Grand Committee
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 27 April. The Government were clear in our manifesto that housing need in England cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger than local scale and that we would introduce new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. To that end, the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which received Royal Assent last December, legislated for the reintroduction of an England- wide system of strategic plan-making.
The Act inserted a new Part 1A into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, placing a duty on strategic planning authorities to prepare a spatial development strategy. An SDS will form part of the development plan to which local planning authorities must have regard when determining planning applications unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local plans will be required to be in general conformity with the relevant spatial development strategy. SDS are high-level plans that will define the overall scale and distribution of growth and development across an area, including the potential need for regeneration and environmental protection or enhancement. They may identify broad locations for development and the infrastructure required to support it, and can redistribute housing and other development needs between local planning authorities.
These regulations will make two minor, consequential amendments to support the implementation of this new system, which we intend to commence later this year. They will amend Section 114 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 so that SDS examinations are classed as statutory inquiries within the meaning of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, enabling the Lord Chancellor to make rules related to the procedure to be followed during the examination of an SDS. They will also amend the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 so that marine planning authorities must notify strategic planning authorities of their intention to start preparing a marine plan. Strategic planning authorities are the local government bodies that will be responsible for preparing an SDS.
Unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise, a draft spatial development strategy must be examined by a person appointed by them. The matters to be examined are for the examiner to determine. However, the draft National Planning Policy Framework sets out that the purpose of the examination should be to assess that relevant procedural requirements have been met and that the strategy is sound, alongside any other matters that the examiner considers appropriate.
Regulation 2 will amend Section 114 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to allow the Lord Chancellor to make rules, under Section 9 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, governing the procedures for examinations. Any such regulations will support the effective examination of a strategy.
Regulation 3 will amend paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to require a marine plan authority to notify a strategic planning authority whose area adjoins or is adjacent to marine plan areas of its intention to prepare a marine plan. This requirement already extends to local planning authorities and will enable strategic planning authorities to consider how they wish to participate in the marine planning process and to put in place appropriate arrangements for that participation.
This is the first part of a wider package of secondary legislation that we are preparing to support the implementation of the new system of strategic plan-making. Other statutory instruments, which we intend to make in the autumn, will include regulations that will make further consequential amendments to secondary legislation, rules on the procedure to be followed during an examination, and regulations setting out the procedure to be followed in connection with the preparation of a spatial development strategy. I trust that the Committee agrees that these minor, consequential regulations are necessary and will support the effective implementation of the new system of spatial development strategies. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I wonder if I might intervene at this stage. The Committee will recall—pretty much everybody in the Committee was present during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill’s passage—that, going back to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, I have been very supportive of strategic spatial planning, and we want to see that brought into effect as soon as possible.
I declare my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and as a supporter of and adviser to development forums in other locations, as detailed. For the development community in all those places, one of the consistent messages that comes through is about desirability, not simply of having sub-regional spatial planning at a strategic level, not confined to the territory of one local planning authority generally but embracing several, but of what is afforded by that opportunity—namely, the ability to bring together transport strategies, infrastructure strategies, growth plans and spatial development strategies into one document, which can then help guide and direct the planning infrastructure.
As the Minister helpfully explained, as the Explanatory Memorandum does, this is one of several statutory instruments necessary to bring the procedure of strategic development strategies into place. The Minister said, “in the autumn”, but I want to find out is what is going to happen and when. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that it remains the Government’s intention to publish the response to the consultation on the draft NPPF in July, before recess, so that we can see the final NPPF—without having to wait for the customary publication just before Christmas—and get on with it. On the timetable, I hope that will mean that it will be possible for there to be planning policy guidance published in relation to the preparation of spatial development strategies and for that to happen as soon as possible in the autumn, but certainly, I would have thought, by the end of the year.
Together with the statutory instruments, that will, I hope, enable the Government to set a period during which combined authorities are asked to publish and submit their spatial development strategy timetable to the Secretary of State.
I assume that this will be applied in relation to groups 1 and 2. The Minister and the Committee will recall that, just a little earlier, the Government published a geography of spatial development strategy areas. Groups 1 and 2 are the existing strategic mayoral combined authorities and the devolution priority programme. I am looking for groups 1 and 2 to have their SDS timetables requested to be submitted in the early part of next year at the latest. I would be grateful if the Minister could give the Committee a sense of the complete timetable for SDS.
I turn briefly to the content of the NPPF and the overview. The overview in the draft was not explicit about the requirement in the statute for a spatial development strategy to set out the amount or distribution of housing and the amount or distribution of affordable housing. I have mentioned this in an earlier debate on the English devolution Bill, but I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that the NPPF is being amended to make some of these requirements of a spatial development strategy a bit clearer.
We should be under no illusions about the difficulties that will potentially emerge. We may well have spatial development strategies that are born of an ambitious local growth plan. My own area of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, for example, has a very ambitious growth plan published by Paul Bristow, the mayor. If local authorities in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough were to assess housing need based simply on the standard method, there would be no way in which the growth plan that the mayor is looking for could be accommodated by the level of housing supply implied. For local plans to be consistent with the spatial development strategy, they will have to go further.
The same may be true for, and considerable questions could be raised by, green-belt policy. For example, Stockport could not agree with the other local authorities in Manchester on a joint development plan, not least because of their difficulties in agreeing on green-belt policy. A spatial development strategy could, according to the guidance published thus far, set out where changes to the green belt need to be considered in local plans, but the local plan would set the boundaries. What happens if a local planning authority seeks to adopt a local plan that does not change the boundary of a green belt? Having considered it and decided not to change it, does that mean that the local plan is consistent with the spatial development strategy or not? As we go along, we have to be increasingly clear about what consistency with the spatial development strategy looks like. I say that because we will have a number of these debates—not necessarily on every statutory instrument—and, as guidance is published, it will bring some of those important issues to the forefront.
I ask the Minister about the follow-up to the geography document. The Committee will recall that, although the geography of many of the combined authorities is established, it is not for others. For example, we simply do not yet know whether Buckinghamshire will be included in Thames Valley or if it will be a single foundation strategic authority. We need to learn more about what the final geography will look like and when we might hear that. Unless we get that information, I do not think strategic planning boards will be established in areas where a mayor and combined authority are not being put in place relatively soon. I hope that there will be a timetable for that, as well.
My final question is prompted by my being up in Warrington yesterday. Liverpool is relatively advanced in the preparation of a spatial development strategy and, as I understand it, is looking to have it examined and adopted next year. Will Liverpool City Region’s spatial development strategy be treated as consistent with the requirements of a spatial development strategy as set out by the Planning and Infrastructure Act? I hope that, because it was designed alongside the SDS for London, it will be and that the Minister will say that, through Liverpool’s SDS, we can begin to see the process of spatial planning being implemented in places across England.
Those are my questions arising from the statutory instrument. I do not want to be thought of as opposing it, in any sense. I support the SI.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend I am certainly not opposed to these regulations; I am very much in favour of spatial planning. I have just one question for the Minister. I thank her very much for setting out so clearly the purport of these regulations and apologise for not being able to give advance notice of this question. It is a bit left field and if she wants to write, I quite understand that. It is in the context of development corporations. I appreciate there is ongoing work on this and that the emphasis may change given the experience of Liverpool. I wonder what the evolving thinking is within the department. Is the Minister able to say something about these measures, which make a massive difference to growth, and how that could impact the Thames estuary, the Solent and so on? I am happy for the Minister to write if that is more convenient.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations. I am afraid I am going to break the harmony. The Minister will recall our debates on the previous legislation that my noble friend Lord Lansley rehearsed. I go back to the time I was first elected to the other place—on the same day as my noble friend—in 1997, when the Labour Government introduced regional planning and a regional spatial strategy. I ask the same question now that I asked then: where will the voice of rural areas be heard? Which space will rural areas be occupying? The population of North Yorkshire is 11% of the total population of the region of Yorkshire and the Humber, and yet, with the replacement of districts and boroughs with a combined authority and a mayor, I would say that the rural areas have lost their voice. Over the years of the previous Labour Government—perhaps the next Prime Minister was quite a dominant part of that— I saw that the rural voice was pretty much extinct.
To give an example of why it is important that we consider the rural voice, there is a trend of building four-bedroom or five-bedroom homes, whereas in rural areas what we really need are one-bedroom or two-bedroom homes. Obviously, it is not necessarily of interest to developers to build that type of housing stock. The question then arises: what consultation will there be when these spatial strategies come out?
I have been looking at the pages on North Yorkshire and the surrounding area—York, East Riding and Hull. They have produced a spatial framework looking ahead to 2035 to 2050. I am aware of rural house prices being higher but, until I read that framework report, I was not aware that urban house prices in parts of North Yorkshire and Hull are higher. It will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that the incomes are predominantly lower in these areas, so there is the challenge of lower wages and higher house prices.
I would like to ask two questions. What consultation will there be, both at national level and at a more strategic level and how, in that consultation, will the rural voice be heard? As we now have a Mayor of York and North Yorkshire—I do not see mayors mentioned, but there must be an answer of which I am not aware —what will the relationship of the mayor be to producing answers to a spatial plan?
I echo my noble friend Lord Lansley’s request that the Government publish the responses to the National Planning Policy Framework. An underlying concern in all of this is that we do not develop areas on the functional flood plain of zone 3b.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I declare my relevant interest as a councillor on a met council that will clearly be affected by these changes.
On the changes to the development of strategic plans, during the course of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill I raised concerns not about the benefits of a strategic plan, which covers a wider area than a local planning authority, but about the way it is to be developed. This comes to the fore again in this instance.
My first query is not what organisation will be responsible for the plan but who will be responsible for the plan. Paragraph 5.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum references a combination of principal authorities and combined authorities. One of my concerns is that these cover widely differing geographic and population sizes. For example, West Yorkshire Combined Authority covers 2.5 million people, whereas the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, with a mayor, has just a million people. There is a big disparity, which will have an impact on how a wider strategic look at development across an area is considered. It also has an impact on the engagement and involvement of locally elected members and residents who will be affected by the development of the strategic plan. So that is my first concern: who will do it? The Explanatory Memorandum talks about a strategic planning board but, if it is as undemocratic as the combined authority, I would have real concerns.
I will say a bit more about the “who”. We learned from the devolution Bill that, in combined authorities, mayors will be able to appoint up to nine or 10 people —the number escapes me—who will be responsible for different areas of the combined authority and the responsibilities of the mayor. Perhaps the Minister can put me right if I am wrong, but my assumption is that those relevant people—such as those in charge of transport, planning and infrastructure—would be part of the decision-making process and of this strategic planning board. I like democracy, and I am concerned that the plan will be created without due consideration of locally elected people, apart from the mayor—who is just one among many. There is a lack of accountability to local residents who will be directly affected by any plan that is created. I can tell noble Lords, from long experience, that planning is one of the issues that really gets residents concerned and involved, opposing planning decisions where necessary. That is a big area that I am concerned about.
My second concern is this. In the current fairly febrile and volatile nature of our politics, there is clearly a possibility of a significant change of political leadership in these combined authorities—there already was last year. If there is a change of political leadership and the new leadership wants to significantly change the strategic development plan, is that possible?
My third question is about local plans that local planning authorities and councils have already agreed. They potentially have a 15-year lifespan, although they have to be reviewed and updated every five years. Nevertheless, the basic plan and the policies that underpin it are determined. How does a strategic development plan sit with that if they are already in existence? The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked a similar question. Which one will override the other in this instance?
The fourth issue that I want to understand a bit better is the examination of an SDS. We have here at paragraph 5.7 that the Lord Chancellor will make these rules. But hang on, is that not something that should be determined, for instance, in this sort of forum—that these will be the rules that will determine how an SDS will be examined? To not have that openly discussed, debated and agreed puts a big question mark in my mind about it. When local plans are examined and inspected, yes the planning inspector is appointed by the Government and there are opportunities for representations by those concerned about particular elements of the plan, but that does not seem to be what is being suggested in the brief mention here or by what the Minister said.
Finally, the Minister said that local planning authorities must have regard to—that is a standard planning phrase—and be in general conformity to this. Presumably, that means that local planning authorities and local planning committees can, if they have good, sound reason, disregard the decisions that are made at a strategic development plan level. If not, I do not know why we have local democracy.
Although I am in favour of this and was in favour of the previous iteration of strategic development, at a regional level—it is very helpful to have a wide scheme—there are a lot of questions around how this will operate and who will make the decisions. I hope the Minister can put my mind at ease.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before I start, I declare an interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, which will no doubt at some point be affected by this statutory instrument.
At the outset, we accept the general principle that consequential amendments are a necessary feature of major legislative reform. But, as we debated on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we remain concerned with the increasing centralisation of planning decisions— I think that was something that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised. Strategic planning appears to be part of that strategy: moving decisions away from local councils and local people who know their area best.
We agree with the Government that we need to get Britain building. We are not building enough homes, infrastructure takes too long and costs are too high, and that will require a simpler and streamlined planning system that is clearer and more consistent. The recently released Savills report on housebuilding, which forecasts that only 839,000 houses will be built in the five years of the Labour Government, compared to the target of 1.5 million, just highlights that the system is not working.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all Members for their considered contributions this afternoon. I am grateful to most noble Lords for supporting the overall direction of travel in relation to strategic development strategies. I hope the Committee agrees that the two minor amendments are appropriate. I will try to answer as many questions as I can. For any that I do not answer, I will respond in writing.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his broad support for the SDS and I agree with him about sub-regional planning. He probably went through the same process with the East of England Plan that I sat through for many months. Pulling together into one place transport, infrastructure and strategic planning is key to getting the growth that we all want to see.
The noble Lord asked me a number of questions. I will try to take them in the order he asked them. He asked me whether the SDS will contain affordable housing. The legislation is deliberately permissive, so, if the board wishes, it can specify levels of affordable housing within the plan.
The noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked about a timetable for the implementation of SDS and strategic planning boards. We intend to lay these SIs in the autumn. I cannot be more specific than that, but that is our intention. The strategic planning board regulations must be subject to consultation before being laid. That probably picks up one of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. We anticipate that consultation will be after the Summer Recess and, once that is complete, we will lay the SIs.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked about the publication of the NPPF and whether the SDS overview will include clear requirements for the statutory requirements. We intend to publish the revised NPPF in the summer. While we are considering responses to the consultation, I cannot comment on its content, but the NPPF cannot change the statutory requirements for SDS set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Act. That is important. In the Act that we got after we finally finished, following some very late-night sittings, we set out what an SDS is there to do. It cannot change that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I completely understand that the terminology of the Act says that the spatial development strategy may set out the amount and distribution of housing and affordable housing. My point is that, even the latter, in relation to affordable housing, was not included in the draft NPPF text for PM1 relating to SDS. I think it ought to be in there.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that comment. I will feed that back to the team. It is not completed yet, so I will feed his comments in.
On planning practice guidance for SDS once the NPPF is published, we will consider the need for planning practice guidance, but we need to publish the NPPF first. We will have a look at that once the NPPF is under way.
The noble Lord asked about the group 1 and group 2 SDS areas and the timetable for them to submit an SDS. The period within which the strategic planning authority needs to submit its timetable will be set out in regulations. We anticipate that most SPAs will be asked to submit a timetable within 90 days of the formal commencement of the SDS duty. Assuming that commencement is in the autumn, this will be, as the noble Lord rightly suggested, in the early part of 2027.
There was a question about green belt and where changes to green-belt boundaries may need to be considered but the local plan has set the boundary. What happens if there is a disagreement? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to this as well. Local plans have to be in general conformity with any adopted SDS for the area, and that applies to green belt as it does to any other aspect of an SDS, but that will be tested at the local plan examination. General conformity allows for some inconsistency but not a completely different approach. I suspect that that will be tested in examination processes, and it will be interesting to see where that falls.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, echoed the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the areas for strategic planning boards. We intend to respond to the strategic development strategy area consultation in the summer, setting out the areas that the Government think should produce strategic development strategies. Where boards will be needed, the regulations to establish those boards must be subject to statutory consultation. We anticipate that consultation will happen after the Summer Recess and that, once that consultation has happened, the regulations will be made so that the strategic planning board can formally come into being. That is when the geography finally gets confirmed.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked me about Liverpool being well advanced—I say well done to Liverpool for cracking on with the job—and whether this will be adopted under the new NPPF and guidance. We understand that Liverpool SDS is likely to go out to consultation either late this year or early next year and, as such, it will be subject to the policies in the updated NPPF.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, asked me about development corporations; he has probably heard me say that I am a big fan of them. We discussed them a great deal during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the English devolution Bill. I cannot answer his specific questions around the Solent and the Thames estuary, but I will reply to him in writing on those questions, if that is okay.
The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me about rural representation. It would probably be most helpful if I explained the right to be heard at examination. It is quite correct that, unlike the position for local plans, there is no formal right for individuals to appear and be heard at the examination of a spatial development strategy. This is the same approach as that for examinations of, for instance, the London Plan. It is proportionate and effective that that should be the case for strategic plans, but each SDS has to consider its whole area, both urban and rural. So the SDS area consultation proposed, for example, that York and North Yorkshire would do its own plan, on which the mayor would lead.
In practice, experience demonstrates that inspectors take considerable steps to ensure that a wide range of relevant interests and perspectives are heard during, for example, the London Plan examinations. By way of illustration, the most recent examination of a spatial development strategy—the 2019 London Plan—was conducted over 12 weeks, with a participant list extending to 27 pages. I expect that that is why we ended up with the extensive plan that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to.
The Government’s intention is that spatial development strategies operate as those high-level documents, establishing the strategic framework within which the subsequent local plans, which are required to be in general conformity with them, are prepared. Importantly, and in contrast to local plans, spatial development strategies do not allocate specific development sites. It is appropriate that the formal right to appear is preserved for local plan examinations, while examinations of spatial development strategies remain proportionate to their strategic role. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said about people being interested in planning and engaged in it, but my experience is that they are much more engaged when you are discussing the site-level stuff, which is in the local plans, rather than the more esoteric discussions around a strategic plan.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked me some further questions about what the geography of SDS should be. The English Devolution White Paper sets out the criteria for sensible geographies, including the principle that devolution geographies should ensure the effective delivery of key functions such as SDS. So, where mayoral devolution arrangements already exist, it is proposed that these will be used as a basis for producing SDS, with the exception of the West of England Combined Authority, given the discussions on North Somerset’s place in the region.
Where devolution arrangements do not yet exist, we propose to prioritise existing local consensus on geographies for working together where proposals for devolution have previously been submitted to government with full local agreement, provided that these meet the other sensible geography criteria. These include scale—populations over 1.5 million where possible, to create genuinely strategic SDSs—as well as public service boundary alignment and ensuring that no islands are created.
If a future devolution agreement comes forward on a different geography once the geographies of SDS are confirmed, any SDS will have to be amended, reviewed or replaced to fit that new devolution geography. Of course, we have the ambition to align SDS and the devolution geography, but we have to accept that the devolution picture is still emerging. We need to get on with strategic planning, so we may have to make changes in due course to that.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Just to be absolutely clear, the Minister used the example of 1.5 million, which clearly Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire do not hit. The Minister is clearly implying that there will have to be a board, not necessarily of those three, but of other geographies. Similarly, Norfolk and Suffolk do not hit those targets.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I said, meeting the categories set out in the English devolution Bill is a clear goal. We want to make sure that they work as a spatial development strategy, and they have to meet certain criteria to do that. We want to get on with the job, so we are putting this process in place to deliver it now.
There were a number of questions, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on authorities that are required to produce a spatial development strategy. Combined authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral, combined county authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities will all have the duty to produce spatial development strategies. These authorities will be known as strategic planning authorities. The Government will be able to group any of these authorities together, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, suggested to jointly produce a spatial development strategy, through a committee known as a strategic planning board.
In most cases, combined authorities or combined county authorities will produce an SDS for their area, and upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities will be grouped together under a strategic planning board. However, some upper-tier county councils may produce one individually, and some combined authorities or combined county authorities could be grouped with an authority outside their area under a strategic planning board.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me specifically about brownfield land, and it is a question he has asked me a number of times. I will try to again answer the question. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 places a requirement on the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed as a matter that strategic planning authorities must have regard to. These regulations will be combined with the regulations setting out the procedure for preparation of a spatial development strategy. So, I hope that that has clarified the issue. I hope the Committee will agree that it has considered these regulations.
Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the statutory instrument was laid on 14 May 2026, and it will make a small but important amendment to existing provisions governing key financial decisions, including land disposal and contracts by councils during periods of local government reorganisation. The Government’s programme of reform, set out in the English Devolution White Paper, is designed to transfer power out of Westminster and fix the foundations of local government.
A central part of the programme is local government reorganisation—moving from two-tier structures to single- tier councils, which are simpler, clearer and more accountable to residents. The Government’s long-term vision is for simpler structures, which make it clearer who residents should look to on local issues, with more strategic decisions to support growth and improve public services. Delivering that vision requires not only structural change, but a transition process that is orderly, is legally robust and protects the public interest.
During reorganisation, existing councils will continue to operate while new councils are established, and it is essential that decisions taken in this period do not undermine the position of the successor councils. The framework, therefore, includes safeguards, set out in Section 24 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which enables the Secretary of State to issue directions, controlling certain disposals of land and significant financial commitments.
In specified circumstances where a decision could affect the successor authority, councils must obtain consent before proceeding, typically from the relevant shadow council. These controls will ensure that significant decisions taken during the transition period do not adversely affect successor councils, with specific consents required for higher-risk decisions and general consents enabling routine activity to continue.
This order, made under Section 29 of the Act, makes a targeted amendment to how those safeguards operate. The framework requires councils to consider past disposals of land and contractual dealings when determining whether financial thresholds have been met. Because the beginning of the aggregation period has remained fixed at 31 December 2006, this could require authorities to review nearly two decades of historic decisions. That was not the intention of the policy. The controls were designed to focus on recent and relevant activity in the period leading up to reorganisation, not to impose disproportionate retrospective requirements.
This order updates the beginning of the aggregation period to 31 March 2025, ensuring that the framework captures relevant activity without requiring unnecessarily extensive historic analysis and while leaving the underlying safeguards on disposals of land and contractual dealings unchanged. This is not a change of policy. The underlying safeguards remain unchanged. Rather, the instrument will ensure that those safeguards function as originally intended, providing greater clarity and certainty in their application. It therefore maintains the balance between enabling councils that will shortly be abolished to continue to operate effectively and protecting the interests of successor councils and the public purse.
This amendment was initially identified through engagement with Surrey, but it has been tested with the wider sector, including through engagement with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the department’s Local Government Reorganisation Advisory Group, formed of senior representatives and experts from across local government. It is not a Surrey- specific fix, but a clarification that will apply across the broader reorganisation programme. This instrument supports legal robustness by reducing uncertainty in the operation of the framework and ensuring consistent and effective application across the reorganisation programme. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I repeat my interest, though it is not so specific, of being a councillor, but not on one of the authorities affected. This is an entirely sensible change to make. I have a couple of questions about councils’ retention policies for details. Clearly, the strategic decisions will be retained for ever, but all councils have a policy of ridding themselves of mounds of paperwork, because it is very costly to retain them. I would like to know from the Minister about councils’ retention policies. Given that we are now in a digital age, where retaining such documents is much easier, although still with a cost, have councils had to reconsider their retention policies and what does that mean in practice? For example, there is a seven-year rule for a lot of decisions made by councils, after which material can be disposed of. Clearly, that will not apply to big contractual and budget decisions but, given the nature of this SI, it would be helpful if retention policies for councils’ documents and transactions were universal.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I need to declare again that I am a councillor in central Bedfordshire, although I do not believe we will be impacted by these changes at the moment. At the outset, I make clear that we understand the practical problems that the Government are seeking to address through this instrument. It is sensible that, where local government reorganisation is taking place, there should be safeguards to prevent outgoing authorities from making significant financial commitments that could bind or disadvantage successor councils. The purpose of the Section 24 framework is therefore understandable.
However, while this measure may appear technical, it raises wider issues and questions about the Government’s management of local government reorganisation and the haste with which that programme has been pursued. We are being asked to amend legislation because the existing framework, left untouched for nearly two decades, no longer works in practice. One is bound to ask why this issue was not identified earlier as part of the Government’s work on local government restructuring. Given their determination to accelerate structural reorganisation across large parts of England, what other unforeseen consequences will arise as the process goes through?
Time and again, we are told that these changes to local government restructuring will deliver efficiencies, stronger strategic leadership and better services, yet councils continue to raise concerns about complexity, cost and disruption. Against that backdrop, this statutory instrument feels less like a routine technical adjustment and more like another example of the Government being forced to amend machinery when the train is already moving.
I am also interested in the Government’s decision not to review the financial thresholds. Section 29 provides the power to amend those thresholds, yet, while the aggregation date is being updated from 2006 to 2025, the thresholds of £100,000 and £1 million remain unchanged. There is a significant difference in real terms between the value of £1 million now and its value in 2006. Given that this problem arises because a fixed date was used in the previous legislation, why are we again using a fixed date in these changes to the legislation, rather than one that flexes, for example, with the vesting date of the councils concerned? There is also a question of consultation. The Government refer to discussions with Surrey County Council and other sector experts. It would be helpful to know more about the extent of that engagement.
None of these questions necessarily leads one to oppose the instrument, but they are relevant because this SI is being presented as a practical fix to a problem that has arisen during implementation. Parliament is entitled to understand how that problem emerged and whether similar issues may yet arise elsewhere that maybe should have been thought of earlier. Good government is not simply about having a destination in mind but about ensuring that the route has been properly planned —a comment frequently made by one of the Minister’s noble friends about HS2.
I will also raise a broader issue relating to the Government’s programme of local government reorganisation and devolution. Ministers have repeatedly presented this as a coherent national plan yet, from the outside, it looks increasingly like a programme that is being rewritten as it goes along. Timetables have shifted and elections have been postponed and, in some cases, restored. Local authorities remain uncertain about the final structures that they are expected to implement. That is simply not good enough. This issue matters because we are not discussing an administrative exercise; we are discussing the democratic structures through which millions of people are represented. Elections are not an inconvenience to be moved around whenever they become awkward for government timetables. They are the foundation of democratic accountability.
The Government originally announced in December 2024 that six areas would join the devolution priority programme, with new mayoral institutions expected to follow at pace. Yet mayoral elections that were due to take place in 2026 have been pushed back in several areas until 2028, which I understand is also the date of the mayoral elections of the non-devolution priority programme. We therefore find ourselves in an extraordinary position where the Government are delaying democratic mandates because their own reorganisation programme has failed to keep pace with its promises.
Considering this, and given the increasingly fluid political situation nationally, including widespread speculation about the future direction of government and a new Prime Minister on the horizon—the most likely contender has strong views on devolution—does the current timetable for local government reorganisation and mayoral devolution remain intact? I understand if the Minister might need to write to me after 16 July.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their responses to this statutory instrument. I will try to respond to the questions.
There are no plans to change council retention policies for paperwork, and they are not affected by this SI, so that is not included in this piece of legislation.
I will answer the general points that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, made first on local government reorganisation and the management of it. He asked me, first, what other unforeseen consequences we can expect. Well, they are unforeseen, so I am afraid I cannot identify them. If I could, I would have a crystal ball. The timetable for local government reorganisation has not changed. I take the noble Lord’s point about the elections, but that was due to changing legal advice. I spoke to the Local Government Minister this morning and, as far as we are concerned, we are proceeding with the timetable as we had originally set out. We will work through the process for the other 14 areas that have not yet had their local government reorganisation announcements, with a view to making an announcement on them before the Recess. That work is still going on and going ahead.
On the noble Lord’s question about mayoral elections, we decided for very good reasons that it was important that we had established the foundation authorities and that they were working properly before the mayoral elections went ahead. That was the rationale for that decision. But the work is being done to the timetable that we set originally. I hope that is reassuring.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me about the thresholds and why we are not changing them. They are not changing: it is £100,000 for land disposals and certain non-capital contracts and, as he said, £1 million for capital contracts. The thresholds and timing are established features of the Section 24 framework. Those thresholds are intended to capture decisions that could have a material impact on successor authorities, while allowing routine activity to continue without unnecessary delay. The safeguards apply once a shadow authority exists, because that is the point at which there is a clear and accountable body able to give consent on behalf of the future successor council.
The instrument does not change the thresholds or the point at which the safeguards apply; it ensures that they operate as intended in practice. They are intended as broad indicators of material financial decisions, rather than precise limits. The key issue raised by the councils that we spoke to was not the thresholds but how they operate in practice with the existing aggregation period start date, which was onerous on councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me why the amendments are needed, which relates to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The issue was identified during implementation planning, including in Surrey, and it has been tested with the wider sector. Under the current framework, authorities have to look over an extended historic period when assessing whether thresholds are met, and that is not proportionate. Without the update, councils would be required to review that over the long period, and that could result in inconsistent application across areas and create an unnecessary administrative burden for councils.
It may further cause a risk to the effective management of public assets and finances during reorganisation. There is also a potential risk that historic land disposals could be rendered void and historic contracts could become unenforceable. It would also make safeguards much more difficult to apply in practice. Under Section 28, land disposals made in contravention of a direction are void, and contracts entered into in contravention of a direction are unenforceable, so we must avoid that happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me to expand further on the consultation that was done as part of this process. I set out in my introduction that we tested this through engagement with councils and the wider sector; we have a sector advisory group, which contains experts in these types of areas, including the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, so that we make sure that what we are doing is practical and sustainable. I hope that that responds to the questions.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for her responses, but I just wanted a little clarity on three of the questions that I asked. The first is on the impact of inflation. Roughly speaking, inflation has almost doubled, so £50,000 spent in 2006 is the equivalent of £100,000 now—not quite, but in approximate terms. That is a significant change. As we are updating the regulations, and the purpose in 2006 was to capture the important spend, it will now capture a lot more than the important spend. That was the point I was trying to make. I completely agree with why it is being put; I do not have any issue with that.
Secondly, one could argue that a mistake was made in 2006; we should not have had a fixed date or it should have been updated in the interim. I asked why we are not looking at a date that might relate to, say, vesting or something else, which might seem more rational.
Thirdly, I was also curious about the response on the timing of elections—and please correct me if I have got it wrong, because I may very well have. My understanding is that the elections for the original six priority mayoral areas will be in 2028, as will the 14 follow-ons—as I call them. The Minister said that that was in order to allow the foundation authorities to have the time to set up and get organised. I appreciate that the following 14 are not foundation, but they will operate to a much tighter timetable. That seems to be a bit of an incongruity.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
On the subject of the amounts, I take the noble Lord’s point about inflation, but these amounts are intended to act as broad indicators of material financial decisions, not precise limits. It is relevant to keep the same amounts in place; it makes the amount at which they have to be referred reasonable and that is a rational way of doing things.
On his point around the date, if we did not have a specific date, it might complicate the accountancy practices. I will look into that and come back to him on that point.
On the issues around the mayoral elections, the decision was made to make sure that we have the new authorities vested and in place, with a chance to establish themselves. They are delivering key public services. There is a lot of work to do, as the noble Lord has pointed out to me on many occasions—and I properly understand that point—before the mayoral elections take place. We know that it is a tight timetable but, to be honest, in my 30 years in local government, nobody has bitten the bullet and sorted this out. It is time we got the foundations of local government into single unitary authorities, so that everybody across the country has the same type of local authority. That is why we are moving forward at pace with the timetable.
To conclude, the instrument makes a small but necessary technical amendment to ensure that existing safeguards on financial decisions operate effectively during local government reorganisation. It has been developed in response to engagement with councils and tested with local government representatives. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft order, which I commend to the Committee.
Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Vallance of Balham
That the Grand Committee do consider the Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy and Net Zero and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 23 April 2026. I want to briefly outline the purpose of nuclear safeguards and explain the proposed amendments to the nuclear safeguards regulations. These regulations form the foundation of the UK’s civil nuclear safeguards regime, enabling us to meet our international obligations. These amendments are designed to refine and strengthen the UK’s system.
Nuclear safeguards are a cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. They are accounting, reporting and verification processes that demonstrate that nuclear material and facilities are not being diverted for military use. Safeguards are how we show the International Atomic Energy Agency and the international community that civil nuclear material is being used as it should be and is not being diverted into military programmes. The safeguards system is also central to building confidence for international nuclear trade and co-operation. These are distinct from nuclear safety and security but, of course, they are just as vital.
For almost 50 years, the UK has committed to meeting our international obligations and supporting the international nuclear safeguards regime. A strong, well-functioning regime sends a clear message that the UK takes its responsibility as a nuclear state seriously. Our current safeguards regime has been in place since the UK left the European Atomic Energy Community, Euratom, in 2020. It was designed to be equivalent in effectiveness to the previous regime. The Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 set out operator requirements and conferred functions on the Office for Nuclear Regulation as the UK’s safeguards regulator.
The amendments we are considering are about improving how that regime works. The proposed amendments are drawn from a statutory post-implementation review carried out in 2023 and then a public consultation on the proposed amendments in 2025. There are three broad categories of amendments, which I will cover briefly in turn. The first covers the proposed removal of provisions related to the transition to the ONR-led regime or those that do not apply to the UK’s operational context. Their removal simplifies and brings greater clarity to the regulations.
The second and largest set of changes is about improving operability and clarifying requirements. The main change in this category is the move to using the IAEA design information questionnaires. Up until now, the UK continued to use Euratom’s design information reporting format, and we are moving to the IAEA format instead. This change will align the UK internationally and support our civil nuclear sector’s international partnerships.
We are also changing some timelines for submitting information to the ONR, including some reduction in the timelines for operators. For example, we are changing the timelines for submitting design information to the ONR. The UK is required to submit design information to the IAEA within 30 days. Under the current regulations, the entirety of the 30 days sits with the operators. By dividing the timeline to 23 days for operators and seven for ONR, the majority of time remains with the operators while the regulator now has five working days for its activities to meet the requirements. We are also updating some definitions so that they keep the UK aligned internationally.
The final set of changes is smaller but important for making sure the regulations are fit for purpose. This includes provisions for offences, where relevant, as an established final point of escalation. The Nuclear Safeguards (Fees) Regulations will also be updated to reflect ONR activities added to NSR 19, and we expect these costs to be minimal.
In conclusion, these amendments will strengthen the Nuclear Safeguards Regulations. This will enable a more efficient and effective delivery of the domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime, ensuring that we continue to meet our international obligations. At the same time, the changes will support our nuclear industry in its trade and operational activities, both of which, of course, are vital to our country’s economic growth and energy security. I look forward to hearing what noble Lords say about the proposed detail.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of these regulations. Nuclear safeguards and the system for reporting, inspection and verification gives the International Atomic Energy Agency and the wider world the confidence that our civil nuclear material is being used for peaceful purposes and is not being diverted into weapons programmes. Without a credible safeguards regime, we cannot trade in civil nuclear material, operate our existing plants or attract the international partners on whom our nuclear ambitions depend.
The 2019 regulations established our domestic regime post Brexit. This instrument, some seven years on, does several things. It removes transitional provisions that were only ever intended to smooth the exit from Euratom; tightens and clarifies the language operators must work within; introduces new offences to plug enforcement gaps; adjusts reporting timelines to give the Office for Nuclear Regulation more time to scrutinise what it receives; and, most significantly for our international standing, transitions the UK from Euratom-style basic technical characteristic questionnaires to the IAEA’s own design information questionnaire format. It also amends the associated fees regulations to put the ONR’s cost recovery on a clearer statutory footing.
On these Benches, we recognise this as an essential and overdue update to a globally recognised regulatory system, and we support it. We particularly welcome the removal of the Euratom transition provisions and the move to the IAEA’s design information questionnaire format as a sensible step forward towards international harmonisation that will ease collaboration with our partners and materially support the UK, US and global civil industry partnerships.
Our support, however, should not be mistaken for uncritical or entirely enthusiastic support for the wider nuclear policy: we continue to have some concerns about the delivery of large-scale plants. We recognise that nuclear is obviously a crucial part of our energy mix, and we are supportive of the move towards more small modular reactors.
On the detail, I apologise, as I have several questions for the Minister. On the new offences, these regulations introduce criminal liability for non-compliance with particular safeguards provisions and for the failure to declare a change in facility type—corrections to an oversight in the original 2019 regulations. I just want to ask the Minister about this gap, which feels significant in our enforcement regime and why it was allowed to persist for seven years before being addressed here. I further seek assurance that the ONR now has everything that it needs as both legal powers and operational capacity to pursue enforcement action all the way to prosecution, where the gravity of a breach demands it.
On reporting timescales, the Minister has set out the window for operators to declare design information changes, but can he confirm that this tighter window will not place a disproportionate burden on the more than 130 qualifying facilities with limited operations? As he is well aware, we are talking about smaller-scale universities and corporate operations.
On the transition to the new IAEA forms, I welcome the Government’s decision, following consultation feedback, to extend the transition period for adopting the design information questionnaire from two years to three.
I feel that one question did not get sufficient attention in the other place. Are there specific risks during the migration and transition? Moving from one accountancy and control system to another is not just an exercise done on paper. There is a period during any transition when records may exist in two formats simultaneously, when staff are learning new systems and when the potential for gaps or miscategorisation is at its highest. We will also see some new definitions from the SI. What specific guidance will the ONR provide to operators to ensure that no accounting anomalies fall between the two systems and that the integrity of our nuclear accounting records is maintained throughout what will be a difficult transition period?
On record-keeping, this instrument extends the retention period for operating and accounting records from five years to 30. That is a big change. I notice that the costs in the supporting documents were quite low, but keeping computer records for that long is quite a complicated exercise, as computers become obsolete. Is that not putting on too much of a burden? Will the Minister say something about extending computer record-keeping and its security over that long period of time?
Finally, on repurposed facilities, the instrument introduces requirements for operators to notify the ONR 200 days before a change of facility type. Given the Government’s policy ambition to rapidly deploy small modular reactors, are they certain that these regulatory time changes are flexible enough not to impact the rollout and operation of small modular reactors?
We support this instrument. It will strengthen our safeguards regime, bring us more closely into step with our international partners and help guard against the unlawful diversion of civil nuclear material, so we fully support it.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the Committee to introduce these regulations. I am particularly pleased to be opposite him for the first time on these issues. I hope we will have many similar exchanges in the years to come. I am glad to say that, on this occasion, we are in agreement. There is little I can add to the excellent contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
A strong, independent nuclear safeguards regime is vital for our civil nuclear industry to function effectively. However, the Government must support nuclear site operators and other nuclear industry partners to ensure that they are not placing unworkable burdens on the nuclear industry. As the Minister said in his introduction, the instrument will implement most of the recommendations from the post-implementation review in 2019, so it is largely Conservative Party policy.
The Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are the current regime used to demonstrate that civil nuclear material is not unlawfully diverted into military use. Also relevant are the Nuclear Safeguards (Fees) Regulations 2021, which regulate the fees payable by operators to the Office for Nuclear Regulation—ONR. This instrument will amend both to remove regulations related to the transition from Euratom, as both previous speakers have said, which are no longer applicable or do not apply to the UK context. We agree with that.
A new offence corrects an oversight, when the NSR 19 was originally implemented, relating to non-compliance with the requirements of the particular safeguards provisions. We also support that. An offence has been added related to non-compliance, with a new provision requiring operators to declare to ONR where there is a change in the type of facility. It also ensures that the regulator has a sanctions regime for non-compliance.
The main change, as the Minister made clear to the Committee, is to replace Euratom’s basic technical characteristics—BTC—questionnaire, which assesses how nuclear site operators account for their nuclear material, with the IAEA’s design information questionnaire, or DIQ. It also reduces the design information changes reporting time, as the Minister stated, from 30 to 23 days. He also stated that it requires operators to give the ONR more notice of imports, from four to seven days, and of exports, I believe from seven to 13 days. I may have missed that in the Minister’s comments, but I understand that that is the case.
It was interesting to see concerns over some of the changes made by nuclear site operators and other nuclear industry parties who were consulted. This includes changes to notification timings for the import and export of nuclear material, with operators questioning why the ONR needed more time to report this information to the IAEA, and the adequate number of staff needed to fulfil accountancy and control plans for nuclear material, with operators concerned that this was not clear enough, having previously questioned the rationale for the plans. Maybe the Minister will be able to comment on that.
In summary, the impact of the costs on business will be about £200,000 to £300,000. The transition period for changing forms from BTCs to DIQs was lengthened, with the ONR still accepting BTCs for the first year and DIQs for the second year. The notification timings for reporting design change, imports and exports were also amended to give operators more time than originally proposed, while still increasing the time the regulator has to quality assure. This instrument introduces changes largely supported by the consultees and initiated by the previous Government, as I mentioned. Therefore, we thank the Minister and are supportive of the proposals he brought before the Committee.
I have a question related to his portfolio. Events of recent days have suggested that the energy Bill may be delayed. I do not imagine that the Minister can possibly comment on that, but I suggest to him that that would be regrettable because the Fingleton recommendations are really important. It would be helpful to the Committee if he could comment on that, if he is in a position to. I am grateful to the Minister and conclude by reinforcing my support for the recommendations he brought forward.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for the support and the useful additional questions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his wish to be opposite me for a long time. I cannot make any guarantees on that.
I agree with some of the points made, which largely support what I said. As I said, these amendments strengthen our position and make things easier. They will support trade and operations that are central to the sector’s work. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked why there is a gap in closing the offences part. The answer is that a statutory instrument was needed to do that, and this is a statutory instrument to achieve that. It is important that we are now closing those gaps. These amendments remove what has been a long transition agreement that really is not needed any more, given where we are domestically. The industry has largely welcomed this.
By bringing our design reporting requirements in line with those of the IAEA, we will make it simpler for both domestic and international new entrants to the market. That includes, on the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the SMRs, which are crucially important for where we go next.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised operator concerns. There is no doubt that the operators expressed some concerns about the move, for example, to use the IAEA questionnaire so quickly. We listened to that and introduced a longer transition period, to give them a chance to familiarise themselves with the process and to develop the new reporting format. Importantly, the ONR will work very closely with them to facilitate that change. It now has a year of the old system and then two years to make the transition.
Similarly, when operators noted concern about the timelines for reporting—an important point that both noble Lords picked up—there was no time allocated to the ONR. Strictly speaking, the operators could go right the way up to day 30 and hand the information over to the ONR. It then had to get it in by day 30, otherwise it was in breach of our international obligations. Initially, the proposal was to give half and half. We listened to the concerns and changed it so that the ONR will take five working days and the operators have the rest. That is an appropriate and proportionate response to the concerns.
It is particularly important that, as a nuclear weapons state, we demonstrate that we are complying with these safeguards and do not have any mechanism to divert civil nuclear material for military use. This will strengthen our ability to do so. In making these safeguards, we will encourage other states to follow suit, which will support the wider non-proliferation regime.
Two extra questions were asked. On the question about the SMR rollout, which I have partially answered, I can absolutely reassure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is a high priority for us to get that moving. I do not believe that what is in here in any way impedes our ability to do that quickly. That leads on to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised about what we are doing on the Fingleton review. That legislation will be introduced in this parliamentary Session. We are committed to try to drive the Fingleton recommendations through to completion by the end of next year, as we said when they were first introduced.
I hope that answers the questions that noble Lords have raised and that I have provided the necessary assurances to allow them to approve the regulations before us today.
House of Lords
Legal Protections for Ancient Trees
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of legal protections for ancient trees; and whether further measures, including stronger penalties, are needed to prevent their unlawful destruction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, felling trees without a licence where one is required carries unlimited fines and a potential prison sentence, and those protections are underpinned by a robust enforcement regime. In addition, ancient and veteran trees benefit from the highest levels of protection within the planning system. Any loss or deterioration should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons. We recognise the importance of this issue and are reviewing these protections to ensure that they remain effective.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I thank the Minister but, under the Forestry Act 1967, the destruction of the Whitewebbs oak in Enfield—still alive at the time—required an application to the Forestry Commission for a felling licence, which was never sought. The commission concluded that no felling licence was required due to legitimate exemptions, meaning that no criminal offence had occurred. But a BBC freedom of information request revealed that the assessment made by the commission’s investigator recommended that no such exemption could legitimately be applied in this case. My understanding is that the Forestry Commission ignored this, simply because the outdated legislation gives it no teeth to adequately protect ancient trees. Will the Government amend the Forestry Act 1967 to explicitly define a higher evidence bar for exempting any ancient tree-felling from licence?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I recognise the situation that the noble Baroness describes, and the Government recognise that we need to look at whether there is more we can do to protect trees. Defra has funded a report, led by the Tree Council and Forest Research, to provide a range of recommendations for improving the protection and stewardship of important trees. We are currently looking at those recommendations, but we will also set out actions to support and protect important trees in the new tree action plan, which we are looking to publish before the end of the year. We are absolutely cognisant of the reasons why more needs to be done.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Is the Minister aware of any rules that control the felling of trees in conservation areas? There seems to be a spate of councils cutting down trees that are much loved by the local community in conservation areas of towns and villages. Is this something she could look at?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very happy to look at it. Usually, the local authority will give an order for a tree to be cut down if there is a reason to be concerned about safety. I have an interest in this, as we have just had an order from our local council regarding several ash trees on our land overlooking the road. I am happy to look into it, but usually there is a safety aspect to those orders.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, the report out today from the Woodland Trust makes the interesting point that there is a 15-degree reduction when standing under a tree, compared with standing out in the open air or on the pavement, and 11 million people live in the equivalent of tree deserts. I know that the Government have a good tree-planting programme. Can the Minister update the House on how that programme is going, and on how quickly enough trees will be planted to make a material difference to lives in, for instance, the heat tomorrow?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that the shade provided by trees is important, not just for human health but for animal health, for livestock and so on. As I mentioned in my Answer to the noble Baroness’s Question, we are looking at the tree action plan, which we will publish by the end of the year, and I will ensure that the concerns around climate change and increasing temperatures are looked at as part of that.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, is the Forestry Commission case that was cited not further evidence of commissions and quangos ignoring the intentions of Parliament, and indeed the wishes of the public, and being toothless in the face of gross abuses? Is it not time that government departments and Ministers took back control so that perpetrators can be held accountable and the public’s voice can be effectively heard?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Forestry Commission reports to Defra, to my colleague Mary Creagh MP. I know that she has been working very hard to ensure that the kinds of issues my noble friend talks about are better taken into account, including how the commission manages its estates, the kind of trees that are planted and how to bring in proper enforcement where required.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, there is a greater problem in incentivising land managers to plant enough of the right trees to protect our watercourses, promote nature recovery, sequester carbon and increase our timber self-sufficiency from the current 27%. Properly planned planting that complies with UK forestry standards can meet all these objectives. What actions are the Minister’s Government taking to increase the percentage of productive tree species planted in England? I refer the House to my registered interest as a forest developer and owner.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The tree action plan and the tree planting that Defra is encouraging are about commercial timber as well as woodland planting for leisure or other requirements. We import far too much of our timber at the moment; it is better for sustainability that we plant our own. But everything has to be planted in the right place, we need the right kind of species and, importantly, we need to look to the future, because climate change will change which species will be viable for the long term.
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 Lib Dem Benches.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I am happy to hear from the Minister that the recommendations will result in the tree action plan by the end of this year, but will she bear in mind that there are no protections for trees that do not have tree preservation orders? By the time people realise those trees are under threat, it is too late: they have come down.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are looking at those exact protections as part of what we are doing to better protect trees going forward. As part of that, it is also important that we look at how, within the planning system, we support the trees that need to be supported, and at how we ensure that, where trees are felled, the right species are replanted in the right place to make the difference that we need to see if we are to plant trees as part of our climate change strategy.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches, then the noble Baroness.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, having just turned 80, I declare an interest in the preservation of ancient trees.
Lord Trees (CB)
That aside, seriously, we have more ancient oaks in England than the rest of Europe put together. Last year, a government-sponsored review found that the current legal protections are insufficient to protect our important trees and recommended a review of current legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms to ensure their protection. Can the Minister reassure the House that the England tree action plan currently in development will include commitments to adopt the recommendations made by this review, including the need to reform TPOs?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned previously, we are looking to bring out the new recommendations on trees by the end of the year. The review is really important. I think it is particularly important for oaks, because our native oaks are threatened by climate change and we really need to think about how we are going to protect them better for the future, but also to look at what oak species we need to consider planting if our temperatures are going to continue to rise, as we have all experienced this week.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, that plan will of course be too late for the Major oak in Sherwood Forest, a 1,200 year-old tree that it was announced just this week has died. That was put down to a mixture of tourism, climate change and historic bad management. It is too late for that tree, which is as old as the Greensted church in Essex—it was a sapling when that church was being built. The church has grade 1 listing, enormous protection. Should we not afford these so rare and important ancient trees a similar level of protection as buildings of the same kind of age?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point, but I think one of the reasons that tree sadly died was because it was so very, very, very, very old. Trees do not live for ever, but I take her point about protections.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the Sycamore Gap tree felling was the result of a TikTok challenge?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As somebody who does not look at TikTok, I have absolutely no idea.
Artificial Intelligence: Global Governance
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they are having with international partners regarding global governance frameworks for artificial intelligence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
AI is a global technology, so the UK is working with partners to advance secure, responsible and trustworthy AI design, development and adoption. This includes bilateral programmes and multilateral collaboration through the AI summit series, the G7, the United Nations and partnerships with national AI security institutes worldwide.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. I agree that international co-operation is essential and, from a domestic point of view, I warmly welcome the new AI Economics Institute, and indeed the work that the Prime Minister has been doing in this area on the international stage. Does my noble friend agree that, as recent events have shown, the danger is not simply regulatory fragmentation but the concentration of AI power in the hands of a small number of states and companies? Given the United Kingdom’s long experience of shaping legal and commercial frameworks, what leadership role does she see for this country in developing global governance arrangements for artificial intelligence?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right to draw attention to the strengths of the UK in AI. Given the pace of change, the UK is determined to shape AI and not be shaped by it. These are issues that countries do not face alone, so we are working with international partners to seize the opportunities and address the challenges that AI presents, both bilaterally and multilaterally. The UK is well placed to lead, including through our AI Security Institute, working with allies to share expertise, build capability and strengthen our resilience together.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation. The UK signed the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence nearly two years ago. Can the Minister tell the House when the UK intends to ratify the convention, and what steps the Government intend to take to implement it, given their own statement that
“existing laws and measures will be enhanced”
once ratification occurs? Has the moment arrived for the UK to champion binding international obligations on AI, rather than continuing to place its faith in voluntary commitments that have clearly failed to hold either Governments or developers to account?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The convention on AI is flexible and does not create new human rights obligations. Contracting states are given broad discretion when it comes to selecting the appropriate form of implementation, including sector-led regulation. That fits with our mission to highlight the benefits of AI for working people in a way that recognises that regulation largely is based on a sector-based approach.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, as we know, and as I have said quite often in this House, the UK AI sector for SMEs is booming. Thousands of new businesses have set up in the UK over the last few years, and the UK can be proud of that on the global stage. With the last Prime Minister, and maybe the new Prime Minister, searching for growth, when will the Government meet organisations such as SMEs, particularly around the challenges of procurement into government? I declare my interest as a co-founder of the Business AI Alliance, a not-for-profit organisation that champions 300 UK AI businesses.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to pay testament to the strength of the UK economy and sector in both AI adoption and in new businesses taking opportunities, whether in law tech, fintech, or health and life sciences, to name a few. I am sure that colleagues in the department will be happy to meet the organisations he mentions. We meet other alliances such as those who represent start-ups and scale-ups in the UK. As he mentions, they are a source of growth and employment here.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to using AI in healthcare to improve patients’ outcomes. However, AI brings risks too. We need international collaboration for large studies to establish effectiveness and long-term risks to patients. The World Health Organization has published a document on ethics and a governance framework for AI in health. Can the Minister say how the UK Government are contributing to the WHO-led governance framework for AI in healthcare, in order to not only improve outcomes but establish risks and equity in outcomes for our patients?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The UK collaborates with many different forums, such as the OECD and the UN, and I am pleased to hear of the advances made by the WHO in setting out frameworks for ethical developments. In the UK, we are working carefully with the MHRA to allow advances in AI to bring real patient benefits through the development of new treatments and drugs.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are more likely to succeed in having international regulation for AI if the regulations are based not on a single set of regulations for all algorithms but on risk-based classifications in a set of regulations, as with other technologies such as atomic energy?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Developments in AI, with AI as a general technology, are indeed permeating many sectors, including health, as we heard from my noble friend, and other areas, as the noble Lord mentioned. The best approach is to keep collaborating in multilateral forums and with bilateral partners, so that we can share standards and approaches, and be agile and nimble as the technology develops.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, recent restrictions by the United States on access by foreign nationals to certain advanced AI models have highlighted the extent to which access to frontier AI technology can be determined by decisions taken overseas. What discussions have the Government had with international partners to ensure that the United Kingdom retains reliable access to strategically important AI capabilities?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord highlights the developments in frontier models, which are delivering unprecedented advances at present. We are ensuring that the UK has sovereign capability based on our strengths, so that we can compete in this new, developing technological area in areas where we contribute. For example, that is why we are backing the AI hardware plan, an area of real strength in the UK, and we have set up the sovereign AI fund to back those particular sectors which the UK is particularly strong in.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, a deepfake or AI-generated social media post manufactured in one country can inflame communities in another country within hours. Ahead of the UN global dialogue in Geneva next month, can the Minister give us a reassurance that the Government are pressing international partners for common standards on content provenance and authentication, so that citizens can tell what is real from what is synthetic and deliberately sown to divide communities?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is right to highlight the importance of applying our values and laws, whether the content is generated by AI or by other actors. In the UK, the Online Safety Act takes that approach, whether content is developed by AI or elsewhere. It is through these kinds of dialogues, including with the UN, that we will share our best practice, so we can have standards globally that are based on the approach we are taking here in the UK.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, is it not a fact that, if we are to secure international agreements, we are dependent on the Chinese being willing to enter into them, and in particular our close friends the Americans, who are showing a preference not for international regulation but to lead the world, have competitiveness and be in charge? In those circumstances, I welcome what the Minister was saying about UK sovereignty. Could she define it a bit more precisely? Are we going to establish an independent sovereign UK AI which would give us greater power than we have at the moment?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Our sovereignty strategy includes many elements, such as developing AI growth zones, supporting the expansion of compute, and the sovereign AI fund, which is focused on five priority areas. We are supporting the building of a series of non-language frontier models, for example Ineffable. Also, as language models develop, we are seeing how the next era of them could be different. Today, there was an announcement of a further investment in that area from UKRI.
DVLA: Staffing Levels
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of staffing levels at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency regularly monitors staffing levels against demand for its services and changes staffing levels where necessary within agreed limits. For example, the DVLA has recently taken on more staff to meet increased demand for its drivers, medical and contact centre services. Improvements are already taking effect: the average decision times fell from 68 working days in February to 56 at the end of May.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
The fact that it is taking 66 days to answer would explain my problem, as I met all the DVLA’s criteria when I replied in an email on 27 March. If my Question were to have come up next month, we would have been commemorating three months of me waiting to get a driving licence. Does the Minister accept that the DVLA is in a crisis? It is desperately short of manpower and it is not fit for purpose for what it is supposed to do: issuing driving licences to the public of this country, who pay its wages. Is the Minister considering technology to meet this problem, such as putting in place a computer programme to get on with issuing licences, thereby reducing the problem of DVLA not having enough manpower to meet the difficulties it has today?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I hope that the noble Lord received my letter of 12 June, in reply to his email to me on 14 May. If he took the simple action outlined in my letter, he should now have his licence and be driving again. There are 53 million driving licence holders in Great Britain. In 2024-25, the DVLA received 837,591 medical licence notifications, a figure which increased to 922,123 in 2025-26. As I said, the average decision time fell from 68 to 56 working days. It recently recruited 60 extra full-time equivalent caseworkers and 100 additional FTE contact centre staff, to cut call waiting times. The noble Lord is right that, if he were to apply now, he would be able to use the newly launched digital medical services platform, which enables far more customers with medical conditions to notify, apply for and renew their driving licences online.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, it was recently stated in the House of Commons that 34,000 suppliers of number plates are registered with the DVLA. Given the widespread problems with illegal number plates helping people dodge the law, can the Minister tell us how many DVLA staff are allocated to policing compliance by those 34,000 suppliers and whether that number is sufficient?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that this is a serious problem on a significant scale. The Government acknowledge that more needs to be done. A recent consultation closed on 11 May and the actions that we propose to take following the review of the consultation will include legislative change, if needed. I cannot tell him how many people currently do that job but I will write to him with the figure.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will back up what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said and ask the Minister to consider the following. It is one thing to get a driving licence when you pass your test, because you know that you have passed your test. However, when you apply for a renewal at 70, you do not know what will happen. Therefore, you are left in limbo. My wife is a leap year baby, so I believe she is 17 and a half, but the cruel public authorities say that she is 70. Naturally, she sent in her application in January—because 29 February was the cut-off point in question—but she still has not heard a single thing. She has no idea what has happened with the process. That has knock-on effects in practical terms and is a considerable source of anxiety. I believe this to be a widespread problem.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
If the noble Lord drops me a line with a few more details, I will look into that case. The rules demand more attention to medical conditions from the age of 70 onwards, and rightly so. There have been some terrible examples of older drivers who are unfit to drive but have still driven and have caused serious accidents, including death, so we are right to worry about this. The process ought to be efficient. I know better than most that I have to renew my vocational licence annually, and I start it on the first day that I can. I am pleased to say that it always comes back, but that may be because my name is on the licence.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I just thought I should say that so that nobody thought it was in somebody else’s name. It is important that, as people get older, they consider whether they are capable to continue driving and have the right medical history to do so. I realise that it is a real issue for their mobility, particularly in rural areas. That is why the digital medical services platform, to which I referred, enables much more of this to be done online. If the noble Lord would like to give me some further details of his very young wife’s licence application, I will look into it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I imagine that my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom put his name on his licence application as well, though with slightly different results. The DVLA used to be, not so long ago, one of the more highly regarded agencies, rather like the Passport Office. It was pretty efficient and reliable, but it seems to have gone downhill. Taking another example, the Government committed last year to reduce the wait for driving tests to seven weeks by summer 2026. Here we are in the height of summer 2026 and the waiting time is still 23 weeks. What are the Government going to do about this? What date can they now give for saying that they will bring these waiting lists within bounds?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Some issues of government are more intractable than others. Given the statistics I quoted earlier about a 10% rise in medical licence notifications yet a reduction in the timescale dealing with them, I think that the DVLA is not an example of an organisation in crisis but one that is seeking, together with technology, to address the issues it faces on a real-time basis. However, the noble Lord is right that the Government anticipated reducing the waiting time for a driving test to seven weeks; the Secretary of State recently said that it was taking a long time to sort it out and that it will not be sorted out until autumn next year.
That is not to say that nothing has been done. The number of examiners has gone up by 147. In the period between June 2025 and May 2026, the DVSA conducted 242,000 more tests than in the same period. Pass rates are going up, which is very satisfactory. The noble Lord ought to know the effects that the actions to make the booking system fairer—limiting learners to two changes to their driving tests, restricting bookings so that only learners can book and amend tests, and limiting the area a learner driver can move a test to once booked—are already producing. Those actions were taken at the end of March, in the middle of May and in early June, and they are already clearly increasing the availability of test slots. He is right that it is taking longer but we will solve it.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I will take the Minister back to the question about cloning plates, which is increasingly facilitating a whole range of crime, including, with the increase in petrol prices, drive-off from petrol stations. From my experience of 30-odd years being a Member of Parliament in the other place, the DVLA and the police were remarkably uncurious and unwilling to look at genuine grievances from individuals whose plates had been cloned and who were regularly getting traffic violation notices and parking fines. Would it not be for the good of those individuals, and for law and order and the reputation of the authorities, if the police and the DVLA work together to crack down and start to eliminate this menace?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right: it is not acceptable. There are clearly more number plates that cannot be read by ANPR and more cloned number plates on the road these days than there ought to be. I believe that actions are being taken, because it is a particularly unpleasant experience to discover that you are the victim of fines and other costs generated by somebody pretending to have your index number. The Government are concerned about it. As I say, the consultation about eradicating vehicle plate cloning closed on 11 May. If legislative change is necessary then we are committed to making those changes.
Social Media: Use of X by Government Departments
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pack
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of the Attorney General’s instructions to his Office to stop using social media platform X, what plans they have to review the use of that platform by other government departments.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government use a wide range of digital platforms to reach and engage citizens. We continuously evaluate channels for brand safety and suitability. In government, paid advertising on X has been suspended since April 2023, which means that no taxpayers’ money has been spent with the platform. Individual departments manage their own accounts, ensuring that activity is proportionate, appropriate and relevant to their audiences.
Lord Pack (LD)
Given the many issues with X, such as its frequent lethargy in reacting to extreme racial abuse or even violent threats, why do the Government continue to repeatedly single out X specifically for promotion above and beyond other social networks in so much of their activity, such as in the official signatures appended to many government emails, or in the Home Office’s own social media policy, which singles out X in encouraging people to use it? Is it not time to end this preferential treatment for Elon Musk?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord has been campaigning on this issue for many years, including before he entered your Lordships’ House. A level of pragmatism needs to be adopted. We need to talk to the electorate and to our citizens where they are, and not necessarily on which platforms we wish they were on. When 19.2 million British citizens use X, it is an important place, which I guess is why the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey, is still on X.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Does anyone in government have the job of reading all the incoming messages, following the Government’s submission, and do they ever take any of them seriously?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, on a personal level I tend to look at X as little as possible, which is why I was a little out of the loop yesterday given all the news that was breaking on X. But, having said that, there is a genuine thing here about how we communicate with people. There is a reason why we use these tools. In fact, given the extreme heat that we are currently experiencing, both the Met Office and UKHSA are using X, among other platforms, for engagement. It is making sure that it is about engagement and not just one-way, although on a personal level, when I was an MP, I found Meta platforms much easier to engage with the electorate on.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister says that there is a reason why the Government use X. Why is it that the Attorney-General’s department can manage without using X but other government departments cannot?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point. We need to remember how we speak to people and where we speak to them. The Cabinet Office guidance in this space recommends that government departments on an individual basis consider the best platforms for them to engage with. For example, the Northern Ireland Office will use different tools from those used by the Home Office or the Department of Health because of the people that it is engaging with and on the platforms that it needs to engage on. The Attorney-General’s Office has made a decision that X is not an appropriate vehicle for it, subject to some of the legal issues that it may need to use it for, but that is a department-by-department consideration.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that many of the responses to messages that are put out on X come from bots, and they foment social and civil unrest. What are the Government doing to try to deal with these bots? They really are dangerous to our society.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. We have seen the issues of dis- and misinformation, and in recent weeks we saw what happened in Belfast and in other parts of the country. Bad faith actors are using social media platforms to try to sow division, whether that is through bots or other sources, and we need to be very aware of that. That is why Ofcom has been given the tools through the Online Safety Act, which Members of your Lordships’ House discussed for eight years to try to get right. The tools need to be used and Ofcom needs to do its job.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, on Thursday, this House will be discussing threats to democracy. We are close to the point now where one has to see X— and Elon Musk—as something of a threat to British democracy, deliberately putting out misinformation, using algorithms to promote the most anti-democratic candidate in the Makerfield by-election, and so on. Do the Government not need to look at much tighter regulation on X and other social media which are actively attempting to bias the way in which people in Britain understand our democratic life?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. Everything that every Member of your Lordships’ House does every day is to promote British values and ensure that they are protected. That is why we have the Defending Democracy Taskforce and why we have just had the Rycroft review; it is also why, in the most recent by-election, the Joint Election Security Preparedness Unit was set up to try to tackle some of these issues. Although I am a huge advocate of freedom of expression—I ran Index on Censorship until the general election—it is about making sure that, within the prism of freedom of speech, we are protecting the values that we hold most dear. That is why we have given powers to Ofcom; obviously, we will continue to review those powers, and, if they do not work, we will need to do more.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, in October last year, the Government indicated their intention to relax the rules on civil servants speaking publicly, including to the media and stakeholders. Can the Minister confirm when the formal guidance will be published? Will it include guidance on social media use?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an interesting point. I should have anticipated a question on that; I thought that she might ask about the Civil Service’s principles on social media, as opposed to anything more substantive. I will write to her with an update on the issue she raises, but I assure all Members of your Lordships’ House that the Civil Service has to operate with impartiality, regardless of which platform it is using.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, most of our media—whether the press or social media—is controlled by the right wing. Is it not important that we have legislation that stops these people putting out propaganda, which is what they do every day?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I had a fascinating conversation with a very young member of my private office. When I suggested to him that the Daily Express had once been in a Labour-leaning newspaper, he was a little surprised; that shows either my age or his.
There is an issue here around making sure that people have access to genuine information sources that are real and accurate. Like me, my noble friend will remember that, in the general election in 1997, more than 80% of people got their information from BBC sources—at least, I believe so; I should say that before I get myself in trouble again over statistics in this space—but that is not the case now. Most people get their news online, which is why we need to make sure that free and fair journalism is protected.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the real threat to reliable information is not news publishers but weaponised disinformation published by our enemies using bots? The scale of that is far in excess of anything that Mr Musk might promote or anything that any individual news provider here might promote.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Viscount is absolutely right. When Iran shut down its internet to try to stop proper, fair protests in that country, we saw how many cybernats and other accounts went down in the UK for people who were seeking to sow division and separation in the United Kingdom. We know that bad faith actors try every day to undermine the very values for which we stand. That is why we have the Government’s media literacy action plan and why we are working at every level of society to highlight these issues. It is also, from my perspective, one of the reasons why we need to work every day to make things clear and to ensure that platforms take their responsibilities seriously.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, disinformation and propaganda go back hundreds of years. There are some good things to be said about X, but the antidote is as follows. It is very much to be regretted that young people no longer read newspapers. I call on the Department for Education to fund a selection of newspapers in every single secondary school in the country; that is the only way to get young people interested in serious, proper news.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a really interesting point. She is right that misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and counterpropaganda are not new. Last week, my husband wrote an article for his local paper in which he reminded everybody that there is one day of the year when we look at media with a level of cynicism: 1 April. We need to be doing that every single day of the year. The noble Baroness makes an important point, which I will look at. A DCMS consultation is currently out; I will ensure that her point is fed in.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was a little alarmed by the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. He does not like some things that are being said on X. He was not talking about incitement, harassment or the promotion of illegal activities. He specifically cited campaigning for a candidate whom he did not like—something that is legal but which he did not like. The Minister said, I think, that this might be a proper case for Ofsted toughening its regulatory powers. Would she like to clarify that, because I think we can all agree that we do not want to criminalise different political points of view?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am sorry if I gave that impression. That is absolutely not what I meant; I meant that, in terms of its responsibilities, X has to follow the law. With regard to anyone standing for election, all of us who have done so know that there are ways and means for us to beat our opponents, and that is at the ballot box. We will continue to do so. Personally, I enjoyed campaigning against the candidate who was referenced; it is an incredibly important part of all this.
Last week, I had the final Question just before the football. I have the same Question today. I do not want to tempt fate, but come on, England!
Armed Forces Bill
Cheltenham Borough Council (Markets) Bill
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede)
My Lords, I beg to move.
G7 Summit
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for being here to answer questions on this Statement. In these uncertain times, I wish her well for continuation in office—and the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, who has run away but I hope will be back.
Lord True (Con)
The Statement was made by someone who did not attend the summit and in the absence of the Prime Minister—a decent man forced from office by self-interested colleagues who owed their place in Parliament to him. As someone else once said at that same podium in Downing Street, “them’s the breaks”. Many unkind things were said back then about my right honourable friend Boris Johnson, not least in this House. It was “a good day”, one allegedly impartial former official deplorably gloated. I will not follow the road of rejoicing in another’s downfall. I place on record my thanks to Sir Keir Starmer for his service to our country, even if the results were not always quite as perfect as this Statement claimed. Indeed, can the Minister tell us why on earth he is going if everything is as amazing as the Statement says?
At the summit, Sir Keir maintained the unflinching support that he has given to Ukraine, so vigorously begun by the reviled Mr Johnson. We support that stand and will uphold the unity of this House on it. Conduct of foreign policy will now fall to the first Prime Minister since Lord Home to assume office without facing the electorate at the preceding general election. If we do not have a clue what he thinks, heaven help our allies. If he fails to make a dispassionate assessment of the poor choices that led to Sir Keir’s resignation, he risks repeating those mistakes and leaving us in a doom loop of lost opportunity. The same old Labour, with tax and spend policies that were out of date even in the 1970s, will deliver the same dismal outcomes.
We are told in the Statement that the Prime Minister made Britain safer and rebuilt Britain’s reputation around the world. Really? Endless delays to the defence investment plan have not made us safer. With continued instability in the Middle East, war in Europe and an increasingly reckless Russia, any further delay in the defence investment plan is unacceptable. Can the noble Baroness tell us today when it will be published?
The stunning resignations of the Defence Secretary and the Veterans Minister did not enhance our reputation in the world. Two principled men, actually the best of the Labour Party, laid bare a bitter truth—their view, not ours—that a Government overdosing on welfare spending were unable or unwilling to find money for defence. It is a shambles. What on earth will the Prime Minister tell NATO on 7 July?
Mr Carns in his statement was also devastating about the injustice of the legal pursuit of our Northern Ireland Army veterans and the folly of the so-called remedial order. That was being rushed forward so the Prime Minister could offer up our compliance with the ECHR at the so-called EU reset summit. That has now been delayed, so can the noble Baroness tell the House that that vindictive order will also be shelved?
We welcome good news in the Statement on foreign direct investment from France, India and Japan. We welcome the free trade agreement with India. This is the Britain we want, opening to the wider world. But foreign direct investment cannot offset the devastating impact of Labour’s domestic policies. If we want real growth, the next Prime Minister must change course.
Change in terms of security is needed too to Mr Miliband’s obsessive pursuit of net zero. Did the House notice the outcome of the election in Aberdeen South? Working people want our North Sea open. Working people want to exploit our own energy resources and the jobs the oil and gas industry brings. We have heard it here from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and others. We have heard it from the secretary-general of Unite. For once, they and we are united in a common-sense cause: we must open the North Sea.
Speaking of common sense, I think the noble Baroness knows how pleased we are that this House stopped the disastrous Chagos deal. Did the Prime Minister try to resurrect this in any way at the summit, or is this turkey now dead?
We hope progress in the US-Iran talks will end barriers to free navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. We all want peace in the Middle East, but we must not soften our stance on the murderous regime in Tehran. We have been far too slow to take action on the IRGC, although I welcome steps now being undertaken. Will the noble Baroness confirm that we will remain in lockstep with our US allies in ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon? Can she tell us when the Franco-British action in the Gulf and the strait will begin?
We agree that more should be done to ensure civilian aid gets through in Gaza and indeed Lebanon; it must flow more smoothly. But we are also clear in our view that Israel had and has a right to defend itself. Was I alone in thinking it truly astonishing that, in 360 words on the Middle East in this Statement, there was not a single word of condemnation of terrorist Hezbollah and terrorist Hamas? Instead, the Deputy Prime Minister said that Israel must tone down what he called “inflammatory language”. What are they supposed to say of the butchers of Jewish babies?
On illegal immigration, the Deputy Prime Minister promised to build on our 2018 Sandhurst agreement with France, and we welcome that. In contrast, this Government’s so-called one-in, one-out policy had to be rewritten after illegal migrants once removed returned to the UK. Can the noble Baroness tell us how many criminal gangs have been smashed?
Finally, the Statement referred with regret to the 10th anniversary of Brexit. Some people, it seems, will never accept the verdict of the British people or own that the fast first Covid vaccine, the free trade deal with India we have just heard about, the summer holidays VAT measure and so much else would never have been possible without that vote. I must test the tolerance of the House by declaring I voted for our freedom to choose our own destiny 10 years ago, and I would do so again. We need to look to the future, not plunge back to past battles. I wish the next Prime Minister well, but it is not a change of Prime Minister that this country needs, it is a change of Government.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for allowing this Statement to be repeated in your Lordships’ House. Self-evidently, I am standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and it is a great—and unusual—pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord True. It is, in fact, somewhat appropriate that a stand-in should be making this speech, as the original speech was also made by a stand-in in the other place. As a result, this Statement is unusually suffused with praise for Sir Keir. With respect, I will avoid those sections and try to pick the bones out of the bits that actually refer to the G7 meeting.
Starting with Ukraine, all of us join in the condemnation of the hit on the 11th-century Pechersk Lavra, but the greater cost is the hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries sustained by the Ukrainian people since the full invasion started. What this hit on the church underlines, however, is the very poor guidance of many Russian ballistic missiles. Hundreds of missiles are being projected in the direction of Ukraine, with no sense of limiting civilian casualties. The Statement is, however, right to characterise the battlefield as one where the fortunes seem to be turning. The Ukrainian mastery of drone warfare has established a 25 kilometre-plus wide kill zone, through which the Russians are finding progress has been halted in a very deadly way. But when I met the Ukrainian parliamentarians last month, they were at pains to spell out the danger they face from ballistic missiles and the need for more anti-ballistic defence. Russia has thousands of missiles that have yet to be fired. Europe has responded to some extent to that plea for help, but following the Iran conflict, defence systems are at a premium. It was clear from my visit 10 days ago to the factory in the USA where Patriot missiles are manufactured that the global shortage of such defensive weapons will be only very slowly filled—too slow for the Ukrainian people.
That is why anything we do in Europe to work together to design and manufacture alternative defence systems is really important. In the short term, it would help Ukraine; in the medium term, it would help the Baltic states and the rest of Europe. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell your Lordships’ House what progress has been made in sourcing European anti-ballistic weapons? She may need to write to me with that answer.
Sanctions also remain important. Given the seeming changes to the Middle East, when will the Government hurry up and apply sanctions to Russian-refined jet fuel? Also, did the Government raise at the G7 the proposal of using frozen Russian assets around the world to support Ukraine? If not, why not?
Turning to the Middle East, the Statement offers no new information. The key question is how any international coalition with the French can possibly operate safely when we are only a Truth Social posting away from a deadly flare-up. What is the government thinking on that? I am sure fellow Peers will have noted comments from the Iranians about tolls through the Strait of Hormuz. That was to be expected, but President Trump has been publicly musing on levying fees to protect tankers. Both options are equally unacceptable and have been reinforced overnight. Can the Minister assure your Lordships that the US ambassador has been made aware that we do not support any such protection racket as that proposed by President Trump?
It is clear that the situations in Lebanon and Gaza remain unacceptable to the people living there, and destabilising to any possible settlement with Iran. The Statement says that bringing all partners together is the Government’s aim. Can the Minister please update your Lordships House on any actions that have been taken to bring people together in the last few months?
It is disappointing but typical that the terrible conflict in Sudan seems to have been ignored again.
On illegal migration, I would only note that, were we once again to have full access to all the policing and immigration data we used to have before Brexit, the number of boats would more likely fall to their low level before we left the European Union.
That swiftly moves us on to the final part of the Statement, on growth and investment. Speaking nine months ago, before he was burdened with any realistic chance of leadership, Andy Burnham openly referred to Brexit as a disaster and blamed it for making aspirations harder to achieve in Britain. He revealed his wish to see the UK rejoin at some point, but it was reported that he remained pragmatic about how long this would take.
Once Andy Burnham moves his bandwagon into No. 10 Downing Street and opens the books, he will see the full extent of the damage done to the life chances of ordinary people thanks to Brexit. At that point, I suggest his truly pragmatic action would be to accelerate things. I invite him to adopt the Liberal Democrats’ plan for the UK to join the customs union and re-enter the single market. We would be very willing to help him if he wishes to do that. Instead of urgency, however, everything is on hold. Yesterday’s events have caused the UK-EU summit planned for 22 July to be postponed. Does the Lord Privy Seal share my disappointment that even the partial progress expected from that summit is now delayed? Does she agree that the sooner we act to get closer to our real allies in the EU, the better the chances for growth and the more secure the United Kingdom will be?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I looked with some wry amusement at my notes, which start: “Can I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the generous and constructive suggestions?” Perhaps I should not always believe the notes I am given. I want to start—which I am sorry the noble Lord did not do—by congratulating the Conservative Party on winning the seat of Aberdeen South. I had half expected him to congratulate the Labour Party on a fantastic victory in Makerfield, and the SNP, who held their seat in Arbroath. All of us who put ourselves forward for election know that it is never an easy time, and consequences follow from winning and losing. I think we should be generous in this House to those who put themselves forward. I also thank the noble Lord for his comments about me and the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms—the Chief Whip. I am grateful for such support. He has not always shown such strong support for us, so I certainly welcome it at this moment.
Both noble Lords spoke passionately and rightly about Ukraine. I think all of us feel very strongly about this. You just have to think of how the Ukrainian people have for so long endured what Putin thought would be an easy fight and an easy defeat. Others may have seen President Zelensky’s statement on the Prime Minister’s resignation yesterday, in which he said:
“Here in Ukraine, we deeply value Britain, and every meeting and every conversation we”—
that is President Zelensky and the Prime Minister—
“have had has always been filled with real substance. Thank you for always being in touch, always engaged, and always striving to do what is needed and what will truly help ... Keir, you are always a welcome guest in Ukraine”.
I think all of us in this House want that to continue, whoever is in No. 10 and whoever has a majority of seats in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord True, made some rather derogatory and unhelpful comments about the Member for Makerfield, who is standing to be the leader of the Labour Party, and therefore Prime Minister. I point out to him that, over the years, he has gained a lot more experience than many holders of that office have had. He is an experienced Cabinet Minister and an experienced mayor. I think we should see who takes on that position and give them all the support that we should in what are difficult times.
After praising the Prime Minister, the noble Lord then set about the reputation of the Prime Minister overseas. I have to say that, coming from the party opposite, I was not quite sure of the point he was trying to make. I am full of admiration for and very proud of the Prime Minister for the way he has engaged across the world in some of the most difficult issues there have been. Our international reputation was not high. I can think of previous Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries who did not enhance our reputation abroad.
On Brexit, which was mentioned by both noble Lords, the Conservative Party campaigned for Brexit without really having a plan of what Brexit meant; and after having an agreement on Brexit, there was no plan for growth following that. We have to ensure that we have a much closer relationship with the EU; that work will continue and is extremely important. It is obviously a disappointment that the EU summit is being delayed. There are important issues to be discussed, particularly the SPS agreement, which was not dealt with satisfactorily when the Brexit deal was done. It has had a terrible impact in those areas, so we want to have that summit as soon as we possibly can to address those issues, and I can give the noble Lord that assurance.
The noble Lord, Lord True, talked about instability in the Middle East. He is right to address these issues, as this House has done many times; the ongoing work on this is extremely important.
Regarding the defence investment plan, the Government have committed to publishing this before the NATO summit, but we have not waited for the plan to be published before getting on and doing some of the work that is needed. Typhoons are currently being built in the West Midlands. Ships are being built in Scotland. A whole range of investment is going on that is needed.
The noble Lord is right, however, that the plan has to be published and taken forward. It is not just about the amount of money. The amount of money has been of great interest, but let us look around the world, at how we work with our allies in other countries and at our interoperability—how we work together. There is no point in the UK spending x billion in one area if that does not work with money spent in France and Germany and by our other allies. That working together is a huge part of the important role that we take.
The noble Lord is right to raise the Strait of Hormuz; it is essential that it is opened and that it is toll free. Wherever the tolls come from, they are wrong; it must be a toll-free passage through there. The noble Lord also asked about Iran. He will be aware of the state threats legislation that is coming before this House. I hope that we will co-operate to make sure that is on the statute book so that we can deal with state threats there as well.
A lot of questions were raised. I have tried to answer as many as possible in the time that I have been given. I would like to say something more about the recent support for Ukraine, as both noble Lords asked about this. We are providing 150,000 drones and 350 air defence missiles. In answer to the question raised, they are funded from the frozen Russian assets; that is probably the best use for those assets.
We have also announced £210 million of export finance support for enriched uranium. That supports power for Ukraine; as we get into the winter, we will need to ensure that Ukraine has the power that it needs. There is also a new package of sanctions. In total, we have committed over £21 billion-worth of support for Ukraine. I think the whole House would join me in saying that we need to ensure that this money is spent in the best way possible, both for Ukraine’s safety and security and for ours.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Before we move on to Back-Bench questions, let me respectfully say that they are Back-Bench questions, so we want questions and not statements. Bearing that in mind, I would ask the Conservatives to go first.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, this morning, a Russian ballistic missile struck a civilian target in President Zelensky’s hometown of Kryvyi Rih, killing three people and wounding many others. It was a quite appalling incident, at 11 am Ukrainian time. In the G7 communiqué, there was a statement committing to an increased delivery to Ukraine of
“additional systems and … long-range capabilities”.
Can the Minister elaborate on what is meant by “long-range capabilities”?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord further information beyond what I have already said—I will look at whether there is any more information I can send to him that can be in the public domain—but I think that shows our commitment to doing all that we can to help Ukraine because of the constant pressure that it is under. The example that the noble Lord cites is one of many that happen regularly. I repeat that I have such admiration for the resilience of the people of Ukraine in withstanding this.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe is in Sudan. Can the noble Baroness say what more was said at the G7 summit about the atrocities in Sudan, given that it is a major root cause of displaced people, of whom there are now 120 million in the world? Will she look at the statements issued yesterday by the African Union and by the US State Department about the dangers now emerging in North Kordofan, and the danger that the genocidal attack that was made in El Fasher in Darfur quite recently will be replicated? Given our duties under the genocide convention to look for emerging signs of genocide, will she take this away as a matter of great urgency?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Of course. I think the noble Lord has raised these issues already with my noble friend Lady Chapman, who is well aware of them, and I will pass his comments on to her. Yes, it is a matter of urgency. It is something of a shock, when we think of what is going on in the world, that Sudan gets so few column inches and so little attention in our newspapers in this country. It seems sometimes that they move on to another issue and then another, but it is still happening and is still important. I will discuss this with my noble friend Lady Chapman and see what more we can say to the noble Lord.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that the Government should act with our allies in the G7 to try to stop the illegal expansion, particularly in the areas of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, known as E1? Does she agree that it is important that we should create the momentum that is needed to tackle and create a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, and I am proud that we have taken the historic step of recognising the Palestinian state. Settlements that are damaging and oppose the two-state solution just make that harder to reach and undermine it. They are illegal under international law, and we urge Israel to take action against such settlements. My noble friend is right: the only way forward for a safe and secure Israel and a safe and viable Palestine is through a two-state solution.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister update us on the coalition of the willing in terms of the final settlement that there will be on any peace agreement in Ukraine? Does she accept that the coalition of the willing will form the basis of European defence in the future if we have to defend ourselves against Russian aggression without help from the United States?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a useful point. The coalition of the willing that the Prime Minister brought together, and which he led, has shown itself to have real value. I mentioned that co-operation between countries in my first answer on the Statement; they came together largely because of Ukraine, but its resonance goes far beyond that. The coalition of the willing is something that we want to see continue, also beyond Ukraine. At the moment, though, we just want to do what we can to secure peace for Ukraine and give it confidence that we are with it. Whatever the Ukrainians need, we are here for them.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House has quite properly referred to the esteem in which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is held by most foreign leaders—possibly with one major exception. I think we all share with her the desire that, whatever comes next, whoever is the next Prime Minister continues to build on that legacy.
The Statement refers clearly to the increased number of sanctioned people under the sanctions against Russia in response to the situation in Ukraine, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords. That response is of course extremely welcome, but there is a potential consequence. We are already suffering as a nation grey-zone attacks, cyber attacks and arson, including on the Prime Minister’s property, which is quite extraordinary. Surely, in those circumstances, we should make sure that the public at large are aware of these threats and of the consequences of disruption and are prepared for them—not only those sorts of threats but indeed all the other risks on the national risk register. Can my noble friend tell us what plans there are—I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission—in the next few months to ensure that the public are better informed and prepared for the sorts of disruption that might arise?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend is right to raise a number of issues around resilience. He said he hoped that whoever takes over from the Prime Minister will continue that work. The Prime Minister has pledged to ensure that there is a smooth transition, and he will give his support in that regard as well to ensure that the work he has been undertaking and has prioritised continues. We have seen an increase in sanctions, and that will continue.
We have some plans in the making on how we increase public awareness, but I think that is incumbent not just on the Government but on all of us. We have talked in this House before about a national conversation, and I know my noble friend Lord Coaker is looking at this and doing some work on it. I do not think the public really understand the scale and type of threats the country faces today. Of course, weather resilience is another issue, but I do not think people are aware that a single cyber attack could have a major impact on all kinds of infrastructure, including banking or transport. So a lot of work is being undertaken to try to get the public to engage on that. But it is not just the responsibility of government: the whole House, civil society, local authorities and public agencies, and companies important to national security need to understand what they need to do to keep their companies safe and banking safe because of the impact that has on all of us as well.
Lord Redwood (Con)
As the Government have decommissioned the last minesweeper and the last frigate we had in the Gulf, what assistance can we practically offer in the very important task of clearing the mines and safeguarding shipping, assuming the ceasefire holds?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is probably aware that clearing mines is something we are working on as part of a broad coalition, particularly with the French. We are engaged in that and working with them at present.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for her comments this afternoon and to the Prime Minister for his work on Britain’s interests abroad. I particularly appreciated my noble friend’s comments on settler violence in answer to a previous question. I want to raise a second question about the Israeli Government’s policy. They collect tax for the Palestinian Authority every month, and for a year that tax has not been paid over to the Palestinian Authority. The result is that the public sector workforce and the civil servants are on small fractions of their pay, often working just for commitment to their country rather than pay. This is creating massive problems and a potential crisis. I urge my noble friend to put it to the Government that we need to put urgent pressure on the Israeli Government to pay over the tax that they have collected from Palestinians to the Palestinian Authority so the authority can get it on with doing its job. I say this as the Government’s envoy to the Palestinian Authority on governance. Finally, I will say that I really liked the answer earlier on a Palestinian state being created and a two-state solution. A state with the rule of law, living in peace with its neighbours, has to be the outcome we all seek.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. The House will know from his detailed question that he has considerable experience in this area. He is right that the only way to peace is a two-state solution. If you look at hotspots around the world where there is conflict, you see that, at the end of the day, negotiation is the way forward to end these problems. Meanwhile, millions are suffering and dying, and having their lives forever changed. On tax collection, my noble friend may not be surprised to know that I do not know the details. His experience, knowledge and engagement are clearly evident, so will he allow me to take that away and come back to him? We have regular and constructive engagement with the Israeli Government; I cannot tell him whether that has been raised in recent meetings, but I will look into it.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, now that we have recognised the Palestinian Authority, what discussions have the Government had with it, following worries expressed by the United States and the EU about the continued practice of paying a stipend to people convicted of killing Jews: “pay for slay” money? We have been promised that this would end. What discussions has she had with Palestinian authorities to ensure it finally does end?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I have not personally had those discussions, but the Government have ongoing discussions. The noble Lord will know from his experience that you do not get everything that has to be done at first, but you have to start that engagement to make a difference. I cannot personally say what engagement or discussion there has been on that issue, but I will take it back. A point the noble Lord has made many times about a two-state solution as well is that you need to have trust and engagement on all sides and, as we move forward, we need to try to do what we can to engender that trust. That means change and understanding on both sides.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and the Leader of the House on the presentation and content of the Statement. I also thank the Prime Minister for his work on deepening European co-operation, and his work with an Taoiseach in Dublin on deepening British-Irish relations. But, as we mark 10 years since the Brexit referendum, does my noble friend agree that the people of the UK do not want the old arguments reopened or renegotiated? They want practical leadership that deepens co-operation with the EU, where it is in the interests of the wider population, including in a forthcoming UK-EU summit, whenever that takes place, and with the needed work my noble friend referred to that is required on the SPS agreement, particularly in securing our agri-food industry.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very valid point. For many of us, the Brexit referendum is deep in our minds and we will struggle to forget it, but, for others, it is something that happened when they were very young. A lot of young people are not engaged in the same way. I say to her that there have to be new arguments; we have to deal with where we are now and act always in the interests of the UK. The noble Baroness is right to highlight the SPS agreement. When the original Brexit deal was done, this really should have been seriously understood and decisions should have been taken, but they were not. We are paying a price, or the agricultural industry is, for this not being addressed then. She is right that if we have the EU referendum—sorry, the EU summit, not referendum; I am not a great fan of referendums, as noble Lords might imagine—it should be as soon as possible, and this has to be addressed. I can give the assurance that every sinew will be addressed to ensure that we can get to that point as soon as possible.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement and her answers. Having listened to such important strategic questions in this debate, I would like to pose a more personal one. My partner is Lebanese-Ukrainian, with family in both countries impacted by the terrible conflicts that continue to rage there. While I welcome the Statement, can my noble friend please explain what more could perhaps be done by this Government to support the people of both countries in their hopes for peace and, when it comes, eventual reconstruction?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that sometimes, in looking at strategic and wider issues, we forget the personal. I have no doubt that his wife has found that having family in Lebanon and Ukraine is quite a harrowing experience at times, when you do not know where they are and what is happening. So I imagine there have been some difficult days in his household. In terms of more support, we just have to keep this at the front and foremost of people’s minds: we have to continue being the best friends that we can to Ukraine, as President Zelensky said. My noble friend Lady Chapman, whom I mentioned earlier, recently announced a further £13 million-worth of support for Lebanon, because, unless we actually engage with these countries, in both their fightback and their reconstruction, we will not be able to see them have a viable future. Everything we do should be geared to that aim: not just support now, but looking to the longer-term future of those who live there.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I welcome the words of the Lord Privy Seal about the need to engage all of civil society in the issue of what a dangerous world we live in. How does she reconcile that with the fact that, time after time, the heads of our armed services are saying that our Armed Forces have been cut to the bone and that they simply do not have the resources to deal with the threat against them? Is it not the case that we need to spend more on all types of defence—not just the defence of yesterday, but to fight the battles of today and tomorrow—and, thus far, have this Government not failed in that attempt?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have to say to the noble Lord that I think he has a short memory. When we look at what happened on defence under the Government whom he supported, the record is very poor. When the last Labour Government left office, we were spending 2.5% of our GDP on defence; that was then cut during the time the Conservatives were in office. We have now got it back up to 2.5%; we said that we would do that by the end of this Parliament, but we have done it sooner. Under the noble Lord’s Government, the Army was cut from 100,000 troops to just 72,000. His Government missed their Army recruitment targets every year for 14 years. We lost a quarter of our frigates and destroyers, we cut the minehunters and we failed to decommission decades-old kit and equipment; nor did his Government do anything to address the conditions that our military families were living in. We have made huge progress on a lot of those issues, particularly on accommodation and on procurement—which, I have to say, was a real mess. So it is a bit rich for the noble Lord to give lectures.
However, that does not mean that we do not have to do more. There are two things, as I said. One is how we provide the money, but the other is how we work with other countries to ensure that we can work together on our procurement and have interoperability between the systems that we use. We need to take this extremely seriously. When the noble Lord says, “You have failed”, he is not recognising the work that we have done to clear up the mess that was left, which we are proud to do. That is not to say that we do not want to do more. The world is a dangerous place, and there are a range of issues. I might suggest that the noble Lord writes a book about this—I feel a novel coming on. In the absence of that, I assure him that this is probably the most serious issue that is at the top of the current Prime Minister’s in-tray, and it will be at the top of the next one’s.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, my concern is about the relevance of the G7. It was held together by the economic might of various countries, but now India and China are challenging, and they are not part of the G7. It was held together by the advancement of the rules-based international order, which has been undermined by President Trump. G7 countries have been unable to find solutions to things such as poverty eradication, climate change, and even the taxation of corporations. Given that issues of common interest can be discussed at the UN and with the G20, the BRICS countries and the EU, and in many other bilateral and multilateral settings, what proposal do the Government have for making the G7 relevant?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, when I look at the communiqués and outcomes, and particularly at the engagement of the US on Ukraine at this G7, the message I have received from people who were there is that this was one of the most constructive G7s for many years. I say to the noble Lord that any opportunity for countries to come together, discuss issues and engage is beneficial. Sometimes they will make progress, sometimes they will not, but the fact that they are there together and willing to have these discussions is beneficial. I suggest that the noble Lord reads the communiqués and sees how productive this particular G7 was.
National Security (State Threats) Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, it is my pleasure to open the debate on what is a vital Bill. I will start with the importance of the Bill and what it will achieve. I am pleased to have had an opportunity to discuss the content, direction and purpose of the Bill with a number of noble Lords outside the Chamber, and I am happy to have further discussions between now and later stages next week if Members so wish.
State threats are overt or covert actions by foreign Governments that fall below armed conflict but go beyond legitimate diplomacy to harm UK interests. They present a persistent and evolving risk to the United Kingdom and our allies, manifesting across a wide spectrum of activity, including interference in democratic processes, acquisition of sensitive information, threats to public safety, and disruption of economic security. Noble Lords will know that certain states have both the intent and the capability to conduct such activity to advance their objectives. This activity is often opportunistic, adaptive, increasingly integrated across multiple domains, and combining physical, cyber, economic and information tools. The threats are both evolving and enduring, and our legislation must keep pace.
In December 2024, the former Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, commissioned Jonathan Hall KC, in his capacity as the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation, to conduct a review into the tools available in terrorism legislation and how they may be applied to the problem of state threats. I place on record, on behalf of this House, our thanks to Jonathan Hall KC for his work. He proposed that we should legislate to create a state threats power equivalent to proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. Noble Lords will be aware of those powers as we have, within the last year, designated a number of organisations under that Act. This Bill delivers on that proposal and will strengthen the Government’s ability to disrupt hostile intelligence services and their proxies by adapting counterterrorism tools to tackle state-based security threats to the UK.
The Bill will create a new power for the Secretary of State, in this case the Home Secretary, to designate organisations involved in foreign power threat activity, modelled on proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. It introduces new criminal offences of supporting, assisting or obtaining benefits from designated bodies and will enable proxy organisations to be treated, in practice, like foreign intelligence services, making it easier to prosecute those acting on their behalf.
The Bill will strengthen the overall national security framework, so that the United Kingdom becomes a more difficult operating environment for foreign intelligence services and those state-linked proxies. Individuals acting for a designated body will feel the full force of our national security legislation and the accompanying offences, some of which will carry a life sentence. Designation will send a clear public signal to designated bodies that those prepared to assist them in their malign behaviour will not be tolerated.
In developing this legislation, we have worked closely with the police and the security and intelligence agencies. It has been a year in gestation, and I know from Question Time, Statements and elsewhere that noble Lords feel that that has been too long, but this is vital legislation and it is important to get it right. The Bill gives our operational partners the powers they need, and it does so in a way that reflects the differences between state and non-state actors. Jonathan Hall himself has said of the Bill, “It does the job”.
The Bill has come to us today from the House of Commons, where I know there was debate regarding some of its provisions. I will, if I may, use this Second Reading opening speech to address why I think the Bill is the right thing to do, and to address some of the comments around the Bill as a whole. There was debate in the House of Commons regarding possible amendments to the Bill. I assure people across this House that such amendments are not necessary and that the Bill as drafted does the job required. If the Government are to exercise the powers in the Bill promptly, a swift but thoroughly scrutinised passage through this House will, I suggest, prove beneficial. I will provide noble Lords with reassurances today to enable that passage to take place.
I particularly want to address three points in the Bill as currently drafted. The first is the prohibited purpose test, which is applied to the support offence in Clause 2. The Bill makes it an offence to express support for a designated body, including by arranging a meeting to be addressed by a member of a designated body, when that support is for a prohibited purpose. Clause 2 goes on to define a prohibited purpose as a purpose that
“is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
We have had some comment on that from Members, both in discussions I have had and in the House of Commons. There have been suggestions that the prohibited purpose test should be removed from the Bill on the basis that no such test applies to the support offences in the Terrorism Act. I suggest that is to misunderstand the differences between state entities and terror organisations. While proscription under the Terrorism Act aims to ban the existence of an organisation, that cannot and must not be the case with this Bill. Even when a state entity presents a threat to the UK, there will still be cases in which there are legitimate reasons for engaging with that entity. Indeed, such engagement will often be in the UK’s interests as a whole, through British diplomats or NGOs doing vital work on conflict resolution or to deliver humanitarian aid. To remove the prohibited purpose test would be to criminalise such activity.
Secondly, there has also been some discussion that the Bill does not go far enough to criminalise individuals who provide assistance to designated bodies in relation to overseas activities. New Section 17B makes it an offence to provide such assistance when the activity undertaken is
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
Although there has been discussion on this both in the House of Commons and in formal discussions I have had, it will mean that an individual in the UK who assists a designated body in hostile activity towards an ally, with a recognisable adverse effect on the UK, would be committing a crime under the Bill.
The Bill does not extend the UK’s criminal jurisdiction over all other acts anywhere in the world, irrespective of whether they affect the UK. It is an important principle of international law that there are reasonable limits to that jurisdiction, but where activities are contrary to our interests, this offence will bite. It is in line with the equivalent offences in the National Security Act. If we were to go further, we would not only go beyond what our operational partners have asked for; we would also push the limits of international law. I suggest that the Bill has the balance right on this issue.
Thirdly, there has been some comment and discussion in Parliament, and outside, in relation to the debate on so-called self-directed acts—that is to say, acts that are inspired by state threat actors but not directed by them. I assure noble Lords that such acts are caught within the offences in the Bill. Specifically, the offence at new Section 17B of providing material assistance to a designated body requires that a person intends their actions to assist that body. They do not have to be tasked or directed by the body for which they are working for the offence to apply.
New Section 33B also introduces the designated body condition to the National Security Act. This means that when a person acts with the intention to benefit a designated body, they may also engage the offences under that Act. This includes offences such as obtaining or disclosing protected information and sabotage, which both carry life sentences. Again, this does not need any tasking from the designated body. I hope that addresses noble Lords’ concerns and removes any doubt in their minds.
There has been considerable discussion on specific bodies that might or might not be designated under this Bill. I noticed an amendment in the House of Commons to proscribe the IRGC directly, and I have experienced a lot of pressure about that in this House as well. There have been calls for the Government to commit to designating Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I hope I can explain to noble Lords that while this Bill is being discussed, I cannot give that commitment today. The powers in the Bill are vital; their exercise will have profound implications for the UK’s foreign policy and our national security. It is right that Parliament should set the legal framework for the use of those powers and will be asked to endorse their use through the affirmative procedure, as the Bill provides. It is also right that it should be for the Secretary of State, on the advice of expert evidence, and in some cases sensitive intelligence, to determine whether the use of these powers is necessary.
I will not today pre-empt decisions that have yet to be taken in relation to a law that has yet to be passed. But I give the House a cast-iron assurance that where the Secretary of State judges it necessary, she will use these powers, if they receive Royal Assent, and she will not hesitate to do so. I am confident that noble Lords will hold me to account on that point. The sooner the Bill is on the statute book, the sooner the powers within it can be used. The Bill remains a vehicle for the Home Secretary to determine whether a state threat designation is required on any body post Royal Assent.
We have had some discussion in Parliament around the speed on this. The Government are committed to a fast track on the Bill. That commitment reflects the urgent need to close a legislative gap. It also reflects the interest in this House and in our society in ensuring that government has the powers to deal with those state entities that threaten our national security. It was in response to a series of heinous antisemitic arson attacks in north London that the Prime Minister committed to bringing the Bill forward within weeks. We put it in the gracious Speech in May and brought it forward in both Houses at the earliest opportunity. I want to see it passed by both Houses at the earliest opportunity, so that we can get on with examining the requirements of using these powers as appropriate.
In our manifesto, we committed to take the approach used to deal with terrorism and to adapt it to deal with state-based security threats. The Bill does just that and fulfils a manifesto commitment. Ultimately, at stake is the purpose we are all sent here to advance, the most important thing we can do as a Government and a Parliament: to ensure the security of our nation and all who live in it.
I pay tribute to the men and women of our police and security services. Their work could not matter more, particularly at this dangerous time. As well as thanking them, we must support them to tackle the threats we face in a dangerous and uncertain world. To give that support, we need to equip them with the new and necessary powers in this legislation.
There is a wealth of experience across this House. I look forward to the further scrutiny that noble Lords will provide both today and next week, if the Bill is read a second time. We have a strong list of speakers today who will provide that fruitful debate. I suggest to the House that the urgency of our national security demands that the Bill be passed, giving the Home Secretary the powers to make assessments and use these powers at the earliest opportunity, where those threats exist. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I begin by welcoming at long last the Government’s decision to bring this legislation forward. I say “at long last” advisedly and not as mere partisan point-scoring. This House will recall that the Opposition pressed the Government on no fewer than three separate occasions during the passage of the Crime and Policing Act in the previous Session to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. On three occasions, the House voted in favour of our amendments; on three occasions, the Government voted against them. Ministers resisted, delayed and demurred until, ultimately, the weight of public pressure, the urging of the Jewish community and the reality of what is happening on our streets became impossible to ignore. The Prime Minister made his announcement and here we are.
We do not begrudge the Government their change of position; we welcome it. The direction of travel is right, and this side of the House wants to see the Bill pass. But the circumstances of its arrival matter, because they help explain the deficiencies in the Bill as drafted. This legislation draws directly from the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, whose report was published 14 months ago. Yet we are now told that this is so urgent that the Government will not consider any amendments, which is highly disappointing, given that the Bill before us today contains gaps that, if not rectified, risk rendering its central purpose unenforceable— I will come to those in a moment.
We must be frank about the threat we face. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a distinct threat. It is an organisation that has been active on British soil, targeting British citizens and funding terrorism across the world. In October 2024, Ken McCallum, the director-general of the Security Service, said that MI5 and the police had responded to 20 Iran-backed plots since January 2022 involving
“potentially lethal threats to British citizens”.
In May 2025, three Iranian men were charged under the National Security Act after a major counterterrorism investigation, and prosecutors said that one of the men had carried out surveillance, reconnaissance and online research with the aim of committing serious violence against a person in Britain. In March this year, we saw the horrific arson attack on Jewish ambulances in Golders Green, responsibility for which was claimed by an Iran-aligned group.
The IRGC funnels billions of dollars to terrorist proxies worldwide. It gifts rockets and advanced weaponry to Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. It manages thousands of fighters operating across multiple continents. It co-ordinates assassinations, kidnappings and sabotage operations, including here in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is entirely right that the law should treat association with, and support for, the IRGC as a criminal matter. That is what this Bill sets out to do and why we support its intentions.
However, good intentions poorly executed create only the illusion of security. I must be candid with the House: as drafted, the Bill contains at least four significant vulnerabilities that we believe must be addressed before it leaves this place. The first is the “prohibited purpose” requirement. The provisions in Clause 2 are modelled on Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the provision that makes it an offence to invite support for a proscribed terrorist organisation. However, the Government have introduced an additional element that does not appear in the Terrorism Act: a requirement that the support be given for a “prohibited purpose”, which is defined as conduct that is
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
I ask the Minister a simple question that I hope he will answer directly: what form of support for the IRGC do the Government consider to be beneficial to the United Kingdom? What type of assistance to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism could possibly be regarded as in our national interests? If the answer is none—as it self-evidently must be—then why does this additional evidential standard exist at all?
What this provision creates in practice is a perverse hierarchy of culpability. Under the Bill, a prosecution against an individual for supporting the IRGC would require proof that their support was prejudicial to the United Kingdom. However, if that same individual were supporting one of the IRGC’s terrorist proxies—Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthis—they would face a lower bar to prosecution under existing terrorism legislation. The organisation responsible for inspiring, organising, arming and financing those groups would receive greater legal protection than the groups themselves. That cannot be the Government’s intention. I hope that the Minister will listen and bring his own amendment to this effect; if not, I most certainly will.
The second concern relates to an omission of provisions on uniforms and insignia. Under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, as amended by the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, it is an offence to display in a public place
“an item of clothing, or … any other article, in such a way … as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation”.
It is also an offence to publish an “image” of such an article or item of clothing. That is the provision used to remove Hamas flags from our streets and to seize Hezbollah insignia. The Bill contains no equivalent provision whatever. If the IRGC is designated under this legislation, its symbols, insignia and flags could be displayed openly in public with complete legal impunity. There is a gap in the legislation that is so obvious and damaging to public confidence that its presence in the Bill is difficult to explain.
I believe that the Government are of the view that this would somehow be inappropriate for this legislation. I wholly disagree. The Bill applies only to a UK person. We are not trying to ban Iranians displaying such insignia in Iran—of course we cannot do that—but why should anyone in the United Kingdom be permitted to wave the flag or wear the uniform of an organisation that we have deemed to be a threat worthy of designation under this legislation?
The third gap relates to the dissemination of publications and materials. Since 2006, it has been an offence under the Terrorism Act to disseminate terrorist publications. These are publications that encourage, glorify or provide practical assistance for acts of terrorism. That standard has been part of our counterterrorism framework for nearly two decades. This Bill makes no equivalent provision for designated hostile state bodies. Materials promoting, glorifying or facilitating the activities of designated groups could be distributed without triggering criminal liability. This is not a minor technical omission; it is a failure to apply a basic and well-established standard of counterterrorism law to a new category of threat.
The fourth and final concern is the absence of a preparatory conduct offence. The Bill as drafted captures those who assist, support or receive money from a designated group; it does not capture those who are in the process of planning to do so. Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 addresses this gap in the terrorism context, making it clear that preparation for terrorist action is itself an offence. By the time someone has completed an act of support for a terrorist organisation, the damage may already be done. Catching people in the preparatory stages is operationally essential for our security services. As the Bill stands, an individual who has taken concrete steps towards assisting the IRGC cannot be prosecuted unless and until the act itself is complete. They cannot be prosecuted for those acts because preparatory acts are not covered by any of offences in the Bill. That is a vulnerability that we do not have in our terrorism legislation. It is a vulnerability we should not introduce here.
I will make one final point. I have read Hansard and looked at the response from the new Security Minister to my honourable friend Alicia Kearns in the other place, and I must say that I found it wanting. The Security Minister said:
“There are a couple of themes that run through my response to the hon. Lady’s amendments. The first is that it is not possible to treat a state body the same as a terrorist organisation, because one cannot abolish a state body”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/26; col. 922.]
This argument does not stand. Proscription does not abolish a terrorist group. Hamas is a proscribed group of the United Kingdom, yet we all know it still exists in the Middle East. Daesh was not defeated because the British Government had proscribed it. Would anyone argue that Palestine Action does not exist now that it has been proscribed?
The purpose of proscription is not to abolish a group but to degrade its ability to operate in the United Kingdom by prohibiting all forms of association with and support for it. That is precisely what the Government say they intend to do with designation under this Bill. Therefore, the reality is that proscription and designation are not really as different as the Minister would have us believe. Given that was the Government’s main justification for rejecting my honourable friend’s amendments last week, I hope they will rethink their objections.
The rushed nature of the Bill’s drafting is, I regret to say, visible in the legislation. When a Government spend months resisting legislation, then reverse course under political pressure and move quickly to announce a Bill, the risk of corners being cut is very real. We see the evidence of that here. None of our concerns is insurmountable. In each case, the amendments would bring this legislation into conformity with the counter- terrorism framework it is explicitly based on.
As I have just outlined, there is no reason why this should not happen. The threat from the IRGC—and, indeed, other state-linked groups—is present, documented and ongoing. The House has an obligation to ensure that when legislation is passed in response to that threat, it is legislation that works, is watertight and enforceable, and does not permit those who support one of the world’s most dangerous organisations to slip through its gaps. We support the Bill. We want to see it on our statute book, but we will not allow the urgency of the cause to excuse the inadequacy of the drafting. We will table amendments in Committee and we look forward to constructive engagement with Ministers.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats support the principles of the Bill. We have been clear that we also want this legislation on the statute book and we will not seek to hold it up. We fully recognise the unprecedented security challenges that we face, confronting more serious and less predictable threats than at any time since the Cold War. In 2025 alone, MI5 reported a 35% increase in state threat activity on the previous year, including more than 20 Iran-backed plots to kidnap or kill on British soil. We are in accord with the Government. This activity must be stopped.
However, while we will not obstruct the Bill, our support is not a blank cheque for lawmaking. The Bill was introduced just 13 days ago and was rushed through the other place in less than six hours. That begs the question: why did it take 14 months to act on recommendations from Jonathan Hall KC, which were accepted in full in May 2025? To ask this House to deliver a watertight defence in a single afternoon is a tall order and risks the Bill being seen as a rapid answer rather than a complete answer. Such accelerated progress risks important areas not being properly covered or provisions having unintended consequences.
Good legislation also involves scrutiny and input from outside Parliament. The media and experts from a wide range of professional fields are normally critical in improving a Bill. However, the speed of this Bill’s passage runs a real risk that much-needed external scrutiny will be missed.
The Bill addresses a critical gap. Looking to existing terrorism laws to deal with state organs was, in the words of the independent reviewer,
“shopping in the wrong department”.
By creating a power to designate bodies involved in “foreign power threat activity”, the Bill creates the right tool to penalise the proxies and hired guns that foreign powers use to carry out sabotage on UK soil.
The litmus test for the Bill will be the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—the IRGC. My noble friend Lord Marks has constantly argued that if the IRGC was not in power in Tehran, it would be universally recognised as a terrorist organisation. Yet, as drafted, this Bill is gentler on the IRGC than our laws are on the terrorists it funds.
We must also ensure that these powers have teeth in the global financial system. My noble friend Lord Purvis noted on 11 June that these groups operate through complex commercial, financial and now digital trade routes. We must use this Bill to trigger robust investigations by Companies House and the Financial Reporting Council to unmask front companies and starve designated organisations of UK-origin funds. However, I remain a bit concerned by the Minister’s comment that a UK connection of some sort is required for designation. In an era of digital interference, when state-backed proxies can target our citizens and sabotage our interests from behind a screen thousands of miles away, we must ensure that this requirement does not become a loophole. We need an assurance that this Bill is equipped for the era of digital interference, ensuring that hostile actors cannot evade designation simply by operating entirely from abroad via digital means.
We must also listen to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Development Committee. They warn that new Section 17B is so broad that it could unintentionally criminalise impartial humanitarian aid. Ministerial “intent” is not a legal safeguard. We need an express exemption on the face of the Bill for impartial humanitarian organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, acting in accordance with international humanitarian law. Anything less leaves our aid workers at the mercy of a 14-year prison sentence for simply delivering life-saving medicine.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has identified another trap. Clause 1 currently allows for designation without even establishing a link to a foreign power for certain acts, such as those under Section 4 of the 2023 Act. That is both too weak against our enemies and too broad for a free society.
On future-proofing, the director-general of MI5 has rightly warned of the next frontier: autonomous AI systems that may evade effective human control. The Government’s own AI Scenarios 2030 report admits that such systems could cause “existential harms” without intervention. I will be moving a specific amendment in committee to ensure that “foreign power threat activity” captures the development of super-intelligent AI capabilities by a foreign power.
Finally, because this is a fast-track Bill, we must have a 12-month statutory review of its adequacy. We also need the safeguard that any removal of a designation must be approved by votes in both Houses. Parliamentary oversight must exist at the end of a designation, not just the beginning.
As I said, we will not hold this Bill up, but we will seek to amend it. We are talking about individuals who actively assist hostile states in sabotaging our nation. We owe the citizens and residents who are being specifically targeted by these lethal plots more than just sincere intentions; we owe them a law that holds up in the courtroom and at the border. We look forward to a rigorous, if brief, Committee stage.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I support the Bill, based as it is on a proposal from my admirable successor as independent reviewer, Jonathan Hall KC. It is regrettable that the Bill is being brought forward more than a year after his recommendation, yet in a manner that telescopes and truncates the debate in both Houses. How much more useful and productive it would have been to have seen a draft Bill, its scrutiny unrestrained by tight deadlines and positions already taken.
My remarks today are aimed not at what the Bill intends to do but at the law which, I am afraid, it exemplifies: the law of unintended consequences. Two of the new offences, in proposed new Sections 17B and 17C, have the potential to damage conflict resolution, peacebuilding, and humanitarian activity—endeavours in which this country excels—in parts of the world controlled by bodies liable to designation. I shall explain briefly why that is and how I think the problem might be resolved.
I declare a non-pecuniary interest as a chair of Inter Mediate, an independent peacemaking charity founded in 2011 by Jonathan Powell, who is now, of course, the Government’s National Security Adviser. Inter Mediate’s staff work discreetly at the highest political levels to support complex negotiations and conflict resolution in some of the most troubled parts of the world. It will not surprise noble Lords to learn that work of that kind requires intensive dialogue with brutal and unpleasant regimes to which it may be difficult, even impossible, for western Governments to speak.
I am also grateful to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the various peacebuilding and humanitarian organisations, from Conciliation Resources to Save the Children and the Halo Trust, that have approached me with their concerns in relation to this issue. I thank the Minister and his Bill team for our discussions on this issue since the Bill was published two weeks ago.
What do I mean by the “unintended consequences” of the Bill? Take proposed new Section 17C, which is about obtaining, accepting, agreeing to accept or retaining material benefits from a designated body. That is an offence punishable by 14 years in prison—quite right, too, in the cases highlighted in the Explanatory Notes: a business assisting a hostile state with new military technology or a contract criminal who knew, or should have known, where his fee was coming from.
However, “material benefits” are defined in proposed new Section 17C(3) with remarkable breadth. They include
“financial benefits, anything which has the potential to result in a financial benefit, and information”.
Taking that definition at face value, the likes of Inter Mediate could contravene criminal law by accepting information from a designated body as to that body’s objectives or negotiating stance. The defence of reasonable excuse in proposed new subsection (7) applies only to the retention of information; there is no such defence for agreeing to accept information or accepting it. There is a protection for public servants in proposed new subsection (8)(b), but not for charities or churches, which often have reach that Governments do not. One thinks of a charity such as the Halo Trust. Wishing to clear a minefield, it asks the IRGC, once designated, where the mines were laid. That, too, on a plain reading of proposed new Section 17C, would constitute the criminal offence of agreeing to accept information—although only 10 years in prison for that one.
Section 17B, as the noble Baroness has said, presents similar problems. Humanitarian organisations are not usually exempt from paying taxes, duties and fees to establish and maintain their operations in a country or territory—for example, tax on staff salaries, import duties on aid items and visa fees. It is at least arguable that anything which swells the coffers of a designated organisation will be of material assistance to the activities of that organisation locally or, by subsection (4)(a), in the United Kingdom. Bluntly, it helps to pay for them. That legally prudent interpretation risks blunting the aid effort where it is most needed and criminalising those who would seek to provide it.
The Minister will remind us that the CPS prosecutes only in cases where that is in the public interest and that for these offences, the additional consent of the Attorney-General will be required. In other words, “Don’t worry: it may never happen”. However, with respect, and as anybody familiar with these sectors well knows, reliance on the wise exercise of such discretions, though important, is not a sufficient answer.
Charitable trustees, of whom I suspect that there are quite a few in the Chamber, are properly cautious about signing off on activity which could expose us or our staff to the criminal law. So, to a still greater extent, are bank compliance departments, insurers and suppliers of humanitarian aid—all essential to the activities of those operating in these fields. The experience of NGOs in conflict zones is that banks and others are highly risk-averse. Why would they take the reputational risk of getting involved with potential criminality, even if only on paper? That is precisely why Parliament has expressly excluded those engaged in humanitarian activity from at least one comparable criminal offence—the designated area offence in Section 58B of the Terrorism Act 2000.
We have a week to sort this out. The Explanatory Notes, as they stand, are not sufficient, for reasons that I do not have time to get into. A clear statement from the Minister that Sections 17B and 17C are not intended to operate as I have suggested would be a start. An explicit reference to Pepper v Hart could be a useful signal to prosecutors and judges. Also helpful at a more general level would be an undertaking to co-operate through the established tri-sector group dialogue in amending the applicable guidance and a clear and unqualified statement that the new offences are not intended to apply to bona fide organisations engaged in conflict prevention, conflict resolution or, in the words of the Explanatory Notes,
“humanitarian assistance or other activities that support basic human needs”.
These are sticking plasters, but it will take amendment to remove the chilling effect and place the matter beyond doubt. Though I shall listen with great care, as I always do, to what the Minister has to say, I fear that this is an issue to which we shall have to come back in Committee.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I very much look forward to hearing him develop those points in Committee.
Let me begin directly. Legislation of this kind is long overdue. As the Library briefing makes clear, the character of state threats has evolved over the years, and this legislation is necessary. It is not a criticism directed solely at this Government; successive Administrations have recognised the problem with reasonable clarity but have often been slow in delivering the remedy. We identify the threat, hesitate on the response and find ourselves, once again, playing catch-up. This Bill is an attempt to close that gap. It is necessary and welcome.
There is much within it that merits support: the updating of offences; the introduction of a foreign influence registration scheme; and the broader recognition, reflected in the Library material and other briefings, that hostile activity now spans a wide spectrum—it is no longer confined to classical espionage but extends into influence operations, economic pressure, covert funding and a steady shaping of information environments.
However, necessity should not be mistaken for sufficiency. My concern is that the Bill, while well-intended, is framed too much around the threats that we already understand rather than those that are evolving. Hostile actors adapt quickly. They learn from our frameworks and adjust their methods accordingly. If we legislate narrowly or too rigidly, we will find that the law is outpaced almost as soon as it is enacted. We cannot afford, once again, to legislate in arrears.
The reality is that modern state threats are often indirect. They are mediated through networks, proxies, front organisations and aligned movements that provide distance and deniability. Influence is rarely crude; it is incremental, sustained and frequently embedded within legitimate structures. That presents a challenge which the Bill does not fully meet. In particular, it requires us to take seriously the role of transnational ideological networks that may intersect with state interests, whether formally or informally.
The arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Godson in his recent article in the Spectator are both relevant and necessary to engage with. He draws attention to the way in which the Muslim Brotherhood operates less as a single organisation and more as a diffuse and adaptive network: a movement with affiliated bodies, overlapping structures and a capacity to project influence across civic, educational and political space. This strength lies not in overt confrontation but in persistence, organisation and reach over time. The point is not to collapse this into a simplistic category of state threat but to recognise that boundaries between state and non-state activity are often porous, and that serious actors are adept at operating across these boundaries.
Other countries have begun to engage with this reality. France and Austria, among them, have examined how such movements function, how they influence institutions and what risks they may pose to democratic resilience over the longer term. In the United Kingdom, our approach has been more cautious—arguably, too cautious—and the Bill reflects this caution. It is anchored firmly in the concept of state attribution which, while understandable, has created a limitation. If influence is exercised through networks that fall just outside that definition, a framework confined to it risks overlooking a significant part of the threat.
To be clear, this is not part of an argument for indiscriminate measures or broad-brush conclusions. It is an argument for clarity and completeness, to ensure that our understanding of modern threats is sufficiently wide, and that our response is capable of addressing them. At present, the alignment is not yet fully achieved. This is why the next stages of the Bill are so important.
As has already been demonstrated in another place, there is real scope to strengthen and redefine the framework. In particular, it is reasonable to apply three basic tests. First, flexibility: can the Bill adapt to new forms of threat without the need to repeat primary legislation? Secondly, scope: does it adequately capture indirect as well as direct forms of hostile influence? And, thirdly, clarity: are the definitions and mechanisms sufficiently precise to be both effective and enforceable?
If the Bill falls short against these tests, amendment is not an obstruction; it is responsible lawmaking. Those who seek to undermine open societies are neither static nor unsophisticated. They study our systems, identify ambiguities and exploit gaps with consistency and patience. If our legislative response is too narrow or too cautious, it will not be enough. The Bill is an important step forward, but it must also be a durable one. I believe that the Bill can be improved and that we can future-proof it, widen its scope where necessary and ensure that it addresses not only direct state action but the broader ecosystem in which influence is exercised. In conclusion, our task is simple: not to follow threat but to get ahead of threat and to stay there.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I welcome the Bill. The fact that we need it less than three years after the passing of the National Security Act demonstrates the evolving threat that this country faces.
In 2020 the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I chair, published its ground-breaking Russia report. I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that it took three years for the then Government to implement most of the recommendations in that report, including the FIRS. Since then, we have produced in 2023 our report on China and in 2025 our report on Iran, and all pose a threat to UK security. The playbook they use is very similar: sabotage, cyber attacks, intimidation of the diaspora, misinformation, kidnapping, assassination in some cases—all carried out not just in this country but across Europe. Many examples can be found in open source material. Their strategy is not only well thought out but well funded. It is to undermine the trust in government, increase social division, weaken the rules-based order and, in Russia’s case, try to limit our support for Ukraine.
After the attack in Salisbury, thanks to the efforts of our security services and our international partners, we have made the operating environment in the UK and across Europe far more difficult for these actors. That is why they have gone to using proxies. Again, it is not just about acts of sabotage. There have been good examples across Europe, such as shopping centres in Poland being attacked. Earlier this year I was in Latvia, where the railway system is attacked on a daily basis—not because it is breaking down but because people are being paid to disrupt the network. We have seen Iran using organised crime networks across Europe to assassinate those who oppose the regime. We have also seen, closer to home, the example of the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, Nathan Gill, who was paid by the Russians to put out a positive image of Russia and to undermine the West’s support for Ukraine.
This is a very difficult environment for law enforcement and security services to act in. For example, it might not be evident straightaway that acts of sabotage are being supported by foreign actors. We saw the case last year of the attack on a warehouse in east London that was being used to store supplies for Ukraine.
Will this threat increase and is it going away? No, it is not going away. I argue that it will increase. Certainly, in Russia, as Putin comes under more pressure, this is a low-risk element in trying to undermine the West. We do not know what is going to happen next in Iran in terms of the fallout from the war, but again this is a low-risk strategy for Iran because it can deny involvement in many of these attacks or misinformation campaigns, whether they are attacking warehouses in east London and synagogues or posting antisemitic rhetoric online. We also have increasing activity by the Chinese, who are targeting universities and looking for trade secrets, something that the Bill will take on. Will this Bill be the end of it? Will that be it? No, it will not. I think we will be coming back. As our adversaries react and adapt, we will have to come back for more.
There is an issue that the previous Government ignored, even though they gave a commitment on it: the review of the Official Secrets Act 1989. The problem I have with this legislation is that there is now going to be a huge disparity between 14 years for an offence under this legislation and two years for an offence under the Official Secrets Act. The review was promised in 2019 but shelved, and I urge the Government to revisit it.
It is often said that democracy is fragile. It is. It has to be nurtured. We have to ensure that in any legislation such as this we get the balance right between protecting our nation and its citizens and the rights of individuals. As chair of the ISC and a member of the ISC for nearly 10 years, I see the regular reporting on what is happening: the attacks not just in this country but across Europe. I think we need to have an honest public conversation about the threats. In his report, the reviewer said that statistics should be published. I think we need to publish them, whether in his annual report or in the ISC’s annual report.
I come to the issues around designation. Reference has been made to the IRGC. This was covered in our Iran report. Yes, the current legislation is not fit for purpose and I think this is a way forward, but I stress to individuals who are calling to put the IRGC in the Bill that that is not the way we operate because proscription is done independent of politics on a threat-based assessment. I think it will meet that threshold, and I hope we can see a movement forward.
I will just touch on some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I agree with him that there are concerns. We need to alleviate them; it is about getting the right balance between protecting our nation from harm and making sure that those who are doing good in the world are protected as well. There are instances where Governments, NGOs and others have to deal with some very nasty people. That is a fact of life. I have to say—it might not be very popular in this debate—that on occasion NGOs and Governments have to be involved even with individuals linked to the IRGC.
This is a movement forward. Will it be the final say on this situation? No, it will not. This is going to be an ever-increasing issue that we will have to come back to, and the Government will have to be agile to react to it. Finally, like my noble friend I say thank you to the members of our security services and the police who keep us safe 365 days of the year.
Lord Barrow (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. We have had many conversations about national security over the years and have not always agreed, but he knows what he is talking about, and I agree with him on this Bill. This is a necessary Bill, and the sense of urgency is necessary too. As others have said, the National Security Act 2023 was a big step forward. I welcome the cross-party approach that we had to that and have to national security matters generally. It is a huge help, including for those to whom we have already paid tribute in our services, our operating partners and the police.
However, threats change, our enemies adapt, and we must respond; as others have said, we must do so at pace and not get left behind. There has already been reference to Sir Ken McCallum’s comment that he saw a 35% increase in the number of individuals being investigated for involvement in state threat activity. I remember once being told off by a Prime Minister for “beguilingly precise” statistics, but the picture is what I recognise, including from my time as National Security Adviser and my time reading all the intelligence. We need to respond.
As I am sure those who know him would agree, Sir Ken is the sort of person who would tell you, in the same calm, professional tone, that you had won the lottery or that your house had burned down. We must not let that professionalism mask the day in, day out reality of what we are facing in terms of the threat to this country. That is why I support the Bill. I also support those who talk about the need for a national conversation about that threat; we need that in order to have the basis for taking our legislation forward. We need to respond to this evolving and increasing threat from state actors and their proxies.
I commend Jonathan Hall KC. We should remind ourselves that he is our independent reviewer. All across the House there is respect and support for what he has said. He has shown us a way forward and I commend him, not least because this is really difficult, as we have already heard. We cannot simply cut and paste from terrorism to state actors. I also commend the fact that operational partners have been involved in framing the Bill. In my view, the Bill will bring real and direct operational benefits. That is what it is about, and that is what we should support.
I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Anderson. Like others, I have been contacted by NGOs concerned about the effect of this legislation. I thank them for raising those concerns and I pay tribute to them for their extraordinary, brave work in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances. Clearly, they have to engage with actors who do not have our best interests at heart; that is what it takes to operate in those places.
I thank the Minister and his team for the briefings that have allowed some of us to raise these concerns. It is clear to me that the Bill is designed to meet that challenge through the concept that the offence is committed only by conduct
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
There is an intent element to this as well. Legitimate humanitarian assistance would not fall foul of this test.
There are other safeguards too, but I encourage the Government to continue discussions with the NGOs to see whether anything more could be done through guidance, including for the CPS. I agree with my noble friend Lord Anderson about the use of a tri-sector approach as well. I see the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, listening, so I await further legal analysis in this respect, but I would not support an amendment creating an exemption. Surely that would be a loophole that our opponents would seek to use. I think it would put the NGOs in a place of greater danger. But let us continue the conversation and see what we can do.
I also understand the motivation of those who have called for putting a particular actor on the face of the Bill, but I do not agree. In my experience, national security legislation should be as actor-agnostic as possible. It should create the framework through which the Government can act with the best intelligence, advice, involvement and engagement with the operating partners as possible. I do say to the Minister that, if the Government should get their way, as I hope they will, and fast-track this legislation successfully, there will be an expectation in this House, and more generally, of rapid action in exercising these powers with the same sense of urgency and purpose as in pursuing the Bill itself.
I have one question for the Minister, and this goes to a point that the noble Baroness made about a 12-month review. Since this is a Bill amending Part 1 of the National Security Act, as I read it, I understand that the independent reviewer will be required to carry out an annual review of these provisions. Can the Minister confirm that? That would allow for us to respond quickly if there are deficiencies—and they could be on either side of the debate. Indeed, it may not be that we have got this wrong but that our opponents will move and react, so we need to know quickly whether there is more that we should do in this area and take it upon ourselves to respond accordingly. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister on that.
In conclusion, we all know that we cannot legislate away the threats to our country, but we should do what we can as quickly as possible to try to keep pace with evolving threats. I therefore support getting the Bill passed by the Summer Recess. I would welcome any improvements, but not at the cost of delay. Let us do what we can now. We will do the best that we can in the time that we have available to us, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and others have said, we will for sure be coming back to this issue in the future because the threats will not go away. They will continue to evolve.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Barrow. I agree with his comments. Like him, I welcome the Bill, and, like him, I think we have been waiting a long time for it. It is not just that it seems to have taken the Government a long time to get going on the issue; it is that real life affects those who are at risk, not only the Jewish community but certainly and definitely that community, so we need to get on with this legislation, and I am therefore among those who do not support further delay.
The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—for me, they introduce a new element, but one that quite clearly has real force—require us to try to get a balance between, on the one hand, contact with organisations of which we deeply disapprove and whose activities are malign, but for purposes that serve our interests and which are for the general good, and, on the other, not creating loopholes by inventing, if I can put it that way, motives that would lead to the courts excusing their conduct. It is not difficult to see that a defence could make it quite difficult for the prosecution to land its point if there is an argument in court about motivation and it has to prove that it was for a prohibited purpose. One thing that we need to concentrate on in the short time we have is getting some careful drafting into the legislation to get the balance right.
The Minister said, and I see his point, that he could not guarantee that this legislation would actually lead to the proscription of the IRGC. All I can say is that, in the real world, if it does not lead to that, there is something very wrong. I would expect to see that happen. We do live, I think, in the real world, not in one that is composed of nicer situations than actually prevail.
On the prohibited purpose requirement, as I say, it is obvious that we need careful drafting, but that applies also to the provision on prosecution regarding the risk of people planning activities in this country for malign activity abroad. Again, it is not difficult to see that, unless it is possible to land the point, the defence will have quite a good time arguing about motive. When this legislation is passed, we must not get into a situation where it turns out to be a great deal less effective than it should have been because we put into it clauses that enabled the defence of these individuals to make a monkey, if I can put it that way, of the legislation that we put in place.
Finally, I think it was my noble friend Lord Pickles who made an important point about future-proofing. We should try to include in this legislation individuals who are not directed by or acting under the influence of an organisation but who are themselves motivated to support state organisations, so that we can also convict them. If one looks at current terrorist activity, it is very clear that the self-motivated individual is a feature of the threat scene. It is important that we should try to include people acting on their own authority in this legislation. It is an important Bill. I support getting it through but I hope we will not do this at the expense of getting the provisions and the balance of the legislation right.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who has such deep expertise in this area. I support this Bill which, as others have said, is long overdue, and draw attention to my membership of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy—a point to which I will return.
It hardly needs repeating that we live in a deeply dangerous and volatile world and face an array of rapidly evolving threats to our national security. Geopolitics is rapidly changing and we must be ready to respond and place the national security of the country at the top of our agenda. As we have already heard, this Bill builds on the National Security Act 2023 and is intended to strengthen the UK’s ability to deter, detect and disrupt threats from foreign states and their proxies, including by introducing a new power to designate bodies involved in foreign power threat activity.
We have also heard that the Bill follows the review by the independent reviewer Jonathan Hall KC into whether existing terrorism powers could be used to address these state threats. Well over a year ago, he found that the terrorism proscription charges would not be appropriate, so instead we have this legislation which will now designate bodies, including proxies, and be applied to bodies such as the IRGC or the Wagner Group.
The geopolitical context is stark. We face very different threats from Russia, China and Iran and must be able to respond to them all individually. It is not a case of one size fits all. Tactics being employed include attempted and actual assassinations, cyber attacks on major British companies and institutions—Marks & Spencer being a case in point—espionage, disinformation campaigns and foreign interference in the UK’s political system. Along with other noble Lords on all Benches, I am sure, I was simply appalled when it was confirmed that Russian proxies set the Prime Minister’s house and car on fire. Our very democracy and the values we hold dear are under threat as never before.
Shocking as that was, it was not an isolated event. We have already heard from others who have quoted the remarks of Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5 who, last year, pointed out that state threats had risen by over one-third and are now equal to or even greater than the threat of terrorism. Back in May 2024, the director general of GCHQ said that the service devoted
“more resource to China than any other single mission”
and that:
“China poses a genuine and increasing cyber risk to the UK”.
Clearly, that deployment of resources is necessary, but it is chilling none the less when you consider that this is a country we also try to court as an economic partner. This twin-track approach, in my view, is fraught with danger and I ask the Minister to set out more clearly the Government’s position in relation to China.
While I share the concerns that have been raised across the House about rushing a Bill through so quickly without adequate scrutiny, I well understand that we need to take action quickly, particularly on being able to designate the IRGC, which has long been the architect of brutal domestic repression, as well as a threat to UK security and the safety of Iranian and Jewish communities across Britain. That is the reason why this legislation should, frankly, have been introduced earlier in the Parliament, so we will need to ensure that there is appropriate post-legislative scrutiny and a statutory review after one year, as proposed by my noble friend Lady Doocey.
This legislation is very relevant and builds on the work carried out by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. As a committee, we have raised concerns about the Russian state using proxy actors to commit sabotage in the UK—that was in our inquiry on the national security strategy—and on internet cables and landing stations, which were part of our subsea cable inquiry. It is also very relevant to the current inquiry that we are conducting on options for punitive deterrence against Russia and trying to impose upstream costs and constraints. I hope that the Government will continue to work closely with the Joint Committee on all these issues.
I would like to finish with a few questions for the Minister. First, it is my hope that the Bill will help with disrupting proxy activity. It appears to reduce the need to prove a chain of connection all the way back to the intelligence services: as long as the Government can prove a link to the proscribed proxy organisation, which might be an organised crime group or some front organisation, apparently that would facilitate a prosecution. Can the Minister assure me that I have got that point correct?
Secondly, the International Institute for Strategic Studies has estimated that 600 Russian officials were expelled by NATO states after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, of whom 400 are thought to be intelligence operatives. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, pointed out, Russian services have now reportedly adapted to using proxies, organised crime groups and freelancers, likely increasing both flexibility and deniability, but at the cost of decreasing operational professionalism. While much of the discussion around the Bill focuses on Iran at the moment, following threats and arson attacks, can the Minister say whether he feels that these measures will directly assist in our work regarding Russia, which I have just spoken about?
It is relevant that the International Institute for Strategic Studies report, which was published before the Bill, also makes the important point that the ultimate source of aggressive activity is often the intelligence officer running the operation. Arresting the proxy actors might mean that the intelligence officers just find new proxies. How confident is the Minister that intelligence officers from Russia and elsewhere will be deterred by this Bill, or will they simply, as has been suggested, remain untouchable?
Finally, I very much share the concerns that have been raised by my noble friend Lady Doocey, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and others, about unintended consequences, specifically the impact on humanitarian organisations and charities. Is the Minister able to give me an assurance that the offences relating to designated bodies do not apply to the activities of impartial humanitarian organisations that are acting and working in accordance with international law?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, no one should be under any illusion about the dangers facing the United Kingdom, principally from Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Whether it is assassins hunting down and murdering Alexander Litvinenko, or attempting to kill Sergei Skripal in Salisbury; the attack on the Prime Minister’s London home; the hate-driven scourge of antisemitism; cyber attacks—recall North Korea’s crippling cyber attack on the National Health Service in 2017—hacking and false narratives poisoning minds through social media; the presence of Chinese spies, even inside the Government and Parliament, with two more sentenced last week; or bounties on the heads of British residents and coercive sanctions on parliamentarians, it is clear that these are dangerous times.
I have the honour to chair the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Across several reports, we have highlighted threats to both national security and the human rights of our citizens—two sides of the same coin. We condemned the failure to bring to justice 400 British citizens who enlisted in ISIS, committed genocide against Yazidis and other minorities in northern Iraq, and then returned to the United Kingdom. Not one of them has been prosecuted for genocide or crimes against humanity. How many of them have the Government assessed as a future security threat?
As we have heard, MI5’s chief says that threats have risen by more than a third in a single year, with over 20 Iranian-inspired plots to kill, maim or kidnap on our sovereign territory. Perhaps more than anything else, the depredations of that barbaric Iranian dictatorship have been reflected in our debate today and driven the need for these new measures. Having been sanctioned by Iran in October 2022, along with the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and others, I might be forgiven for saying—as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, said earlier—that this Bill has been a long time coming.
Back in April 2001, I initiated the first of several debates, dozens of Parliamentary Questions and many cross-party meetings about Iran’s egregious violations of human rights, its nuclear threat, its proclaimed wish to eradicate the State of Israel, its export of terror, and the pernicious role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, both here and in Iran. In the 2025 JCHR report on transnational repression, which was debated in your Lordships’ House on 26 February, we highlighted appalling attacks on pro-democracy activists and journalists, some of whom had been forced to flee the country and one of whom had been left bleeding on the street after an attempted assassination. Even if we cannot go as far as Sweden, where TNR is defined and illegal, I would like transnational repression to appear on the face of the Bill, at least as an aggravating factor.
Since its foundation in 1979, the Iranian regime has been based on two pillars: domestic oppression and the export of terrorism and chaos abroad. Death sentences issued by the revolutionary courts have led to endless waves of executions—some 2,159 in the last 12 months. Let us also recall the death of 22 year-old Mahsa Amini, who was arrested by the morality police for wearing clothes that had been disapproved of by the theocratic regime.
In 2023, I spoke in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that called for the proscription of the IRGC, and I was happy to support the Opposition when they moved similar amendments. I recognise that there is a difference between proscription and designation, and I welcome the steps taken in this Bill, but may I ask the Minister about the letter that was sent to him on 26 June by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey? It was sent to the Home Secretary with a copy sent to the Minister. Today, I received a response from the Minister; I am grateful to him for that, but it arrived only about two hours ago. I would be grateful if he would agree to place copies in the Libraries of both Houses and circulate it to everyone who has participated in today’s debate. The response the Government have sent is important, because it deals effectively with some of the points raised by the JCHR probing the power to designate a body on the basis that it involved “foreign power threat activity”, despite there being no link in these circumstances between that body and any foreign power. We ask that consideration be given to an amendment to ensure that, under new Section 33A, only activity linked to a foreign power can be relied upon to satisfy the test for designation. We also asked about “Assisting a designated body”, about “Obtaining … material benefits from a designated body”, and for greater clarity on the “safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
It was suggested in the House of Commons that there is inconsistency in the thresholds and a more lenient treatment of hostile states than of terrorists—it has been referred to during our debate today as well. Is that so and can it be remedied? I want also to ask about the point raised by my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich and others in the debate about humanitarian organisations operating where state-linked actors exercise territorial control. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, to the letter that was sent to the Home Secretary by the chair of the International Development Select Committee, the admirable Sarah Champion MP.
In a letter to me, the International Red Cross asked for an amendment so that
“The offences established in Section 17 shall not apply to exclusively humanitarian activities carried out by impartial humanitarian organisations in accordance with international law”.
I echo the remarks of others and hope that issue might be addressed before next Tuesday. It would be passing strange if Red Cross humanitarian work were to be compromised while more than 13 organisations masquerading as charities can stoke the fires of hatred and threaten community cohesion. Why are we not using this Bill to take powers to close them down?
And what about China, a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and others? Recall the collapsed spy case and last week’s convictions of CCP regime spies. The Bill should enable Ministers to close the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, a point I referred to yesterday in Questions. It is a spy hub, a cat’s cradle of spies and malign actors; we should have a power to close it down.
Ten months after the JCHR’s unanimous recommendation to put China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, which we do for Russia and Iran, it has not happened. Will trade deals always trump security, human rights and even genocide? The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, referred to the point the head of GCHQ made about
“a genuine and increasing cyber risk”
—her words—and how GCHQ devotes
“more resource to China than any other … mission”,
while Parliament has been warned of infiltration of our universities and threats to our liberties via mass surveillance from Hikvision and other cameras. Chinese-made EVs incorporating Chinese cellular modules, along with SIM cards or software, raise significant espionage and national security concerns, with internet-connected vehicles described as a hostile state’s “smartphone on wheels”.
The Joint Committee is currently looking at AI and human rights. I hope the Government are also looking at the way that AI and software and internet powers can be used to undermine our public debates and indeed our security. I hope that before next Tuesday, we can have the opportunity—more than the six hours that was provided in the House of Commons—to debate these questions. I hope we will be able to come to some agreement around some of the concerns that remain.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too support the Bill and commend the Government for bringing forward this long-awaited legislation. I join others in paying tribute to Jonathan Hall KC, who has done much of the work that has paved the way for this legislation, both as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and as Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation. As he repeatedly pointed out, we cannot deal with state threats, including state terrorism, by simply using the same approach that we have used for terrorism legislation. There are political, diplomatic and legal differences.
One of the key legal reasons why state threats need a different approach is that state officials enjoy immunity from criminal jurisdiction in our courts in respect of their official conduct. I suspect that immunity is one of the main reasons why the Government decided that we cannot have a straightforward membership offence which mirrors the offence under general terrorism legislation.
My questions are about the scope of some of the offences, and in particular new Section 17B of the National Security Act 2023, the offence of “Assisting a designated body”, which would be introduced by Clause 2. To understand the reach of the offences, it may be helpful to test them against some examples, and I have two.
The first is that of an IRGC plotter based in Tehran who has co-ordinated attacks by proxies in the United Kingdom. If that IRGC plotter happened to fly to the United Kingdom, or to another country from which he could be extradited to the United Kingdom, what, if any, conduct would we say has taken place in the United Kingdom for the purposes of the new Section 17B offence? Section 17B will criminalise the provision of assistance to a designated body in carrying out UK-related activities. Subsection (5) provides that the offence
“will apply to conduct outside the United Kingdom but applies to conduct taking place wholly outside the United Kingdon only if the person engaging in the conduct is a UK person”,
or acts on behalf of the Crown or holds office for the Crown.
In my example, the person is not a UK national and does not act on behalf of the Crown, and that person will presumably say that, in those circumstances, his conduct, such as it was, took place wholly outside the UK, so the offence does not apply. They would be able to rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in El Khouri which dealt, in the context of extradition, with the definition of the word “conduct”. The Supreme Court held that
“the word ‘conduct’ would normally and naturally be understood as a synonym for acts done by the requested person in the specified location and not as including effects (whether intended or not) felt in that location of acts done somewhere else. A compelling reason is needed to interpret ‘conduct’ as bearing such an abnormally wide meaning”.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is here. The Supreme Court dealt with one of his speeches in another case, that of Cando Armas, in which the noble and learned Lord had taken a different approach. If that had prevailed, we would not have the problem we will have under Section 17B in my example.
It is true that in my example, the person may be relying on, or invoking, immunity, but immunity is quite specific to the facts. That person may not have been a state official, or a former state official, so in the facts of the case they may not be able to invoke immunity successfully but, in any event, immunity is a separate issue and it is not a reason for limiting the definition of the offence. Thus, on the question of the scope of Section 17B, assuming that all the work had taken place in Iran—outside the UK—what would we say is the conduct that has taken place in the UK, so that we can potentially prosecute that person under Section 17B?
My second question on scope concerns the definition of “UK-related activities”. The offence of assisting a designated body is committed if the person intends that conduct materially to assist a designated body in carrying out UK-related activities, which are defined in subsection (5) as
“activities taking place in the United Kingdom”
and
“activities taking place outside the United Kingdom which are prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
Let us take another example: that of a person who is based in the United Kingdom and engages in the conduct of assisting the designated body in the UK, but the activities the designated body is pursuing are activities against an ally of the UK, be it Ukraine, the UAE or Israel. The Government will argue—the Minister referred to this in his opening remarks—that the UK-related activity would include activity against our friends and allies. However, if I understood him correctly, he also said that it would still be necessary for there to be some “recognisable effect” in the UK. I think he mentioned that international law requires—I am still a bit confused about this—certain jurisdictional links between the exercise of criminal jurisdiction and the state. However, in this case, there is an obvious link: the conduct would have taken place in the United Kingdom. The person in question would have done the planning and provided the support to the designated body in the UK, and then the designated body’s activities would have targeted one of our allies. As I understand the position under international law, there is already a sufficient nexus with the UK territory for us to take action against such an individual, so why would a further nexus be necessary? It is an important question, because it will define the extent to which we will be able to use this legislation against individuals who will use the United Kingdom as a base for planning activities against allies abroad.
In closing, I raise the question of the time allocated to this Bill. There is broad support for it, and we all agree it has to be put on the statute book quite quickly, but some points have emerged that require further discussion. In addition to those I have raised, I want to explore the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. We have only two days to table amendments and then just one day to debate them. I very much hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, that we are going to have a long session next week to debate the amendments.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill and look forward to making sure that its passage is as quick as the Minister wants, but of course, there will be amendments that need to be addressed.
I want to focus on two or three questions that I will put directly to the Minister. My concern is around AI, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised. The use in this country of AI in two or three areas really concerns me. The social contract between the people and the state has broken down quite a lot in recent years. Technologies are being used through people born and brought up here to attack their own country. Can the Minister explore the way we protect our critical infrastructure? How do we ensure that those who manage and run it are well-versed in how to protect it, and that internal or external influences do not attack our country and bring it to a standstill? The energy sector is a prime target, but we have seen attacks on Marks & Spencer and on hospitals. These attacks can be carried out by people sitting in our own country, using artificial intelligence and other means to get into our systems.
This takes me to the other point I want the Minister to consider. Given that we are outsourcing so much of our work to other countries, how do we make sure that, while we are not directly impacted in the UK, information that belongs to the people of this country is not being targeted by foreign actors outside the country, in places where we are utilising outsourcing?
Finally, I am concerned about how we ensure that information is being protected, and how this legislation is going to work. Proscribed groups such as the IRGC and others are beginning to use people in this country as their proxies. My worry is that we have failed to proscribe them simply on the basis of arguments that have never made sense to me—I know the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I agree on this. Time and again, people have been attacked on our soil by the Islamic guard, and we have failed to proscribe it and to protect our own nationals here.
It is about trying to understand why we have not got to that stage yet, not just with that grouping but with others that are now taking shelter under the umbrella of where we have not proscribed. Other groups are now beginning to utilise their own proxies, and I am afraid that those proxies are going by the wayside at the moment, because our attention is not on them. It is too much focused on China and Russia, when other actors are beginning to also come into our systems and utilise our young people in particular, through technologies. We must be very careful.
I have come in on this debate only because we get caught up in the matter of the day and fail to see the wider issues bubbling underneath in all our communities. The Minister knows that I raise this with him here often, and every time I see him outside the Chamber. Communities that we know have issues bubbling are very vulnerable to the sorts of attacks we are trying to protect against here. This is an ideal time—in this legislation—to make sure that we also cover those.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill.
The first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and security of the people they serve. In an increasingly uncertain world, where hostile state activity can take many forms, from espionage and cyber attacks to foreign interference and intimidation, it is right that Parliament considers how best to respond to those threats.
I therefore support the principles behind the Bill and the Government’s determination to ensure that those acting on behalf of hostile foreign powers cannot undermine our national security, our way of life or the safety of the people living in our country. The threats posed by hostile states are real and evolving. They can affect individuals, communities and our democratic institutions, and it is right that the Government respond to them.
As the Bill progresses, I hope we will also recognise the importance of community trust and cohesion in strengthening our response to those threats. Many of our towns and cities are home to vibrant diaspora communities with deep family, cultural and historical connections across the world. These communities make an enormous contribution to our society, economy and public life.
It is important to recognise that diaspora communities can themselves be the target of intimidation, harassment and surveillance by hostile foreign actors. Indeed, some diaspora communities are among those most directly affected by hostile state activity, with individuals and groups experiencing attempts at coercion, interference and intimidation here in the United Kingdom.
Given that the Bill introduces powers to designate organisations linked to hostile foreign state activity, it is important that legitimate diaspora organisations, community groups, charities and cultural bodies have confidence that they will not be inadvertently affected by those powers. That is why it is so important that measures designed to protect national security do not create fear or uncertainty among law-abiding communities.
Trust is hard won and easily lost, particularly in communities that may already feel vulnerable to intimidation or interference. Experience has shown us that however well-intentioned legislation may be, we must always remain alert to unintended consequences, particularly where community confidence and trust are concerned. Where concerns are identified, there should be a willingness to listen, engage and act swiftly to address them.
The overwhelming majority of people maintain family, cultural, charitable or professional links overseas entirely legitimately. We must ensure that there is a clear distinction between those legitimate activities and the actions of individuals or organisations acting on behalf of hostile states. Can my noble friend the Minister say more about the safeguards that will ensure that legitimate community organisations and diaspora groups are not inadvertently affected by these powers? What steps will the Government take to listen, engage and act swiftly should unintended consequences emerge?
I support the aims of the Bill and look forward to following its progress through this House.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres. She was absolutely right to remind us that the Bill is not an esoteric subject, nor is it part of some kind of sophisticated spy novel, but that, rather, it affects potentially every citizen in this country, and that is why it is so important. As she said, it is the first duty of government to protect its citizens from harm, and that is exactly what is being done by the delivery of the Bill. Therefore, in principle, and in most of its content, I support the Bill entirely.
I am very grateful to Jonathan Hall KC, my successor-but-three as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation —how to feel old in one sentence—who has done an excellent job. On the subject of Jonathan Hall, I remind noble Lords who have called for a review after 12 months that he is in fact required by law to give a review after 12 months, so that amendment is entirely unnecessary, with great respect to those who suggested it.
I remind noble Lords, too, that every Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and Jonathan Hall in his current role as Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation, can of his own volition and motion create a report at any time. My successor as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, my noble friend Lord Anderson, his successor, and Jonathan Hall and I have all done exactly that, or at least made moves to do exactly that, and have obtained proportionate and helpful reactions from government when that has arisen. The reassurance provided by having an Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation, who does much the same as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation—and at the moment is the same person—gives great reassurance.
In relation to the content of the Bill in detail, I do not want to repeat what was said by my noble friends Lord Anderson and Lord Verdirame about some of it. Much of my noble friend Lord Anderson’s suggestion about the need to review proposed new Section 17C of the National Security Act 2023 can be covered very simply, probably by removing five words—
“by virtue of retaining a benefit”—
from the amended proposed new Section 17C(7), but that will be a matter for consideration in Committee.
I regret that the Bill has taken quite a long time to reach the Floor of the House, but I am bound to reflect after 40-odd years in one or other House of this place that there is an awful lot of “glass houses” about those complaints. There is not a Government who have not been guilty of serious delays, and much longer delays than this. We should not waste time on matters of that kind; we should simply get on with it. My own view is that we need two Committee days. If we have two Committee days, we will complete the necessary amendments to the Bill without difficulty and with proper debate. If we need one day, then I agree: let us make it a very long day and get the work done.
State threats in recent years have been described in detail by Sir Ken McCallum, the MI5 Director-General. He reminded us in October 2025 that we had seen
“a 35% increase in the number of individuals”
being investigated
“for involvement in state threat activity”,
in one year. That is a matter for real concern and reflects remarks made by my noble friend Lord Alton.
I will also reflect something that my noble friend Lord Barrow and the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, said on what I shall call the subtlety of what we are doing. One should not assume that this is simply extending counterterrorism legislation; there is much more subtlety to this subject than that, as my noble friend pointed out. We cannot simply cut and paste from counter- terrorism legislation in order to deal with countering state threats, because they are different in nature. They have been defined—very well, in my view—by MI5 as covering
“overt or covert actions by foreign governments which fall short of direct armed conflict with the UK but go beyond peaceful diplomacy and expected statecraft to harm or threaten the safety or interests of the UK or our allies”.
In the Terrorism Act 2000, the definition of terrorism is much simpler than that. This is a much more complicated subject. There is a view—it is one that I, and perhaps others here, share—that designation under this Bill is much more suitable to deal with the IRGC than proscription under the Terrorism Acts, because those subtle arts referred to in that MI5 description are needed to deal with organisations such as the IRGC.
I turn to the question of charities and other independent organisations. I have a great deal of sympathy with what they do, but—as my noble friend Lord Anderson has heard me say privately on many occasions; I know he is bored of me doing so—I do not think that we should overlook the importance of the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, in this Bill, the Attorney-General not to prosecute. It is an extremely important protection, which is used on public interest grounds and has been used fairly frequently, although it does not arise in what one might call ordinary crime.
I hope that we can deal with the Bill in short order and that we can keep our mind on the issue we are trying to deal with and not muddle it up with straight- forward terrorism, which is much more straightforward than this. We must take into account the need for subtle, clever and extremely able members of the various services that protect us to be able to talk, where necessary, with people who are implicit in doing terrible things, so that members of our services may make the world a more peaceful place and our country one in which the citizens are safe.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, national security is, of course, a fundamental responsibility of government. We all recognise that the nature of security threats has changed significantly. We know that we need to step up our military preparedness, but we now also increasingly face challenges such as cyber attacks, foreign interference in democratic processes and indirect covert operations. We need not only to build national resilience but to tackle such threats and others as they evolve. We all share that aim.
Jonathan Hall KC was asked to identify gaps in our legislation, and the Government aim to tackle some of these in this fast-track Bill. The Government have had over a year in which to address these gaps, yet they came forward with this Bill only in the past few weeks and expect it to be rushed through Parliament. That is rarely a recipe for good legislation, so it is vital that we examine it carefully to ensure that there are no unintended consequences—a concern that many noble Lords have already flagged.
As I read the Bill, I wondered whether some of the people potentially implicated in recent attacks would be covered; the Bill covers those who would or should know for whom they might be working. There is a new development whereby young men in particular are being recruited online for tempting cash payments to take photos of venues or even to carry out attacks. They never think that foreign state involvement might lie behind these activities. Some have termed these actors “useful idiots”. In some ways, they are similar to drug mules, as the consequences of their actions—and the question of who is asking them to do things—are far from their minds, as their focus is simply the financial reward. Will such so-called useful idiots be caught by this legislation? We know the use of such proxies is increasing, giving deniability.
Then there are other areas where people may be inadvertently included. In my view, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has decimated the Government’s current response on humanitarian work. I am very glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is listening to this debate.
The chair of the International Development Committee, Sarah Champion, has urged the Home Secretary to amend the Bill over concerns that it has negative implications for humanitarian organisations. The IDC wants to see
“an express humanitarian exemption making clear that offences relating to designated bodies do not apply to the activities of impartial humanitarian organisations acting in accordance with international humanitarian law”.
The IDC points out:
“Humanitarian organisations often operate in areas where state-linked actors exercise territorial control. In such contexts, engagement with all parties to a conflict may be necessary to secure access to affected populations, obtain security guarantees, maintain staff safety, and deliver life-saving assistance”.
The committee also notes that
“the Bill creates offences of supporting a designated body, assisting a designated body, and obtaining or accepting material benefits from a designated body”.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, notes that simply getting information on where landmines might have been laid could fall foul of this legislation.
The Minister in the Commons stressed that the offences are not intended to criminalise conduct relating to humanitarian assistance, but as my colleague in the Commons, Monica Harding, noted, although safeguards for humanitarian operations are in the Explanatory Notes for the Bill, they are not in the Bill itself. Bond, the Halo Trust, the International Committee of the Red Cross and others argue that there is a risk here that this may have, at the very least, a chilling effect on their work. Among other challenges, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, noted, broadly framed offences may lead banks, suppliers, donors and others to refuse to assist, as they do not want to take on the risk.
I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said about the defence used by NGOs in court, but the last thing that they wish to do is end up in an expensive court case. They will seek to avoid that by avoiding the work. I also heard what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said about them not being prosecuted, but they are likely to try to avoid that risk, so they will not undertake that work.
I understand the reaction of the Minister in the Commons—that the Government do not want an exclusion to be exploited by malign actors. The noble Lord, Lord Barrow, referred to that. However, there are diplomatic exclusions in the Bill, so there are ways of doing that. Therefore, I hope that the Government are giving thought to how they could amend the Bill, to make sure that humanitarian organisations are equally and explicitly protected. Certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned, a Pepper v Hart statement would be useful, but will NGOs know the significance of that or even look at our debates, which is where they would have to pick up the references to a Pepper v Hart protection? An amendment would be much safer.
To return to the challenge of drawing up legislation in a rush, however worthy the aim, I was struck by what Alicia Kearns said in the Commons:
“We must not write a law for the IRGC alone. We are writing a law for every hostile state organ that comes after it, and the next may look nothing like the last”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/26; col. 870.]
I am also puzzled that—and Alicia Kearns pointed this out—under the Bill, unlike other terrorism legislation, people cannot be charged until they have committed an act, rather than when they are planning such an act. The noble Lord on the Conservative Benches made reference to this. Is there a reason for this, and if it is inadvertent, will it be addressed?
As we did in the Commons and as my noble friends have emphasised here, we support the intentions of the Bill; we recognise that we face attacks by state-sponsored and state-linked actors who actively seek to undermine our democracy. This is now widespread across the democratic world, where Russia, for example, wishes to create instability in the UK, across the EU and NATO, and beyond. Just look at its recent actions in the various elections in Romania, Moldova, Armenia, and Hungary. Threats to the UK from foreign states are indeed evolving rapidly. With people receiving their news via social media, and social media platforms amplifying division and disagreement, this is likely only to intensify.
As we are asked to fast-track the Bill, it is important that we look at its potential limitations. I am glad that the Minister says he is willing to work across the House to address these concerns, and I hope that we can therefore get robust legislation on the statute book and that he really means what he says about working with us to try to resolve some of these problems.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, no one can be under any illusion about the nature of the threats we face. Other noble Lords have spoken about this in some detail, so I will not be repeating that. It is right that the Government seek to update our laws in response. I pay tribute to Jonathan Hall KC, whose careful review has identified areas where the law requires strengthening. The Bill introduces significant offences relating to organisations associated with foreign state threats. I welcome the Government’s clear intention to close loopholes, address the use of proxy actors and strengthen deterrence.
However, in pursuing those objectives, I have three concerns. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has already pointed out, we must not create uncertainty for those who work for and serve an altogether different purpose. Humanitarian organisations and development agencies, including conflict resolution experts, operate in some of the most fragile and dangerous environments in the world. I have seen the value of their work first-hand, not only as a supporter of their work but as a recipient of their aid when my own family was displaced by conflict.
Humanitarian work is often challenging and uncomfortable. In conflict zones, engagement with de facto authorities is frequently unavoidable in order to negotiate access to civilian populations, obtain permits, rent premises, pay utility charges, employ local staff or secure safe passage through territory controlled by actors humanitarian organisations neither support nor endorse. Without such engagement, the most vulnerable people may receive no assistance at all. Today, many organisations are concerned that this legislation could have unintended consequences. The ICRC has warned that aspects of the Bill are drafted broadly enough that routine humanitarian activities could fall within its scope. As others have pointed out, similar concerns have been raised by the International Development Committee. Humanitarian organisations do not seek to weaken our ability to counter hostile activity. They seek clarity that they can continue to provide vital, life-saving assistance.
Ministers have offered assurances that the Bill is intended to distinguish between hostile conduct and legitimate humanitarian engagement. I welcome those assurances, and do not doubt the sincerity with which they have been given, yet there is an important distinction between assurance and certainty. Courts interpret statutes, not ministerial statements or footnotes. We have seen before that where Parliament relies on assurances rather than clear statutory language, uncertainty can persist for years. I refer here to my own amendment on parental alienation and judicial colleges. I was given all sorts of assurances that Ministers and the Government would work with judicial colleges, but nothing ever happened. It really takes time: people change, Ministers go and Governments go. If it is not written in the law, it means nothing. It can be a lovely intention, but it does not produce the desired effect, so I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to that: it happens.
My second concern is how the protections identified by Ministers would work in practice. Ministers have referred to provisions concerning agreements with the Government. However, if those provisions are to safeguard humanitarian action, much more information is needed about how organisations would seek, obtain and rely upon such arrangements. Experience from sanctions and counterterrorism regimes shows that ambiguity can have far-reaching consequences. Even where aid agencies are confident that their activities are lawful, the institutions on which they depend may decide that the risks are way too great. This can lead to the withdrawal of banking facilities, delays in transferring funds and obstructions to the delivery of assistance where it is needed most. While it is clearly not the intention of the Bill to catch organisations such as these, their experience of similar legislation is that, for as long as there remains even a paper risk of criminal liability, charitable trustees will act cautiously. No one can blame them for that.
There is also the wider problem of de-risking by banks and financial institutions. The net effect is likely to be a reduction in vital work in some of the world’s most troubled countries, including humanitarian relief and conflict resolution efforts, both of which depend upon necessary dealings with state bodies that may be designated under the Bill. Ultimately, civilians bear the consequences: aid arrives late, access is reduced and suffering is prolonged. These are not hypothetical concerns; they have been documented repeatedly across humanitarian operations around the world.
Such an approach would not be novel. As others have mentioned, Jonathan Hall KC has previously highlighted the tension that can arise between national security legislation and humanitarian action, drawing attention to the principles reflected in UN Security Council Resolution 2664. The United Kingdom played a leading role in securing that resolution and should show the same leadership here. Humanitarian action and national security are not opposing concepts. Conflict, displacement and humanitarian crises can fuel instability and create conditions in which wider security threats flourish. The Government’s own strategic assessments recognise that reality.
My third concern is one of consistency. The Bill rightly acknowledges that threats to security may be advanced indirectly through proxies, coercion and conduct that undermines international norms. If we accept that proposition, we should apply the same standards consistently. States that obstruct humanitarian access, contribute to instability or disregard international humanitarian law should be subject to scrutiny, irrespective of whether they are competitors, adversaries or allies. The credibility of a rules-based international order depends on that consistency.
The Bill seeks to address a genuine and pressing threat, and I support that objective. However, if humanitarian activity is not intended to be caught by these provisions, that protection should be stated clearly in the Bill. Doing so would provide certainty, support compliance with international humanitarian law, and help ensure that measures designed to counter hostile state activity do not inadvertently hinder those working to save lives, protect civilians and uphold human dignity in the most challenging circumstances.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I think this is the first time ever that I have followed the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and I am delighted to do so.
I begin by thanking the Minister and his officials for meeting some of us and going through the Bill in detail. I welcome the Bill, as so many others do, but continue to believe that there is a lack of clarity on some important issues and that this may result in unintended consequences—a very well-rehearsed phrase in the context of this debate. The points that I would have wished to make have been eloquently reiterated by many of your Lordships, notably my noble friend Lord Anderson, so I am going to cut to the chase in a minute, although I would add that some of the points that have been made repeatedly are so serious that they bear repetition.
My main concern remains the danger that humanitarian organisations could fall foul of a future law that forbids supporting or assisting a designated body or obtaining material benefits from such a body. As we have heard, designated bodies could include emergency assistance and/or development aid bodies, peacebuilding bodies and demining organisations which deal with sensitive material—as indeed does Inter Mediate. These entities regularly communicate with foreign government departments that are likely, under the terms of the Bill, to be designated. One example given by the Norwegian Refugee Council concerned a tax rebate rightfully owed to it by the Iranian Government.
Another concern is the stringent bank requirements surrounding the sending of funds to dubious foreign government departments—which, again, we have heard from many different Peers. The banks, which have a low risk threshold, as is the case with suppliers, donors and trustees, have made it increasingly clear that they do not accept verbal assurances and demand explicit protection to be on the face of the Bill.
The Home Secretary in the other place cited new Section 17B(6)(b) as providing the necessary protection. She assured the House that anything that has been approved by the UK would not be caught and urged humanitarian organisations to talk to the FCDO—which they already do, at length and frequently. However, the Bill as it stands does not make it clear what exactly will be covered or how such an arrangement could be confirmed or sought. Emergency responses require licences, if operating under current sanctions, that necessarily take time: for example, humanitarian action following the earthquake in Myanmar in early 2025 took over a year to negotiate, by which time most people affected by the earthquake had either not survived or had recovered.
Furthermore, any doubts about the legality of communications with designated bodies will have if not a chilling then certainly a delaying effect on humanitarian action—which the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred to—and on the transfer of resources. No trustee of a charitable organisation will be happy to risk the reputation of a charity, or even legal action, unless there are clear terms of engagement. Moreover, the courts, if it got to that stage, would not be bound by the Explanatory Notes, which are subject to interpretation.
The Bill targets state bodies, and this implies that whole ministries could well become designated: for example, the interior ministry of a country subject to severe UK sanctions such as Iran. Humanitarian organisations of many different kinds necessarily have to deal with ministries to obtain official agreements to operate in a country, and to receive licences and work permits. These take time and, should a humanitarian organisation be refused permission and subsequently make an application to the Secretary of State to exercise his or her power under Section 33A to remove the designation status, this would take even longer, with no guarantee that the Secretary of State would find in the organisation’s favour.
Again, the Minister in the other place, responding to this concern, cited the “prohibited purpose” clause, which has been discussed and which serves as an additional safeguard that protects legitimate conduct, in that it requires any conduct to be prejudicial to the safety or interest of the UK—although it is not necessary for the individual involved to know that a body is designated for the offence to apply, which seems somewhat odd.
I trust that the Minister accepted our concerns at the meeting that we recently held and undertook to look again at the Bill following its completion in the other place. However, the Bill remains unamended, and our concerns have not, so far, been fully addressed.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza.
I was not entirely persuaded that this Bill was strictly necessary. I remind the House that Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese Government, and for many years that fact was cited as a reason not to proscribe the organisation in its entirety. Yet in 2019, Hezbollah was fully proscribed without the need for new primary legislation. However, I accept that the threats posed by hostile threats and their proxies are real, and for that reason I support the Bill.
For years, hostile states have sought to undermine our democracy and intimidate and threaten communities within the United Kingdom. The Jewish community has lived with this reality for decades. Synagogues, schools and community centres have required extraordinary levels of security. Families have become accustomed to armed protection outside places of worship. My own grandchildren are growing up believing that security barriers and guards are simply part of Jewish life in Britain. That is not normal, nor should it ever be accepted as normal. Allow me to thank the police, the security services, the CST and Shomrim, which have protected and protect the community—but they should all be doing other things.
The Iranian regime has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to use intimidation, proxies, surveillance and violence against those it regards as its enemies. It has exported instability, extremism and fear far beyond its borders. These threats are real, persistent and increasingly visible on our streets. The fact that many of these threats have been directed at the Jewish community and members of the Iranian community should never have led us to regard them as matters affecting only one particular group. The principle at stake is far broader. A hostile state willing to target one group of British citizens is a hostile state willing to challenge the security of our country as a whole. When it seeks to spread fear within our communities, it is attacking the fabric of our society, and that is why I welcome the Bill.
As the Minister said, because the legislation is so important, it is equally important that we get it right. The Iranian regime has consistently demonstrated an ability to adapt its methods, operate through proxies, exploit legal ambiguities and maintain plausible deniability. The challenge we face is, therefore, not simply one of identifying a hostile state but of ensuring that our legislative response is capable of addressing the full range of methods through which that state seeks to advance its interests. For that reason, I am concerned that there are areas in the Bill that do not go far enough.
As drafted, there appears to be a higher threshold for prosecution of designated state threat than exists under terrorism legislation. There are also legitimate questions about whether activities planned in the United Kingdom but carried out overseas would always be captured by the offences contained in the Bill. Likewise, as hostile states increasingly rely on propaganda, online influence and indirect encouragement, we must ensure that those who act in furtherance of a hostile state’s objectives cannot escape accountability simply because they were inspired rather than directly tasked.
Iran’s activities are not confined to formal state actors or uniformed operatives. They encompass proxies, criminal networks, online radicalisation, covert influence and individuals recruited or encouraged to act at arm’s length from the regime itself. If our legislation does not truly reflect that reality, we risk creating opportunities for hostile actors to exploit the very gaps we are trying to close.
Nor should we view these issues solely through the lens of Iran. The purpose of the Bill is not merely to respond to one hostile state, however pressing that may be; it is to establish a framework capable of protecting the United Kingdom from future hostile states whose methods may differ, evolve and become more sophisticated over time. As others have said, legislation that is drafted too narrowly may address today’s threats while leaving us exposed to tomorrow’s.
In that regard, I pay tribute to the work of the honourable Member for Rutland and Stamford, Alicia Kearns MP, who tabled a number of constructive amendments in the other place. I would be grateful if the Minister could address just two of them. Following on from the words of my noble friend Lord Davies, on the question of uniforms, insignia and propaganda, if a state-backed organisation such as the IRGC were to be designated under this regime, why would it not be an offence to display its insignia on Britain’s streets and to glorify it online, mirroring the provisions in Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000? If we recognise that such organisations seek not only to operate abroad but to cultivate support networks here at home, we must address the propaganda that sustains them.
Secondly, on travel document seizure powers, Jonathan Hall KC supported in his review the case for allowing the police to seize the passports and other travel documents of those who are suspected of assisting designated organisations. If the Government accept the threat posed by individuals facilitating or supporting hostile state activity, why will they not provide the police with these powers now? Why defer such an important safeguard to future legislation when the opportunity exists now? There is always a temptation to prioritise speed over scrutiny when confronted with an urgent threat—although we have been calling this matter “urgent” for many years—but the effectiveness of the Bill will be judged not by how quickly it passes through Parliament but by whether it gives our security services and law enforcement the tools needed to confront the threats that exist.
If there are areas where the Bill can be strengthened, we should strengthen it. If there are provisions that fall short of the standards Parliament has previously deemed necessary in the fields of counterterrorism and national security, we should examine them carefully. If amendments are needed to ensure that hostile state activity is met with the full force of law, we should not hesitate to make them. I suggest that the choice before us is not whether to support or scrutinise the Bill. We must now do both. For that reason, I support the Bill and look forward to ensuring that it emerges from this House stronger than it arrived.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, we have already heard a lot about how our adversaries are looking at the UK and seeing a permissive environment for causing chaos, as well as recruiting foot soldiers on the same social media platforms they use to manipulate the British people—which, incidentally, they have been doing for years.
This subversion is not new. It has been grinding away at our democracy since well before the Brexit referendum. Some of us remember it vividly. I remember scrolling through my feeds years ago and receiving highly targeted anti-EU questionnaires on social media. Platforms such as Facebook were not just places to connect: they were actively weaponised to push anti-EU propaganda in order to manufacture chaos and systematically shatter public trust in not just the EU but the United Kingdom’s core institutions. What we are seeing today is simply the terrifying escalation of that campaign.
According to the briefing by the House of Lords Library, MI5 has just dropped a metric confirming that investigations into hostile state activity have skyrocketed by 35% in a single year. This is no longer just a quiet war of digital propaganda: the line between foreign espionage and domestic terror has evaporated completely.
First, let us look at how our adversaries have moved from online manipulation to physical violence. It should come as absolutely no surprise that our major political parties, most vital companies and public infrastructure are being targeted relentlessly, but let us discard the illusion that these are ad hoc attacks by random, frustrated individuals. These are highly co-ordinated campaigns by hostile state actors whose focus and objectives are to undermine Britain’s power, credibility and influence on the global stage. Look at what Russia is doing today. It has moved from manipulating algorithms to hiring street criminals. It sits safely behind keyboards, hops on to social media platforms and encrypted apps, and recruits cheap local proxies, such as the six Bulgarian nationals who were convicted in May 2025, paying them in cryptocurrency to carry out dirty operations on British soil.
How far is it willing to go? Look no further than the shocking reports of a steady stream of Russian-commissioned arson attacks targeting the private properties and vehicles of our own Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. If it is willing to put a torch to the Prime Minister’s personal property in order to spark domestic fear, what will prevent it targeting anyone else? At the same time, Russia continues to deploy massive, automated networks of sponsored bots—expanding the very digital warfare that polluted our social media feeds a decade ago—all of them calibrated to pump out venomous disinformation, trigger panic and actively incite civil unrest in our towns and cities.
Secondly, we have to talk about the direct physical terror being unleashed on British citizens. Many noble Lords have already spoken about how Iran has become so emboldened. In just 12 months, MI5 had to hunt down and stop more than 20 separate, potentially lethal, plots backed by Iran. Following the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East in early 2026, those threats directly hit our streets. We have seen a wave of targeted, terrifying attacks on Iranian dissidents and our Jewish communities. Much has also been said about the IRGC, which, as has been noted, is hiring local thugs as foot soldiers to terrorise Jewish neighbourhoods, in effect dragging foreign conflicts directly on to British soil in order to settle scores.
Thirdly, we are letting our intellectual and economic future be plundered in broad daylight. China is running an incredibly sophisticated “total society” operation against the UK. Through its massive, sweeping cyber breaches and aggressive campaigns to lure away UK academic experts, our cutting-edge technology is being drained away. It is exploiting our supply chains, university partnerships and FDI in order to steal commercial secrets and feed them straight into its own military and economic machines.
Therefore, this Bill—the National Security (State Threats) Bill—should be welcomed by this House. But I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions. First, how exactly do the Government intend to pierce the veil of the encrypted apps, cryptocurrency networks and automated bot networks that Russia is using to build its criminal proxy network? Secondly, when Iran co-ordinates lethal plots against our Jewish communities and China systematically plunders our universities, what is our concrete, immediate diplomatic and economic retaliation?
I say to those who want more time and want to deliberate that, today, the United Kingdom faces an aggressive, relentless surge in covert state threats. These are hostile operations planned by foreign Governments that stop just short of a declaration of war, but their objectives are identical: to sabotage our safety, bleed out our economic prosperity and shatter our democratic freedoms. That is why the Bill is a crucial step, and I support it.
Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, in what has been an informative, if alarming, debate—alarming because it has highlighted the degree to which the freedoms which my grandparents’ generation fought and died for are now under grave threat. The need for this Bill underlines how much the social context has changed, as my noble friend Lady Verma alluded to. I doubt that the older generation could have anticipated just how strong a sense of entitlement to those freedoms their great-grandchildren would develop. It is as if their great-grandparents’ sacrifice, made in blood, sweat and tears, was ancient history, something that belonged in a Hollywood blockbuster, but which was irrelevant to today’s apparently so much more sophisticated world.
I suspect that, having made that sacrifice in order that we might be free from the racist, genocidal, Jew-hating Nazis, my grandparents’ generation would appreciate far more than we do the trouble we are in and the urgency of getting the measures in this Bill, and perhaps others, on to the statute book. They would see the extent to which the threat to our democracy posed by hostile states’ use of proxies and malign non-state actors is exacerbated by society’s privileged, desensitised indifference to the danger they pose.
The Lord Privy Seal said shortly before we began this debate that the public do not appreciate the threat. I agree with her, but I would go further. I fear that some are in denial, desperately clinging to a delusion that peace is permanent, that the welfare state is inviolable and that deterrence does not matter enough to justify the necessary recalibration of resources. Meanwhile, hostile states and their proxies exploit our weakness ruthlessly and insidiously, turning those hard-won freedoms that we take for granted against us.
Take racism as an example. This country outlawed racism based, among other criteria, on ethnic origin, 61 years ago. Yet our enemies cynically weaponise democracy, exploiting demonstrations featuring pernicious racist chants as if they were somehow a celebration of democratic rights rather than a concerted attempt by some to single out and intimidate a particular race—our Jewish brothers and sisters—and thereby undermine our social and cultural cohesion. Shamefully, we let them do it. We let them undermine a crucial aspect of our democracy, supposedly in the name of democracy.
I welcome this Bill because it goes some way to addressing the threat we face. My question is whether it goes far enough. Are its measures truly commensurate with the scale of that threat? I will not rehearse the points already made, but I join with those who wonder whether it takes into account sufficiently the rise of what could be termed “hatred for hire”, such as we saw in the arson attacks on the Jewish community ambulances and the attack on the Prime Minister’s former home, which the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, mentioned.
I close with three points. The first is a thank you to our wonderful security services, who work so hard within difficult democratic constraints to keep us safe, particularly in our case as parliamentarians. The second is to highlight the importance of pre-emption as a means of prevention. One only has to consider that the odious Chinese Communist Party regime operated a secret police hub here in London to spy on and intimidate Hong Kong dissidents to know that in some cases, our enemies are running rings around us. Their aggression and hostile intent are palpable. I ask the Minister, who we all appreciate is dedicated to ensuring the safety and security of our country, whether he is absolutely sure that the powers in this Bill are sufficiently aggressive and pre-emptive in return.
My final point is this. Is the Minister confident that the Bill takes account of the incredibly unstable context in which we consider it? The Hormuz sell-out seems to be unravelling as we speak. A previously reliable partner is becoming reliably unreliable, yet some would say that we are still tripping over ourselves to observe legal niceties. I fear that we make our enemies laugh. I hope that our combined determination to close any gaps in the Bill, mentioned during this debate, will ensure that they have no reason to laugh at us—either today or in the future.
Lord Docherty of Milngavie (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and other noble Lords. I thank the Minister for the measured and thoughtful way in which he introduced Second Reading. As many have said, there is no more important issue facing our country than our national security and, more broadly, our defence.
We are living in the most dangerous period in Europe since the 1930s. That is not hyperbole or geographic sophistry. I studied at the Rostov technical institute in 1990, during the collapse of the Soviet Union. In Rostov, on the bank of the River Don, our hosts would proudly point to the other bank and tell us, “That is where Europe starts”. We might have said that it is where Europe ends. But that is where a war in Europe between Ukraine and Russia has now lasted longer, for each country, than in both world wars.
That Russia is a hostile state with few if any sympathies for western democratic norms or our liberal institutions is beyond doubt. That we live in a dangerous world that is getting more dangerous is also beyond doubt. As has been mentioned many times, the director-general of MI5 has openly reported a substantial increase in the number of investigations of state threat activities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and others, have mentioned, the convictions just last week of a Romanian and a Ukrainian national for arson on property connected to our Prime Minister shows how emboldened bad actors have become.
I know that the Minister will not wish to name individual organisations which may fall within the remit of the Bill. However, we also know that Iran and its proxies are increasingly active. That state actors and their proxies are attempting to commission surveillance, sabotage, arson, theft or physical violence is manifest and self-evident. The review of counter- terrorism legislation carried out by Jonathan Hall KC has set out the need for a Bill such as this clearly, as so many noble Lords have said.
There are several areas in the Bill which describe the critical issue of finance in relation to potential offences. An offence can be made when financial assistance is provided by a designated body or where financial assistance is provided to a designated body, either directly or indirectly. That financial benefit will, as has been mentioned, almost always take the form of cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is now the payment method of choice for criminal gangs, hostile state actors and it appears, for reasons known only to itself, for the Reform party. With payments made to wallet addresses and not individuals, without the involvement of banks, these payments are, as we know, far harder to subject to anti-money laundering rules or sanctions compliance. Some cryptocurrency products are specifically designed to avoid detection. In my view, the legitimate use of crypto is becoming increasingly difficult to defend.
A parallel can be drawn between social media and cryptocurrencies. The first smartphone was launched in 2007, and you could argue that social media, as we understand it today, came into being a year later with the launch of the App Store. Only now, 18 years later, are we seeing a concerted effort across jurisdictions to try to address the harmful effects of social media on children using smartphones, relying less on the professed good faith of big tech and other providers—rather, through comprehensive regulation and even prohibition. Future generations will look back on our handing over smartphones unregulated to children in the same way today we look at photos of Victorian children smoking a pipe. They will ask, “What were they thinking?”
The year 2008 was also when a seminal and anonymous paper was published, setting out the rationale for cryptocurrency. The first cryptocurrency was created the following year. Social media and cryptocurrencies are essentially the same age. Is it not also time for a similar concerted approach to regulate crypto more effectively and make it less obviously useful to criminals and bad actors, or will future generations ask, “What were they thinking?” What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the individuals responsible for cryptocurrencies used by any organisation or person designated under the Bill will be held accountable? Are there any more general plans on crypto regulation being made much more effective?
No one should be above the law or beyond its reach. The security and defence of the country is our first priority, as many noble Lords have said. For that reason, I strongly welcome the Bill and the provisions contained within it.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that thoughtful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Docherty. There is one person who I wish we could have heard from today: our dear friend Meta, Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale. She was such an extraordinary expert on these issues for many years in the House and in her career as an intelligence officer. We said goodbye to her at a very moving funeral last Friday in Glasgow. I was gathering memories and stories about Meta, and one that is pertinent to share just now is when she gave a speech, I think in Tel Aviv, on Iran. This erudite, softly spoken woman, who everyone really wanted to be their great-aunt, gently said that the IRGC
“must be eliminated—and I really do mean eliminated”.
My friend recalled the jaw of the British ambassador next to him dropping as she said that.
Those words are pertinent, because I really hope that the Minister will listen to that and agree to be a little bit more Meta on this Bill. Although I welcome it like everybody else, it does not achieve the Government’s and Jonathan Hall’s stated aim of an equivalent measure to terrorist proscription. It is weaker in an array of respects; there are excuses provided by the Government for each, but the cumulative effect is a significantly weaker regime.
The noble Lord, Lord Polak, made a pertinent point about Hezbollah. Unlike the majority of noble Lords who have spoken—including learned noble Lords with much greater experience on the subject of terrorism—who appear to have accepted Jonathan Hall’s analysis, I still question why we cannot take the approach that we did in 2019 with Hezbollah and which the US, Canada, Australia and the European Union have taken in fully proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation.
That said, we are where we are. We are going to get the Bill on to the statute book, apparently with extraordinary speed. Despite us having asked for this and the Government having thought about it for more than 14 months, I really hope that they will agree to take an extra day or so to strengthen the Bill, rather than railroading a weaker measure through to the Commons. I am afraid one would have to assume, if the Government maintain this speed of timetable, that they are doing it as an excuse to get a weaker Bill on the statute book rather than taking that a couple of extra days potentially to strengthen it.
The Government talked about the system of immunity and the Vienna convention demanding a higher bar as reasons for some of these measures not matching terrorist proscription. However, we are not proscribing Tehran here; we are prosecuting operatives who are using all the tools of terrorism to do their work. Perhaps this points to the need for the IRGC to be treated as a conventional terrorist organisation, unlike some of the other organisations to which this legislation may end up applying. Although I take the argument that, in many circumstances, you would not wish to fully treat the people who are operating as part of a state enterprise as terrorist operatives, it is the case that the IRGC has been, effectively, a full-blown terrorist organisation under our very eyes for many years. It would send a strong signal to treat it as such, with all the authority and the taboo which would surround even those state officials. They would try to claim diplomatic immunity, but we would say that the way this organisation operates is so heinous that they deserve the full force of terrorism law. I hope the Government are open to strengthening the approach.
In Committee, I intend to explore the approach to the displaying of insignia, the dissemination of publications and self-directing promotion of the group. My preference would be simply to put that on to the statute book. I would like also to explore the prospect of a flexible, discretionary approach to be applied to particular organisations by the Secretary of State through regulation. I hope that is an issue that we can get into in Committee.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, as my noble friends have said, we on these Benches strongly support the Bill, but with some caveats about process, scope and drafting. We felt bafflement and frustration as this Government—and indeed the last one—failed to act on the very obvious threat from the IRGC. The Conservative Government promised to in 2023 but did not deliver in office. But we then accepted that the tool of proscription had to be replaced by a new formula of designation for state bodies, although I note what the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said about Hezbollah, which was interesting. Jonathan Hall KC’s report was delivered over a year ago, and now, having dragged their feet, the Government want to rush the Bill through at unseemly speed, and at the possible expense of precision. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, suggested, understandably, that a draft Bill might have been preferable.
As the Minister said in his introduction, state threats are “both evolving and enduring”. The Bill needs to be scrutinised and stress-tested sufficiently in Committee that it produces lasting but nimble legislation, which is capable of future adaptation. We know that we are experiencing the equivalent of terrorist acts emanating from states such as Iran and Russia, in sabotage, physical attacks, arson, firebombing and propaganda—with Jewish communities often targeted, shamefully—as well as from China in spying, harassment and death threats to Hong Kong pro-democracy activists. Often proxies are used for these nefarious activities, in parallel with espionage and cyber threats from state intelligence agencies.
The Bill must be fit for designation of foreign power entities backed by any state. However, the IRGC is the clearest and most obvious one. These Benches therefore envisage seeking to amend the Bill so as to ensure, on its face, that IRGC designation is properly pursued within one month. This is an urgent priority. If not the IRGC, and not in this Bill, then who and when? The Minister made encouraging noises about designation for the IRGC, but no commitment. A commitment is needed—not the wiggle room that one suspects some bits of Government still seem to want.
We also wish to extend the offence of material assistance to a designated body to include the setting up and use of companies or trusts to hide the true ownership of assets belonging to that body, and we will explore that in Committee. My noble friend Lady Doocey also sought clarity that organisations could not escape the Bill’s net by operating from abroad in this digital world. She also suggested that foreign state threats in the Bill should be capable of including superintelligent AI tools.
Many noble Lords referred to humanitarian activities, conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts. Some of this activity requires, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, put it,
“intensive dialogue with brutal and unpleasant regimes to which it may be difficult … for western Governments to speak”.
I think we all accept that.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, explained the Opposition’s objection to the prohibited purpose offence having the limitation of being
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
One problem with removing this limitation is that it might expose the activities of humanitarian and peace- building organisations to criminalisation. Indeed, the fact that this limitation of the offence, or defence to it, does not appear in proposed new Sections 17B or 17C on assisting or material benefits, but only in proposed new Section 17A on supporting a foreign power entity, illustrates perhaps the worries raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, my noble friends Lady Tyler and Lady Northover, and others.
Other organisations besides the IRGC are in our minds. The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office has been mentioned in the debate, and it was debated yesterday. No doubt it was once an office that did what it said on the tin, but it now seems to be an extension of the transnational repression perpetrated by China.
The noble Lord, Lord Pickles, also raised the issue of organisations which might pose a threat but do not fit the definition of state-sponsored threats, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. One could, no doubt, think of others.
All noble Lords who have spoken have welcomed the Bill as an important step forward but will seek to ensure that it is watertight but adaptable, durable but not inflexible. We have a task before us in Committee. The Government would do well to benefit from all the expertise which has been on display in the Chamber today—and to listen and to incorporate changes where justified. As well as legal, diplomatic and other expertise, we are fortunate to have heard from not one, but two, former Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation, in the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile, as well as the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Let us draw on all the skills and talents to perfect the Bill. The Government would be making a mistake if they were just to rush through without listening to all the very well-intended suggestions for amendments that have been made.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House who have contributed to this thoughtful and stimulating debate. It is a great privilege to give the closing speech for the Opposition Benches, having heard from many noble Lords with a huge amount of expertise and experience in the legal, security and ISC sectors.
Before reflecting on the specific provisions in the Bill we would like to see refined, it is worth outlining the context in which your Lordships have received this legislation. The Opposition Benches have long recognised the growing threat posed by hostile state actors and their proxies, and we wholeheartedly support the aim of strengthening the tools available to protect the UK’s national security. Of course, we support the general principles of the Bill and concur with the motivations behind it.
I accept that the Bill goes beyond the IRGC. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave a long list of both threats and, sadly, events in the UK in recent years. The Bill rightly should cover state threats in general, but the IRGC is obviously and rightly the first target of the Bill. It is undeniable that the legislative provisions here should have been brought before Parliament long before now.
For many months, noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House have repeatedly called for stronger action against the IRGC, most recently in the Committee and Report stages of the Crime and Policing Bill, where time and again calls were made from many different quarters for proscription of the IRGC or an equivalent. Those calls were resisted, amendments were opposed, arguments were dismissed; the opinion of the House was tested but ignored. Yet we now find ourselves considering a Bill whose principal and primary purpose is to establish a legislative framework through which organisations such as the IRGC may be designated. That raises the question: if the Government accept the need for such a framework, why has action not been taken sooner? The threats posed by the Iranian regime and the IRGC did not suddenly emerge in recent weeks. Had the Government listened to arguments that were made in this Chamber months ago, Parliament would not now be scrutinising significant national security legislation to such compressed timescales. That matters because legislation must be more than well intentioned, it must be effective; where Parliament identifies legislative gaps or ambiguities, it is our duty to address them.
It is in that spirit that we approach this Bill, and it is in that spirit that I wish to address and emphasise a few of the concerns that my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower raised. The first is the prohibited purpose test. As it stands, Clause 2 enables hostile state proxies to receive greater protection than terrorist organisations, because it imposes a greater a burden on the prosecution than the Terrorism Act 2000. Pausing there, the point has been made most powerfully by the noble Lords, Lord Barrow and Lord Carlile, that we should not expect to simply cut and paste the Terrorism Act into this Bill. I acknowledge that, but the Terrorism Act remains the blueprint, and throughout Jonathan Hall’s report, he uses the phrase “equivalent to powers in the Terrorism Act” again and again. I appreciate the need for subtlety, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile called for, but, while the threats may be different, these are analogous statutory regimes. They are equivalents. The regime in this Bill should not be weaker than the Terrorism Act and any differences should have a clear rationale.
Returning to Clause 2, there are two conditions for the offence of supporting a designated body. They are inviting support for or expressing a belief that is supportive of a designated body and—this is the additional part—a requirement that support was given for a prohibited purpose that was prejudicial to the safety of the UK. The additional requirement that prosecutors must prove conduct as well as the defendant’s prohibited purpose creates an additional evidential burden. It makes it harder to prosecute and harder to secure a conviction, as well as adding another layer of bureaucracy in a process that should be fair but streamlined. As I have said, much of this Bill has been drafted with Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 as the blueprint, yet there is no similar provision in the Terrorism Act.
Turning secondly to preparatory conduct, there is a gap in the Bill as drafted in the prevention and prosecution of hostile activity before actual harm takes place. The purpose of national security legislation is to punish hostile activity and prevent it occurring. The Bill focuses primarily on completed acts of support, assistance or financial benefit to a designated body, and that leaves a gap, because it may be entirely feasible that law enforcement agencies are aware of an individual actively preparing to assist a designated organisation but lack the power to intervene until further steps have been taken. That is particularly concerning given the nature of modern hostile state activity, which often relies on recruitment, facilitation, planning and preparation long before any substantive offence is committed.
Parliament has long recognised that challenge in other areas of national security. The Terrorism Act contains a range of preparatory and precursor offences, and it reflects the principle that intervention at the earliest possible stage is often necessary to protect the public and safeguard national security. If the Government believe that designated organisations pose a sufficient threat to warrant the creation of this new designation regime, it is difficult to understand why similar preventive principles should not apply. In the other place, the Government said that the Bill had been deliberately drafted as a targeted and narrowly focused piece of legislation. Ministers stated that the Bill was intended to be narrow, but did not explain why this gap remains. The Bill being narrow does not necessarily mean it is complete. I hope that the Minister will clarify this point, because national security legislation is most effective when it enables disruption and prevention, as well as prosecution after the event.
Thirdly, on uniforms and insignia, the Bill creates an inconsistency with existing national security legislation by failing to address uniforms and insignia associated with designated organisations. It has been established in Parliament that support for dangerous organisations is not demonstrated solely through direct assistance or financial support. We know that uniforms and insignia can be used to demonstrate allegiance to a hostile organisation, they can intimidate communities and political opponents, and they can promote and legitimise dangerous organisations. Section 13 of the Terrorism Act makes it an offence to wear clothing or display articles in circumstances that arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, yet no equivalent provision appears in this Bill. That creates the illogical situation whereby Parliament can determine that an organisation presents a sufficient threat to warrant designation, but public displays of support for the same organisation remain lawful. The Government’s argument is essentially that designated organisations are different from terrorist organisations, but this again does not answer the central question. Why should organisations deemed sufficiently dangerous to be designated under this legislation be subject to weaker restrictions than terrorist organisations?
In closing, I reiterate that the concerns that my noble friend Lord Davies and I have raised are not objections to the principles of the Bill: rather, they are attempts to ensure that the framework we establish is as effective as possible. Legitimate questions have been raised during the course of this debate about the operation of particular provisions and the gaps that remain in the legislation. Narrowness is not a substitute for completeness. If there are weaknesses that can be addressed, Parliament must address them now. We should not leave them to be discovered later, in the course of prosecutions under this legislation. I thank the Government for finally bringing forward legislation in this area, but the task before your Lordships is not simply to welcome the Bill but to improve it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the 24 noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, and I am particularly grateful, if I may say so, for the contributions from the Front Benches of HM loyal Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Doocey, who gave broad support to the Bill but raised important questions—as did other noble Lords—which I will seek to respond to during the course of this debate.
I pay tribute also to Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, who contributed to this House right up to very recently. The comments from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, were welcome.
I start by reminding the House that this legislation was a manifesto commitment. According to Members today, it is long overdue or has been rushed. I am trying my best to find a happy medium that says that a manifesto commitment was put in place and the Home Secretary commissioned Jonathan Hall KC to produce a report three or four months after the commitment in the manifesto was ratified by the electorate. We commissioned that report. The report was produced to this Government in May or June last year. We have had time to consider that report. Colleagues in the House will know that last year’s parliamentary Session was very busy and crammed, and we wanted to bring legislation forward at the first opportunity. At the first opportunity, in the gracious Speech, we brought forward this legislation, and we have brought it forward now to give a framework—again I say to the House—for the Home Secretary to be able to act on that framework in very short order if Royal Assent is achieved. So, whether it is rushed or long overdue, I hope the House will have patience that we are trying to do the right thing to deal with severe threats.
I noted particularly that the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said we had to stay ahead of the threats. I accept that in full. We had my noble friend Lord Beamish speaking from the ISC perspective. My noble friends Lady Gill and Lady Dacres of Lewisham, the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, who speaks with great experience, the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Enfield and Lady Verma, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, all pointed to the important fact that the director-general of MI5 has said to the Government, the House and the public that state threats have increased by 35%. So we need to take action, we understand we need to take action and we need to do it in a way that maintains the cohesion of the community, as the noble Baroness has said.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Polak, that his personal experience is one that should not be acceptable to society as a whole. His grandchildren should not fear walking to school or face barriers that my grandchildren do not face just because, although we were both born in the same city, we have different cultural and religious backgrounds. His grandchildren should not face threats for those reasons. The impacts on individuals should be in our minds in all that we do to progress this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, reminded us of the freedoms for which our grandparents and great-grandparents fought; they are important in all that we do.
A number of major issues have been raised; I will try to deal with each in turn. They include the IRGC, self-evidently, as well as issues with other nations; the preparatory act issue; the prohibited purpose issue; uniforms and insignia; the humanitarian issue, which a lot of noble Lords have spoken to in detail; the issue of a review; and a series of other issues that I will try to touch on if time allows.
The House has tempted me to talk about individual nations: China, Russia and, indeed, Iran. I will explain to the House again that the Bill is a framework through which the Home Secretary can take action, on advice, via the affirmative resolution procedure—to go to the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey—for designation of any particular body.
The IRGC has been mentioned, in particular, by the noble Lords, Lord Davies, Lord Beamish, Lord Barrow, Lord Walney and Lord Alton of Liverpool, as well as by the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey, Lady Neville-Jones, Lady Tyler of Enfield and Lady Verma. I understand those concerns. That is why we have put sanctions on the IRGC and taken a range of measures against IRGC members already. However, the powers under this Bill are a framework for the Home Secretary to look at the significant implications that this will have for national security and for foreign policy. Parliament should set a framework about how these powers are used.
I say to all those who have raised the IRGC in particular that the Government understand that absolutely but, if the Bill receives Royal Assent, the framework will be for the Home Secretary to determine how and when this power is used. Again, I come back to the point that there will be an affirmative instrument in the event of any designation being proposed, but I will not comment on the IRGC in particular. As I have explained privately to both Front-Benchers, the hybridity of this Bill, with the IRGC included, would damage early on its capability to take these matters forward. I hope that we can look at the power in the Bill without, at the moment, looking at how it will be used.
The second issue, which was raised by the Opposition Front Bench in particular and which I understand, was about the preparatory conduct offence. I argue that this additional offence is not needed. Preparatory conduct is an offence in the existing National Security Act under Section 18, and that offence applies to specific offences, including spying, espionage, entering a prohibited place for a prejudicial purpose and sabotage. It also covers acts of violence, serious risk and issues impacting on members of the public in the UK. I argue that such an offence is not needed in this Bill. We may end up having a debate in Committee on that but I just want to say that to the noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned the prohibited purpose test in his opening remarks. It had been suggested that this test, which applies to the support offence in new Section 17A, is unnecessary and should be removed. I reiterate that doing so would criminalise legitimate humanitarian aid activity. The inclusion of this test reflects that there will be occasions—even though we might not like it—where UK persons need to have legitimate dealings with a state entity. That will be so whether it is a British diplomat or an NGO delivering humanitarian aid. To remove that would, in my view, be very difficult and challenging. Again, we may revisit that in Committee, but I hope that we can accept those arguments for the moment.
There has also been a question about overseas activity. It was suggested the Bill does not go far enough in the support offence as it applies to overseas activity. It is claimed that the offence should reapply to assisting a designated body in any activity overseas. Again, we can reflect on this in the next few days, but I suggest that such an amendment would be unnecessary. The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, touched on this. I will come back to his point in a moment, but new Section 17B, to be introduced by Clause 2, will make it an offence to “assist a designated body” in its overseas activity where those activities are
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
To give a concrete example, a UK person assisting a designated body in its efforts to disrupt the military supply chain of an ally would commit an offence, because the ally is still an ally; that is the key necessary test. Similarly, the Bill already deals with those who are inspired by state actors to commit self-directed acts. That is because the offences at new Sections 17A and 17B do not require there to be any direction or tasking from a designated body, only an intention to support that body.
The fourth issue that has been raised is the important issue of criminalising the wearing of uniforms and insignia. We asked Jonathan Hall KC to review this area of legislation. His report, which was independently produced, made it clear why it was necessary to take a different approach for state bodies. It would impact on legitimate engagement with a designated state body, which would need to continue, for example, on diplomatic channels. Like it or not, that is the reality of the world at large. We have instead crafted the support offence to ensure that it would capture conduct that was calculated to advance the harmful activities of the designated body. This would include the use of insignia and publication of images to support the designated body where the person wears, displays or publishes for a purpose that is prejudicial to the UK—again, that key legal test.
In touching on that area, I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, about passport seizure. We are committed to legislating on that. We are going to do it; we are just not going to do it in this Bill, which is a specifically designed piece of legislation to give powers to the Home Secretary. We will have further national security legislation later in his Parliament.
A number of noble Lords mentioned humanitarian aid. I will focus on that in detail as it is an important issue. In particular, the noble Lords, Lord Barrow, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised these issues. I assure noble Lords that we have crafted the Bill to ensure that legitimate activities, such as diplomacy and activities that support basic human needs, are not caught within the offences. The key test here is that support for a designated body or overseas activities by the body must be
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
Our officials have already talked with a number of NGOs. Ministers will meet with the Red Cross very shortly to listen to its concerns and we are satisfied that the tests in the Bill properly protect legitimate humanitarian assistance. The noble Baronesses, Lady Helic, Lady D’Souza, Lady Northover and Lady Tyler of Enfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, all raised this issue.
I will try to help the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, by covering Pepper v Hart. Receipt of information by an aid worker would not be criminalised by this Bill. “Information” in the Bill does not mean any information, as is clear from the preceding words. It has to possess an inherent value that enriches the recipient. I am happy to make a Pepper v Hart statement that new Section 17C does not apply. Likewise, I am happy to confirm that new Sections 17A and 17B will not criminalise legitimate humanitarian aid, as that is not contrary to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, mentioned, there is a legal backstop on this, in that the security decisions on those prosecutions are ultimately taken by the Attorney-General in these areas.
I also do not want to create a blanket exemption that could be easily exploited by state actors. That is an important issue. I have a genuine concern that exemptions could potentially create a relatively simple loophole for hostile actors to exploit, but I reassure all those who have spoken on this issue that it is not the intention of the Bill to criminalise the provision of legitimate humanitarian aid, and that is not the effect of the offences as drafted. This was clearly set out by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the other House last week, and we will of course look at this in detail.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
The Minister has referred a number of times to humanitarian aid and to diplomacy. Of course diplomats have a special defence or exemption of their own, but he has not said anything about those engaged in the prevention or resolution of conflict. I wonder if he would like to associate them with the statements he has made about humanitarian aid.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am happy to do that, but I want to give clarity on these matters. If the noble Lord will allow me, given that that has been raised separately, I will write to him with an assurance on that and share that with both Opposition Front Benches so that they are aware of that. I want to give absolute legal clarity, as the noble Lord would expect, on these matters.
Baroness Northover (LD)
When is the Minister intending to meet the Red Cross?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Life and diaries are fluid, but it will be before Committee, Report and Third Reading of the Bill next week. So it will not be after that. It will be before that. As we speak, representations and diaries are being co-ordinated. I will leave it at that.
The sixth vital point, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Tyler of Enfield, and the noble Lords, Lord Barrow and Lord Carlile, is the issue of whether there will be a review. That is a valid and significant point but, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, the National Security Act 2023 already gives the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation the right to oversight and mandates them to carry out an annual review of the operations of the provisions of the Bill. I hope that is sufficient to head off at the pass an amendment on this issue, not because an amendment would be right or wrong or unnecessary but because the Bill is already covered by the National Security Act on those particular points.
The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, mentioned in passing the question whether the offence of assisting a designated body would not capture non-UK nationals. I say to him that a non-UK national planning an attack in the UK from overseas would be materially assisting activities taking place in the UK. It is the activities of the designated body, such as an attack in the UK, that determine whether assistance is captured. The Bill also introduces the designated body condition, which allows the existing National Security Act offences to apply to activity linked to designated bodies, not just to foreign states.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, continues, correctly, to chew at my ankles about the issue of transnational repression. I would argue that the Bill will make it easier to achieve prosecutions where there is a designated body, such as a proxy organisation, involved in transnational repression. We will continue, as I said yesterday in our Statement, to try to tackle transnational repression in a number of ways.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful for the opportunity to chew at the noble Minister’s ankles again. I want to ask him specifically whether he will continue the discussions that the Security Minister’s office has been having about the United Front Work Department that acts on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party, which would not be covered by the terms of the Bill. Although I agree that he would not want to put actors on the face of the Bill, the generic issues that it involves should be there. Perhaps he could also take the opportunity of confirming whether he will circulate the reply that he has sent to me on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to Members who have spoken in today’s debate.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely. I will make sure that the reply I gave to the noble Lord in recent times is sent out, because this is moving at a fast pace and we are trying to get the matter sorted. I will do that for the noble Lord, and I will refer the points that he has made to the Security Minister.
My noble friend Lady Dacres rightly mentioned the question of diaspora. The power is actor agnostic and applies equally to all individuals in the UK, so we are not targeting any particular diaspora. It targets conduct that is carried out for a purpose prejudicial to the UK’s safety.
The question of—I use this phrase guardedly—“useful idiots” was quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and echoed by my noble friend Lady Gill. The new offences concern various thresholds for criminals to be caught. For example, criminals can be caught by the offence of assisting a designated body where they ought to know that their conduct is materially existing a designated body. However, it is also important to put on the record for the noble Baroness that criminals do not need to know that a group has been designated for offences to be committed. I hope that deals with the issue of “useful idiots”—I call them terrorists, but “useful idiots” is also a reasonable phrase that we can attribute to them.
My noble friend Lady Gill and the noble Lord, Lord Docherty of Milngavie, mentioned the issue of how cryptocurrency used by designated bodies or individuals can be held more accountable. The Government have already committed to tackling all forms of economic crime, including the misuse of crypto assets. All UK crypto asset firms are now required to register with the Financial Conduct Authority to comply with money-laundering legislation. We have also strengthened law enforcement through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, and we are now going to go further with the introduction of further measures, including the Financial Conduct Authority delivering a new crypto asset regulatory regime, UK crypto asset firms being required to conduct due diligence and the financial services Bill 2026 introducing targeted powers to allow more crypto asset recovery powers.
I am trying to cover all the points that noble Lords have mentioned in the time available, and I hope I have done so, but I will read Hansard and, if there are further points, I will respond to them. What I want to do, and this is the key point, is get the Bill through to Royal Assent so the Home Secretary can determine how she uses its powers to deal with the issues that have been raised on the Floor of the House today. That is an important measure. I want to ensure that, between now and next Tuesday, we deal with those points and get a consensus to pass the Bill, make it an Act, get it to His Majesty the King to give Royal Assent and then, as a matter of some urgency, determine how we tackle the many threats that are facing this country at the moment.
I thank noble Lords for their engagement and the expertise that they have brought to this debate today. Ultimately, I commend the Bill for Second Reading, and I hope that the House will support it tonight.
Carbon Budget Order 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:58 - Division on the amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 61 / Noes: 60 - Amendment to the Motion agreed.
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Order laid before the House on 2 June be approved.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the committee for its consideration. The draft Carbon Budget Order 2026 was laid before the House on 2 June and the draft Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2026 on 14 April.
Given that we are sitting here this evening on the second of the four hottest days there ever have been in June, after a similar number of hottest ever days in May, we may think that the question of whether we should debate doing anything about climate change answers itself. We have a far more scientific way to act on climate change at the moment, as this Carbon Budget Order sets a science-led budget to reduce emissions by about 87% for the period 2038 to 2042 compared to 1990 levels. This is in line with the level recommended by the independent Climate Change Committee and endorsed by the Environmental Audit Committee.
The detailed impact assessment published alongside the Carbon Budget Order provides a rigorous assessment of options, all showing significant benefits of continuing towards net zero over abandoning it. The proposed seventh carbon budget sets a pragmatic and achievable path that will enable the UK to continue seizing the benefits of clean energy and climate action, including energy security, lower bills, good jobs and growth, and health and nature benefits. This is also consistent with the action needed globally to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, building on the UK’s 1.5 degree-aligned nationally determined contribution for 2035. We can fight for our national interest only by pushing for global action built on the power of our domestic example.
A delivery plan setting out how carbon budget seven will be met will be published as soon as reasonably practical after Parliament has approved the budget. I emphasise that what we are debating today is the level at which carbon budget seven should be set. We are not debating—or should not be debating—the policies that will be set by the Government in response, to make sure they can meet that level. Those policies, as I have emphasised, will be published shortly but are not really a question for debate in detail today.
Under the Climate Change Act, the Secretary of State is required to set a limit on the number of international credits that can be used towards a carbon budget at least 18 months before the budget period starts. That is very relevant to the second SI we are discussing tonight, concerning the credit limit order. This order sets a zero credit limit for the carbon budget five period of 2028 to 2032. It does not represent a change in policy but reflects the fact that carbon budget five can be met through domestic action. All other carbon budgets to date have been delivered solely through domestic action. The order takes into account the advice of the independent Committee on Climate Change that carbon budget five can, and should, be achieved without the use of international credits, and this also ensures that the UK economy will profit from the co-benefits of the transition.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has reported on the Carbon Budget Order, and I am grateful to the committee for its report and the careful consideration of this draft instrument. The committee noted the importance of incentivising the shift to clean electricity. The Government recognise that rebalancing the price ratio between electricity and gas is important to long-term fairness so that electricity prices reflect the falling cost of clean power.
We are taking steps to address this from Budget 2025, removing £150 off energy bills due to the success of the contracts for different scheme in bringing forth new renewable assets at fixed competitive prices, which are beginning to decouple electricity and gas markets. Reformed national pricing enables us to further bear down on network constraint costs and improve system efficiency.
I recognise the non-fatal amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for discussion today and I will address the points he has raised in turn. In relation to the Carbon Budget Order, the noble Lord first suggests that this will increase reliance on intermittent renewables. The Government are, in fact, strengthening energy security by reducing dependency on volatile fossil fuel markets and delivering a diverse, secure and clean energy system. This will be backed by unabated gas only when it is essential, and any residual emissions would be offset by removals.
The noble Lord suggests that the order will cause higher energy prices. The main driver of high energy costs has been global gas prices, which have also pushed up electricity prices. Clean power is what will give us control over prices, with the offshore wind secured in a recent auction being 40% cheaper than building and operating new gas plants.
On causing deindustrialisation, this Government are committed to supporting UK industry to decarbonise, while protecting and creating thousands of jobs across the UK. We are taking ambitious steps to lay the groundwork for further industry investment. Last year, the Government set out their modern industrial strategy, which will drive forward ambition for UK business operating in the clean energy space.
With regard to economic growth, setting carbon budget seven at this level builds on the UK’s pioneering Climate Change Act 2008, providing a framework for combining economic growth and climate action. I have a fairly simple and straightforward comparison. The UK has cut its emissions by 54% since 1990, while growing the economy by over 85%. In other words, emissions reduction and growing the economy have been fully and effectively decoupled over that period. Indeed, since July 2024, the UK has seen over £100 billion of private clean energy investment announced and the Government’s clean energy plans are expected to support 400,000 extra jobs by 2030.
With regard to claims that retaining the carbon tax negatively impacts households and industry, the biggest threat to energy security is the UK’s dependency on volatile fossil fuel markets, not the carbon price applied under the emissions trading scheme. The UK has had an emissions trading scheme in place for over 20 years. It provides stability to UK businesses and industries, supporting them to take long-term investment and planning decisions, while “free allowances” protect sectors at risk of carbon leakage, ensuring we decarbonise over time without undermining UK competitiveness, and limits many sectors’ exposure to the carbon price. It has already played a key role in ending the burning of coal for electricity, setting us on our way to being a clean energy superpower.
On behaviour change, the noble Lord suggests that the Carbon Budget Order relates to a reduction in livestock numbers and meat and dairy consumption. This Government have been clear that we will meet our targets in a way that does not tell people how to live and behave. The transition will be led by consumer choice. Accepting the CCC’s recommended target does not mean we replicate its pathway.
I am sure a number of other issues will be raised in the debate, including offshoring UK emissions. Clear actions are being undertaken—CBAM and various other things—to make sure that does not happen and we are taking precautionary action to prevent carbon leakage.
In conclusion, these orders set a clear, credible pathway to net zero and ensure that these emissions reductions are delivered at home. I urge noble Lords to act together in the interest of current and future generations by agreeing these statutory instruments, which will give us energy security, lower bills, good jobs, cleaner air and protect our homes for our children and grandchildren. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan
At end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Order will increase the UK’s reliance on intermittent renewables, causing higher energy prices, further deindustrialisation and lower economic growth; is contingent on retaining a carbon tax which will impoverish households and industry; requires a reduction in livestock numbers and meat and dairy consumption; and will encourage the offshoring of emissions to countries with more polluting energy systems.”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, while preceding my noble friend Lord Deben, I pay tribute to his lifetime work on climate change and, while our views will certainly differ this evening, I share with him a passionate belief that we should work towards tackling climate change—he will agree that there are many different routes to achieving that goal. We are meant to be the revising Chamber, capable of detailed consideration of government measures, yet we have just six minutes each and, as the Minister has shown, that is insufficient.
As Minister for Energy in the salient benchmark year of 1990, I launched the first renewables round, the non-fossil fuel obligation, while encouraging the growth in offshore gas, with strong environmental prerequisites to ban non-essential flaring, and securing gas to CCGTs, thus creating firm low-cost power to generate economic growth, jobs and prosperity. Low-cost electricity is the lifeblood of a successful economy. My business career and time in politics have taught me that a headlong rush based on DESNZ zealotry will be costly and unattainable; it will not just jeopardise but destroy economic growth.
The UK produced circa 367 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2025, meaning that by 2039 we will have to reduce our annual emissions by more than two-thirds, with all the low-hanging fruit already picked. The capital and finance costs alone are estimated to be £880 billion. Government claims for the benefits are all target-derived prices to justify the policy, and we have seen the stumbling blocks impeding the rollout of heat pumps and zero-emission vehicles, not to mention the commercial challenges facing carbon capture and storage.
The Climate Change Committee has estimated that, in order to meet the emissions target, household consumption of meat and dairy would have to fall by 25%. The number of sheep and cattle would have to fall by 50%. Farmers will be required to diversify away from livestock farming to double tree-planting rates by 2030 and double peatland restoration by 2040. Where is the plan? When will the Government tell the public that they intend to halve the number of sheep and cattle in the United Kingdom, with inevitable price increases in the supermarkets? When do the Government intend to tell the residential building sector that it will have to spend up to £15 billion a year on low-carbon heating systems?
Add to all this the costs we introduce through this measure: demand management to apply to air travel, increasing the cost of short-haul flights, such as between London and Alicante, by £150 and long-haul flights, such as between London and New York, by £300. Industry is already facing the stark reality of the highest prices for electricity in the OECD, but the Climate Change Committee now estimates that British industry would face net costs of up to £3 billion per year in every year between 2025 and 2050. Does Ed Miliband have the remotest idea of what this will do to British industry and the economy?
What is worse is that my reading of the economics is that the capital expenditures required for solar and offshore wind are hugely underestimated. Perhaps the Minister can explain how the CCC expects offshore wind to cost around £1,500 per kilowatt hour, whereas actual projects such as Hornsea 3 are expected to cost over double that. If he cannot, the up-front capital costs are underestimated, making the CCC’s claim of operating cost savings compared with fossil fuels highly questionable. I look for the CCC’s total gross cost of its pathways and I cannot understand why they are absent. No wonder the UK boss of EDF Energy has said:
“We should stop building wind farms and focus instead on raising demand for electricity … As a country, we’ve always got it wrong … So now we have this large infrastructure, twice as much as we need, which means we also need to build twice”
the transmission grid. No wonder almost £800 million has been spent on so-called curtailment payments so far this year alone, putting 2026 on course to eclipse the £1.4 billion spent on switching off turbines last year.
Heavy manufacturing and chemical sectors have argued that the orders before us this evening introduce additional bureaucracy without tangible environmental benefits. Customers are understandably worried about the costs burden and the major lifestyle changes required by law—not by choice, as the Minister just said, but by law—in how people heat their homes, what they can eat and how they travel.
All this is based on an accounting policy which wholly ignores the impact on global warming from the supply chains that we rely on. We are blind to the coal-fired CO2-belching furnaces in China, many in Xinjiang province with Uyghur labour, which produce the polycrystalline in solar panels for us. China delivers an estimated 140 million to 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually just by manufacturing solar panels, accounting for about 1% of China’s total annual emission, and we do not count that. The Democratic Republic of the Congo produces 70% of the world’s cobalt—a core component in the lithium-ion batteries used for electric vehicles and grid-scale energy storage—with its forced evictions, land disposals and child labour, and we do not count that. We ignore that.
We do not have clean, home-grown energy. It is time to prioritise cheap energy over clean energy, remove the heavy weight of carbon taxes from our electricity prices, and exploit all remaining North Sea oil and gas reserves, in the same way the Norwegians do on their side of the median line, with gas which is four times less polluting than the LNG that we have to import instead from the States. That would strengthen our energy security.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as having been chairman of the Climate Change Committee for 11 years. I also chair a company advising on sustainability, business continuity and risk, and I am a partner in a small organic arable and livestock farm—so it may be said that one knows a little bit about what we are talking about.
I say to my noble friend that I listened to him make a brilliant speech yesterday on sport, and the brilliance of it was that he explained, first, why the Government had got it wrong and, secondly, how to put it right. The problem with his speech this evening is that neither of those has been part of it. It is no good standing up and saying that they do not like this or that. The truth is that a Conservative Government, when previously in opposition, were the creators of the Climate Change Act and they turned it into a cross-party agreement. Every Conservative Government have supported these policies to end up with meeting the Paris Agreement, which a Conservative Government signed. Yet at the moment all we hear is opposition to what is being proposed by the Government, on the basis of the very best advice that they could have.
There are a number of things that I think the Government are getting wrong. Any idea of loosening the movement to EVs is a great mistake, and the Government are also spending too much money on carbon capture and storage, as a matter of fact. But those are reasonable arguments to have from the point of view that we actually have to protect ourselves from the climate change that, surely, we are beginning to understand—as all the businesses I deal with understand —is no longer on the risk register: it is on today’s issue. How do we deal with this? The public and our grandchildren will never forgive us if what we do is to pretend that we are in favour of it in general, but not actually prepared to take the measures that are necessary. These figures are the necessary measures and are done far enough in advance for us to be able to deal with this.
It is very interesting that we should talk about intermittent renewables. The intermittency at the moment is with fossil fuels; the problem is that we cannot rely on them. It is also interesting that this is evidently “causing higher energy prices”, as 67% of the higher prices in this country and around Europe are because of the higher price of gas. What my noble friend proposes is to spend more money and more time on gas, instead of recognising that there is another fault of this Government, which is that they have wrongly continued the Conservative policy, which I opposed for 20 years, to put the costs of the necessary change on customers’ bills, instead of what they did between 1945 and 1951, when the Labour Party made the last huge change in our system and rightly said that that was a taxpayer’s price. If that came off now and was put on to the taxpayer’s bill, we would be properly competitive, and we would become more and more competitive as we moved.
It is all right talking about the Chinese—the Chinese are going to reach net zero by 2060, which means 2050, because they always promise in advance much less than they actually deliver. Every other country in the world that is thinking about the future is moving in this direction, because renewables are dependable and they are also cheaper. There is this idea that renewables are somehow deindustrialising Britain, but, since the Climate Change Act was passed, the GVA of the manufacturing industry has grown in real terms, and the CBI points out that there was £105 billion in added value in 2025 alone. This is a whole operation presented improperly. There is nothing in this order that is going to change whether I can grow my excellent red poll cattle.
The fact is that the reduction in our meat eating that the Climate Change Committee suggests we make is considerably less than that the medics think we ought to make; considerably less than Dimbleby, in his food strategy, said that we ought to make; and is less than what is now happening naturally. We have seen a 10% cut in the way people are eating, and there is nothing in this order that forces people to do more than that. We have to recognise that many of the people who will oppose this tonight are the same people who told us how wonderful leaving the European Union was, and the truth of the matter is that we can look at that. We have to look forward to a society in which we have protected our children and grandchildren from the menace of climate change, and until the Opposition are prepared to stand up with an alternative system that delivers that, it must be right to support what the Government are putting forward.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, as a Member of Parliament, I was unable to vote for the original climate change legislation. It seemed to be totally unrealistic, it was likely to be extremely expensive, and I thought it would be self-defeating. It was quite obvious that a large number of important economies around the world would not adopt this. It was extremely likely that an economy such as China would use the huge opportunity of our self-inflicted wound to export more and more to us—burning lots of coal and gas and marine diesel to get it here—and that we would deindustrialise too rapidly. Of course, that is exactly what is happening.
My noble friend on these Benches has just asserted that we have not deindustrialised, but he needs to look at the facts. We are losing massive amounts of traditional industry in petrochemicals, ceramics, glass and glass fibre. Many companies have gone down, many plants are being closed, and we are losing our traditional steel industry. It is true that we have had great success in industries such as pharmaceuticals. That may have been what my noble friend had in mind with the figures he was quoting, but he cannot get away from the fact that this is now doing huge damage: closing factories, closing plants, and causing a loss of jobs.
My first objection to the Government’s proposal tonight is that we should not adopt a very tough national carbon budget without knowing what the impact is going to be on carbon dioxide produced elsewhere in the world. You need to look at the net position, not just at the UK’s position. I suspect that the future will be like the last 20 years: there will not be a big net reduction in world CO. There will probably be an increase in world CO, because of all the extra marine diesel needed for the imports; because of a shift from gas down a pipe from our own fields to LNG, which my noble friend on the Front Bench has stressed is much more CO intensive; and because, for traditional industrial products, we will be more and more dependent on countries that may use methods that are more CO intensive—as well as all the obvious extra environmental costs those countries will incur, from the way they get the raw materials out of the ground, to the social costs of the conditions of labour that they use for producing the products, and the extra transport involved in the imports.
My second big objection to this order is cost. We are given a provisional figure of £880 billion, or £35 billion a year. My noble friend is right that this is likely to be a gross underestimate of the true cost. I challenge the Minister on how much he thinks grid expansion will cost, because the grid expansion will have to be on a completely unprecedented scale. When all the energy sources come from renewables, rather than the more dependable gas-fired sources—which do not need nearly so much grid—the Minister will need a much bigger grid to deliver the current amount of power that we need. Further, since electricity is still a minority part of the power we use, if we are going to treble or quadruple our use of electricity to replace the gas that we burn in our home heating, and the petrol and diesel we burn in our transport, the mind boggles at just how many pylons there will need to be around the country, and at just how much grid capacity there will have to be to deliver all that extra power.
The Minister also needs to understand that, while he is right legally that he can meet his commitments now by coming up with a—probably completely fictional—plan for the amount of carbon the country will produce over the next 12 to 16 years, he does not have to show in any detail how we might get there. My advice to all Governments is not to try to predict the future beyond 10 years, because nobody can. Everything is going to change. A year ago, we could not even predict who the Prime Minister of the current Government was going to be, but we meet tonight on the eve of a new Prime Minister. So how on earth can we predict how big the UK economy is going to be in 2040? How can we predict whether any of our industry of a traditional kind will survive or not? How can we predict what the technologies will be? It may be that the so-called new technologies around the lithium-ion battery—currently the main marketing ploy of those who favour this kind of policy—will be completely old hat in 10 or 15-years’ time. There may be something genuinely better. There may be an electric product that I want to buy because it works well and is genuinely cheaper.
My next challenge to the Minister is that I do not believe this line that electricity is cheap and will get cheaper with the more renewables we use. The evidence is there for all to see. We have gone further than most with renewables. We have the dearest electricity in the advanced world, and one of the reasons for that is the cost of renewable—a lot of renewable power is contracted at very high guaranteed prices. Worse still, we need the gas power stations, and we need to pay them for doing nothing, because you need the backup. Of course it is going to be a lot dearer to have electricity from renewables, because you have to pay twice to have two different lots of capital equipment. The Minister has wisely limited my time, so I will have to suffice with just those few very strong objections. I back my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate so far. I thank my noble friend for his very detailed explanation of the order before us. I am not sure that we are spending much time on the detail of the order, as he requested, and we are clearly turning this into a debate about net zero and climate change. Although the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, acknowledged climate change, I must say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, it is very difficult to square what is being said tonight by Members of the party opposite—and, I suspect, by rather a few more of them as the debate ensues—with what the Conservative Government did. After all, it was the Conservative Government who legislated for net zero. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, did not vote for it, but it was their responsibility. They signed the Paris Agreement. The Sunak Government made a bold statement that
“energy transition and net zero are among the greatest opportunities facing this country”,
as indeed they are. We may hear a little bit about North Sea oil and gas, as the party opposite now seems obsessed with that. It is worth pointing out that, between 2010 and 2024, production in the North Sea halved under the Conservative Government’s stewardship.
I come back to the pertinent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Both the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, have criticised carbon budgets and the whole net-zero approach by the Government, but what is the alternative? It is rare now for members of the Conservative Party to say that they do not believe in climate change, but it is almost, as St Augustine said, “Oh Lord, deliver us from sin, but not yet”—“We will tackle climate change at some point in the future, but let us carry on with our obsession with oil and gas”.
I turn to business. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to the CBI report, but this is one of the most thriving sectors of our economy. In fact, looking at the last year of the Conservative Government, it was the one sector that actually gave us some growth in the economy, yet they want to snap it off, whereas our competitors have seen that the impact of the green/net-zero economy can be profoundly changing and progressive and give so many opportunities to people. The CBI report says that the net-zero economy now supports 1.1 million full-time equivalent jobs—and they are good jobs, jobs that our young people can go into.
On China and the international experience, we are lectured that, somehow, by going into a leadership role in relation to decarbonisation, we are letting other countries take great advantage. If noble Lords look at the reports of the International Energy Agency, particularly its 2025 report on renewables, they will see that there is a huge advance in the use of low-carbon energies globally. China currently accounts for 60% of global renewable capacity growth. It is going to meet its targets way ahead of schedule, in 2035. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben: it tends to set conservative targets and then meet them much more quickly, so to talk about China as if it is simply carrying on with oil, gas and coal is misleading.
The North Sea, if I can just end on that, has been a tremendous asset to our country. If only we had set up a sovereign wealth fund to invest in our infrastructure, like Norway did, I think we would be in a much better condition. The people working there are brilliant people, but if noble Lords look at the North Sea Transition Authority’s estimates, it reckons that only around 10% of the basin’s historic output could be recovered in the future. Analysis by the University of Oxford’s Smith School, using pre-crisis price data, suggests that households powered fully by renewable energy could save up to £441 per year on energy bills. By comparison, maximising North Sea oil and gas extraction was estimated to reduce household costs by around £16 to £82 per year. As we know, increasing UK production—and it would be a marginal increase in UK production—would not directly reduce prices, because we do not influence global prices and we buy on the global market.
I also point out that the Conservative Government, over 14 years, issued many licences for expropriation and extraction in the North Sea. That actually led to only 20 developments, which, I understand, would produce the equivalent of just 36 days of extra gas. So the challenge for the party opposite, it seems to me, is to stop running down the approach and the consensus that we have on net zero, and if it is opposed to it, it should come up with some suggestions about how we might go forward.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will address carbon pricing in the UK, its unfortunate consequences for policy-making, and its devastating results for the public purse and the future of our economy. This confusion is embedded in these instruments, so I speak in support of my noble friend’s amendment. I refer the House to my registered interests as an owner and developer of wind and solar energy generation projects, and as an owner and developer of forests that target carbon sequestration under the Woodland Carbon Code, as well as growing timber that addresses the UK’s structural deficit in construction-grade timber. I am also a partially regenerative dairy and beef farmer.
Our carbon pricing in the UK is muddled. UK Woodland Carbon Code units trade at around £30 per tonne; the UK Emissions Trading Scheme is trading at around £55 to £60 per tonne; the Government’s internal valuation for carbon emissions, used in calculating the relative merits of policy and projects, ranges from a low case of £130 to a high of £390 for this year, and that rises to £568 in 2050. The average carbon emissions per head in the UK are nine tonnes per annum, and that includes scope 2 and scope 3—so offshore emissions. That can be offset for a total cost of £270 through woodland carbon units or £510 through the emissions trading scheme, yet the Government’s cost, used for policy, implies up to £3,510 per head. The first two figures sound reasonably affordable to me, the third does not sound at all affordable.
I believe we are expecting the Government to publish an update to this valuation framework alongside this Carbon Budget Order. I ask the Minister, first, when is this five-year review of valuation of greenhouse emissions likely to be published? Secondly, is he prepared to look again at the whole basis of how this valuation is done, in order to create an environment for better policy-making? The argument that this is based on marginal abatement cost is ludicrous. In effect, the Government are using the extortionate cost of some of the technologies they are throwing money at to justify that cost. In Microsoft Excel, this would cause a circular reference error.
Net zero can be achieved through pragmatic decision-making based on an orderly market where technologies are assessed based on the cost of carbon set by buyers and sellers. Unfortunately, this Government are chasing fantasies around green hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and direct air capture, as well as some of the renewable projects coming forward, and these have been justified by this ludicrous carbon pricing. It is leading us to ruin, discredits any efforts to keep atmospheric carbon down, and needs to be reassessed. It takes no heed of affordability for the consumer, who feels cost of living pressures everywhere, and is already providing huge subsidies to renewable energy and grid improvements through electricity bills, and suffering the tax burden of funding fantastical technologies, when this money really should be spent on our defence. It pays no heed to industry, which is forced to compete with peers that can access considerably cheaper power almost anywhere in the world. As my noble friend has described, this will simply lead to our jobs and industry being taken offshore, and probably means that the best chance of meeting these targets is by deindustrialising our economy even further.
My noble friend’s amendment regrets the impact on meat and livestock production and consumption, which I fully support. Latest scientific evidence and dietary advice concludes that animal protein, fat and vitamins are critical to our health. Calculations underpinning livestock’s impact on greenhouse gases are highly biased and unfairly penalise livestock for the transitory impact of methane in the atmosphere. They fail to recognise that livestock farming, particularly in a regenerative system, is simply recirculating carbon, in the same way as supposedly sustainable aviation fuel, Drax and renewable heating installations. Why are animals being villainised while these are promoted and grant-aided? This also undermines the affordability of dealing with climate change, exposes the Government to ridicule and poses a threat to our health. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. I declare my interest as the owner of a Welsh upland portfolio with agricultural tenancies, livestock, woodland and heritage assets serviced by renewables. I am therefore someone who lives with both the duty of stewardship and the economics of the transition we are debating. Let me say at the outset that I am not going to deny the science nor unpick the architecture of the Climate Change Act: climate change is a real and present threat to our food, our water, our coasts and our security, and the Conservative tradition of conservation demands that we take it seriously. My concern today is not with the direction of travel, it is with the means. The means before us are too reliant on central direction, too costly and too inattentive to the people and the industries asked to carry them.
Let us consider the foundation of this budget. The Climate Change Committee tells us that electrification must deliver around 60% of the savings through heat pumps in our homes and electric vehicles on our roads. Yet we ask families and businesses to electrify while our electricity remains among the most expensive in the developed world.
The ratio of electricity to gas prices in this country is roughly 4:1, against the European average of 3:1. If we want people to make the switch, the most effective step this Government could take is to make clean electricity cheaper, through levy reform, market reform and competitive auctions, rather than through state-led projects that risk crowding out private investment and adding further cost to the bill.
Let me give your Lordships an example. At the house in north Wales that I mentioned in my interests, the domestic hot water and heating is generated by two water-source heat pumps. However, electricity becoming so expensive has blown out of the water all the projections of cost saving and non-domestic RHI—they went completely out of the window. We have had to consider whether it would be more worthwhile to turn them off and go back to LPG. I am sure we are not alone in facing that cost crisis. Affordable power is not a threat to this budget: it is the condition for delivering it.
Then there is the land. The committee’s pathway implies halving the national flock and herd and reducing consumption of meat and dairy by a quarter. I know the people who farm that land. They are the ones who plant the trees, restore the peat and work to hold carbon in our soils, because good farmers have long been among our first conservationists. However, we do not decarbonise this country by reducing British livestock production and importing food from countries that farm to lower standards. That approach moves emissions abroad, rather than removing them. The better course is to reward farmers for the public goods they already provide and support domestic food production alongside the recovery of nature.
I put this question directly to the Minister: if the Government intend to press ahead with these reductions in livestock numbers, will they pay farmers full market value in compensation for the herds and flocks they are asked to give up, or is this simply another thinly veiled attack on farmers and the rural economy?
This brings me to the second order, and to the concern that my noble friend Lord Moynihan sets out in his regret amendment, which I support. A limit of zero on overseas credits, set against a carbon price among the highest of any market in the world, risks a self-defeating outcome. Energy-intensive industry may relocate abroad, taking its jobs, tax revenue and emissions with it, so that those emissions reappear on another country’s account while global emissions are no lower at all. Carbon leakage of that kind is not decarbonisation, and it weakens our industrial base in the process.
Let me conclude where I began. I support the framework and the goal. The United Kingdom should lead, but leadership means delivery that is affordable rather than not, that supports our farmers rather than reduces them and that keeps industry here rather than driving it overseas.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an unpaid director of the company Net Zero Watch.
It was 10 years ago today that we had the referendum that decided whether we would be governed from Britain or the EU: “Who Governs Britain?”. However, when I look at the carbon budget and the piece of legislation before us today, I wonder whether the actual Government of Britain is the Climate Change Committee. I do not make that point rhetorically; I make it seriously. Once the carbon budget is in place, it affects every aspect of what the Government and much of the private sector do. It constrains activity and shapes what can and cannot be done. It is an essential feature of the way this country is governed, and we are just waving it through tonight on the basis of a piece of secondary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that we were not paying enough attention to the detail. Well, perhaps the Government would like to provide some time to debate the detail. The carbon budget is 400 pages long and there is a supplement of 60 pages. We are spending an hour and a half discussing something that will affect the entire UK economy, if we are to believe it, for a period of five years—so let us get serious about this.
There are a number of problems with the carbon budget and this legislation which have been mentioned to some extent by others. First, even on their own terms, the Government are not choosing the cheapest path. Probably all the figures before us are completely worthless, but the impact assessment’s own table shows that option one is better in cost-benefit terms as it has a higher net present value. Ministers are choosing the more expensive path because they are focused on achieving the target rather than worrying about what happens to the British economy.
Secondly, a lot of the savings are meaningless paper numbers. Of the so-called £1.6 trillion headline benefits identified in the impact assessment, almost all of them —over 90%—are simple carbon savings. These values are not set by any objective reality; they are defined by what is necessary to reach the target. It is an entirely circular process; these are not real benefits in the sense that any normal person would recognise them in any way.
Thirdly, the generation of technology cost figures are implausible, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has already stated. They consistently underestimate the cost of renewables: offshore wind and onshore wind. There is also a belief that the costs of products such as heat pumps, and many other things, will fall in the future: a belief for which there is no evidence, as far as I can see.
Fourthly, on carbon capture and storage, I am very glad I can find something to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on, because, as far as I can see, the assertions are based on nothing. The target requires us to capture 80 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent every year by 2050, using what we are told is “state of the art” technology. Unfortunately, the state of the art is that these technologies do not work and cannot be made to work, and are probably never going to work. We are being asked to legislate for a fantasy.
Fifthly, there is dishonesty about lifestyle impact, which other noble Lords have already mentioned. The Government say they will not do what the Climate Change Committee says is necessary on farming. Okay—what are they going to do? As I have said, these carbon budgets affect everything. If you do not make the saving in one place, it has to be made somewhere else. Simply saying, “We’re not going to do that”, is not really an answer.
There is simply no reflection in the discussion of the legislation of the policy reality: the fact that the rest of the world is paying much less attention to this than we are. The US has, in essence, moved away from the net zero policy entirely, and even the European Union is beginning its internal discussions to question whether this is absolutely the right way forward. If they are, then we really should be.
To conclude, a number of speakers today have already asked us, “What would you do then if you’re not happy with this? How would you deal with the problem of climate change?” I say in return, why should we take seriously those who have a policy that simply cannot achieve its declared goal? They seem to have a belief in the miraculous powers of action in this country to affect what happens all round the world. Carbon budget 7 means the destruction of the British manufacturing economy over the next 20 years and huge hits to the lifestyle of the inhabitants of this country.
If we use the methodology of the IPCC, we are asked to do this to reduce global temperatures by 0.01 degrees centigrade in the year 2100. That is the effect we are going to have. This is a crazy, irrational policy and one that simply should not be followed. That is why I support the regret amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We can speak against the Government’s policy today and perhaps vote against it, if we can. Obviously, it will make no difference, but I take comfort in the fact that by 2038, when this budget comes into force, the full irrationality of this policy will long have become evident, and it will never come into force.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming and forestry interests as set out in the register and will speak in support of the amendment from my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I also associate myself with the comments made by my noble friends Lord Harlech and Lord Roborough.
There are a few challenges with the proposed Carbon Budget Order 2026. The issues I have are not so much ideological and technical as more practical. In the wider context, if passed, the Carbon Budget Order will increase the UK’s reliance on intermittent renewables, causing higher energy prices, further accelerating deindustrialisation and driving lower economic growth, as we have heard many times this evening. Even the Climate Change Committee has estimated that British industry would face net costs of up to £3 billion per year every year between 2025 and 2050. Clearly, this will make UK businesses uncompetitive and add to the general cost of living for the British public.
The area I would like to focus on is the impact it will have on British farming, particularly livestock farming, and the UK’s future food security. Two weeks ago in this Chamber, we debated the impact of Labour Party policy on the rural economy, and it was widely agreed that a number of policies that have been introduced—such as the family farm tax, national insurance increases and the hike in the minimum wage—have had a strong negative impact on sustainable farming and food production across the UK. With this in mind, further negative impacts should really be avoided, otherwise rural productivity will fall even further. This seems challenging given what is proposed in the Carbon Budget Order 2026.
As we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, this 2026 order means that by 2038, we will have to reduce annual emissions by more than two-thirds. What that translates to on the ground, according to the Climate Change Committee’s own report, is that household consumption of meat and dairy will have to fall by 25%. In farming speak, this means that the number of sheep and cattle will have to reduce by 50%, forcing farmers to diversify away from livestock farming and further reducing our national food security. I ask the Minister: is this sensible or even realistic? If we were to reduce livestock by 50%, it would render every livestock farm economically inoperable, threaten the future of many of our livestock breed varieties and collapse meat and dairy production and any domestic meat supply completely, leaving us wholly dependent on foreign imports. Why would we want to do this, particularly at a time when food security should be higher up the Government’s agenda, given what is going on in the wider world?
Suggesting that meat and dairy consumption is going to drop by 25% flies in the face of all current statistics. There is no indication that this is happening now or that it is likely or even desirable in the future. It just seems pie in the sky—excuse the pun—unless the Government are planning to restrict what the public want to eat. In essence, if this Carbon Budget Order proceeds, the most likely outcome will be that meat and dairy consumption will stay exactly the same and domestic production will collapse. Suggesting otherwise is simply ignoring the reality of living in the world as it is today.
We live in an era of global commodity prices and international trade, so if our domestic prices go sky high, the supermarkets and the public will switch to imports from other countries, which will increase to fill the void. As well as collapsing our domestic food security, it is just offshoring emissions to countries with more polluting energy systems, and that will negate any savings at home. This is a hopeless outcome and will ultimately make little or no difference to anything.
Rural communities are always at the sharp end of the climate change policy debate. In addition to the farming community, I also raise the issue of additional costs for those who live off grid. This might sound like a niche issue for a small number of hillbillies living in the outback, but it is not. There are 1.7 million oil-heated rural houses that are not connected to the gas grid. Can the Minister say what support he might offer to the 1.7 million households who, according to the Climate Change Committee’s own estimate, will consistently pay more to decarbonise through electrification?
As I said in my introduction, there are quite a few challenges with the Carbon Budget Order. The impact will be felt across many areas, although my comments have been largely focused on farming. Pursuing the Carbon Budget Order seems the wrong route for UK farming and the wrong choice for the British public. It will achieve little or nothing in the way of carbon savings.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will focus on the unintended consequences that flow from the 16 words in the order that place an arbitrary cap on our nation’s economic potential. There are hard truths that need to be told about the practical effects, which include incentivising the importation of the most polluting products while jobs are lost at home. I do not deny the importance of decarbonisation—the oil is going to run out eventually—but setting a cap of 535 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent from 2038, more than a whole decade away, in a world of uncertainty is to take a path that makes our people poorer and, counter- intuitively, makes global emissions worse in the rest of the world.
I declare my interest as someone involved in the fertiliser trade. While I do not produce it, I am involved in the trade that brings it to our shores.
It is always useful to follow the money. From 2013 to the end of last year, EU ETS auctions have raised over €258 billion in revenue for the EU. In 2025 alone, EU ETS revenues totalled more than €43 billion. This is a tax gusher dressed up as environmental virtue signalling. On that basis, it is hardly surprising that the EU has introduced trade barriers to keep everyone else out, and now the UK wants to follow suit.
Let us deep dive into the industry I know best, which will be subject to insane fertiliser taxes from next January. I know about carbon budgets and the paraphernalia that flow from them: the emission trading schemes, the carbon border adjustment mechanism, free allowances and default values that, bizarrely, will create powerful fiscal incentives to send the most polluting fertilisers to the UK. They all sound so good in theory, but the CBAM and its evil twin, the ETS, are making us structurally uncompetitive—and, as a double whammy, the way Britain has chosen to implement them in the UK, like VAT, is architecturally incompatible with the EU system, which relies on permits and registries.
These orders tie us to the EU ETS, but there are many other ways in which the UK ETS differs from the EU equivalent. Not only is the denomination euro versus sterling but there is the EUA versus the UKA, reflecting two different economic territories. There is no CBAM hedging liquidity, alongside all sorts of arbitrages that place the UK at a competitive disadvantage. There is also a wilful refusal to provide the clarity on free allowances, which the EU is now diluting but which are essential to enable future trade in our country.
Why would we tie ourselves to the EU via the draft Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2026, which is so incompatible with the UKA, sterling and default values? This is not dynamic alignment or mutual recognition; this is fossilising our future based on today’s values in an uncertain world, putting a cap on our country’s ambition and capability. The risks are that, if the EU changes the goalposts for any of the carbon components—as it is doing at the moment—we would be left at a comparative disadvantage for the next 15 years. The EU has seen us coming—something our Government cannot see for themselves. Why are we running towards this danger?
Worse, we are hard-coding numbers 12 to 16 years hence, yet the Chinese, who do not share our worldview, have unilaterally changed the way in which they calculate carbon emissions, leaving us high and dry up that proverbial creek without a paddle. The naive “good chap” way in which we have chosen to account for carbon—in divergent ways to the EU and the rest of the world—will make us the natural dumping ground for the world’s most polluting fertilisers. Success was never to be like that. In the past two months, the Chinese have reversed a fertiliser export ban and turned up coal-fired urea production to eleven to exploit global shortages.
Our proposed default carbon values, which flow from these orders, provide perverse incentives to import these polluting products at the expense of cleaner products. The system of free allowances has diverged into an Alice in Wonderland fantasy land where, with the aim of levelling the playing field, we will be taxing imports of certain carbon-intensive goods that are not even made in this country. All that does is drive inflation. The UK is proposing free allowances for a fertiliser industry that no longer exists in this country, making farmers pay even more for their most expensive input. That is clearly contrary to the WTO and the rules-based order, which the outgoing Prime Minister purports to support. It is madness.
Last week, the EU announced that carbon taxation would be extended to secateurs and gardening tools. I ask the virtue signallers to accept that, by making UK energy feedstocks uncompetitive by forcing the highest energy prices on our chemical industry, they will actually increase global emissions by outsourcing production to more poorly regulated nations, throwing thousands of Britons on to the dole in a crass deindustrialisation, just so the members of the London Labour Party can virtue signal how green they are while sipping negronis on their step-free bifold-access terraces, grazing on tofu picked up at Whole Foods.
The facts are that, for everyone else, these carbon budgets and the taxes are driving up the cost of beer, biscuits, bread, butter and barbecues. I hope the Mancunian Messiah recognises that simple truth in the coming weeks.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I wish to express my regret at these statutory instruments. Let me begin by recognising that carbon budgets are a vital part of the UK’s approach to tackling climate change. They provide long-term clarity on the pathway to net zero at some future date, set a direction of travel for policy and investment, and signal the seriousness of our ambition. My concern lies not only in the pace, the manner and the potential consequences of the course now proposed but on the realism of the pathway itself and the practical deliverability of the measures that underpin it.
The Carbon Budget Order sets an exceedingly ambitious and legally binding cap to reduce emissions to little more than a quarter of their current level for the period 2038 to 2042—a period still far removed from present realities. In doing so, it risks committing the United Kingdom to a trajectory of decarbonisation so steep as to be impracticable. It is one thing to aspire, quite another to legislate, for a future shaped by uncertainties in technology, economics and geopolitics.
Today in this country, oil and gas account for roughly three-quarters of our own energy demand, and they will remain a significant part of our energy mix for decades to come. This very evening, about 50% of our power is generated from gas. We already use roughly 10% fewer hydrocarbons than the global average consumption by country, and make no use of coal, which remains a substantial contributor to energy consumption worldwide.
Domestically, we already face some of the highest electricity costs in the G7, placing a heavy burden on households, business and industry alike. There is every indication that these pressures will intensify. The latest round of offshore wind licences has been awarded at a strike price of about £90 per megawatt—almost twice that of AR6—and yet the Climate Change Committee suggests that there needs to be a sixfold increase in offshore wind, a doubling of onshore wind and quadrupling of solar power. I wonder what the next round of auctions will actually cost. This is without mentioning the necessary grid expansion required to cope with the transmission of this power to the end-user, which my noble friend Lord Redwood mentioned. The CCC also suggests further enormous demands on the heavily troubled agricultural sector, as has already been noted.
Carbon dioxide emissions may fall sharply under this framework, but at what economic price, and who pays? We are already seeing signs of industrial migration. Companies are reconsidering their presence here, with some relocating production overseas. The implications for jobs, investment and the long-term resilience of our industrial base are deeply concerning. One must ask how long heavy industry can be sustained under such conditions.
I would also hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, but the situation in the North Sea provides a cautionary illustration. Our offshore sector, developed over many decades, supports not only oil and gas but also technologies of the future: carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and offshore electrification. These capabilities are deeply interconnected. They depend on a skilled workforce, a resilient supply chain and an active industrial base, as we saw from the electorate in Aberdeen South. That system cannot be maintained or scaled if the investment environment becomes unstable or uncompetitive and the resources left unexploited. The sanctioning of Jackdaw, Rosebank and renewed drilling would assist this immeasurably, as opposed to relying ever more on more polluting imports.
As to the means of achieving these targets, much rests on technologies that are not yet proven at scale. Renewable energy, as suggested by the CCC, will play a vital role, but alone it cannot meet the demands of electricity, heating and transport. Nuclear capacity takes time to deliver, while large-scale carbon capture, hydrogen and long-term storage remain in development. To anchor binding commitments upon their rapid deployment is, I fear, a considerable gamble.
We have often reflected in this noble House on the United Kingdom’s relatively small share of global emissions: 0.8% of world emissions. The top three emitters account for over 50%. There is a real danger that, in acting unilaterally, we merely displace emissions abroad while inflicting further disproportionate harm on our economy. That would serve neither our national interest nor the global emissions cause.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we debate the seventh carbon budget on a day when our warming climate is making itself known. The Conservative Party may feel that fighting climate change is no longer urgent or possible, but the extreme heat begs to differ.
We support the carbon budget and credit limit orders. We express our disappointment at the regret amendments. CB7 is not a discretionary gesture. It is a statutory requirement, setting the path to an 87% emissions reduction by 2040. To waver now, as these amendments invite us to do, is to ignore both scientific certainty and economic opportunity.
Our ever-warming climate is an existential threat. Until recent times, we have all benefited from a cross-party consensus on climate change. It is regrettable to see the Conservative Party’s continued retreat from reality. The Conservative Party introduced the Climate Change Act and implemented half of our carbon reductions to date. In 2013, it introduced the carbon price support, and in 2019 the carbon emissions tax, which, in this very amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, now seems to regret.
There are real issues to debate, but the need to fight climate change is not one of them. To describe this transition as a threat to “industrial sovereignty,” or a cause of “impoverishment” is a serious mischaracterisation of the risks. It is the abandonment of the Climate Change Act, and its implementation, that would put our energy security at risk and strip away the legal certainty that investors in British industry rely on.
On intermittent renewables and higher prices, the evidence does not support the argument. The Climate Change Committee has shown that renewable electricity and electric vehicles are now cheaper than fossil-fuelled equivalents, and that the cost of the path to net zero, every year out to 2050, is less than the cost of a single fossil-fuel price shock. It is fossil fuels that are insecure in supply and volatile in price.
The price of electricity is too high, but that is not the fault of renewables. It is hard to defend a market in which a unit of electricity costs 4.3 times as much as a unit of gas. That is the real barrier holding back heat pumps and EVs, which is why my party continues to call on the Government to break the link between gas and electricity prices, strip policy costs off bills and introduce an essential energy guarantee.
On deindustrialisation, the risk runs precisely opposite to the arguments advanced. CBI Economics has found that failure to transition our car industry to EV manufacturing could cost the economy £34 billion and over 400,000 jobs. The net-zero economy generates over £100 billion a year in value and supports 1.1 million jobs, with nearly half a trillion pounds of investment in the pipeline. Conservative and Reform plans to weaken net-zero targets would pointlessly destroy business confidence, investment and the jobs and growth this country needs.
The regret amendment also misrepresents the credit limit order. It sets a zero limit on the use of overseas carbon units for the fifth budgetary period. This is not a loophole; it is the opposite. We support this order because it sends a clear signal to investors that the UK’s reductions will be delivered through domestic infrastructure and domestic supply chains, not purchased on paper from elsewhere. Support for this order will not obstruct us in pushing the Government further to improve energy security for individuals and business.
It is sensible for the Government to keep open the option of joining the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism. Properly designed, this framework protects British industry from offshoring. Farmers need fair reward. Last year’s harvest was one of the worst on record, costing arable farmers more than £800 million. My party continues to call for an extra £1 billion a year for environmental land management schemes so that farmers can diversify into woodland creation and peatland restoration. The Government have the opportunity to implement a policy reset.
On electrification, around 60% of the emissions reductions required by 2040 will depend on EVs and heat pumps, yet reports suggest that the Government may weaken the ZEV mandate’s 2030 target from 80% down to as little as 50%. That mandate is the single biggest carbon reduction lever that this Government hold, so I hope the Minister can rule that out. UK heat pump sales are the lowest of 19 major European economies because of price.
The nature and climate crises are conjoined. Both tree planting and peatland restoration need to double. More must be done to restore our habitats and fight the growing threat of wildfires. Labour’s airport expansion plans for growth go well beyond the targets. By 2040, aviation will be our single biggest emitting sector. The Government’s plans seem incompatible with the budget. My party opposes all airport expansion in the south-east.
In 2008, this country led the way with the Climate Change Act. Some 76 other countries have since followed. The seventh carbon budget is, in the Climate Change Committee’s own words,
“the most credible and balanced option”
open to us. It will shield households and businesses from price shocks and an increasingly volatile fossil fuel market, as well as strengthening our energy security.
We must not let short-termism undermine the only path to a cleaner, more secure and prosperous Britain. Our message to the Government is, “You need to go further and faster. Don’t do things to people. Work with them. Support them. Help them benefit from community energy. Fight for climate and nature. Adapt. Above all, bring down the cost of electricity; that would do the most to put the transition within reach of every family and business”.
I welcome the citizens’ panel. Its message is clear: this transition must be equitable, affordable and fair. The Government must do more to make it so.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My Lords, first, let me thank noble Lords for their valuable—that is what it says here in my brief—contributions to this debate. I cannot say that I endorse that entirely. I also cannot quite get my mind around the parallel universe that some noble Lords seem to have been inhabiting while making their points this evening.
On that parallel universe, I draw noble Lords’ attention to a very significant speech that was made today just a few hundred yards from this building. It was given by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who, as part of London Climate Action Week, made an impassioned speech on climate change, including what we need to do about it, how quickly we need to do something about it, and what we need to do on electrification and low-carbon economies in particular.
I hope that noble Lords will go away and look up that speech, because among other things it completely gives the lie to the idea that no one else in the world is terribly interested in this climate change business, that no one else is doing anything about it, that the activities we are undertaking on climate change are just blowing in the wind, and that we are giving away our industries to other people who will take advantage of them. A number of the industries that they are talking about are sunset industries that are being replaced by low-carbon industries which, if we are not careful, the rest of the world will run away with. They would then overtake the advantages that we have at the moment in green industry, which we are doing very well in. The green economy has grown three times as fast as the general economy in the last few years.
The people who live in this fantasy parallel world appear to be saying that none of that counts. We are making tremendous changes to how energy is distributed in the low-carbon economy. This is a good thing for climate change purposes and will bring people’s bills down in the long term. The energy we will be using will inevitably be cheaper, more affordable, less volatile and more stable than the energy we are using now. It will produce a very large number of jobs: £100 billion in green investment has come into this country over the last two or three years.
However, none of this appears to have any effect whatever on the parallel facts that are put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, appeared to be saying that the rest of the world was moving away from action on climate. I was at an international meeting this morning where people from around the world were standing up and saying what they were doing about this, how committed they are to a low-carbon future and how important it is for their own countries and for the world that we continue down this path.
This climate budget has to be set in the context of the real world of facts and information about where our world is going and what we need to do to make sure that it does not continue in the direction that it appears to be going at the moment, rather than in the context of quite a lot of what we have heard this evening about why all of this is a waste of time. I am afraid that I must single out the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, in this respect. One really cannot make a serious case that, because we cannot completely know the future, we should do nothing whatever about it and just hope that the market somehow sorts it out. We have got to take action.
As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned, we took action with the Climate Change Act, which was carried by everybody in the Commons except five people. I can name them.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is with us this evening. At least I can say that the noble Lord is consistent. He did not sign it in the first place and I do not think he would sign it now if he had the opportunity.
That Climate Change Act, which requires us legally to carry out these carbon budget examinations, set up the Climate Change Committee to advise us on the science behind the proceedings and tell us what we need to be doing, not just now but in the future, so that we have time to make policy for what we will be doing to match what is required in those carbon budgets. We have that legal obligation, because we passed the Climate Change Act together in that year.
It has stood us in very good stead. It has directed what this country tries to do, without telling us what we do in detailed policy. Some of the discussions this evening have set up what the Government are apparently going to do and then said, “We don’t like it very much”. No, the Government are not going to go around shooting cows and rounding up livestock for slaughter. The Government will be doing what it is doing now and investing £5 billion over two years in farming. This is perhaps the largest investment in sustainable food production and nature recovery in this country’s history.
Alongside that, the Government are actively exploring ways to reduce livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions, including through scientific research on mitigation strategies and management, feed, such as the increasing adoption of methane-suppressing food products, and breeding. There are many alternative ways of making sure that agriculture and land use plays its part in climate change emission reductions without the straw man that some of the opponents of climate change action seem to have set up in this Chamber—that the Government are somehow going to chase livestock out of the country in order to meet climate change restrictions. To produce alternative theories, I am afraid you need alternative facts.
The impact assessment has, among other things, a fairly exact examination of the costs of doing nothing, as opposed to the costs of doing something. This has been a long-standing theme. The University of Cambridge, for example, estimates that climate damage will reduce global GDP by up to 24% under a high emissions scenario by 2100. There are pages of other information about the costs of doing nothing, as opposed to the cost of doing something, and I always advise noble Lords to go to impact assessments if they want to know the truth about what is happening on any piece of legislation.
My noble friend Lord Hunt underlined that the regret amendments that we have in front of us are big on things that are not liked very much and tiny to insignificant on what, if anything, to do about it. Indeed, one has a responsibility, if one does not like what is being done now, to say what should be done alternatively. Alternatively, if one does not like, say, the climate change legislation, stand up and say that, and say what else you will do instead, or, as some Members have said, just deny that the whole thing is an issue and have an alternative universe of facts to try to underpin that.
I am conscious that I will have to write to a number of noble Lords on specific issues, but I thought it necessary to put what we are doing tonight in the right context. What we are doing is making sure that our futures are secure in this world.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I asked two specific questions relating to these orders. One was about the timing of the update and the valuations for carbon, and the second was whether the Minister would reconsider the faulty basis on which I think they are calculated. If he does not have answers today, would he commit to write?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Yes, indeed. The noble Lord makes those points, which I have taken well on board. The question of carbon pricing, of course, is a long-standing issue as far as carbon valuation is concerned, but I certainly will write to him about the particular points he raises as soon as possible.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I disagree with the Minister on one thing: I think this was a valuable debate. I thought that contributions from every Member of your Lordships’ House have been helpful and constructive. I do not think it has been, to quote him, “a waste of time”. I do not think anybody who spoke this evening wasted anybody’s time. There is cross-party recognition of the importance of addressing these issues, addressing the carbon order and addressing climate change. The question before us this evening is about the Carbon Budget Order 2026.
The Minister is completely right to say that we should address this in the context of the impact assessment, which he considers to show us the truth. He is completely right to have identified that importance. Everything in my speech related to that—everything. I say to my noble friend Lord Deben that the public and our grandchildren will never forgive us if we destroy our economy with high energy prices. That is a real concern across this Chamber. We currently have electricity prices that are four times higher than the United States. That is the issue that we need to address. The impact assessment shows us that prices will go even higher if we follow these measures.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we share this factor: neither of us is obsessed with anything. There is no obsession on this side of the House, but there is real concern. There is cross-party concern with what is being proposed. Tony Blair has said that the net-zero policies that are being pushed forward are viewed as
“unaffordable, ineffective, or politically toxic”.
Gary Smith of the GMB, who is absolutely all over these issues, has recently said that the policies being pursued by the Government are “economic madness”. Even the Unite the Union says “No ban without a plan”.
These points are worthy of consideration, because the North Sea issue is very important. I know everybody may have been distracted by Makerfield, but an important referendum was in effect being undertaken in the constituency of Aberdeen South, which was overwhelmingly won by the Conservative candidate. It was an overwhelming rejection of both the measures that are in this climate change Carbon Budget Order and the current Government’s policy on the North Sea, which is referred to.
In closing, it is important for all of us to recognise that there is a universal position across this House that we have to get policy right. I do not think this order does. We cannot afford to damage our economy irreparably through a zealotry on net zero that goes too fast, too far, too early, and jeopardises our economic recovery and the key underlying policy of the Government, with which we agree—economic growth. The impact assessment is fundamentally flawed, not least on the important point about CCS, which, interestingly enough, is one point that was criticised by my noble friend Lord Deben. It is one of the three fundamental pillars on which the whole of this is based.
With those concluding comments, and with my gratitude to everybody who has contributed to this valuable debate, I seek to test the will of the House.
Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Order laid before the House on 14 April be approved.
Relevant document: 58th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024–26
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Moynihan
At end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Order will constrain the means by which UK businesses are able to reduce their emissions; and will incentivise the movement of energy-intensive industry overseas, thereby weakening prospects for growth, employment and the UK’s industrial sovereignty.”
Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 April be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, before I kick off, I am sure all noble Lords will want to join me in wishing the England team good luck and all the very best wishes for tonight’s match.
I note the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I will address the points that he has raised. For context, these instruments were laid before Parliament on 28 April and approved by the other place today. Their purpose is straightforward: to extend the time for bringing certain employment tribunal claims from three to six months.
The draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 apply across Great Britain. The draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 applies to England and Wales. Subject to the approval of this House, both instruments will come into force on 1 October this year.
I turn first to the regret amendment. It raises concerns about the current capacity of the employment tribunal system and the possibility that a longer claims window could place further pressure on it. I assure the noble Lord that these issues have been carefully considered. We fully recognise the pressures faced by the employment tribunal system and the wider dispute resolution framework, including a growing case load. That is why we are working across government to ensure that the system is resilient and able to support the effective enforcement of measures introduced under the Employment Rights Act.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice have established a dispute resolution task force. It brings together representatives from business, trade unions, the legal profession and the third sector. We are pursuing a combination of immediate targeted measures and longer-term reforms. Together, these are intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. We are taking a phased approach, with several measures already under way. This programme of reform will continue at pace to ensure that the employment tribunal system has the capacity that it needs for the future.
The noble Lord raised concerns that a longer claims window could prolong disputes and put greater pressure on the system. The current three-month limit was originally introduced when employment tribunals were intended to offer a quicker, more informal route to resolving workplace disputes. However, demand has increased significantly. Experience has shown that three months is often insufficient for claimants to prepare a robust case, a point that the Law Commission recognised in 2020. Extending the time limit to six months strikes a better balance. It preserves the principle of timely resolution while providing claimants with a realistic opportunity to prepare their case. Better prepared claims should improve the quality of proceedings, reduce the need for applications to extend time limits and allow judicial resources to be focused more effectively on delivering justice.
I turn now to the instruments. First, the draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 extend the time limit from three months to six months for a range of workplace rights. These include rights for part-time workers, fixed-term employees, zero-hours workers, information and consultation representatives, negotiating representatives, trade union blacklists, and certain NHS-related protections. The regulations will apply where the relevant workplace issue arises on or after 1 October 2026. If the issue arose before that date, the existing three-month time limit will continue to apply.
Secondly, the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 extends the time limit for bringing employment tribunal claims for breach of contract or sums due under a contract of employment from three months to six months. This order applies only to England and Wales. It does not extend to Scotland because the power to amend the equivalent Scottish legislation rests with Scottish Ministers, not the UK Government. We are working closely with the Scottish Government to secure a corresponding change in Scotland. We expect the change to take effect in mid-November 2026. Clear guidance will be issued to ensure that individuals and employers in Scotland understand the temporary difference in time limits.
The order will apply where the termination giving rise to the breach of contract claim occurs on or after 1 October 2026. Where the contract was terminated before that date, the current three-month time limit will continue to apply. These instruments are necessary to ensure consistency with the changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. They also align these claims with the existing six-month limits that apply to statutory redundancy and equal pay claims. Without these changes, the system would become unnecessarily complex for employees and employers alike and would create additional administrative burdens.
In closing, these measures will give both employees and employers more time to resolve disputes internally, to engage in conciliation, and to properly consider the merits of bringing a claim. This is particularly important in sensitive cases where individuals may need extra time before deciding how to proceed. By encouraging better preparation and greater use of early resolution processes, these changes may help ease pressure on the employment tribunal system. I hope noble Lords will support these instruments and the wider programme of reform that sits behind them. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
At end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Regulations extend the time limits for bringing certain employment tribunal claims from three months to six months without sufficient regard to the present capacity of the employment tribunal system; and considers that a longer claim window may mean disputes remain live for far longer, thereby adding further pressure to already burdened tribunals.”
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I start by echoing the Minister’s wish for every possible success tonight for the English team. I also declare my own interests as set out in the register, in particular as a partner in the global commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft and an honorary bencher of the Inner Temple.
In moving the regret amendment in my name, let me explain why. The latest official statistics show that in 2025-26, employment tribunals received 50,000 single claims but disposed of only 26,000. At the end of March, there were 64,000 open single claims—a rise of 55% in a year. Behind those figures are people who have lost a job, suffered discrimination, not been paid wages or raised concerns at work. There are also employers, often small businesses left with disputes that cannot be resolved promptly and with witnesses, documents and recollections becoming less reliable as time passes. In many instances, small businesses in particular are being forced to live under the shadow of vexatious claims—claims without merit that any effective system of triage would filter out in no time at all. There is now evidence of cases in some areas being listed for hearings as late as 2030. This is a warning that in all parts of the country, access to an employment tribunal is ceasing to mean access to justice within any meaningful period.
The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House anticipated precisely this concern during consideration of the Employment Rights Bill. It noted the Government’s own assessment that there was already a backlog, with waits of about a year, and that extending time limits was uncertain but likely to add pressure. The Committee said that
“a potential increase in the number of claims seeking redress in employment tribunals combined with the extension of applicable time limits could have a significant impact on the existing backlogs in the employment tribunals and therefore on the constitutional principle of access to justice”.
That conclusion is not the view of opponents of the Government’s programme; it is the Government’s own assessment. It accepts that the effects of extending time limits are uncertain but likely to add further pressure to a system that already has waits of around a year. It estimates additional claims and recognises that, unless capacity rises, the practical benefit of these new rights will be reduced.
Why has this taken so long? Why was there no credible funded and operational plan for employment tribunal capacity before the Bill was even introduced? Why were Ministers content to legislate first and ask the most basic implementation questions later? The Government will surely point to consultation with businesses, other stakeholders and employee representatives. Of course, such engagement is welcome, but it is also revealing. When the Government are now seeking views on how to make these changes work in practice, the obvious question is: why on earth was that work not done before Parliament was asked to enact them?
The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that there was no new consultation on these regulations. The Government instead rely on a Law Commission consultation conducted in 2018 and 2019, in a different context, before the current scale of pressure on the tribunal system had emerged. So this goes to priorities. The Employment Rights Act contains a substantial programme of new rights, duties and protections for trade unions. Ministers found urgency, legislative time and administrative energy for those provisions, yet the machinery that permits an individual worker to vindicate an existing right—the tribunal system—was left without an equivalent plan for capacity, speed or access to advice.
So we on these Benches remain sceptical. But let us, for the purpose of this short debate, take the Government at their word. Let us assume these measures will indeed confer genuine, valuable and much-needed protections. Even then, the Government’s case collapses unless those protections can be enforced. A right that cannot be vindicated within a reasonable time is not a right.
So I say to the Minister: we really need some answers as to what the solution should be. When the Government made these choices, why was so much effort devoted to strengthening the institutions that speak for workers, yet so little to strengthening the system through which workers actually enforce their rights? We have so many questions. We await the answers.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for getting the old team together. I was missing the Employment Rights Bill, which had been such an important part of my life, so it is always good to get a refresh.
On UK employment tribunal waiting times—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, touched on—a 2026 analysis based on published decisions estimated an average of about 17 months for unfair dismissal cases in England and Wales, and a slightly better 14 months in Scotland. In some cases, the BBC reports that claimants in England and Wales have had to wait much longer than that. Tribunal delays vary a lot by case type and whether a case is single or multiple. Simpler unfair dismissal cases are obviously faster than discrimination or whistleblower cases, which tend to have longer hearings and require more evidence.
There is also regional diversity. As I have pointed out, Scotland appears to be materially faster than England and Wales. Can the Minister explain why that is the case, and what Scotland is doing that is significantly better, although still taking longer than it should?
The noble Lord asked whether the system is resilient and able to sustain this change. It is fair to say that this does not look like a resilient system; it looks like a system that has been stretched to or beyond breaking point. I am very pleased to hear the Minister say that the joint task force is beginning to offer some measures —he did not go into details as to what those measures are. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about triage. Triage would be a sensible way of sifting cases and filing them in the right way to improve the workflow through the tribunals that we have. Has analysis of the current waiting list been done to identify the sticking points and how they might be relieved? Are some tribunals better than others? Is there a league table? What extra resources have already been allocated, and what can be allocated? The Minister said that the task force was working “at pace”—a phrase that we all know we should avoid. I am sure that it was accidental.
Overall, this regret amendment is less about the measures it is seeking to regret and more about concern about the tribunal. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, we talked a lot about the tribunal during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill. At that time, I said that once a case goes to a tribunal, both the employer and the employee are already in a losing position. Justice delayed, and delayed a long time, is justice denied, both for the employer and for the employee. I hope the Minister can address the issues we have raised, which, I would say to your Lordships, have very little to do with the statutory instruments in front of us. The regret amendment is merely a device that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has deployed to make sure that we miss the football—I point out that the England team are still 0-0; I wish them the very best, and I wish the Minister speed in his response.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I will be speedy. First, I thank both noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions, which I respect. I will address the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made about the review of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we are committed to reviewing Section 10. I am sure that we will update the House on that in due course, but I cannot say more at this stage.
On the dispute resolution task force, the Government are considering reform measures, from early resolution to enforcement, to ensure that the system is more efficient and resilient. The expertise of the task force—which, as I mentioned earlier, will be made up of representatives from across the various stakeholders—will help inform the Government’s development of these reform measures. We are working on a mix of both more immediate targeted measures intended to reduce the current pressures and longer-term, more ambitious reforms designed to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. We intend to use a phased approach, rather than doing everything in one go, and we will work on some of the measures already in train, such as targeted awareness-raising to reduce workplace conflict.
The Government are continuing to invest in recruitment to build employment tribunal capacity. New salaried employment judges will be sitting from this summer, and recruitment is under way for up to 55 employment judges who will add capacity from 2027. In addition, recruitment for up to 150 non-legal members will also conclude this year, so we are adding capacity and recruiting as things stand today. For 2026-27, the employment tribunal has been funded for 34,590 sitting days, which is more than has been utilised in each of the last 12 financial years up to 2024-25. Remote hearings are expanding through virtual means, enabling around something like 20,000 sitting days annually without geographical limits.
As noble Lords know, one of the key points of the Employment Rights Act is the establishment of the Fair Work Agency, which will now enforce rights including the national minimum wage. In time, it will enforce additional rights, including holiday pay, and ease pressure on employment tribunals. From 2027, the Fair Work Agency will enforce key rights—as I said earlier, holiday pay and statutory sick pay—to make enforcement faster and more accessible for workers. We are working on a mix of both immediate targeted measures intended to reduce current pressures and more targeted, longer-term, more ambitious reforms designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. The Government’s longer-term view includes looking at opportunities for the Fair Work Agency to take on enforcement where that would help workers and businesses reach resolution more quickly without needing to go to the employment tribunal. With all this in place, we hope to see a reduction in some of the caseload that we currently experience.
In closing, I reiterate the positive impact that these regulations will have for employees and employers and commend our ongoing reforms of the employment tribunal system so that it is more resilient to any future changes.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox. We are speaking, as we did several times during the passage of the Employment Rights Act, with one voice, and that voice tonight has met with a response from the Minister that still requires a whole range of actions to be taken. I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in recommending that everything possible should be done to resolve disputes at an earlier stage. This is the key, rather than overloading an already existing system that is creaking under pressure, although I know that tribunals are determined to try and meet the problems of overreliance and overcapacity.
I will say just two things about early resolution. I am troubled that discussions are taking place about the lack of resources for ACAS. ACAS could provide a great deal of opportunity for early resolution. I will also just say that I recall the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I think it was, or one of his colleagues, pressing for a review of Section 10, including the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings. Given the pressure on the employment tribunal system, does the Minister not agree—perhaps he might write to me about this—that better support for employees at an earlier stage might prevent some workplace disputes escalating unnecessarily? Will he at least indicate to us at some stage, perhaps in correspondence, how a review of that whole mechanism could proceed? There will be lots of opportunities, I hope, to resolve this.
Lord Fox (LD)
I was planning to write a letter on that very subject, because I felt that it was not necessarily due in this debate, so there is a letter heading in the Minister’s direction on the right to accompany. I appreciate the noble Lord raising that.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
That is another demonstration that the Opposition speak with one voice. It is now up to the Minister to answer, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong
That the draft Order laid before the House on 28 April be approved.