Taiwan. However, regarding the 27 European Union member states, bilateral youth mobility arrangements with any or all of them would be much less desirable than a working arrangement with all of them together through the European Union. That follows anyway, once there is a youth mobility deal with the European Commission itself. Only an EU-level approach will ensure that all member states are treated equally in respect of the mobility of young people to the United Kingdom. Does the Minister concur that this comparative assessment adds a further reason for the Government to secure a timely youth mobility deal with the European Union as soon as possible?

As the right reverend Prelate has implied, not only ought we to have a new youth mobility system with the European Union. We should also rejoin Erasmus. The Turin and Horizon schemes are to be welcomed, and I very much endorse what my noble friend Lord Jackson said in praising Horizon. Nevertheless, Erasmus goes much wider, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made this point, too. The cost of Erasmus has been complained about due to more students coming to the United Kingdom than United Kingdom students are going to Europe. Yet that is hardly surprising. For, along with the right reverend Prelate, all your Lordships will lament the continuing inadequacy of language skills in the United Kingdom. The cost of Erasmus is surely well worth paying for, if, to our advantage, it can help redress this and certain other learning deficiencies that the United Kingdom has when compared with different countries in Europe.

Regarding economic growth and complementing labour shortages, and in so far as these consequences can be assisted at all by increased youth mobility to the United Kingdom, the Government are right to describe them as secondary goals. The priority must be personal development arising from education and culture exchanges. However, as a useful by-product, youth mobility will clearly improve the United Kingdom economy, as it will serve to reduce our labour shortages. That is why the British Chambers of Commerce urges this to be borne in mind in order to create sensible long-term designs for youth mobility, where these are able to promote culture along with economic growth both here and elsewhere.

Does the Minister assent that it is exactly this duality of good cultural and economic outcomes together which sensible long-term youth mobility designs ought to contain? Does she believe that this should, therefore, become part of our forthcoming talks with the European Commission, equally so to accompany our application to rejoin Erasmus, hence as well shaping our plan of action to rejoin Erasmus this year, as soon as we can, after concluding a youth mobility deal with the European Union?

Fortunately, and in any case, we are already party to a number of Council of Europe initiatives related to youth mobility. These strengthen our hand for European Commission dealings, as they also do for applying to rejoin Erasmus. Over the last few decades, the United Kingdom has variously signed and ratified the European Agreement on Continued Payment of Scholarships to Students Studying Abroad; the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region; and the European Agreement on Travel by young Persons on Collective Passports between the Member Countries of the Council of Europe.

One action we have not so far signed is the European Agreement on Regulations governing the Movement of Persons between Member States of the Council of Europe. That would assist UK citizens, by indicating the travel and identity papers which they need for crossing between signatory states. We should sign this without too much further delay. Can the Minister please give an assurance that we will do so?

Not least, there is also the Council of Europe’s European Youth Foundation from which we benefit. This funds European youth activities to encourage peace, understanding and co-operation within Europe and globally, in a spirit of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Given that, save for only one of them, the United Kingdom is already party to these Council of Europe measures and their broad aims, I am quite sure that the Minister would consider that we must make full use of their powerful range and advocacy. We should do so when we talk to the European Commission and others about co-operating within a variety of constructive options.

For the more we adopt that approach, the more likely it becomes that we will achieve our objectives, including the immediate ones this year of rejoining Erasmus and improving youth mobility to the United Kingdom.

16:10

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate towards the end of this debate. Like other noble Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for introducing what is clearly a timely debate. As my noble friend Lady Featherstone has pointed out, there have been debates in the other place initiated by our honourable friends James MacCleary MP, who had a Private Member’s Bill about youth mobility, and Sarah Olney, the Member for Richmond Park, who had a debate on exactly the same topic yesterday.

On these Benches, we have a very clear sense that youth mobility matters. Unlike perhaps the other Benches, we are also absolutely united in believing that youth mobility matters as a way of strengthening our relations with our European partners. I am very glad that I am not having to summate either from the Official Opposition Front Bench or the Government Front Bench, because I suspect that both are a little more constrained by their party lines and in some cases by the fact that their Back Benches are so completely at odds over how far they believe youth mobility should be part of a wider package—or not.

It is always the convention to congratulate a new Peer on their maiden speech. As others have done today, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Moraes. His maiden speech was quite different from so many. It was not self-aggrandising in any way; it was one of the most humble speeches but one that also made very clear the important role that he played in the European Parliament and the role that he is going to play in your Lordships’ House. Not only is the noble Lord very welcome but his maiden speech is also one that we will all remember.

Youth mobility is hugely important but was dramatically reduced for young people when we left the European Union. The right reverend Prelate is right that today is not the day to rehearse the rights and wrongs of Brexit, but it is the time to think about what we can do to enhance the opportunities for our young people. I think I will be unique this afternoon in declaring an interest. Unlike my namesake, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, I clearly would not fit into any youth mobility scheme. I note that even the youngest Member of your Lordships’ House would be pushing it to participate in any proposed youth mobility scheme by the time His Majesty’s Government get around to agreeing to the idea if the cap is going to be the age of 30. My interests lie in the fact that I am a professor at Cambridge University and a non-executive director of BIMM University Limited, so I have higher education interests which obviously link to the mobility of young people.

Like that of my noble friend Lady Featherstone, my life was very much changed by the opportunity to travel when I was young. In my case, I went on a French exchange. It was exactly the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, described; many of us will have been to other countries on school exchanges. In those days, you did not get just a five-year passport for a child or a 10-year passport for an adult; you could have a one-year, temporary, paper passport. As I was so anxious about going, that is what I asked for—aged 14—just in case I did not really like being abroad or I felt that it was a bit too much and never wanted to go again. However, I found that going to another European country was empowering, and I am still close to the family that I exchanged with. It was an opportunity to learn modern foreign languages in a way that people find so much harder in the 2020s. Like other noble Lords, I think that we should consider ensuring that we have as many opportunities as possible for young people—ideally those between 18 and 30, as well as school groups and other individuals—to go to other European countries without going through excessive bureaucratic procedures.

A formal youth mobility scheme is clearly desirable. What it would look like is open for negotiation. We have heard today some anxiety that what the European Commission seems to be proposing might have too many constraints. However, surely the purpose of a negotiation is that each side says, “This is our starting point”, and then at a certain point, you find a compromise. The fact that the European Commission has put forward some ideas is clearly welcome.

What is less welcome—indeed, it is rather worrying—is the fact that His Majesty’s Government have been talking about a reset with the European Union. At one level, it sounds wonderful: that we need to rebuild our relations and trust. However, it leaves me, leading from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, having to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Frost. He talked about the reset being rather vague and said that, at the moment, we have no idea what it means. We know that the Foreign Secretary has been talking about closer co-operation in security and defence. If we listen to what is being said in Brussels or Berlin, there is clearly also an interest in the sense that, if the United Kingdom wants to build up a security and defence relationship with the European Union, youth mobility might be seen as part of a quid pro quo.

We understand that the Minister will not give us a running commentary and that she will clearly have been told that she has to read out the standard memo: that we are not going back into the customs union or the single market, and we are not rejoining the European Union—all the things that noble Lords know that Front-Bench Ministers are told to say. The mantra seems to be inevitable, almost regardless of the question. I do not expect her to say any of that, but can she say whether His Majesty’s Government are open to thinking about youth mobility? Will they listen to the calls from her noble friend Lord Moraes, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and others about the importance of youth mobility for our young people? As my noble friend Lady Featherstone pointed out, for UK citizens, the opportunity to study, to work and to travel is hugely important.

One of the words that has come up in this debate is “reciprocity”, but that is one of the things that is missing from the Turing scheme. However effective the scheme might be for outward mobility, what we lack is the idea that students will come back and study in the UK. We heard from certain noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that there may be a concern about migration figures. However, a youth mobility scheme is not about migration. This is time-limited, and if we are to be part of a negotiation, numbers could be limited, too. There are all sorts of ways in which a youth mobility scheme could be reciprocal. That would have benefits not just for our young people but for soft power.

Indeed, at Oral Questions this morning, if I noted correctly what the Minister said, she agreed that a youth mobility scheme is not a return to free movement. If that is indeed the Government’s position—the Minister is nodding—can she give us some hope that the Government might be open to a mobility scheme? It would strengthen UK soft power—like, I suspect, many noble Lords, I had not heard about the new soft power council that the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, told us about. If the Government are concerned about soft power, exchanges are one of the ways to help that. International higher education is one aspect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, pointed out the other day, in response to a question from me—except my question was not about international higher education, it was much more about exchanges.

What we have seen in the past is that international higher education, but also places such as Sandhurst or the Royal College of Defence Studies, gives the opportunity for people to come temporarily and they go back to their home countries with a better understanding of the United Kingdom, very often having exchanged with future leaders. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, today’s young people are tomorrow’s leaders. Engaging in reciprocal exchanges gives our young people the opportunity to make contacts that will mean that we are better able to work with our partners, whether they are across the channel or the Atlantic, in the future.

There are many reasons why youth mobility is an important issue that should be considered on its own merits, in addition to being viewed as something that will help us foster stronger relations with the European Union. Does the Minister agree?

16:21

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for securing this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his maiden speech. I also flag that I greatly enjoyed hearing about the tour of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone—from Oxford Polytechnic to travelling in Europe to politics.

I believe all noble Lords would agree that our country’s youth are our future. We have heard much talk this week of the importance of economic growth, but long-term growth will be achieved only if we nurture and cherish those young people who are the future leaders of tomorrow. Educational opportunities, including those for travel and exchange, are vital for Britain’s youth if they are to flourish. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, mentioned the existing bilateral youth mobility agreements, as did my noble friends Lord Kirkhope and Lord Jackson.

To facilitate such educational exchanges, the UK already has bilateral youth mobility agreements with 12 countries. These are reciprocal arrangements that benefit young people from both countries involved. We also have the Turing and Horizon schemes. However, it is equally important that we ensure that such bilateral schemes are balanced with the needs of the UK. Therefore, these schemes have strict caps on the numbers of people who are able to obtain visas under them and quotas to ensure that the UK retains complete control over the numbers of people entering the country through such visas.

Many noble Lords have raised in the debate the proposal for a new EU-UK youth mobility scheme put forward by the European Commission last year, but His Majesty’s Official Opposition believe that there are several issues with this. First, an EU-UK youth mobility scheme would pose challenges to British universities. The Commission’s proposal included provision for equal treatment between EU and UK citizens in respect of higher education tuition fees. Currently, the level of tuition fees for international students for an undergraduate degree varies between £11,400 and £38,000 per year, and the institutions involved derive approximately 20% of their revenue from international students’ fees. If EU students were to pay home fees, this could place a further strain on the finances of universities, many of which are already struggling.

Jamie Arrowsmith, head of the international arm of Universities UK, told the trade publication Research Professional News that an EU-UK youth mobility scheme would be

“difficult for the Government to agree to”

given the financial situation of British universities. He continued:

“At a time when tuition fees don’t cover the full cost of teaching … it’s difficult to see how this could work without exacerbating concerns over financial sustainability or imposing a significant cost on the government”.


Secondly, there are concerns surrounding numbers. Home Office statistics indicate that, during the year ending June 2024, 24,091 grants were made through the current youth mobility scheme. That would appear manageable, but with the ONS recently stating that the UK population will rise to 72.5 million by 2032, it is important that we take a measured approach to the number of people coming to the UK. The country voted to leave the EU. We must therefore be careful that we do not enter into any arrangement that may lead to freedom of movement being unintentionally implemented. An EU-wide youth mobility scheme, as the European Commission called for, would potentially lead to that.

We have also heard much talk of the Government’s proposed EU reset, which was mentioned by my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Jackson. The 2024 Labour manifesto stated that Labour is:

“confident in our status outside of the EU, but a leading nation in Europe once again, with an improved and ambitious relationship with our European partners”.

The Prime Minister has stated that the Government do not have plans to introduce such a scheme, but he has not ruled it out completely. Given that they have made so much of their reset with the EU and that the European Union appears to be pushing for a youth mobility scheme to be part of any new deal with the UK, how can we be sure that the Government do not agree to something that may see freedom of movement reintroduced? Can the Minister confirm that His Majesty’s Government will not enter into an agreement with the EU that introduces an open-ended youth mobility scheme?

Finally, we should have a greater focus on domestic opportunities for our young people. There is a plethora of enriching experiences from which they can benefit at home, such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and the cadet force, which I referred to in today’s third Oral Question. As an example, studies have confirmed that being on the cadet force improves school attendance, improves mental and physical well-being and results in enhanced employability. While the report did not make a monetary estimate of the total benefits of being a cadet, it estimated that the cost savings from a reduced use of mental health services and better educational outcomes were worth around £95 million a year. For that reason, we ask the Minister why the Government are removing the National Citizen Service and why the Department for Education is ceasing its funding of the cadet expansion programme.

I hope all noble Lords agree that, if we want our young generation truly to thrive, we should be strengthening these programmes and others like them, not removing them or cutting their funding.

16:28

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for securing this debate on the case for a new youth mobility scheme with European countries. I echo the warm welcome across your Lordships’ House to my noble friend Lord Moraes and congratulate him on his maiden speech. It is clear that he has a wealth of knowledge and experience to contribute to your Lordships’ House on this and other significant issues. He already has many friends here from his previous career, not least at the European Parliament. I note that, with my noble friend Lord Watson and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, he also joins an impressive group of Dundonians.

We have heard a lot of interesting, impassioned speeches about the opportunities of the reset and youth mobility. I will address these points in turn but, as someone married to an EEA citizen, I first thank the right reverend Prelate for noting that Europe extends beyond the EU. As someone who sees the significance of the right to vote and to obtain a passport, I cannot quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that settled status is de facto citizenship. However, it is significant, not least because my husband got his settled status just two weeks ago and we celebrated that as a major life moment.

I thought it would be useful to update Peers on the progress that the Government have made on the reset of relations with the EU so far, not least as this debate falls the day before the fifth anniversary of the UK leaving the EU. As the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, noted, this was following a democratic vote where citizens were asked whether or not they wanted to leave the EU. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, will take some comfort from the fact that this Government are clear that we want to reset the relationship with our European friends and neighbours. We will not, however, be relitigating Brexit—a point referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, in her speech. However, I will say that the Government are committed to delivering an improved and ambitious relationship with our European partners within the EU and beyond. We do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that there was not a need to do this. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, that keeping the red lines we committed to—our election promises—is somehow not brave: in other words, cowardly and wrong. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, implied that I do not agree with the Government on this and am merely sort of parroting words—I paraphrase, but I should make it very clear that I do agree with the Government’s position and am proud to restate it. I am clear that we should not use our majority in the other place to break our manifesto commitments.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, asked me to set out the objectives of the reset, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, also spoke about the reset. The noble Baroness is right that I am not going to give a running commentary. The President of the European Commission and the Prime Minister have agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and UK, putting it on a more solid, stable footing. The Prime Minister met with European Commission President von der Leyen in the autumn to agree to strengthen our relationship, and they met again on 7 November at the EPC in Budapest. The Foreign Secretary attended the Foreign Affairs Council in October and the Chancellor addressed the Eurogroup meeting in December. The Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations, Nick Thomas-Symonds, has been taking discussions forward with his counterpart, Maroš Šefčovič.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, asked whether a youth mobility scheme would be discussed with EU leaders next week. As noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the Prime Minister will travel to Brussels on 3 February to attend an informal EU Council meeting at the invitation of Council President António Costa. In response to the noble Baroness’s question, this discussion is expected to focus on the geostrategic challenges facing Europe.

We have agreed to hold regular UK-EU summits at leader level to review progress, starting in the first half of this year. In particular, we want to work closely to address wider global challenges including economic headwinds, geopolitical competition, irregular migration, climate change and energy prices, which pose fundamental challenges to our shared values and provide the strategic driver for stronger co-operation. We will work across the three pillars of the UK-EU reset: safety, security and the economy. We recognise that delivering new agreements will take time, but we are ambitious, have clear priorities and want to move forward at pace.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, asked about consultations on the EU reset with young people. As we move forward, we recognise the importance of maintaining an effective dialogue with industry leaders, trade unions and civil society through a variety of means. This includes the formal channels such as the UK TCA domestic advisory group and the Civil Society Forum.

My noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie asked about the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. Before I turn to the question of mobility, which I will come on to shortly, I want to make it clear to my noble friend that the convention is not a customs union or an EU scheme. We are always looking at ways to reduce barriers to trade in the EU, within our red lines, as this is essential to driving growth at home. This is an option and it is right and responsible that we look at it, but we are not seeking necessarily to participate in it at the present time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, asked whether everything was up and running in relation to electronic travel authorisation, which will be rolled out to European nationals later this year. I can assure her that the rollout started in October 2023 and is proceeding well. If there are other points relating to borders that she wishes to raise with me, I am happy to pick that up after this debate.

Turning now to the question of youth mobility, I want to be clear in response to the right reverend Prelate’s question that this is not the same as freedom of movement. That came up at several points throughout the debate. This Government recognise the value of people-to-people connections and of schemes which give young people the opportunity to experience different cultures of work. The noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Featherstone, made this point very powerfully.

These opportunities exist in various forms internationally. Working holiday programmes offered by countries such as France and Chile, scholarship schemes such as Chevening and Marshall in the UK, the Australia Awards, Fulbright in the US and the Japanese Government’s scholarship scheme are other examples of mobility programmes. There is also the Turing scheme, which I will speak about in more detail in a moment, and the Taith scheme in Wales.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, made clear, some training or education institutions have their own schemes. My own year studying abroad was part of my degree course; it was not facilitated by Erasmus. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, on the importance of modern languages—a point also made by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. We lose something if we do not have an ability as a country to look beyond our borders and learn foreign languages. That is a strongly held personal view that I have expressed previously in this House.

To be clear to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, the EU has not put forward a proposal to us on youth mobility at the moment. There was some potential misunderstanding on the part of a number of noble Lords that this is an active proposal that is on the table. It has not been put forward at the moment.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Lords, Lord Moraes and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, talked about a youth mobility scheme, which differs from free movement in several ways. A youth mobility scheme would require an application. It is time-bound. There are age restrictions. It operates on quotas generally and is subject to charges such as a visa application fee and the immigration health surcharge. The free movement provisions were unconditional for those who were entitled to access them.

A number of noble Lords mentioned Turing. As noble Lords are aware, the Turing scheme is the UK Government’s programme for students to study and work anywhere in the world. Since 2021, the scheme has helped tens of thousands of UK students to develop new skills, gain international experience and boost their employability, both in the EU and beyond. Turing provides more funding to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, so they can participate in international placements, breaking down barriers to opportunity.

For the 2024-25 academic year, education providers and other eligible organisations from across the UK have been allocated over £105 million to send more than 45,000 students on study and work placements across the globe. I am pleased to say that around 53% of those opportunities will be for participants from disadvantaged backgrounds. Those are not small numbers, in my view.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, and others referred to the issues facing touring artists, soft power and Creative Europe. Noble Lords have highlighted the benefits of mobility arrangements for musicians, choirs and artists, as well as for the wider creative sector. We are working with the creative and cultural sectors to ensure that our world-leading sectors can continue to promote growth and enrich lives at home and abroad.

As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to supporting our touring artists in performing and promoting themselves around the world. That is why we are engaging with the European Commission and EU member states to explore how best to improve arrangements for touring without seeing a return to free movement. We have not proposed any plans for Creative Europe. We want to look forward, not backwards, working together on shared priorities and global challenges.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and others mentioned the UK Soft Power Council. The Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport are co-chairing the council, which is made up from experts from the foreign policy and soft power sectors, including culture, the creative industries, media and sport. The first meeting of the council was on 15 January. The council will advise the Government on a strategy, a new campaign, and a strategic calendar of domestic and international events. We agree with noble Lords who made it clear that our soft power in these areas is one of our strengths in international relations.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke about the issues facing the British Council. We remain committed to ensuring the financial stability of the British Council, and our continued funding underlines our support for its important work in promoting the English language, UK arts and culture, and education. I hope he finds that reassuring.

Separate from Turing, our bilateral youth mobility schemes provide a range of valuable cultural exchange opportunities, offering young people from the UK and partner countries the chance to experience life in another country and to make lifelong ties and friendships overseas. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Smith of Newnham, spoke about school trips. I did not have such a positive experience of my own French exchange at school, but that did not put me off travelling later in life, which was good. The Government are committed to providing enriching opportunities for our students and young people to experience other countries and cultures. The previous Government agreed measures with France in 2023 that make travel for school groups between the UK and France easier.

Such schemes and programmes exist the world over because they have well-documented cultural and social benefits. As the noble Lord, Lord Frost, highlighted, successive Governments in the UK have supported youth mobility schemes, from the very first youth mobility scheme in 2008 with Canada to the agreements with India and Uruguay in 2023 and 2024 respectively. As the noble Earls, Lord Effingham and Lord Dundee, noted, the United Kingdom already offers and operates a number of bilateral youth mobility schemes with European countries such as Iceland and Andorra, as well as with a number of our global partners such as India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As of last autumn, these schemes have attracted 24,000 participants to the UK who have come here to work, study or simply to visit and spend some time in the UK. That is a testament to the value of these opportunities.

With regard to a prospective scheme with the EU, the Government have been clear that we do not have any plans for a youth mobility scheme, but we will look at the EU’s proposals on a range of issues. The Government have been elected on a commitment not to return to free movement. In response to the question from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, we will not be returning to free movement. This objective must be respected, but it does not diminish the value of the schemes that we have discussed in your Lordships’ House today. We are committed to our promises and to delivering for the British people.

16:43

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I thank all Members of your Lordships’ House for their contributions to this debate, which has been wide-ranging and fascinating. I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his excellent maiden speech. I am sure he is going to make many valuable contributions to the work of your Lordships’ House over the coming years.

It is clear to all of us that this is a subject which is going up the agenda; it is not going to go away. This is so important to our young people. We have all managed to resist, by and large, rerunning arguments about the EU or Brexit, because we need to try to find new ways forward. As always in a debate in your Lordships’ House, I find myself having learned a whole lot of new information. Some of the facts, for example, on university fees I was not aware of. I realise, as always when we look at the seemingly simple problems we want to solve, that often there are things we have not considered. That is certainly true for me.

However, there is a consensus that there is a real urgency to try to see how we can take this forward for some areas, particularly, for example, for musicians and artists, and how we can perhaps build and develop Turing and Horizon; how we can look to develop other bilateral agreements; and how, with the EU reset, we can take every opportunity to find as many win-win solutions as we can to provide as many opportunities as possible for our young people to be able to move into other cultures and to learn—whatever we call it; let us keep away from some of the phrases we have used. We just need to try to find movement on this.

I am hugely grateful for all the contributions and I look forward to working in the future with Members of your Lordships’ House as we try to develop this further, for the sake of our young people and our place in the world.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 4.46 pm.