House of Lords

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Monday 12 January 2026

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Introduction: Lord Doyle

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

14:38

Matthew Leo Doyle, having been created Baron Doyle, of Great Barford in the County of Bedfordshire, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top and Lord Liddle, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Lord Duvall

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

14:43

Leonard Lloyd Duvall, OBE, having been created Baron Duvall, of Woolwich in the Royal Borough of Greenwich, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Lord Harris of Haringey, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Election of Lord Speaker

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:50

The Clerk of the Parliaments announced the result of the election for the office of Lord Speaker. Details of the votes cast will be made available in the Printed Paper Office. The successful candidate was Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.

Message from the King

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

14:50

[The Lord Chamberlain Lord Benyon]

My Lords, I have the honour to notify your Lordships that His Majesty the King, having been informed that your Lordships have elected Lord Forsyth of Drumlean to be Lord Speaker, has pleasure in confirming your Lordships’ choice of him as your Speaker.

Election of Lord Speaker

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

14:51

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on being elected our Lord Speaker. I look forward to working closely with him in his new role when he takes up the post next month. I know he will represent the House rigorously and will act robustly—as he is known to—in the role for Members across your Lordships’ House. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Hers was a dedicated campaign and candidacy. Both candidates were an absolute credit to your Lordships’ House and I thank them. The campaign process was courteous and dignified, showing that, despite being the unelected House, we can run a good election. I also extend thanks to all the House staff involved in the election, particularly those in the Journal Office, the Hansard Society and the digital team for supporting all Members to take part and making sure that a right and proper procedure was followed.

As usual, time will be made available for the House to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McFall when he leaves the Woolsack, and I have promised him, under pain of retaliation, that we will not be paying tribute to him today and pre-empting the tributes we will pay later, but I know that the whole House will want to thank him for what has been really sterling service to the House for so many years. Thank you.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely endorse everything the Leader of the House has said on our behalf. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Forsyth—and he is my friend. However, I remember that, when I first became a Minister in your Lordships’ House, it fell to my noble friend to ask the first Question. I was very pleased and went up to him and said, “I’m glad it’s you asking a Question” and he said, “Yes, yes, good”. And, my Lords, he asked me a right bastard of a Question! I am sorry: that may not be parliamentary language. He asked me a really difficult Question. I said to him afterwards, “So what’s going on?” He gave me that seraphic smile and said, “Well, you did very well”.

I only tell that story to show that I know my noble friend, as the Leader of the House said, is rigorous in his scrutiny. He was as rigorous in his scrutiny of us on our side when we were in Government as he is here. He is a great parliamentarian and will be a wonderful servant of your Lordships’ House in his new role, I have no doubt.

Like the Leader, I would like to pay a most sincere tribute to—if I may say—my noble friend Lady Bull, who conducted herself with her habitual decorum and charm. I hope she will take from this election a sense of the respect and affection in which she is held. The Cross Benches are a vital part of this House, and long may that remain.

Like others, I accept the strictures that there should be no tributes to the Lord Speaker today. I regret, however, that I will not be present on the day assigned for tributes, for personal reasons. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I take 30 seconds to express my deepest sense of friendship, affection and gratitude for his service as Lord Speaker, as chair of the commission and in so many other ways. I worked with him as both Leader of the House and Leader of the Opposition, and he treated me in the same way on both occasions. He is a consummate servant of the House, in often not easy circumstances, and some of that may come out in the tributes, along with, in particular and as we all know, his love for and dedication to his wife. He is an outstanding servant of the House and will continue to be so for the rest of the month. I hope he will accept my apologies that I will not be present on the assigned day but will know that these brief words are no less deeply and sincerely meant.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I too give warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his election and an efficiently run election. I suspect that Ministers of all party persuasions will feel a slight relief that he will no longer be asking those types of questions of any Minister. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for her candidacy and the way in which she conducted it with a sense of integrity, commitment and optimism: the House thanks her for that.

We wish the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, well in his work on the Woolsack, and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I can be forgiven for rather liking the Caledonian continuity in the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, following the noble Lord, Lord McFall. They also have another thing in common: a deeply held passion for parliamentary accountability. Their politics are based on ideas, crafting an argument, shrewdness and, yes, wit. I know that all his estimable skills are going to be put to good use in his service to the House and we wish him well for it.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I am very much looking forward on the commission to seeing the forensic skills of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, as he questions the many people we have to question. I dare say that matters such as the door will have a very rough ride indeed. It is a little hard for us sometimes to recruit Members to the Cross Bench, but I am much looking forward to his arrival in five years’ time. That will be wonderful, and I will reserve everything that I have to say about the many warm and happy memories that I have of the Lord Speaker.

I finish by turning to my noble friend and colleague who ran the very finest of campaigns. I am very glad I am going to be able to carry on sitting next to her; she brings much-needed glamour to our Front Bench.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, I have known and worked alongside the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for many years, since we represented neighbouring constituencies in the House of Commons in the 1980s. Michael was Conservative MP for Stirling, on the east bank of Loch Lomond, while I was a Labour representative for Dumbarton on the west side. It is fair to say that we did not see eye to eye on every issue. When there was turbulence in the waters of Loch Lomond, locals would say, “Aye, that’s McFall and Forsyth rowing again”. But, although we locked horns many times, I always recognised Michael as an honourable and distinguished public servant, dedicated to the good governance of our nation and the well-being of its people. That impression has been further cemented by his work here in the House of Lords, particularly as chair of the Economic Affairs Committee and the Financial Services Regulation Committee. After more than 40 years’ service in both Houses of Parliament, I am sure the noble Lord will find, as I have done, that the post of Lord Speaker is both the most rewarding job of his career and the honour of a lifetime.

I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for putting themselves forward as candidates to serve this House and congratulate them on the constructive way they conducted the election, and I also thank all those involved in the administration of the contest. But above all I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his election and offer him my best wishes and support in his new role as Lord Speaker.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for these very flattering tributes from all the Front Benches. My father would have been astonished and my mother would have believed them. I am overwhelmed and slightly humbled, believe it or not—I do not know why noble Lords are all laughing—by the confidence and trust that have been put in me by those who supported my election. Not all noble Lords voted for me and, for those who did not vote for me, I would just like to say that I completely understand why. That is because I had in my opponent a formidable candidate and I echo all the words that have been said about the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.

The Clerk of the House was very kind and told both of us the result on Friday, so we have had quite an interesting weekend trying not to tell anyone what was happening. I rang the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and she has very kindly agreed to continue to support me as Deputy Speaker. We will work together to deliver what were so many common issues across the Benches—that you can be sure of.

I am sorry we are not allowed to say anything at this stage about the Lord Speaker. I think he has done a brilliant job and it is a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to build on the great work that he has done on increasing accountability in the House and moving us forward. I look forward to serving all noble Lords, whether they voted for me or not, with pleasure, and I will try to avoid being political—which for people like me must be a bit like coming off heroin as an addict.

Independent Water Commission

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:01

Asked by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to introduce legislation giving effect to the recommendations of the Independent Water Commission chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe.

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

My Lords, the Government have carefully considered the Independent Water Commission’s final recommendations and will respond in a forthcoming White Paper. A new water reform Bill will then follow, during this Parliament, to bring forward root-and-branch reform that secures better outcomes for customers, protects the environment, stimulates investment and restores trust and accountability. Together with steps already taken by the Government, this will mark the most fundamental reset to our water system in a generation.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, among the recommendations made by Sir Jon Cunliffe were proposals to have mandatory statutory provisions for sustainable drains and the end to the automatic right to connect to main sewers. Given the outage and the water leaks in Kent and Sussex, whereby tens of thousands of homes have been without water, have the Government made an assessment, given that that area has had the most dramatic housebuilding development, of whether the fact that there are no statutory provisions for SUDS or end to the automatic right to connect to main sewers has contributed to the loss of water in those cases?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I know that the noble Baroness has taken a long interest in SUDS, and I want to reassure her and the House that the Government are strongly committed to improving the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. In December 2024, we made changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to support increased delivery of SUDS; the new planning policy framework now requires all developments to utilise SUDS where they could have drainage impacts appropriate to the nature and scale of the development. In June last year, the Government introduced new national standards to make clear that SUDS should be used to cope with the change in climatic conditions and deliver wider benefits. We are now consulting on a revised National Planning Policy Framework, including for flood risk and sustainable drainage systems, and separately on proposals to increase the adoption of shared amenities with guidance to ensure lifetime maintenance.

As the noble Baroness has raised the current situation on the ground in Kent and parts of Sussex, I want to make it clear that restoring supply must be the company’s priority and every possible measure must be taken to protect vulnerable customers and ensure that those affected receive decent and proper compensation. To that extent, Defra Ministers are meeting daily with the chief executive of the water company and local MPs to reinforce the fact that this level of service failure cannot continue.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, given the commitment from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, on 20 November to publish a White Paper by the end of last year, does the Minister now regret the assurances given to those of us who pressed for urgent legislation to protect chalk streams—protections abandoned at the time by the Conservatives? What assurances can he now give that these vital measures will be delivered without further delay?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

When we are delivering a once-in-a-generation reset of a system that has not been touched in, frankly, decades—in the last 14 years of the last Government—it is important that we make sure that we get the reforms right. If that means that there is a delay in publishing the White Paper, it is better to make sure that we measure twice and cut once. It is important that we provide certainty to customers, the industry, regulators and, indeed, investors in making that delay. That does not mean that we have not been doing anything. There has been constant dialogue with key stakeholders, including companies and investors, throughout the development of the White Paper. Obviously, we have also already legislated through the Water (Special Measures) Act to make sure that we a have a really strong regulatory regime. It has already seen over £4 million in bonuses to company executives banned by Ofwat in six out of the nine water companies. So, it is not as if action has not been taken.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in considering the response of the Government, my noble friend the Minister mentioned the chief executive of South East Water. He will be aware of the criticism that the chief executive failed to show up for many days when the crisis hit Tunbridge Wells and that, at a recent Select Committee hearing, he gave what the Drinking Water Inspectorate politely described as misleading evidence. In the response to the review, can we be assured that, when chief executives behave in such a despicable way, they will be removed from their position?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I say to my noble friend that Defra takes this matter with the utmost seriousness. It simply cannot be the case that people are left to go days on end without an adequate water supply. As I have said, we will take every step to make sure that the chief executive and the executives in the water company are held to account on delivery. As I said in response to the previous question, we have already taken action to legislate and toughen up the regulatory framework. As a consequence, we have already seen, in six out of nine water companies, bonuses banned. We are willing to take action. I am not going to set out the exact details of the White Paper now, but it is important that water company executives realise that they are there to serve their customers, not simply to feather their nest.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, this is a useful and substantive report that I welcome—in particular, its suggestion to merge the regulators into one super-regulator, which we certainly need. The underlying problem, which it identifies, is the need for long-term investment. I was surprised, therefore, that there is very little reference to the regulator needing skills in the financial engineering which has bedevilled the way that water companies have been run in the past. There is one reference, on page 197, to needing financial skills, but that is about it, I think. Does that give the Minister cause for concern?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Lord is certainly right to recognise the importance of the recommendation by Sir Jon, in the commission report, of establishing a single powerful regulator for the entire water sector that will stand on the side of customers. He is right that the new regulator needs a wide range of skills, not only in terms of knowledge and understanding of the environment, customer service and regulation but also in terms of financial incentives. In the price review of 2024, we have seen the commitment to more than £100 billion of future investment in water infrastructure. In fact, since Ofwat announced its final determination, water companies have already raised over £2 billion in new equity investment. There is work going on, but he is absolutely right that there is no point having a single powerful regulator that is not able to regulate across the land and across the entire water sector’s activity.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, does the Minister understand the depth of disappointment that a lot of environmental campaigners have felt because the remit did not include taking water out of private hands? There is a general feeling of absolute anger that public ownership was not considered. Does the Minister accept that? I include Feargal Sharkey and myself among those environmental campaigners who are horribly disappointed.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am afraid to say to the noble Baroness that I do not accept that there was widespread public anger that nationalisation was not used as a solution. We have committed to a once-in-a-generation reset of the water sector; we have been very clear that we have no intention of nationalising it. It would cost around £100 billion to do that, it would be immensely disruptive and it would create more problems and more costs than solutions. As a Government, we are determined, as we have already demonstrated through the legislation of the Water (Special Measures) Act and the hard work we are doing with Sir Jon Cunliffe, to get a system that works on the side of consumers and on the side of the environment and not worry about structural nostrums.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

The Cunliffe report highlighted eroded trust in water industry regulators among stakeholders and has recommended a new integrated regulator. Can the Minister confirm that this new regulator will be fully accountable to the Secretary of State and, by extension, will be fully exposed to parliamentary scrutiny?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Absolutely. One of the key parts of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s report is around the importance of setting a strategic direction for the industry, and one of the things that are set out there is the importance of that ministerial and strategic direction. I imagine that the development of that will of course involve both Houses of Parliament. However, it is really important to understand that, in other areas of accountability, one of the important things that Sir Jon recommended was ending the years of water companies marking their own homework by introducing open monitoring. It is important that we see accountability and transparency across the piece.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has once again mentioned the £100 billion possible cost of bringing water into public ownership. That is a bogus number, and no Minister has publicly engaged in any debate about it. The Government had a chance to silence critics by asking the Water Commission to consider public ownership as an option and independently calculate its cost. Why did the Government not ask the Water Commission to do that?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

At the risk of repeating myself, we were very clear as a Government that we had no intention of nationalising the water sector. The £100 billion figure is not bogus, because it is based on the regulated capital value of the water sector. My noble friend has to remember that it is not just the capitalised value of the companies as they currently exist but the equity and the debt that you would be bringing on to the books if you were to nationalise. Defra has provided a comprehensive note on its website that explains that calculation; I gently suggest to my noble friend that he has a look at that to understand the workings.

Defending Democracy Taskforce

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:12

Asked by

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent progress the Defending Democracy Taskforce has made on protecting democratic institutions.

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

The taskforce is driving forward a whole-of-government response to the threats to our democratic institutions. Recent progress includes developing new legislation to address the abhorrent harassment and intimidation experienced by elected representatives, the provision of personal cyber security advice, and the rollout of new National Protective Security Authority guidance to help protect those working in our democracy.

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister. It seems wholly appropriate to have a Question this afternoon on defending democracy and democratic elections, although that is, of course, entirely coincidental. The Defending Democracy Taskforce is the main mechanism for tackling foreign interference in our elections. It is concerning that there has been no action to date by Ofcom under the foreign interference offence in the Online Safety Act. In this fast-moving arena, will my noble friend the Minister consider enhancing the status of the Defending Democracy Taskforce by bringing an annual Statement to Parliament about its work and key findings, and, as a signal of intent prior to any elections, consider publishing an overview of key threats identified to date to the UK’s electoral processes?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes some valuable points. The Security Minister, the honourable Dan Jarvis, has already announced in November that he is co-ordinating a cross-government, counterpolitical interference and espionage action plan, which will report back to Parliament, in due course, from Ministers across government. A significant number of achievements have been made to date. I will take away my noble friend’s suggestions and report back to her in due course.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, on 30 July, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published its report on transnational repression. Can the Minister tell us what weight he attaches to its conclusion that the UK has become a hunting ground for authoritarian regimes around the world to harass and intimidate, and its finding that the Government are failing to provide adequate protections? In particular, what has he got to say about those Hong Kong residents in the UK, such as Chloe Cheung, aged 20, who has had a 1 million Hong Kong dollar bounty placed on her head? What does he have to say about the evidence we received about Iranian pro-democracy activists in the United Kingdom, who have even had their lives put at risk by Iranian state agents?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is not acceptable for foreign nations to threaten individuals who happen to reside in the United Kingdom, and I condemn any actions taken by foreign nations to do that. As I have said to the noble Lord on a number of occasions previously, if there are particular individuals who wish to draw concerns to the attention of the Home Office, we will examine those concerns and look at how we can protect those individuals.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the last question, the Defending Democracy Taskforce has the explicit aim of protecting the democratic integrity of the United Kingdom. Given that Reform UK’s former leader in Wales has been sentenced for taking bribes from Russia, and that Iranian bots have been found to be behind thousands of pro-Scottish independence social media accounts, what are the Government doing—indeed, what can they do—to deal with and counter such threats to the integrity of the union by the Russian and Iranian regimes?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Mr Gill is in prison now because the counterterrorism police of the security services in the United Kingdom brought evidence together, sufficient for prosecution, which proved he was acting as a traitor to this country by promoting information on behalf of a foreign nation and that he had taken money to do that. That is not acceptable and should send a warning to all who would potentially undertake that type of activity in the future. We keep under constant review potential threats and misinformation. We will continue to take action through the Online Safety Act and the review that my honourable friend the Security Minister is currently undertaking. Foreign interference in our democratic process is not acceptable and Mr Gill’s jail sentence is evidence that we will take action.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I understand why some of the investigations that the Defending Democracy Taskforce is undertaking have to be kept highly confidential, but if we are going to defend democracy effectively, the public and parliamentarians need to be well informed as to the nature of the threats. I understand that Sir Philip Rycroft’s review of foreign financial influence and interference in UK elections, due in March, is to be presented to the Security Minister. Before this House has the elections Bill, which we expect in the next few months, it would be helpful for us to be informed as fully as possible of what that report says. If much of it is not allowed to be published for the public, can parliamentarians at least have as full a briefing as possible?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is important that any information that comes from Sir Philip Rycroft’s review or from the separate review from the Security Minister is analysed. There will always obviously be restrictions on the information we can put into the public domain, but I will take away what the noble Lord has requested and find a mechanism to ensure that, for the information we can put into the public domain, that is done.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister assure me that the Government are looking carefully at the election monitoring work of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, especially with regard to combatting foreign interference? I am sure that a lot of this work needs to be done and co-ordinated on an international level. Can he further assure me that, if legislation is needed, which I think it will be, it can be introduced quickly so that it can be effective by the next general election?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to say that those who help support election monitoring overseas do a valuable job. I know that she has recently been undertaking election monitoring in Moldova. It is extremely important that the integrity of elections, not just in the United Kingdom, is maintained in the face of threats on the ground and disinformation. We are examining whether legislation is required, which my honourable friend the Security Minister is currently undertaking. If there are areas where action is needed, it is important that we address those speedily.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister and the House will know from the media—it was reported in the press last week—about the threats of intimidation and serious violence that were aimed at the former Labour MP for Blackburn, Kate Hollern, by supporters of the victorious candidate in the general election in July 2024. What steps is the taskforce taking to address intimidation of elected representatives, particularly where such activity may be linked to extremist groups or foreign influencers?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that, first and foremost, we are taking measures through the police and crime Bill to protect the homes of elected and public figures, even such as Members of the House of Lords, from that level of intimidation and protest. We will examine the allegations that have been made by Kate Hollern in relation to the activity in Blackburn. It is important that, for the sake of democracy as a whole, individuals are entitled to put forward their ideas free of intimidation and threat. There is existing legislation in place to tackle that. This matter has come to light just in the last week, so we will need to reflect upon it.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, there are indeed horrifying examples of abuse being directed at elected representatives. I was pleased last month to have been elected as co-chair of the All-party Parliamentary Group for Defending Democracy, and I urge everyone in this House, particularly the noble Baroness, to join and play an active role. Will the Minister pledge that he and his colleagues, particularly the Security Minister, will use the new APPG as a way of engaging with parliamentarians across the House on these vital issues?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I welcome the all-party parliamentary group and the fact that the noble Lord is one of the officers, along with Nick Timothy, Member of Parliament for West Suffolk, and John Slinger, who is a Labour Back-Bench Member of Parliament. It is extremely important that the all-party group contributes to the debate, looks at where the Government need to improve performance and holds them to account for their performance on these areas. We have a common interest in protecting the security of Members and protecting electoral processes.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, given the recent warnings to parliamentarians about Chinese intelligence officers seeking to cultivate relationships with them, and the evidence that we have of Chinese agents paying people who work for MPs, would it not be appropriate to rule out permission for the huge Chinese embassy, which may act as a centre for spying operations, undermining democracy in this country and threatening citizens of other countries who campaign for democracy?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that there is a judicial process ongoing about the application for the new embassy for the Chinese authority. As part of that ongoing discussion, the Home Office and security services have been consulted. There will be an outcome, but that outcome has not yet been made, and the noble Lord tempts me to opine on matters which are still under consideration pending legal discussion. I cannot offer him any solution today, except to say that it is absolutely vital that any foreign country knows that the UK Government will not accept the type of influence that he has mentioned.

Heritage Craft and Building Sector

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:23

Asked by

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to support the heritage craft and building sector; and how they will develop its skills pipeline.

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

The Government are committed to supporting the heritage, craft and building sectors to protect, maintain and adapt heritage for future generations. Last year, I hosted a round table on challenges facing the heritage skills sector and met my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern, the Minister for Skills, to discuss the sector’s specific needs. A follow-up sector round table is being organised. The Government are providing an additional £1.2 billion a year towards skills development until 2028-29. We are working across government to ensure heritage skills are supported.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the meetings we have had in this area. Does she agree that, with our heritage in crisis with regard to the repair and maintenance not just of our historic homes and churches but of much pre-1919 build, specialist skills are needed more than ever for an industry that is split across government departments but crying out for a co-ordinated policy? Will the Government provide clear training pathways from school to professional practice, including better level 3 funding and, post-18, a better choice of university-comparable practical courses, building on examples such as York Minster’s apprenticeship centre?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Earl about the need for specialist skills and the many organisations around the country that are doing excellent work in this area. I was hugely impressed by the offer at York Minster when I visited last year, and by the calibre and commitment of the apprentices and teaching staff. We are currently working with the heritage sector to identify key skills gaps and on how to protect the future of heritage skills. Through fully funded SME apprenticeships for under-25s, this Government are giving every smaller heritage organisation the opportunity to deliver flexible, affordable apprenticeships.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, there are approximately 60,000 thatched properties in the United Kingdom. The great majority are in the county of Devon in which I live; in fact, I live in a thatched property. Thatch used to be a sign of poverty; it is now deemed to be a sign of wealth—I cannot quite get my head around that when you look at the levels of insurance we are obliged to pay. The problem is that 75% of thatched properties are listed properties and therefore extremely expensive to maintain. Can the Minister give some encouragement to the idea that there might be parity and that we can get rid of the anomaly between VAT on newbuild and VAT on repair once and for all? Given that there are now only about 1,000 thatchers in the country, what can the Government do to encourage that skill and to encourage better access to authentic reed and thatch to maintain and enhance an important part of our built rural heritage?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am very aware, as the noble Lord clearly is, of the shortage of specialist thatchers. Since I have been in this role, I have learned a huge amount about the different types of techniques that are used around the country. This is one of the issues we have been talking about with the sector. I point to the work of museums such as the Weald & Downland Living Museum in this area, as well as other organisations.

On VAT, noble Lords will be aware that that is a matter for the Treasury. However, I ask the noble Lord to note that a blanket VAT cut for all historic building repairs would be a significant fiscal intervention and potentially subsidise repairs that might have happened anyway. In a tight fiscal climate, it is arguably better value for money to direct taxpayers’ money into targeted funds such as the heritage at risk grants or the Heritage Revival Fund, where we can ensure that every pound delivers genuine public benefit and regeneration rather than a broad tax relief.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, the time was when schools—particularly boys’ schools, sadly—routinely taught woodwork and metalwork, which led young people into the crafts and skills that are now in such short supply. Given the importance of heritage craft skills to the economy, as well as to well-being, what steps are being taken to reintroduce these important subjects into schools to encourage enthusiasm for skills so that the shortages in the workforce can begin to be remedied?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Helpfully, my noble friend Lady Smith is sitting next to me, and I have confirmed with her what I understood to be the case, which is that schools still routinely teach children those skills. One of the challenges is how we make sure young people understand the exciting careers available. Within some of the work that is going on with regard to building skills and the targets for new homes, there are a lot of retrofitting skills and expertise being rolled out, which is clearly one way in which we can make sure that we restore heritage buildings given the amount of our built environment that is over a particular age.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

It is the turn of the Labour Benches.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip. I am very interested in what the noble Baroness has said about the range of initiatives, and very glad that she is talking to the rest of the heritage sector. The question that was raised, however, was about the strategic direction and need for systematic and scaled-up investment on a credible and systematic basis in terms of heritage skills. Although we need the skills to bring the historic environment up to scratch and to make the most of it, whether we are repurposing buildings or restoring them, this is not a niche issue. These skills are transferable into the whole of the construction economy, and we desperately need a lot of additional quality in that sector as well. Can the Minister give me some assurance that there is an endgame here where we will see a significant increase in the quality of apprenticeships and other qualification routes, whereby we will build our capacity to do these jobs over the next decade?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am sure that my noble friend is in no doubt about the commitment of the Prime Minister and this Government to apprenticeships. From my perspective, it is an exciting opportunity for us to make sure that we increase the number of apprenticeships available in heritage skills. We have a problem in that heritage construction is not recruiting fast enough to replace an ageing workforce; that will become critical if we do not address it. Rather than tell the sector what we think should happen, I want to work with it to make sure that we get the workforce we need for the future to restore and maintain our incredible built environment within the heritage realm, which we know the public value hugely.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister recognised, our historic churches do not just rely on the talents of skilled craftspeople; they provide fantastic opportunities to acquire new skills and pass them on—I have met some of the stonemasons at Gloucester Cathedral who are apprentices there. For a second year running, the custodians of our churches and cathedrals are uncertain about whether the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme will continue beyond March. Some 260 churches and cathedrals have said that they have put essential repair works to one side while they wait to see whether this will happen. Can the Minister shed some light on whether the scheme will go beyond March and whether the cap that was imposed last year might be lifted?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord is aware that the current scheme is funded until the end of March, when the budget is reached. We are very clear as a department that huge value is placed on listed places of worship by local communities and by their congregations. We extended the scheme in recognition of the importance of the listed places of worship scheme. The cap has not affected the majority of applications—94% of applications will be unaffected by the change; most claims are under £5,000. Immediately before Christmas, I met key stakeholders such as the National Churches Trust and the Church of England to make sure that they are kept up to date on where we are going as a department. I appreciate that people will be anxious to know about potential future funding and potential changes, and I will provide an update as soon as possible.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, government funding for level 2 and 3 diploma courses in some building crafts, such as stonemasonry, has recently been withdrawn. For a craftsperson, who is usually a micro-entity business, to take on a novice apprentice without previous foundational training is a big risk and potentially a big immediate cost. How are the Government planning to support busy craftspeople to take on novice apprentices?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I recognise what the noble Baroness said about the issues faced by some craftspeople in taking on apprentices. That is why I met my noble friend last year and why we are working with the sector to make sure that what we put in place, and what is put in place by the sector and supported by government, reflects the needs of the heritage sector so that we get the workforce that we need.

Sexual Harassment in Educational Settings

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:34

Asked by

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the level of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour experienced by women and girls in educational settings.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, sexual abuse in any form is abhorrent, and tackling it is a top priority for this Government. The Department for Education and the Office for Students assess levels of sexual harassment, violence and inappropriate behaviour through surveys of pupils, students and staff. Results, combined with national surveys such as the Crime Survey for England and Wales, suggest that young women are particularly at risk, which is why the Government’s VAWG strategy focuses particularly on young people.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response and welcome the action that she has set out. As she said, the Office for Students survey revealed that one in four students who responded, mainly young women, reported experiencing sexual harassment, including rape, attempted rape and unwanted touching, and we know that many more incidents go unreported. Is the Minister confident that, with the measures that she set out, all colleges and universities will consistently tackle sexual harassment—for example, by creating safe and anonymous reporting systems—and, importantly, tackle the culture of harassment itself by ensuring that there is a whole-institution policy approach, with clear leadership and resources for victims? How will there be accountability to ensure that these measures are upheld?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness identifies the shocking level of sexual abuse in higher education, which is why it is important that the Office for Students introduced new conditions last August and put in place guidance to support higher education providers precisely to implement robust measures to prevent and address sexual misconduct, including, as the noble Baroness says, clear reporting procedures, staff and student training, transparent investigations, and a ban on non-disclosure agreements in harassment cases. Those steps are aimed at creating safer campus environments and improving institutional accountability.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, is the Expect Respect educational toolkit being used in all schools throughout the country, and higher education places, are people who use it being properly trained in how to use it, and is there any feedback on whether it is a success and how it is doing and whether pupils and students find it the right way to help them deal with this problem?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have to say I am not sure about the specific toolkit that the noble Baroness references, but last year we produced new guidance in respect of relationships, sex and health education, and we will be supporting that with additional training and support for teachers.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, in 2017 the National Education Union published, with UK Feminista, a report on girls’ experiences of sexual harassment in schools, called “It’s Just Everywhere”. The report found that over a third of girls experienced sexual harassment at school, a quarter experienced unwanted physical touching of a sexual nature, and over a quarter of secondary teachers did not feel confident in tackling a sexist incident. Does the Minister therefore agree that the Government need to emphasise secondary teacher training to spot and tackle misogyny and that high-risk pupils should be sent on behavioural courses? These measures are absolutely necessary.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend. There are unacceptable levels of sexual harassment and abuse of girls within our schools and universities. That is why, as part of the violence against women and girls strategy published in December 2025, specific resources are made available in our schools—in particular, three pilot programmes to support RSHE teaching, to encourage healthy relationships and to tackle harmful sexual behaviour—as well as an innovation fund to enable us to work out the most effective methods of tackling this abhorrent activity.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, what impact does the Minister think that access to social media for children under 16 has on these behaviours in school?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am very aware that there was misogyny, sexual abuse and harassment long before there was social media. However, of course, some of the vile attitudes towards women and girls disseminated online are precisely why we need strong relationships, sex and health education and why we need to ensure that the Online Safety Act, which has some of the strongest controls over social media anywhere in the world, is fully actioned and that action is taken where there is inappropriate behaviour, including by the companies responsible.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, following on from that question, I am very grateful for the action being taken by Ofcom to investigate X and the Grok AI chatbot, but what are the Government doing to create a robust framework so that AI will be used responsibly in this whole landscape of sexual harassment experienced by women and girls?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate identifies some of the concern that has been expressed in recent days—including by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology—about the use of Grok. As she identifies, the issue goes much wider than that, which is why we need support for schools to ensure appropriate filtering, monitoring and use of AI and why we need to take strong action against companies using AI for some of the reasons that have been identified recently with respect to Grok. Some of that action is being taken in legislation already going through this House.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, it is a follow-up question to the previous one. As I understand it from Ofcom, the maximum fine that X will receive for having Grok on its website is £18 million. This is a pathetic fine for a company of this size. Do we not have any more robust tools to stop this type of behaviour?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I say, the Technology Secretary has already made it clear that X needs to deal urgently with the issue of Grok. Ofcom has already contacted X and xAI to understand what steps they have taken to comply with their legal duties to protect users in the UK. If services fail to adhere, Ofcom can impose fines of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue and, in the most serious cases of non-compliance, could apply to the courts to block services.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

Can I just quiz the Minister about research by Girlguiding last year? Its Girls’ Attitude Survey 2025 found that one in 10 young girls aged between 11 and 16 was missing education, deeply affecting their life chances going forward. I take the point that sexism and harassment existed before social media, but there is now clear evidence that social media is playing a huge role. I ask the question that other noble Lords have asked: will the Government now reconsider their position, particularly on mobile phones in schools but also on social media access for under-16s?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think I have responded to that point. I have pointed out that one of the most appropriate things that schools can do—recognising that misogyny and abuse are not innate to children but are learned, including through the internet—is to help teach children different attitudes and to reinforce the decency that I think we all know most children and young boys have. To support schools to do that, we are investing through the provision that I talked about earlier, providing new guidance through the relationships, sex and health education guidance and supporting our teachers and parents to be able to do that.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her cross-cutting brief and the personal commitment she has to this issue. I understand the rightful concerns of noble Lords around the House that social media and big tech have played a negative role in all this. None the less, what can the Government do in their own media rounds—that is, every single Minister when in front of a microphone—and what can the Opposition do, given that they are led by a woman, to integrate this anti-misogynistic message in everything we do?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that the type of misogyny we are seeing, particularly impacting young people, needs a wide policy response. But it also needs cultural and political leadership, and it needs everybody to work together to condemn it and ensure that the positive behaviour which most young men and boys show is reinforced and that, where there are misogynistic attitudes in schools, we support teachers and parents to tackle them.

Iran: Protests

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

15:45

Asked by

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government (1) what assessment they have made of the treatment of protesters in Iran, and (2) how they are engaging with the government of the United States on proposed responses to ensure that these are in accordance with international law.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I should declare that I am the director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, which has been monitoring human rights abuses in Iran for many years.

A grave human rights crisis is unfolding in Iran. As many noble Lords will know, a nationwide uprising has been taking place in 111 cities across Iran. This is not confined to Tehran, or to its students or young women; it is across all classes and all the peoples of Iran. The regime is using live ammunition against unarmed citizens. There are mass arrests as well as a total internet and telecommunications blackout. Bodies are piling up in morgues, but families cannot locate their loved ones. Hospitals are overwhelmed and even Starlink connectivity is reported to be jammed. What assessment have the Government made of the treatment of protesters in Iran? What do they feel that they can do, and how are they engaging with the Government of the United States on proposed responses to ensure that those are in accordance with international law? The people of Iran want democracy; they do not want outside entities to bring about regime change.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her Question and commend her for her many years of work and dedication to this issue, and to the people of Iran. We too are deeply concerned about the use of violence against protesters and strongly condemn the killing of protesters. Iranians must be able to exercise their right to peaceful protest without fear or reprisal, and we urge Iran to immediately restore access to the internet and communications. With regards to engagement with the United States, its policy towards Iran is, obviously, a matter for the US Government. The UK remains absolutely committed to international law and expects other countries to do the same. That is essential for global security and stability.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. I am sure that we are all watching the news reports with interest. Personally, I find it deeply humbling to watch the astonishing bravery of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iranians in facing the guns and murderous tactics of that brutal regime. If they are arrested, they also now face execution. It is quite astonishing to watch their desire for freedom and democracy. Can I please ask the Minister two questions? First, what is being done to challenge the Iranian regime over the violence it is conducting? I know that we have diplomats in Tehran; what role are they playing, what reports is the Minister receiving back from them, and why has the Foreign Secretary not yet summoned the Iranian ambassador to protest at the brutality? Secondly, given the statements from President Trump, what discussions have taken place with the US Administration over their plans and their challenge to this brutal regime?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The UK is clear in its condemnation of the regime’s brutality towards protesters. For many different reasons, we fundamentally support the right of those who are bravely taking to the streets and showing enormous courage to make their case in the way that they wish. Communication with the Iranian regime is something that my friend the Foreign Secretary will be actively considering.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the murder of those people in Iran who wish simply to have a say in who governs them is utterly contemptible. There are early signs that these protests will become more widespread, but there are not early signs that there will be mass rebellions in the Iranian military. Is now not the time that we should proscribe as terrorist organisations all those bodies within Iran that are actively suppressing their own population, as well as putting UK national interests at risk? Secondly, and perversely, I have read that our ambassador has been summoned by Iranian Ministers to view the protests. Should we not summon the Iranian ambassador to ensure that there is no repression of Iranian nationals or any British interests here in the United Kingdom, and show that we are now willing rapidly to expand the human rights sanctions regime for all aspects of the Iranian Government that are carrying out these repressive actions?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

First, it is not correct that our ambassador in Tehran was summoned. They had a conversation when they attended the MFA for another purpose, but that is a very different situation from the one reported, which I think the noble Lord will have read. We do not comment about proscriptions ahead of time and we keep them under close review. However, I point noble Lords to the work done by Jonathan Hall and the suggestions that he made about proscription-like measures. The Government intend to implement these in due course.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, has the Minister seen the report today about the killing of 23 year-old Rubina Aminian, a young woman who was shot at close range in the back of her head? She is one of thousands of pro-democracy protesters who have lost their lives already. They join the 1,922 who were executed by the regime last year alone, as well as Mahsa Amini, the young woman who died after discarding her hijab. It is not unreasonable to ask, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, did, whether we will take further action on the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Additionally, what we can do to try to restore communications in Iran in any way, so that people can know what is going on? What advice are we giving to British nationals and dual citizens who are in Iran at present?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

One of the issues that we face is our current inability to get verifiable information out of Iran, because the regime has closed the internet. That makes life very difficult. However, the noble Lord is absolutely right to remind us of some of the horrors that we know about already. As more information emerges, we will want to respond. I have said what I have said about proscription and the IRGC, but we are concerned about British nationals and we have clear travel advice not to travel to Iran. There are British nationals there at the moment. Sadly, we know of some who are being wrongly held. The Foremans have even been charged with espionage, which is clearly wrong. They should be released immediately.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, following on from that question, we have a number of Iranians in our churches in the diocese of Gloucester who are desperately trying to make contact with loved ones. What update can the Minister give the House about the support being given to Iranians in this country who are endeavouring to contact family and friends in Iran?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That must be an incredibly difficult situation to be in. Communications are limited at best or non-existent, and the support that our team in Tehran is able to provide is incredibly limited. I can only imagine the concern, worry and heartache currently being felt by those with people who they love and care for in Iran.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has stated that the Iranians do not want outside interference to achieve regime change, but, without outside interference, how will the regime be changed?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are mindful of how we express our views, because of the reasons that I think are implied by the noble Lord’s question: the regime in Iran attempts to suggest that those who, of their own free will, take to the streets to protest are somehow foreign interference or meddling by external powers. They are clearly not. These are people who feel so strongly and who, at great risk and sometimes at the cost of their lives, are taking to the streets to call for the freedom that we so wish they could enjoy.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, as someone who served in Her Majesty’s embassy in Tehran many years ago, I express my anguish at what we are seeing being meted out to citizens of Iran who are simply using their rights to demonstrate. Does the Minister not think that one message that could be sent out is that, should they have a Government who are prepared to come into full conformity with all the international rules put forward in recent years—with regard to their nuclear programme and other aspects of their policy—we would respond positively, but we will not respond positively while what is going on before our eyes is as horrifying as it is?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We stand proudly for freedom and human rights for the people of Iran, as the noble Lord suggests we should. The snap-back measures that he refers to took place as a last resort, and it would be very good for the people of Iran, and for regional and global stability, if we were able to have a more productive and positive relationship with a Government in Iran who represent the wishes of their people.

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the Lib Dem Benches next.

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with all those who have condemned the killing of innocent protesters in Iran, but will the Minister agree that the Iranian nation is very resilient? We have seen that the Iranian public know how to change their Governments. We saw the end of the King of Iran’s time, when the protesters were on the roads in their tens of thousands, and in the end they forced the King to leave the country. Whether we liked it or not, there was a change of Government. Similarly, now, when the people of Iran have had enough of this regime and want a change, they are capable of changing their Government on their own, and they do not need external invasion or plans for a change of regime to be practised in their country.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord speaks from his own perspective of the people of Iran and their capability of changing the regime in their country. All I would say is that much has changed in the decades since the events that he alludes to. I hope that the people of Iran, through their own voice, their own protests and the things that they are able to do themselves, are able, sooner rather than later, to bring about a Government who represent them so that they are able to live in freedom and to live their lives in the way that we are all able to.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

We owe the security services our respect and thanks for thwarting over 20 assassination attempts on British soil against Iranians. This situation will not die down. I suspect that both sides will become more entrenched and the regime, if it is trying to hold on, is likely to become more violent towards those who oppose it. With that in mind, what can the Minister say to reassure those brave Iranians living in the United Kingdom that everything will be done to protect them from agents of a foreign power who may seek to carry out atrocities against them on British soil?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is such an important point. As the noble Lord reminds us, our security services have done amazing things in preventing so many attempts at attacks on this country. We will not stand for it; we will take whatever measures necessary to keep everybody in this country safe. The noble Lord is talking in particular about those who have drawn the attention of the Iranian regime, and we will continue to do that. Our security services are alive to the increased threat that they face at present, and they will continue.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, when I was First Sea Lord, I tended to send warships towards the sound of the guns. If things go wrong in Iran, as it looks as if they might well do, the whole of that region will be in great difficulty and trouble. We currently have one mine-hunter in Bahrain—that is all. Is there any intention to beef up our military presence there, bearing in mind the huge threat to the waterways should things go up in the air?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I make a very clear point of never responding to that kind of hypothetical question; I shall not break that today, but I note what he says, in particular about Iran’s importance in terms of security in that part of the wo0rld.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, we saw the appalling pictures of the security guards displaying the bodies thanks to the work of very brave Iranians getting the message out before all the social media was locked down. Does the Minister agree that social media has shown its importance in the first two weeks of these protests? Would she congratulate Elon Musk on being able to get Starlink into Iran so that some opportunity will be given for Iranians to get their message out?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Do you know what: the noble Baroness is right about this. Because we have been unable to gain access for journalists, citizen journalism has become all that we have, and the reports that have been able to be shared have been vital in alerting the world to what is going on. That can be said for very many of these precarious locations and places where it is difficult to gain access. The extent to which I am prepared to stand here and thank Elon Musk for anything is a different question, but I agree with her about the vital role that social media has played.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, to go back to the original Question, it is difficult to get President Trump’s support for international law when he is on record as saying that he does not agree with international law. Will the Minister try to ensure that no attempt is made to try to install the son of the disgraced ruler of Iran, whose behaviour led to the influx of the present regime, and instead give support to the National Council of Resistance of Iran, led by Madame Rajavi? She has a 10-point plan for democratic rule, free from religious interference and with equal rights for women, which is very important when we remember that one of the present rulers in the current regime said that women have smaller brains than men.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is the noble Lord’s view of what should happen next in Iran. The UK Government’s view is that the future of Iran and its leadership should be firmly in the hands of the people of Iran.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

16:05

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the Report of the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, has consented to place his interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Clause 6: Commencement and short title

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

1: Clause 6, page 4, line 38, leave out from “Parliament” to end of line 41
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make all orders under clause 6(1) subject to parliamentary control in the form of negative procedure.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, this government amendment will change the parliamentary procedure applicable to the delegated power in Clause 6. With this amendment, all instruments made using that power would be subject to the negative procedure. Previously, no parliamentary procedure applied unless the power was used to amend, repeal or revoke Acts of Parliament or statutory instruments made under them.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his contribution to this. I am glad that we were able to agree on a sensible compromise which puts into effect one of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I hope that this assures the noble Lord and the DPRRC that the Government have listened to the views of noble Lords and are willing to find compromises where they are sensible. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to say a big thank you to the Minister for her engagement following Report and for tabling this amendment by way of, as she says, what I hope is very much an agreeable compromise.

While the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made the good point that Henry VIII powers should only exceptionally be subject to other than the affirmative procedure, in fact, when one looks at the detail of the Bill in the Government’s further response, it is quite clear that it would be excessive for the House to be detained on an affirmative debate on some of this legislation in relation to what are clearly not controversial matters. However, establishing the principle that all statutory orders should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny is, I think, important. I am very glad that the Government have accepted that.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Bill read a third time.

16:08

Motion

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

That the Bill do now pass.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their engagement on this crucial legislation, which secures a vital element of the UK’s national security and the UK’s transatlantic defence partnership. I thank noble Lords across the House for their expertise, which they have used to scrutinise the security of the base, the costs of the treaty, support mechanisms for the Chagossian community and environmental conservation provisions, to name a few.

The UK-Mauritius treaty protects the Diego Garcia military base and ensures that the UK retains full control over this vital asset. This in turn will protect our national security for generations, ensure that the UK keeps unique and vital capabilities to deal with a wide range of threats, and keep the British people safe. The Bill ensures that the treaty can be ratified. As the world grows more dangerous, so too does the importance of the base for our national security. Noble Lords will not need to be told how crucial it is that the treaty is ratified and the base protected in the ever-shifting geopolitical landscape of our age.

We have had extensive debate in this House, and it has been good debate. I thank noble Lords on this side of the Floor, including my noble friend Lord Beamish, for their thoughtful and insightful contributions. I thank noble Lords from across the House for their thoughtful contributions throughout the passage of the Bill, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Hannay, Lord Jay and Lord Purvis of Tweed. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hannan and Lord Lilley, for their exuberant speeches, even if I have not always agreed with them. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster and Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Weir, for their passionate speeches. I thank my noble friend Lord Coaker for his support on leading the Bill. I thank my honourable friends in the other place, the Minister for Overseas Territories and the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, who have spoken at length with Peers about the detail of the Bill.

Finally, I thank the officials who have supported the Bill. I thank those on the Bill team—notably Helena Brice, our indefatigable Bill manager—and the policy teams in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence. They have worked tirelessly behind the scenes, often working to challenging deadlines. I thank those in my private office, in particular Bola, who have of course been crucial in supporting me. My thanks must be offered to all the parliamentary staff who have ensured the smooth process of this Bill.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

At end insert “but that this House regrets that the UK-Mauritius Agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia does not secure the long-term future of the Diego Garcia Military Base, creates uncertainty over the continuing unrestricted use of the Military Base and imposes £35 billion of costs on UK taxpayers for which the Government has no mandate, and that the Government failed to consult the Chagossian people before signing the Treaty”.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, throughout our debates on the Bill, we have had, as the Minister said, many robust exchanges, and the Bill will go to the other place with four amendments passed by your Lordships’ House. However, it has become increasingly clear throughout those debates that this deal fails even on the terms set out for it by its ministerial proponents.

They have told us repeatedly that we need this deal to provide legal certainty—“Look at the advisory opinion by the ICJ”, they tell us. We are told that if we do not give away the islands then all sorts of unpleasant judgments might follow in various unspecified fora. My noble friend Lord Lilley has been forensic in questioning the Government on exactly where these adverse rulings might emanate, given that the ICJ itself would surely be excluded from any such decisions and that disputes involving the UK and Commonwealth countries were specifically excluded from its mandate when we first acceded to it. We have heard various mutterings about the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and even the International Telecommunication Union, but no definitive response. Therefore, we have an advisory ICJ opinion, from a panel containing Russian and Chinese judge—those doughty campaigners for the concept of international law, seemingly applying to everyone except themselves—and, with great seriousness, Ministers tell us that this opinion must be respected.

However, we now have an additional opinion from another UN body: the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which, ironically, contains Mauritius as a member. A few weeks ago, this committee published a formal decision calling for the suspension of treaty ratification. As far as I am aware, the Foreign Office has ignored it and is yet to even comment on the ruling. So we have two diametrically opposed opinions from different UN bodies, one of which is to be obeyed without hesitation while the other, apparently, is to be completely ignored.

Ministers then tell us that they have fully secured the future of the Diego Garcia base, which will be able to continue operations exactly as before. However, they have manifestly failed to explain how that can possibly be the case when Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty which prohibits the placing of any nuclear weapons on any African territory, which Diego Garcia would become under this deal. Nobody has been asking Ministers to disclose secret defence information, but we know from openly published sources that the base has been utilised for the transportation of nuclear weapons on planes and submarines. How can that possibly be compatible with Mauritius’s obligations under the Pelindaba treaty?

The agreement is completely silent on this matter. Even in the face of robust questioning from my noble friend Lady Goldie, a former Defence Minister, we have received no ministerial answers. If base operation is to continue unhindered, as Ministers tell us it will, we can only assume there exists some kind of secret agreement along the lines of the old disgraced US policy on gays in the military: don’t ask and don’t tell.

The current Mauritian Government might play along with this fiction, but what about any future Mauritian Governments? What about all the other African signatories to the treaty? Any one of them could also take action in the international courts to force Mauritius to abide by its treaty obligations. For an agreement supposedly predicated on providing both military and legal certainty, it seems destined to do the exact opposite.

16:15

One of the jewels in the crown of the British Indian Ocean Territory is one of the largest marine protected areas in the world, a tremendous achievement for the natural world of which we can all rightly be very proud. Ministers have reassured us that Mauritius has agreed to continue that protection, except for small amounts of what they call “artisanal fishing”. Yet, the Mauritian Fisheries Minister said last year:

“what stops me tomorrow to say that I am going to give fishing licence for any fishing trawler company or any fishing vessel to go to any part of Chagos; to fish and to bring the catch to be landed at our port … We have the authority, the moral authority, legal authority, legitimate authority to fish in our exclusive economic zone”.

Even if he was fibbing and Mauritius is committed to preserving the MPA, the British Indian Ocean Territory, as many Members have observed, is over 2,000 kilometres away from Mauritius. Further, there are, and have been, legitimate concerns that they will have no means whatsoever of monitoring, or even policing, the area. This concern about Mauritius’ capability was ably demonstrated on 9 September, during a visit by the Indian Prime Minister to Mauritius. The Mauritian Prime Minister Ramgoolam was quoted as saying:

“We want to visit Chagos to put our flag there … The British offered us a vessel, but we said we preferred one from India because symbolically it would be better”.

Maybe that is true. If Mauritius lacks the resources even to transport its own Prime Minister to the Chagos, what chance has it got of monitoring and preventing incursions into 640,000 square kilometres of one of the largest pristine marine protected areas in the world?

Not only do the Government have no mandate for this treaty; they have a manifesto commitment to do the opposite. Let me quote from the Labour manifesto:

“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories … Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination”.

There is much else that I could say on this dreadful deal. On its £34.7 billion cost—that figure has now been confirmed in an FoI from the Government Actuary’s Department—the noble Baroness the Minister spent months telling us that the cost is, apparently, only £3.4 billion; I hope she will take the opportunity today to apologise and correct the record. This is an astonishing sum to give away when we are imposing financial sacrifices everywhere else in our public sector.

Then there is the betrayal of the Chagossian people, whose wishes have been completely ignored, particularly now that it has become clear, in the excellent recent report from the House’s International Relations and Defence Committee, that most of them want to remain British. They have no desire to be handed over against their will to a hostile foreign power that has trampled over their rights and discriminated against them for many years.

With this amendment to the Motion, your Lordships’ House has an opportunity to tell the other place that it really is time to think again, to see sense and to scrap this dreadful deal. I beg to move.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I first of all associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Callanan. I preface my further remarks by saying there was a very useful debate on Report, which brought out a number of important points which command attention. In that context, I spoke then exclusively on the defence and security implications of this treaty. I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for both listening to my concerns and undertaking to write to me, which he has indeed done. That attentive and helpful approach bears all the hallmarks of a responsible and helpful persona which a Defence Minister should be, and of which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is the embodiment; the content of the response bears all the hallmarks of a letter drafted by someone blind to the basic precepts of defence and security but who finds much more comfortable the languorous corridors of the FCDO and the limiting confines of the minutiae of the text of this treaty.

It is the other treaty, the Pelindaba treaty, about which I sought clarification. Instead, I received a letter about how this treaty guarantees this, stops that and binds Mauritius to the other. The letter is silent on how, once Mauritius gains sovereignty of the Diego Garcia base under this botched treaty, Mauritius can stop the co-signatories of the Pelindaba treaty, either on their own account or egged on by others, from challenging Mauritius on alleged misuse of the base under the terms of the Pelindaba treaty. I suspect the reason for the silence is because you cannot stop that third-party interference.

That strikes at the heart of why we currently have sovereignty over the base, how we use it, how the United States uses it and how our allies may need to use it. That unfettered, unchallengeable usage and access is possible only because we have sovereignty. While we can have bilateral discussions with Mauritius and enter into bilateral agreements and treaties with Mauritius, they are only as good as Mauritius has competence to give the protections, undertakings and reassurances. If the hands of Mauritius are tied by a preceding undertaking such as the Pelindaba treaty, then these protections, undertakings and reassurances are not worth the paper they are written on—just a load of flummery.

I did not put down an amendment at Report, because this flaw is irremediable. I was prepared to allow the Government a final opportunity to provide clarification and reassurance, but, unsurprisingly, they have been unable to do that. The question then is: what should a responsible Opposition do? My naturally bellicose nature inclined towards voting against this Bill, but I am not indifferent to the constitutional status of this House and the respective conventions which regulate our proceedings in relation to government Bills. Fortunately, my leader, my noble friend Lord True, and my Chief Whip, my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, are far less hot-headed than I am and infinitely more thoughtful and strategic in outlook. It is their view, which I accept, that, however wrong-headed and naive we think this treaty to be, voting down the Bill on Third Reading is not an appropriate way, in this instance, to proceed.

Our regret Motion places on the record all our misgivings and apprehensions. If this precarious, ill-starred government adventure comes to grief, it will give me no pleasure to say, “We told you so”, but at least His Majesty’s Opposition can hold their head up and say, “We did our job”; what a pity the Government cannot make the same claim. I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her courtesy and patience throughout this very unusual Bill and its passage through this House. I will make a few remarks on the financial costs.

The treaty makes provision for a financial agreement that requires the UK to make payments to the Republic of Mauritius for the next 99 years. The agreement is very unusual, and that is because the payments are not known. The payments are not known from year 14 for the next 85 years because the payments are linked not to events in the Indian Ocean but to UK domestic inflation. It is an extraordinarily long contract for the taxpayer to be exposed like this to UK domestic inflation.

Inflation in the future is unknown, unknowable and uncapped. That means the payments under this contract are unknown, unknowable and uncapped. Maybe the Foreign Office, in looking at the projections, imagined a very benign opportunity for UK inflation and maybe it hoped that the numbers would stay very low, but if we had inflation as high as it was in this country two years ago, at any point in the 85 years of this contract the payments would get completely out of hand and be completely unaffordable to the UK.

This is why Ministers and Parliament have been poorly briefed on the contents of the treaty and why there is this extraordinary difference between the £3.4 billion accounting valuation, which was done under the Treasury Green Book procedure for UK domestic infrastructure spending, and what this is actually going to cost. As my noble friend Lord Callanan mentioned, the Government’s own internal estimate of the cost is around £34 billion to £35 billion, which is a very substantial amount to be paying.

We might hope, at this stage of the Bill, to have some good advice from the OBR, but the OBR has been quite unhelpful to the Government—and, possibly, to Parliament—and said that it has nothing to do with this. We might hope for clarification from His Majesty’s Treasury. Of course, the treaty was not negotiated by the Treasury; it was negotiated by another department. But, in the middle of the holidays, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury slipped out an announcement on 16 December—it is on GOV.UK—to say that the Treasury would be changing its Green Book methodology. So, we can be sure that the Treasury does not even agree with the accounting valuation, let alone the actuarial true cost of this agreement.

When the Minister said to us during the passage of the Bill that the total cost was £3.4 billion—she said it to us in this Chamber—it was not correct, because the total cost is not known. That needs to be corrected in the treaty, because it is quite clear that that is the intention of the Government. The Government wish, for their own reasons, not well understood by the Opposition, to pay the Republic of Mauritius £3.4 billion. It is their intention and it appears to be their understanding—but it is not what is in the treaty.

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

My Lords, this is Third Reading. Arguments made at previous—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

This is Third Reading and the noble Lord is repeating what has been debated before.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

I will speak briefly to the rest of the amendment.

The amounts referenced in the Chamber and during the passage of the Bill have not been correct. We need to make sure that the treaty is amended to reflect what the Government’s intention is: that it should be a payment of £3.4 billion and not an open-ended economic exposure. Given the extremely unusual and long-dated nature of this contract, we need to make sure the treaty is amended to protect UK taxpayers and, indeed, to maintain confidence in the sovereign credit of the UK.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I join with others in welcoming the robust yet civilised and courteous way in which this legislation has been debated. Obviously, at Third Reading, it is not appropriate to regurgitate all the arguments. However, given the significance of the Bill, it is also the case that it merits some level of, albeit brief, comment. While we have gone through this process, and I welcome the amendments that have been tabled to the Bill, they cannot render acceptable what is totally unacceptable.

We are still left with a Bill that is bad for the United Kingdom. We are not simply handing over sovereignty to Mauritius; we are paying it an expensive dowry to take over what has been British sovereign territory for 200 years.

From a defence point of view, we are left with a flawed situation. Rather than perhaps the jewel in the crown, we are left with a situation where, despite the assurances that have been given, we know, from a practical point of view, that we will see Mauritius in effect leasing out, in either official or unofficial form, to foreign powers—particularly the Chinese Government—surrounding islands. So, instead of a jewel in the crown, we will be left with a military base with a noose around it, ever tightening as time moves on.

In particular, even with the amendments, we have not dealt with the situation as regards our debt and duty to the Chagossians themselves. We have been left in a situation in which they have been denied complete access to the islands. They have no right of full self-return. More importantly, they have also been left without the right of self-determination.

This House has been united, as we saw a few moments ago, in rightly condemning what has been happening in Iran and supporting the Iranian people in their right of self-determination. This House, on a number of occasions, has utterly condemned the invasion of Ukraine and supported the right of Ukrainians to decide their own future. Similarly, I suspect that this House would be united in saying that the Greenlanders have the right to determine their own future and that it should not be imposed from the United States or anywhere else. The thread that runs through all three of these situations is the right of self-determination and democracy. That is the golden thread to which should be standing.

Yet, we are in a situation, as regards the Chagossians, that this can apply elsewhere in the world but, shamefully, not to the people who have actually looked to us to deliver for them. If we simply let this go through and the Government let this go through unaltered, we will lack the moral or political authority to dictate elsewhere in the world on the issue of self-determination. So I support the regret amendment in the perhaps vain hope that, by sending a signal today, we can at least say to the Government, “Think again before it is entirely too late”.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I very much support the amendment of regret and I am pleased it has been tabled. I find the word “regret” not nearly strong enough, because for me this will be a very sad day if the Bill goes through from the House of Lords to the other place.

16:30

We talked about self-determination of the Chagossians and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, has just talked about what I was going to mention: the hypocrisy, almost, of His Majesty’s Government in the fact that they are determined to keep Greenland and Denmark together and allow Greenland to have self-determination. They could not possibly do anything else, because Greenlanders have to have self-determination—and I agree with that. Yet, we have totally denied that to the Chagossian people, and not just in the past year since the Bill came.

Incidentally, let us forget that this was not in the manifesto. No Labour Peer can say that it was, and no Labour MP can say that they were elected to do this. So, constitutionally, we have every right in this noble place to have this amendment of regret—not just because of the hypocrisy that I mentioned about the self-determination of the Chagossians but because of international law. There was the whole advisory thing that came from the UN, which we said was so important, and then we just absolutely ignored the UN committee that said this should be suspended because it had gone against the rights of the Chagossians and is racial discrimination.

Then there is the whole environmental issue, which was nodded through very quickly in Committee. It was late at night and I think we had about 10 minutes to discuss the most important ecological danger that now exists, because none of us can believe that Mauritius is going to look after it. We have given up; we will be giving up our rights as the United Kingdom to protect it.

Therefore, there are so many reasons why we should be regretting this, and even going further. This is your Lordships’ House and I accept that there are certain precedents here, but I urge every Peer to support this, whatever their party is saying. This is not a party-political issue; it is about giving away part of our country’s British territory and then paying Mauritius to take it. It is very simple. We either believe in the right of the Chagossians, in self-determination and in the long-term security of our country, or we do not. There is a Government-in-waiting of the Chagossians—this is not going to go away. It will continue to fester away at the Government. I urge noble Lords to realise that there is still time for change and for His Majesty’s Government to recognise that this is a very bad Bill and should be dropped.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has just said that this was not part of a Labour manifesto, but it was part of the last Government’s determination to get a deal on the issue of Diego Garcia. I accept that there are genuine arguments in this debate around environmental issues, and issues around the Chagossian people. I have to say that, from certain quarters, that has come a bit late. We have had quietness, certainly during the last Government, about the rights of Chagossians. I accept that there are noble exceptions in this House and in the other place who have campaigned for many years for their rights, but that was never an issue at the forefront of the last Government’s negotiations with regard to the Bill. What the last Government did was very sensible. They wanted to enter into a long-term agreement to ensure the security and long-term use of Diego Garcia, which was under threat, obviously because of the unusual nature of that island territory.

In terms of Diego Garcia, the agreement is vital not only to our national interests but to our international allies, including the United States. Much has been said about the United States being against this deal. It is not; it sees the long-term benefits. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said about the investment, but that pales into insignificance compared to the amount of investment that the US and other allies will be putting in to secure not only the long-term interests of that base but its capabilities. It is not something we can play party politics with. Alas, I accept that some people are playing party politics with this.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, apart from thanking the Minister and her noble colleague for the courteous way in which they have responded the points I made—which she found exuberant and my noble colleague found forensic—I can limit my remarks to four sentences, two of which are questions.

First, the Government have acknowledged that neither the International Court of Justice nor the tribunal of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea could produce a ruling that was binding on us as to the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands. The Government none the less assert that other countries might respond, even to rulings which were non-binding on us, by withholding goods, services or facilities which could render the base inoperable.

My two questions are: what goods and what services, and supplied by which countries? Secondly, if the base could be rendered inoperable by foreign states withholding goods and services, is it not vulnerable to such action even in the absence of legal rulings and even if we surrender sovereignty if other countries object to our possession or use of the base? Why have the Government not replied to these questions?

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I will just come back to the issue of the environment, which is crucial here. I have a direct question to the Minister, whom I particularly respect in this area. Why on earth was there not a clear connection between our payments and the upkeep of this, the most important marine environment area in the world? We have a very proud record on this, yet we are now giving this into the hands of a country which, however good its words, has one of the worst records on marine protection in the entire world. We are giving it power over the most important marine protection area in the entire world, and we have not connected the money we are paying with its ability to pay for the protection of this area. My question to the Minister is very simple: why not? Why on earth have we not done that?

I do not like this agreement at all; I am opposed to it for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has so rightly put forward. But at the heart of my concern is that we are letting down the whole of the international community by giving out something which we have protected and which has set the example for marine preservation throughout the world. Without the Chagos agreement, we would never have had all the others which have followed, and which have been crucial to the environmental health of this planet. I ask the Minister again: can she explain how this arrangement has been made when there is no connection between what we pay and what we expect in terms of protection?

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I have one final question to the Minister, while confessing, quite frankly, that I have taken zero part in the earlier Committee stage—but Third Reading, contrary to what was suggested earlier, is an opportunity to look at the overall aim and underlying strategy of a measure. Some earlier remarks, which were fascinating, about the financial side should have been ones we were allowed to hear a bit more of.

My question is quite simple. Why does the Minister think that, in looking at this issue, we have not heard a single mention of the Commonwealth system, the largest—although not very centralised—organisation in the world? Why does there appear to have been no discussion between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—its relevant office—and the new and very lively Commonwealth Secretary-General? Why does she think we have not seen any understanding that the Commonwealth, although it has been described as “friends with a purpose”, is of course deeply concerned with the rights of islanders, and the rights of countries as to their status—whether they should be protected and be free and open members of the Commonwealth or associated with the Commonwealth? Such engagement would be in the knowledge that we have many friends and that they could discuss matters with Mauritius, and indeed with India, as well as their own status in an age of delegated and digitalised activity in which very small countries can assume a very important role, as no doubt the Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia will be doing for some years. Given that new and changing pattern of organisations as a new world emerges, as everyone admits, and that entire makeover and difference in our international relations for years ahead, why does she think we have not applied the sensible duty that we should have applied as an active member—not a hub—of the Commonwealth network and left the decisions that we are now being asked to make for much further discussion in a changing world?

[Lord Kempsell (Con)]

My Lords, what a privilege it is to follow the incisive questions of my noble friends who spoke before me and to add my support to the regret amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan, whose speech crystallised the litany of reasons that there are to oppose the Bill and to continue opposing it. The speeches already made in this debate have been a mirror of the way in which your Lordships’ House has conducted the difficult work of scrutinising the Bill—forensic, effective and in depth.

I will restrict myself only to a point, which occurred to me just now as the Minister was speaking, and which we have not heard so much of in previous stages. As the Minister was delivering her paean to all those who have been involved in working on the Bill, and no doubt they have worked very hard to achieve this outcome, I felt some disquiet at the Government indulging themselves in the way in which they have handled this policy. That is for one reason—the consultation of the Chagossians themselves. We know that only a handful, despite the huge machinery at the Government’s disposal, have been asked for their thoughts and views. Moreover, there is the way in which Ministers have adumbrated reasons, explanations and theories for the deal—first, that it was designed to push back on hostile states, and then we learn that only a week later, representatives of hostile states have visited the Government of Mauritius and openly praised the deal. There was also the argument that the deal was necessary for the policing of the electromagnetic spectrum over Diego Garcia, an argument that we heard so much about and that then fell away when it emerged that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination—not the International Telecommunication Union this time—criticised the Bill in the sternest possible terms.

Some Governments blunder into historic foreign policy disasters; some have their hand forced by world events; but never have a Government in modern British administration walked so voluntarily into a strategic bear trap, as this Government are doing with this Bill. Can I ask the Minister to clarify, as the Bill returns to the other place, what plans are in place now to make good the deficit in consultation of Chagossians? Even at this very late hour, what plans do the Government have for that?

I say to the Minister that the Bill remains so confusing, including the pace at which the Government brought it forward and the way they handled questions and scrutiny, not least my own Written Question in September 2024, in which I asked the Government to explain their intentions for the Chagos deal. The Minister answered, saying that it was too early to say. Only nine days later, the Government announced the entire plan. These are deficits in consultation and scrutiny. How does the Minister plan to make them good?

There is, of course, a suspicion that behind every great fortune—a fortune in taxpayers’ money is being spent on this deal, as my noble friend Lord Altrincham explained—there is a crime. There are many of us who consider this deal to be a historical crime. I think we will see the final answers that we seek with the implementation of the Bill, as the truth about this deal emerges.

16:45

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, when I first started to ask questions about the treaty in this place, I asked about the trust fund. I am sure the Minister will remember that question because, in her answer, she accused me of not respecting national security, which was quite a thing for me, having spent all my political life standing up for self-determination and, indeed, security in its widest possible sense.

To echo what the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, said, the greatest problem with this treaty is the idea that we cannot have national security alongside respecting the rights of the Chagossian people. I do not accept that that is the case. We could have respected the Chagossians’ very clear desire. I know there are some here who will say there are different views among the Chagossian communities, but, given the recent report by the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House, which we heard about on Report, it is clear that those who communicated volunteered the fact that they wanted the Chagos Islands to remain British.

There are many reasons, which we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, why the treaty is a bad treaty, and the Bill is a bad Bill. There are fiscal reasons, which were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in Committee and echoed again today by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. There are environmental issues on a monumental scale, which we heard about from the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Goldsmith. There are, of course, defence issues, which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, rightly mentioned again today. This is all in the context of a live judicial review, which has still not given a judgment, and, of course, the report by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in December. Yet, the Government are determined to push ahead.

This is a bad Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for tabling his amendment to this Third Reading Motion, because reasonable questions about the Bill were put to the Government in Committee and on Report, and were met with a wall of denial. Now, the Chagossian people have set up a Government in exile. What does it say about the United Kingdom that the Chagossian people have to do that? Many of them are here again today in the Gallery.

Even if Third Reading goes ahead, the denial of rights will not disappear and the Chagossian people will not disappear—that is very clear. I plead with the Government, even at this late stage, to think again.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, what are we here for if not to think again? We are wriggling painfully on a hook. In the early days, a lot of people, hearing that the Chagos Islands were to be handed over, understood it to be some kind of restitution to the indigenous Chagossians, whom we all agree were very badly treated in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But, with every week that has passed since that initial announcement was made, the arguments have crumbled.

It has become clear that the Chagossians do not want to be handed to a foreign power that has never governed them and whose interest in the archipelago is financial. The Chagossians are here, as always, watching in the Gallery—their silence a neat symbol of how they have been overlooked in this entire debate. It has become clear that Mauritius does not have the capacity to maintain, as my noble friend Lord Deben says, the world’s greatest marine conservation area. It has become clear that the price tag is vastly higher than we were initially led to believe. It has become clear that foreign powers and unfriendly foreign powers are in favour of this deal. It has become clear that we are steamrolling over democracy.

If, as the upper House and the revising Chamber, we are not prepared to take a stand on something of this magnitude and as permanent in its impact in changing the size of the United Kingdom and changing the maps—this is going to be remembered long after people have forgotten what the inflation rate was in 2026 or whether we banned X—then what on earth are we here for?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to address just one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. He said that the previous Government would inevitably have done a deal. Plainly, this is not so. As my right honourable friend Tom Tugendhat made clear in the debates on this Bill in the other place, both he and I, when he was Minister for Security, made clear our opposition to adopting this course of negotiations. Furthermore, when my noble friend Lord Cameron was Foreign Secretary, he was offered a similar deal to the present one and we know that he stopped the process. The current treaty is and remains an act of wanton strategic self-harm.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an important debate on an important Bill and a considerable treaty that impacts on people’s lives and on international law, and which has direct relevance to UK national security. But this regret amendment has a bit of a Cambodia year zero feel to it, as if it all started last summer.

A casual observer would not be aware from this debate—notwithstanding the point that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, just indicated—that the previous Government chose to open negotiations to cede sovereignty in November 2022, without a mandate or consulting the Chagossian people. That decision by the previous Government, which we now know was opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and considered a mistake by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, was done without consultation and was not predicated on guaranteeing Chagossian rights. Furthermore, we now know that it was actively ongoing in April 2024. It was at that point that the then Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, wrote to the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee to confirm the continuation of the negotiations, but also, regrettably, the ongoing denial of the resettlement and consultation rights of the community. So if we are to have regrets, perhaps there is quite a lot that can be shared around the Chamber.

I have previously said, and I do not want to repeat it, that we have a deep regret with the current Government. They have chosen not to change the path of the previous Government in coming to office, and they chose not to conclude the process differently. That has been the essence of the votes on the amendments in this House. At each step of the way, I have sought to raise the concern about a lack of consultation, consent and rights. I am very pleased that the House backed my amendments to seek to address this, and I hope very much that the Commons will now back this too. Putting the permissive elements of Chagossian rights in the treaty on a Mauritian and UK statutory footing should now be the priority. I hope this will get cross-party support.

From the outset, I have raised concerns over the lack of transparency in the financial arrangements and value for money. I was also very pleased that the House backed my amendments to give Parliament, and through it the wider Chagossian community, a much greater say—indeed, a final say—on ceasing making payments if Mauritius does not honour its commitments as part of the treaty. As the House knows, there are mechanisms in place only if the UK renege on commitments, not Mauritius. I am not saying that it will and I am sure both parties have entered into the agreement in good faith, but if, for whatever reason, they fail to honour commitments, Parliament must have the ability to cease the financial elements of the agreement. I hope that the Government will move on these areas as they are the view expressed by this House.

I turn to some of the wider political arguments that we have heard—and we have heard quite a lot. Notwithstanding the “year zero” feel of this amendment, anyone listening to the debate or reading it in Hansard should understand the basic numbers of this House, because some external messaging about stopping the Bill, and the last-ditch efforts of people who have not stopped it, need to be put into context. There are—and I like many of them—281 Conservative Members of this House, while my Benches have 75. There is a separate argument as to the numbers, of course, but the number of Conservative Peers alone could sway the decision today if the Motion is voted on, and I understand that it will be. It is basically a regret Motion. The Conservatives have chosen, with the fire and fury that we have heard in opposition, not to oppose the Bill today but to complain about it. The whole public should be aware that that is the reality of what will be happening today, and we will see how many of those 281 will at least complain about it, even though they are not seeking to stop it.

As we reach the end of this Bill, I thank most particularly the Chagossian community, many members of which have watched our debates. I have regretted some of the language that they have had to listen to, but I hope many of them feel that there are many people in this House who believe sincerely in their rights.

I thank Ministers who have been willing to listen, engage and—on certain occasions, as we have heard today from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—agree. I want to chat with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about how persuasive he was, because I hope the Minister will now act on the other amendments that we have heard, but presumably that will have to be for ping-pong.

I support those who have helped me in the debate, including Adam Bull in our whips’ office, and many other people who have been in touch. I hope we can make progress and focus now on the priorities, which are Chagossian legal rights of resettlement, active consultation and participation, value for money and finance. We should return to these issues after the Commons has considered our sensible amendments.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are doing the tough and vital work necessary to protect our national security. We were in opposition for a long time, 14 years, so I understand the temptation to play political games whenever you get the chance—I completely get that. However, one thing that we never did was put our national security at risk.

I do not aim these remarks at all the noble Lords and Baronesses opposite; I know for a fact that the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster and Lady Hoey, whose aim is true, have genuine, long-standing support for the Chagossian community, and they apply that to this debate. However, I have not seen that same integrity and care expressed by some others. Over the years, I often shadowed the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, but I do not think I have ever heard him mention the way that the Chagossian community has been treated or their rights or needs. I am the first to say that they have been badly treated, and have said so many times throughout the passage of the Bill.

I disagree with everything in the Motion. The deal secures the long-term future of the critically important military base on Diego Garcia. If we had not done a deal then that would have left the future of the base, as well as current operations, in jeopardy, with likely further wide-ranging litigation, which would have undermined base operations. Waiting for that risk to crystallise, as some noble Lords opposite encouraged us to do, would have placed us in a much weaker position from which to negotiate. Either there was legal jeopardy, which is presumably why the previous Government embarked upon round after round of negotiation, or, as they now ask us to believe, there was never any legal jeopardy, in which case what on earth were they doing with their time and that of officials undertaking negotiation in bad faith?

Unlike the previous Conservative Government’s strategy with the Rwanda deal, we have been upfront about the costs. We have set them out clearly in our Explanatory Memorandum and in the finance exchange of letters, which were published on the same day as the treaty and have been debated many times since.

17:00

Some members of the Opposition appear to be wilfully ignoring the facts to score political points. This is, frankly, shameful. It puts at risk the UK’s national security for an unedifying and unconvincing political jab. I understand the temptation, but it is fundamentally wrong to do that. I had hoped, although this has clearly been a hope in vain, for much better from the Official Opposition.

As the IRDC report noted, a series of Governments have failed to engage properly with the Chagossian community. I hold my hand up. This Government take responsibility for what we have done, and the former Government need to do the same. More so than our predecessors, we take responsibility. They started these negotiations three years ago. They had every opportunity to reach out, at every point, to the Chagossian community, but they seem to have found their voice when it comes to listening to the Chagossians and speaking with them only once they found themselves in opposition. We are working hard to rectify that, because the way that the Chagossians have been treated is wrong. That is why we have established the Chagossian Contact Group.

As noble Lords understand, the negotiations were primarily about sovereignty and securing the base on Diego Garcia. It was therefore right that they were between the UK and Mauritius—they were state to state. Noble Lords understand this, whatever they say today. We recognise the importance of these islands to Chagossians. This treaty is the only viable route to any resettlement, which can now move forward under a Mauritian programme. The Chagossians will be able to work on the island and visit Diego Garcia—something that they have not been able to do for a very long time.

I believe many Members to be genuine in their concern about the marine protected area and it is right that they have taken the opportunity to raise this. We are working incredibly closely with Mauritius. It does not have the capability and expertise to do this as it stands, but we will make sure that we work alongside Mauritius so that that important work can be done.

The Commonwealth was born of the past but has a vital role to play in our future. This negotiation was state to state, between the UK and Mauritius, but I completely agree with everything that was said about the new leadership at the Commonwealth, its successful past and the vital work that it has to do.

Noble Lords have said that there is no legal reason to negotiate but that this was negotiated all the same. This Government have negotiated and have reached a conclusion. All our Five Eyes partners support the deal, because they understand the need to resolve this to maintain our security. This Government have one priority: the safety and security of our citizens, the British people. The noble Lord opposite has one priority, and that is to play politics with the hopes and dreams of the Chagossian community. That is what he has done, without any concern about what that might mean for this nation’s security.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am sorry that the Minister has chosen to end this debate adopting a totally different tone from that which she pursued during Committee and Report. I asked a clear question: which goods, services and facilities will be withheld by which countries if we do not do this deal? She has not answered. She has said that there must be an answer to that question because the previous Government negotiated. She is the Minister and they are the Government; she must give us the answer and not say that there must be an answer from someone else.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I have clearly annoyed the noble Lord, given the finger-pointing this afternoon. My tone comes because this is the conclusion to these considerations. I would invite noble Lords to consider, when we talk about legal jeopardy and our reliance on third states, the remoteness of these islands and the complexity of sustaining a base of this nature. We rely on other states for supplies, for refuelling and for communications purposes. That is why we rest part of our argument on the need to resolve the legal jeopardy that the previous Government, as well as this Government and other states, could see existed here. We were determined to resolve this because, left unresolved, our position becomes weaker and weaker over time. This needed to be settled.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her replies. I do not think she said anything different from the points she made earlier. We had a lot of party-political insults but, yet again, no dealing with the actual issues that we raised. The one concession that I thought I heard from her—I will check Hansard—was an admission of what we have been saying all along: Mauritius does not in fact have the capabilities to resource the protection of the marine protected area. She has never said that in any previous assertions. Anyway, there are lots of points that I could take up more of the House’s time with, but I will not do that. I will just say that I would like to test the opinion of the House on my Motion.

17:05

Division 1

Lord Callanan’s amendment to the Motion agreed.

Ayes: 201

Noes: 169

17:15

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

The Question is that the original Motion, as amended, be agreed to.

[Noble Lords]

Content.

[Noble Lords]

Not content.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

I am informed that I should take the voices again. The Question is that the original Motion, as amended, be agreed to.

[Noble Lords]

Content.

[Noble Lords]

Not content.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

I called the original Motion, as amended, as a result of the vote that your Lordships have just taken part in. I will take the voices again. The Question is that the original Motion, as amended, be agreed to.

[Noble Lords]

Content.

[Noble Lords]

Not content.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

The Opposition have put their amendment to the House and it has been carried. They are now going to vote against the Motion that they have just won on. I do not understand that at all. It seems to me that the normal thing is that, when a regret amendment is won, the Motion is amended and then the House approves the Motion as amended. We have tried to do that three times.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try putting the Question once again. The Question is that the original Motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed.

17:18

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Sentencing Bill

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

Scottish legislative consent granted. Relevant document: 37th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee.

17:21

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

That the Bill do now pass.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

Before I begin, I can update the House that the Scottish Government have granted an LCM. This covers the provisions in the Sentencing Bill on the treatment of national security offenders, which affect the executive competence of Scottish Ministers. I am very grateful to the Scottish Parliament for working with us.

I start by thanking the many noble Lords who have contributed to the Bill through debates in this Chamber and the extensive discussions that have taken place beyond it. Those contributions have shown the very best of this House. I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their support and engagement on key measures in the Bill. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for their informed interventions and constructive challenge. Lastly, I thank my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lord Blunkett for their contributions. I have enjoyed working with, and have learned a lot from, all noble Lords in your Lordships’ House. I also want to thank the officials who have been involved in the Bill’s preparation and passage, who have supported me so ably.

This is a significant Bill. As I said at Second Reading, it will put our justice system on a sustainable footing fit for the future, one that prioritises victims, fairness and accountability, and one that prioritises punishment that works, but, with the help of your Lordships’ House, we have gone even further to strengthen the Bill. Through its passage, we have added safeguards, and increased transparency, around the new approvals processes for the Sentencing Council; made it a statutory requirement for the Government to lay an annual Statement on prison capacity before Parliament; agreed to remove the power for providers of probation services to publish names, and photos, of individuals subject to an unpaid work requirement; and brought hope to those serving IPP sentences, and their families, by offering a faster and safe route to the end of their sentence.

Alongside this, we extended the whole life order starting point to include the murder of probation officers, and we made sure that this extends to current or former police, prison and probation officers where they are murdered in connection with their duties, even if it occurs while they are off duty or after they have left the service. I pause here to again pay tribute to former prison custody officer Lenny Scott as well as his family, who I am meeting tomorrow, for their dignified and determined advocacy on his behalf.

Finally, I again recognise the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his tireless and tenacious leadership on tackling gambling addiction. As he knows, I share his concerns, and this is something I have committed to look at very closely.

I finish by again thanking the many noble Lords and officials who have helped shape, strengthen and support this Bill through to its Third Reading. It will prioritise victims, bring stability to our justice system, and better protect the public. I am very proud of this Bill and look forward to working on its implementation. I beg to move.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, for his kind and generous introduction. This is an important Bill and we on these Benches have supported its principal purposes throughout—those being to address the extreme prison capacity crisis, to move away from reliance on more and longer prison sentences, and to introduce a presumption against short sentences of immediate imprisonment and switch to greater use of suspended sentences, coupled with community supervision. Our concerns now are to ensure that the Government’s ambitions for probation are properly resourced and met, and I know the noble Lord knows how challenging achieving those ambitions will be. It will involve better use of technology, effective use of tagging and in particular making a real success of the recruitment, training and motivation of the Prison and Probation Service.

The noble Lord also knows how much we on these Benches appreciate the engagement that he and the whole Bill team have had with us, but also with other noble Lords across the House. His approach to this Bill, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, have been a fine example of co-operation across the House driving significant improvement in legislation. We have made important changes and, I think, without wasting time. Among other welcome changes, we are particularly grateful to the Government for agreeing to the removal of Clause 35, with its unfortunate proposals for probation officers to take and publish photographs of offenders undertaking unpaid work. We are also very grateful for the Government’s commitment to thorough, open and regular reporting on prison and probation capacity and staffing. I pay credit to the contributions of my noble friend Lord Foster in this area, as well as for his contributions on gambling.

We believe that the Bill has the potential to move us towards a more effective and humane sentencing system that concentrates on rehabilitation of offenders and reducing reoffending and puts victims at its heart.

One issue that will need further consideration from the Commons, and again here, is the provision of free transcripts, for which this House voted, which would benefit public understanding, and particularly victims’ understanding, of how the justice system works. I hope we will find an agreed and acceptable way forward on this issue, despite the Government’s concern, which I understand, as to the initial cost of providing free transcripts.

Finally, on the other side of the balance, it is a shame that we have not made the progress that we sought in ending the scandal of IPP prisoners still in prison or on licence for years after their tariff sentences have been served. That is serious unfinished business, and the appalling injustice involved remains to be fully addressed. I know that Members around the House hope that it will be effectively addressed soon. Nevertheless, we are extremely pleased to see the successful passage of the Bill through the House.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I too am grateful to all noble Lords for their constructive engagement on this important Bill at every stage of its passage. On behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, in thanking the Minister for the open and courteous manner in which he engaged with the House throughout the Bill’s consideration.

We on these Benches are particularly pleased that the Government tabled Amendment 53. We are proud to have championed the case for addressing a serious and unjust gap in the law relating to the imposition of whole life orders for the murder of police and prison officers. We too acknowledge the determined campaigning work carried out by the parents of Lenny Scott after the murder of their son in February 2024. We also welcome the Government’s decision to extend this provision to probation officers, who carry out exceptionally demanding and important work in the service of the public.

I also thank the Minister for Amendment 58, which introduces an annual report on prison capacity. This is an issue which we pressed strongly in Committee. If Parliament is to legislate for significant changes in sentencing and release policy, it is only right that the public are provided with a regular and transparent account of the prison estate. While we would have preferred the Government to commit to a more detailed report, this none the less represents a welcome step forward.

17:30

We on these Benches welcomed the passage of the amendment requiring the Crown Courts to provide sentencing remarks free of charge upon request. Victims of crime, and the families of victims of crime, should not be required to pay to access sentencing remarks directed to those who have offended against them, particularly when those remarks are central to the submission of an unduly lenient sentence application. I strongly urge the Government in the other place to recognise the importance of this reform and to support the amendment.

We are deeply disappointed by the rejection of our amendment to exempt the most dangerous offenders from the proposed new early release scheme. This amendment was supported by all non-government parties in the other place, including the Green Party, Reform, independents, Plaid Cymru, a Labour rebel and, notably, the Liberal Democrats. Every single Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament present voted in favour of this amendment, yet in your Lordships’ House every single Liberal Democrat Peer voted against it. That is a sudden and complete reversal in position that is difficult to comprehend.

That divergence is all the more difficult to reconcile given that the Liberal Democrats also tabled an amendment containing exemptions from the automatic release of offenders recalled on fixed-term licences. That amendment was, in substance, closely aligned with ours. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, stated,

“in this case we accept it as a list of serious offences”.—[Official Report, 6/1/26; col. 1165.]

It is therefore unclear why those offences are considered serious for the purposes of the Liberal Democrat amendment but not for ours—an amendment which, I emphasise again, was supported unanimously by their party in the other place.

Above all, we are most disappointed by the defeat of Amendment 25, which sought to prevent domestic abusers and sex offenders from benefiting from an automatic presumption of suspended sentences. We firmly believe that Amendment 25 was necessary to protect women and girls from violence and sexual assault. A direct consequence of government and Liberal Democrat opposition may be that victims of sexual assault and domestic abuse will be forced to live in the same communities as the offenders who abused them. It is not sufficient, we submit, for the Minister to claim that custody remains available in “exceptional circumstances”. As my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie made clear, offences of sexual assault and domestic abuse are, by their very nature, exceptional.

The Government have pledged to halve violence against women and girls by the end of the decade and have recently published the violence against women and girls strategy. Opposition to this amendment exposes those pledges as hollow: the Government speak of protection yet legislate in the opposite direction.

The Liberal Democrats’ decision to vote to keep sex offenders and domestic abusers out of prison is equally difficult to understand. Their justice spokesperson in the other place has tabled a Bill to make domestic abuse an aggravating factor in sentencing, to

“close the loophole where some domestic abusers are currently released early under the Government’s SDS40 scheme”.

It is therefore striking that they voted against a Conservative amendment that would have achieved precisely that objective.

In conclusion, while we continue to oppose significant aspects of the Bill, I remain grateful to all noble Lords for their engagement with it. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on the amendment relating to sentencing remarks, and I have no doubt that these issues will return to your Lordships’ House in due course.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will not follow the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down and go into the politics of this because I do not think this is the time or place. I do, however, congratulate the Minister on the way he has managed the Bill through this House. It is an exemplary example of someone coming in from the private sector with a successful track record of leading an unusual business and transferring that expertise, apparently effortlessly and flawlessly, into your Lordships’ House. He is an example for other new arrivals on the Front Bench alongside him to learn from; a few seminars with him would do them the world of good.

I will now briefly return to a subject that will not surprise the Minister or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, which is an issue we spoke about and had meetings about: perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalkers being released earlier than they should be. The Minister has been kind enough to suggest another meeting, so I can tell him that knocking on his door will be the Domestic Abuse Commissioner Dame Nicole Jacobs and the new Victims’ Commissioner Claire Waxman; her diary permitting, the Minister can also expect the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, who will provide some real weight, and I gather she is one of the people who made the Minister actually think about going into public life. Finally, I will be there as the token male.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank all noble and learned and noble Lords for their very kind feedback. I have never had an appraisal in my career; this is the first one I have had, and I will take the feedback. All noble Lords are welcome to knock on my door at any time, because I learn so much from what they bring, which makes what I am trying to do far better. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords and my noble friend Lord Lemos for guiding me along the way on this and for contributing on very important parts of this Bill. Everyone has contributed to make this a very good Bill. Again, I thank all noble Lords and I beg to move.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

17:37

Sitting suspended.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Report

Scottish and Northern Ireland legislative consent sought.

17:43

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

1: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (1) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision that is within section 9(2) (read with section 9(3) to (6)) for the purposes of implementing the United Kingdom’s obligations under Part 2 of the Agreement.(2) Regulations under this section may—(a) confer a function (including a discretion) on any person;(b) make different provision for different purposes or for different areas;(c) make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(3) Regulations under this section that provide for civil sanctions—(a) must provide a right of appeal against the imposition of any such sanction; (b) may make any provision corresponding to, or dealing with similar matters to, provision made by or capable of being made under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008.(4) For the purposes of this section, “appropriate national authority”, in relation to the making of regulations, means—(a) the Scottish Ministers, so far as provision made by the regulations would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;(b) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, so far as provision made by the regulations—(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.(5) The consequential provision that may be made by regulations in reliance on subsection (2)(c) includes provision amending—(a) in relation to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, an enactment within the meaning given by Schedule 1 to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (whenever passed or made), and(b) in relation to regulations made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, any statutory provision within the meaning given by section 1(f) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would give the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland a power to make provision within devolved legislative competence corresponding to the provision that the Secretary of State can make under clause 9.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to open this debate with the government amendments tabled in my name relating the role of devolved Governments in the implementation of the BBNJ agreement. As noble Lords will be aware, the BBNJ Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, apart from certain clauses which extend to Scotland only. Foreign affairs, including the negotiation and signature of international treaties, are a reserved matter under the devolution settlements. However, observation and implementation of obligations arising under treaties in domestic law are excepted from the foreign affairs reservation so far as those obligations relate to devolved matters. Working closely with Ministers and officials in the devolved Governments, we have agreed that the legislative consent motion process is engaged for Scotland and Northern Ireland, to varying extents, by Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill.

The Government have been in sustained discussions with both devolved Governments to seek consent for this Bill, and I can confirm to the House that Motions on consent will be debated shortly in both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Throughout these discussions, the Government have sought to ensure that devolved competencies are fully respected. That is why we have tabled amendments on Report to strengthen the role of the devolved Governments in the future implementation of the BBNJ agreement.

Clauses 9 and 11 confer powers on the Secretary of State to make regulations to implement the UK’s obligations under Parts II and III of the BBNJ agreement. Government Amendments 1, 2, 5 and 6 provide Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs with concurrent powers to make regulations within devolved competence. In addition, Amendments 3 and 7 place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult Scotland and Northern Ireland before exercising the powers in Clauses 9 and 11 where regulations engage devolved matters. This approach will ensure that devolved Governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made and enable them to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they wish to do so, and it reflects their responsibilities while supporting timely and effective implementation of the agreement.

Government Amendments 10 and 11 ensure that Clause 23, which sets out procedures for the making of regulations under the Act, does not apply to regulations made under the new clauses introduced by government Amendments 1 and 5. Instead, the procedures for regulations set out in government Amendments 2 and 6 respectively will apply.

Finally, government Amendment 12 amends Clause 26 so that Clause 18 comes into force on such a day as the Secretary of State appoints by regulations, rather than upon Royal Assent. This change will ensure a consistent approach across the Bill with regards to the environmental impact assessment regulations that are being amended. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for going through those technicalities. These Benches welcome the effectiveness of devolution for this sort of implementation legislation, as I am sure the whole House does. The one question I have for the Minister, although she does not have power over it, is whether she has been assured by the devolved Assemblies that the correct and needed authorities will be given, so that we can keep up the momentum and participate as a party that has ratified this agreement when the first Conference of the Parties takes place?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill enables the Government to go ahead and ratify the treaty, which we signed when we were in government and we still support. We have discussed the treaty and the Bill at length in Committee, and we are pleased that the Government are continuing with this work to implement the treaty.

The amendments in this group seek to grant powers to the Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers that are broadly equivalent to those granted to the Secretary of State under the Bill. Although the content of these amendments is not especially concerning, it feels a little late for the Government to make substantive changes to their Bill. The Bill has progressed through all stages in the House of Commons and Committee in your Lordships’ House. By making amendments at this late stage, Peers are denied the opportunity of proper scrutiny in Committee. We believe that this is happening too often. We were clear when it happened under the previous Government that it was unacceptable, and it remains so under this Government. Can the Minister please explain why the Government have waited until Report in this House to make these changes?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not want to fall out with the noble Lord today, but the reason these changes have come at this stage is that we have listened to our friends and colleagues in the devolved Administrations who have said that they feel they need these powers, and we respect their view, having had a look at it as well. This has not always been the approach of the UK Government, but it is what we are trying to do, so that is why they have come at this stage.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I believe that the correct authorities are to be given. I have every confidence that that is the case, and I hope that we do not need to return to make changes to this as a consequence. These amendments demonstrate our commitment to collaborating with the devolved Governments at the same time as ensuring that the UK is able to implement the agreement in a timely manner.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Amendments 2 and 3

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

2: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Procedure for regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland)(1) Regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland) that include provision—(a) amending an Act of Parliament, an Act of the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland legislation,(b) made in reliance on section 9(2)(b), or(c) creating a civil sanction or varying the maximum amount of any monetary penalty,are subject to the affirmative procedure.(2) Any other regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland) are subject to the negative procedure.(3) Any provision that may be made by regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland) subject to the negative procedure may be made in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. (4) The power of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to make regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).(5) For the purposes of this section—(a) in relation to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, see sections 28 and 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 for the meanings of “subject to the negative procedure” and “subject to the affirmative procedure”, and(b) in relation to regulations made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland—(i) where the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, the regulations may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and(ii) where the regulations are subject to the negative procedure, the regulations are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.)).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would make provision for procedure relating to regulations under new clause (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland), which would be inserted after clause 9.

3: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Consultation: Scotland and Northern Ireland(1) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under section 9 that contain provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament.(2) The Secretary of State must consult the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland before making regulations under section 9 that contain provision that—(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(b) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland before making regulations under section 9 that contain provision with the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Amendments 2 and 3 agreed.

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

4: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Control of plastic pellet pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations and through the exercise of functions under this Act and other enactments, and through co-operation in relevant international organisations and bodies, make provision for the prevention, control and remediation of pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction arising from the manufacture, handling, transport, storage, loading or unloading of plastic pellets, flakes or powders.(2) Measures taken under this section must aim to secure a level of environmental protection that is no less effective than the measures set out in the International Maritime Organization Marine Environment Protection Committee Circular MEPC.1/Circ.909, as approved in 2024.(3) Regulations under this section must, in particular, include provision—(a) requiring operators to implement mandatory procedures to prevent the loss of plastic pellets throughout the supply chain in areas beyond national jurisdiction;(b) requiring containment, spill-prevention, recovery and clean-up measures in areas beyond national jurisdiction consistent with internationally recognised best practice; (c) requiring training, documentation and internal controls relating to pellet loss prevention in areas beyond national jurisdiction;(d) requiring the prompt reporting of any loss of plastic pellets in areas beyond national jurisdiction to the appropriate authority;(e) providing for the remediation of environmental harm and the recovery of associated costs from the responsible operator;(f) providing for monitoring, inspection of, and enforcement against, the loss of plastic pellets in areas beyond national jurisdiction, including civil sanctions;(g) requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to evidence of the effectiveness of measures adopted by parties to the International Maritime Organization, including measures adopted pursuant to the implementation of MEPC.1/Circ.909 by international signatories, including the European Union.(4) Regulations under this section must be made within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the control of plastic pellet pollution.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 4, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for putting her name to it as well. This is a very important issue that we debated at length in Committee. The reason I am bringing something back on Report, albeit in a more focused form just dealing with plastic pellets, is that plastic generally is one of the huge problems that the ocean needs to have addressed, but the plastic pellet issue is something that the Government could choose to do a lot more about monitoring, evaluating and regulating.

It is notable that the European Union has made regulations about pellets. The loss at sea during shipping of these pellets, which form the basis of plastic wherever it is manufactured, is estimated to be 10 trillion pellets annually, with 10 million tonnes apparently lost within European Union waters, so it is a massive problem the sheer scale of which is hard to imagine. Some of the losses get into the sea and wash out from our own sewage plants—that, again, is something that I am sure the Government will look at. I would like the Minister’s assurance today that through some vehicle in the future, whether it is the forthcoming water White Paper or whatever, they will address this issue of plastic pellets, firming up on how people shipping them are trained, the regulation of it and how they are contained on ships—everything to do with the shipping of them—because the scale of the loss is unsupportable and every country needs to take action on it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It is an extremely good amendment, and I urge the Minister to pick it up at some future date. This is such a good amendment that it should go into legislation somewhere.

In Committee, we heard at length and with real concern about the scale and persistence of plastic pollution in our oceans. Much of that discussion centred on consumable plastics and waste, but plastic pellets, flakes and powders are equally serious and often overlooked in legislation. These losses might be small in individual incidents, although some might be extremely large, but they are cumulative and, in effect, irretrievable and irreversible once they have happened.

We are looking ahead, apparently, to a global plastics treaty, which I am very excited about. That process is obviously welcome, but the urgency of the problem means that we should take every available opportunity to act now, particularly where there is already an international consensus on best practice.

What I welcome very much about this amendment is its practical focus. This would stop the plastic pellets getting into the sea in the first place instead of our trying to mop them up and recover them later which is, as I said, impossible.

I will also speak to my Amendment 9 on the exemptions in the Bill. Clause 18 seeks to strengthen confidence in how environmental impact assessments are applied. It worries me that there are so many exemptions. Again, I would very much appreciate it if the Minister took this issue up. My amendment is supported by WildFish, an organisation with extensive expertise in marine conservation, whose work highlights the importance of making sure that decisions to rely on exemptions are transparent, on a case-by-case basis, and ensure that there is an equivalence that meets Part IV of the BBNJ agreement and Article 206 of UNCLOS. This amendment would clearly set out that test. Where an appropriate authority determines that a formal environmental impact assessment is not required, that determination should rest on the existence of another assessment being in place that is equivalently robust.

The amendment would also ensure that the reasoning behind such decisions was recorded and published, with the idea to keep decisions transparent and uphold public trust. In particular, there are difficulties in relying on regional fisheries management organisations as a substitute for BBNJ-aligned environmental assessment. Although RFMOs play an important role in managing fishing effort and target stocks, their processes do not routinely deliver full assessment of cumulative impacts across sectors, of effects on food webs and non-target species, or of the full implications for migratory species that cross jurisdictional boundaries. I would be very happy to talk to the Minister in more detail about this and I hope to see it in a future Bill. I would like to have moved this amendment, but we are obviously in a hurry to complete the Bill, so I have held off, but it is incredibly important that we do not allow exemptions without understanding why they have happened and the fact that they have not been recorded properly.

As interest grows in new industries, such as open ocean aquaculture, the potential environmental impacts, ranging from disease and growth in parasites to genetic impacts from escapes and reliance on wild-caught fish, are even more important. We are seeing this in salmon farms at the moment: escaped fish covered in all sorts of rather nasty things spread to wild fish and cross-breed, which is deeply unhealthy for the wild fish. I would welcome the Minister putting on record how the Government intend to apply these equivalence criteria in practice, particularly in view of the regional fisheries management organisations. I would like reassurance that exemptions in any future legislation will be applied narrowly and cautiously; that equivalence will be actively tested and not just assumed; that reliance on regional organisations alone will not automatically justify exemption; and that future high-risk activities will be subject to BBNJ-aligned screening.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches support the intent of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I hope the Minister will have a useful reply to it.

On plastics and the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Miller, one of the things that is clear is that, even in terms of human health and the food chain, plastics discarded anywhere, let alone in the ocean, are a huge issue for the future. I have one question for the Minister. One of the tragedies of last year was that the plastics treaty was not concluded, despite expectation. It is largely thought that that was because of the lobbying of the plastics industry. Certainly, the United States has not exactly been supportive of international agreements over the past 12 months. It would be great if, despite my pessimism about the future of that treaty, there was some feeling within her department that perhaps it is not dead, as it is supposed not to be, and there is still some mileage and hope that we might be able to find a conclusion to it.

18:00

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for leading this group. The objective of the treaty is to protect areas of the ocean that lie beyond national jurisdiction in line with the treaty that we agreed. Plastic pellet pollution is a concerning environmental risk, and I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the matter forward for debate. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to the noble Baroness’s concerns and take this opportunity to set out the steps the Government are taking to tackle the menace of plastic pellet pollution. Does the Minister think that that action is sufficient? Do Ministers have plans to go further on plastic pollution during this Parliament? While we do not feel that the amendment is a necessary improvement to the Bill, we share the noble Baroness’s concerns about the harmful effects of plastic pollution.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to ensure that environmental impact assessments are undertaken where appropriate. Again, while we do not think that this is necessary in the Bill, I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the noble Baroness that environmental impact assessments will continue to be required where appropriate.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments relate to environmental protection and plastic pellet pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—I thank them for it—would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the control of plastic pellet pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction within 12 months of the BBNJ Act being passed.

The Government fully recognise the seriousness of plastic pollution in the marine environment, including the particular harms caused by plastic pellet loss. It is a matter of genuine public concern as well. The noble Baronesses have been tireless advocates for action in this area, and I am pleased that they have used the opportunity today to raise this issue again.

The Government are taking steps to address the issue through existing regulatory channels. For example, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships under the International Maritime Organization already requires the reporting of the discharge, both accidental or deliberate, of any harmful substance covered by the convention and sets out how this report must be made. Discussions on regulating plastic pellets under the convention are currently ongoing in the IMO, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will be responsible for addressing the implementation of these regulations. The UK implements Annex V of this convention through the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships) Regulations 2020, which prohibits any discharge of plastic into the sea.

Further, as of 1 January, a new requirement under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea came into force internationally, which mandates the reporting of lost containers to the nearest coastal state and flag state so that speedy efforts to recover the containers can be made. Additionally, there is a separate process under way to agree a global plastic pollution treaty. Pellet loss is a global issue, and the UK has called for specific provisions in the new treaty on plastic pollution to address pellet loss throughout the supply chain. I appreciate that things have not got to where we would wish them to with this treaty, but we continue to support it. Notwithstanding the long amount of time that has already elapsed in getting the treaty to where it is today, we do not walk away; we continue to advocate for the treaty.

While I recognise the important issue raised by the amendment, for the purpose of the Bill, this is about enabling the UK to comply with the legal obligations under the BBNJ agreement. I know that the noble Baronesses understand this and are using this opportunity to raise these issues, and so they should. We do not think this particular Bill is the most suitable vehicle for addressing plastic pollution across its full life cycle. Elements of the proposed new clause may become duplicative of measures currently being taken by the UK to manage plastic pollution at sea.

Amendment 9 was specifically tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. She rightly highlights the importance of ensuring that, under the marine licensing regime, an appropriate authority cannot defer to another equivalent assessment unless that assessment meets the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement Part IV requirements. I fully agree with what she is trying to do through the amendment. I reassure her that these changes are not needed, because it is already the case that the appropriate authority will not, under the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, be able to defer to another equivalent assessment unless that assessment meets the requirements of Part IV of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. This would include all the procedural consultation and public participation requirements of Part IV of the agreement. The respective Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations set out various additional procedural and public notification requirements that the appropriate authority must undertake if it decides to defer to an equivalent assessment.

Given that these requirements already ensure that, under the marine licensing regimes, an equivalent assessment must be appropriately rigorous and meet the Part IV requirements, including for public participation and transparency, I am pleased that I can, I think, reassure the noble Baroness that the amendment is not needed today. I am happy to continue, as she suggests, talking about this, alongside my colleagues in Defra. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baronesses will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her helpful reply. It is constructive that the loss of containers has to be reported, but I look forward to a time when we are not just hearing that the horse has bolted but have actually got bolts on the stable door. I am sure that the Government will continue to press for that aim too. In withdrawing the amendment, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for contributing to this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Amendments 5 to 7

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

5: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)(1) Where section 11 applies, the appropriate national authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate for the purpose mentioned in section 11(2).(2) Subsections (3) to (5) of section 11 apply to regulations under this section as they apply to regulations under that section.(3) Regulations under this section may—(a) confer a function (including a discretion) on any person; (b) make different provision for different purposes or for different areas;(c) make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(4) Regulations under this section that provide for civil sanctions—(a) must provide a right of appeal against the imposition of any such sanction;(b) may make any provision corresponding to, or dealing with similar matters to, provision made by or capable of being made under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008.(5) For the purposes of this section, “appropriate national authority”, in relation to the making of regulations, means—(a) the Scottish Ministers, so far as provision made by the regulations would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament; (b) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, so far as provision made by the regulations—(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.(6) The consequential provision that may be made by regulations in reliance on subsection (3)(c) includes provision amending—(a) in relation to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, an enactment within the meaning given by Schedule 1 to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (whenever passed or made), and(b) in relation to regulations made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, any statutory provision within the meaning given by section 1(f) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would give the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland a power to make provision within devolved legislative competence corresponding to the provision that the Secretary of State can make under clause 11.

6: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Procedure for regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2))(1) Subject to subsection (3), regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)) that include provision—(a) amending an Act of Parliament, an Act of the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland legislation,(b) creating a civil sanction or varying the maximum amount of any monetary penalty, or(c) creating a criminal offence,are subject to the affirmative procedure.(2) Subsection (3) applies where the provision within subsection (1) of this section relates to a decision under Article 24(1) of the Agreement.(3) Where the person making the regulations considers that the regulations need to be made urgently in order to give effect to the measure to which they relate, the regulations are subject to the made affirmative procedure. (4) Any other regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)) are subject to the negative procedure.(5) Any provision that may be made by regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)) subject to the negative procedure may be made in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure or the made affirmative procedure.(6) The power of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to make regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).(7) For the purposes of this section—(a) in relation to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, see sections 28 and 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 for the meanings of “subject to the negative procedure” and “subject to the affirmative procedure”, (b) in relation to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers that are subject to the “made affirmative procedure”, the regulations—(i) must be laid before the Scottish Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(ii) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which they are made unless, during that period, the regulations are approved by resolution of the Scottish Parliament,(c) in relation to regulations made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland that are subject to the “affirmative procedure”, the regulations may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly,(d) in relation to regulations made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland that are subject to the “made affirmative procedure”, the regulations—(i) must be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(ii) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the regulations are made unless, during that period, the regulations are approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and (e) in relation to regulations made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland that are subject to “the negative procedure”, the regulations are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.)).(8) In calculating the period of 28 days mentioned in subsection (7)(b)(ii), no account is to be taken of any time during which the Scottish Parliament is—(a) dissolved, or(b) in recess for more than 4 days.(9) In calculating the period of 28 days mentioned in subsection (7)(d)(ii), no account is to be taken of any time during which the Northern Ireland Assembly is—(a) dissolved,(b) in recess for more than 4 days, or(c) adjourned for more than 6 days.(10) Where regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (7)(b)(ii) or (d)(ii), that does not— (a) affect anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would make provision for procedure relating to regulations under new clause (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)), which would be inserted after clause 12.

7: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Consultation: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)(1) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under section 11 that contain provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament.(2) The Secretary of State must consult the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland before making regulations under section 11 that contain provision that— (a) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(b) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply where the Secretary of State considers that the regulations need to be made urgently in order to give effect to a measure adopted under Article 24(1) of the Agreement (decisions to adopt measures to be applied on an emergency basis).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland before making regulations under section 11 that contain provision with the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, except in the case of regulations that need to be made urgently.

Amendments 5 to 7 agreed.

Clause 14: Licensable marine activities

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

8: Clause 14, page 10, line 37, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 69 (determination of applications), after subsection (1)(c) insert—“(d) the need to ensure the human rights of those at sea in areas beyond national jurisdiction,””

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, one of the core characteristics of the Bill is, obviously, a treaty that is about actions beyond national jurisdictions. In fact, we should celebrate it even more, because I suspect it will be one of the last of these treaties that we shall enjoy and be able to make over the next few years. I think that there will not be many that follow this.

One of the areas that has been left out of the treaty, but which is important, because this is beyond national jurisdiction, is around human rights—hence the amendment. I thank the Minister and her team for the conversations that we have had recently about this area. Human rights are, by definition, universal, but they are very differently applied, in practice, terrestrially from how they are on the high seas. The reason for that is that, terrestrially, they can be enforced; those who feel that their human rights are being threatened can go to authorities, normally. Their cases and instances can be pursued, whether it be through legal processes or whatever.

Out on the high seas, that is very different indeed. There is effectively a vacuum in terms of enforcement once the national boundaries at sea have been crossed. There is also an asymmetric situation in terms of power. Whether it be crew, passengers or researchers in this instance, once they are on the high seas, they have very little power in comparison to the skipper or captain, or what the owners might instruct the skipper or captain to do. For instance, unlike on land, there is no contact by mobile telephone; you cannot get in touch with authorities to pursue your case or ask for help or get protection. None of that is necessarily available.

That is compounded by flags of convenience, which we talked about in Committee. Often, those flag states, which would be the enforcement authority for a vessel on the high seas, do not have the capacity, the interest or the ability to be communicated with to enforce those human rights on that vessel; hence why I ask that we also include human rights in the terms of the licensing requirement. I noted, going through the coastal access Act, that human health was one of the considerations, but human rights are obviously much broader than that.

So, who are the sorts of people who might be the problem? I suspect it is not the researchers on a research vessel, but you still have crew beyond that. The problem is usually because they are either indentured employees, migrants who are unable to communicate easily with the ship owners or the authority of the port where they are, being unable to communicate in the same language. There is quite wide-scale abuse, mainly in the fishing industry, but there are also instances in the cruise industry and risks in this sector as well.

That is why I feel it is important that the licensing authorities are able to check, purely in the case of licences for research beyond national jurisdiction, and that they have to consider whether the boat owner, operator and licensee are able and have the will to protect the human rights of the persons on board those vessels. I beg to move.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendment. Of course, we share his desire to see the rights of those who are at sea beyond national jurisdiction protected. This is an important issue and I understand why he has tabled his amendment, but I am sure that even the noble Lord will probably accept that the Bill is possibly not the right vehicle for his concerns to be addressed.

The amendment would add an additional duty on marine licensing authorities to have regard to the need to ensure that the rights of those at sea beyond national jurisdiction are protected. Obviously, I am interested to hear the Minister’s response, and I am sure she can tell us what work her department has done to understand whether this new duty would be at all workable and how licensing authorities could go about assessing the necessary information to comply with any new duty. I am sure she will also tell us whether Ministers have considered any other possible approaches to ensure protection for those at sea beyond national jurisdiction. Ultimately, given that this is an issue relating by definition to issues and activities beyond national jurisdiction, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would consider that a multilateral approach, rather than the UK acting unilaterally on this, would probably have more luck in ensuring that his concerns are addressed.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for taking the time to speak with me about his Amendment 8 last week. He is a long-standing and committed advocate for human rights at sea, and he is right to draw attention to the seriousness of these issues, including, as he described, the challenges of enforcement on the high seas.

18:15

To reassure the noble Lord on the domestic position, the UK already has a strong framework in place to protect seafarers’ rights. Through measures such as the Seafarers Wages Act 2023, and, more recently, the Employment Rights Act, which will facilitate delivery of a mandatory seafarers’ charter, the UK has taken clear steps to improve working conditions for seafarers and to tackle exploitation in UK waters and ports. These protections apply robustly to UK-flagged vessels and, where international law permits, to non-UK-registered vessels whose place of operation is in UK territorial waters.

At the international level, including through its engagement at the International Maritime Organization, the UK works actively to support and strengthen existing international frameworks, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and International Labour Organization conventions such as the Maritime Labour Convention. However, the marine licensing regime is probably not the most appropriate legislation to look at seafarers’ rights, as its focus is to ensure sustainable use of the marine environment, prevent harm and manage interference with other sea users. I know that the noble Lord understands the context of this discussion and the treaty that we are working to implement.

Although I fully recognise the importance of the issue the noble Lord has raised—both to him and to the Government—it is more appropriately addressed through dedicated domestic legislation and established international maritime and labour frameworks than it would be through the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment. However, notwithstanding that, we keep these matters under constant review. We understand completely what he is getting at, and the difficulties with visibility, with enforcement and the protection of those working on the high seas. We thank him for using this opportunity to raise this.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the greatest delight is that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness actually agreed with each other; that seemed highly unusual, having sat through the previous debate. I have brought about a coming together of the two of them—at least that is positive.

I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that this issue should be dealt with multilaterally. That is clearly the case. However, I am a pessimist. Unfortunately, I do not think that is on the cards in the near future, in any way. This would be a way to address that, and perhaps the UK could once again show a lead to other nations and other signatories of the treaty.

However, I agree with much of what the Minister said. I hope that we can continue this conversation more productively, perhaps in other legislation, because this issue affects a significant number of people who trade, research and fish on the high seas. They need our support and our understanding that there can be some very difficult times for those people in those circumstances. However, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Amendment 9 not moved.

Clause 23: Regulations under this Act

Amendments 10 and 11

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

10: Clause 23, page 23, line 32, at end insert—
“(za) section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting new clause (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland) after clause 9.

11: Clause 23, page 23, line 32, at end insert—
“(za) section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting new clause (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)) after clause 12.

Amendments 10 and 11 agreed.

Clause 26: Commencement

Amendment 12

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

12: Clause 26, page 24, line 11, leave out “and 15” and insert “, 15 and 18”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for clause 18 to come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoints.

Amendment 12 agreed.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:19

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Wednesday 7 January.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement to update the House on today’s US operation and yesterday’s coalition of the willing summit in Paris.

Today the US conducted a military operation to intercept the motor vessel ‘Bella 1’ in the north Atlantic on its way to Russia. The UK, at the request of the US, supported this operation as part of global efforts to crack down on sanctions-busting and shadow shipping activity. The ‘Bella 1’ was falsely flagged and subject to US counter-Iran sanctions. The vessel refused to comply with the US’s exercise of its sanctions jurisdiction on 20 December, after which the US Coast Guard vessel ‘Munro’ pursued the ship across the Atlantic. It is a sanctioned, stateless vessel that carries a long history of nefarious activity and shares close links with both Iran and Russia.

Following a request from the US, I authorised the use of UK bases and the deployment of Royal Navy and RAF assets to support the operation, including airborne surveillance and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship ‘Tideforce’. This was a US operation. No UK personnel took part in the boarding. I can update the House that the operation is ongoing, but the ‘Bella 1’ is now under the control of US forces, who demonstrated immense courage and professionalism in dangerous and deteriorating Atlantic sea conditions.

A stateless vessel may be lawfully intercepted and subjected to the law of the interdicting state. The US’s enforcement action was based on counter-Iran sanctions aimed at stopping Iran from fuelling instability through the profits of illegal oil sales. The UK supported this action to achieve three objectives: first, to enforce counter-Iran sanctions; secondly, to tackle the global security threat posed by expanding shadowy maritime activity; and, thirdly, to reinforce British homeland defence and security in this era of rising threats.

Let me expand. First, in 2024, the vessel was sanctioned by the US and subjected to a seizure warrant for illegally transporting Iranian oil. It has reflagged five times in the last five years and was falsely flying the Guyana ensign when it was intercepted by the US. Over a four-year period, reports suggest that the vessel moved some 7.3 million barrels of Iranian crude oil, the proceeds of which are used to finance terrorism, threat and instability across the world.

The Iranian regime continues to export violence across the region through its proxies and partners, including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iraqi militias. Iran maintains support for Russia by supplying Putin with weapons for his brutal invasion of Ukraine, including the Shahed drones and missiles that target and kill Ukrainian civilians. It is telling that the vessel, in an attempt to evade the seizure warrant, changed its name and tried to adopt the Russian flag.

Secondly, the UK also supported this military operation to counter the expanding global security threat. The vessel is part of an increasing web of shadow shipping that fuels and funds instability across the world, undermines global trade and threatens our national security. We know that Russia operates a vast shadow fleet of its own to bankroll its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Last year, it is estimated that Russia sold $100 billion-worth of sanctioned oil: money that is directly funding attacks against Ukrainian civilians, such as the onslaught during Christmas involving 600 Russian missiles and drones that killed at least three people.

We owe it to the Ukrainians to step up action on those shadow operations, and we are doing so. That is why we are deterring, we are disrupting and we are degrading the Russian shadow fleet as a priority for the Government. To date, we have imposed sanctions on 544 vessels. According to estimates, sanctions against the shadow fleet by the UK and our partners have forced 200 ships—almost half the Russia shadow fleet’s overall capacity—off the seas, while Russia’s critical oil revenues are now down 27% compared with October 2024. That is their lowest since the start of its full-scale invasion.

Let me speak plainly: the UK will not stand by as malign activity increases on the high seas. Alongside our allies, we are stepping up our response against shadow vessels, and we will continue to do so.

Thirdly, this is not just about international security but about the threats to British national security. Iran presents a persistent danger not only to security in the Middle East but to us here in the UK. It poses a significant espionage threat, it sustains an aggressive cyber attack campaign against us and, as our own Intelligence and Security Committee reported, since 2022 the Iranian regime has plotted at least 15 assassination or kidnap attempts on British soil.

More widely across Europe, we are seeing a pattern of flagrant maritime activity co-ordinated by Russia, so I applaud and welcome the fact that the Finnish authorities last week seized a Russian shadow vessel suspected of damaging a communications cable under the Gulf of Finland. We have also exposed the Russian spy ship ‘Yantar’, operating in our waters and surveying our undersea cables; and, of course, by assisting our US allies in taking this ship off the seas, we are protecting the British people and our nation.

This is a stark reminder that our world is changing; it is less predictable and more dangerous. This operation and the shadow fleet show the global links between the security threats faced by the UK and its allies. The shadow fleet itself is vital to Putin’s ongoing illegal invasion and war in Ukraine, which brings me on to the second topic in this single Statement.

Next month, we enter the fifth year of Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, yet the Ukrainian people—military and civilian alike—still fight with huge courage and defiance. I am proud to say that this House remains united for Ukraine, that Britain remains united for Ukraine. We know that, if Putin prevails, he will not stop at Ukraine, and we know that a secure Europe depends on a strong, sovereign Ukraine.

I am also proud of the UK’s leadership on Ukraine. It started under the last Government and stepped up under this Government. Now we—the UK—lead the 50 nation-strong Ukraine Defence Contact Group alongside Germany, and secured £50 billion in military aid pledges last year. We, with France, lead the coalition of the willing, undertaking detailed military planning to help secure peace for the long term when a deal is agreed. I say to this House: let us make 2026 not only the year when peace is possible, but the year when peace is achieved.

This Government are leading that push for peace; this Government are building a new deal for European security. That is why in Paris yesterday, at the largest meeting yet of the coalition of the willing, with 39 nations, my right honourable and learned friend the Prime Minister, alongside President Macron and President Zelensky, signed a declaration of intent. As the Prime Minister said:

‘The purpose of the coalition of the willing is to help deliver a peace that can last and to work with the US to guarantee Ukraine’s security for the long term. This work is now more advanced than ever’.

Yesterday’s declaration advances that work significantly. It confirms that the UK and France will ‘take a leading role’: first, in using military, economic and diplomatic instruments to ensure the conclusion of a peace agreement; secondly, in supporting the development of Ukraine’s defence capabilities; and, thirdly, in commanding a multinational force for Ukraine that plans to deploy to Ukraine after a ceasefire has been agreed.

The MFU plans to deploy units from nations in the coalition of the willing to carry out defence and deterrence operations in the air, on land and at sea, and to conduct training, planning, recovery and regeneration of Ukrainian forces. The UK and France will also create military hubs to support that work across the country and build protected facilities within Ukraine for weapons and equipment. As the Prime Minister has said today:

‘If there were a decision to deploy under the agreement that was signed yesterday, I would put that matter to the House for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment’.

Yesterday, at this largest meeting of the coalition of the willing, we agreed further significant steps, including the signing of a joint declaration. We will also participate in US-led monitoring and verification of any ceasefire. We will support the long-term provision of armaments for Ukraine’s defence, and we will continue to work with the US towards security guarantees to deter any further Russian aggression and to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia. In Paris yesterday, US Special Envoy Witkoff described these commitments as being

‘as strong as anyone has ever seen’.

I will travel very soon to Kyiv to continue these discussions with Ukrainian political and military leaders.

A secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine, but we can get a peace deal only if Putin is ready to make compromises. Over the Christmas period, he showed that he was still not ready for peace, with hundreds of drones and missiles being fired into Ukraine and Russian attacks continuing on the front line, so in 2026 we will continue, with other nations, to step up our military support still further. Our mission is to support the fight today, as well as to secure the peace tomorrow.

In conclusion, our Government will always act in the interests of national security. We are committed to countering the threats posed by our adversaries, to standing by our closest allies, and to keeping Britain secure at home and strong abroad”.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by echoing the comments of my right honourable friends in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Defence Secretary, in supporting the Government in taking measures to tackle the ongoing scourge of sanctions-busting shipping activity.

The enforcement of sanctions on Russia and Iran is crucial to defending our interests both at home and abroad and critical to upholding our ongoing support for Ukraine, and any action we can take to weaken Putin’s war machine is welcome. I thank all those service personnel who took part in the operation to assist the United States in the capture of the MV “Bella 1”. As ever, their commitment to our country and our security is exemplary.

On the substance of the declaration of intent signed by the Prime Minister and the President of France, there is a list of unanswered questions. I understand that the Minister will not be able to go into operational specifics—I would not want him to do that—but I hope he can shed some further light on this plan.

The Secretary of State’s Statement in the other place mentioned that the meeting in Paris last week was

“the largest meeting yet of the coalition of the willing”,—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 384.]

with 39 nations present. But as far as I can tell, it was only Britain and France that agreed to send troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace agreement. Can the Minister confirm that all members of the so-called coalition of the willing will be contributing to the multinational force for Ukraine in that eventuality? Does he know which other countries have expressed a willingness to also make such deployments?

There is a matter of critical, fundamental principle we must acknowledge here: any peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine will be fragile. Russia has not exactly garnered a reputation for reliability, and there is always a risk in the event of a peace deal being negotiated that Russia could violate any such agreement.

I do not need to spell out to the House what the consequences of that would be if we had British troops in that country who could then find themselves forced into direct combat with Russian troops. It is an outcome that none of us would wish to see happen, but the Government and the British people must be prepared for that scenario.

I therefore ask the Minister: does this not heighten the importance of the national conversation on defence, as outlined in the SDR and committed to by the Government? Surely we must now prepare the British public for a future which in reality will be less secure and less peaceful. The prospect I have just outlined is very important for the British public to understand, so I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm how the progress on the national conversation is proceeding.

The other point is support for our troops. Are the Government absolutely satisfied that they will be going in as best equipped as we can possibly make them? This rather underlines how important it is that the Government not only ramp up defence spending but that we begin to see this much-delayed defence investment plan.

I confess to disappointment that despite repeated undertakings which the Government have given, that investment plan has not yet materialised. We were told just before Christmas that we would see it before the end of the year, but there has been no sign of it. I understand that we might not now see it until spring this year. Given the scenario that the Prime Minister is outlining, this is beyond the theoretical and the hypothetical. This is actually getting into the very real and raw territory of what we need to fund the MoD to make sure these troops will have everything they require. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what he understands the position to be in relation to that investment plan.

We also have the helicopter factory in Yeovil teetering and the frigate-building programme stalling, and our munitions supplies have not been replaced at anything like the speed necessary. All of that I adduce in support of my proposition that we must now have clarity. There is a need for this defence investment plan, in whatever form it is in, to see the light of day. The most important thing is that we ask a lot of our Armed Forces; we all hugely respect what they do. If troops are to be deployed in Ukraine as part of a multinational mission post some peace agreement, they need to be safe in the knowledge that our Government—and all of us—care about them, and the Government have their back.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, during the previous Government, there was a bit of a triumvirate when the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was the Minister. Many times, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I would stand up and ask questions, and I would associate myself immediately with his comments. Today, I find myself in a similar position, standing up to associate myself and these Benches with the comments and questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, which are extremely important. My questions should therefore be seen very much as additional to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie.

I first thank His Majesty’s Armed Forces, particularly at the start of a new year, and say how important it is that we support them. Obviously, our personnel were not actively involved last week, but we support them and we want to ensure that the situation for our Armed Forces will be such that we are ready to deal with all the international situations that may come up in 2026. Although this Statement was officially labelled, “Ukraine and Wider Operational Update”, already in 2026 we have had Iran, Ukraine and Russia, and the other issue, of course, is the situation with Venezuela.

I do not propose to ask the Minister questions specifically about Venezuela, but I stress that the importance of supporting the United States last week in tackling the tanker and dealing with the shadow fleet is precisely that we understand that that was in accordance with international law. It is important to stress that we support His Majesty’s Government as long as the action taken is in accordance with international law. Will His Majesty’s Government ensure that, where actions are taken, even by our closest ally, the United States, we will hold them to account if we believe that they are not acting according to international law?

We clearly have a difficult situation where, on some issues, we agree entirely with the United States and on other issues we find ourselves perhaps at one remove. Could the Minister help the House understand where the United Kingdom is in discussing with the United States the situation of another sovereign entity—namely, Greenland? We have had reassuring answers from the FCDO, suggesting that the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and for the Kingdom of Denmark. But Greenland is a significant geographical part of NATO. There are questions around what support we as the United Kingdom, particularly the MoD, are giving to Greenland and to the Kingdom of Denmark.

Building on questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, if the United Kingdom were to commit troops to Ukraine, what would the conditions be? I understand that there would be a vote in the other place, but would it be just the United Kingdom and France? Are His Majesty’s Government sure that, if we did that, we would not actually be creating vulnerabilities for our own troops, because the prospect of peace in Ukraine still seems a long way off?

Finally, is the Minister convinced that the commitments to defence expenditure are adequate? He said in the Chamber last week and the Secretary of State said in the Commons as part of this Statement—or in response on this Statement—that we have our 3% commitment, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked, if we are not spending that money, and if we are not letting the contracts and there are vulnerabilities for our frigates and helicopter services, where does that leave us in terms of national security? Supporting the United States in supporting Ukraine is important, but so is our national security.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

First, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their general support for what the Government have been doing, which, to be fair, carries on from the last Government. It is a source of strength for our country that that is the case and that there is a degree of consensus between us all about that. As a statement of the obvious, it is extremely important for our adversaries to see that unity of purpose between us all.

I also join the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie, in thanking our service personnel for the various operations that they have been involved in in different ways. I want to praise the American forces as well for their bravery in what they did in conducting that operation. Again, I thank both noble Baronesses for their support for that operation, which was of huge significance. The noble Baroness talked about the importance of tackling sanctioned vessels. I remind her that we have sanctioned 544 shadow vessels, of which we believe 200 have been forced off the water, which has led to a decline in Russian oil revenues of 27% since October 2024. While we all wish we could do more, some progress has been made, and indeed we always consider what more can be done.

The noble Baroness asked about the 39 nations—they will contribute in different ways. As she will have read, France and the UK are at the forefront, and discussions are going on about what different countries will do. Most importantly, we need a peace agreement, and Russia is the impediment to that. If we get a peace agreement, a multinational force—whatever form that takes, but with France and Britain at the lead—can then provide that security guarantee which makes it a reality.

I also say to both noble Baronesses and other people the House that it was particularly important to hear the remarks of the Americans, such as Steve Witkoff, at the conference in Paris, where he said that the discussions that had taken place were very significant. Given the way in which we sometimes question whether the involvement of the Americans is as strong as it might be, that was a particularly important point that he made and one that we were very pleased with and are keen to continue to support.

I will mention two other strategic points, because we talk a lot about the Americans. There was a lot of talk a couple of months ago about the new American national security strategy. Less attention was given to the National Defense Authorization Act that the Americans passed at the same time, which laid out the Americans’ military budget, which included significant sums of money for Ukraine and significant troop numbers in Europe and confirmed the American general as SACEUR, which is important. So, in answer to the noble Baroness’s point about America, we continue to work very closely with the Americans. They are a very important ally to us, and we talk to them. I will come to Greenland in a minute, but we talk to them, and that is particularly important.

The noble Baroness is quite right to raise the point about the national conversation. We are starting with that work, but there is an awful lot to do to alert the British people much more to the challenges that they face, not necessarily just in terms of troops invading but certainly hybrid threats, cyber attacks and some of the activity we have seen on our streets, not least in Salisbury a few years ago.

The protection of critical national infrastructure and the development of the reserves will become increasingly important. We certainly live, to put it mildly, in unsettled and uncertain times, and the national conversation is a really important point. If the noble Baronesses, or indeed other Members, have ideas about how we take that forward, I would very much welcome them because it is an important national endeavour that is taking place.

Going back to Ukraine, of course, planning is being undertaken. The Chief of the Defence Staff has been talking about what may be done. There is a lot of planning going on—I am not going to go into details—certainly in terms of making sure that the various equipment and materials that would be needed to deliver the reassurance are available.

The noble Baroness has heard what I said about the defence investment plan. We are working at pace to try to get that developed as quickly as possible. There is a debate and discussion about the defence investment plan but this country does an awful lot militarily, even within the existing budget. I reflected on that when the noble Baroness was asking that question. I was thinking about the RAF Typhoons that, with France, took action in Syria just a week or so ago.

We have the commitment we are going to make to Ukraine and the commitment in the Arctic; we have marines training in Norway and troops in Estonia; we had the carrier strike group recently out in the Indo-Pacific and, of course, the support we gave to the Americans, so notwithstanding the debate about whether enough is being spent, this country does an awful lot militarily, and sometimes we should remind ourselves of that.

On helicopters, the noble Baroness will be pleased to know that the Philippines has just placed an order with Leonardo for six helicopters. That does not answer the question about the defence investment plan and the British Government’s investment, which is still being considered, but certainly those six orders will be welcome news for Leonardo.

Of course, we operate on a legal basis. The action against the shadow vessel was against a sanctioned stateless vessel, which carries a long history of nefarious activity and shares close links with Iran and Russia. It is a sanctions-busting ship. It was stateless: the noble Baroness will know it changed its flag when it sailed towards the eastern Caribbean. It was flying a Guyanese flag, and then when it sailed away, it changed it to a Russian flag.

There is a strategic point, which will not be lost on some colleagues here, that sometimes America’s attitude towards Russia is questioned—whether it sees Russia as a country it ought to take action against—but that was a very clear demonstration that where the United States believes it is in its interest to do so, it will take action.

The noble Baroness asked me about Greenland. She is quite right. We believe that Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and it has the right to determine its own future. There is a question about Arctic security, and we have discussed in this Chamber at great length the need for us to consider how we develop that. I have mentioned in debates that climate change and the melting of some of that ice opens up that territory in a way which means that we will have to consider its security even more.

The noble Baroness asked again about the commitment to invest. She will know what I have said about investment, and that debate will go on. The Government have made their commitments. I would argue that even within the existing budget, we make a significant military contribution to the defence of democracy and of our values. We shall continue to do that, not least in Ukraine, which is at the forefront of our minds all the time, and in supporting the Americans where we believe that that should happen, as we have proved just recently in the last few weeks.

18:39

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, I was impressed by two points that arose in the debate in another place last week. First, the Statement itself said that

“if Putin prevails, he will not stop at Ukraine”.

Secondly, Rishi Sunak said that we must have

“credible and durable security guarantees”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 390.]

I very much agree with those two points. Is the Minister seized of the vital need to ensure that any settlement with Putin over Ukraine does not ignore the possibility of him just jumping in and repeating the operation elsewhere? I am thinking particularly of Georgia and Moldova, where there are striking similarities to the Ukraine situation. Putin would argue, with the same dishonest and disgraceful justifications he used over Ukraine, first, that they used to be under Russian influence and, secondly, that Russia already has a military foothold in Moldova and Georgia in a similar way to what it had in Ukraine. I have been to both places. In South Ossetia in Georgia, I looked down over the Russian military base, materiel and equipment with which it illegally invaded some time ago. In Moldova, I have been to Transnistria and met the generals and colonels, who told us in those days that they had only 1,500 troops there, which was a total lie. Will the Minister agree that a settlement with Putin is not just about Ukraine?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord made a series of very good points, and I could say that I agree with him about the need for all the things he said. I completely agree with him about the need for there to be a security guarantee for Ukraine. Any arrangement that is made has to have the support of the Ukrainians. That is why we have gone to such extraordinary lengths to try to put together a coalition of the willing. There are still discussions going on about that. It is good that the UK and France have been at the forefront of it. We have tried very hard, and it was good to hear what the Americans said at the meeting of the coalition of the willing in Paris. Their involvement is essential as well, and sends a strong signal to Russia.

The noble Lord made a point about Moldova and Georgia. He will know that in Moldova we supported the facilitation of free and fair elections, which led to a result that Russia did not want. We would certainly wish to see similar in Georgia. The noble Lord makes a really good point—Putin has to know he cannot be seen to have won, and we are doing all we can to ensure that that is the case—and he is right to point out that the front line in Ukraine is our front line as well.

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords, the Statement leaves me puzzled. Are the Government insisting on boots on the ground in Ukraine as a condition of a ceasefire? As the Russian Government have said that under no conditions will they accept NATO boots on the ground, is that not equivalent to a policy of prolonging the war rather than hastening the arrival of peace? Leading on from that, what other plans or ideas do the Government have for security guarantees for Ukraine?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The whole point of us saying that we are willing to deploy troops to Ukraine, with France and perhaps others, is precisely to ensure that any peace agreement arrived at is guaranteed and acceptable to the Ukrainians. That is important. It is what the Ukrainians want and have asked for, and we negotiated on that. As I said to other noble Lords, the Americans are working with us to provide some sort of security guarantee. Putin needs to negotiate with us. He is the impediment to peace in Ukraine. We say to him: let us negotiate in a way that is acceptable to the Ukrainians.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, to take the Minister back to the question of resources, he will be aware that the Chief of the Defence Staff gave evidence to a Select Committee this afternoon and confirmed that there is a gap between the funds available and the ability to spend on current strategic defence programmes. For reasons I do not quite understand, he said that the size of that gap is a secret. Can the Minister be a little more open with us?

The real point of my question comes back to what I said last week. The defence industrial plan is a signal of how serious the Government are about putting our money where their mouth is. Last week, the Secretary of State said that the Government were working flat out on it. There are indications that it will not be published until the spring. He will know that, in government, “spring” is an elastic concept. I would not want the Minister to have to work flat out for six months. Can he give the House a bit of an indication as to whether we are talking about something that will be here in the next few weeks, or is it months away? We will draw conclusions from his answer.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not want to disappoint the noble Lord but I will not be a hostage to fortune and say that it will be in a few weeks, or when it will be. All I can say is that we are working as hard as we can to deliver as soon as we can a defence industrial plan that meets the needs of the budget we have and the needs of the country to deliver the military force and capabilities we need. That is what we are seeking to do. The noble Lord will continue to argue the case for more money and resources. We are working with the resources we have and seeking to deliver the military capability we need.

In my answer to the noble Baroness, I was trying to point out that, even within the existing budget, this country does an awful lot of which we can be proud with our existing military and the Armed Forces personnel that we have. But there is no doubt that the debate that the noble Lord quite rightly raises will continue.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, when asked about the deployment of a multinational force, the Secretary of State for Defence in the House of Commons said:

“Any deployment of a multinational force into Ukraine will take place only after a peace deal”.


That is fine. He then said:

“Secondly, the role of that force is primarily one of reassurance, the regeneration of the Ukraine forces, and deterrence of any future Russian aggression”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 395.]


To that last point, if it is supposed to serve as a deterrence to future Russian aggression then the national debate has to start with what would happen if that peace agreement were breached and what our response would be. The Minister will say that these are hypothetical questions, but I think the national debate will have to prepare people for that possibility.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is a hypothetical situation. It goes back to the point I was trying to make in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. There is a need for a national conversation about the threat that we face. There is a national conversation about the state-on-state threat that exists now in a way that people would not have predicted a few years ago. The Cold War and Russia and one country versus another country were supposed to be the wars of the past; we were supposed to be combating terrorist activity, counterinsurgency and those sorts of things. Although those threats have not totally gone away, the state-on-state threat has now re-emerged. Part of the national conversation has to be about what that means for our country and our Armed Forces.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my question is also about the national conversation. To put it on the record, the Green Party supports the principle of UK troops serving in a peacekeeping role in Ukraine, following a negotiated settlement with a robust international mandate and standards. We are very pleased that the Statement says there will be a debate and a vote in the other place beforehand; that is the minimum democratic standard. Can the Minister reassure me that MPs will be able to scrutinise robustly the Government’s proposal, so that they will have before them—this follows on from the noble Baroness’s questions—details about the size and the composition of the force, what weapons they would have, the rules of engagement, and measurable indicators of what success looks like? It is important that it is not just a debate but a full debate.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There will be as wide a debate as possible. Some of it will not be debated on the Floor of the House necessarily—for example, rules of engagement and so on. Having said that, let me reiterate what the Prime Minister stated last week, because it is important to make sure that I am accurate:

“If there were a decision to deploy under the agreement that was signed yesterday, I would put that matter to the House for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment.”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 254.]


The noble Baroness can read into that the answer to her question.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government have had any indication from any Russian source that Russia would accept either British and French peacekeeping troops or troops deployed to uphold an agreement in Ukraine, or a ceasefire, which has been proposed on a number of occasions by President Trump? Then, could he perhaps also say whether the very high-level American attendance last week in Paris, where the commitments were made by the President and by the Prime Minister, meant that the United States Administration is firmly supportive of what the Prime Minister and the President were saying they would be ready to do if there was a settlement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I have no knowledge at all of any commitment by Russia regarding the points the noble Lord made. On the American commitment to the discussions and the declaration of intent in Paris last week, it was very significant that people such as Steve Witkoff were saying how strong those commitments were and how much they welcomed them. That is extremely important. The Americans’ part in any security guarantee is really important and something we will continue to work on. As the noble Lord says, the fact that there was such high-level American representation is hugely significant.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, let us be quite clear that Mr Putin does not want a ceasefire under any circumstances—it is not going to happen. Without wanting to sound trite, I pay tribute to the armed forces of Ukraine, which are defending our freedom in Europe with their lives, blood and treasure. I am sure we all agree with that, but it is worth saying again.

The question I want to ask is slightly different. It strikes me that, over the past 12 or 18 months, when it comes to propaganda, Ukraine and its right cause has been on the defensive. During 2025, the Russian forces occupied a further 1%, to the nearest percentage point, I believe, of Ukrainian territory, with huge and obscene losses of their own troops and population, yet we still have the feeling that the White House understands that Ukraine has no cards, the cause is lost, and there is no future in successfully stopping Putin from winning. It is all very difficult, but those are the facts of military change over the past year. What are the Minister’s thoughts on how we can reverse some of that feeling, so that we can be more positive about what Ukraine is achieving in its work and its firepower and that side of the conflict? How can we change the narrative?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is an important question. I join the noble Lord in congratulating the Ukrainian armed forces, and acknowledge the stoicism and bravery of the Ukrainian people for resisting in the way that they have.

Whatever the debate about defence investment and how much we should be spending, we should remember what we actually are doing. Notwithstanding the difficulties and challenges that Ukraine faces in re-equipping and so on, we should remind ourselves that Russia was not expecting to be in the position that it is now. When it attacked, it was expecting to take Kyiv within a few days, put a puppet Government in place and have a vassal state. That was the intention. Has Russia been successful in doing that? Not at all. Instead of saying that this is where we are now, sometimes you need to go back and look at what the original objective was. I say to this House, this Parliament and this country that Russia has totally failed in its original objective. Ultimately, it has failed because of the bravery of the Ukrainian people and the support that most countries have given to them.

What else did Russia expect? It expected NATO to be weakened and implode. What has happened? Notwithstanding the discussions we have had about the United States, NATO has been strengthened. Who would have said at the beginning of the conflict that Finland and Sweden would join NATO? They have, and that has strengthened NATO. As well as looking at the challenges and difficulties that we face, we ought to remind ourselves sometimes about what has been done and is working well. Russia has failed in its original objectives, and we should remind people of that.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I want to take the Minister back to the issue of conversation. He and I have discussed in the past that, these days, social media is a weapon of war. I quoted to him a senior military figure who said to me, “We should spend as much on social media as we do on hard kit”. I suspect that comes pretty hard to those with a military background, but what does he think of that suggestion?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is important to recognise that warfare is changing, and that part of the battle now is understanding what is fake news and what is happening in reality. In every area of life, what appears online is an important part of any battle. The noble Lord will know that, both in Ukraine and in other parts of the world, the battlespace is online. Part of the Government’s response to that is to open up new cyber recruitment routes into the Armed Forces. To develop that, we have a new cyber offensive command as well as our defensive operations. That is how warfare is changing. I am not sure that everyone who will come in through the cyber route would naturally have got in via the soldier route before, but they are the soldiers of the future as well as those whom we would regard as soldiers in the more traditional sense. So, that is a good point. The war of the future is going to have many of the features of the past but also features along the lines that the noble Lord has just outlined.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, may I speak like a fool? I do not have all the facts, so I am speaking like a fool. Ukraine has spent a lot of hours in all those conversations and discussions about peace, attending endless meetings, when everyone knows that Putin is not interested in any of that. By encouraging conversations about peace, have we drained the energy that Ukraine had before the talks started? Is the coalition of the willing giving Ukraine the weapons that it needs, especially since a few days ago a ballistic missile was used to devasting effect in Ukraine and surrounding areas? Are we letting Ukraine down?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

No, I do not think we are. Conversations and discussions take place on how to bring about peace, but alongside those we continue to stand with Ukraine and arm it to defend itself against Russian aggression.

House adjourned at 6.59 pm.