Grand Committee
Contemporary Cultural Boycotts
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fox of Buckley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Freedom in the Arts report The New Boycott Crisis, published in February 2026, and of the impact on artistic freedom of contemporary cultural boycotts.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the chance to bring to the attention of the Government and the Committee the themes in this recent report, The New Boycott Crisis. If we value art as a crucial mirror on society, the corruption of art reflects social trends right back at us and we should look back closely, so I say many thanks go to those noble Lords who are doing that today.
The report was launched here in Westminster at the end of April, alongside the Art Beyond Boycott Toolkit. It was a packed room with lots of cross-party attendance. The authors are co-founders of Freedom in the Arts, Rosie Kay, an award-winning choreographer, and Denise Fahmy, a senior arts professional, who teamed up with Reading University’s Professor Jo Phoenix. All three have experienced the vicious consequence of cancel culture. They combine their personal insights with oodles of professional knowledge to provide a multilayered investigation into how boycotts operate against different art forms, looking not just at individual artists but at gatekeepers such as venues, agents, managers and producers.
Using survey data and qualitative interviews, the report shows how even the threat of cultural boycotts is leading to anticipatory cancellation, institutional anxiety, silent boycotts and self-censorship. The report is so on the money that it got extensive media coverage even in the same crowded week as the local elections. Significantly, it was picked up by specialist publications such as Arts Professional, Museums Journal, Chortle and Mixmag, no doubt because it cut through due to its insights into the genuinely heartbreaking stories of individual artists brought to financial and reputational personal ruin by boycotts—you cannot get more personal than being cancelled because of your identity. As the report documents, that is the fate of so many Jewish artists today.
Perhaps this is nothing new. As we head into August and Edinburgh Festival season, I recall years of participating in that wonderful, artistically rich atmosphere, when the Academy of Ideas put on arts debates and live reviewing at the Fringe and at the book and international festivals. It was a joy, but it started to turn sour when, 20 years ago, the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demanded boycotts of any art form involving Israelis. Whether it was an ugly disruption of a performance of the Jerusalem Quartet in 2008, with activists yelling, “Israeli-armed musicians”, or a decade later, getting an Israeli hip-hop opera evicted from its venue. These were shocking but marginal, isolated incidents. What is shocking today is that such occurrences are so regular they are barely noticed. The campaign against antisemitism notes:
“Discrimination against Jewish people has become normalised in the arts: it’s now simply part of doing business as a Jewish creative in modern Britain”.
The report notes something else that has changed. If boycotts were historically public, involving external bodies bullying arts organisations, today they have evolved into an internal, systemic dynamic within arts organisations. Sometimes, it is a leadership team more driven by ideological agendas than artistic excellence, but more often it is insidious, with weak management capitulating to staff complaints demanding that their well-being is protected from allegedly dangerous performers. Last year, comics Philip Simon’s show “Jew-O-Rama” and Rachel Creeger’s “Ultimate Jewish Mother” had their acts pulled at the last minute by a fringe venue. The reason? Staff at the venue complained of “feeling unsafe”. Apparently, a fictional comedic Jewish mother was a threat to employee safety.
The report is full of similar evidence of employees activating internal HR procedures to reframe political demands. There is an additional institutional vehicle used similarly, especially in publicly funded arts organisations, and that is values frameworks and equality, diversity and inclusion policies. I know that the Government can be a little defensive about the virtues of EDI, but I hope the Minister will examine the documentation of how EDI is being weaponised to demand the boycotting of certain artists. I note that in February, DCMS Minister Ian Murray MP, while stating the Government’s commitment to free speech, caveated it. He quoted the Secretary of State’s ambition not to stoke the culture wars, and stressed the need to protect people from hate speech. But does the Minister acknowledge that, in many institutions, the culture wars are stoked by EDI enthusiasts and that hate speech is often a euphemism for speech someone disagrees with? Arts organisations often state that their value statements are anti-hate to justify cancelling Zionist and gender-critical artists, for example.
In her moving and passionate speech at the report’s launch, acclaimed singer-songwriter Róisín Murphy, herself a victim of a high-profile vicious boycott after speaking her mind on puberty blockers, made an important, relevant point. She said:
“Public funding, meant to support excellence regardless of politics, has become an ideological points system …This isn’t patronage. It’s patronage with strings attached so tight they strangle the critical thinking it takes to invent anything”.
What can politicians and government do to help the arts escape this censorious stranglehold? While the Arts Council declined an invitation to attend the parliamentary launch of the report, it was notable that a couple of days later, after two Jewish men were murdered in Golders Green, the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, used the opportunity to put pressure on the Arts Council. He said:
“Where public funding is being used to promote or platform antisemitism, the Arts Council must act, using its powers to suspend, withdraw and claw back funding”.
That is a positive sentiment, but I worry about cancelling the cancellers as a tactic. It perhaps also misses more subtle, silent boycotts, rather than the overt anti-Jewish abuse. Also, it does not note that a wider range of artists with dissenting views are now targeted.
For example, Scottish performance poet Jenny Lindsay, author of the aptly titled book Hounded, explains that after a tweet criticising a trans activist threatening violence against lesbians, she had seven months of private, quiet, bewildering cancellation, losing work without knowing why, unanswered emails, complaints to her publishers, messages saying we are frightened to book you. She notes, “It was clear people had got a memo: Jenny Lindsay’s a TERF”. But with no paper trails, no proof, just commissions swerved in case they cause grief, it can be especially isolating. The real loss is, “artwork that was never made and never seen”.
I therefore hope that the Minister will meet the authors of this report to discuss how the Government can help the sector adopt the report’s proposals to improve institutional capacity to resist this politicisation of programming and employment decisions that is discriminatory in terms of who gets to create, perform, exhibit and publish. Artistic judgments must be centre stage. Leadership from Ministers could include public support for boycotted artists, encouraging publicly funded arts organisations—indeed, the Arts Council—to adopt the Freedom in the Arts free speech charter.
To conclude, artistic creation needs freedom to challenge, explore, surprise and push boundaries. Otherwise, art created and programmed will be risk-averse, narrower, safer, samey, carefully calculated and curated not to offend. What a dreary tragedy. To quote Róisín Murphy again:
“Without that freedom, we don’t get better art, we simply put artists into a chokehold and suffocate the life out of our culture”.
The arts must breathe freely again. How can the Minister help them breathe freely again?.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for bringing forward this important debate. The Freedom in the Arts report raises important questions about artistic freedom and the role of our cultural institutions in an increasingly polarised society. While Members may reach different conclusions about some of the findings, I believe it presents us with an opportunity to reflect on the kind of cultural institutions we want for our country.
Art has always challenged society. It can inspire, provoke, comfort and sometimes unsettle us. Shakespeare explored powers, prejudice, justice and the human condition. I am sure each of us can think of a contemporary work of art that has challenged our assumptions or encouraged us to see the world through different eyes. Great art does more than entertain, it invites us to question, reflect and better understand one another. That is why the arts matter not only to our economy but to our national identity and to the strength of our democracy itself?
Drawing on my experience of leading one of London’s most diverse boroughs, I think that one of the greatest lessons that I have learned is that good leadership is not about eliminating difference; it is about creating the conditions for respectful dialogue, where people of different backgrounds, faiths, cultures and perspectives can come together, encounter new ideas and learn from one another. That is why our theatres, galleries, museums and festivals are so important. They are among the few places where people who may never agree on every issue can still sit in the same audience, visit the same exhibition or share the same cultural experience. In doing so, they encounter different perspectives and often leave with a deeper understanding of one another. Equally, the right to peaceful protest and criticism is fundamental to a healthy democracy. The challenge before us is not choosing one freedom over another, but ensuring that artistic freedom and the right to peaceful protest can both flourish and coexist.
The report raises important questions about the pressures that some cultural organisations face when making difficult decisions. Whether those pressures are widespread or more limited, it is right that we consider how institutions can be supported to respond with confidence, fairness and integrity. The true test of a cultural institution is not whether it avoids controversy but whether it has the confidence to navigate controversy fairly, openly and with integrity. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister: what assessment have the Government made of whether publicly funded cultural institutions have the confidence and support that they need to uphold artistic freedom while fostering respectful dialogue and community cohesion? Are there examples of good practice that the Government believe should be shared more widely across the cultural sector?
Artistic freedom and the right to peaceful protest are not competing principles. We must ensure that our cultural institutions have the strength of leadership and the confidence to strike the right balance between protecting artistic freedom, respecting the right to peaceful protest and fostering dialogue and community cohesion.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for securing this debate. The New Boycott Crisis raises issues that go well beyond disagreements over politics or foreign affairs. It asks whether we are still willing to defend one of the defining characteristics of a free society—the freedom to create, perform, exhibit and debate without fear of ideological intimidation. Art has always challenged orthodoxies. It provokes, unsettles and encourages us to see the world differently. That is precisely why artistic freedom matters. If artists, writers, musicians and performers feel compelled to self-censor because of organised campaigns, threats or pressure to conform to a political orthodoxy, our cultural life is diminished.
The report documents a growing trend of cancellations, boycotts and institutional pressure directed not at the quality of artistic work but at the ethnicity, religion, perceived political views or associations of those producing it. Hearing the stories from the founders of Freedom in the Arts, Denise Fahmy, Rosie Kay and others, at the launch in April, was powerful and shocking, especially to those who were not really aware of how quickly cancellation happens and how brutal it is.
Throughout history, boycotts based on identity have rarely advanced understanding. During the Cold War, we rightly welcomed Soviet dissidents, musicians and writers, rather than excluding them; we recognised that culture builds bridges where politics erects barriers. Universities, museums, theatres and galleries should be places where difficult ideas are encountered, not places where only approved opinions are permitted.
Increasingly, however, cultural institutions find themselves under pressure from highly organised activist campaigns that seek not to debate but to silence. Decisions are sometimes made because managers fear reputational damage or disruption rather than because they reflect the institution’s commitment to artistic excellence. This has consequences beyond the arts. Once organisations begin deciding who may speak or perform according to political tests, we erode the principle of viewpoint diversity that underpins liberal democracy itself.
The report’s emphasis on stronger institutional leadership is to be welcomed. Trustees and governing bodies should have the confidence to uphold freedom of expression even when doing so attracts criticism. Publicly funded cultural organisations have a particular responsibility to serve the whole public, not simply the loudest campaigners. The Government also have a role. The protections for freedom of expression in our law are important, but they must be accompanied by clear expectations that publicly funded institutions will defend artistic freedom consistently and transparently. Funding agreements should reinforce rather than undermine this principle.
This debate is not about shielding anyone from criticism. Artists should expect robust debate and peaceful protest. However, criticism is very different from organised efforts to prevent performances, exhibitions or collaborations from taking place at all. The answer to speech that we dislike is more speech, not enforced silence. Our cultural institutions have long been admired because they have welcomed excellence from every nation, every background and every viewpoint. We should not allow them to become places where ideological conformity replaces intellectual curiosity.
Freedom in the arts is not a luxury; it is one of the foundations of a confident, democratic and open society. If we fail to defend it now, we will be all the poorer not only culturally but civically. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for raising the report and I commend the founders and supporters of Freedom in the Arts. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to its recommendations, reaffirming that, in Britain, artistic freedom remains a principle worth defending.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this subject is one of those where you suddenly think, “Yes, there shouldn’t be any form of cancellation”—here, primarily on grounds of antisemitism. I have always felt it to be rather absurd that the Abrahamic religions attack each other over which day they pray on, given that half the time they are all referring to similar texts, but let us go into this issue in further detail.
I turn to the recommendations in the report. It admits that it is not the most scientific of structures but, still, questions around taking on the law and training for organisations have been asked. It says that on page 6. What are the Government going to do to make sure that there are training schemes? I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is not a fan of them; we have clashed on this in the past. We need to go through this and have a look at what we are doing to make sure that there is knowledge of the legal duties going forward, because that seems to be the issue here. The question of whether you are breaking the law if you do not allow somebody to do something that is legal and is not threatening somebody else seems to be the real question here.
Let us remember that, although one organisation may be under pressure now, another one will be tomorrow. Other groups have been cancelled and other people have been pressured. Things have changed. Look at our own society: we have Protestants and Catholics—I speak as somebody whose background is half from the west coast of Scotland. These are real issues. What are the Government doing about making sure that the people in charge know what their duty is? That is very important here. If we cannot stop unpleasant attitudes going out in society, at least we can let people know what the legal frameworks and duties are. Surely that is the least the Government should be doing at this point.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for introducing the debate, which is of course timely. I thank Freedom of the Arts for this report, but I thank in particular the artists, the performers and the writers who found the courage to describe what has been happening to them. Speaking out is never easy when doing so may cost you your next role.
This report does not allege formal censorship. It describes something quieter and in some ways more sinister and more troubling. It calls it “the silent boycott”. Opportunities simply disappear. Invitations are quietly withdrawn. Projects never quite materialise. Emails are left unanswered. Careers stall not for a want of talent but because of an artist’s Jewish identity or assumptions made about it.
This has become something that institutions would rather manage than defend. The report is candid about the cause. Institutions are increasingly driven by fear: fear of a social media pile-on, fear of activist pressure, fear of internal disputes or fear of a controversy that has not even happened yet. Decisions are being taken pre-emptively before a single complaint is even made. This is not caution. Once an institution starts programming to avoid a row rather than to reward excellence, artistic freedom does not stay intact for long.
Let me be clear about what this debate is not. It is not about shielding anyone from criticism or closing down legitimate political debate, including robust arguments on the Middle East. Freedom of expression must include the freedom to criticise the Government of Israel, but criticism of a Government can never justify the exclusion of an individual because he or she is Jewish. That distinction is fundamental and this report finds, again and again, that it is being lost. Jewish identity itself is increasingly treated as politically contentious, regardless of what the work in question actually says, and none of this happens in isolation. The Community Security Trust recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents just last year, one of the highest totals it has ever logged. The arts do not sit apart from that reality. They are part of it and, because they help shape how the country talks to itself, they carry a greater responsibility to get this right, not a lesser one.
Cultural boycotts have a long and unhappy history and they rarely open a conversation. More often, they close one down, narrowing perspectives and impoverishing the very culture they claim to defend. What has always made British culture strong is confidence: the confidence that ideas can be debated, that disagreement can be aired and that audiences can be trusted to make up their own minds. That confidence should not now be allowed to give way to fear.
I ask the Minister three things. Will the Government make clear to the Arts Council of England that informal exclusion of Jewish artists is antisemitism, not just discrimination? What support will the Government give publicly funded institutions to withstand pressure campaigns? Will the Government tie funding to proof that programming decisions are made on merit, not on fear? Our arts should be open to all. They should reward talent and defend freedom, and they should never become places where an artist has to conceal who he or she is to work.
I conclude with a tribute and a plea—a tribute to a British icon, my friend Maureen Lipman. A couple of weeks ago, I saw her perform brilliantly as “Allegra” in Windsor; it is opening tonight at the Harold Pinter Theatre, but activists have stood outside the theatre that she is playing with leaflets stating “Maureen Lipman supports genocide”. My plea to the Minister is this: is she aware of this, and is it right that Maureen, a proud Jew, has been forced to hire security guards because she is being targeted by anti-Israel activists?
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for introducing this important debate. Freedom of expression has always been the lifeblood of great art. Art flourishes through freedom, not conformity. History reminds us what happens when freedom is lost.
In the Soviet Union, writers and artists who challenged the official ideology were censored, blacklisted, imprisoned or sent to the Gulag. My own family experienced that world. My aunt was a dissident writer and a close friend of both Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Anna Akhmatova. She chose satire as her way to defy the regime, rather than open political confrontation. Even so, she spent days under interrogation in the Lubyanka. She watched friends and fellow writers disappear into the Gulag, including her friend Solzhenitsyn. Like Akhmatova, she knew that in such a climate silence could become a means of survival.
Britain is not the Soviet Union, and I am not suggesting otherwise, but history teaches us that freedom is rarely lost overnight. It is eroded gradually as people begin to censor themselves, because they fear the consequences of speaking openly. The New Boycott Crisis suggests that this climate of fear is now affecting our cultural sector. As James Marriott wrote in the Times, something has gone badly wrong. A world once built on talent, merit and creative risk has, he argues, been replaced by a culture of fear, informal sanctions and institutional cowardice.
The report identifies two groups as particularly affected: Jewish artists and those with gender-critical beliefs. Since 7 October, some Jewish artists, as we have heard, have found themselves judged not by the quality of their work but by their identity. Likewise, gender-critical artists, such as Rosie Kay and Róisín Murphy, have described the professional backlash they faced for expressing lawful views. The problem arises when cultural institutions become so fearful of organised campaigns that they no longer defend artistic freedom. Instead, they quietly exclude those views considered controversial, not because they are unlawful but because they are not fashionable. The greatest casualty is self-censorship. We never see the play that was never written, the exhibition that was never staged or the young artist who decided it was simply safer to remain silent.
Does the Minister accept that artistic freedom includes the right to hold lawful gender-critical beliefs, even when those beliefs are not popular and considered controversial today? If public bodies are under a statutory duty to uphold freedom of speech, how will the Government ensure that this duty is honoured in practice rather than being quietly abandoned in the face of organised campaigns?
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lord, in his great essay The Prevention of Literature, George Orwell wrote:
“imagination, like certain wild animals, will not breed in captivity”.
I think this is a little commented-on reason why the current repression of free speech and freedom in the arts is such a problem. It affects not only those whose opinions are repressed but everybody. That repression is obviously outrageous in its own terms, with the shocking levels of antisemitism that have been documented and the bias against gender-critical views and even simple views on the right of politics. I congratulate Rosie Kay and Denise Fahmy for drawing attention to it in this excellent report, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for getting today’s debate.
As we know and as the report documents, the repression of free speech and the spread of antisemitism have had seriously bad effects on those directly affected. We know that. It constrains what they can produce, and it may force them entirely out of the sector. There are some telling quotes to this effect in the report, such as one artist saying:
“I realised how much of myself I had edited out just to survive”,
or:
“You make terrible art when you are cowering”.
This is clear—it is sort of obvious—but my point is that the effect is on not only those affected in this way, but on everybody else. It is on those who somehow get through it.
A politicised art sector produces a lot of bad art, and we have had quite a lot of it recently. On the London stage, from 20 years ago with “My name is Rachel Corrie”, through Ivo van Hove’s adaptation of “Who Killed My Father”, there has been a stream of plays about migration and refugees from one perspective and so on and so forth. Even when art is not politicised, this sort of sector produces an art that prioritises box-ticking and conformism. It produces art that is dull, worthless and often even contemptuous of its audience. It is a very good sign that Wigmore Hall and its director, John Gilhooly, have opted out of the Arts Council system. I cannot help noting that even the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, in her recent report on the Arts Council, said:
“People felt that ACE was pursuing access to culture in an instrumentalist way and had lowered the priority given to the pursuit of artistic excellence. Art and excellence were sidelined”.
This is the problem. I contend that any artist who is happy to submit to the ruling orthodoxy and prevailing opinions, who finds excuses for squeezing out people who do not agree with him or her or who regards policing ideology as more important than their own creative work will in the end destroy themselves as artists. We can see that at work. As we look around Britain’s artistic scene today and compare it to, say, the efflorescence in the arts of post-war Britain in both visual and written form, we can be confident that, with a few exceptions, the past couple of decades will not be seen as a golden age in British arts. I contend that public conformism, internal bigotry and the driving out of contrary opinions are a big part of the reason why.
I finish by quoting Orwell, this time in Writers and Leviathan. He said:
“To yield subjectively … even to a group ideology, is to destroy yourself as a writer”.
That is true for any artist. It needs to be stopped, and I would like to know what the Government are going to do about it.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for securing this debate. I must start by declaring my interest as a trustee of the Victoria and Albert Museum.
The Freedom in the Arts report gives us valuable insight into the worrying state of the arts and cultural sector. As it states, there is
“an interconnected web of … practices … that collectively polices the boundaries of acceptable thought, association, expression and programming within the arts”.
Unsurprisingly, mechanisms that allocate artistic funding funnel most support to currently prominent causes—climate activism, support for Palestine and opposition to Israel, transgender activism and anti-racism—and generally raise the status of people and organisations associated with those causes. But there are damaging consequences to this narrowing, which everyone should be concerned about, whatever their level of interest in and support for those causes.
Like my noble friend Lady Meyer, I take a historical perspective. In western Europe, it was really only in the 15th century that it became socially acceptable and normal to portray non-religious subjects in art. Over several centuries, the Catholic Church none the less monitored art ferociously to enforce approved narratives and discourage the spread of Protestant ideas, using the social penalties it could impose to make artists’ lives difficult—read the story of Veronese’s “Last Supper”. We do not want to return to inquisitions, whether by Governments, religious authorities or self-appointed commissars, and we should not want to return to an age where artistic expression is permitted only in the service of a narrow range of permitted interests and beliefs. But we have somehow moved a long way in that direction.
Artistic freedom eventually prevailed, and that freedom has brought many waves of creative exploration. Of course, that has sometimes been uncomfortable for some, but without exploration there can be no innovation. It is striking to look at how much artistic preoccupations have changed over time: the 1850s saw realism, truth to nature and a rejection of myths and legends; the 1950s saw adaptation to the new post-war world. We have no idea today what the artistic preoccupations of the 2050s may prove to be, but we can be absolutely certain that it is simply intellectual hubris to think that we have achieved a perpetual pinnacle of moral superiority to which all current practitioners in the arts and their successors should be bound.
Then there are the human impacts. I will touch on just four, which are well covered in the report. First, works that do not fit the current template are not being put on, or, too often, they are being shut down. Secondly, people are being shut down for their beliefs, even where they have no particular connection with their work. Many of the gender-critical artists are suffering from that. Thirdly, people are suffering simply because of who they happen to be. Examples have been given of Israeli and Jewish artists and groups that are unable to perform. That is simply intolerable. The fourth group I draw attention to are the young of this country. The status quo is affecting so strongly how they are shaped, both in education and in the community. They quickly learn what the high-status beliefs and opinions are and what not to say or acknowledge. If they are not allowed to see anything that contradicts those beliefs and opinions or explores a fresh direction, their lives are stunted and distorted.
Too many people have ducked the difficult issues here. It is time for a great deal more openness and discussion about rebuilding true artistic freedom. This report gives a very good platform for that.
Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for securing this debate and Freedom in the Arts for its report, which certainly is rich and detailed. I am sorry that time means that I cannot do justice to all the noble Lords who have spoken before me, but I certainly associate myself with all those who have spoken out about our need to have constant vigilance and zero tolerance of antisemitism.
However, I want to focus on one particular aspect of cancel culture that is identified in the report, and that is the targeting of sponsors of those who fund the arts and who are essential for us to have what should be our starting point—that a healthy arts sector is fundamental to a healthy democracy. Protests, dissent, satire have long been the sources of the best art, and the priorities should always be to enable the most artistic expression possible without fear or favour. That is not to say that art exists in a space free from values. There will always be boundaries. But we should want to make the artistic square as large and inclusive as possible, and that means we need diverse funding, including sponsorship.
When it comes to the choices made, as other noble Lords have said, there should be a clear distinction between things that are illegal and things that simply some people do not like. I look at the recent example of the Sporting Events Bill in your Lordships’ House. There were assorted amendments proposed that would have banned sponsorship from fossil fuel companies and unhealthy food companies. We see within these boycott campaigns that it is not just the companies themselves that are being targeted but even financial institutions that might have minor investments in some of these companies, which are, of course, entirely legal in the activities that they are carrying out. We can take the example of the defence sector, which regularly comes up as being targeted. I regard BAE Systems as a successful British company that employs people in this country in high-skilled, well-paid jobs. If it wants to give something back by supporting artistic or cultural endeavours, then why on earth should it not be able to do so?
I also want to question the role that we have seen some artists take. We need to call out those high-profile artists who have put their names to campaigns to deny funding to the very institutions that those artists benefited from when they were starting out in their careers, when they were in the small theatres and so on that gave them their rise to be the high-profile campaigners that they are now.
We need a mixed economy of cultural funding that encompasses philanthropy and corporate sponsorship. That means we need a climate in which responsible sponsors feel able to support culture without expecting to become the next target of a campaign. Otherwise, we create a structural disincentive to private investment precisely at the time when the sector needs it most. There is a role for government here and for all of us. Institutions need to know that they have the support of politicians in order to resist the pressure of a small minority. We also need leadership in the arts sector. Policy cannot be made by social media, by tactics rather than strategy. There needs to be solidarity within the arts sector because while the beam of the lighthouse might not be at you at this moment, you can guarantee that it will come round to you next.
We are all in this together and, together, common sense can prevail so that we can have the arts and culture we need as a country.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for bringing forward this debate and to Freedom in the Arts for having produced this excellent and timely report. I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union and will try and put a human face on what we are talking about. There are plenty of examples in The New Boycott Crisis. I thought I might give some examples from our own case files.
We have fought on behalf of 150 artists, writers and performers in the last six years of our existence, all of whom have been targeted for cancellation or, indeed, cancelled because they expressed views that other people disapprove of. Where possible, we have tried to help them. It is worth noting that more than one-third of the more than 150 people we have come to the aid of have been targeted for cancellation because they have expressed their gender-critical views. That is, I think, the coalface in the arts; it is what people find themselves cancelled or targeted for cancellation for more often than expressing any other point of view. Rosie Kay is a case in point, someone who I am proud to say the Free Speech Union was able to help when she was targeted for cancellation in 2021. It is fantastic to see her recover so magnificently.
I shall give the Committee some other examples. There was a case last year involving Martin Speake. He was referred to the Free Speech Union by Freedom in the Arts, with whom we have a close working relationship. Martin Speake was an internationally regarded saxophonist who was for more than two decades a jazz tutor at Trinity Laban Conservatoire in Greenwich. In February 2024, he replied to the conservatoire’s request for feedback on its diversity plan, and argued, I think reasonably, that Black musicians were not underrepresented in British jazz and that Black Lives Matter was a dangerous organisation. He quoted Martin Luther King that people, including musicians, should be judged on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. For this, students boycotted his classes, a petition was got up demanding his removal, the London Jazz Orchestra asked him to step down, his album was put on hold, and his UK concerts were cancelled. The stress eventually forced him to resign in November 2024 from a job he had held for two decades. Happily, the Free Speech Union was able to fund an employment tribunal claim for constructive dismissal, and Trinity Laban settled in February 2026 in a way that was very satisfactory.
Another example is Gillian Philip in 2020. She is a children’s novelist who was part of the team producing the best-selling Warrior Cats series under the pen name Erin Hunter. She was dropped by her fiction packager in 2020 after adding a message of support for JK Rowling to her Twitter profile. Not only did she lose her job, but she was unable to get another job as a writer and had to retrain as a heavy goods vehicle driver.
I could come up with more and more examples, but I will close with just one recent case to come in at the Free Speech Union involving an Irish playwright based in New York called Phelim McAleer. He tried to organise a staged reading of a play about the events of 7 October 2023 in southern Israel. He tried to organise this staged reading at the Lyric Theatre, Belfast, which is subsidised by the Arts Council of Northern Ireland. It is a verbatim play based on interviews with more than 100 survivors of the Hamas attack on 7 October. It had a six-week off-Broadway run and was acclaimed by the New York Post as spellbinding, but the Lyric could not find a single evening on which to stage a reading of this play, in spite of the fact that he was going to pay for it privately and even though the theatre had found numerous opportunities to platform Palestinian perspectives, including a poet who described Israel as a settler-colonialist project, a genocidal state and a pariah state. No one is suggesting that that Palestinian poet should have been no-platformed, but all voices in these debates should be heard, and the arts need to play a proper role in facilitating these discussions.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, on securing this debate and thank her and Freedom in the Arts for the work that they have done in highlighting these problems. Above all, as others have done, I thank those individual artists who have come forward to share their experiences. The experience of being marginalised, sidelined and silenced can be lonely and frightening, and I hope they feel a bit less lonely and frightened after today’s debate.
This has been a good debate—rational, articulate and well-informed. We do not all agree on everything, but we have all agreed very strongly about the importance of hearing diverse perspectives and differing opinions. We do so enjoying parliamentary privilege, which allows us to speak freely here. Lots of our arts and cultural organisations do not have the protections of Parliament or the legislative protections that higher education institutions have to preserve free speech, so it is right that we are vigilant in how they are applying their duties.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was right about making sure that people are well informed on their legal responsibilities and their founding charters, as well as ensuring that trustees and others take those duties very seriously. Arts organisations have a duty to challenge, provoke and inform us, not to hector, censor or boycott.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, was right to say that, at their best, the arts enable us to see things through others’ eyes. That is why we enjoy them so much and what enriches us when we encounter them. This is particularly important when approaching contested or highly charged issues. For instance, going to a museum or a gallery would give us a different perspective, separated from time and geography, on the question of how other societies have viewed gender roles, and would remind us that conflict in the Holy Land is not a feature of this century alone.
My noble friend Lady Spielman is right to worry about whether the generation coming through the education system and coming to work in the arts will take an illiberal and censorious approach. We are, I think, past what felt like the high watermark of sensitivity readers and authors and others being objected to in writing about things of which they did not have lived experience, but we must remain vigilant on all of this because, if the closing of those minds and those discussions is a loss for us all, it is a particular loss for the generation that is coming through, which needs to be well equipped with critical and inquisitive minds in an age of mis- and disinformation online. They need to see things that challenge them and make them feel uncomfortable.
The noble Lord, Lord Doyle, was right to highlight the pressure on sponsors. I have mentioned previously in Grand Committee that, regrettably, we have seen parliamentarians in both Houses among those boycotting things such as the Hay Festival. We all regret the disappearance of sponsors such as Baillie Gifford. It means fewer, smaller, narrower literary festivals and fewer thoughts for us all.
Noble Lords were right to highlight the silent and sometimes insidious nature of these boycotts, which threaten the enlightenment values that underpin us. My noble friends Lady Meyer and Lady Spielman were right to highlight the importance of dissident and unorthodox voices, which add to our understanding.
Above all, people are right to point to the growing evidence of antisemitism that we see in the arts, as through our whole society. My noble friend Lord Polak was right to say that it is completely wrong to treat all Jewish people as the same or to make them all accountable for the actions of any particular Government of Israel. The powerful Nova Exhibition in Shoreditch, like the extremely powerful museum at Yad Vashem and the Holocaust galleries at the Imperial War Museum, is a way in which the arts can help us understand the terrible atrocities to which this attitude can lead.
As my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington said, freedom in the arts is not a luxury; it is essential to our free society. I am glad that we have been able to highlight these problems today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for initiating this important debate and all noble Lords for their valuable contributions. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, made clear, even where individuals do not agree with each other, it is important that we have this discussion. The debate has reflected many of the issues raised by The New Boycott Crisis, which was published by Freedom in the Arts earlier this year. During the debate, I particularly welcomed the historical perspectives from the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman and Lady Meyer.
I start by addressing the critical points made by a number of noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Polak, Lord Frost, Lord Doyle and Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman—on the scourge of antisemitism in the arts, as highlighted in the report in stark detail, which reflects the wider and, regrettably, growing antisemitism more broadly in society. I want to make it explicitly clear that this Government find antisemitism, wherever it may raise its ugly head, both abhorrent and completely unacceptable. We will do whatever it takes to work with the Jewish community to tackle it in wider society. Antisemitism has no place in our society and, as the Prime Minister made clear in May at a summit he held on the issue, it is our shared responsibility to tackle rising antisemitism.
Since that summit, we have been working with the Arts Council on plans for an independent audit into how concerns are handled and where its systems need to be strengthened. This will focus on allegations of antisemitism, but we anticipate that its findings will strengthen the Arts Council’s handling of all concerns, and more information on this will be shared in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Polak, cited examples of informal exclusion of Jewish arts and artists. We will make clear to ACE that the work it is doing now to tackle this issue in its audit and in its engagement with the sector should and must cover antisemitism as defined in law and the informal exclusion the noble Lord rightly highlighted.
This work by the Government is in tandem with sector-specific round tables that we are launching in partnership with the Board of Deputies. Over the next few months, these sessions will bring together Jewish representatives, DCMS officials and arm’s-length bodies, including Arts Council England, to share best practices and secure meaningful, practical commitments for the next six months. Nobody should feel unsafe, whether performing on the stage or going about their daily life. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Polak, that it is entirely unacceptable and a damning indictment of where we are as a country that an actress such as Maureen Lipman, undoubtedly one of our national treasures, has to have private security. It is completely unacceptable. The noble Lord also raised wider issues around the security of our Jewish community and pointed out that the arts do not sit separate to the rest of society. As noble Lords may be aware, the Home Office has committed record funding of £32.4 million this year to protect the Jewish communities through the Jewish community protective security grant managed by the Community Security Trust.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, raised points about potential politicisation and referenced my noble friend Lady Hodge’s review of Arts Council England. This Government remain committed to the arm’s-length principle that artistic expression, including decisions around funding and programming, should be free from political interference, but this is not the same as being free from protection. I am sure noble Lords welcomed, as I did, the Government’s response to my noble friend Lady Hodge’s independent review. The response reaffirmed the arm’s-length principle and the importance of public investment in culture supporting a wide range of voices. Arts Council England supports a broad range of artistic practice and viewpoints, including actively investing in organisations that defend creative freedom. Index on Censorship is one such organisation whose work highlights and challenges censorship and the oppression of artists and creatives.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, and the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Young of Acton, raised points around artists with gender-critical views. The Government are clear that while it is right that protections from discrimination exist for LGBT+ people, such as those held in the Equality Act, this does not prohibit and should not exclude people expressing their views, opinions or beliefs, including gender-critical views. Each individual’s right to freedom of expression must be balanced against the rights of other people or those of the wider community to achieve a fair outcome for everyone, including those who are trans or who hold gender-critical views.
As the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, made clear, there is a difference between what we do not like and what is illegal. My noble friend Lady Dacres highlighted the importance of challenge within arts, as did other noble Lords. Freedom of expression carries with it certain responsibilities. Cultural organisations must always comply with the law, including legislation relating to equality, discrimination and public order. When speaking up becomes hate speech, a clear and unacceptable line is crossed. However, within these legal boundaries, organisations and artists should feel confident in presenting their work.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Doyle, spoke about protests and boycotts. While the Government are wholly supportive of freedom of expression, we are equally supportive of peaceful protest. However, there is growing concern across the cultural sector about the impact of organised activist campaigns. They can include calls for exhibitions to be cancelled, performances to be withdrawn, artists to be disinvited or sponsorships terminated.
I note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, about self-censorship also being an issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, made similar points.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Young, spoke about silent cancellations and boycotts. These boycotts, as well as the silent cancellations noted in the report, are, in the Government’s view, damaging to art and artists. We have been unequivocal in pushing back against these boycotts. Last year, the Secretary of State said:
“Boycotting sponsors, and killing these events off, is the equivalent of gagging society … we will stand against it with everything that we’ve got”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said, the answer to speech that we do not like is more speech, not silence.
This Government are clear that boycotting festivals, performances and organisations harms the art, not the sponsor. As the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, made clear, we have a great tradition of philanthropy in this country, and the Government want to strengthen it. That is why we published a strategy on philanthropy earlier this year. As the noble Lord said, we need a mixed economy that includes private sector funding.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about guidance on the legal position and my noble friend Lady Dacres of Lewisham asked about some examples of guidance and best practice. We recognise the increasing and enduring pressure that arts and cultural leaders face on this issue. In response, Arts Council England has supported the recent publication of new guidance on the matter, which I will circulate to noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate. There are positive signs that the sector is grasping the nettle and rising to the challenge. Arts organisations in Manchester are tackling this head on, with Factory International spearheading the brave spaces principles. Work such as this acts as a north star in guiding organisations through the complexity of programming and sponsorship decision-making in the face of activism.
I will conclude shortly but I want to respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on whether I would be willing to meet Freedom in the Arts. I would be very happy to meet the organisation, but that may need to be after the conclusion of a number of legal matters which it is currently supporting. My private office will arrange a meeting in due course.
As I have outlined, the Government recognise many of the challenges identified in the report The New Boycott Crisis. By encouraging a plurality of voices, this Government are helping to ensure that this country remains one of the world’s leading centres of artistic and cultural excellence. As my noble friend Lady Dacres said, at its best, art allows us to see people through others’ eyes. I am clear, and this Government are clear, that lawful artistic expression deserves protection, that cultural organisations should be free to make their own decisions and that our cultural life is strengthened, not weakened, by the free exchange of differing opinions and ideas.
Ukraine: Decentralisation Reforms
Lord Risby
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Ukraine’s decentralisation reforms; and what steps they are taking to support municipal partnerships as a contribution to Ukraine’s recovery, resilience and reconstruction.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to have secured this debate today. We are likely to be approaching a turning point in this war, and the situation requires us to consider how we can underpin Ukraine’s future and facilitate its European trajectory.
It was my role for the Opposition in the other place to take forward the legislation for the expansion of the European Union. At the time, there was here in London a particularly impressive Polish ambassador who spoke with great prescience. Several times he said to me that if we did not embrace the country immediately to Poland’s east, someone with very large claws would attempt to smother it. How tragically right history has proved him to be. Since February 2022, we have seen those claws at work, with the horrors of a full-scale war that is now raged against Ukraine. Having recently returned from a visit to Kyiv, and most specifically the Chernihiv region, which borders Belarus and Russia, I start by noting that resilience remains very strong.
Ukraine is now emerging as one of the most militarily experienced, innovative and resilient nations in the world today. I do not wish for this debate to be a continuing commentary about the military situation on the battlefield, for what struck me most powerfully was that when I met my counterparts, they did not wish to dwell on the war. They wanted to showcase their resilience but, most importantly, their plans for locally enabled, investment-based recovery. They wanted to speak not only of how Ukraine recovers and prospers but of how Ukraine can emerge, as I believe it will, as a significant global force for good in the years to come. It is in this spirit that I turn to decentralisation.
As the former chairman of the British Ukrainian society, I have long promoted the need for decentralisation, regarding it as fundamental to democratic empowerment and the elimination of corruption, and to accelerating Ukraine’s accession to the European Union and it embracing the wider European family. Before the full-scale invasion, Ukraine had already made progress in this regard, and we should not underestimate how the progress made between 2014 and 2022 in the creation and empowerment of regional and local municipalities was a defining factor in Ukraine’s ability to withstand this ghastly war over such a significant period of time.
We should now turn to supporting Ukraine’s desire to continue on its pathway to much greater decentralisation. This could become one of the great practical legacies of the 100-year partnership. Under Pillar 9 of that declaration, our two countries are committed to supporting
“deeper and more nationwide links between local and regional governments”.
I use this opportunity to pay particular tribute to Kent With Ukraine, an NGO with which I am proud to be associated. Under the voluntary leadership of Jordan Meade, that organisation has, in just two years, helped to secure significantly active partnerships, stemming from region-to-region partnerships and twinning at every other tier in the country. This voluntary work is to be commended; I am sure we will agree that the 100-year partnership must be enabled by government, but built up from the grass roots. I offer the Minister four practical suggestions on how we may take this forward and achieve it.
First, the Government could establish a live public register of UK-Ukraine local and regional partnerships. At present, the landscape is far too fragmented and council leaders are slow in wanting to pursue relations without clearer government endorsement. A register could help to identify gaps, match donors to need, give SMEs confidence to invest in local projects and, importantly, allow Parliament to scrutinise progress under Pillar 9.
Secondly, the Government could support the creation of a platform that links municipal twinning to practical reconstruction pipelines. A structured platform could enable communities to undertake real and practical projects. This would help Ukraine, but it could also create opportunities for British SMEs to secure investments and contracts for reconstruction, which in turn would create much-needed opportunities for local growth here at home.
Thirdly, the Government should consider creating a municipal aid corridor. That would make it easier and safer for councils and public bodies to donate surplus equipment to verified Ukrainian municipal recipients.
Finally, the Government might also consider establishing a dedicated local government fund that would enable local authorities in the UK to bid for modest one-off grants to empower businesses, schools, cultural organisations and community groups to take part in furthering the key objectives of Pillar 9.
The Ukrainians themselves want these relationships to be reciprocal. There is much we can learn from Ukraine’s local leaders, particularly around civil contingencies, emergency planning and resilience. Against the backdrop of local government reorganisation, Ukraine’s experience could be studied carefully here to reform and strengthen our own structures.
I turn briefly to the important matter of veterans’ reintegration. While in Kyiv, I was pleased to meet the deputy Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, and just yesterday I was pleased to host both the Minister and deputy Minister here in our Parliament to brief parliamentarians on the growing challenges around Ukraine’s veteran population. I mention this as veterans’ policy could become an excellent test case for a decentralised Ukraine. It could demonstrate the model of national standards and local delivery.
The Ukrainian state should set clear national entitlements, standards and safeguards for rehabilitation, mental health, transport and mobility, employment, housing adaptation, family support and disability rights. But delivery must be made locally, through the oblasts. I raise this in the hope that the Government will build decentralisation into future funding programmes for Ukraine.
In the classrooms that I visited in the far north-east of Ukraine, there are murals of this Parliament on the walls, which are used as a reference point for freedom and democracy. This should humble and inspire us all. In Ukraine, constant gratitude was expressed for Britain’s support, but the clear desire at all levels is for Britain to be an influential long-term partner. As the Minister knows, one of the great strengths of our Parliament is that Ukraine continues to be supported by all parties. That unity is noted and deeply appreciated; it is so important.
The challenge before us is to turn the 100-year partnership from declaration into enduring delivery. This will be better achieved if we enable a grass-roots approach to this endeavour and support Ukraine’s decentralisation as a key component in its recovery.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Risby, on securing this important debate; I am only sorry that so few of us are in the Room for it. I also pay tribute to his long-standing commitment to Ukraine, which gives considerable weight and importance to everything he has said.
I spent many years in local government, including serving as the leader of a council and as a deputy mayor of London, so I thought I would come at this debate from a slightly different perspective. I have always believed in the importance of localism and the opportunities that come through decentralised decision-making. While it is of course up to the Government to establish national priorities, it is usually local government that ultimately determines how successfully those priorities are delivered on the ground. That is why the pathway to the decentralisation that Ukraine commenced back in 2014 must now be delivered on fully.
Despite the fact that Ukraine is literally fighting for its very existence, democratic local government continues to function across the overwhelming majority of the country. Where that is not possible, military administrations running in parallel in the cities provide the additional attention that is needed.
Through this system, local leaders across Ukraine, who are deserving of our admiration, have proven how decentralised decision-making has enabled local leaders to respond quickly and more humanely than any national Government could ever do. In many respects, from the continuation of education to the reconstruction of community assets and the maintenance of social services provision, local government has come to be one of Ukraine’s greatest strengths.
As we now rightfully turn our attention towards Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction, I believe that there is an area where the United Kingdom can make a distinctive contribution through our experience. That area is, I suggest, public procurement. While I note that it might not sound as exciting as funding the latest AI-empowered systems or advanced warfare, anyone who has been involved in a local authority knows that ultimately sound procurement is the bedrock of efficient local government. British local authorities have accumulated decades of experience in commissioning services, running competitive tenders and ensuring proper financial oversight. We have learned over these decades, sometimes, unfortunately, the hard way, the formula of balancing speed and innovation with accountability and sound governance.
Ukraine now faces the largest reconstruction programme seen anywhere in Europe, possibly even in the world, since the Second World War. It will require not only significant international investment but procurement systems capable of delivering thousands of projects simultaneously while ensuring international credibility, which is so important. I believe there is considerable scope for structured partnership between the procurement professionals of our local authorities and their Ukrainian counterparts. From strategic commissioning to supplier assurance, social value, fraud prevention and counter-corruption measures, local authorities have often learned the hard way but have developed the expertise that is the essential building block for attracting and securing long-term international investment, with investors being able to see that their money is being deployed correctly.
There is a security element in this too. We need to deploy our expertise in public sector procurement to ensure that rogue states and individuals are unable to secure any foothold in the critical national infrastructure and local utility projects that Ukraine is currently seeking international support to deliver. Will the Minister outline to the Committee what steps the Government are taking to export British local government procurement expertise to support Ukrainian municipalities as they prepare to manage billions of pounds in reconstruction funds? Have the Government considered the possibility of co-ordinating a UK-Ukraine local government procurement partnership? Building on the work of the City Ukraine Hub and the commitments contained in the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership, I hope we are soon going to see the City of London play a leading role in strengthening Ukraine’s financial ecosystem. In the discussions I have had with Ukrainians, the message is always that they seek to have mutually beneficial relations.
There is also much that Britain can learn from Ukraine. I have been struck by the extraordinary speed with which Ukraine has restored national critical infrastructure, such as rail networks, bridges and utilities, under missile and drone attack. It slightly puts us to shame on projects such as High Speed 2 and the Lower Thames Crossing. While our circumstances are thankfully very different, I believe there are lessons. As we seek to accelerate housing delivery, modernise infrastructure and improve our public services, we should not be afraid to study how Ukraine has reduced bureaucracy, slashed waste and embraced innovation. Sometimes, those operating under the greatest pressure develop the most effective solutions, and local government would be foolish not to use our exceptional friendship with Ukraine to be radical in our approach to reforming our systems, both here and there.
As the Government embark on a significant programme of local government reorganisation—probably the biggest in decades—I hope that they will place far greater emphasis on civil contingencies and local resilience. Although much attention is rightly given to national defence, history reminds us that resilience begins in our communities. Since the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine has demonstrated how, when resilience and emergency planning are valued and managed effectively at a very local level, communities are able to withstand the most challenging circumstances. It would be good to know what lessons from Ukraine’s exceptional resilience models the Government are going to draw on as part of our own reviews.
My noble friend Lord Risby rightly commented on twinning. It is encouraging to see not only how many council leaders across the country have shown solidarity through establishing twinning relations but the practical differences that these hyper-local arrangements are having both for Ukrainian municipalities and our own communities. Many of these relationships are now in place. I am told that there is a desire to move these relationships well beyond traditional civic twinning to provide genuine partnership that shares expertise, supports SMEs in both the UK and Ukraine and utilises the provision of the FTA that we have in place.
Earlier this week, I was very pleased to meet the Minister and Deputy Minister for Veterans here in Parliament. It was so encouraging to hear about the efforts they are putting into ensuring not only that there is a world-leading rehabilitation programme in place but that the work that is under way will ensure the full economic reintegration of these veterans. As we all know, that is going to be critical for the future stability of Ukraine.
I conclude by saying that Britain has much to contribute through our experience of local government procurement, financial governance and local leadership. Equally, though, we should approach this with some humility, recognising that Ukraine’s resilience and remarkable pace of delivery has lessons for us. If we get this right and make the 100-year partnership more community-based, I have no doubt that both countries will emerge stronger.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Risby for securing this valuable debate. Last week, in our debate on the Convention establishing an International Claims Commission for Ukraine, my noble friend Lord Callanan noted that, while the war continues, it is right that we look to the future of Ukraine. I will not repeat our overall position on support for Ukraine, as my noble friend set it out very clearly last week, but the Official Opposition will always support the Government in backing Ukraine in the face of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. Across the House and across political divides, we must all work hard to maintain the consensus in support of the Ukrainian people.
As my noble friend Lord Risby mentioned, since 2014, the decentralisation process in Ukraine has progressed significantly, strengthening local self-governance and improving the Ukrainian state’s ability to deliver public services. That process has established local governments across Ukraine that retains more than half of the tax collected in their area. This means that more money stays in the communities where it is collected, and it should be spent to the benefit of local residents. Can the Minister say whether His Majesty’s Government are monitoring the impact of the reorganisation of government in Ukraine and its impact on the quality of the public services that are available to the Ukrainian people?
Support for Ukraine should not stop at funding and military training. Our strong tradition of democracy and effective local governance means that there may be relevant skills that we can share with Ukraine. Can the Minister say what conversations have taken place to ensure that we are making the local government expertise here in the UK available to Ukraine?
Although significant progress has been made, third parties report that there remain significant challenges around skills shortages in the Civil Service. What consideration have Ministers given to that? Are there steps that His Majesty’s Government can take, in concert with our international partners, to support Ukraine on the skills gaps it is experiencing within government?
The UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Risby, is without question ambitious. However, ambition alone does not deliver results. Given that it is the intention of the Government for this partnership to ensure for a century, do the Government agree that Parliament should have greater opportunity to scrutinise delivery under each of the partnership’s pillars? In this spirit, will His Majesty’s Government commit to an annual report on the progress and expenditure incurred?
Today, we have spoken much about our local councils and the incredible work they are doing to stand by the people of Ukraine. However, reconstruction will require local economic recovery. It would, therefore, be helpful to understand what role His Majesty’s Government see for the British Chambers of Commerce, SMEs and local enterprise partnerships in supporting the effort to rebuild local economies across the region. Will His Majesty’s Government consider launching a UK-Ukraine 100 website and digital archive for successes under the UK-Ukraine 100 year partnership declaration? That would serve to showcase successes and inspire councils, schools, civil society groups and others to get involved.
The demonstrations that saw the fall of Yanukovych’s Government were fuelled by a collapse of trust in the Ukrainian Government. Those Ukrainians, who had such high hopes of a brighter future for Ukraine, have suffered much since then. We all share that hope for a brighter future, and we will work with the Government as they support this work. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for securing this debate. I know that it has not been the biggest draw of the day, as far as Parliament is concerned, but the quality of the contributions has more than made up for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Risby, made some thoughtful suggestions based on his extensive experience of working in Ukraine. I promise him that we will continue to look at ways to work with our Ukrainian friends as part of our commitment set out in the 100-year partnership and that we will explore his various suggestions. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for his important contribution. Having a short debate is great because we can name each properly and not just say, “All those present”.
The illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia continues to cause immense pain and suffering. I absolutely accept the encouragement from the noble Lord, Lord Risby, not to focus on only conflict, but, last week, Russia launched around 500 drones and 70 missiles, aimed primarily at Kyiv, killing at least 30 civilians and injuring nearly 90. The scale of damage from more than four years of war is, of course, enormous. The latest World Bank assessment is that around $588 billion will be required for recovery and reconstruction over the next decade.
Early recovery and development support are therefore critical if we are to prevent Ukraine falling into decline, poverty and instability. This is an agenda to which we are fully committed and, as the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, said, it is entirely cross-party. Through the UK’s historic and wide-ranging 100-year partnership with Ukraine, we are deepening relations across the social, cultural, education and trade sectors to ensure a more prosperous and secure long-term future for both our countries. The entire premise of having a 100-year partnership is so that it is all-encompassing.
Already 54,000 British and Ukrainian pupils are set to benefit from the school-twinning programme under the 100-year partnership. The suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Risby, of a register of partnerships, a platform to link communities, a municipal aid corridor and a local government fund for grants to support partnerships were all excellent and implementable, and we will of course consider them thoroughly. Not all of them need the Government to do them. In the true nature of the spirit of entrepreneurship that you often find in local government in this country and in Ukraine, some of those things can happen in any case.
Democratic institutions, including Ukraine’s Parliament and civil society, will play a key role in Ukraine’s recovery. Co-operation between the Ukrainian Government, Parliament and civil society, along with international partners, will help to ensure Ukraine’s democratic resilience. Ukraine’s decentralisation reforms have strengthened the ability of local authorities to deliver public services, respond to crises and lead recovery efforts, even in the most challenging wartime conditions. Strong local government will remain essential to rebuilding communities, strengthening resilience and supporting Ukraine’s future Euro-Atlantic integration.
The UK recognises that recovery and reform must go hand in hand. Continued progress on governance, anti-corruption, judicial reform and decentralisation will help Ukraine attract investment, strengthen institutions and support its Euro-Atlantic aspirations. Two weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary attended the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Gdansk alongside the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the conference, the Foreign Secretary announced our package of bilateral assistance for 2026-27, worth almost £290 million, to bolster Ukraine’s recovery and energy security. We also announced a further $1 billion of fiscal support through the World Bank, demonstrating our long-term commitment to Ukraine’s reconstruction. The Deputy Prime Minister announced that £12 million of this package is for a new governance programme, including £2.4 million for anti-corruption initiatives.
The UK has consistently supported a recovery that is inclusive, accountable and, above all, led by Ukraine, with civil society playing a central role in shaping, supporting and scrutinising that recovery. However, we recognise that recovery cannot be delivered from Kyiv alone. Action at local and regional level was a core theme of this year’s Ukraine Recovery Conference, recognising that local communities are best placed to identify priorities and lead reconstruction.
As the noble Lord, Lord Risby, said, Ukrainian civil society organisations were among the first to step forward after Russia’s full-scale invasion. They continue to support those most affected by the war, including the communities that are hardest to reach. This is where municipal partnerships can make a real difference. I completely agree with the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, made. Like him, I have served in local government and learned a huge amount from that experience that I use every single day in my current role. It is these partnerships that help local authorities deliver better services, learn from each other’s experience and build the foundations for long-term recovery.
The UK is backing that approach in practice. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, asked how we are doing this. We are using our humanitarian assistance and resilience programme to strengthen the role of civil society and community groups in delivering support on the ground. Through the UK-led multi-donor Partnership Fund for a Resilient Ukraine we directly strengthen local authorities in Ukraine’s front-line regions to ensure that local governments remain visible, responsible, and, most importantly, trusted by their local residents.
Through our social protection programme, SPIRIT, we are helping Ukraine move from emergency response into long-term recovery, supporting reform, strengthening social services and helping Ukrainian municipalities—I will just call them that—to work together to meet local needs. Working with UNICEF and the NGO ISAR Ednannia, we are supporting around 100 municipalities and 120 local providers. This support is leaving a lasting legacy, helping municipalities build the skills, partnerships and systems that they need to sustain recovery long after individual grants end.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked for regular reporting and suggested a platform to showcase work that is happening, which are excellent ideas. Let us see what we can take forward.
As we say every time we talk about Ukraine, the UK stands with Ukraine in its journey towards a just and lasting peace and in its efforts to rebuild. Ensuring that Ukraine emerges from this war as a stronger, more resilient, more prosperous country is just as important as supporting its defence today. Ukraine’s recovery will be built through not only international investments but strong institutions, empowered local communities and the determination of the Ukrainian people. The UK remains committed to that effort and to Ukraine for as long as it takes.
International Development Outcomes for Women and Girls
Baroness Sugg
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of cuts to Official Development Assistance on international development outcomes for women and girls.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to bring forward this debate and I thank all noble Lords who will speak. Although speaking time is unfortunately short, I hope that today’s interest leads to further opportunities to examine the impact of cuts to official development assistance. I declare my interests, as set out on the register, of support from the Coalition for Global Prosperity, and my position as chair of Plan International UK.
Since the Government announced ODA cuts, many in this House have challenged the logic: defence and development are not competing priorities but mutually reinforcing. This is a political choice, with devastating consequences, which undermines the UK’s ambitions and commitments. The cuts are not felt on paper or in government strategy documents; they are felt in the daily lives of millions among the most fragile communities globally, especially women and girls, who disproportionately bear the consequences.
Despite progress, and thanks in no small part to the work of UK development, the scale of the challenge globally remains staggering: 840 million women have been victims of physical or sexual violence; every two minutes, a woman dies from pregnancy or childbirth complications; and 133 million girls are not in school. Crises, be they conflict, climate or health, hit women and girls hardest. Violence increases, including sexual violence as a weapon of war, trafficking and early and forced marriage. In Sudan alone, 17.1 million women and girls now need humanitarian assistance, and 4.3 million have been displaced. According to ICAI, at the current pace, ending gender-based violence and achieving equality for women and girls will take another 100 years, so for the UK to be stepping back is deeply regrettable.
I welcome the Government’s new international strategic framework on women and girls, particularly its focus on SRHR and integration across health, education and survivor support. I also welcome the inclusion of women and girls as one of the FCDO’s six refreshed priorities. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for their efforts in international fora and in the difficult—if regrettable—decisions around ODA allocations. As we face another change in No. 10 in the coming weeks, I hope that they can both continue this important work. The Government deserve credit for their target of 90% of bilateral ODA programmes contributing to gender equality by 2030. This is a significant commitment that builds on our positive track record on gender equality reporting. I hope that when the bilateral allocations are published shortly, the Government will have a clear assessment of progress towards that commitment.
All that said, I am afraid that that is where the plaudits end and the questions begin. The Government have said that mainstreaming women and girls’ rights should be built into decisions across the entire portfolio, yet significant concerns remain around mainstreaming, given evidence of mixed results of mainstreaming across different contexts. As the Gender and Development Network warns, poorly executed mainstreaming can dilute efforts, divert resources or become a tick-box exercise. I hope that the Minister will consider the network’s clear and tangible recommendations for a more effective approach. In addition to mainstreaming, is the Minister able to provide reassurances that the Government still see value in dedicated, stand-alone programmes for women and girls? Will they protect at least the current 12% of ODA allocated to gender equality?
When it comes to dedicated programmes that have been successful, there is no better example, in my mind, than that of the women’s integrated sexual health programme—WISH—which has transformed access to sexual and reproductive health and rights services for the poorest women and girls across 27 countries in Africa and Asia. Reaching over 6 million women and girls since 2018, it has averted nearly 37,000 maternal deaths, prevented 3.85 million unsafe abortions and helped 300,000 girls and young women stay in school. However, with centrally managed programmes expected to be cut by approximately 42% and to be replaced with “communities of expertise”, we need much greater clarity from the Government about what will happen to these programmes and how the women and equalities community of expertise will work. With funding cuts and life-saving SRHR service delivery being scaled down or closing, people in remote areas will have nowhere to access reproductive health services, women will be forced to continue pregnancies they were unable to avoid, teenage pregnancy will rise, girls will be denied an education, and death rates will rise.
There are actions that the Government can take to improve their effectiveness and help mitigate the worst outcomes for women and girls. The first step is robust accountability. The new commitment to gender mainstreaming should be operationalised in a way that sets clear objectives through incentive structures, develops institutional capacity and resources, and creates feedback mechanisms with women’s organisations. The second step is to set well-defined levels of high ambition. The FCDO should set clear priorities for heads of mission on women and girls, backed by necessary political heft. This should go hand in hand with the UK maintaining a strategic approach across its diplomatic corps and Armed Forces to put gender equality on the front lines of crisis response.
The UK should continue to support key multilateral bodies such as the UNFPA. In the context of a global rollback on reproductive rights, the UK must continue its important support and make its voice heard to protect the UNFPA’s mandate. But we must also ensure that our other significant multilateral contributions, to other UN institutions, to Gavi and the Global Fund, to the World Bank and regional development banks, are used as effectively as possible to benefit women and girls. As ODA shifts toward multilaterals, accountability for spending aligned with UK priorities becomes even more critical. The commitment to 90% relates only to the reducing bilateral portfolio; I would love to see this commitment extended to multilaterals.
Finally, the UK has a unique opportunity next year with the presidency of the G20. I hope the Government seize this chance to embed gender equality as a central theme of the summit. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that gender is effectively mainstreamed across the agenda, particularly on the finance track, given the evidence on the gendered effects of debt burdens, the wider rollback on rights internationally, and the sharp reduction in financing for gender equality work globally?
I will end with an example of what the cuts to ODA mean in practice—not in the abstract, but in reality for women and children. Earlier this year, “Channel 4 News” broadcast a special report, “A Matter of Life or Death: Giving Birth in Sierra Leone”, filmed over one week inside the busiest maternity corridors in Freetown. It is challenging to watch but shows exactly what is now at stake for women and babies as UK aid funding recedes. I urge noble Lords and the Minister to watch it, if she has not already.
The report focused on the saving lives programme, a health systems-strengthening initiative delivered in partnership with Concern Worldwide. Progress has been made in a country with one of the world’s highest maternal mortality rates, but that progress is now at risk. The cuts are having real consequences: fewer services, shortages of essential medicines and weaker emergency referral systems. At a time when postpartum haemorrhage remains a leading cause of maternal death, these changes will cost lives.
This is what happens when funding is withdrawn from programmes that work. Women and babies are placed at greater risk from preventable causes because health systems are being weakened—and without time to put alternatives in place. I call on the Government to publish a full assessment of the impact of ODA reductions on maternal and newborn survival before any further cuts are made, not after the damage has been done.
Investing in development outcomes for women and girls is the right thing to do. It is also the smartest and quickest route to economic growth, improved health outcomes and global stability. I hope the Government act with the urgency that this demands and do everything in their power to mitigate the impact of the cuts on the women and girls who face the greatest risk from them.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for arranging this debate today. I also thank Concern Worldwide, Planned Parenthood, CAFOD, Action Aid and many other organisations which were kind enough to get in touch with me, as with others, about this debate.
The scale of the reduction in official development assistance that we debate here is significant and will drop to the lowest share since 1999. Most of our overseas gender focus will be affected if sitting within our bilateral programmes, which are being reduced significantly by 37%. The Government’s own equalities impact assessment recognises that this will fall disproportionately on programmes supporting equality for women and girls. I make no apology for talking about women and girls; they are the future of the world, not just here but everywhere.
Regarding women, peace and security, an area which I have worked on for many years and will continue to do so as an adviser to the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, I welcome the Government’s decision to protect central funding for the WPS agenda, and for preventing sexual violence in conflict, at 2025-26 levels. However, I note that a planned increase to the women, peace and security programme has itself been cut by 25%, at a time when the Commons International Development Committee has found that:
“The Government’s commitment to … the WPS National Action Plan … appears to be waning”.
Producing a budget at last year’s level, while welcome in the current climate, is not the same as the funding on it. I hope the Minister will confirm that this is a momentary pause.
I also hope that when we are leading the G20, we will continue at its meetings to be powerful on the importance of women being at the peace table, when we can ensure that this will happen. At present, that is not happening anywhere around the world, and we have to take that leadership.
I remind the Committee that these numbers are not hypothetical and have real-world impacts on women and girls around the world. The women’s integrated sexual health programme was described by the Government as “relatively protected”, yet its delivery partner, International Planned Parenthood Federation, now faces a 22% funding reduction for a programme that has helped to avert more than 1,000 maternal deaths. IPPF’s projection is that a cut of this size will put the lives of mothers and babies at risk. I hope that the Minister will say more about how the Government intend to prevent this pattern being repeated elsewhere.
I welcome the commitment that 90% of the FCDO’s bilateral programmes will contribute to gender equality by 2023. As the new communities of expertise model is developed, I hope that women’s rights organisations, particularly those with direct experience in fragile and conflict-affected states, will be consulted as full partners, as we know that the inclusion of local women at every stage of the consulting process leads to a better outcome all round in their society.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for bringing this important debate. During my years as International Development Minister and as the Government’s champion for tackling violence against women and girls overseas, people often asked me what I would remember the most. It is not meetings or briefing papers but faces. One face that has never left me still comes back to me whenever we have debates like this. I was visiting a Marie Stopes outreach clinic in Uganda for women who had suffered sexual and domestic violence that we were supporting. It provided family planning and reproductive healthcare, but it was also a place of refuge. Since all the officials and dignitaries who surrounded me were men, I asked them to leave so that I could sit in a circle with the women alone. One woman arrived late carrying her baby. I say “carrying”, but both her arms had been cut off by her husband with a machete, one below the elbow, one above, and she cradled her child with what remained. For that woman, British development assistance was not an abstract policy; it was the difference between hope and despair—the difference between finding help and finding none.
That visit reinforced what I came to believe as a Minister: that women and girls are not a peripheral part of development but its foundation. I learned that, when women and girls thrive, whole communities thrive. Educate a girl and she is more likely to earn, to marry later, to have healthier children and to lift her family out of poverty. Protect a woman from violence, and you do more than change one life; you strengthen a family, a community and ultimately a nation. That is why investing in women and girls has never been an optional extra. It is one of the smartest investments that any country could ever make. That is why today’s debate matters.
The Government’s assessment recognises that reducing official development assistance will have negative effects for women and girls. My concern is that those impacts are not simply figures in a report; they are people. They mean that fewer girls will complete their education, fewer women will access maternal and reproductive health care, fewer survivors of violence will find safety and support, and fewer local women’s organisations will be able to keep their doors open for those with nowhere else to turn. The Government say that women and girls remain a priority, and I welcome that commitment, but I have to say that priorities are measured not only by what we say but by what we sustain. When the Government assess the impact of these reductions, how will they measure the women and girls who will no longer receive the opportunities, protection and support that Britain once helped to provide? Behind every programme we reduce, there is a woman or girl we may never meet whose life will be changed by our decision.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, not for the first time the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, deserves our gratitude for concentrating our minds on victims and survivors of international crimes, especially on women and girls in need of access to life-sustaining support. In my three minutes, I will focus on Sudan and Nigeria.
Sudan is facing a second genocide in two decades. This includes a war on women, which I referred to on Tuesday during Question Time and will do so again on Friday next week in my debate on the Genocide Determination Bill. Targeted, unspeakable violence, systemic use of rape as a weapon of war, extreme famine and catastrophic displacement mean that millions of Sudanese women and girls are plunged into peril. As the noble Baroness told us, 17 million women and girls in Sudan are now in need of assistance.
A truly shocking UN report on CRSV in Sudan reports that women whom it interviewed in West Darfur were being asked, before being raped, which tribe they belonged to. One replied, “Masalit”. The perpetrators said they would kill her. Another, before being subjected to gang rape, was told:
“‘If you are Masalit, we will slaughter you today’ … Others were told, ‘You will be our wives’, ‘You slave’, ‘You are our women,’ and ‘This year, all of you Masalit girls deliver our children’”.
If these women somehow survive, they will need sustained help but also justice, which has been absent since the first genocide in Darfur some 20 years ago.
Meanwhile, in Nigeria, whole communities have been targeted by Boko Haram, Islamic State West Africa Province and Fulani militia. They target girls, often abducting them from schools. The Minister knows and has responded to me about the case of Leah Sharibu, who, eight years ago, aged 14, was kidnapped, impregnated, raped, forcibly married and told to convert. She remains unrescued in captivity. Last November, more than 300 children, many of them girls, and staff, were kidnapped by gunmen from a Catholic school in central Nigeria in one of the worst mass abductions the country has seen. Such attacks are common, but they receive too little attention.
In this context, in 2024, UK officials considered increasing our ambition on support for the protection of civilians, including atrocity prevention. An internal options paper outlined four broad options for scaling up protections of civilians and establishing an international protection mechanism. Of the options, the FCDO opted to take the fourth and least-ambitious option.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry—I know this is unconventional—but that is factually incorrect. That did not happen, and I want to make that clear to the Committee at this point.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for her intervention, but what I said is based on information provided to me by officials who work in her department. It is said that the
“FCDO opted to take the fourth – and least ambitious – option … FCDO stakeholders … recognised the value of supporting locally led protection of civilians interventions, but stated that an already overstretched country team did not have the capacity to take on a complex new programming area. This has constrained the UK’s ability to support stronger protection results”,
inevitably.
Clearly, we owe it to girls like Leah and the women and girls of Sudan to be more ambitious. Given the Minister’s intervention just now, I hope that it will be possible to sit down with her and talk through those previous ambitions, which were rejected, and see what can be done for others in the future.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for bringing this debate. I will focus on violence against women and girls. As we have heard, the fundamental concern here is whether the reduction in UK ODA can be achieved without significant consequences for women and girls. The Government’s own equality impact assessment acknowledges that the reduction in ODA
“will inevitably have negative impacts for many programme beneficiaries”.
I state the obvious here that women and girls constitute at least 50% of the world’s population. When we talk about these issues, I often feel as though we are talking about something that affects a minority group, which would still not be acceptable, but sometimes we need to state the obvious.
I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to maintain central spending on preventing violence against women and girls, the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative and women, peace and security programmes. However, UN Women reports that global aid cuts totalling an estimated $78 billion are severely impacting efforts to end violence against women and girls, with around one-third of organisations suspending programmes and over 40% reducing vital services such as shelters, legal aid and psychological support. This is tragic.
From a faith perspective, ending gender-based violence is a priority across the Anglican Communion, and many churches and communities are being trained to respond to abuse, support survivors and change harmful social norms. There is much more we can and should do. I pay tribute to the Mothers’ Union, an Anglican, women-led movement of around 4 million members in 83 countries that works at grass-roots level to tackle violence, poverty and injustice. For many vulnerable women, particularly in remote communities, Mothers’ Union branches provide practical support, literacy training, economic empowerment and protection from abuse. Indeed, faith-based organisations are often among the few institutions that are present in fragile and conflict-affected settings. Where age reduction leads to fewer partnerships with trusted local organisations, women and girls may lose access to critical support networks.
Will the Minister say what steps the FCDO is taking to remove barriers to funding for faith-based organisations working to prevent gender-based violence, and what engagement it has had with them on the impact of funding cuts? The measure of our development policy is not simply what we say about gender equality but what women and girls are unable to live—lives marked by greater safety, opportunity and dignity. At a time of significant reductions in aid spending, it is all the more important that we keep those women and girls at the heart of our decision-making and ask whether our choices are helping them to flourish.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for securing this debate and for her steadfast commitment to women and girls affected by conflict. Conscious of the time limit, I will focus on one issue: conflict-related sexual violence. For survivors, the reduction in official development assistance is not merely an accounting exercise; it determines whether a woman who has been raped receives life-saving medical treatment, protection and a chance of justice. The evidence is clear: we are going backwards.
Physicians for Human Rights has documented the consequences of abrupt reductions in international assistance. Across Ethiopia, DRC, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, clinicians report shortages of post-exposure prophylaxis following rape, interruptions to post-rape care, the closure of one-stop centres and the collapse of referral pathways. Survivors are being denied emergency treatment when they need it most. These are not marginal reductions; they are dismantling the system on which survivors depend, leaving women who have been raped searching in vain for life-saving medicines. As a result, they are becoming victims twice over—first at the hands of those who committed these crimes and then through the withdrawal of the assistance on which their recovery entirely depends.
Political leadership matters too. When my noble friend Lord Hague founded the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative, he understood that this was not only a humanitarian issue but a strategic one. I had the privilege, as his special adviser, of accompanying him to meetings with Heads of States, Foreign Ministers and other senior leaders. Whatever the purpose of the meeting, he raised this issue. It had an impact, because when a Foreign Secretary speaks, counterparts listen. It becomes a matter of foreign policy and national security. That access to the highest level of government, combined with the authority of the office, gave Britain influence far beyond the resources we committed. It demonstrated that these crimes mattered to our country and that we would work to hold perpetrators to account.
I therefore welcome the Foreign Secretary’s decision to lead the new international coalition to end violence against women and girls, and the recent appointment of the new PSVI special envoy. However, I had hoped that the Foreign Secretary would personally take on this role—not because of the individual appointed, for whom I have the greatest respect, but because the authority of the office sends an unmistakable signal that this remains a foreign policy priority for the United Kingdom. No one disputes the pressures on the public finances, the threat from Russia, the challenges posed by China or the demands on our country at home and abroad, but preventing conflict-related sexual violence is not separate from our foreign policy but an integral part of it. The perpetrators of these crimes watch what we do. When they see retreat, they see opportunity. If we fail to confront this evil where it begins, we will confront its consequences later, with greater instability, displacement, migration and far greater cost. Prevention costs less than crisis management. More importantly, it is the right thing to do.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, on securing this important debate and for ensuring that the well-being of vulnerable women and girls remains firmly on our agenda. In my role as a former vice-chair and trustee of the British Red Cross, I was closely involved in programmes supporting mothers and babies affected by conflict.
I begin with the story of Marie, shared in evidence to the International Development Committee on the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Marie, a mother of four and heavily pregnant, was displaced by conflict and separated from her husband. She was told she needed a caesarean section but could not afford the $70 fee at her local clinic. Unable even to feed her family, she walked for days to reach a hospital where the operation would be free, risking both childbirth and armed violence along the way. Marie’s story is not an isolated tragedy; it is what happens when maternal and reproductive healthcare is out of reach.
I recognise the difficult fiscal choices facing the Government. I welcome their commitment to return to spending 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance when fiscal conditions allow, and their ambition for 90% of bilateral aid programmes to advance gender equality by 2030. The Government deserve credit for holding to that under pressure, yet the need has never been greater. Between 2019 and 2022, women’s rights stagnated or declined in 40% of countries, affecting around 1 billion women and girls. In 2023, around 260,000 women died from complications of pregnancy and childbirth—almost all from preventable causes, with the overwhelming majority occurring in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2024, 92% of verified victims of conflict-related sexual violence were women and girls.
For women like Marie, gender equality is not an abstract policy objective. She experiences it when the caesarean section is free and accessible, when a clinic holds supplies for haemorrhage and infection, and when a skilled midwife or a doctor is available when every minute matters. It is hard to listen to these stories. We all know that—we have heard it from our colleagues. I would therefore be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would consider publishing a disaggregated annual report on sexual and reproductive health outcomes within the UK official development assistance, so that reproductive health for women and girls in conflict zones is treated as the emergency it is.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests: I co-chair and run the APPG on Women, Peace and Security, I am on the steering board of the PSVI, I run the Afghan Women’s Support Forum and I am an honorary colonel in CIMIC. I too thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for introducing this important debate today.
As we have heard, in the poorest countries women are always the poorest of the poor. The Red Cross reports over 130 active conflicts in the world today, with women disproportionately affected. Estimates by the WHO indicate that one in three women globally have been subjected to physical or sexual violence.
The international development budget is being cut to less than half of the pre-Covid amount—a political choice—causing much of Britain’s soft power to be abandoned by pitching defence against development. France, Germany and the USA, who, together with the UK, presented two-thirds of global aid spending, are also slashing development spend. Who will fill the gap? Perhaps it will be nations which do not share our idea of democracy.
The UN now estimates that 239 million people will need humanitarian support in 2026. Women and girls in conflict zones, refugee camps and disaster-hit regions are, as ever, among the most exposed when the safety net thins. The FCDO’s own equalities impact assessment found that reductions in bilateral aid will have a negative impact on equalities—in short, the Government already admit that the cuts will hurt women and girls.
The Foreign Secretary’s decision to
“make support for women and girls … a priority for development”
is most welcome, along with the commitment that at least 90% of FCDO bilateral aid programmes will contribute to gender by 2030. However, bilateral aid has been more heavily cut, with multilateral spend being prioritised. This means the UK cannot guarantee how the money will be spent.
This all feels like a broken promise; for years we have called ourselves a global leader on gender equality. Ensuring more women in the workplace helps lift countries out of poverty. Educating girls lowers infant mortality rates and reduces early marriages, but the UK is abandoning the funding of education. It is estimated that globally, 130 million girls are out of school, four times more than boys.
The UK has also reduced its contributions to UNFPA by 85%, risking additional maternal and child deaths and stopping the ability to prevent approximately 14.6 million unintended pregnancies. With education, gender and equality programming spending having fallen by about 42%, Bond, the umbrella organisation for UK development organisations, has said that women and girls will pay the highest price for this Government’s spending choices. As Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, put it when the Government confirmed their multi-year allocations,
“there will be no winners from unrelenting aid cuts, just different degrees of losers”.
Melinda Gates famously stated that supporting women and girls in international development is essential because they are highly effective catalysts for global change. Britain built its reputation as a global leader on this work over decades. It is being undone in a few budget cycles. The choice of whether that happens is still, in part, ours to make.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for initiating this important debate today. I declare my interest as founder, chairman and trustee of the Loomba Foundation and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the United Nations Global Goals.
For nearly three decades, the Loomba Foundation has worked to improve the lives of widows and their children, especially girls, through education, skills training, economic empowerment and international advocacy. There are almost 300 million widows worldwide, which is confirmed by UN Women. Many millions live in extreme poverty and face discrimination, dispossession and harmful traditional practices simply because they have lost their husbands. The consequences extend far beyond the widows themselves, disproportionately affecting their children, especially girls, through lost education, reduced opportunity and entrenched poverty. If we are serious about achieving the sustainable development goals on ending poverty and hunger, ensuring good health, quality education, gender equality, decent work, reduced inequalities and peace and justice, we cannot ignore the plight of widows.
I warmly acknowledge the long-standing support that successive UK Governments have given to the Loomba Foundation, including during the successful campaign that led to the United Nations unanimously adopting 23 June as International Widows Day. However, there is no doubt that reductions in overseas development aid have made the task significantly harder at a time of increasing global instability and humanitarian need. Will the Government work with international NGOs, including the Loomba Foundation, to mitigate the impact of reduced funding through greater collaboration, improved data collection and stronger evidence-based policy? On International Widows Day this year, we adopted the Universal Declaration of Widows’ Rights, founded on a simple principle: widowhood is the loss of a spouse; it must not become the loss of rights. I hope the Government will support that principle in both policy and practice.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for this debate and join her in expressing my concern about the impact that reductions in the UK’s ODA will have on women and girls around the world. When aid budgets are reduced, the consequences are not felt equally. Women and girls are almost always the first to lose access to education, healthcare, sexual and reproductive health services, protection from violence and economic opportunities. These are not abstract budget lines; they are the foundations of dignity, security and opportunity.
For decades, the UK has been recognised as a global leader in championing girls’ education, maternal health, ending gender-based violence and supporting women’s rights organisations. That leadership has saved lives, expanded opportunity and strengthened our standing as a trusted international partner. We should be proud of that record. Yet reductions in ODA invariably force difficult choices. Programmes supporting survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, preventing child marriage, improving maternal healthcare and enabling girls to stay in school are often among those scaled back or closed altogether.
Support matters not only because it is the right thing to do, but because investing in women and girls is one of the smartest investments any country can make. When girls complete their education, child marriage declines, maternal and infant mortality falls, household incomes rise and communities become more resilient. When women participate fully in economic and political life, societies are more stable, prosperous and secure.
In 2014, Parliament passed the International Development (Gender Equality) Act, introduced by Sir William Cash as a Private Member’s Bill with cross-party support. That Act requires Ministers, when providing development assistance, to have regard to the desirability of reducing gender inequality and addressing the particular needs of women and girls. That legislation is relevant to today’s debate about whether significant reductions in ODA can be reconciled with the spirit and the purpose of the legislation. Can the Minister therefore explain what assessment has been made of the impact of recent ODA reductions on the Government’s ability to meet the duties and objectives set out in the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014?
Our values are measured by not only what we say but where we choose to invest. Supporting women and girls is not an optional extra or a peripheral concern. It is central to poverty reduction, global stability and sustainable development. Even in challenging fiscal circumstances, we must not lose sight of that fundamental truth. I hope the Minister will reaffirm the UK’s commitment to ensuring that women and girls remain at the heart of our international development policy.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I declare that I am the co-chair of the APPG on Global Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. I, too, thank my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for securing this important and timely debate. It has truly been a sobering debate with so much expertise around this table.
Wars waged by men are often a death sentence for women and girls. Yet despite carrying much of the burden during war, women remain excluded from peace negotiations and political decision-making. The UN reports that women make up only 7% of negotiators and 14% of mediators in formal peace processes. The dial has hardly moved on those statistics in years. As we have heard, more than 4.3 million women and girls in Sudan are now displaced. The suffering is horrifying. We have heard that in Congo, Afghanistan, Gaza and other places, suffering is equally off the scale.
The reduction in FCDO health spending in 2025-26, including cuts to the women’s integrated sexual health programme, has been described as a cruel proposal at a time of acute crisis for women and girls. For the UNFPA programmes, although core funding has been welcome, 2025 funding cuts from multiple donors have severely disrupted sexual and reproductive health. Even with existing funding, 1,100 health facilities and mobile clinics were forced to close. In many places, the maternal health clinic may still stand, but the midwife is gone. There is no emergency obstetric equipment, no post-rape kits and no contraceptives left on the shelves.
Across conflict settings, we are not witnessing temporary service disruptions, we are watching decades of investment in women’s health being rolled back. The impact cannot be measured simply in budgets; it is measured in lives, as we have heard from some harrowing personal stories here today. The truth in this crisis goes deeper than aid cuts. As the noble Baroness said, we need an impact assessment on the full extent of these cuts.
It was reported recently in the British Medical Journal that as conflicts increase, the UK, the United States and other countries are pulling back support that communities rely on. At its core is a global financial system that starves health services of the funding they need. Until that system is reformed and more women are at the table where these decisions are being taken, women, children and vulnerable people will keep paying with their health and their lives.
The UK must use its influential role globally to champion women’s economic alternatives through the G7, the G20 and the UN, including debt relief. Many countries are paying so much in debt repayment rather than investing in services for their communities. To enable Governments to invest in these gender-responsive services, education and long-term resilience, what is needed, as has been mentioned already, is political leadership, which is vital. I hope that in the coming changes in the Government, this will be on the agenda and considered.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for bringing this debate forward. Her long-standing commitment to international development is respected across the House, and I pay tribute to her for her continued work.
Before I address the issue of overseas development assistance, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I reflect on the increasingly unstable world in which we live. We know that instability and conflict have unique effects on women and girls. Last month, I asked the Minister about the appalling sexual violence against women in Sudan; this was highlighted by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We have seen cases of sexual violence being used as a weapon of war in Ukraine and against Israeli hostages, as well as on 7 October 2023. We have a powerful role to play as a voice against atrocities and war crimes, as well as in holding perpetrators to account. Can the Minister expand on the Government’s broader approach to conflict in the world today, the effect that it is having on women and girls—especially in respect of sexual violence—and how we are responding to it?
I turn to the overseas development assistance budget. As has been mentioned by most noble Lords, in the face of growing fiscal and defence challenges, our spending has reduced significantly as a percentage of gross national income. Given the challenges that we face today, the Official Opposition understand and support that. I appreciate that there are a range of views on funding in this Committee, of course, but the Government’s work on supporting the rights of women and girls across the world need not be constrained by our redefined ODA budget. We can also continue to use our reputation as a respected nation on the international stage to promote that progress.
That is, I think, what the Government have sought to do in appointing the noble Baroness, Lady Harman, as the UK Special Envoy for Women and Girls. Can the Minister update the Committee on the progress made during those visits? Can she also say whether championing the contribution that women and girls can make internationally has been discussed at the UK Soft Power Council? If not, will it be discussed at its next meeting?
In closing, although there are a range of views on our spending on overseas development assistance, I hope that we can all be united in our ambition to see an end to violence against women and girls, equality before the law and freedom for all, as well as recognition of the value of the contribution that women can make in every society across the world. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for bringing us together to have this discussion. It is incredibly important that we do so, and it speaks to the level of interest and concern across our House that so many noble Lords have chosen to come and take part in this Committee this afternoon. I know personally how committed the noble Baroness is to improving the lives of women and girls around the world. This is not a new thing for her; she has spent many years doing this, and I value and respect her work. I know how much everybody here cares about this issue.
I have to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I understand where the noble Lord read what he spoke about; it was recently raised with me, too, at the International Development Committee. I have responded formally in writing to the committee specifically on the issues raised by the noble Lord. I can categorically assure him that no such proposal ever came to any Minister and that the least effective options were not selected. That did not happen. I am very happy to meet the noble Lord and whoever he wishes to bring along to discuss these matters in as much detail as he would like, because I know that his aim is true and that what he wants is the same as what I want, which is to see a resolution to this heinous conflict.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity at all—she knows that. I did not say that proposals had been sent to her. I said there had been four sets of proposals and stakeholders had been involved in them. What I said was that a particular, most ambitious proposal was put to one side and the least ambitious proposal was the one that was adopted. Which Ministers agreed to see those proposals in the first place, I do not know, but as she said, this was said at a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and it has been said in the national media. This was not something I pulled out of thin air. I am grateful to her as it would be good to have sight of the letter she has written. She knows that before the Genocide Determination Bill is considered next Friday, a request was made by her noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and me to see the Foreign Secretary. I hope the Minister will relay that request again.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would be very happy to do that. I know that the noble Lord does not pull these things out of thin air; I am familiar with where this has come from. I have said what I have said, we can get into it in more depth, and I would be very happy to do that.
The Government have put the safety and rights of women and girls at the heart of the UK’s development and international work more generally. We have done this because, as many noble Lords have said, advancing gender equality is the right thing to do, but it is also the best way to alleviate poverty, build economies and support women leaders, and countries need women leaders in order to thrive. I think everybody here understands and agrees with that. Women strengthen democracies, advance peace and security, and drive prosperity. That is why the Foreign Secretary made women and girls a stand-alone priority for the FCDO. It is also why I am a SheDecides champion, supporting sexual and reproductive health and rights, and women’s rights to choose.
We now have the framework in place to turn our ambitions into reality. I would like more money for this agenda, and I think that contributions that highlight the ODA budget cuts are absolutely legitimate and fair. What is less fair, I think, is any suggestion that we have somehow not understood the impact that this could have, that we have not been open and transparent about the decisions that we have made, or that we have not consciously and deliberately amended those choices in order to, as far as we possibly can, within the budget that we have, make sure that women and girls, within the constraints that exist, remain central to everything we do. At the end of the day, development is all about women and girls. They benefit from every penny that we spend, and we have to make sure that that continues.
In May, we launched the UK’s international strategic framework on women and girls. This sets out how we will advance the safety, prosperity, voice—that is vital—and choice of women and girls, bringing together our diplomatic, development and multilateral efforts behind a clear set of priorities.
I was asked about mainstreaming. I completely understand the misgivings that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, about this. I agree with her—we have to be alert to that—but we have committed that by 2030, at least 90% of the UK’s bilateral ODA programmes will contribute to gender equality, ensuring that women and girls remain central to our work even as our budget is reduced. We are making progress. In 2024, 81% of FCDO bilateral ODA projects were marked as making a principal or significant contribution to gender equality. That is up from 58% in 2022. This means that we are designing programmes that better address the barriers faced by women and girls across our portfolio while continuing targeted action where that is needed. I will say a little bit about that as well.
A number of contributions raised concerns about the impact of the reduction in spending. These cuts are a reality. They were significant, which is why—I think this is the first time this has been done—we took the decision to publish the equalities impact assessments for our allocations for the next three years. They tell us that there is no disproportionate negative impact on women and girls across our multilateral and central spending.
I will be honest about how this came about. We made a set of decisions and commissioned the equalities impact assessment. It came back and I did not like what I was reading, so we changed some decisions as a consequence and published the assessment. That is why noble Lords will see some programmes protected, even though in their essence they go against some of the changes and modernisation moves that we wanted to make in our development spend, because they are centrally managed programmes. They are run in a way which is about service provision. They could be accused—it seems an odd thing to say—of generating dependency or being duplicate systems. But if we were not looking at giving out contraception in areas of the Sahel, then the idea that you could strengthen a government system that would be willing to do that work is, I think, just not realistic or practical at this stage, so those things continue.
We have protected central programme spending both on violence against women and girls and on women, peace and security, where our work continues to support women peacebuilders and women’s rights organisations in some of the world’s most dangerous and fragile places. We have protected funding for Education Cannot Wait, ensuring that girls continue to get an education in even the most difficult conditions, and we have increased the proportion of country and regional spending in fragile and conflict-affected states, where women and girls are often at the most risk. This will rise to over 70% of our portfolio by 2028-29.
Like noble Lords, including—I am so sorry, I want to call her Lynne, which I know is highly inappropriate—the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, I have had the privilege to serve as a Development Minister, as others have too. I have been there in makeshift shelters listening to women who have endured the worst experiences that most of us could ever imagine: in Chad, with women fleeing the war in Sudan; with Rohingya women in Bangladesh; and with those escaping hideous conflict in DRC. I have heard their stories, held their children and their hands, and I know, as many have rightly said, that they are not numbers or names on a list. In the words that we have heard this afternoon and which were said to me by women on these occasions, they are our sisters. We support these women, though not just with aid. We must do more. We have to make ourselves really focus on the outcomes that we achieve, not just what we put into the system. We have to be responsible for the outcome of everything that we spend.
As the UK shifts from being a donor to a long-term partner and investor, we have got to focus on strengthening the systems that countries rely on, so that they can thrive even when aid is cut. The modern partnerships we are seeking to build will use investment and economic growth to expand opportunity for women and girls. That is one reason why British International Investment’s new strategy will increase investments supporting women’s economic empowerment from 25% to 30% of its core portfolio. This investment will support more women for longer, and in a more sustainable way, than traditional programming ever could.
We must have some humility about the limit of what our traditional aid spending could ever achieve. The world spends around $70 billion ODA in Africa; the development gap is $1.3 trillion, so there is a lot more that needs to be done. There is money in markets in Europe and North America that never goes anywhere near Africa. Part of our role, the leadership that the UK can provide, is about making sure that that money can get into those developing economies and do real good in the longer term.
As noble Lords have said, we must not just contend with cuts in ODA. There was a real issue with rollback and political hostility to this agenda. Our commitment to this agenda is reflected not just in the choices we have made here but in our wider diplomatic work. In May, the Foreign Secretary announced a new international coalition to end violence against women and girls, to prevent violence, protect women and girls, and hold perpetrators to account. Next year, the UK will convene a major summit on tackling violence against women and girls, providing a platform for countries to set out further commitments and report on progress so that we can learn from each other.
As noble Baronesses—mostly—have said, we want the multilateral system to raise its standards and build coalitions, defending the global consensus on women’s rights in international conventions and agreements, and in our partnerships with multilateral institutions. I could go on a lot more about our commitment to Gavi and the Global Fund and how we are now the biggest contributor to UNFPA, but we are probably short of time.
Women and girls’ rights are fundamental to global stability, prosperity and sustainable development. That is why we have taken decisions on where we spend our ODA mindfully. While budgets have changed, our commitment absolutely has not, and we will continue to champion the safety and rights of women and girls around the world because it is the right thing to do and is fundamental to the prosperity, security and stability that we seek for every woman and every girl everywhere.
Modern Service Framework for Dementia and Frailty
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Weir of Ballyholme
To ask His Majesty’s Government how the Modern Service Framework for Dementia and Frailty will improve dementia diagnosis, ensure robust and acceptable clinical data and performance metrics, and enable access to innovative treatments.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to raise what is both an important and timely issue. There is a truism which certainly affects my family, indeed most families: many years ago, it would have been said that the terrible scourge of cancer had touched pretty much every family in the country and that most had lost at least one loved one. With dementia now being the single largest cause of death in the United Kingdom, that truism about cancer is becoming more and more relevant and accurate for describing dementia as well.
Given what I think is the universal nature of the dementia issue, we should all be on the same side and the same page on this, and I believe that we are. To that extent, the modern service framework offers a golden opportunity to set the strategic direction, and its practical implementation, for the future of dementia services within the United Kingdom. I am encouraged to learn of a number of groups with which there has been co-operation from the department in drawing up that document. It would be helpful for the Minister to give us a little more detail today of the extent of the co-design of the modern service framework, and to update the Committee on the timescale for the interim and final reports of the framework. It is therefore important that we get this right, because none of us want to see the modern service framework become a missed opportunity. That is why the details need to be right.
In the brief time available to me today, I will touch on four areas which are critical to the modern service framework. First, there is reduction of risk. A recent survey carried out by Alzheimer’s Research UK indicated that 84% of people wanted to know more about what they could do to reduce the risk of dementia, but, in that same poll, only 8% had any level of confidence that anything they could do could help to avoid or delay it. We know from international global studies that, currently, about 14 risk factors have been identified. I think this will become more and more relevant as our medical knowledge develops over the years to come.
It is important that reduction of risk is built into the modern service framework. That means looking at practical steps and at what is being done to try to identify high-risk groups—for example, how we will incorporate positive brain-health messaging into NHS health checks—and at how we can increase access to secondary prevention, through methodologies such as the memory assessment services and emerging brain health clinics, and integrate these with neighbourhood health centres. Reducing risk therefore has a critical role.
Secondly, there is the critical issue of diagnosis. We know it is estimated that perhaps a little over one-third of people with dementia are as yet undiagnosed. When we delve into that for early-onset dementia, the figures fall to probably less than half currently being diagnosed. There is a wide variety—a very patchy provision—across the country in the speed and extent of diagnosis. For example, if we look at early-onset dementia, the time taken for diagnosis is, generally speaking, about twice the length of time as for anybody else with dementia.
There is also an issue about the quality of the data generated from that diagnosis and the specificity that is able to be provided in the diagnosis. Therefore, it is important that the modern service framework looks at what the pre-existing options are for diagnosing Alzheimer’s. For example, if we look at PET scans and CSF testing, how can we embed those more and then embrace the next-generation technology of blood tests? Having commitments to that within the MSF is important, but it is also the case that we need to standardise coding across health and care settings, so that we can have standardised data in that regard. I say to the Government that it is important that they look, through the modern service framework, towards increasing the rate of diagnosis and ensuring that there is a greater level of consistency of diagnosis across the country.
Thirdly, and related to that, is the issue of research. We know that research and diagnosis in many ways go hand in hand, because if we do not have the volume of people being diagnosed, or if it is slower, that obviously impacts on the ability for clinical trials but will also impact the individual’s ability to get that early intervention as quickly as possible. Many of us see a golden opportunity in the years ahead. We are hopefully at the cusp or dawn of a new era of medical advances as regards dementia, which could either delay or even at some stage, we hope, prevent dementia in many cases. I commend to the Government the very recent publication of Ready for the Cure, which has been produced by the Alzheimer’s Research Society. I urge them to look at it. Within that, we need to learn how the Government see additional commitment to research through the modern service framework. Will it be focused on strengthening the research pipeline, and perhaps on creating a national dementia innovation team and national dementia datasets, so that we do not have a wide variety of those?
There is also a challenge, when looking at treatments, with the current position of NICE. There is a concern that its cost-benefit analysis does not take fully into account the extent of the burden on carers, even from the financial point of view. That needs to be fed a lot better into the system. As part of that, we need to ensure that not only do we get the research, but that the NHS is research-ready, so that whenever we have it available it can be implemented quickly.
Finally, I want to touch on the issue of pathways. Obviously, diagnosis is just the start rather than the end of a journey. Again, we have somewhat patchy quality in the pathways across the country. We need to standardise that and create a pathway applicable to everyone, probably with a level of variation—we would need something slightly different for those with early-onset dementia. Arising out of that, we will need to address gaps in infrastructure and staffing levels. In looking at pathways, we should not forget end-of-life palliative care and how we can invest in that. I welcome the debate and look forward to the contributions of others and the response of the Minister.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, for securing this important debate, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to delivering the modern service framework for dementia and frailty. Dementia is not gender neutral. We may not have a cure at the moment, but we can cure the inequity in access to research, clinical trials, early diagnosis and effective treatments.
In England, more than 500,000 people now have a recorded diagnosis of dementia, and nearly two-thirds of them are women. Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease have been the leading cause of death for women in England and Wales since 2011. Almost two-thirds of unpaid carers for people with dementia are also women. Women live longer, but longevity alone does not explain this disparity. The APOE4 gene increases women’s risk of Alzheimer’s disease more than men’s.
The emerging evidence suggests that the hormonal changes associated with menopause may increase vulnerability. The hormone oestrogen is vital for memory formation, as it is essential for effective communication between neurons in the part of the brain involved in memory. The link between dementia and menopause extends beyond misdiagnosis, yet until recently, the relationship between menopause and dementia received remarkably little scientific attention. We need more research about the risks of developing dementia in women who undergo early or premature menopause. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, mentioned, we need to work on reducing risk and, where possible, identify who is at high risk of developing dementia. Part of that involves identifying the risk in women going through early or premature menopause.
This has a human cost. Karen Barber from Essex devoted more than a decade of her life to public service at HM Passport Office and HMRC. In her 50s, her memory and organisational skills began to deteriorate. Her symptoms were repeatedly attributed to menopause and stress. She was repeatedly told that her symptoms were “in her mind”. Without a diagnosis, she was dismissed from her job for poor performance. More than 10 years later, and only after paying privately for a specialist assessment, she was finally diagnosed with young-onset dementia. Karen’s story is not simply one of illness; it is a story of delayed diagnosis, lost employment, financial hardship for the family and a system that failed to recognise the disease at the time.
For too long, medicine has been built around a male standard. Women’s underrepresentation in research and the failure to analyse differences between the sexes have left important gaps in our understanding of dementia. As we have known for a long time, studies show that women are underrepresented in dementia clinical trials relative to the burden of disease they bear. One review found that, among 118 dementia trials, only eight reported outcomes separately for women and men. In several studies, treatment benefits appeared greater in men, reminding us that biological sex may influence how medicines work. If we do not measure these differences, we cannot deliver gender-based care and the truly personalised, precision medicine that everyone deserves. I therefore warmly welcome the framework’s commitment to expanding dementia clinical trials, which is absolutely necessary and urgent, and the confirmation that participation will increase to 2,000 people over the next five years.
Innovation reduces inequalities only if it is designed for everyone. This is not only a health challenge for women, it is also an economic one. Women already face a substantial gender pension gap, and many leave the workforce prematurely because of caring responsibilities or their own ill health. For women with young-onset dementia, like Karen Barber, years of lost earnings, delayed diagnosis and interrupted careers compound lifetime financial disadvantage. Preventing dementia becoming a pathway into poverty should be part of our national ambition. Women bear a double burden when it comes to dementia, as I said earlier—I repeat it. They constitute the majority of those living with dementia and the majority of those caring for people with dementia. Too often, they also constitute the majority of those overlooked by research, clinical trials and clinicians.
If this modern service framework is truly to be once in a generation, it must place women not at the margins but at its very heart when it comes to clinical trials and early diagnosis. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, this is a huge opportunity to achieve that. Can my noble friend the Minister assure the Committee that sex and gender differences will be embedded throughout the modern service framework, from research funding and clinical trial design to the adoption of new diagnostics and treatments with proportionate representation of women? That includes ethnic minority women, because there are some differences in clinical trials and mandatory reporting of sex-disaggregated outcomes. If we are serious about precision medicine, which we should be, it must be precision medicine for all women.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, for securing this debate and for setting out the issues, as he did so comprehensively and with great expertise. We are very grateful to him.
Like so many people up and down the country—and, as I know, in your Lordships’ House—I too have experience of helping to care for relatives with dementia. The first time was over 20 years ago, and now our family joins many others in trying to navigate the challenge of a recent diagnosis. I have been reflecting on what has changed since I first tried to help a relative over 20 years ago, and I want to start on an optimistic note, because the medical landscape is different.
As we have heard, we have entered an era where the first disease-modifying therapies have been licensed. Innovation in diagnostics is enabling us to accurately identify disease earlier in the trajectory, and blood tests in NHS trials could make the diagnostic pathway easier. So, recent breakthroughs have at last delivered hope, if we build a healthcare and research system that is ready to adopt and deliver these innovations at scale as soon as they become available.
I am grateful for the briefings I have received. The joint letter from Dementia UK, Alzheimer’s Research UK and the Alzheimer’s Society in the very helpful Library briefing confirmed that there is
“a clear opportunity to change the trajectory of dementia—if the system is ready to act”.
However, it also stressed that
“we must recognise that the health and care system is failing to deliver the outcomes that people with dementia deserve today”.
The contrast between scientific progress and the daily reality faced by many patients can be jarring. Every dementia experience is of course unique to the individual, but the vast majority of families face similar hurdles: the emotional toll, the labyrinth of health and social care services and the struggle to access specialised support. It can be a very lonely journey, and I know that for many families, it takes a crisis for help to arrive, so I ask the Government to ensure that the framework is built on a true understanding of the experience of patients and carers.
In a debate on Alzheimer’s in October 2025, the Minister described the framework as taking “a whole view”. My hope is that this means it will take a whole view of the person and indeed of the system. The title of the report from Alzheimer’s Research UK, which the noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly referred to, is Ready for the Cure. It also highlights that dementia is one of the most feared health conditions, as we have heard. Yet we may also have a once-in-a-generation chance to move to a more preventive treatment model. We must ensure that the UK’s scientific excellence is translated into impact for patients and their families. I would be most grateful if the noble Baroness could set out how she envisages the framework achieving this.
We have so many strengths in the UK: there has been political will from past Governments and from this Government and many global leaders in the field are based here. As part of the 2012 Prime Minister’s challenge on dementia, the UK established the UK Dementia Research Institute, a beacon of scientific innovation, and the last Government established the Dame Barbara Windsor Dementia Goals programme.
We are also gaining a better understanding of prevention. The Lancet commission suggested that 45% of cases of dementia are preventable, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, referred to. We know that it is about managing risks where we can through lifestyle interventions—what is good for the heart is good for the head—and through better health system management, particularly of conditions such as diabetes. I also want to flag that recent successive studies have shown that people who have had the shingles vaccine have a low incidence of dementia. The shingles vaccine is one of a number of vaccines where studies have suggested some preventive cognitive benefit. Understanding the science behind this better will help shape future vaccine advice, and I wonder whether the Government have thought about this as part of the strategy and whether the Minister can comment.
Finally, but most importantly, let us remember the importance of kindness and empathy. I think about the number of people I have known who have sat in a room to hear a diagnosis and, indeed, the times when I have heard news about a family member. Each time, the reaction has been: where do we go next and who can help us? The Secretary of State has set out the importance of enabling patients to live well in their own neighbourhoods. This relies on a properly resourced workforce across health and social care, with the skills and kindness to help patients and their families manage a heartbreaking disease. Navigating post-diagnostic support is difficult, even with an advocate. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on the Government’s approach to care plans. This framework must move us away from a fragmented approach which too often let-down patients and families. We stand at an inflection point. I hope the Government recognise the urgency, because decisions taken now will shape how millions of people experience the hardest chapter of their lives. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, for tabling this Question for Short Debate and for his comprehensive opening words which set the tone for this short but perfectly formed debate, giving us the opportunity to consider what the modern service framework for dementia and frailty needs to deliver. If it is to succeed, it should set clear national standards backed by funding and accountability so that a diagnosis opens the door to real support and access to new treatments as they become available.
As we have heard, dementia is the UK’s leading cause of death, with almost 1 million people currently living with the condition. This is projected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. The noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, pointed out that two-thirds of them are women and referred to the interesting research on hormonal changes, the menopause and its links to developing dementia. That is important and something that we need to consider.
Research is advancing rapidly. There are, I understand, 158 drugs in 192 clinical trials globally. The first disease-modifying treatments are now licensed in the UK. However, people can access trials for innovative treatments only when they are diagnosed early—making diagnosis at the earliest stages increasingly important. It would be good to hear from the Minister what work the Government are undertaking to ensure easier access to trials. Alzheimer’s Research UK estimates that close to one-third of people over 65 living with dementia in England still do not have a recorded diagnosis, so closing that diagnostic gap is critical.
A UCL-led trial—supported by the Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Gates Ventures and players of the Postcode Lottery—began testing a blood test for Alzheimer’s disease in NHS memory services last year, offering a simpler, less invasive route to diagnosis than current methods. If this proves reliable, the framework should be ready to support its rollout across the NHS.
As we have heard, Alzheimer’s Research UK has launched a new policy report today, Ready for the Cure: A Blueprint for UK Leadership in Dementia Research, which sets out a series of recommendations to address the key structural barriers to advancing dementia research. I hope to hear, perhaps, an initial reflection on that report when we hear from the Minister.
However, a diagnosis on its own is not enough. NHS England’s data shows that more than one-quarter of people living with a dementia diagnosis did not receive a care plan in the past year and that specialist support, such as Admiral nurses, remains patchy and dependent on where someone lives. That gap matters most in the weeks after diagnosis, when families are trying to understand what has changed and what support is available to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, set out her family’s personal experience. As for others, with that diagnosis of dementia, the question is: where should we turn? What happens next? It is a picture about which we hear so often from many families.
Dementia UK and others have called for specialist dementia nursing to be part of every neighbourhood health team. If the framework is genuinely to modernise dementia care, diagnosis, treatment, care planning and support for carers, which is so important, it must be designed and funded as a single pathway. As the ageing population grows and new dementia treatments emerge, the demand for diagnosis will inevitably rise. The forthcoming framework presents a clear opportunity for standardising the pathways for referral, assessment and treatment, for robust data capture and reporting and for reducing the variation in service across the country, which we hear about so often. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly stressed, we need to get this right. Our discussion on prevention is also an important part of this.
I turn to frailty, which makes up the other half of this framework. Around one in 10 people over 65 live with it, and the figure rises to as many as half of those aged over 85. Last month, the Commons Public Accounts Committee reported that only 17% of patients aged over 65 had had a frailty assessment recorded by their GP in the past year, well short of what is needed to ensure that those living with frailty have access to treatment. For those already identified as being most at risk, only 16% had had a medication review and 18% had had a falls risk assessment. This is in a service that is meant to reach everyone in that group. If frailty is to sit alongside dementia in the framework, it deserves the same focus on early identification, consistent standards and timely intervention. Bringing these two conditions together in one framework creates a real opportunity to establish common principles across both. If the framework is going to achieve everything, it must make a meaningful difference to people living with dementia and frailty, as well as to their families and the support networks that care for them.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply to this debate and hope to hear of a timescale and resource commitment to this important area.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, for securing this important debate. I also thank all those who sent us briefings, as well as all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
Dementia remains one of the greatest health and social care challenges facing our country. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, rightly said, and as other noble Lords agreed, dementia is said to be the leading cause of death in the UK, with nearly 1 million people in the UK currently living with dementia, a figure that is expected to rise significantly over coming decades as our population ages. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, this is a condition that touches most, if not all, families. My noble friend Lady Wyld spoke movingly about her experience. I have started to experience it in my own family because my mother is in the early stages; I have to fly over every so often to give her some sort of respite, as it were.
That demonstrates that behind every diagnosis is not only the individual but their families, their friends and their carers, whose lives are profoundly affected. As my noble friend Lady Wyld said, it calls for a whole view of the person as much as a whole view of the system. Against that backdrop, I think we all welcome the modern service framework and see it as an important opportunity. However, for it to succeed, it must do more than simply list aspirations. It must provide a practical road map on, first, improving diagnosis, secondly, strengthening the evidence base, and, thirdly, ensuring that the NHS and other healthcare providers are prepared to adopt new innovations as they emerge.
If we look at the current state of diagnosis, we find that around one in three people living with dementia remains undiagnosed. Even when someone receives a diagnosis, the precise type of dementia—such as Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, Lewy body dementia, frontotemporal dementia or any other rare type of dementia—is often unspecified. That makes a huge difference because it helps you determine the most appropriate treatments. How can you do that if the type of dementia is not diagnosed?
Early diagnosis not only allows patients and their families to plan and access support sooner; thanks to the continuous advances in research, about which noble Lords have spoken, it will allow patients to access treatments that could possibly slow disease progression. Can the Minister tell us how the modern service framework will support more consistent diagnostic pathways across England? Given the significant regional variation that currently exists, how will resources be targeted to those areas with lower dementia diagnosis rates? What role does the Minister’s department see community diagnostic centres, neighbourhood health centres and primary care playing in this early diagnosis?
I turn to the evidence base, which is the crux of the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Weir. It refers to
“robust and acceptable clinical data and performance metrics”,
which will be key to improving prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Without good-quality, consistent data, we cannot know whether patients are receiving appropriate care, where services are improving or where additional support is needed. Can the Minister tell the Committee how the modern service framework will establish a consistent national approach to collecting dementia data? Will it include meaningful outcome measures that reflect patients’ experiences as well as clinical activity? How will that data be used to drive improvement, rather than being simply about reporting requirements?
I turn to innovation. As other noble Lords have said, we are entering a transformative period in dementia research. Scientific understanding has advanced considerably in recent years, with disease-modifying treatments emerging and more therapies under investigation. This gives us cause for some optimism, particularly when it comes to prevention. Growing evidence suggests that around 45% of dementia cases may be preventable or delayed by addressing modifiable risk factors. Given the mantra “from sickness to prevention”, with which all noble Lords would agree, can the Minister explain how the modern service framework will embed brain health and dementia prevention across our system of healthcare, whether through NHS health checks or other public health initiatives? It would be useful for us to know which particular initiatives will play a role.
As the Minister will be aware, preventing or delaying dementia where possible would improve quality of life for individuals. It would also reduce pressure on not only them and their families but our systems of health and social care. Can the Minister explain how the modern service framework will prepare the NHS, first, to adopt new diagnostic tests and innovative treatments as the evidence develops; and, secondly, to try to reduce those delays as much as possible while maintaining safety?
We know that innovation is driven by research. The Secretary of State has accepted the recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to increase participation in dementia clinical trials to 2,000 people over the next few years. That is welcome but, as other noble Lords have said, participation in dementia research remains strikingly low despite the growing number of clinical trials now under way internationally. I was very much struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, who spoke about the underrepresentation of women in clinical trials. We must also do more to understand the links between dementia and other conditions, which are interesting; one mentioned by the noble Baroness is that between the menopause and dementia. Can the Minister say how the Government intend not only to achieve the target of 2,000 trialists but to create a generally research-ready, research-led system of healthcare?
The UK is already a leader in some areas of health research, but, in recent meetings with life sciences companies, I have heard some of them talk about how much more difficult it is becoming to conduct clinical trials in this country. The UK is still a leader, but we must always look behind us as well as looking ahead because, clearly, there are some concerns among life sciences companies. If the United Kingdom is to realise its ambition of becoming a world leader in dementia research, participation in clinical trials cannot be viewed as an optional extra; it must become an integral part of high-quality dementia care.
While we are here, I ask the Minister for her views, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, on NICE’s health technology assessments, including whether there is a way in which we could start to consider the contribution that a treatment could make to society and others. I understand that we had a separate debate and that there were some concerns from the Government, but I would like to hear the Minister’s views on this.
The challenge of dementia extends far beyond healthcare alone. It affects social care, housing, research and innovation, and it is itself affected by these factors. At the human level, it affects not only the individual but their families every single day. The modern service framework is an important opportunity to ensure that our health system is ready for the remarkable scientific advances that are beginning to emerge.
I realise that, in my usual Socratic way, I have asked the Minister many questions, some of which will be answered today, and others which she will diligently respond to in writing. But the gist of all these questions from me and other noble Lords is to remind her that the framework will be judged not simply by its ambitions but by whether research gives us better understanding of prevention and treatment. It will be judged by whether more people receive an earlier diagnosis and gain faster access to innovative treatments—and by whether people in England diagnosed with or at risk of dementia will one day be able to live longer lives in good health.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Weir, on securing this debate. It has clearly engaged so many and I, for one, am pleased about the positive reaction. He mentioned at the outset that we are all agreed. I am sure that this outbreak of unanimity is always helpful when trying to make progress.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, just now, spoke about the personal impact—as did the noble Lord, Lord Weir, and all other noble Lords—on the person but also on their families, their communities and those around them. That is very much at the core of the modern service framework. The noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, described the challenge of a lonely, crisis-driven system. That is not how it should be, and it is not serving as it should.
I want to set out at the beginning that everyone with dementia and frailty, and their loved ones, deserves high-quality, compassionate, joined-up care and support. Indeed, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, that the framework will take a view of the whole person and the whole system. That is the way in which we will deliver. I am grateful, not just for the welcome but for the description of this as a golden opportunity, which the noble Lord, Lord Weir, talked about, and as a once-in-a-generation opportunity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, said. We absolutely recognise the points being raised by all noble Lords because the system we have has to, and will, change.
That is why we are developing and will deliver the first ever modern service framework for frailty and dementia. It will be all about the outcomes—to pick up some of the points asked. It will be a blueprint for how we develop that shift that we are all seeking. It will also work across both health and care settings, which is absolutely crucial. It is important that the MSF is delivered in this way because it acknowledges that dementia and frailty so often coexist. They are hard to distinguish and there is no need to do so. The MSF will also outline, when we look to the future, how we harness the innovations that have the potential to transform care.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Weir, that I am grateful for the engagement that we have had with such a wide range of stakeholders, including those with lived experience, and carers, without whom we could not develop this in the right way. They also include clinicians, adult social care, the NHS and charity partners. As noble Lords will have seen, the immediate findings from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on social care made some immediate recommendations on dementia, and we have embraced them straight away. That includes the establishment of a new dementia leadership role in the department with the power to drive action forward. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, on the tests that he set; I am totally on board with those. It is only by action, outcomes and change for the better that we will be able to judge it. Otherwise, it is just a piece of paper, and there is no point in doing that.
On the question about timelines from the noble Lord, Lord Weir, we seek to publish the full modern service framework by the end of the year, as recommended by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey; we are glad to accept that. To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, it will set national standards and redirect NHS priorities, because we cannot pretend that we can do this as things are.
There has rightly been a discussion about clinical data, which the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised, and performance matrix. There are many interventions to consider as we improve dementia and frailty care. That is why we are considering all options—I emphasise that. We want to look at the interventions with the best evidence and outcomes. Through the MSF, we will set standards, so we can measure against them, on how interventions should be used, and we will review the metrics and performance data necessary to monitor these standards.
I turn to the question of timely and accurate diagnosis, which we know is vital to delivering excellent care. It is, in effect, a gateway to vital advice, information and support. That is why we are committed to recovering the dementia diagnosis rate to the national figure of 66.7%. Importantly, that includes a validated diagnosis of dementia subtype—it is important not to just lump everything together. The framework will look at how we improve diagnosis waiting times, which are too long in many areas, as well as addressing unwanted variation in dementia diagnosis rates across the country and across different groups, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and my noble friend Lady Nargund.
The noble Lord, Lord Weir, referred to the Ready for the Cure report, which deals with research and access to treatments and is very pertinent to the immediate recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. I can say in response that, through government funders such as NIHR, we continue to invest in dementia research, including speeding up the development of potential treatments, which was also much called for in today’s debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly raised the risk factors and the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, talked about the Lancet commission, which has been very helpful in identifying global risk factors for dementia and the extent to which they are reducible. The NIHR-funded dementia and neurodegeneration policy research units are supporting the development of our understanding of where we have an opportunity to reduce risk. I will be pleased to keep updating the House on that ongoing work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, asked about easier access to trials. We are working to fast-track clinical trials, because we want to drive global investment in life sciences as well as provide opportunities for individuals. I have spoken about the acceleration of the development of medicines. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that we have made the UK an infinitely more attractive place for clinical trials, not least by stripping out bureaucracy and unnecessary obstacles. We have reduced the period to way below the 150-day ambition that we set.
We are ensuring, as my noble friend Lady Nargund asked, that research opportunities are available, irrespective of who people are and where they live. The women’s health strategy makes particular reference to the point she raised on the link between menopause and dementia. The NIHR continues to work on funding for applications for research into any aspect of human health and care, including that link. Our investment continues. We have already adopted the target of 2,000 people participating in dementia trials within the next five years; it currently stands at 377. I believe that by improving the UK’s attractiveness for dementia trials, we will be able to drive forward improvements beyond what we have currently.
There was a number of particular points, and I will be very pleased to write to noble Lords on specifics. All the specifics raised today are key to how we improve the potential of the MSF, and we are keen to continue to work on that.
The Government absolutely recognise, and are with noble Lords on, the need to improve diagnosis and to have that robust data and the access to innovative treatments. I believe that the modern service framework will deliver that and drive them forward, as well as the other provisions, in a way that we do not have access to now. It is a time to be positive, and I am glad noble Lords spoke in that way, because I, too, share that feeling.
House of Lords
Tributes: Lord Mackay of Clashfern
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, it is with a profound sense of sadness, shared across the House, that I pay tribute today to one of the truly monumental figures of our nation’s legal and parliamentary heritage. The news of the passing of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, shortly before his 100th birthday, is deeply felt by us all.
James Mackay was a man of towering intellect, yet he was defined equally by his quiet humility, his deep faith, an unwavering commitment to public service and great generosity of spirit. Born the son of a railway signalman in Edinburgh, his journey to the highest legal offices of state is a testament to his extraordinary talent, rising to become dean of the Faculty of Advocates before serving with distinction as Lord Advocate. His deep grounding in Scottish law brought a rigorous, analytical clarity to everything he did—a perspective that enriched the entire jurisprudence of the United Kingdom.
In 1987, Margaret Thatcher broke with centuries of tradition by appointing a Scottish lawyer as Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. For a decade, serving in both the Margaret Thatcher and John Major Governments, Lord Mackay occupied the Woolsack with a quiet, revolutionary authority. He was an historic, modernising Lord Chancellor. He shepherded the Children Act 1989 through this House and on to the statute book. It was a piece of legislation that radically reshaped family law, firmly establishing that a child’s welfare is the courts’ paramount consideration. That has stood the test of time.
Although Lord Mackay never sought conflict, he was never afraid of controversy, if he believed it served the public good. He introduced pioneering reforms to the legal profession that expanded access to justice for millions. Yet for all his grand achievements on the national stage, he retained that gentle humanity and his characteristic warmth and friendliness. Whether it was a word in passing in the corridors of your Lordships’ House or pulling up a chair for lunch in the Long Room, you would welcome his company. Like many others, I would listen in admiration, and often awe, when he spoke in the Chamber or in Committee. He would speak without notes, always making insightful and pertinent comments, perfectly crafted—and delightfully concise.
When Lord Mackay retired from this House in July 2022, after more than four decades of dedicated service, it said so much about his character that he did not use his final remarks to dwell solely on the great offices of state or the complex legislation he had championed. Instead, he drew our attention to the Prayers that begin our proceedings each day, stating:
“I believe that I have been sustained until now by answers to what we pray for at our opening every day”.—[Official Report, 20/7/22; col. 1984.]
That was the essence of James Mackay. He possessed a mind capable of mastering the most intricate complexities of constitutional law, with a heart that saw, valued and respected every individual who contributed to the life of Parliament.
Lord Mackay was a giant of the law, a faithful servant of the Crown and a deeply cherished Member of this House. We send our deepest, most heartfelt condolences to his family—his wife Bett and his son and daughters—his friends, his colleagues and all those who knew and loved him. He will be sorely missed.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for her warm tribute to our late beloved friend and colleague, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. When I say “our” beloved colleague, I mean all of us—all here who knew him and heard him for over 40 years as a Member of this House. I can think of few, if any, Peers who were so sincerely liked and admired on all sides as was James Mackay.
The noble Baroness set out some of his extraordinary achievements: dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Lord Advocate, a Scottish Law Lord, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lord Chancellor for 10 years, a Knight of the Thistle and latterly honoured by his Queen as Lord Clerk Register of Scotland. Never were such a string of great garlands laid on the brow of a more humble man—not only humble in origin, though he was that, but a man of abiding humility, as our Leader said. Pomposity and pride were utterly alien to him, in the being or seeing of them.
The core of Lord Mackay’s life was the Bible and that higher power on which he long and regularly reflected. He observed the Lord’s day. When I was new in No. 10, I remember Switch explaining to me not only that you should not ring the Lord Chancellor on a Sunday but that you could not—the line would stay dead. His deep Christian faith moulded a bedrock of principle. As our Leader said, he never sought conflict, but he did not flinch from difficulties if the cause was just. As she said, as the first member of the Scottish Bar ever to sit on the Woolsack he set out to break restrictive practices in the law and open access to justice to more people. It did not make him popular, but he saw it through. Among his many legislative achievements were not only the Children Act, to which the noble Baroness rightly referred, but the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which brought clarity—like the Children Act—in difficult fields of morality and law.
Lord Mackay never intended to be a lawyer. He had the rare distinction of first class degrees in maths from both Edinburgh and Cambridge, where he was the senior wrangler—which was an achievement—and he taught maths before reading for the Bar. This was testament to the extraordinary clarity and precision of James Mackay’s mind, and his unerring ability to discern the truth of arguments and determine solutions: the very essence of a good judge. Yet how lightly he carried his great wisdom and learning, always expressed in the simplest language, spoken softly, as the noble Baroness said, and with the most beguiling humour. He had unimpeachable integrity and a fierce independence of mind which, perhaps, was his highland character. He graced that great office of Lord Chancellor, speaking truth and justice to power in the Cabinet, defending the rule of law and presiding in this House.
Lord Mackay was a kindly man, generous in his advice to others, courteous to a fault, with a twinkle in his eye and a quizzical air that made you feel, perhaps, that he was puzzled that others could not see the solutions as swiftly as he did. After he went to the Back Benches, he used to sit on the second row, behind the Minister. When you were at the Dispatch Box and you saw by your shoulder that hand creeping over the back of the Bench to haul himself to his feet, you knew you were in for either the most testing challenge to your arguments from one of your friends, or else the most simple and compelling exposition of the case that you had been floundering for an hour to try to explain to the House.
James Mackay was a great parliamentarian, a lover of this place and loved by it. Let us remember our brother as a righteous man. He was never judgmental, but nor was he afraid to judge between good and evil. He was a great reformer and a loving family man, buoyed for 68 years by his remarkable wife and three children, to whom our prayers and sympathy go out. This polity, this House, this United Kingdom will never see the like of Lord Chancellor Mackay again.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed really regrets that he cannot be here for these tributes, as he has been unavoidably detained in Scotland.
Much has been said already about Lord Mackay of Clashfern’s professional endeavours and immense achievements. A sense of him as a human being has also come through. He was universally admired, respected and held in deep affection, and I know from others that he was immensely kind to everyone in this place, no matter their experience. Sometimes it is those small gestures that are the most telling. My noble friend Lady Hamwee recounts such an incident when, as a fairly new Peer, she was sitting near the Throne, as we did then, and Lord Mackay was on the Woolsack. He noticed that she had a glass of water on the floor, vulnerable to passing feet, and he asked that the table he was using for his water be moved so that both could use it—a small gesture but an important one, especially to a new Member of this House.
We on these Benches salute Lord Mackay’s life and record our thanks for his long and very distinguished service to our country. We offer our condolences to his family and friends, and trust that the tributes paid provide them with some comfort.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow three such speeches. The cries of dismay that greeted the Lord Speaker’s sad news of the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, were as loud on our Benches as anywhere else in the House, having, as we do, so many of his friends and colleagues from the legal world, Whitehall, Scotland and the House in general. On his ennoblement in 1979, he chose as his motto “manu justi”: by the hand of a just man. We have heard much of the relevance of this choice so far, and I will return to it.
I want to reflect on Lord Mackay’s 15 years as Lord Clerk Register, the oldest remaining great office of state in Scotland. This was originally a post connected with Scotland’s records, and he was therefore one of the four commissioners of the regalia of Scotland. On behalf of the Crown, they were responsible for looking after, among other things, the Stone of Scone. The stone was originally taken from Scone Palace, which is by Perth, in 1296. In 1996, thanks to the efforts of the Lord Speaker, who was then Secretary of State for Scotland, it made it back as far as Edinburgh Castle.
Around the time of Covid, the commissioners of the regalia had to consider whether the stone would be moved from Edinburgh to Perth. I was the chairman of the relevant museum in Perth. The four commissioners consisted of three judges and Nicola Sturgeon, and they were in receipt of a tremendous amount of incredibly technical advice concerning security, conditions of light and humidity, historical context and so on—the fog of a difficult case. James stopped me one evening in the House and asked a simple question: how much would it cost to see the stone in Perth? I said it would be free. “It’s rather expensive in Edinburgh at the moment at £17”, he remarked. He had no other questions; he had cleared the fog and, shortly after, the commissioners, under his gentle and persuasive skills, reached their decision.
About a year after the stone had arrived at the new museum in Perth, I saw James at an event in Scotland and went to say hello. He immediately asked me what had happened to the stone in its first year. I told him that more than 250,000 people had come: a high multiple over the previous Edinburgh numbers. His eyes naturally sparkled and his smile broadened—an example of “manu justi”.
I was going to add one other anecdote from this House, but unfortunately it has already been given. I remember sitting next to a Conservative Minister at the Long Table and him telling me that the most scary part of being a Minister in the Chamber was not the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, getting up—he is not in his place now—or the Lord Speaker getting up in days of yore. It was the gnarled hand coming over the Bench when you knew that you had no satisfactory answer to whatever the question would be—that hand, of course, being the hand of the just man, the “manu justi”.
I end with one very simple other thing. When Mrs Thatcher offered James the role of Lord Chancellor, he told her that he was not a Conservative and it would not be appropriate. She replied, “Don’t be silly”.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, from these Benches we echo the condolences and comments of the previous speakers. They have spoken so eloquently. Lord Mackay was kind, welcoming and generous in this House, and we on these Benches have been very grateful over the years for his gentle but persuasive advice and support.
A strict Sabbatarian and teetotaller in the best traditions of the Scottish Reformation, as we have heard, he would regularly refuse to work, travel or even give interviews that might be broadcast on a Sunday. He would regularly worship at the Free Presbyterian Church in Inverness, where he also served as an elder, and at All Souls Langham Place in my previous diocese of London.
Lord Mackay was a firm believer in moderation. At a gathering of the Faculty of Advocates, he had laid on a spread of tea and toast, complete with a tiny pot of honey. One of the lawyers in attendance contemplated the pot and remarked, “I see your Lordship keeps a bee”.
Lord Mackay was a great supporter of the Scottish Bible Society and was its honorary president until his death, championing the Bible and the role it played in forming our laws, behaviours and society. He even went as far as publishing a booklet which he distributed to Scottish lawyers, describing the Bible as the foundational sourcebook for the Scottish legal system. His legal mind was second to none, and he demonstrated a deep respect for the distinct traditions of Scottish and English law and the constitution.
Regarding the constitution, Lord Mackay would often refer to the biblical stories of Daniel and Esther, to the phrase “It is all about the law of the Medes and Persians”, and to the irrevocable and binding nature of a decree from a King. It was not just his knowledge of the constitution and its operation but his ability to sum up complex arguments that was impressive. Many of us will know, having done that, that it is not an easy task.
I note that Lord Hacking, in a debate on the Seafarers’ Wages Bill in 2022, revealed to the House that, in 1990, Lord Mackay had the rare honour of being one of the few people other than a Bishop to read Prayers in the House as the Bishop had been delayed.
Lord Mackay’s love of the highlands was legendary. He was never happier than when he was back in Inverness, but he was equally at home in London, where, until quite recently, he could be seen walking to the House from his home in the Temple, refusing all offers of assistance or a lift.
We keep Lord Mackay’s family and friends in our prayers. I will finish by using the words from the Church of Scotland’s burial service. We give thanks to God, through His son Jesus Christ, that for Lord Mackay all sorrows are ended, that death itself is past and that he has entered into the rest that remaineth assured for God’s people. We join these prayers with the assurance of God’s presence, that it will remain with Lord Mackay, his family and friends, in their loss and comfort. Amen.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I would like to add a few words about the truly remarkable way that Lord Mackay performed his duties to the House and the stamina that he exhibited.
Three things were different in Lord Mackay’s day. First, when you looked to the Woolsack, you would see him in his day dress of the full-bottomed wig, the stockings and buckled shoes which he wore every day.
Our timings were different. It was quite usual for the House to sit after 11 pm—indeed, it was not unusual to sit after midnight. I am recorded in Hansard speaking on the Scotland Bill at 2.30 am, but Lord Mackay was always there. He regarded it as his duty to remain on the Woolsack whenever the House sat and for how long it sat.
There was no team of Deputy Chairmen in his day. I think there was one person who could take Lord Mackay’s place when it was necessary, but that team did not exist. The rota of leaving the Woolsack from time to time was not there. I remember one day he sat there for eight hours in an important debate with only 20 minutes’ difference. The stamina he exhibited was quite extraordinary. I never heard him complain. It was his sense of duty that kept him going, and it was a truly remarkable performance.
There were three turns of events in Lord Mackay’s life which made all the difference. First, shortly before he was approached to be Lord Advocate, he had been offered and had accepted the position as a judge in Scotland. The Labour Lord Advocate who gave him that offer began to realise that Labour was going to lose the election, as indeed it did. He said to James, “I’m sorry, I’ve changed my mind”, and all the excitement of the offer of a place on the Bench disappeared overnight and James was very much taken aback. However, because he was not a judge and had not accepted that offer, he was available when Mrs Thatcher approached him and said, “Dean of Faculty, I need your help”, because the other candidate for Lord Advocate was not suitable. It was his five years as Lord Advocate that really cemented his relationship with Mrs Thatcher, which led ultimately to his appointment when Lord Havers fell ill, sadly, as Lord Chancellor. These were three events that all turned out in James’s favour. He was fortunate but, indeed, we were so fortunate too.
Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)
My Lords, I vividly remember another very hot summer day during the Brexit wars, when the relationship between the Government and the press had broken down. There was no trust and we were struggling with the intricacy of the Northern Ireland protocol. We needed a lawyer who could help.
I was tasked with ringing Lord Mackay, who was a towering figure for all lawyers younger than himself; he really brought us on and mentored us in our profession. I rang him; I swallowed my pride and I explained the issue, which, of course he grasped, in under three seconds. Three minutes later, I saw him trotting out to College Green, where he was able not only to give live press interviews and put the matter to rest, but he spent the next couple of hours in baking sunlight explaining behind the scenes to members of the press how the law worked and what the answer was. We were fortunate to have him in our House for so long.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, perhaps I might add a few words of my own. As has been said, Lord Mackay of Clashfern brought to public life a wonderful combination of brilliance, courtesy, principle and faith. He was formidable, but never vain. He was learned, but never showy. He was firm in judgment but always humane. He was a proud Scot and a good friend to me.
Robert Burns’s lines, written in 1784, “Epitaph on my own Friend”, uncannily capture why all of us who knew him will miss James so much:
The friend of man, the friend of truth;
The friend of age, and guide of youth:
Few hearts like his, with virtue warm’d,
Few heads with knowledge so inform’d:
If there’s another world, he lives in bliss;
If there is none, he made the best of this.
Our thoughts today are with Bett, who, throughout some 68 years of marriage, was his formidable rock and guide. God bless her and her family at this time.
UK Migration
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sahota
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of people migrating into the UK in each of the last five years.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Net migration increased from 2021 to record levels in 2023, reaching 944,000 at its peak. Since 2023, numbers have fallen substantially. Net migration fell to 171,000 by the end of 2025—an 82% decrease compared to the peak and the lowest level since the pandemic.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that. I congratulate the Government on reducing net migration from, as the Minister said, its peak of 900,000 to 171,000, an impressive reduction of approximately 82%. However, despite this significant progress, a recent opinion poll suggests that almost half the public still believe that immigration is continuing to increase. This misconception is being exploited by the right-wing political parties and risks creating unnecessary division and disharmony within our communities. What more can the Government do to ensure that the public are made aware of the accurate immigration figures and are better informed about the progress that has been made?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. Immigration is a very sensitive issue, but it is also multifaceted. The figures on net migration are falling, the number of asylum claims being processed is increasing, and we have to deal with the small boats, the numbers of which are reducing. But we also have the very valuable contribution that many people who have come to this country make—from doctors to bus drivers, to factory workers, to people involved in our society as a whole. I therefore say to those on the far right who seek to exploit this that we are a cohesive, multicultural society, and we have people here who are contributing. We have to meet certain challenges, and this Government are prepared to meet them.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am very conscious that, under the points-based system, many people came into this country on a variety of visas. However, in the last two years, over half a million people have acquired British citizenship. What assessment have the Government made of the Home Secretary’s proposed policy change to extend the right to acquire ILR—and, I assume, citizenship—to 10 years, in terms of the number of people who will gain British citizenship in the next decade?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We keep that matter under review. As the noble Baroness will know, we introduced an immigration Bill in the House of Commons last week, which will bring significant changes. This Government are trying to get control of migration and citizenship issues across the board, and we are doing our best to, dare I say it, rectify some of the difficulties of the previous 14 years.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am supported by the RAMP organisation. The Minister has rightly put the contribution that migration brings to this country at the forefront. It is in all our interests to make sure that people integrate into our society as rapidly as possible, so can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to speed that process up and make it more accessible? Perhaps I might refer him to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, who has just produced a report on such matters, including the role of diasporas in the United Kingdom.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have not yet had a chance to read my noble friend’s report, but undoubtedly, I will read it—because he will send it to me if nobody else does. We have to recognise that we are a multicultural society. The people who, historically, have come to the United Kingdom have had ties to it through many Commonwealth countries. The people who are coming here are bringing skills and making important contributions to our society; we should recognise that, and we should celebrate and respect their differences and their different faiths. Through my noble friend Lord Lemos, who is Faith Minister, the Government are trying to ensure that we recognise that contribution, and it is a constant challenge to make sure that we do so. One of the great challenges is making sure we have a strong, managed migration system, so that people can see that it is transparent and fair.
Baroness Black of Strome (CB)
My Lords, children coming into the country are an important part of our migration and immigration. What scientific methods are currently being used to assess the age of our immigrants, and how many appeals against those determinations have been upheld? I declare an interest as the previous chair of the Home Office’s age estimation committee.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Baroness the exact figures on the appeals, but I will look into that and write to her. We are trying to ensure that we achieve accurate age assessment through high levels of technology, and we are introducing that technology at ports of entry to ensure that we can make a rough estimate of the age of individuals arriving in the United Kingdom, and whether they are over or under 18. I will write to the noble Baroness in due course to confirm all those details.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, when will the Government have a computerised system in place that can accurately track both entry into and exit from the United Kingdom, and therefore give the Government an accurate picture of who is here and what their status is at any one time?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a very important point, and knowing not just who arrives but who leaves is certainly a key issue. We are trying to modernise that infrastructure. In particular, we are looking at how we can use AI to improve the assessment of the information we have. I will certainly reflect on what the noble Viscount has said and respond to him on what we are doing on those issues.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, the Health Foundation has just published a significant report with the latest evidence on immigration and the NHS. The report finds that the average person who migrates to the UK is more likely to work in the NHS, less likely to use it, and significantly contributes to NHS funds. Around one in five staff working in the NHS are non-British nationals. Will my noble friend the Minister consider this latest evidence, particularly when it comes to workers in the NHS and in social care? It will be significant in helping our health and social care workforce.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will certainly look at the report my noble friend has cited. I also want to place on record my thanks to and recognition of the value of all those who contribute to the National Health Service. As my noble friend has said, many of them originally came to this country as non-British nationals and are now naturalised Britons. Their contributions should never be underestimated. However, that does not take away from the fact that we need to ensure that those Britons who are currently unemployed and who aspire to work in the health service can also do so. One of the objectives of the Government’s migration programme is to ensure that we build up the skills and talent of people of British heritage who were born in the United Kingdom.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, it has recently been revealed that, despite the previous Government placing restrictions on dependants for those on health and social care visas, people are still bringing in huge numbers of dependants. Some 12 such visas were issued to nationals of Cameroon, who were able to bring 180 people with them. I do not say this to make any great political point, but I am sure the Minister agrees that this is not how the system is supposed to operate. In the light of that, do the Government have any plans to rectify this situation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue. We have seen some reports on the issue of dependants of health and social care visa holders remaining exempt from the surcharge, and on such visa holders bringing in family members. We are looking at this, but some aspects of the stories currently in the press are incorrect, and it is incorrect to link dependant visas granted in a given year with worker visas granted in the same period. I will look at the issue the noble Lord has mentioned and send him a note; but, while he himself has not been inaccurate, there are some inaccuracies in the reporting of this.
Lord Redwood (Con)
What sustainable rate of net inward migration would the Government like to see going forward?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Unlike previous Governments, we are not setting a net migration target. We are trying to ensure—and our success in this was proved in my initial Answer to my noble friend—that we manage migration in an effective way. We have seen a massive drop in the net migration figure from when the noble Lord’s Government were in power. Setting a target would achieve exactly what Conservative Prime Ministers have done throughout the last 14 years: set a target but introduce no policy objectives to achieve it, and fail to take into account the needs of the British people and the British economy.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, there are roughly 7,000 vacancies for doctors in the NHS. According to the BMA’s records, nearly 2,000 registered refugees have a medical qualification, and some of them have been waiting over two years for their asylum application to be processed. Would it not be a good idea to have a system whereby, over a period of time, if someone’s asylum claim has not been processed, they are allowed to work, pay taxes and contribute to the country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
With respect to the noble Lord, I prefer to tackle the problem from the other direction. I prefer to ensure, as the Government are trying to do now, that we speed up asylum processing and claims and get decisions on asylum. That way, those who are entitled to asylum have it granted, those who are not are returned to a safe country, and we process that in a speedy way. We have put investment and resources into that. It is not right and proper to ensure the possibility of work while asylum claims are being processed, and we are trying to speed up that processing.
Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what diplomatic steps they intend to take following the absence of consensus at the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that took place in April and May.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of the international nuclear order and the UK remains fully committed to it. It is a treaty that has kept us safe for over half a century, underpinning international security by constraining the spread of nuclear weapons. Although it is disappointing that consensus could not be reached in New York, the review conference covered a thorough examination of global progress to implement NPT obligations over the past four years so as to identify positive progress and those areas that remain challenging. We will continue to work with partners across the world to strengthen implementation of the treaty across all three of its pillars.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. She will appreciate that the threat of nuclear war is as great as it ever was. The fact that the NPT did not reach a consensus was very disappointing, as she says. Will the Government continue, with all the energy they have, to pursue the things that they pursued very well before the treaty, including the UK’s capacity in verification science, nuclear safeguards, strategic stability and arms control negotiations, and, in particular, diplomatic engagement? Diplomatic engagement is the absolute prime issue in keeping us safe before we reach world disarmament, which we may never reach.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. I am happy to give her the assurances that she seeks.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, one of the greatest issues facing nuclear weapons non-proliferation is that of Iran. Both sides of this House are agreed that Iran must never develop or acquire nuclear weapons. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s latest assessment of what progress Iran is making towards developing nuclear weapons and the effect of the recent United States strikes on that capacity?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, we are deeply concerned about the behaviour of Iran with regards to its nuclear programme. We are committed to doing what is necessary to prevent Iran ever obtaining the use of nuclear weaponry. As for the current conflict that we have recently seen resumed, we are all concerned about the impact that that is having, and indeed whether or not that is having the effect within Iran that we would all wish to see.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, commitment is not enough. There is a mood going around the capitals of the world that Ukraine would be in much better shape today if it had kept its nuclear weapons. This has led a number of other countries to say that they want to be in on the NPT existing nuclear power list as well. This is a very dangerous situation, particularly as it is getting cheaper and cheaper to produce these things—at any moment they could be produced by non-state actors and end up in irresponsible hands. Will the Minister put a little more strength into the commitment of this Government—indeed, all Governments—to see that we make sure that the whole NPT system does not crumble under very loose and general pressures now going on?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am I happy to make that clear. The failure to reach consensus on this occasion, given the geopolitical situation in which we find ourselves, is not a complete surprise. The President did not put the text for consideration in the end, because it was clear that the US was not going to back it. It was an omission of text, rather than a disagreement over the substance of what was said. That is why that did not happen. It is in no way an indication that the United Kingdom or any of our partners or allies are intending to turn away from this treaty. As the noble Lord said, it is the cornerstone that has prevented proliferation of nuclear weaponry for five decades now, and we are committed to it.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, will the UK Government liaise with France, which is taking over the chairmanship, to ensure that what has been agreed is maintained and that the technical expertise is also maintained? Can the Minister comment on the committee that the Government are setting up in the House of Commons, sadly with no representation from this House, to scrutinise UK nuclear expenditure? Given that the workings of that committee are going to mostly be classified, how does that help public engagement with understanding the issue, or help to secure commitment to maintaining non-proliferation?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am afraid that I know absolutely nothing about the committee that is being set up at the other end of the building.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will follow on from the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about our diplomatic capabilities and technical capabilities, which we have always contributed strongly to this process. The FCDO is in some degree of institutional turmoil, seeing significant regular changes in leadership, and we know that it is expecting significant cuts. Can the Minister assure me that these essential capabilities will be maintained? More than that, do the Government understand that, yes, we have to think about security and our defence, but diplomacy is absolutely crucial to our future security?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that the FCDO is not in turmoil. The way I look at it is that defence, diplomacy and development work closely together. They are all needed in order to keep this country safe and to ensure stability. We have focus and diplomatic focus, despite the fact that we are making changes to the structure of the organisation, which were left incomplete following the merger of two large government departments. Our commitment to defence, diplomacy and development remains as true as it ever has been.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister not find it slightly embarrassing that she should give the answer that she did to the noble Lord that she knows nothing about a committee formed in the House of Commons in relation to such an important matter?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Not at all. My job is as the Minister with responsibility for development in Africa. I am confident that there are Members of this House who are very able, should they so wish, in order to respond to the suggestions of the noble Lord, to set up a committee to examine these matters and to do so in a more public way than has been deemed appropriate. I am sure Members in the Commons had their reasons for setting their committee up in the way that they did. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of Members of this House to address those issues in the way that they see fit.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister say something about New START, the treaty which was the last remaining bilateral arms control agreement between the US and Russia, which has expired? What is the future of that treaty? I know that is a slightly separate issue, but it is related.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That might be a question better addressed to my colleague at the Ministry of Defence. My understanding of these issues is that our position remains consistent with that of previous Administrations. I do not have anything new that would be particularly illuminating in response to the noble Lord’s question.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, could my noble friend the Minister expand on what the Government are doing regarding working with international partners to rebuild confidence ahead of any future discussions?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are completely committed to this treaty, as are our partners and allies. Consensus was not achieved, which is regrettable—it is always better if you can have that—but the principles and the purpose of this treaty remain supported. It is essential that that remains the case, and we shall do whatever we need to do diplomatically, as my noble friend encourages us to do, to make sure that that is the case.
Lord Redwood (Con)
What diplomatic exchanges have the Government had with Mauritius over the nuclear capabilities of Diego Garcia, in the light of their wish to give the freehold away?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We had extensive discussion and advice on this issue while we were debating the relevant legislation. We are confident that obligations under the relevant treaties on non-proliferation and under the Pelindaba treaty can be met as a result of that decision and that legislation.
Artificial Intelligence: Vaccine Technology
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential for artificial intelligence to contribute to developments in vaccine technology.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy and Net Zero and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
The results from Cambridge and the DIOSynVax programme, primarily funded by the Government through Innovate UK, is a good example of how the Government are taking AI’s potential in vaccine technology seriously. AI’s most credible contribution to vaccine development is in the design stage, including predicting antigen structure and binding and predicting how pathogens evade immunity. Our £137 million AI for science strategy is funding some key enablers for AI use in drug discovery, including in medical research and engineering biology.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. If the House does not realise, what has happened in Cambridge is the first use of AI to design a vaccine candidate being used in human trials, with the possibility of being able to deal with a broad range of viruses. One of the researchers involved said that it is
“amazing what we can do with it for the good of humanity”.
Unfortunately, this new technology may also, in turn, potentially pose a great threat to humanity. So I ask my noble friend: what work is going on to ensure that this type of development is subject to the strictest controls and that, in future, no bad actors can in any way use this new technology to pose a threat to humanity?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I completely agree that this technology is hugely important for the good it can do in making vaccines and new medicines. It will change our ability to treat and prevent diseases. It is also true that the same technology can be used for bad things. Like many technologies, it can be misused. Many things are in place already: it is illegal, of course, to make chemical and biological weapons, and the Government take very seriously the threat that can come from new technologies. The biological security strategy was published last year. There is £580 million in the defence investment plan for Porton Down infrastructure for a national biosecurity centre, and £115 million to strengthen defences against AI risk. This is a very active area of work.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the development of Evo 2—which is an AI biological model with 9.3 trillion nucleotides extending over 128,000 different species, including humans—means that there is now a capability to produce proteins, molecular structures and even genomes, and therefore artificial pathogens. So is it time for the UK to have mandatory enforcement and regulation of functional-base synthetic DNA?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The point about the technology is that an enormous amount of good comes from it, and we must not forget that. But yes, there are risks, and we are looking at nucleic acid synthesis using the programmes now available to do that, and we are looking at what can be regulated. Initially it will be a voluntary process, but we are looking at the options to understand and control the use of new synthesis of materials through nucleic acids.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we should all recognise the immense potential of AI in this field. But, on regulation, will the Minister explicitly confirm and ensure that a human-in-command approach will apply to any use of AI in vaccine approvals and pharmacovigilance, so that decisions on approvals and safety monitoring are always taken by qualified human experts, rather than delegated to algorithms or an automated system alone?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The MHRA is one of the most important and best regulators in the world for medicines, and none of the requirements for an AI-assisted vaccine design is different from those for a normal one. In other words, it has to be looked at in the same way, with the same sort of safety requirements. The MHRA is looking at how it can use AI, but certainly as part of a human-linked process. There will be people making these decisions.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, the best recent example of vaccine technology is the pandemic and Covid, and the UK rightly champions the 100-day mission to develop vaccines against any future pandemics. As I am sure the Minister is aware, AI can rapidly compress that discovery phase through genomic surveillance, lab validation and manufacturing. Given that, how is AI being incorporated into the 100-day mission?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As the noble Lord says, the 100-day mission was endorsed at the 2021 G7, and I was very involved in that process. AI will be a critical part of how we do vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics, and I am optimistic that this makes the 100-day mission really achievable, particularly for vaccines. But—and this is an important but—not for all organisms: it is not always the case that you can get a vaccine.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, if this technology is used for malign purposes, it does not really matter whether that happens in the UK or elsewhere in the world. What action is being taken and how confident are we that there is scope for international agreement, particularly among the major players on the international scene, to develop the necessary safeguards to protect all of us on this planet?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
This is a very hot topic of discussion. A lot is going on between nations and it is a big topic at the G7, where the UK is leading on some of these discussions.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, we know that public confidence in vaccines is essential if there is to be good uptake and if they are to be effective. What are the Government planning to do to ensure that there is public confidence in AI-generated vaccines, and have they considered involving community and faith groups in this? Those are key to ensuring public confidence in this area.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Public acceptance of vaccination is very high in this country, and that is built on trust, part of which comes from the regulator. The regulator in this country is extremely rigorous and will make sure that all the usual things that a vaccine needs to go through will be gone through, whether or not AI has been involved in the process somewhere. There will be no change in the regulations as a result of that, except where there may be opportunities to get better safety profiles because of the use of AI. That is important. As noted, it is crucial that public engagement with this happens. The MHRA is good at doing that, and it will be an important part of continuing to build vaccine confidence in the UK.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the potential for AI in developing vaccine technology. However, AI models are as good as the data we put in to train them. I therefore have two questions for my noble friend the Minister. What steps are the Government taking to close the data gap for those from ethnic minorities and for women and pregnant women to be included in trials? How are they working with international partners, including the WHO, to expand the database so that we achieve health equity for all?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
In the UK there is a programme called Our Future Health, designed to enrol 5 million participants. It is very clearly designed to be an accurate representation of the UK population as a whole, with all our ethnic diversity and across age ranges. That is an important data resource for the future. The Health Data Research Service will also be part of making sure that data are appropriately curated, ready and available for use. The regulators already have processes in place to make sure that women, women of childbearing age and others are included in clinical trials. That work will continue.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, given that this ground-breaking work was done in Cambridge by both a university group and its spin-out biotech company, can the Minister reassure the House about access to the intellectual property beyond the University of Cambridge?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Obviously, the intellectual property that is being laid down as part of this process will belong to the university, the funder to some extent, and the company. The exploitation of IP demands that there is clarity on IP ownership in order to get the inward investment that will be necessary to turn this from what is a very early-stage project into something that might become a product.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, if a foreign tech firm uses NHS patient data records to train its AI to discover a new vaccine, what mechanisms will the Government put in place to ensure that the NHS is not charged full market price for those vaccines?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
This is precisely why the Health Data Research Service is being set up: to make sure that we have a place where data can be collated properly and accessed in an appropriate way, and that the benefit returns to the NHS and to patients in this country as the data is used.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as a member of the specialist committee in your Lordships’ House on childhood vaccinations, I ask my noble friend the Minister what interaction there is between the Department of Health and DSIT to give people greater accessibility to vaccinations. There has been a downturn in availability for people to access those vaccines.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. That is largely a DHSC responsibility. DSIT makes sure that there is a real pipeline of new vaccines coming through, that the environment is right for companies to form and grow in this country and that we are at the forefront of a new generation of vaccines, as we now are. Of course, we then need to make sure that those are available and accessible, and that is continuing work by the UK Health Security Agency and the DHSC.
Venezuela Earthquakes
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Bi
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the scale of humanitarian need in Venezuela following the earthquakes on 24 June; and what (1) immediate, and (2) long-term, support they intend to provide in addition to the £2 million UK aid match contribution to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s Venezuela earthquake appeal.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, we extend our deepest sympathies to all those affected by the devastating earthquakes in Venezuela. Millions have been affected, with thousands of fatalities and over 16,000 injured. The UK has responded rapidly, mobilising a £5.8 million humanitarian package, including UK international search and rescue, emergency medical team support and humanitarian experts. We have also aid-matched £2 million to the DEC appeal and continue to support British nationals.
Baroness Bi (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply and for the generosity and speed of the response shown by the department. As vice-chair of the Disasters Emergency Committee, I am delighted to say that the Venezuela earthquake appeal has now raised £12 million, including £2 million of the aid match to which the Minister refered; that is a credit to the generosity of both the UK public and the Government. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will continue to respond to the needs of the survivors of the earthquake, nearly 40% of whom are homeless and facing disease in a disaster where, as of today, 3,800 people are known to have died and an estimated 50,000 are still missing?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend is right—this is a truly devastating situation, and its true extent is yet to be revealed. The United Kingdom will, of course, play its part in supporting those who are displaced, those who have been separated from their loved ones and those who are unable to continue with their livelihood or access health services, particularly maternal health services, in the current situation.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s response to this truly devastating earthquake. As co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Aid Match, I thank the Government for the £2 million they have offered, but, as the vice-chair of the DEC says, the public have raised £12 million. Will the Government consider raising the contribution from aid match? Will they perhaps also persuade the Treasury that rather than having the money taken out of existing development funds, it should be genuinely additional, so that aid match adds money and the public can influence how our aid money is spent?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am very happy to put money into the Venezuelan response, but we can all work out that every penny we put into one response leaves us less for the next crisis. We have an El Niño year; we are about to start hurricane season. We have food insecurity across Africa because of the conflict in the Middle East. It would be irresponsible for me just to make commitments about what we will and will not do from this Dispatch Box in such a serious situation. It has been a truly global response in Venezuela, and that is very good to see. We have seen a particularly strong response from Latin America, which is encouraging, and the United States has also played a leading role. It has been a good example of how the international community can come together and co-ordinate to great effect.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s response—helping is a good thing—and we also welcome support from the Disasters Emergency Committee. As has been said, the British public have been extremely generous. What assessment has the Minister made of the failures of the Venezuelan state in this matter? It has been truly shocking to see the response of what was the Maduro Government and the hollowing out in these circumstances. There has been a dreadful local response. International partners have stepped in to help. What assessment have the Government made of this?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord. It has been devastating, dreadful and heartbreaking. A country that should be prosperous and successful and that should provide a good place to live and succeed for its population has been badly led by a corrupt regime. I suspect we agree on much of that analysis. What needs to happen now is the physical rebuilding and the support for the population, but the Venezuelan state really needs to look to itself. It has some serious questions to answer about how it has allowed the impact of this to be more devastating than it could have been, and about what it needs to do next to rebuild its economy, society and the country more generally.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, as London Fire Commissioner, I deployed international search and rescue responders many times to a series of catastrophic international events ranging from Nepal to Turkey, with considerable loss of life. As ever, London firefighters and many other firefighters from services around the country have acquitted themselves with great courage in very difficult circumstances. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that with the change of ownership from the Home Office to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, there has been a proper conversation between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and that department to ensure the sustainability of that model, which the UK should take such pride in?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Absolutely. Our international search and rescue capability—I think 58 team members went to Venezuela along with dogs to help with the search and rescue—is globally recognised; it is outstanding. My neighbour Jim is one of them and we should all be incredibly proud of them. I can confirm that it is our intention to continue to provide this service and this capability whenever and wherever we can.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that 14 major hospitals have either been destroyed or very seriously damaged, and it will take a long time for them to be repaired. In the meantime, there is obviously a crucial need for tented hospitals. In this respect, it is obviously good news that the UK Emergency Medical Team, UK EMT, has deployed a team to set up one such hospital, but there is a need for much more to be done. Furthermore, is the Minister aware that Venezuela already suffered from a chronic shortage of qualified anaesthetists and orthopaedic surgeons? Are these two areas where the UK could provide more focus?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Venezuela lacks many things, not least the 8 million people who have removed themselves from the country in recent years because they did not wish to live under the regime of Nicolás Maduro. There are many gaps in the capability of the Venezuelan state. The right response to this is to not do what has happened in response to previous disasters. I point the noble Lord to Haiti and the response after that earthquake, where we saw a flooding of capability and equipment but a real lack of co-ordination, duplication, inefficiency and a failure to respond. It was of its time, and it is not how we want to do things now. It is good that we are now collaborating much more with international partners and local agencies on the ground, because that is the right thing to do for that population that needs that help so urgently.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I also welcome the support given by the British Government and I congratulate the Minister, who will have played a personal part in making sure that there has been co-ordination in relation to it. Picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, Venezuela will have long-term needs in the light of what has happened as well as the immediate crisis that is going on. What are the British Government doing to identify what those long-term needs are and how we might help to meet them?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is an important point. There are without doubt going to be long-term needs to strengthen the state, as there were before the earthquake happened, but those have been brought into sharp relief since the devastating incidence of the two quakes. Before this happened, we were the only G7 country with a functioning team in Caracas. We had a chargé there who has led the team incredibly well through very difficult circumstances. We will maintain that position, and we will work with partners, allies and organisations within the country to work out what the right role is for the United Kingdom in this context. The best response is no longer to try to provide everything and to act as a pseudo state; that is not what we wish to do. We need to work in a way that recognises local leadership, local custom, local language and local provision. The role of faith leadership in Venezuela is important too. That is the way that we will go about this.
European Entry and Exit System
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, there have clearly been serious issues across Europe this year in relation to the new European entry system and it is no secret that implementation has been poor. However, the European Union seems to be under the impression that the new entry and exit system is working well. What discussions have the Government had with the European Union about improving the system?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government are in constant dialogue with the European Union. We are working closely with European member states to ensure that the juxtaposed ports have the right technology and processes to enable travel to be as smooth as possible for UK citizens. This has included providing £3.5 million in funding to each of the three ports to help make their changes to infrastructure. We will continue to discuss with European partners how we can ensure that we have as smooth an operation as possible in the interests of both the European Union and British travellers.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the root cause of the EES misery that British people are suffering is Brexit. There is no running away from that. But my enthusiasm for the EU does not blind me to its flaws, and this is one of them. Will the Government convene an emergency UK-EU meeting with the European Commission before 20 July—perhaps this can be one of Keir Starmer’s leaving presents—to address the disruption and shambles that is the EES, unfortunately, and protect British travellers during the summer peak?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that, were we still a member of the European Union, this issue would not be a problem. She knows how I voted in the referendum and she knows that this is a consequence of that referendum and decision. Having said that, we are where we are. The European Union is responsible for its management of the schemes. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, we are in constant contact. She asked for an emergency summit; we are holding a summit continuously. We are in constant contact with the authorities and we hope to ensure that the transfer of passengers through the three juxtaposed ports is smooth and efficient.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have a general question for the noble Lord. I thank him for what he is doing to try to smooth things for passengers from here across Europe. Is it right that a British passenger has to check in for each new country in the EU that they visit, whereas European passengers coming here from the EU check in just once? Is that something that he could alleviate in the discussions he is having with our European partners?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The operation of the EES is a matter for the European Community and its member states. There are different approaches, but my understanding now is that the European Union is trying to get a consistent approach from European countries across the board. It is not for us as a third-party state to have that intervention with European partners, but we can raise issues and we are doing so. We are looking at how we can off-set the concerns that are raised and are trying to ensure smooth transfer, particularly in the three ports that we have—Eurostar, Eurotunnel and the Port of Dover.
Lord Deben (Con)
Would not the Minister agree that this is an interesting example of how, when we thought we would take back control, actually we have given over control in areas where we could have been part of the solution?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord, as ever, is wise, moderate and considered. He makes points that I may share on behalf of the UK Government, but I say to him again that, sadly, we are where we are.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
A few months ago I flew to Málaga, where they had decided not to apply the new system. Is it possible to persuade the EU to put off the system until October?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The system is operational. I have travelled to a European country in the last two months and had to ensure that my credentials were checked and established in the proper way. The operation of the scheme is a matter for the European Union. We are a third-party country. We are trying to ensure that it is as smooth as possible. We have had discussions with our European partners and will continue to do so. As I said earlier, we have put in some £3.5 million of UK taxpayers’ money to ensure that the challenges are at least ameliorated as far as possible.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I sense this is going against the masochistic mood of the House, but how is a failure of the EU our fault? The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in asking her question, said her fondness for the EU does not blind her to the fact that this is a chaotic and badly implemented scheme—for everyone, not just for us. Any third-country national trying to enter the EU will run up against these problems. How is that our responsibility? If there is a bad immigration system in Uzbekistan or Venezuela, that is not our fault. Incredibly, not everything is the fault of Brexit.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord tempts me. It is not our responsibility and it is an EU scheme, but it is our problem if lorries and cars are backed up at Dover, if our citizens cannot get into a European country easily and if we have that general mess. The point the noble Baroness made, which I thought he would have recognised given that he is a strong advocate of Brexit, was that, had we not had the referendum and the Brexit decision, we would have been part of the decision-making process on that very system. Now we are not; we are a third-party country because of the decision he advocated, which I remind the House I opposed.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, in the Government’s discussions with the French and other authorities, are we looking at the possibility that people could register in advance of travelling so that they would be good for two years rather than having to do it at the time of their first journey?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, my noble friend tempts me. The operation of this scheme is one for the European Union. We have made a number of representations to see how we can make this more efficient and simpler from the UK perspective. That includes putting in place contingency plans with the police and others for any potential back-up at the ports in the United Kingdom. It also includes working closely and raising issues with all European nations to make sure that we can make this as smooth as possible. I cannot be the European Union, even for the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. What I can be is the UK’s representative making representations about how we can ensure that, from our perspective, this system works as well as possible.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, having spent many years of my former life in the airline industry and then commuting to Brussels and Strasbourg, I must say in all sincerity that post Brexit the UK really did step up. As a country, we have not made life difficult for EU citizens to come here as tourists and in jobs that they may do. However, we have found that a number of member states, though not every state, continue to make life extremely difficult—I have no idea why—for British travellers, lorries and various others crossing the channel. This is about urging the Government; I know the Minister is trying very hard, but it is called a quid pro quo. We are where we are. This is 10 years on. If we take this in good faith and treat our EU passengers well, which we do, it is not beyond the wit of man for it to be reciprocated for British travellers going abroad.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If there are problems in the system, they are not problems for the British but for any third-party nation. We just happen to be a third-party nation now and I imagine that it is also a problem for Americans and others wishing to enter the EU. In that sense, I sort of agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—something I never expected to say—that it is for the EU to sort out. We are trying to make sure that we help as much as we can to sort out that issue so that it does not impact on UK citizens.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, this is perhaps a rather self-interested question because, like some other Members, I will be travelling to Europe during the Summer Recess. Of the three major ports—Dover, Eurostar and the Channel Tunnel—does my noble friend have any idea in advance which is likely to find itself under the greatest strain as a result of this system and, as a result, get the resources to alleviate that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope my noble friend enjoys his holiday. We are trying to have no problems at any of the three juxtaposed ports. If he wants to, he can look at GOV.UK and the Foreign Office website to get regular live updates as to what is happening at each port. I say again that, if there are particular challenges at a particular time, we have contingency plans in place—particularly for the roads approaching Dover, with Kent Police and the Medway authorities—to ensure that we manage them in an effective way. I am hoping for a smooth transfer, but I urge all noble Lords and others who are traveling to examine websites, look at the information and, as ever, give sufficient time to travel, whatever happens.
Foreign Interference in UK Politics
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement and thank Philip Rycroft for his thorough review. We on these Benches have consistently supported measures to tackle foreign interference in our democracy and recognise the value of Philip Rycroft’s review. However, an independent review is not a substitute for ministerial engagement with political parties where recommendations affect the rules by which political parties compete with one another. The Government have traditionally sought broad political agreement before legislating.
The threats posed by hostile states are real and growing, so protecting the integrity of our democratic system is fundamental to maintaining public confidence in our elections. Every political party represented in this House has a shared interest in ensuring that foreign interference, illicit finance and attempts to undermine our democratic processes are robustly addressed. However, we remain concerned about both the process the Government have adopted and aspects of the proposals now being taken forward.
As my noble friend Lady Finn said during last week’s debate, there is a simple constitutional principle at stake. The rules governing political finance are not ordinary legislation; they are the rules by which political parties compete with one another. Governments are therefore the trustees of those rules, not their proprietors. The reason why that convention exists is straightforward: Governments should not use their parliamentary majority unilaterally to legislate on the finances of their political opponents. Once that principle is abandoned, it becomes easier for future Governments of any political persuasion to do the same and risks importing the kind of hyper-partisan approach to electoral law that has proved so damaging elsewhere.
For many years, Governments of all political persuasions have recognised that changes in this area should, where possible, be developed through consultation and broad cross-party agreements, rather than imposed unilaterally by the Government of the day. That is why the Government’s approach is so disappointing. Rather than waiting for Philip Rycroft’s review to conclude, Ministers introduced the Representation of the People Bill before publishing their response. They have now chosen to cherry-pick two recommendations from that review and insert them into the Bill through significant government amendments during the stages in the other place without first engaging in proper cross-party talks. Simply informing political parties of changes after they have already been drafted is not consultation. Why did the Government not publish a consultation paper, formal or informal, or convene proper cross-party discussions before deciding to legislate?
Constitutional conventions exist precisely because changes to the rules of democratic competition should not come as a surprise to those expected to operate within them. An independent review is valuable, but it is not a suitable political consensus on the rules governing political competition. However, the Government have immediately accepted two recommendations from the Rycroft review—a moratorium on cryptocurrency and a £100,000 annual cap on donations from overseas electors—before publishing their full response to the review or consulting political parties on how these proposals should operate.
More troubling still, these measures are intended to have a retrospective effect from March this year. Political parties are therefore expected to comply with legal requirements whose detailed legislative provisions have not yet been debated by Parliament or, indeed, published in draft. That is full-on retrospective legislation and is constitutionally very difficult to justify.
More fundamentally, why was the Representation of the People Bill introduced before the Rycroft review had reported? Given that there was no imminent general election, why did Ministers not pause the Bill for a matter of weeks to bring forward a coherent package of reforms? Alternatively, if the Government wished to proceed urgently with electoral reforms, why were the political finance provisions not introduced in separate legislation, as previous Governments have done? Can the Minister also outline the consultation that has taken place with the Electoral Commission, parliamentary authorities and political parties on these proposals? What additional resources will be provided to ensure that any new regulatory responsibilities can be implemented effectively?
Finally, legislation is only one part of the answer. Effective enforcement is equally important. Can the Minister therefore tell the House what additional resource will be provided to the Electoral Commission, and to any other enforcement bodies, to ensure that these reforms can be properly implemented and enforced?
Good policy requires more than good intentions; it requires proper consultation, careful scrutiny and, in this area above all, broad political consensus. We will continue to support proportionate measures that genuinely strengthen our democracy against foreign interference, but we urge the Government to return to the long-established constitutional principle that the rules governing political competition should be made with political parties, not simply imposed upon them. Protecting our democracy should unite Parliament and not become another area for partisan legislation.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I will resist the temptation to ask the Minister to remind us what consultation the previous Conservative Government carried out with either his party or mine over, for example, changing the electoral system for elections of mayors or expense limits for general elections.
Instead, to go to the heart of the matter, these Benches very much share the concerns set out in the Rycroft review about the risk of foreign money influencing, or even corrupting, our politics. We therefore broadly welcome the Government’s commitment to implementing the report. However, I have some concerns about the intended speed of implementation, some of the loopholes that will remain, and one particular issue that is not mentioned in the Government’s response, which I suspect the Minister can successfully predict.
I turn first to the intended pace of implementation. On recommendation 4, regarding non-party campaigners and related issues, the Government have said they will
“commit to consultation and further work”.
They are not even committing to action on that one. On recommendation 14, on internet advertising, the Government have promised “proposals in due course”. On recommendation 16, on think tanks and associated issues, the Government’s commitment is that they will
“consider opportunities for further work”.
I fear that you can almost hear the wheels of Whitehall grinding to a halt as you consider that phrase. I hope the Minister can set out clear timelines for the Government’s intended progress on those recommendations, which are, after all, on substantive major issues such as the role of online advertising.
On loopholes, I have raised before the question of the Government’s apparent inconsistent approach to politics and the media. They appear to be sticking to a significant control test for companies that permits greater foreign ownership of a company that donates to our politics than is permitted for a company that owns one of our newspapers. It remains unclear to me why the Government think that a lower level of protection against foreign interference in our politics than in our media is appropriate. I hope the Minister might be able to clarify that.
The Government are proposing—in a broad sense, this is a welcome step in the right direction—introducing a new threshold of £2,230, above which pre-campaign donations to individual candidates would need to be declared. That sounds a reasonable threshold, until one remembers that British-wide political parties will typically stand 633 candidates across the country, or, if not contesting the Speaker’s seat, 632 candidates. Therefore, 632 lots of some £2,000 gets you to nearly £1.5 million-worth of donations that could be made legally, legitimately and in secret, unless the Government also propose to go a little further and introduce aggregation requirements around those donations to individual candidates. I hope the Minister can tell us what is intended on that front.
Indeed, the Government Statement is rather silent on whether similar protection will be extended to, for example, elections for the Mayor of Greater Manchester or the Mayor of London. Those, among other elected posts at other levels of election, have important power, and, although we have not yet had a track record of having to worry about foreign money in such elections, it would seem to me prudent to extend such protections.
Finally, I turn to the consolidation of election law and the dangers, costs and complexity that arise from the messy and fragile state of election law, In the past, I have used the parallel of a teenager with a messy bedroom—the Government never quite decide that now is the time to start cleaning up that bedroom The Rycroft review said:
“I urge Government to consider”
action in this area. Because that was a boxed-out urging of the Government to consider, rather than a formal recommendation, the Government’s response so far has been silent on that particular part of the Rycroft review. I hope the Minister, having been urged by Rycroft to consider this issue, can tell us what consideration the Government have come to.
To push on one specific example, consolidation does not have to a be a big project, put off for ever only to be done in one big bang. It is possible to pick off little individual issues. For example, it is possible to look at redundant legislation on the statute book, the repeal of which would have no or only minimal knock-on consequences. It is a bit like picking up the dirty crisp packet from the middle of the floor—we are not going to tidy the whole bedroom but can at least pick up some of the easy bits. I have one specific question. The Parliamentary Elections Act 1695 seems to me to be the perfect crisp packet—an easy thing that could be picked off and repealed under the Representation of the People Bill. I hope the Minister can tell us that that is going to be added to the Government’s plans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I will come to that question at the end, if I may.
The Secretary of State commissioned Philip Rycroft to conduct an independent review of risks posed by foreign financial influence in UK politics. In March, we welcomed Mr Rycroft’s comprehensive assessment and announced immediate plans to accept two recommendations responding to urgent risks. A week ago, in your Lordships’ House, I said that the Government would publish their response very soon, and I am delighted to say I was right. They have now published their full response and, as noble Lords know, the Government have accepted all of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations. I will come to the specific points that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, made in a moment. I welcome the support—I would not say it is qualified support—from all the Benches opposite for Rycroft and our acceptance of the recommendations.
In response to Mr Rycroft’s recommendations, we will strengthen our political finance rules through amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. I should note, because this is an important point that the noble Baroness made, that the Minister will be writing to political parties to set out these measures in much more detail, and that letter will be publicly available on GOV.UK. I will come to the question of discussions and engagement in a moment.
We will introduce an annual £100,000 cap on donations and regulated transactions from overseas electors. It is materially more complex to trace the true source of political donations made by voters living overseas, and this creates a clear avenue for the channelling of illicit funds. There is a simple principle at stake here, which I think we all share: we want the people who make donations to political parties to have a genuine stake in the life of the UK. That is the principle we are seeking to achieve. A cap recognises legitimate participation while ending the risk of unlimited overseas money entering our politics. The noble Baroness referred to those risks, and the Government are very alive to them.
Recognising that risk continues when British citizens return to the UK, and therefore we are introducing a minimum residency period. The risk is very clear. An overseas elector returning to the UK must be here for a full calendar year before that cap is lifted, to prevent circumvention of the regime. Once the measures come into force, that minimum residency period will apply retrospectively, from the date of our original announcement on 25 March. I note the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, made about retrospection, but the Government’s view is that there are clear risks and we should address them in the way that we have.
We will apply the same cap and the minimum residency period to anyone who moves to the UK after the date of the Statement and was not previously an overseas elector, to ensure these individuals cannot circumvent the rules before commencement. That is the risk. A modified cap will apply retrospectively and an annual cap of £100,000 per recipient will apply to donations they make between today and the date of the commencement of the measures, including any regulated transactions they enter into from today. On commencement, the cap and the minimum residency period will apply in the same way as for those who were formerly overseas electors.
As we previously announced, we will introduce a moratorium on all political donations of any amount made via cryptocurrency. The arrangements around crypto are simply too opaque.
Building on previous announcements, and in response to the review, we will go further to strengthen our political finance safeguards. We will amend the corporate donation test, so that it is based on post-tax profits rather than revenue, measured over five years to prevent double counting. We will introduce a new donor declaration to be made by anyone donating above a specified threshold. We will engage with the Electoral Commission and political parties as we develop the declaration, including an appropriate threshold. We are introducing a raft of transparency measures.
We will also strengthen rules and transparency on donations to candidates. Candidates will have to declare that donations to fund campaigning—as the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said—made prior to formally becoming a candidate are from permissible sources. Donations in that period above £2,230 will need to be cleared. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, asked me about aggregation. We have no plans to legislate on aggregation at the moment.
We recognise how vital it is for the health of our democracy that we have a regulator that is fearlessly independent and, to the noble Baroness’s point, properly resourced to do the job that we are asking it to do. That is why, to ensure its independence, we are also repealing the Government’s powers to designate a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission. Beyond political finance, we will take steps in the Representation of the People Bill and more broadly to implement these important reforms.
If I do not manage to cover everything in the time I have left, I will come back to noble Lords. On consultation, I do not have anything to add. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, gave a very adequate response on the history, so I shall not go over that again. I do, however, accept the noble Baroness’s point that we are trustees, not proprietors, of the political finance system. I take that very seriously. I take very seriously the risks of tit for tat—I said this in the debate last week—and the risk that future Governments might get into a prisoner’s dilemma.
I do not, however, accept that these reforms are partisan, hyper-partisan or otherwise. I agree with the noble Baroness that that is not a scenario we want to see. The Parliamentary Parties Panel of the Electoral Commission has continued discussions between parties. I assure the noble Baroness that I will, as this legislation proceeds—I will be taking it through your Lordships’ House—engage in a lot of detail with anyone who is keen enough to talk to me. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has already had the pleasure of my company on these matters; I bow to his superior knowledge. I can see him waiting to rise to his feet. On the resources of the Electoral Commission, I take the point that the noble Baroness made.
On a point from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, I take very seriously the question of online adverts and, indeed, misinformation online generally. I see the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, nodding. I do not think any of us feel we have cracked it, to be blunt, and this is an area that we will have to continue to think about in relation to political representation, online advertising and so on. We will all be here on this subject for some years to come.
On foreign ownership of the media, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Pack, will forgive me if I do not get drawn into that, but I take the point he made. I have already discussed our plans on aggregation.
On consolidation, I think I did answer this last week, but I am very happy to repeat my answer, which is that the Government want to fulfil the commitments they made in their manifesto. I was going to say “as a first step”, but I had better not say that because it might get me into a whole lot of trouble. That is our priority, and noble Lords can understand why. I understand the arguments, and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made the same arguments to me yesterday about consolidation.
On the 1695 Act, I will have to come back to the noble Lord. I commend the Statement, despite that absence in my knowledge, to your Lordships.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we move on to Back-Bench questions, I remind the House that the next 20 minutes are reserved for questions from Back-Benchers only. I know that the whole House would appreciate these rules being adhered to in order to ensure that as many noble Lords as possible get a suitable opportunity to ask questions to the Minister—that means questions, not speeches or statements.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, referred to me. In opening, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his seat, since I notified him that I intended to quote him. On 15 July 2022, he said:
“I hope that, when we get a new Prime Minister”—
how perceptive—
“they will look at the whole issue of our electoral law, which desperately needs some revamping”.—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1709.]
I now move on to the question of implementing changes in this particular field. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has already made comments about this. I know that the Minister is an old Alleynian—a product of Dulwich College. There is another product of Dulwich College who may have a certain influence on the changes that are necessary in this field. It is because of the events that we are witnessing and the investigations that are being undertaken by the Ethics and Integrity Commission that I ask the Government: please, can we not force through amendments to the Bill now, when we may be in the position in the imminent future of having yet more changes necessary to the legislation?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I am indeed a product of Dulwich College, which only goes to show that it is not the school’s fault. I am sorry to say that I am older than Nigel Farage, and I am tempted to make jokes about bins and recycling—but I will not, because the Chief Whip will tell me off. On the substantive point, we understand that there is a lot going on. These are not matters for me; they are matters for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Electoral Commission. We hear what the noble Lord says about the need not to keep double-dipping on this, so we will watch the situation carefully, but I should not comment on individual cases, as I know he understands.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Rycroft report. The Statement says:
“We will also strengthen our response to the wider influencing environment”.
Recommendation 16 specifically talks about think tanks. The other night, in a committee room upstairs, I listened to a number of experts on foreign interference talking about foreign Governments funnelling money through think tanks in Britain to influence our political debates, including not only the Russian Government but the last Hungarian Government. I therefore urge the Government to consider including those forms of indirect political influence to shape the political debate—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, may add that PR firms are also engaged in this—as part of what we need to control, and to insist on transparency, at the very least, in where the money is coming from. I suggest that we should have a Defending Democracy Taskforce that reports to Parliament about what it is defending and what the threats are, so as to inform and alert us all to where we are.
I was the leader on our Benches for the 2022 Bill. I have been trying to recall the consultations that the then Conservative Government had with other parties. I must have forgotten that they took place. I was unaware that there was any form of constitutional convention. I will welcome the paper from the Conservative Benches about the constitutional convention: when it was shaped and how the Conservative Government previously used it in consultation with other papers. Perhaps, at that point, we may be able to discuss this new constitutional convention further.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I do not have anything to add on the noble Lord’s final point, other than that it sounds a bit like the Schleswig-Holstein question to me.
On the question about think tanks and so on, I have already said how the principle behind the Bill is that we are seeking to prevent foreign interference in our democracy. As we go through the process with the Bill in Committee and on Report, we will discuss the issues that the noble Lord raises. At the moment we are focused on political parties, as I have said, but we recognise the wider landscape he draws, and we will cleave to the principle I have set out.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to give the Electoral Commission more investigatory powers, including the power to require information from third parties, as the Rycroft review recommended. The devil will be in the detail on that. Other regulators have extensive powers to require information from third parties, to search premises, to require third parties to attend for interviews, and so on, which are enforceable by criminal penalties. What powers are envisaged to be given to the Electoral Commission to require information from third parties and how will they be enforced?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very important point in relation to information sharing. To address the asymmetry identified in the Rycroft review of the information-sharing provisions in the Bill, we will amend the Bill to establish a broad reciprocal statutory gateway for information sharing. Importantly, we will also extend the commission’s power to require disclosure of information outside of a formal investigation, enabling a more proportionate and effective approach to enforcement.
On criminal liabilities, one of the things that we want to achieve in the Bill is for these matters to be dealt with, as far as possible, by the Electoral Commission, as there are other pressures in relation to police time, and so on. We are decriminalising some minor offences in the Bill, as I think the noble Lord knows, but we do not want to reduce the liability in relation to serious matters.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, I have just returned from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly, where I spent the last five days on behalf of the House. One of the issues that came up was that what is happening here is not unique to us. A number of countries across Europe—not least Armenia, Hungary recently, and Moldova—are suffering the same issue of money coming in, possibly from Moscow and elsewhere. A considerable amount of time and effort is being spent by people on thinking of ways to tighten up the rules and make things more effective.
Enforcement has been touched upon. I may have mentioned this last week when it came up, but things have changed since then. Suppose that Count Binface was the recipient of several hundred thousand pounds from some foreign donation and was to win that by-election in Clacton. Many might like to see him win, but that is another matter for another time and another place. What would be the ability to enforce against him? He would be the successful Member of Parliament. Does the Representation of the People Bill, as drafted, have the teeth to remove that Member of Parliament? The Recall of MPs Act 2015 does not properly cover this. Can the Minister give some advice or think carefully about how we are going to deal with this problem? Maybe he could write to me or meet me for a discussion.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I already have a date to meet the noble Lord, Lord Shamash, so we can certainly pick this up then. These potential breaches and allegations are matters for the Electoral Commission. It is our job to empower it to deal with them. I am sure that we will debate the issues he raises at some length in Committee when the Bill comes before the House.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, is too nice to have gone through everything that the Tories did without involving us, but one of the things they did was to bring in the requirement for ID for people casting a vote. However, those people living abroad, although they extended the vote to them, do not have to produce their ID; they vote by post. I am sorry to bring this to my noble friend again but, more importantly, although I approve what Rycroft did in bringing in a cap, it is £100,000 per year per person. A couple living abroad who may not have lived here for 40 years can do £1 million between them over a Parliament. My noble friend cannot say that he agrees with me, but can he at least say that he is sympathetic, hears what I say and that it will be taken into account in future discussions?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My noble friend Lady Hayter will have to read my body language, I am afraid. I will not be drawn. Her arithmetic is correct. If those patterns emerge, I go back to the principle that we want to stop foreign interference in our politics. If we see these rules being manipulated, as she suggests might be the case, we will respond to that. On voter ID, as she knows, the Bill does contain some provisions to make it easier for people. We will come back to those in Committee, I am sure.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
On procedure, I suspect that on the Opposition Front Bench the lady doth protest too much, judging by what I hear about the precedents. It is rather a good thing that there is a vehicle, in the Representation of the People Bill, ready for the addition of the amendments that the Government are making, picking up from the Rycroft report. I thought that the report was very good and that the Government’s answers were generally good.
My concern is over penalties. There is a risk, given the very large amounts of money that are flying about and the penalties being exiguous, of them simply being seen as a cost of business. I am rather sorry that on the recommendation that sentencing should be reviewed, the response is:
“Significant changes to criminal thresholds and sentencing length require a longer process of analysis and consultation than is possible to deliver in the timeframes of the RoPB”.
I am not sure why that should be so. Is the Minister sure that it is not possible to tighten up penalties in this Bill?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I am starting to feel the need to defend the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, but will not fall into that temptation. On enforcement, one point that I should perhaps have made and will make now is that we are increasing the fining powers of the Electoral Commission. I know that is not quite the point that the noble Lord is making but it is precisely for the point that he makes. The current cap on fines from the Electoral Commission is £20,000, which could be seen as the cost of business for people and businesses richer than I am. We are raising that to £500,000.
On the point about criminal sanctions, we are in active discussions with the Ministry of Justice. As the noble Lord rightly acknowledged, we want to do what we can and not go at the pace of the slowest recommendation. We will come back to that point because the recommendation from Philip Rycroft gives us a very clear direction of travel.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this very important review and that the Government are accepting all the recommendations. I am most concerned about the area pertaining to recommendation 13, on what is happening online in the social media space. The recommendation is that combating “hostile state online interference” requires
“clear lead accountability at ministerial and senior official level … with resources commensurate to the challenge”.
Since this review was undertaken, an important report came out in the last month from the Social Market Foundation. It found that around by-elections and elections online, we are seeing 26 times more misinformation and disinformation on social media. That review looked specifically at what was happening on Facebook. In that context, I urge the Government to press the National Crime Agency to undertake a full investigation into who is funding British content creators who are posting daily toxic content that is deliberately anti-democratic, divisive and highly damaging to our politics.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question and I pay tribute to her long-standing work in this area. It is important that I set this out carefully, so I hope she will forgive me if I read out the precise answer. The Online Safety Act framework requires in-scope services to tackle illegal content where it amounts to a criminal offence. In an election context, for example, this includes incitement to violence, undue influence, foreign interference, false communications and false statements about a candidate’s character. Those are important powers, but we recognise—as I have already said on the question on adverts that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, raised—that today’s technological and online environment shifts and develops rapidly. That is why we are working with colleagues across government—I am very actively engaged in this myself, including with Ministers in DSIT and the Home Office—to continue to take steps to address these challenges. Your Lordships do not need me to tell them that we need to keep a close eye on this space.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will take the Minister back to his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Haywood, who asked about the Minister’s fellow Old Alleynian, the coming by-election and the legal processes, and said that maybe we should hold off on the legislation until we have seen that process play out. I think I understood the Minister to say that he understood the argument and to “watch this space”, or words to that effect. Is it really proper for us to pass legislation against, or at least inspired by, a specific individual? Is not the worst kind of law that which is designed to frustrate a political opponent? Should we not be very careful, in this House particularly, of that kind of talk and legislation when the party in question, Reform UK bizarrely, despite its share of the vote at the last election, lacks any representation in this Chamber?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I never say “watch this space”—it is not my style—but the serious point that the noble Lord makes is absolutely right. Of course we should not allow individual cases of that sort. This is a properly regulated space. We are strengthening that regulation. Many of these matters, particularly in relation to the other place, are for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the authorities in the other place. I would not seek to interfere with that in any way, but we will all read the papers, I am sure.
Lord Redwood (Con)
What are the Minister’s thoughts on the past intervention of President Obama in the British referendum, which rather backfired, and what would he think if leading Republican politicians today, for example, get energetically behind Rupert Lowe’s party?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I do not feel qualified to comment on the behaviour or attitudes of the leaders of the Republicans or other right-wing parties in the US.
The Space Economy (UK Engagement with Space Committee Report)
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
That this House takes note of the Report from the UK Engagement with Space Committee The Space Economy: Act Now or Lose Out (HL Paper 190, Session 2024–26).
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)
My Lords, it is with great pride that I introduce this debate on the report The Space Economy: Act Now or Lose Out. The title was chosen to capture the urgency with which the committee believes government and others should act. I am sure this overarching message will be reinforced in the course of this debate. At the outset, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her willingness to engage with the report and the debate. I believe she is enthusiastic for what can be done. I look forward to hearing that enthusiasm turned into concrete actions in her response and in the future.
I begin my remarks by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who is not in his place but who was the instigator of this inquiry. I am very grateful to him for proposing and championing that your Lordships needed to consider our relationship to and work in space. The committee was fortunate to have such a brilliant team of clerks and advisers, who made this report come alive. It astonishes me how they were able to guide us through such a challenging subject, keeping us within the framework of a report based on evidence but never curbing our enthusiasm for the subject, and apparently becoming experts on the subjects within days of being given the task of supporting our work. Sabrina, Steph, Scott—you are truly fantastic. Sarah, thank you for your work in communications. Michelle, we could not have asked for a better external adviser. On behalf of the committee, thank you.
Most of all, I pay tribute to the noble Lords who formed themselves into the space committee with a fabulous combination of enthusiasm and curiosity. I have performed many functions in your Lordships’ House but never chaired a committee before, and my colleagues were a joy to work alongside. We even had a space baby during one of our public sessions: my noble friend Lord Stansgate, who brought his wealth of experience in science and will do so again today, was momentarily distracted by the news of his new baby granddaughter’s arrival. It added to the urgency we felt that this subject, with all its potential, could offer her a better future. Perhaps inspired by the new family member, my noble friend made the point that space would be an integral part of the lives of her generation.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, chaired in my occasional absence, for which I am extremely grateful, bringing his legal knowledge as well as enthusiasm, especially in tackling some of the environmental questions. On our visit to the Harwell space cluster in Oxfordshire, which has over a 100 space businesses, the European space agency and the UK space agency, before it was folded into the department—I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for his role in that—a business leader said to us there that he had many visits where people barely asked a question and feared that we might not have much to say. We were impossible to stop—some of us more impossible than others—barely catching the train back and still with lots to say. My award for enthusiastic questioning goes to my noble friend Lord Shamash, who brought not only his legal prowess but his unstoppability and interest, which delighted the businesses we met. I am only sad that we were unable to hold this debate before the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, left the House. He had hoped to make his farewell speech on this report. On behalf of the committee, I send him all our good wishes.
In our lifetimes, space has moved from the almost science fiction launch of Sputnik and the early pioneers of Mercury and Gemini through to the developments of Saturn V and the heady days of the Apollo missions. Many, though not all of the committee, remembered the anticipation of Apollo 11’s grainy photographs from the surface of the moon and the crisis of Apollo 13—still my favourite film. We have witnessed the building of the International Space Station, the Soyuz missions, the work and the tragedies of the space shuttle, and seen a largely two-country race and collaboration transform to a time when 90 countries have space programmes and China has its own space station in orbit. Indeed, the world has not seriously worked together on how to regulate space since the 1967 outer space treaty.
Ten years ago, there were 2,000 satellites; by 2030, we will have a minimum of 60,000 and a possibility of 100,000. We have seen our relationship with space change our everyday lives in ways that barely seemed possible only a few years ago. Most of the time we are unaware of our reliance on what happens above us. Some 18% of our GDP is reliant on satellites, and were we to lose our PNT—positional, navigation and timing capabilities—for just one week it would cost our economy £7 billion.
We had the benefit, in putting together this report, of an extraordinary group of witnesses and teachers. We held 24 evidence sessions, received 106 written submissions and heard from 62 witnesses. We had masterclasses from astronauts Chris Hadfield and Tim Peake on their experiences past and present. Future astronaut John McFall gave us insights into his ambitions for his time in space. Professor Brian Cox aided us immensely, even interviewing me at the conclusion of our report to give greater publicity to our work. Of the businesses we met, I should single out ClearSpace, which braved the security needs of your Lordships’ House to bring in its robotic arm, which is designed to catch satellites in orbit to service, repair or remove them. Experts in law, regulation and climate issues all gave us the benefit of their knowledge. We heard from many of the over 60 UK universities engaged in space research, discovered that there were 84 observatories engaged in space work and recognised that this sector has grown much faster than the rest of the economy over a number of years. We spend 1% of the global space budget and get a 5% share of the market, in a global space economy anticipated to grow 60% by 2030 and predicted to be worth £1.8 trillion by 2035.
We took the decision to focus primarily on the economic benefits, the challenges of promoting space safety—especially as there are more than 40,000 tracked pieces of space debris in orbit and almost 1 million smaller pieces capable of damaging satellites due to the velocity of their travel—and the partnerships that allow us to scale up our engagement. We were mindful that 50% of expenditure on space comes from the Ministry of Defence, that there are many dual-purpose technologies and that, in the context of resilience, satellite services are critical infrastructure. I am very grateful for the advice of Major General Tedman, head of United Kingdom Space Command.
Had we had longer we would have delved into these areas more, but, with the defence review and the committee currently examining issues of resilience, we are confident that some of these vital issues will be or have been examined. We hope that the Government will put all these reports together in thinking about next steps. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, paid particular attention to our links with defence. I look forward to his contribution today, which I am sure will feature this.
We were most surprised—I believe colleagues will comment on this—by just how fast work in space has become part of our infrastructure and the landscape for much of our economy. Satellites enable more precision farming, as anyone watching “Clarkson’s Farm” will note. GPS allows autosteer systems to guide tractors with extreme precision, minimising overlaps, saving fuel and reducing crop damage. Weather satellites help farmers to plan, which is vital not just in the UK but especially in areas suffering from the extremes of climate change and disruption. Financial investors can also assess crop health, estimate yields and so on using satellite technology where information is scarce.
Shipping companies use navigation satellites to track on their phones the locations of not just vessels but their contents. Most of us use GPS to work out our travel routes, avoiding traffic jams and disruptions. Online banking uses satellites for internet connectivity and, in remote or rural areas, provides connections to log into a bank. In the medical field, we heard from witnesses such as BioOrbit about the potential to manufacture drugs that work more effectively with fewer side-effects and allowing patients to administer complex drugs safely at home. Others spoke about the advantages of growing skin and organs in microgravity. This Tuesday, a British start-up, Mass Balance, announced that it is sending a miniature autonomous orbital lab to space to help develop new dementia drugs by watching how the complex proteins that cause Alzheimer’s fold and clump in microgravity.
One of the most exciting areas we heard about was how the UK is an early mover in orbital servicing, assembly and manufacturing. Companies such as Astroscale and ClearSpace are developing technologies to clean up space debris and service satellites in orbit. Space Forge is developing fully returnable satellites designed to manufacture the next generation of higher-performance semiconductors, which will make such things as vehicle chargers and 5G networks significantly more efficient. With the cost of launch becoming significantly reduced, largely due to reusable rockets, the potential to do more in space increases.
This brings us on to the geographical advantage that we have in launch capabilities, as an island where rockets can avoid populated land and access polar orbits. SaxaVord spaceport in Shetland has announced a launch window for a possible rocket test flight in August or September, with German firm RFA expected to be the first to carry out tests this year. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, will have more to say on this subject, but the committee was mindful of the need to ensure a really good business case for the launch site. We are well aware that we must not miss opportunities and we heard evidence of the need to have our own capacity to launch, but we are keen to hear how the Government see the future for a commercially successful launch capability and whether a spaceport capability offered to international clients has the potential to be useful for this country commercially.
The Royal Society has said:
“Space technologies will become ever more integral and fundamental to … modern economies”.
That requires government departments to build the value and use of space into their forward thinking for all sectors. We have heard the same cri de coeur for decades about how to make government join up its thinking, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, will offer his insights into higher education and the need to support R&D and thinking across government. We have made proposals for a Space Minister dedicated solely to this work and an envoy to work alongside businesses and universities and feed into government.
It is crucial that we address the needs of start-ups to grow up. It is not confined to this area and often spoken of as a British malaise: great at invention, then bought up by others. We heard how companies are approached all the time to move to the USA, the Gulf or elsewhere. We are lucky that some are firmly committed to this country, but they can stay only if they can access the resources that they need, so I hope the Minister will tell us what more can be done.
Many businesses talked about the importance of moving from grants to contracts and what a difference that would make. Can the Government do this and at speed? Having certainty in contracts, plus the ability to leverage other investment more effectively as a consequence, was a big part of the ask that many felt would make a difference. As the noble Lord, Lord Booth-Smith, who is on the committee, pointed out, private sector investment needs to be improved. A strategy to promote investment and opportunities should be part of the Government’s efforts to boost economic growth in this area.
Businesses spoke too about the challenges of skill shortages—up to 95% in some cases. This is not just about scientific knowledge and innovation. For a successful business, all kinds of skills are needed. As we were reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, who cannot be here today, this is about STEAM, not just STEM. Arts and humanities play their part too. Opportunities and education play a key part, as my noble friend Lady Donaghy, with her long experience in the world of work, reminded us. No doubt she will again today.
At a time when the Milburn report speaks so passionately and alarmingly about our young people—called NEETs for shorthand purposes—surely we can invest in job training in this area. Space sparks the imagination but requires practical skills to make the imagined real. A campaign to engage some of these 1 million young people should surely be considered. How exciting this could be for those who, one way or another, have had few opportunities or not been seized of the possibilities.
There is intense competition in this field. Those who succeed will be those who develop strong national strategies that align government and industry around national advantages and shared goals, and who understand the rapid changes needed to harness this new future. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, with her deep understanding of AI and her knowledge of the need to move on these major challenges at speed, will have much to offer our debate. We have the opportunity across the country, with our space clusters, space catapult, primes, small businesses, universities and institutions, to boost our economy significantly. Not everything that we should do we should do alone. Our role in the European Space Agency is key and our partnerships with NASA, Japan, Canada and Australia are all important. I look forward to hearing more about what is being proposed.
Here are real opportunities for economic growth in new industries, offering new products in regulation and legal services, testing and building satellites, engineering in space, new medicines, offering farmers greater crop yields, shipping and shopping, or simply getting safely from one place to another. Every government department should be involved in working out what we should do. This is as important for determining our future as the Industrial Revolution was in the 18th and 19th centuries. We stand on the cusp of something remarkable: space is the enabler for the way we will live. Whether we rise to the challenge, invest in this potential and take the best kind of risks is up to this Government in this moment. Now is the time to seize that moment: in other words, act now or lose out. I beg to move.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the committee on an excellent report, which is a magisterial review of the issues in space policy that also brings out the opportunities for us. I declare an interest as chair of SaxaVord spaceport, which has already been referred to. Before that, as chair of the UK Space Agency, I gave evidence to the committee about the agency.
My history here is that, when I arrived as a Minister in 2010, space was one of my responsibilities and I inherited plans from the previous Labour Government—from the excellent noble Lord, Lord Drayson—to create a new UK space agency as an arm’s-length body. So the plans were from the previous Labour Government and I implemented them. In my final year as chair of the UK Space Agency, I loyally implemented the new Labour Government’s plans to get rid of it as an arm’s-length body. Those are the ups and downs of politics, of course, as many in this House are aware.
In the interim, a decision happened several years ago to split policy in the department from operations in the agency. That model was not working. It is absolutely right to bring together policy and operations. If that is inside DSIT, with its broader links to other departments, so be it, and I wish all success to the new Space Agency, once again bringing all those roles together. But I hope the Minister will be able to assure the House that real, deep technological expertise within the Space Agency will be preserved, even within the Whitehall department.
A key theme of the report is the excellent opportunities we have, and I certainly regard launch as one of them. SaxaVord is the UK’s great opportunity to have a vertical launch capability, and it has already received support from the Government. One of the themes of this report is the many different ways government can support the space sector, and one of these is procurement. So if, for example, the Government financially back launch and launch companies in the UK, will they also encourage them to launch their rockets from SaxaVord? Similarly, if the MoD is planning the launch of satellites, will it be encouraged to consider SaxaVord as a launch option?
It is striking how at SaxaVord, the main military interest in using us comes from Germany. The Kensington treaty, linking Britain and Germany, means there is now significant interest from the German military in using SaxaVord to launch the large commitments to new satellite constellations that they have made. It would be great if that were matched with some interest from our MoD.
The German interest in SaxaVord has to be looked at against the backdrop of the EU Space Act, which is briefly referred to in the report and presents an increasingly tricky challenge for the UK’s space sector. It is pretty protectionist about EU companies and provision. But the irony when it comes to launch is that mainland EU is “spacelocked”: there is no viable space launch capability within the mainland of the EU. Europe’s two vertical launch options are at SaxaVord in Scotland, and at Andøya in Norway, which is in the European Economic Area. So, I hope the Minister can assure the House that she will do her best to ensure in conversations and negotiations with the EU that the EU Space Act is not a protectionist barrier to British space companies or launch from the UK.
The report rightly brings out the importance of promoting investment in space. That brings us to another important initiative: the rise of the public finance institutions—the so-called PuFins—the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank, which are a really important tool for promoting co-investment and bringing together private and public finance. Again, they are referred to in the excellent report. However, the word in the space sector is that the National Wealth Fund has decided that it will not invest in space, despite space being identified as one of the priorities in the industrial strategy. I hope the Minister can assure the House that the National Wealth Fund will consider investing in space, and that space companies with suitable propositions should be able to bring them to the NWF, as well as the British Business Bank.
Finally, having advocated the Government taking their stake in OneWeb, one of my most frustrating experiences has been observing the ways in which, sadly, that opportunity was not taken in the way it could have been. It is now part of Eutelsat. It is striking how, as Eutelsat decides to commission satellites, they are not being built in the UK, and as it decides where to launch them, that is not happening from the UK either. It is not too late to use OneWeb in the way we originally envisaged, as a strategic opportunity for us to advance our interests in space.
I congratulate the committee on its excellent report and look forward to the ministerial response.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, it was a privilege to be a member of the UK Engagement with Space Committee, served so well by its two clerks, Sabrina Asghar and Steph Coulter, and expertly chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady of Ashton of Upholland. I realised that she was going to be a wonderful chair when she persuaded our first witness to join her and some members of the committee to drink champagne immediately after his appearance before our committee. Only later did it become clear that Professor Brian Cox’s appearance before our committee had coincided with his birthday.
Apart from the noble Lord, Lord Booth-Smith—and here, I may be disagreeing with the chair—all members of the committee could recall seeing the moon landing on TV in August 1969. But, despite having witnessed this extraordinary event for humankind, or perhaps because we had done so, we were still not fully aware of the importance of space to the UK economy, nor of the role it plays in the UK’s defence and national security. Those two words, “dual use”, featured regularly in the evidence presented by our witnesses.
It was not possible for us to ascertain how well co-ordination between DSIT and MoD worked to deliver cross-governmental space policy. It is my view that the DSIT Minister responsible for space at the time did not manage to convince the committee that he was fully aware of the detail of the Ministry of Defence’s space plans. Yet, we now know that the long-awaited defence investment plan has allocated £3.2 billion of direct investment in space for the next four years. So, my first question to the Minister is to ask how closely involved she was, as the DSIT Minister responsible for space, in helping to shape the allocation for space in the defence investment plan.
The space sector shares several of the positive characteristics of other deep tech sectors in the UK: a thriving academic base in our universities, a rapidly increasing number of start-ups, and a global economy within its domain growing at about 10% per annum. It delivers £7 billion GVA, with a labour productivity 2.3 times the UK average. Yet, the UK ranks only 16th in space investment as a proportion of GDP, behind the US and most major European countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Israel.
This low level of investment has been compounded by fragmentation and lack of focus. The Government have attempted to address this issue by first recognising space as a priority frontier sector in the advanced manufacturing sector plan of its 2025 industrial strategy. Secondly, in March this year, the Minister announced that the Government would prioritise funding in four subsectors: satellite communications; assured access to space; in-orbit servicing, assembly and manufacturing—ISAM—and space domain awareness.
Such prioritisation is defensible provided that it remains possible for innovative university labs or start-ups to access funding for research and development outside the chosen subsectors. Here, space weather research provides a salutary tale. As the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, will remember, back in 2007, the newly formed Science and Technology Facilities Council, STFC, decided to stop funding solar-terrestrial physics. Eventually, after parliamentary intervention and other steps, the Natural Environment Research Council, NERC, agreed a rescue package. Fast forward to 2026, and today the UK space weather community, built from that research on solar terrestrial physics, stands as a world leader in the operational forecasting that is crucial to the aviation industry, as solar flares can disrupt the radio communications used by aircraft on polar and remote routes. Yet the underpinning research was initially written off in 2007.
UKRI is at present engaged in a rather fraught dialogue with the physics community about the funding allocation for the STFC. Will DSIT carry out an impact assessment of the flat settlement—in effect, the cuts—proposed by UKRI in physics funding, to include a consideration of the possible impact on space research?
The Minister has recently answered questions in this House about AI sovereignty. The House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee published a report two days ago, Science Diplomacy: Sovereignty, Strategy, and the Global Race, in which it argues that tech sovereignty should encompass not only AI but space and quantum. So my final question is to ask whether the Minister agrees that a subset of space technologies, beyond assured access to space, should be designed as sovereign capabilities for the UK, and whether any work is going on within DSIT and the MoD to investigate how we might improve resilience in these space capabilities without, in the words of the Prime Minister,
“telegraphing our specific vulnerabilities to hostile actors”.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, and the whole committee for this extremely enthusiastic report. I suspect I will be taking a different perspective from every other speaker in this debate because I am going to start from down here on solid earth—a planet that we have comprehensively trashed and where we have exceeded seven of our nine planetary boundaries as identified by the Stockholm Resilience Centre. We talk about what is happening up in space, but what we do up there has huge impacts down here on earth. I start from the proposition that Britain’s place in space, both the activity happening from our own land and our global diplomatic and other efforts, needs to keep that in mind.
There are useful things that we can do from space. We can see how fast the Amazon is being destroyed and how fast the peat-lands of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are suffering. We can watch the depletion of water aquifers. All these things are important for us to understand what we are doing, and we need to use space to do that, but we also do not have to do everything we possibly could do in space. We have choices, just as we have choices about whether we use huge amounts of energy and water for data centres for so-called artificial intelligence.
We need to think before we act. Some noble Lords may recall the cautionary tale of the UK’s first military satellite, Skynet 1A. It was launched in 1969 but in the mid-1970s it was deliberately moved because it was no longer in use, and it is now in an inconvenient orbit. No one can find the records of where and how that was done or the whole circumstances. There is one man in his 80s who was probably the person responsible but can no longer remember the details. We need to think about the long-term impacts of what we do, not just throw things up in the short term and think we can forget about them.
As has already been alluded to, we are already crowding space. I note that in 2021 the G7 leaders’ summit in Cornwall was debating the sustainable use of space. Back then—it will have only got worse—85% of the 28,000 routinely tracked objects in earth orbit were debris that no longer served a purpose. Just as the oceans swirl with our junk, so does near space.
The report acknowledges in paragraph 315, on page 95, that one of the foremost challenges of the ongoing space economy is the threat of the so-called Kessler event, the case where one satellite explodes or has an impact and then sends debris into a wide field, which expands and expands. That brings up another important point that we need to consider: relying on things in space means relying on services and operations from that fragile environment. While I was doing the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, I learned that all our traffic lights are timed from space. Just think of that in the context of a Kessler event. That is just one small example of the impact that it could have. Relying on space is something we have to think about when we think about our resilience and security.
There are also the environmental pollution impacts. Every year, 100 to 200 tonnes of hardware that is out of control re-enters the Earth’s atmosphere. The impact, should it land on a major city, would of course be significant, but wherever it lands it has impacts. In June 2025, after an Elon Musk SpaceX rocket exploded after launch, in Mexico there were die-offs of fish, dolphins and sea turtles. Just this week the Australian Space Agency has identified the likely source of mysterious large balls that washed up on a beach north of Townsville. They are thought to be space debris from pressure vessels on a space launch vehicle. Crews in protective suits were placing the spheres in hazmat barrels under police guard. This is a risk and an environmental concern.
There is an important point in the report that I need to stress. In paragraph 251, the report notes that the third pillar of the EU Space Act, announced in June 2025, is sustainability, and that
“operators must reduce the environmental impact of their activities in space”.
This is one element where I have to question what the committee is proposing. There is a suggestion in here that we as a non-EU member—for the moment, anyway—might find a competitive advantage by having lower environmental standards. I hope the Minister will reassure me that that is not the direction we would want to take. I note that the committee notes in paragraph 255 that if we did have lower standards than the EU, that would impose costs on operators in doing those things.
Let us think before we act. We have not done that with so much of what we have done on earth, on this planet. Let us think before we act in space.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and to participate in this debate, as indeed it was a pleasure to be part of the committee under the superb chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. We are able to say that, for a sessional committee, we produced something of great substance in a very short space of time. It is only because of the support, the volumes of evidence that we received and the enthusiasm with which people supplied us with it, and because of our secretariat, that we were able to achieve that, and we did so with great enjoyment. I hope to replicate the enthusiasm and enjoyment I had from being part of the committee with other committees.
I draw attention to my interest, which bears upon my views on the report. Many years ago, in 1981, I was in the space branch of the Department of Trade and Industry, as it then was. We were writing space policy—we did both policy and operations in those days—and we chose not to take part in future space transport systems, such as Ariane, which is one of the major European Space Agency programmes. Instead, we chose to focus on satellite communications and earth observation, and subsequent decades demonstrated that the UK industrial and economic return from that investment was far in excess of what was subsequently able to be achieved by France, for example, through its investment in Ariane.
I say to my noble friend that French Guiana is part of France. The French would be very unhappy at the thought that there was not a launch capability in “Europe”, because it happens in French Guiana.
I am in sympathy with something mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Earth observation is not only a vital task but we have terrific advantages in this country that we have built up over decades, not only in the production of satellites and so on, which is important, but in the integration, analysis and use of data. To declare an interest, in 2017 to 2019 my wife’s company helped out with this. The company was contracted by the European Commission to do work on Copernicus data and how SMEs could use Copernicus data for many applications. I wonder, therefore, about the decision not to have earth observation as one of our continuing space objectives. In the committee’s report we raised the need for a business case and an economic rationale for the launch capability. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lady Mobarik on this subject. It must be proven, because otherwise we are investing, through ESA, potentially in ways that will not deliver the economic return that earth observation could have done.
I turn to defence matters. The defence investment plan has now been published and we can see the £3.2 billion figure. In my amateur way I can identify only about half of what that will be spent on. What I can see is that we are not going to continue with further investment in the SKYNET 6 programme. Understandably, we are engaging in a process of trying to have not only a system of systems, as it were, on satellite communications but, on narrowband communications for command and control, having space as a service—tapping into Viasat, Eutelsat OneWeb and Starlink, and the whole range of services provided by our own capabilities, but particularly by the capabilities of allies and commercial providers. That can give us more resilience. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what the rationale is.
Where defence is concerned, we saw many potential dual-use capabilities. As an example of a partnership that I am particularly keen on, Japan has a launch capability and some fantastic technology; it is not producing these things ostensibly for defence purposes. Something such as the active debris removal programme mission—led by Astroscale, a Japanese-UK company—would be vital in dealing with the debris in space, but it also provides a capability to deal with, for example, satellites in space that are a threat to other satellites, and to be able to respond and deal with those.
I am slightly disappointed that although the Government response to the report said that we would expect to see the award of the active debris removal mission in March this year, it is now July and we have not yet seen it. I hope that we see it soon. At several points in the Government’s response, we have also seen the need for a one-government response to space, and that this would be reflected in the “spring space publication”, as it was described. It is no longer spring. I ask the Minister: do we have that one-government publication, which would give, I hope, much substance to what the future defence investment plan looks like, and how we can deliver on our industrial strategy and our space priorities, which is both a foundational and a frontier technology? I hope we see that even as soon as the Farnborough International Airshow. The clue to our report is in the title: “Act Now”. The Government’s response promised some things we have not seen, and I hope that we will see them very soon.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate on the report of the UK Engagement with Space Committee. Before turning to the substance of the report, I pay tribute to our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, my fellow committee members and our wonderful clerks, Sabrina and Scott.
This was one of those inquiries where the process itself was immensely rewarding. We embarked upon it not as experts in the field but as colleagues united by a desire to learn, a fascination with the opportunities and challenges of space, and a shared commitment to producing a report that could make a meaningful contribution to policy. What we lacked in technical expertise we certainly made up for in curiosity, enthusiasm and a genuine passion for the subject. I thank the many witnesses who gave evidence. Their generosity with their time, knowledge and experience made this a remarkable journey of discovery for us all and greatly enriched our understanding of the issues before us.
The report covers a wide range of important matters, from skills and regulation to investment, innovation and international co-operation. All deserve careful consideration. However, today I will focus on what I believe is one of the most strategically important issues facing the United Kingdom space sector: sovereign launch capability.
Space is no longer the preserve of scientists and explorers but an essential component of our economic prosperity, national security and daily lives. As geopolitical competition intensifies and our reliance on space-based infrastructure grows, assured access to space becomes ever more important. We have world-class expertise in satellite design, engineering and advanced manufacturing, but we remain dependent on others to place our assets into orbit. That dependence creates vulnerabilities and limits our ability to respond rapidly to both commercial opportunities and national security requirements.
If there is one conclusion I have drawn from this inquiry, it is that the United Kingdom must think and act with greater ambition. We cannot afford to be timid in our endeavours. We should not be content with a single launch location or place all our hopes in one facility. Resilience requires redundancy. In every other area of critical national infrastructure, we recognise the importance of back-up systems and alternative capabilities. Access to space should be no different. A nation serious about the ability to launch from its own soil should seek to develop more than one operational spaceport, ensuring flexibility, resilience and continuity in the face of technical, commercial or geopolitical disruption.
I recognise that funding is never straightforward. Public finances are under pressure and competing priorities are many, but transformative national projects are rarely achieved through conventional thinking. If we believe that sovereign access to space is of strategic importance, we should be prepared to explore innovative partnerships between government, industry and private investors. There are creative ways to unlock investment if there is clarity of purpose, confidence in the vision and a determination to succeed.
On joining the National Resilience Select Committee this year, I have become even more convinced that independent access to space should be viewed as an element of our national security architecture. Space is no longer a peripheral concern: it underpins communications, navigation, intelligence gathering, defence capability and the critical services that sustain modern economies. The ability to place assets into orbit from our own soil is not simply an industrial or commercial ambition; it is a matter of national readiness and strategic security.
An example of that ambition would be completing the development of the Sutherland spaceport. Some £7.5 million of public funds had already been invested in that project before being put on hold, and it requires a similar sum and a mere seven months to complete. Failing to finish the project would risk wasting the investment already made and denying the United Kingdom a strategically important capability. I refer Members to my declared interest, as outlined in the report.
Sutherland’s location on the mainland was considered one of its major advantages—both practical and safe. Sutherland should not be judged simply as a regional project, but as a part of the United Kingdom’s strategic infrastructure. We build such infrastructure because it provides capability, resilience and security. The economic benefits to the region and nation follow.
A self-reliant space nation should have complementary capabilities, not competing ones. Different launch sites can serve different missions, payloads and orbital requirements. Multiple operational spaceports can provide the redundancy and flexibility that any serious national infrastructure demands. Through my work on the National Resilience Select Committee, I have become convinced that spaceports, alongside our ports, airports and naval bases, should now be regarded as part of our critical national infrastructure. Will the Minister accept that resilience requires more than one operational spaceport to provide the necessary redundancy and flexibility?
Space capability cannot be created overnight. If we postpone decisions until demand is overwhelming or the next crisis arrives, we will already be too late. If we are serious about our national resilience, we must also be serious about assured access to space. This report sets out the opportunity and the urgency before us. I hope the Government will seize that opportunity and act with the pace that our national security and future prosperity demand.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, what a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and to take part in this debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Ashton for the masterful way she introduced the report; she made every single point that I had jotted down to say myself.
I want to thank all my fellow members of the committee, because it was a very happy committee and we were very enthusiastic and conscientious about the work that we did. I reread our report in the run-up to this debate. It is a really good report, and I think it will last the test of time because space is an area for the future.
I also want to thank our excellent staff. We had an extremely interesting visit to the Harwell campus, and we had some very interesting witnesses giving evidence to us, including some that people have heard of, such as Brian Cox and Tim Peake. I also want to mention Professors Edhem, Wheeler, and Dougherty, because they also gave evidence, as did many others.
It is hard to know the first thing to say. I wish there were more Members in the Chamber because it would be very educative for them. The first thing to say about space is that it is anything but empty. Figure 4 in our report shows the exponential growth of satellites in the last few years. People may not realise just how many there are. It brings the problem of space debris, which I will come back to.
There are some 50,000 tracked items of debris and, some have suggested, up to 1 million other items that are small, but big enough to do real damage. The International Space Station had to adjust its orbit to avoid collision. In November last year, Chinese astronauts were stranded in space because the spacecraft that was going to take them back to earth had been hit by space debris. It was a pretty serious situation, but they did manage to get back safely.
My noble friend referred to how this satellite was brought in: with an arm that sort of grabbed it—I can grab my noble friend beside me as an example—and slowed it down, so that it could then be released and burn up in the atmosphere. At the moment, the same thing is going on in reverse. NASA is trying to save a space telescope by taking another object up there to push it into a higher orbit, so it does not fall to earth.
I will say something about the amount of stuff in space which falls to earth and gets burned up. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, made a perfectly good point about the pollution aspects. We live on a very polluted earth, and we must guard against the dangers of being, as was said by one of our witnesses in giving evidence, a pollution sandwich between debris in space and on earth. This brings great challenges.
Another thing to say about space, which has already been said by many people, is how vital it is to us on earth. There is a sentence about people born in 2025—I am grateful to my noble friend for mentioning that they happen to include my own first granddaughter—whose lives are going to be dominated by what happens in space, and our report lists some of these predictions. In the full-colour version of the report, which I recommend, you will see the photographs that we deliberately chose to make it clear to people that space matters. At my granddaughter’s first birthday, I met a farmer who I had an interesting conversation with, and space is just as relevant in farming. It also matters in day-to-day life—where literally would we be without global positioning systems? At the moment, we do not need a satellite to tell us that the weather is hot and is going to stay hot, but all these things are vital. Pharmaceutical things have been mentioned, and we are going to find a lot more of this.
I say to my noble friend the Minister that it is important for the structure of government to do justice to the subject under discussion, and there needs to be more direction from the Government. We are about to have a new Prime Minister, and it would be nice to have a space Minister. Nevertheless, we need to address a lot of the other things, such as the skills challenges—heaven knows, there should be careers advisers in schools pointing out the unbelievable opportunities of the future for people working in the space area.
I want to draw attention not just to this report but to a report from the Science and Technology Committee that has not yet been debated in this House. It is, rather dramatically, called Bleeding to Death: the Science and Technology Growth Emergency, and it tackles the way in which we are unable in this country to scale up businesses, and that applies just as much to space. For all the companies that I hope will prosper in the UK space economy of the future—which will be a very big part of the economy, and the sooner His Majesty’s Treasury understands that, the better—access to scale-up capital is going to be terribly important.
My time has run out, so I end by repeating what has already been said: our subtitle, “Act Now or Lose Out”, is a plea to the Government to grasp the opportunity before us and help make the UK a real leader in the space economy of the future.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, by the time you get to your feet and nine people have already spoken, an awful lot of things that you would want to say have already been covered. I repeat again that it was a delight and fun to be on the committee, which was charmingly chaired, and I thank the clerks. Seeing the committee’s members all present together is a bit like getting the band back together. There is a case for reconstituting ourselves—I do not know whether that is remotely possible, but it is something I raise.
As has been said, the subtitle of the committee’s report is “Act Now or Lose Out”, and nothing could be more accurate. It is important that the Government take on board the extremely rapid growth that is happening on the world stage in relation to space development. We have world-leading experience and expertise, along with a commitment across our science sector and our academic sector. However, we must do everything we can to maximise and apply those skills to see that the sector grows.
It is said that the global space sector is currently valued at over $500 billion and is expected to grow significantly, at an average of about 7% to 8% a year. That is an enormous rate of growth. As a nation, we cannot miss out on this opportunity. The Government have made it clear that they are committed to economic growth. Space is an ideal sector to promote, and it provides huge scope for such growth.
However, I am very concerned, as I note from the recent Defence Investment Plan, published last week and touched upon by my noble friend Lord Stansgate, that although space is a critical national infrastructure sector, the figure set out in that defence plan is only £3.2 billion. True, there is a suggestion that this figure may be increased in coming years, but we must act now. If you think of what is happening in the global space financial environment, that is a comparatively small sum.
What steps can be taken for members of the special inquiry committee to meet with my noble friend the Minister, and the relevant Minister in the other place, as soon as possible to further discuss the options for the future and how best to progress this? As has been mentioned, it is a pity that the House is not as full as one would like. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to either reconstituting our committee, or to whether there is something that could be done regarding a meeting across the ministerial complex on how we could take things further.
The US and Elon Musk, via his SpaceX and Starlink, have 7,000 active satellites, while China has 1,200. The UK has 630 to 670 satellites, and these are mainly small and suborbital. The Ministry of Defence has but six. The rest are commercially owned to facilitate our broadband links and our positioning, navigation and timing system, or PNT.
I would like to see the UK take advantage of the fact that we are not space-locked, which is a policy and practical term— mentioned earlier, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—to emphasise the strategic importance of having reliable sovereign access to space. As such, we should expand our two main launch sites at SaxaVord in Shetland for vertical launches, and in Cornwall for horizontal launches. We need to be able to launch our own orbital satellites. We have yet to do so. However, this very morning on the “Today” programme—maybe many of your Lordships heard it—the Shetland Space Centre announced a test launch this August. That is the future and must be encouraged. The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and I were rather regretful that we could not find an excuse to persuade the committee to go up to SaxaVord and have a look round. That would have been interesting. I blame the chairman for that, but what can you do?
It is undoubtedly the case that space has an insatiable demand for funding. Money is tight, we all know that—very tight—but I respectfully suggest that a more collaborative approach be adopted by furthering our partnership with the European Space Agency and reaching out to private capital alongside public funds. It must be a sensible way forward to ensure that we as a nation do not miss out on this rapidly expanding area. It will provide huge numbers of jobs and wonderful opportunities for the nation as a whole. I hope that the Minister, having considered what I have said, will agree with me.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, it was a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shamash, and to serve alongside him and all the other very enthusiastic members of the space committee—and, indeed, to serve under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland. I congratulate her not just on her excellent introduction to this debate but on leading us to produce our report. I join her and other noble Lords in thanking the committee staff for their hard work and all those who gave evidence to us, both oral and written, throughout our inquiry.
If nothing else, the committee has done the House a considerable service in highlighting both the opportunities presented by the UK’s space economy and the risks of failing to seize them. As has already been mentioned by several noble Lords, the title of our report, Act Now or Lose Out, captures this challenge perfectly.
I welcome the growing recognition across government that space is now a strategic capability. Although our committee did not major on defence in the context of the UK space sector—perhaps to some mild frustration expressed by my noble friend Lord Lansley—it is worth nothing that the strategic defence review makes it clear that satellites are critical national infrastructure. We have already heard from others that satellites underpin our communications, navigation, financial services, energy networks and national defence. In the 21st century, sovereign satellite capability is no less important to our resilience than secure energy infrastructure or telecommunications.
My concern is not that the Government lack ambition when it comes to space but that they still lack focus. Strategy is about making choices. We cannot lead in every part of the space economy, so we must decide where Britain should build sovereign capability, where we should work with trusted allies and where we can rely on the commercial market.
For me—I do not think I am alone, although my noble friend Lady Mobarik may differ with me—one capability stands above all others: sovereign capability in satellites. Recent and ongoing conflicts have demonstrated beyond doubt the importance of satellite communications, positioning, intelligence and earth observation. It is no surprise, therefore, that the strategic defence review speaks of sovereign capability. However, sovereignty is not achieved by simply being an aspiration; it requires sustained investment and clear priorities. The previous Government’s intervention in OneWeb demonstrated that they understood the strategic importance of sovereign satellite capability—I note my noble friend Lord Willetts’ comment about the current Government’s reluctance to take advantage of their golden share—but the challenge remains of ensuring we build globally competitive British space companies here in the UK. That brings me to a subject on which I have spoken before: scaling British technology companies—the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, highlighted this.
I hope I have brought several things to the work of the space committee, but I think if there was one thing of value that I did bring it was what I had learned from chairing the Communications and Digital Committee, especially as the chair was so gracious as to acknowledge our work on AI large language models and scaling tech businesses. As she said, Britain is exceptionally good at creating innovative businesses, but we are much less successful at helping them become globally significant companies headquartered here. We celebrate the start-up but too often lose the scale-up. But that is no longer simply an economic weakness; in sectors such as AI, quantum and space, it is becoming a strategic vulnerability. If we cannot build companies of global scale, we will struggle to build sovereign capability.
So I welcome the Government’s greater emphasis on scale-ups in both the industrial strategy and the defence industrial strategy. It is particularly encouraging that defence procurement is increasingly seen as a means of helping innovative British companies grow. But strategies do not build companies; customers do. The Government have one of the most powerful tools available: their procurement power. By becoming an intelligent first customer for British space companies, they can create the demand and confidence that enable promising firms to scale, attract investment and remain British as they grow. If we want genuine sovereign capability in space, we must move beyond funding excellent research to building globally competitive businesses. That means patient capital, smarter procurement and, above all, clear national priorities.
So which space capabilities do the Government believe must be sovereign, which should be delivered through trusted allies, and which can safely be left to the commercial market? Until those choices are made explicit, we have an ambition for sovereignty but not yet a sufficiently prioritised strategy for delivering it. Britain begins this race with world-class science, outstanding engineers and innovative entrepreneurs. Our challenge is no longer to prove that we can innovate; it is to ensure that British innovation becomes British capability and that British capability becomes British industrial strength.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as a former member of the committee—all of us, I suppose, could be described as space cadets—I warmly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, for her superb chairing of the committee and for her inspiring introduction today. I join her and other members of the committee in thanking all the staff and advisers to the committee, and all our evidence givers, including the celebrities that the noble Baroness mentioned. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed so enthusiastically to this extremely illuminating debate.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, said, the title of the report absolutely captures the challenge. It serves as both a stark warning and a brilliant road map for our future. As we have heard today, the UK space sector is an invaluable national asset. It generates nearly £19 billion a year in income, directly employs over 52,000 people in highly skilled jobs and underpins approximately 18% of our entire GDP—some £364 billion. We possess immense comparative strengths that we must champion, from Glasgow, which builds more small satellites than anywhere else outside California, to our pioneering in-orbit servicing, assembly and manufacturing—ISAM—sector. We also boast unique downstream advantages, with the City of London primed to be the pre-eminent global centre for space finance, law and insurance.
As we have heard today, the UK space sector is an invaluable national asset, but we must not be complacent: the hard data shows that the UK’s global market share in space has fallen from 5.1% in 2020 to just 4.2% in 2023. We are sliding backwards because our nearest competitor nations are aggressively ramping up their public investments while the UK relies on short-term, fragmented funding cycles. As we consider these economic opportunities, we must be clear-eyed about the intense international competition that we face, particularly the overwhelming dominance of the United States. The recent record-breaking IPO of SpaceX vividly illustrates the sheer scale of American financial and industrial might in this domain.
The noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Shamash, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ashton and Lady Mobarik, have talked about the importance of sovereign UK launch capability. The committee’s report was right to warn that the UK and the rest of the world have become dangerously overreliant on a single commercial entity for orbital launch and satellite communications. This is a profound strategic vulnerability. We cannot simply outsource the resilience of our critical national infrastructure to a single overseas monopoly, nor to the unpredictable political and commercial whims of one billionaire. This stark reality underscores exactly why the Government must step up as an anchor customer to help our own domestic firms scale up and why we must urgently pool our sovereign capabilities with our European partners.
To truly grasp the scale of this domestic opportunity, we need only to look at our world-leading capabilities in earth observation, which were focused on in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Satellite data is rapidly becoming the new gold of the global economy. Earth observation is vital for monitoring climate change, tracking deforestation, predicting natural disasters and enabling precision agriculture. Yet, as the committee heard, adoption of these services outside the space sector remains far too slow because many organisations still view space as complex or irrelevant.
This is exactly where the Government must step in. By acting as a smart procurer, buying earth observation data to improve our own public services, whether for national flood mapping, monitoring coastal erosion or infrastructure planning, the Government can act as an anchor customer. This would immediately de-risk private investment, help our innovative SMEs to scale up and ensure that the UK captures its rightful share of this market. I very much appreciated what the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said on the whole scale-up aspect.
But space is no longer just an economic frontier. It is, as many noble Lords said, a critical national infrastructure. It is increasingly congested, contested and competitive. Our national security and resilience rely heavily on the space domain, from tracking climate change to the vital encrypted communications provided by our Skynet military satellites. To secure these economic and security benefits, the committee’s message is unequivocal: the UK Government must provide a coherent, funded strategic direction. Industry is crying out for the Government to pivot from being a small-scale grant funder to acting as a reliable, smart anchor customer. Procurement contracts, rather than just R&D grants, as noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, are essential to de-risk projects, crowd in private capital and help our brilliant SMEs to scale up into globally competitive businesses.
Yet the Government’s official response to this excellent report is frankly lacking in the urgency required. Instead of publishing the detailed national space capability development plan that the sector needed and which the committee demanded by the end of 2025, the Government deferred the hard details to a spring space publication, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Now it seems that they have promised a plan for space for later this year. Can the Minister confirm exactly what is intended? This deferral of decisions is simply not good enough. As Professor Sylvester Kaczmarek powerfully highlighted in his recent briefing to Peers, deep tech firms cannot scale their businesses on what are described as future documents. The Government’s response offers process when industry desperately needs delivery.
I therefore press the Minister on three specific matters. First, given the Government’s insistence on absorbing the UK Space Agency into DSIT, will they urgently publish a clear accountability map so that industry knows exactly who owns strategy, procurement and regulation across Whitehall? Secondly, when will the Government publish a concrete procurement route that includes specific targets for SME participation? Thirdly, how do the Government plan to create an open assurance pathway for the complex AI-driven autonomous missions of the future? If we want to lead the world in active debris removal, so positively mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and secure space operations, we must have the regulatory frameworks to prove that these AI systems are trustworthy and secure.
I am afraid that the Government’s response to this committee is characterised by a failure to grasp the nettle. They have not only absorbed the UK Space Agency into a Whitehall department but explicitly rejected the committee’s sensible recommendation to appoint a dedicated Minister for Space to drive cross-government co-ordination.
We on these Benches align very closely with the committee’s recommendations. On European co-operation, the committee rightly called for urgent decisions on our participation in flagship EU programmes such as Galileo and IRIS2 to provide industry with certainty. The Government have stated that they cannot make decisions yet. We are clear that we must pool our sovereign satellite navigation capacity by fully rejoining the Galileo system and confirming our participation in IRIS2. We cannot rely solely on foreign-owned systems for our critical position, navigation and timing needs.
On governance and strategic focus, the committee explicitly warned against the fragmentation of space policy across Whitehall and expressed deep concern over the absorption of the UK Space Agency into DSIT. We on these Benches believe that this merger is a strategic error. Why are the Government dismantling the autonomy of our national space agency at the very moment that it is proving its commercial worth? An independent UKSA is crucial to present a unified interface with the European Space Agency, maintain specialised technical focus, and champion UK interests internationally. We continue to call on the Government to reverse that decision.
We must tackle the skills gap mentioned by a number of noble Lords with genuine ambition, which includes implementing broader reforms to the apprenticeship levy to allow space firms the flexibility they need for responsive training and microcredentials. We cannot maintain our leadership on deferred decisions and structural dilution, so I urge the Minister to take the bold decisions identified by the committee, deliver a clear and actionable space strategy and, in the words of the report, act now before we lose out.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I too begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, and every member of the committee for this powerful and timely report, although I must say that my principal reaction is one of envy—I rather wish I had been on the committee. The report makes the genuinely compelling case that space policy is central both to our national security and to our future prosperity. The space economy does not get the attention it deserves, either in this House, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has pointed out, or with the public more generally, so I am delighted that, through this report and in this excellent debate, we have some small chance to address that.
The report reminds us that much of modern life depends on space technologies. Many of us enjoy these technologies without even realising this. From satellite navigation, banking systems and weather forecasting to logistics, these capabilities underpin a significant portion of our economy. I was really struck by the estimate that some 18% of UK GDP relies on satellite services alone. The committee is right to argue that Britain possesses many strengths and great potential in this area. We boast world-class universities, innovative companies, growing launch capability, and internationally respected scientific expertise.
But the question before us today is whether we have the strategic focus needed to realise and unleash our collective vast potential. We on these Benches welcome the Government’s recognition that space forms part of our critical national infrastructure and represents an important opportunity for economic growth. We also acknowledge the steps that have been taken to support skills development and improve strategic co-ordination across government. However, as the committee concluded, ambition alone is not enough. Businesses require certainty, investors require confidence and researchers require long-term support. Without clear priorities and more consistent delivery, there is a risk, as many noble Lords have pointed out, that innovative British companies may simply choose to scale elsewhere.
Many of the committee’s recommendations deserve serious consideration. The call for clearer strategic direction, better cross-government co-ordination, a funding model that helps firms scale beyond the research stage, greater support for skills and an agile regulatory framework all speak to the practical steps needed if we are to compete in an increasingly crowded global marketplace. Let us make no mistake—it really is increasingly crowded, as many noble Lords have pointed out.
There is also a critical national security dimension. As the committee and noble Lords have recognised, civil and defence capabilities are becoming ever more closely intertwined, and I was unsurprised to note the increasing use of “dual-use” terminology throughout the report and in our debate today. Investing in technologies with commercial and strategic applications both strengthens our resilience and creates opportunities for economic growth. The previous Government recognised this through the publication of the National Space Strategy in 2021, providing for the first time a comprehensive framework bringing together civil, commercial, defence and security objectives. That is an important foundation, but it has been some time since its publication and this Government have now been in power for two years. The challenge now is ensuring that that strategy continues to be translated into delivery.
With those thoughts in mind, I would be very grateful if the Minister could address the following questions. First, combined with some of the sums in the defence investment plan that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, brought up, how much government spending will be dedicated to R&D and manufacturing in the space economy? Secondly, what further steps are being taken to help innovative UK space companies access the capital they need to grow and remain headquartered in this country? Thirdly—I recognise this is a huge question that stretches far beyond space, but it is critical here—how can we improve government procurement to support our space industry participants of all sizes? I was particularly concerned by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Willetts that the National Wealth Fund is giving out that it does not want to invest in space. I urge the Minister to get to the bottom of that as soon as possible, because clearly that would be a very serious error. Fourthly, how do the Government intend to ensure that the UK remains internationally competitive in the space sector, particularly as we have heard other nations increase investment and develop their own capabilities?
Finally, while the Government have, as we have heard, rejected the committee’s recommendation for a dedicated Space Minister, how will they ensure that effective cross-government leadership and accountability are maintained across departments? Will we see a change of mind on that as the new Prime Minister steps in? Like other noble Lords, I echo the sentiment that the title Act Now or Lose Out is entirely appropriate. We have the talent in this country, the science, the potential and the industrial capability to succeed. The opportunity is there. The task now is to ensure that government policy matches that ambition. In that spirit, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond for the Government. I thank my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland for securing this debate and for her committee’s important report on this matter. I also thank the chair for her expert leadership on the very thorough and seemingly enjoyable work that the committee undertook. It is a particular pleasure to have heard the appreciation across your Lordships’ House for the importance of the space sector today and the enormous potential it holds for the future.
As we have heard, the space dimension of our economy is coming to the fore. The UK has a strong space sector, with over twice the UK’s average productivity and global satellite services underpinning nearly 18% of the UK’s GDP. Beyond our financial services and well-known uses in telecommunications, space technology is helping farmers increase crop yields and enabling faster, more effective responses to natural disasters such as floods. As we have heard, it is a sector that contributes over £18 billion to the UK economy and employs over 55,000 highly qualified people. Over the past year, I have had the pleasure of meeting many of the industrial and scientific partners who make up this sector.
The sector relies on a strong partnership with government. Every pound invested by the Government through the European Space Agency sees a £7.49 return into the UK economy. In 2024-25 alone, UK Space Agency activity is estimated to have catalysed £2.2 billion in investment and revenue across the UK space sector. As was recognised by noble Lords today, space is also critical for national security and defence, providing the intelligence, communication and navigation required to keep the UK and its citizens safe. Reflecting many of the recommendations of the committee, we have recently taken further action to support our space sector. One of our strengths is the “one government” co-ordinated approach.
Noble Lords asked about the governance of space. Over the last year, Ministers from across government have met together four times to discuss critical issues for the space sector, our capabilities and support. Our teams work together, particularly across defence, national security, all parts of DSIT and transport, to align our approach. A clear example is the UK’s National Space Operations Centre, a joint civil-military command that brings together the UK Space Agency, UK Space Command and the Met Office Space Weather Operations Centre. Together, they help protect the critical space assets we rely on every day and provide the central hub for the UK’s space domain awareness. In response to my noble friend Lord Shamash, I am very happy to meet him and other members of the committee to talk further about how we work together on that front.
Noble Lords asked about the UK Space Agency’s move into the department. It is an important step towards closer collaboration, reducing duplication and gaining greater consistency across strategy, policy and delivery, while retaining the world-leading expertise and technical advantage to which the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, referred.
Our upcoming space strategy will set out how space remains a government priority, in a funded way, and how the co-ordinated vision will ensure the very best outcome for the UK. I reassure noble Lords that we have taken action in the interim. I set out the strategic direction, alongside £500 million in funding, in my speech at Space-Comm Expo earlier this year. I am sure the committee will be looking forward to reading the strategy when it is published, which unfortunately will now not be before Summer Recess.
Noble Lords commented on prioritisation. As I set out earlier this year, we are moving further and faster in the areas that matter most to the UK’s future in space. One of those areas is satellite communications, which are critical for national security and resilience. In response to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, and the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, sovereign capability is an important consideration as we look at satellite communications. The Skynet programme run by the MoD provides that sovereign capability in satcoms, and we have increasing sovereign capability in space domain awareness.
In response to the questions posed by the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Clement-Jones, and others, DSIT is leading cross-governmental work to develop our proactive relationship with Eutelsat, which will include working with defence colleagues on requirements following the publication of the defence investment plan. UK launch is not yet operational, but we are encouraging the company to take advantage of the UK’s capability as this becomes available. We are also encouraging the company to take more advantage of the UK’s world-leading satellite manufacturing and supply chain capabilities.
In response to the questions from my noble friend Lord Shamash and the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, who I had the opportunity to discuss the opportunities of Sutherland with earlier this year, assured access to space is critical to our national security and economic growth. To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, both those objectives, national security and economic growth, have caused this to be a priority for the Government. We are making significant progress towards that ambition. SaxaVord was Europe’s first licensed vertical launch site and expects to see its first launch this summer. We have established a world-leading regulatory regime and secured a comprehensive set of international agreements to enable launch operations from the UK.
The third area that we set out as a priority is in-orbit servicing, assembly and manufacturing, and the fourth is space domain awareness. These are the capabilities that will drive growth, strengthen resilience and protect our ability to operate in space, so we are pivoting our support to those, where it will have the greatest impact.
Prioritisation is challenging and requires the Government to intervene assertively if we are to succeed. We know that space industries thrive with clear priorities, the right funding, a clear public procurement approach, the right regulation and strong international partnerships.
We are increasing the financing for space in recognition of many of the long-term projects, which, of course, include areas such as earth observation. The Government increased the UKSA budget in 2025-26 by 8%. That funding for space is inclusive of our subscription to Copernicus and is carried forward to over £3.3 billion over 2026-27 to 2029-30. Wider civil funding for space from other departments and organisations, from science funded by UKRI to critical meteorology services provided through the Met Office’s membership of EUMETSAT to planned procurements of satellite services from other departments, will further bolster this by over £900 million.
To the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, and others about research, the STFC has spent considerable time engaging with the particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics community, its advisory bodies, scientific board and council to understand the implications of different options and gather feedback from across the sector. Given the significance of that decision, it was right to test options, understand the impacts and ensure that expert advice was fully reflected in the final outcome. That engagement has now concluded, and UKRI will set out the outcome of the prioritisation extremely shortly, if not now.
My noble friend Lady Ashton and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, highlighted skills, an incredibly important point. Some areas of targeted education and future workforce programming are supported by the department in UKSA, alongside other government programmes such as TechFirst and the advanced manufacturing skills package. As noble Lords have mentioned, the defence investment plan published on 30 June sets out future spending priorities, demonstrating clearly the importance of further developing capability in satcoms, ISR and SDA. The capability of defence funding to 2029-30 is £2.3 billion for satcoms and £880 million for space-based ISR and space control. Together with UK Space Agency funding, Ministry of Defence funding and planned activities across the rest of government and arm’s-length bodies, we anticipate that funding for space over the spending review will exceed £7.4 billion—a substantial increase over previous spending review periods.
My noble friend Lord Stansgate, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, raised the importance of supporting companies to commercialise and grow. The point was very well made and is well taken. We are moving away from serial grants to more structured contracts for services. We are also supporting companies as they grow. Some of this relates to wider changes; for example, the announcements by the Chancellor under the Mansion House agreement, visas for talent and the support for the British Business Bank. Some of this is space-specific, such as the Unlocking Space for Investment programme. We are committed to supporting British companies to develop next-generation space technologies. At London Tech Week I announced new investment of more than £9 million to support early-stage UK companies through the UK innovation and science seed fund and a £10 million investment in the Welsh company SpaceForge, which is pioneering in-space manufacturing technology. That action is happening now.
Important points were raised by my noble friend Lady Ashton, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston. Procurement is indeed extremely important, as is the balance around contracts and small-scale grant funding. Our upcoming space strategy will set out how we will refocus grant programmes and use contracts to support innovation. We are also making greater use of contracts for innovation, which enable public sector organisations to work with businesses to test innovative solutions and build the evidence that is needed for wider adoption. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this can bring real benefits. We have awarded contracts for innovation through our partnership with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to improve water quality monitoring in Lough Neagh, support for an earth observation-enabled flood forecasting service at the University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust, and with the Home Office. This procurement for innovation is very important. We will continue to innovate in many different areas.
On regulation, all cutting-edge applications of technology need agile regulation and space is no exception. From the changes in the liability and indemnity regime for satellites to regulatory sandboxes for rendezvous and proximity operations, we have acted and will continue to do so; for example, with space multi-mission licensing and re-entry.
International partnerships and collaboration have always been a feature of advances in space. Given the global uncertainty, they are more important than ever. We are strengthening our international partnerships. In 2025, the UK committed £1.7 billion to ESA programmes over the next five years, which deliver against our objectives and leverage international collaboration to drive economic growth in the UK and bolster national security here. To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, we also collaborate, for example, with Japan and France, with bilateral funding, including on LiteBIRD, where UK universities are helping to explore the universe’s earliest moments.
To the points on Europe made by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Willetts, we are clear-eyed about the changing regulatory environment in Europe. The proposed EU space Act will have implications for UK companies and for our wider co-operation with European partners. We are engaging actively with the EU to shape that discussion where we can, but we will also act where necessary to ensure that UK industry remains competitive, our access to markets is protected and our regulatory framework continues to support innovation and growth. We have unique capabilities and assets in the UK with locations such as Shetland for launch. Europe will be stronger with the UK as a trusted partner.
It is also important to recognise that the US partnership is critical in both the civil and national security domains. Within the civil domain, our collaboration through missions such as NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, through which UK-led instrumentation is transforming our understanding of the universe, continues to open new scientific frontiers. On national security, we rely on deep transatlantic co-operation.
Important points were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Stansgate, about space sustainability and debris. Space sustainability is evolving with the increased use of space. We are clear that no one country alone can do this. Our aim is to ensure that growth in space does not come at the expense of its long-term safe and sustainable use by shaping international norms and standards, investing more in space domain awareness and debris removal technologies, and working with partners to build global tech capability. Our licensing regime already expects operators to minimise debris creation through robust mitigation measures, and we will strengthen that further through clearer guidance and incentives for more sustainable missions.
As we know, space underpins the systems we rely on every day—from finance, energy and transport to emergency services—enabling the secure communications, navigation and timing to keep the country running. That is why strengthening our space capability is not simply an ambition for the future; it continues to be a strategic priority, and one we will build on further in our upcoming space strategy.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, at several points in the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report, they say that more detail will come forward in the “spring space publication”—not my language, the Government’s. The Minister has not said when we might expect to see that important spring space publication.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I set out earlier this year, in a speech to the Space-Comm Expo, a number of elements that are important for taking forward the measures envisaged in the space strategy, which include the £500 million of funding. We have taken action in many other areas set out in that report, since it was published and since our response to it. The noble Lord is right: we wish to bring it all together, and we are working to do so. Unfortunately, we will not be able to publish it before the Summer Recess. We hope to do so as soon as possible after that.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate and my noble friend the Minister for her response. It is clear from everything that has been said that we have real opportunities in economic growth, world leadership and resolving problems, both in space and on earth. It is also clear that we need to get on with it.
Defence Readiness Bill
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards drafting the Defence Readiness Bill recommended by the Strategic Defence Review; and whether they intend for the scope of the Bill to include national resilience more broadly to encompass preparations for other risks contained in the National Risk Register.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. The starting point for today’s debate is that we live in a turbulent, uncertain, volatile world. The need for the nation to be better prepared and resilient is ever more pressing. We are closer to widespread war in Europe than we have been for over 60 years. We have seen the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the routine targeting of civilian infrastructure with cheap drones and cyber attacks.
But this country is already subject to hybrid and grey-zone aggression: the Salisbury poisonings, using nerve agents; arson attacks on industrial sites, Jewish premises and even properties associated with the Prime Minister; cyber attacks such as those on Marks & Spencer, the Co-op and JLR; and submarines taking an unhealthy interest in the undersea cables and pipelines on which we rely.
The SDR recommended a defence readiness Bill with a framework of powers to improve the preparedness of key industries and to ensure sufficient supplies to support critical national infrastructure and the defence forces. An essential part of our commitment to Article 3 is the need to ensure continuity of government and vital services, requiring resilience against all types of shock, including natural disasters and cyber attacks, as well as military threats.
A defence readiness Bill, although originally promised for early this year, was not in the King’s Speech, but my noble friend the Minister has assured us that work on it is progressing. Inevitably, legislation that codifies how to prioritise the supplies and support needed in the event of a national defence emergency is complex. The Bill must include national resilience more broadly and address what, as a nation, should be our core preparations to equip us for the acute risks contained in the published national risk register, and for the longer-term, slow-burn threats in the Government’s chronic risk analysis.
So what is needed is a national resilience and defence readiness Bill, and the unfortunate delay permits that wider focus. The country’s resources may have to be mobilised not just in the event of hostilities against the nation but of other civil emergencies not necessarily arising from nation state action. Mechanisms are needed to respond to another pandemic, to extreme weather events precipitated by climate change, and so on.
We know that the Swedes, like those in most other European countries, have a booklet that goes to every household, “If Crisis or War Comes”. What do we have in the UK? We have the GOV.UK Prepare website, a separate story to which I might return. The Swedes also have a booklet for companies. It recognises the decisive role of businesses in ensuring that society continues to function. Its message is:
“When your company is prepared to operate under the threat of war, it is also better equipped to manage pandemics, natural disasters, and other peacetime crises”.
That message should apply here: it is not just about geopolitics and the threats from Russia or wherever; it is about being ready for everything else as well.
We have just seen the highest temperatures ever recorded in May, and again in June. This had consequences: the largest number of category 1 call-outs ever for the London Ambulance Service, train disruptions and IT failures. Last year’s hot temperatures saw wildfires, with the busiest night for the London Fire Brigade since the Blitz. Then there were the unprecedented 12 named storms in the 2023-24 storm season, to say nothing of West Nile virus being found in mosquitoes in Britain.
What should such a national resilience and defence readiness Bill encompass? It should set the framework to enable us to make the best use of the nation’s resources in the event of hostile action—importantly, not just above but below the threshold of war. It should systemise how to maintain military and civilian reserves—I see the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, in his seat. But just as importantly, that framework should be readily activated in the event of other emergencies. Like the Climate Change Act, which has some parallel provisions, it needs to place a duty on government departments, public bodies, local authorities and large businesses and organisations to build their resilience and bolster their preparedness to respond to all sorts of threats and emergencies.
Such a Bill should place reporting obligations on the Government and other agencies to report back regularly on what they are doing in respect of their resilience and preparedness. It should establish an independent, arm’s-length body, a bit like the Climate Change Committee, to monitor the adequacy of the progress made. It would, in effect, be marking the Government’s homework—which I appreciate my noble friend the Minister may not like but it is an important component. It should mark that homework to see what is being done to build the nation’s resilience and the progress being made on defence readiness and national preparedness. It would need annual reports to Parliament, and this House and the other place would need to set up committees to scrutinise progress.
As the world becomes more transactional—or, dare I say it, deals-based—with increasing competition for strategic raw materials, we will need to mandate stockpiles and take action to protect our sovereign capacity in key areas. We have, after all, the most open economy among the G20. Our food supplies and our pharmaceuticals, plus key industrial materials, are imported and vulnerable to blockades and embargoes. We need to be ready for those imports to be disrupted or even shut off. In the event of conflict, we will need to be able to divert the nation’s resources to the support of our military and homeland defence.
Legislation is needed to create the mechanisms to deliver the collective national endeavour needed to defend our country and make it resilient against all the other shocks that we may face. Every part of government, every part of society and every business, large and small—indeed, every one of us—have to see resilience and defence preparedness as part of their responsibilities. It must be designed in. It must be part of the national fabric. We might not have long. That is why we need the national resilience and defence readiness Bill as soon as possible.
In the spirit of the outgoing Mayor of Greater Manchester’s article in today’s Times, we must deliver that
“concerted action to enhance our resilience, starting at the local level”.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, it is customary to say what a pleasure it is to follow the previous speaker, and I do so with genuine enthusiasm. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has chaired the National Preparedness Commission with great vigour, and it has produced a great deal of extraordinarily detailed and high-quality work. Much of it, it seems to me, is oven-ready for government to take on. We have a good start there, but, as the noble Lord’s own speech has pointed out, there is still an awful lot of work to do, and I have one or two questions for the Government as well.
On Tuesday, there will be the Second Reading of the cyber security and resilience Bill, which is an important and necessary part of wider resilience. One might say that we have waited quite a long time for that. It does not, however, answer the question of what we mean when we talk about the whole of government, or for that matter, more ambitiously, the whole of society, which is phraseology about resilience that has taken hold in the last couple of years. There is a great question mark around what it really means.
If we are going to make it mean something, it seems to me that the whole of society implies a general strengthening of the sinews of society, a lot of it physical as well as digital, and much wider participation, beyond government, with organisations and individuals involved in the development of the security itself and its maintenance. This is not virgin territory. There are models, which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has mentioned, notably in Scandinavian countries, where, among several of them, there is a form of national service of various kinds and household preparation for emergencies, including emergencies of a kind that do not necessarily involve conflict. There is extensive shelter provision in some countries. The most obvious example of that is to be found in Finland, where life for a wide segment of society can, in extremis, be maintained underground. The roots of such extensive provision lie in that country’s geography and history.
I am not sure that this country would go for that. Our historical experience has been different, where our planning has largely focused on the continuity of government and essential services. However, in adopting whatever model we do, there is still much—I really do mean much—that we could learn from the Scandinavian approach. My questions for the Government are the following. What model are we going for? Do we use the phrase “whole of society”, and, when we use it, what do we mean by it? Do we have anything in our mind's eye when we use the phrase?
As far as I can see, we have not done a great deal so far under the heading of resilience, beyond the sort of work that the preparedness commission has been doing, with the aim of any particular model emerging. I do not mean by that to say that we have been idle. That is not the case; as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has cited, climate work has been done, and there are other examples. But none of that has been drawn together or, as far as I can see, yet taken any legal form, nor do we have any settled machinery of government to take implementation forward.
The role and organisation of the Cabinet Office and its relationship to COBRA has in recent years been altered and then changed back, while yet other forms of resilience are going to be located elsewhere. To my surprise, it is DSIT that has found itself not just promoting science, technology and innovation but responsible for ensuring secure structures for cyber in government. Dotting responsibility for security around government seems pretty odd, when it has previously had a home in the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office is a welcome antidote to one of the other problems that we face in the structure of our Government, which is the shortcomings that arise from the “lead government department” model.
The strategic defence review specifically mentioned the need to increase the protection of our vulnerable critical national infrastructure and called for a defence readiness Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned. We need to enable the mobilisation of our reserves and our industry to war-readiness levels, but there is a problem about delay. Mr Luke Pollard, in another place, has said that the Bill will come only towards the end of this parliamentary Session, and the way he put it rather suggested to my ears that it might not come even then. I hope we can have some reassurance from the Minister. After all, NATO’s assessment is that, by 2030, Russia may decide to step up its existing level of aggression in Europe to something that is truly frightening.
We need to be ready, but we are cutting it fine with all our preparations, are we not? I would say too fine. The Government talk about a national dialogue on defence, and I think this House agrees strongly with that, but they need to start ASAP. To make sense and to be clear and honest with the electorate about what they may be involved in, that needs to include aspects that come under the heading of resilience. That should include questions such as whether there is going to be some kind of national service.
I come back to my questions. What are the Government going to propose to the country by way of a whole-of-society approach? What is going to be asked of us? A significant chunk of the picture still seems to be missing. In his reply, could the Minister begin to fill in some of the detail?
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, on securing this important and timely debate and introducing it in such a persuasive way. I confess to being somewhat daunted to be following the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, whose experience is so relevant to this debate and whose speech was full of questions that need to be answered. Coming after the chairman of the National Preparedness Committee and a former Secretary of State for Security, I am a mere amateur in this area.
I start from a different point of view: that of someone who has studied and been active in business. In that capacity, I have encountered many a risk register. I have noted a tendency to believe that once a risk is identified and placed on the register, it has been dealt with. In the Government’s latest incarnation of the National Risk Register, 89 specific areas of risk are identified. I wonder whether the Government are in any way confident that each of these is being addressed.
In his foreword to the document, Pat McFadden—then the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who chairs the Cabinet committee on resilience—stressed the need for transparency about risks and said:
“We need everyone to play their part in building resilience”.
Of course, he was absolutely correct. If businesses are to be successful in navigating their way through risks, they need to involve all their people in the effort. It is no good if the chief risk officer identifies the risks and the risk committee pores over them and nods, and so it is with the country. In a company, everybody has to be involved. They have to know the risks and they have to be involved in addressing them. It is the same in the country. My concern is that the Government are failing to involve the public.
Pat McFadden referred to the guidance for the public at the Government’s Prepare website; the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, made reference to it. But can the Minister tell the House how many people have visited that site? How many even know of its existence? If they were to take a look, they would find that it refers to:
“Emergencies such as flooding, fires and power cuts”.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has made the case for such risks to be integral to any national resilience plan, and he is right, but we have to stop being so squeamish about the fact that we face another increasingly real risk: war.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who wrote the pivotal strategic defence review, spelled out the danger:
“We are under-prepared. We are under-insured. We are under attack. We are not safe”.
This is not an easy message to hear, but it is the truth. There should be no further delay in ensuring that the public are made fully aware of this. A national conversation or national dialogue has long been promised, but this is not the subject for a cosy fireside chat or interminable consultations. The Government need to tell the public about the risks of warfare that we now face, and ensure that people are prepared. Talking about it just does not do the job.
Other countries face up to the problem. They are very effective in getting their message across without unnecessarily scaring people. Some, such as Taiwan and Finland, can see the threat because it is in such close proximity. But technology means that the enemy need not be visible. Russia has assassinated people on our soil and infiltrated our electoral process. It has made its presence well and truly felt. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said, “We are not safe”. When will the Government take their responsibilities seriously, trust the public and tell them to be ready, to prepare?
National resilience and defence readiness are not different things. They should be addressed together, and a joint Bill is clearly the answer. After all, how often have we seen the military called in to help in civil situations? Public involvement is crucial. Reserve forces must be recruited, volunteers lined up and trained, and businesses and the education sector brought into the effort.
In Finland, senior business leaders train alongside government officials in how to build resilience and schools prepare their pupils. We shy away from being frank with our children, yet they regularly see images of war and violence. Are they supposed to think it could never happen here? Might it not be far more reassuring to be told that the threat is there but we can deal with it, and this is what you have to do to help?
In a recent essay, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper admitted that successive Governments have failed to level with the country. On defence, we have not yet had the kind of public engagement we need. Now is the time to put that right. The national resilience and defence Bill should kick off a concerted effort across the country to be prepared. Benjamin Franklin said that by failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail. He was not only a founding father of the United States but the man who invented bifocals—so a man of vision. If we have a vision of peace and security, we need to start working for it now.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. I was listening to her speaking about the 89 lines of the risk register. I am perhaps inspired by the fact that I was yesterday with the campaign group More Than a Score doing SATs exams. Perhaps we could set an exam for when we have a new Cabinet and Government. A couple of months afterwards, they could all sit down and do an exam on the risk register to prove that they understand it and then tell us what they are going to do about it.
Like all speakers already, and no doubt all coming speakers, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for securing this debate and for the brilliant work that he and the preparedness committee do. We begin this debate in a bad position. There are many concerns about the lack of resilience and defence capacity in the UK, but I am referring to a much more specific issue—an issue for this House, this Parliament. We do not have the information we need to understand the crucial basic problem of food security, and the lack of it in the UK.
I am referring to the joint intelligence chiefs’ report on the impact of nature’s collapse and food security—a problem around the world. I note that just yesterday, Mary Creagh, a Defra Minister, told MPs that a redacted 14-page version of some of the findings, published after repeated freedom of information requests in January, should provide enough information. The Cabinet Office refused to send a Minister or official to the Environmental Audit Committee to answer these questions.
This is a serious cause for concern. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, just said, this appears to be in a context in which the Government are focused on trying not to scare people, specifically on food security. I have heard testimony from multiple experts who have been trying to get the Government to warn the public about the insecurity of our food supplies and about the need, where they can—for many, it is not financially viable—to create some private food stores and stores of fresh drinking water kept up to date.
I have been asking the Government about whether they will consider holding public government stores of food. Switzerland holds three months for the whole country and is looking to go to 12. I got a very clear answer to a Written Question from the Government: “No, we are not considering that. We think the market will provide”. I am afraid that is not what the experts are saying. Like others, I do not think that keeping the public in ignorance is the way to manage this situation. That produces fear. It produces anger—something we are seeing a great deal of. Being honest and open with the public about the fact that we have a huge food security issue and need to think about changing our entire food system to tackle this, and in the meantime providing points of security along the way, is crucial.
Coming back to the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, noble Lords can now see very clearly where I and the Green Party stand on the question of whether we need just a defence readiness Bill or a much broader defence and resilience Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, we face many threats in this age of shocks, as we have now shifted our global climate from the very stable Holocene into the very unstable Anthropocene. We have a great many health threats, many of them associated with biodiversity collapse. To cross-reference the previous debate on space, we have a society and an economy that are hugely dependent on satellites. We heard about the risk of the Kessler effect and the cascading loss of the satellites on which we are entirely dependent. These are all risks we need to understand, assess and manage.
I thought the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, was really interesting. She is absolutely right: we have not defined “the whole of society”. That term is thrown around, but I suggest that we need something broader. We have seen a very obvious example of this in Finland and Poland both considering rewetting their peatlands as a potential defence against Russian aggression. We have to think about the state of nature—yes, I am cross-referencing my Bill from last Friday—as part of our security and resilience. The peatlands are very obvious, but if we have healthy soils, clean rivers and clean air then we are a much stronger and more resilient society that is able to take whatever is thrown at us. More than the whole of society, we have to think about the whole of the system—human and more than human. The resilience of all those systems together is a measure of our security as a society.
This is where I am going to lose some people who have been with me up to now: although we keep chasing growth, growth and resilience go in two different directions. A seedling that is growing at great speed, is heavily fertilised and receives lots of irrigation water is not going to survive in tough conditions if you have not looked after the soil or ensured that it can stand up against the wind. We need something that is tough, strong and can take knocks. Simply chasing growth means going in the opposite direction to that, and it is a dangerous direction.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She is right: I was with her up until the divergence of growth and resilience. Like other noble Lords, I am truly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for tabling this Question and for the authority he brings to the debate through his work at the National Preparedness Commission. I declare an interest as a serving officer in the Army Reserve and as vice-chair of the All-Party Group for Climate, Nature and Security.
The core purpose of a defence readiness Bill is right. The power to mobilise our reserves and industrial base before a crisis becomes a conflict is precisely what the strategic defence review was correct to demand. However, the question before us is not only when the Bill will come but what it should contain. On that, the noble Lord is asking exactly the right question.
The instinct to keep the Bill narrow and treat it as a purely military instrument for a purely military emergency misunderstands the threats set out in our national risk register. The register draws no neat line between hostile state action and everything else. It lists pandemic influenza, severe flooding, prolonged power failure and the cascading loss of critical national infrastructure. When any of those materialises, the mechanisms we reach for are strikingly similar to the ones the Bill would create: we call on the reserves, we lean on logistics and private sector capacity, and we depend on the local resilience forums to hold the response together on the ground. It makes little sense to build those powers for one category of shock and leave them unavailable for the others.
There is a further dimension that this House should not overlook: the state of the infrastructure on which all our resilience ultimately rests. Much of it is ageing and some of it is, frankly, crumbling. We cannot be resilient against a pandemic, flood or hostile act if the pipes, grid and water storage that the country depends on are already failing under ordinary conditions.
I think it was on the Sporting Events Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, talked about the London 2012 Olympics and how the traffic lights could be controlled positively to let sportspeople and officials through without delay. Conversely, that could be cyber attacked or gridlocked. Anyone trying to drive through London not in the middle of the night may think that we are already under some sort of traffic light attack.
Renewing infrastructure is itself an act of national preparedness. Here lies the opportunity: when we rebuild, we can design in security and resilience from the very start, hardening assets against both the storm and the saboteur, rather than bolting protection on afterwards at far greater cost. Upgrade and protection are not competing claims on the budget; done together, they are one investment.
To take one example, we desperately need new water storage, yet no major reservoir has been completed in England since 1992. The nearest new scheme, the Fens reservoir, is not expected online until 2036 and the Lincolnshire reservoir not until 2040. That is more than a decade away for infrastructure that we need now. I do not accept that a reservoir should take the better part of 15 years to deliver. With the will and a planning regime built for urgency rather than delay, there is no reason why a scheme of this kind should not be built in more than two or three years. If we are serious about resilience, we must be serious about the pace at which we build the things that make us resilient.
This is not scope creep for its own sake; it is a matter of coherence and our treaty obligations. Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty requires each of us to maintain the resilience to withstand and recover from major shocks, and that resilience is not distinguished by the origin of the shock. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, proposed that the Bill should follow the model of the Climate Change Act 2008, with a statutory duty to assess our baseline preparedness, set targets for improvement and report annually on progress. I find that a persuasive architecture.
We do not need to start completely from scratch. We can build a national resilience framework that is a benchmark to our preparedness, using means already at our disposal. As a starting point, we could use the military framework of fighting power. The conceptual is how we think about resilience: what are our strategy and tactics for dealing with such a shock? The moral is the national conversation that other noble Lords have spoken about, understanding why we need to be resilient and the motivation. Then there is the physical: the flood defences, the back-up generators, the stores of bottled water. The concepts are already there; we just need to implement them and do so at pace.
I put two questions to the Minister. First, will the mobilisation powers in the forthcoming defence readiness Bill be capable of activation for the civil emergencies listed in the national risk register and not solely for escalation toward armed conflict? Secondly, will the Government commit to a breakdown of the £4.2 billion allocated to the reserves between now and 2030—on page 61 of the DIP, for anyone who is checking—given the importance to the reserves of in-year funding?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has brought forward a very timely debate. If we were in any doubt of that, we need only to think about the business of the House today, where there was a Statement on the independent review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics. One might think that that issue could be contributing, if not to hybrid warfare, to something of which politicians and ordinary members of society need to be aware.
We have heard about hybrid threats. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, reminded us of the poisonings on our soil. Other noble Lords may, like me, have received an email this morning from Cyber Security, which is the Lords’ phishing education programme. It sent me a little email saying, “We sent you the email below to try to make sure that you wouldn’t get caught out by phishing”. Again, that is not something we would necessarily think of as defence readiness, yet it is the sort of issue the whole of society needs to think about.
There was a set of questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, about what we mean by the “whole of society”. I had assumed from reading the SDR, from listening to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, from other contributions today and from the Minister’s past speeches that the “whole of society” means what it says on the tin: that we need to be prepared—not just policymakers, the Ministry of Defence and people dealing with specific issues concerning security, cyber security, hard security and critical infrastructure, but every individual.
We heard today how some countries, particularly our new NATO allies Finland and Sweden, do a very good job in preparing their citizens. What lessons have His Majesty’s Government taken from our partners and allies? Circulating booklets to households and businesses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, suggested, is one thing, but will that really do the job? Will people really say, “Oh, a leaflet has come through the letterbox. I’d better read it, make a note of it, get my wind-up radio and my battery torch, and make sure I’ve stocked the cupboards and got clean water”? They could do something else. Obviously, as a Liberal Democrat, I do not want to believe this, but I understand that, when we put leaflets through letterboxes, sometimes they do not get read. Sometimes, they go directly into the recycling bin—if we are lucky. Obviously, if leaflets went out on national resilience and preparedness, they would have a measure of gravitas and weight, coming from the Government. But equally, there is a real danger that people will not necessarily read a document.
So we need to be very open to a whole range of different approaches to how we have the conversation the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, talked about. It cannot just be leaflets through doors, and a conversation in and of itself is not enough either. A conversation is useful, but we need that to be the start, not the end. It needs to be an opportunity to persuade people—wherever they are in the United Kingdom, whatever their background, whatever their work interests and whatever their personal interests and circumstances—that they need to stop and be much more aware. I understand that there are parts of the country where people still feel that they can leave their front door unlocked and nobody will walk in. Most of us do not feel like that, and we need to make people aware that there are all sorts of other aspects of their lives where they need to be aware and mindful of what may come forward.
In order not to cause an unwelcome emergency on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Whips like us to arrive many minutes before the start of the next item of business. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, arrived 15 minutes after me, but when I arrived on my Benches, I could see a look of relief from one of our Whips. I thought I had timed my arrival well, because I was thus able to listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, speak in the previous debate on space. It was interesting because, as I listened to him, I thought that if I did shorthand and transcribed what he said at the end of the debate, it would have been perfectly suitable for a debate about national and defence readiness and resilience. The noble Viscount talked about businesses needing certainty, which the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, also referred to. That is crucial for our defence readiness. Businesses need to know what the Government’s priorities are. They need to know when contracts are likely to be let.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, also said, there is an increasingly crowded marketplace. He was talking about space, which is one aspect of defence, but it is also true in other aspects of defence. This is the point where, like the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, I beg to part company from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because dual-use technology is hugely important. The whole-of-society approach should be about persuading individuals, and it also needs to be about working closely with businesses, partly on defence investment and R&D.
My final point is on reserves. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, pointed out in the debate on Monday, the role of reserves is crucial. We need to prepare businesses to be aware that their reserves may be called up. That needs to be part of a whole-of-society planning process.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that I would not take when I arrive for a debate as a model for anything. I can say without fear of contradiction that my Whips will endorse that sentiment. I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for enabling this debate. It is not just timely; it is important. I thank him for the persistence with which he has pursued these critical issues of resilience and preparedness. I will structure my contribution around three simple propositions: the defence readiness Bill is not ready; the national conversation that was supposed to accompany it is currently mute; and the Treasury’s purse strings, as evidenced by the DIP, remain bleakly closed. Each failing compounds the others, and together they explain why, a year on from the strategic defence review, we are still debating proposals rather than debating action.
On the first point, let me be blunt about the timeline. The strategic defence review recommended this legislation over a year ago. It was absent from the King’s Speech in May. Ministers have told this House and the other place that proposals are being developed, that officials are working at pace and that the Bill will come forward later in this Parliament. We have words, but no date. The authors of the review have made no secret of their frustration at the yawning gap between the urgency of their conclusions and the glacial pace of their implementation—a frustration that I think we all inferred from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, today. Speaking before the Defence Committee this week, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, said:
“We are running out of years, and the reality is the challenge is now bigger and more serious and earlier than we anticipated, and yet the defence investment plan itself does not come up to it”.
These words of the noble Lord should bring the Government up short.
The second point is on the national conversation. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, is correct to say that this is not some fireside chat. The review was explicit that a whole-of-society approach requires the Government to level with the country about the threats we face, the sacrifices that resilience may demand and the roles that reserves, industry, local authorities and ordinary citizens might all be asked to play, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, so eloquently—indeed, chillingly—described.
Instigating at least the planning for how that conversation should be structured, followed by rollout, could have started a year ago. Where is it? Is the Minister still the lead on it, or is that to be found somewhere else in government? I hope the Minister is the lead on it. If there is any ambiguity, I have a piece of advice for him: you plough the furrow and make the others follow, because I happen to think the Minister would make a good job of it.
Quite apart from the financial implications of all of this, my noble friend Lord Harlech rightly pointed out that if the Government intend to ask the public to accept new obligations, whether on mobilisation, infrastructure or preparedness in their own communities, the public have to be brought into this discussion long before the legislation is passed, not presented with it as a fait accompli. This vacuum, in my opinion, is doing damage and potentially creating danger because complacency is filling the void. The watchword should be “urgency”.
Thirdly, and perhaps most tellingly, there is the Treasury. Every government document on this subject is written in the conditional: commitments when circumstances allow, ambitions for the next Parliament, targets that recede as the calendar advances. The 3% ambition remains an ambition. The gulf between what the review says is needed and what the Treasury is willing to make available remains. If anything, fiscal pressures have made that gulf wider and starker. The same timidity that produced 10 months of delay on the defence investment plan is stamped all over this Bill. A readiness Bill that arrives without the resources to make readiness real will be a Bill in name only, a framework, a skeleton with no functioning limbs. I ask the Minister to give an assurance to the House that this legislation will not become simply another unfunded commitment layered on top of all the others.
I have three questions for the Minister. When precisely will the Bill be introduced? What concrete steps are being taken to start the national conversation that the SDR said was indispensable? Can the Minister confirm whether the Treasury has agreed to fund the powers the Bill will create or are we again being asked to legislate first and pay later? I think we are all agreed that the country’s resilience is critical and it cannot be built on aspiration alone, however worthy. I hope the Minister can offer some comfort and provide some details of substantive proposals, rather than rhetoric.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I certainly never resort to rhetoric, so the noble Baroness has my assurance on that. I thank my noble friend Lord Harris for introducing such an important debate, and everyone who has contributed to it. The MoD is developing this work, and I will say a bit more about that, but the overall responsibility across the whole of government is with the Cabinet Office. I know noble Lords understand that, but it is important to lay down again that the co-ordinating function is for the Cabinet Office. Notwithstanding that, the Ministry of Defence has a crucial role and will do what it can to accelerate the progress that many have mentioned.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and other contributors to the debate that the defence readiness Bill will be introduced in this Parliament. I cannot go any further than that. I cannot remember who it was, but somebody said it would be introduced in the next Parliament. The Government’s intention is to introduce it in this Parliament, which is as far as I can go.
In terms of the scope of the Bill, which goes to the heart of the question and is the point of the debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Harris, what the defence readiness Bill should contain is under discussion, so there are talks going on about what the scope should be. Many of the other points that have been raised are the responsibility of other government departments. At the same time, other pieces of legislation which deal with some of this are being looked at. One example that has just come to mind for me is the Civil Contingencies Act, but there are all sorts of other pieces of legislation which are important as well.
I also draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that NATO has seven resilience requirements and, as part of NATO, we and all the members accept them. They deal with many of the points that have been raised: continuity of government, energy supplies, dealing with uncontrolled movement of people, food and water resources, mass casualties, civil communications systems and civil transportation schemes. All of those deal with some of the infrastructure problems and challenges that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, mentioned. They are part of a readiness programme which all member states in NATO will be looking at.
My noble friend Lord Harris and others mentioned the important point about the changing nature of warfare and the importance of understanding that war is about cyber, climate and information and all the things we have talked about. We need to address those as well in any plan that we bring forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, asked when the Bill would be introduced. I answered that. She asked me to define “the whole of society”. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, did it quite well. We can tie ourselves in knots about what the whole of society means but we all know that what we are talking about is everybody’s responsibility. Every part of society has a part to play, whether it be business, industry, government agencies, voluntary organisations, the military, individuals or groups of people—the list goes on—the devolved Administrations, local authorities and local resilience forums. All those have to be involved in bringing a plan together and in any conversation. The challenge is how you do that in a constructive and co-ordinated way that is not fragmented. As I say, the whole of society—
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
I thank the Minister for making that clear. It is an ambitious aim—in my view, it should be.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that comment.
To answer the points from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, from the NATO resilience actions she can see many of the things that will need to be addressed and will be addressed as we go forward. Like, I suspect, many people in the Chamber, I disagree with her about growth. I have never seen growth and the environment as conflicting. You need good growth and alongside that you need to care for the environment, but you have to have growth in the economy and trying to bring about that growth is really important.
On the NATO seven resilience actions, to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, the national conversation is absolutely fundamental. We accept that. If I was going to criticise myself, I think I mentioned to the noble Baroness that I have been moved from the national conversation; in the reorganisation it has gone to another person. I have taken on a couple of other functions within the Ministry of Defence and that has gone to somebody else. In a moment, I will come to something that I tried to do. I would not say it was “ploughing a furrow” but it was an attempt to get it moving.
I say seriously to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, that of course the national conversation is really important and fundamental to it. We are not frightened of doing it; the discussion is about the right way of doing it. That is the conversation and that is difficult. What exactly is the message that you want to get across? You have to ensure that people can rise to the challenge without frightening them. A discussion and debate would take place, if we had it in here, about what that means and what that should be. But the noble Baroness is quite right about the need for a national conversation and for us to move more quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, whose service as an active reservist I always try to note, will know that in the Armed Forces Bill, due to be in Committee in September, there are a number of measures about the reserves. One of them is to reduce the threshold at which you can recall reserves from “almost imminent war” to “war readiness”. It would be interesting for us to debate what war readiness means. Committee might be the time for the noble Lord to table an amendment—not to vote on, but to explore the Government’s thinking. We are trying to lower the threshold, and the noble Lord makes an important point about that. The wider point, which my noble friend Lord Harris referred to, is whether it should be not just for war but for some of the other things we have talked about. We can have that discussion. On that issue, he will know that additional sums of money are being made available; usually, it would be left up to the reserve commanders themselves to look at how that might be allocated.
I have answered many of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised. On national conversations, the lesson from Finland and some of the other Baltic countries is the way they have found to speak to their people without unduly worrying them while alerting them to the change. The big thing about what they do and their example to us—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others talked about this—is the importance of homeland defence. The military and conflict have always been seen as about war in the traditional sense. From a UK point of view, it is almost seen as going overseas or on to the continent of Europe, whereas we are now talking about a threat to the homeland. How we deal with that is an important challenge for us all. It takes the UK into territory that we have not been in for quite a significant period, particularly since we have not been occupied in that sense, depending on how far you go back—noble Lords understand the point I am making.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about the national conversation. She is quite right that it will be somebody else’s responsibility, but I have done work within the department which I hope will help move it forward. As she knows, there are drafts and drafts. We are alert in the department to the need for the MoD to move forward and talk with other government departments about what responsibilities they should have to deal with something so important. I have answered her point about the defence readiness Bill, though perhaps not with the certainty she would want. We have discussed the finance; I know she specifically asked about the defence readiness Bill, but she can be assured that we will make the case for how important it is to fund it properly.
I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate, which is hugely important. There are all sorts of things going on across government and society to deal with this issue. It is an absolute priority for the Government and all noble Lords. We all want to accelerate the progress and process. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, made the point that we should get on with it, and we would all agree with that. I thank my noble friend Lord Harris for introducing the debate. It has been a very important one.
Holding the Line Against Tyranny and Anarchy (Constitution Committee Report)
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That this House takes note of the Report from the Constitution Committee The rule of law: holding the line against tyranny and anarchy (13th Report, HL Paper 211, Session 2024–26).
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce this debate as chair of the Constitution Committee.
Noble Lords will have heard many times politicians and others praying in aid adherence to the rule of law and avowing its importance. Yet very few people seem to understand what it represents and how fundamental it is to our constitution. The Constitution Committee conducted a long and detailed inquiry into the rule of law and published its report towards the end of last year. This was prompted by a sense that the rule of law was being threatened in many parts of the world. We wanted to understand the extent to which we in the UK should also be concerned by that.
It was a privilege to chair the committee during the inquiry, and I am grateful to all those who contributed to it—our witnesses and my fellow members, whose knowledge and experience greatly strengthened the final report, and some of whom are speaking today. I am sorry that time constraints meant that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had to scratch. They played an important part in our deliberations. I mention in particular our excellent secretariat and clerks, who delivered our witnesses, our drafts and good humour, even when we became embroiled in the weeds of the subject.
Over nine months, we received more than 100 written submissions and heard from judges, practising lawyers, the police, journalists and young people. We deliberately sought views from people not normally asked for those views. The result is a report that seeks to provide an accessible evolution to our understanding of the rule of law, as well as to ask whether we are doing enough to preserve and strengthen it.
The rule of law is one of the defining principles of our constitution. It has deep roots in our history, reaching back centuries all the way to Magna Carta and, many argue, beyond. The rule of law is one of the foundations on which both democratic government and personal liberty depend. That is why we subtitled our report Holding the Line Against Tyranny and Anarchy, recognising that the rule of law protects us from both the tyranny of an overbearing state and the mob rule of anarchy. It guards against both extremes.
It is also more than this: the rule of law underpins economic prosperity, facilitating business and trade. In the UK, it contributes to our global reputation, not least because businesses from all over the world choose to have their contracts governed by English law. Given its importance, it is unsurprising that the rule of law is frequently invoked in this House and elsewhere. We proclaim our attachment to it, and we vow to protect it.
But what does it actually mean? The answer is not always straightforward. The rule of law is a slippery concept that is difficult to pin down. It is also beset by complicated academic and political debates about so-called thick and thin conceptions, which differ over whether human rights and international law are part of it. These debates around the definition of the rule of law give the impression that it is a contested idea, but it is deeply embedded as a British value in ideas of fairness, equality and justice.
Some years ago, the noble and learned Lord Bingham made a key set of definitions of the rule of law, on which the committee sought to build. The committee’s view was that the rule of law is perhaps best understood as a culture. People obey the law because they trust that others will do the same. They accept court judgments because they trust the independence and integrity of the judiciary. They engage in business and trade because they trust that contracts will be respected and enforced.
This culture is under strain. Increasingly, people lack confidence in the rule of law. They see increasing amounts of street crime, shoplifting and bicycle and mobile phone theft, but doubt that the offenders will ever be caught or fear that the police will be disinterested in what they perceive to be mostly irrelevant crime. The perpetrators are rarely held to account. Others encounter lengthy delays in the justice system while being faced with prohibitive costs to access legal advice and representation. At the same time, some politicians and parts of the media tell them that judges undermine Parliament and pursue personal agendas. The collective effort is to weaken confidence in the rule of law and the institutions responsible for upholding it.
One area that particularly concerned the committee was the treatment of the judiciary. Judges, both individually and as a whole, have been increasingly vilified in public debate. They are accused of interfering in politics and of deciding cases according to their personal views. This has spilled over into personal attacks and threats to their safety.
These attacks need to stop. That is certainly not to say that discussion and debate of judgment is off limits, but judges should be able to carry out their job without fear of retaliation. Otherwise, there is a threat to the independence of the judiciary. The Government must set the tone in promptly and clearly dismissing misleading information about judgments. They have a duty to defend the judiciary against unwarranted attacks. The Lady Chief Justice in her evidence was particularly strong on the subject, and we agreed with her. I have little time for judges seeking to expand their own boundaries or indulging in judicial activism, but I wholly accept their constitutional independence.
Access to justice is a further essential part of the rule of law. There is no point having laws and rights if they cannot be enforced and upheld. However, we frequently heard about backlogs, delays and difficulties in obtaining legal advice and representation. The Government must take decisive action to improve access to justice and to tackle delays—not the blunt instrument of scrapping jury trials but exploring creative solutions. Technology has an important role to play in realising efficiencies across the justice system such as digitising remaining paper-based processes. Where appropriate, the use of alternative dispute resolution should be encouraged.
We also looked at the role of Parliament. As we all know, parliamentary sovereignty is the supreme constitutional principle, but Parliament also has a responsibility to the rule of law, especially as we carry out our primary role on legislation. Laws should be clear. They should be accessible. They should be capable of being understood by those expected to obey them. Excessive complexity, performative legislation and the inappropriate use of delegated powers all make these objectives harder to achieve. This Government are not the sole Government to be guilty of doing these things. It has happened with previous Governments too, but we should never stop seeking to improve the quality of our legislation and reducing our reliance on delegated powers. We therefore urge parliamentarians to keep the rule of law front and centre when scrutinising legislation—and the Government when drafting it.
The central message of our report is that the rule of law is not just a constitutional principle but the invisible thread that governs our everyday lives. It is most definitely not just the concern of lawyers. It matters to everyone. That is why we should start with children. It should be better taught and understood in schools. This is what enables citizens to challenge power, businesses to invest with confidence, communities to live in peace and democratic government to command legitimacy. These are what count and help to provide stability in a complex world.
We should take pride in the United Kingdom’s long tradition of respect for the rule of law but, as I said earlier, pride must never become complacency. There can be no doubt that the rule of law faces genuine pressures. Those pressures can be addressed, but only if we recognise them and actively choose to defend the rule of law. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, it was a great privilege to serve on the Constitution Committee and a great pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, particularly for this important report. As the House might expect, he conducted the committee with tremendous brio and a great sense of democracy within the committee as well. I apologise to the House, because I am bound to repeat and to reinforce much of what he has said about the significance of the report and the way we pursued it.
It is the singular task of the Constitution Committee to hold the elements of constitutional democracy up to the light, to show how it works for real people. This was one of the most penetrating outcomes of that very important report. Six months on, with the Iran war more unsettled than ever and the rule of law increasingly embattled, it is paramount that we in the UK are unconditional in our commitment to the principle and the practice of it at home and abroad.
That is why this inquiry was so important and so timely, but it was a brave choice and a brave chair. It was a very challenging inquiry in breadth and depth, reaching back to the roots of our democracy, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, but also reaching into a very uncertain future. Tom Paine, whom I lay claim to as another resident of Lewes, would have applauded the title and particularly the subtitle—The Rule of Law: Holding the Line Against Tyranny and Anarchy—because it articulates his own deep conviction in the American context of 1776 that in free countries,
“the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other”.
Two hundred and fifty years on, that is being put to the test every day in the United States; the committee was only too aware of that. As we have heard already, there are passions attached to differing interpretations of the rule of law—the vocabulary of thick and thin—to the extent that it would have been very easy to fall prey to falling into an academic and sterile hole, but we did not. We did debate where the boundaries of the rule of law might fall, but we focused on what the rule of law means as people experience it in their daily lives, and that is why it is important. We also looked at the challenges to the justice system and to Parliament itself. We looked hard at the contract wired into our culture, which has meant that trust in the law to keep us safe has lasted for centuries. But there was no escaping the evidence that this reciprocal culture is at risk. That evidence suggests that disrespect for the law has been emboldened since Covid, with the paradox of draconian legislation that was felt by many not to have been evenly applied.
There is no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, alluded to, that the infamous attack on judges as “enemies of the people” some years ago gave a green light for attacks on the independence of the judiciary. We were particularly shocked by the evidence he has already cited, and by the very stark statement of the Lady Chief Justice that judges now need to have “moral courage”. I would say physical courage as well, in light of the evidence.
Secondly, the evidence showed that the culture of trust in the law to work for everyone equally is also fragile. To defeat tyranny and anarchy, justice must be seen to work: to be accessible, effective and fair. It is a truism, but like all truisms it is actually true. The evidence suggests that for many people, this is simply not the case. Our witnesses came from across the spectrum—judges and community activists—and all agreed that free legal advice was virtually invisible in some communities. In the whole of Greater Manchester there is only one law centre for 2.8 million people. Most advice is now limited to information; it does not go as far as legal assistance. That failure is compounded by documented cuts to legal aid; the horrendous waiting lists for the courts, including people who are on remand; the physical disintegration—the decay—of the legal estate; and the growth of crimes that are anything but victimless.
No wonder people feel that the idea of justice is meaningless as far as they are concerned. The system itself feels disempowered. Part of the problem is that the law is not taught early enough, widely enough or broadly enough. Our recommendations address all these issues. I have alerted the Minister to a specific question: what happened to the Legal Support Strategy Delivery Group, which was set up by the MoJ?
For this place, the most profound question is: how confident can we be in our own future as the bulwark against tyranny and anarchy? The Victorians were better informed about Parliament than we are. What has happened to the political reporters or the serious commentators? They have virtually disappeared. Do Members of Parliament, or we in this House, know enough about the constitution, the legal system and what constitutes legal certainty, to be clear where the risks are? Do we know who is accountable for safeguarding the constitution? Do our laws stand the test of the basic requirements: that they should be clear, accessible, prospective, predictable, possible to obey, free of conflict? Does Parliament use its power to interrogate Ministers and to hold them to account? If I were marking this paper, I would give the House a C+ at best.
The volume of legislation is only one issue. Take pensions regulation; it has grown from 3,000 pages to 165,000 pages since 1990. Worse is the sheer complexity, which defeats even the most distinguished lawyers. I think with fear of the forthcoming legislation on leasehold reform. The loss of Keeling schedules, the delays in implementing consolidation, and the accumulative legislation required to correct and revise mean that few can find meaning, let alone definitive meaning. On the other hand, equally dismaying are skeletal Bills that evade interrogation, and careless delegation that hides decisions and cannot be changed. These are serious and familiar charges in this House—this is our special subject. We need not to debate more but to act now. As the report emphasises, Parliament must take its constitutional responsibilities seriously and, I add, visibly.
I return to Tom Paine, who said that
“the Constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, and every political physician will advise a different medicine”.
He was right about the constitution but would be wrong about our report, because it was very clear in its diagnosis and prescription. We are seeking not to blame but to identify and incentivise responsibility for ensuring that the rule of law is not an abstract construction but is positively promoted in every respect.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
I declare an interest as a serving member of the supplementary panel of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
The report of the Constitution Committee, to which I contributed as a member, is a timely reminder of the importance of the rule of law as a vital constitutional safeguard. It is something that is largely taken for granted, but that it has been the subject of so much discussion in recent years is itself a sign of growing concern about its vulnerability. I congratulate our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on his skilful navigation through a subject that is apt to be diverted into academic byways and alleyways by focusing on the practical. In the few minutes available, I will touch briefly on two subjects: the independence of the judiciary, to which there has already been reference, and a discrete aspect of access to justice.
Judicial independence is central to the rule of law. It is reflected in the judicial oath to
“do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will”.
Judicial independence enables judges to administer justice impartially and to treat equally those who appear before them. Equality before the law is a cardinal principle. Our report noted the importance of judicial independence—independence from the Executive and Parliament, of course, but also from all who might seek to put pressure on courts, not just politicians. That includes the press, large corporations, trade unions, activists and campaigners. Judges are required to resist all such pressure.
As we have heard, judicial independence is undermined when judges are attacked personally for a decision or their integrity is impugned. An expression of disagreement with the outcome of a case is entirely unobjectionable, but the growth of personal vilification—in which, regrettably, from time to time politicians have joined—crosses the line into a direct assault on the independence of the judiciary. Examples are multiplying. Even this week, a High Court judge was accused by disappointed litigants of a “complete and obvious whitewash”. Judges speak through their judgments and cannot answer back. That is why the Constitutional Reform Act imposes duties on the Lord Chancellor to defend the independence of the judiciary.
The committee recognised that:
“A culture of hostility towards the judiciary has been allowed to develop in recent years because of inappropriate, and often inaccurate, public criticism by politicians”,
and others, with
“inadequate defence from government”.
We distinguish in the report between discussion and debate about judgments and personal attacks on judges or the judiciary as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has noted, such attacks should stop. Importantly, we added that Ministers, particularly the Lord Chancellor, must speak out in defence of the judiciary when it comes under attack. It needed saying, and I fear that obligation will become more onerous as time goes by.
The very existence of a functioning courts and tribunal system, with an independent judiciary, means that most disputes are sorted out before lawyers are involved and before proceedings are threatened or issued, and even when issued, many are resolved without a final determination. But cases which need final resolution by the courts must be capable of being heard in a timely fashion. Timeliness, at least in my opinion, is more important than a fixation on outstanding case numbers.
Now is not the time to talk about the difficulties in the criminal courts. We may yet get an opportunity to do so—or maybe we will not. My views are well known and do not align with the centre of gravity of legal opinion, but my short point is a general one. When Parliament legislates, with the result that new rights and obligations are created, government must ensure that the relevant courts and tribunals are ready to deal with the increased caseload. The late Lord Etherton raised this issue powerfully with respect to the significant changes found in the recent renters’ rights legislation, both as passed and as originally proposed by the last Government. Similar points have been made regarding the employment rights legislation. It is doubtful whether the courts and tribunals that will deal with the resulting disputes can do so in a timely fashion. Legislation and legislating are not the end of the story. If the rights created cannot be readily and quickly enforced, they may turn out to be hollow.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am told that we should never start a speech with an apology, but I sincerely apologise if I have to leave before the end of the debate to get back up to Scotland—I had not expected the debate to be taken so late. I did not want to withdraw, as I was very keen to participate in the debate on this important topic, as a member of the Constitution Committee at the time.
It is a vital topic, though I was a bit sceptical about it. As members of the committee will know, I thought it would be hijacked by the lawyers into a very dry topic, but it has proved, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said, to be a really important issue. This is an excellent report from the Constitution Committee, ably chaired, may I say, by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He and I have crossed swords in Ayrshire from time to time, but I have great respect for the way he chaired the committee through this report.
The most striking observation from the report is that the greatest threat to the rule of law does not come from a dramatic crisis but can emerge gradually through declining institutional standards, weakened scrutiny and political rhetoric which encourages the loss of faith in our democratic institutions.
Take the case of Henry Nowak. Okay, the police failed in their duty, but they are being held accountable and, as the report says, individual failures within an institution should not be used as an excuse to undermine that institution completely. Sadly, in the Nowak case, before the facts were established, Reform UK immediately sought to use that tragedy to claim, wrongly, that Britain has a system of two-tier policing against white people. That is the kind of dangerous politicking the report warns against.
The committee is equally clear that no individual or institution is beyond scrutiny. The conviction of Peter Murrell for embezzling more than £400,000 from the SNP is an example which reminds us vividly of the consequences of the failure of internal governance. This case exposed the prolonged weakness of accountability and oversight in one of our largest parties in Scotland and, with the more recent revelations of over £1 million missing from the Yes Scotland campaign, there is sadly more yet to come. An organisation where the leader and chief executive are a married couple, where anyone who raises questions—as people did—is summarily dismissed and where accountants resign in protest, is an example of the failure of the rule of law. The rule of law depends on transparency, independent oversight and the confidence that wrongdoing will ultimately be exposed, but that is not yet the case in the SNP scandal.
The committee’s most important message is that there is a difference between demanding better of our institutions and encouraging the public to lose faith in them, and that distinction really matters. When police make mistakes, they are investigated. If political parties fail, we should seek to reform them. If Governments overreach, Parliament should take them to task. Those are not signs that the rule of law has failed; they are actually evidence that the constitutional safeguards are working. The real danger is when political leaders suggest that the whole system is irredeemably corrupt or biased. Once confidence in democratic institutions is lost, it is very difficult for it to be rebuilt.
In this country, two of the threats to our democracy are, first, dark money—Russian, of course, but also from the USA, as we heard it in a Statement earlier today—influencing our politics and secondly, sadly, increasing disengagement in elections and politics, particularly among young people. That is why elsewhere, later on in this Session, I will be arguing that we should be closing loopholes in our electoral finance laws—we heard that again earlier today—and I will be supporting the introduction of compulsory voting, which has proved so successful in Australia. The most recent example of a crypto billionaire giving Farage £5 billion is not an isolated case, but it reminds us that there is a real danger of very rich people, both at home and overseas, taking or trying to take control of our democratic institutions unless we take urgent steps to avoid it.
To return to the report, it is about not just constitutional law but constitutional responsibility. It reminds us that the rule of law is sustained by institutions that are accountable, by Parliament exercising effective scrutiny, and by political leaders choosing responsibility over rhetoric. Recent examples—the exploitation of the Henry Nowak case by Reform, the Green Party’s failure to scrutinise candidates, and the corruption and lack of transparency of the SNP—show in different ways how confidence in our constitutional settlement can be weakened. However, the answer is not to diminish confidence in our institutions but to find ways, as the report says, to ensure that our institutions are transparent, accountable and worthy of trust, while resisting those who seek to turn any failures into evidence that the rule of law itself has collapsed. That, the report says, is the road to tyranny and to anarchy, which we must resist.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure not only to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who, happily, is restored to full health, but to find oneself on the same side of the argument as him, because for a good many years in another place, I had to suffer being on the wrong side of the argument. That was very uncomfortable. I also join with all the other members of the committee who have spoken in paying tribute to our chair and to the other members.
The other day, I read that Michelle Obama said that she had never met a white man who suffered from imposter syndrome. All I can tell you is that when the noble and learned Lords on our committee got going, I certainly felt imposter syndrome. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bellamy, and Lord Burnett, are all wonderful, but they are also practical people as well as being very good lawyers. We have heard from two of the other members already, and we can all be proud of this report.
It is fitting that we debate this fundamental matter in the same week that we grieve for Lord Mackay who, if you wanted an embodiment of what the rule of law meant—practical but also learned—he was it. I will not go into too much detail, because I would get in trouble with former colleagues, but there were a couple of occasions in the Cabinet in which I was privileged to serve with him when more robust colleagues were going off in one direction or another. That beautiful Scottish brogue brought them back on to the safe line. Nobody wanted to argue with him.
I will make three short points and, although I endorse everything that has been said, I will not repeat what has been mentioned so far by colleagues. First—and this reflects something just spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—there is a terrible cliché about at the moment that everything is broken in this country. Whenever we say that, we give succour to our enemies, both abroad and at home. The rule of law is not broken here. That is not to say that we should not be very careful to identify where new threats may come from, as this report does, and where corrections to present failings should be undertaken. But let us have enough of that cliché. We have the rule of law and we must protect it.
Secondly, for most of the last century, when civilisation faced destruction, either by Hitler or by Stalin, most attention was perhaps paid to the rule of law’s guardian against tyranny. Big Brother was the most potent fear, and it was a reasonable one. The danger of tyranny remains, of course, and a very real danger it is in much of the world. But now we must also watch for the other danger: anarchy. The irony is that our far bigger state has not become an all-powerful Big Brother. Can we really imagine that any of our departments of state would be as efficient as the terrifying departments in George Orwell’s book? I do not think it would actually work; it might even be described as being broken. The point is that as the state has become bigger, the paradox is that it has also become weaker. It has become an enormous juggernaut with its wheels stuck up to the axles in mud. We face that paradox—an enormous state which cannot plausibly reassure its citizens that it knows how to carry out its two central tasks: defence against foreign enemies and satisfactory maintenance of the law for ordinary people at home. It is the report’s concern for maintaining the confidence of ordinary people in the rule of law to which I want to add a little more colour today.
To quote the then Lord Chancellor and present Home Secretary when she was giving evidence to us, we cannot accept a situation where there
“is a sense that someone came in, robbed a shop…and absolutely nothing happened”.
When I asked her if she thought that the illegal arrival of small boats on our shores without apparent consequence undermined respect for the law, she answered yes—and she was right. There is beginning to be a real anxiety that elements of the rule of law are a bit of a bluff.
All is far from lost, though, and the splendid report by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Herbert, will greatly help to strengthen the police if it is followed through. It is vital that the ordinary citizen understand that the state has not backed off from its fundamental duty to face down criminality, big or small, at home as well as abroad.
Thirdly, the rule of law is based on consent, or at least acceptance. Law long precedes democracy, but without it, in Lord Sumption’s words to the committee, society is
“simply a fight for the more effective deployment of force”.
Consent or allegiance means understanding of and acceptance of the process by which laws are made.
For us, it is Parliament and the ancient and subtle generation of common law. That is why there is a problem with, for example, the ECHR. It is not that the judges are wicked or that all the judgments are bad; many are easily accepted as excellent. The problem is that the citizen’s consent is not embodied in the process by which those laws are developed. There is not—or not yet, at least—a genuine community of Europe which lies behind that body of law in the way that England, Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom lie behind our law. When the convention stops this Parliament doing things that the people want, people do not understand why.
Now we face an expansion of jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, has written powerfully about this. That is going to drive us mad if we are not careful, and will face us with the same problems. Those who raise these issues are not against the rule of law or the rules-based order in the world; we are warning and anxious that if we simply sign to courts and laws which our people feel do not embody their own feelings then we will end ourselves in difficulty. It is very difficult to leave these things, but it is not a criticism of the rule of law to raise questions about those issues.
The UK remains a bastion of the rule of law. It is well defended by the outstanding practitioners who appeared before our committee, but it is a bastion whose defence we should never take for granted.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the honourable—
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
Oh! I did it wrong again. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord and to echo his words about the late Lord Mackay of Clashfern—the very embodiment of wisdom and decency, and a great Scots lawyer. It was a privilege to have known him.
It was an interesting challenge to be a member of the Constitution Committee, which undertook the inquiry on which this report is based. We have already heard from some of the distinguished noble Lords who served on the committee. I not only agree with all their points but thank them for all that I learned while sitting in their company during this inquiry.
It is a widely held misconception that examining aspects of the constitution is nothing more than a dry old academic exercise undertaken by dry old academics. It is not. This was a genuine inquiry. We explored a very wide range of issues and aspects, and we asked questions to which we did not already know the answers. We were often surprised by the conclusions to which we came after having considered the evidence.
Why do this report and this debate matter? I will make three brief points in answer to that question. First, they matter because one of our important conclusions was that safeguarding the rule of law is a shared responsibility. That responsibility lies not only with judges, lawyers, Ministers, parliamentarians, civil servants and public authorities but with every citizen. To maintain a free society, we must nurture a widespread culture of respect for the principles of the rule of law. Although this debate might not quite compete for audience figures with England against Norway—it probably will not even compete with children’s television—I sincerely hope that the fact we are having it is a small step in our quest to create a wider understanding of the importance of our constitutional conventions.
I have seen some excellent examples of citizenship education in many schools that I have visited over the years but, sadly, we discovered during our inquiry that this excellence does not occur widely throughout the country. Perhaps the end-of-term report for most schools on the subject of citizenship education would be, “Must try harder”. I am sure that the Minister will respond that citizenship education is a statutory requirement. Indeed it is, but teachers need more help: they need more training so that we can ensure that lessons are being effectively delivered. The committee’s recommendation at paragraph 246, which concerns helping schools to deliver education on citizenship, particularly deserves to be taken forward by the Government. Giving children an understanding that constitutional principles are the very foundations of our free society is the first step in creating good and responsible leaders for the next generation.
Secondly, the rule of law is not merely an abstract concept or a legal doctrine but the constitutional condition upon which our entire democracy depends. It is not, as some ill-informed commentators like to imply, an impediment to effective government. On the contrary: it is the condition that gives government its legitimacy. At a time when democratic institutions across many countries face increasing pressure, it is more vital than ever that the people have confidence that power is being exercised lawfully, transparently and accountably. The rule of law is universal, and nobody is above the law. The Government are subject to the law, just as any citizen is—as several recent cases heard in the Supreme Court have rightly reinforced. Liberty is secured not by the exercise of power but by its restraint through the law. Let us hope that we do not have to encounter an extremist Government here in Britain. We see extremism growing elsewhere right now. Upholding the rule of law—I argue that having this debate is part of that process—is our defence against extremism. The Government cannot bully the people.
Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned in his excellent introduction to our debate, the committee considered Lord Bingham’s first principle:
“The law must be accessible … intelligible, clear and predictable”.
The report expresses concern that legislation has become increasingly lengthy, technically complex and dependent on delegated powers. We are legislators, and we have a duty to hold the Government to account to bring the laws we are making more in line with Lord Bingham’s principle.
Well over 200 years ago, the great William Pitt said that
“where law ends, there tyranny begins”.
I hope that this report and this debate go some way to drawing general attention to that universal and timeless truth.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
As the first person to speak this afternoon who can claim no part whatever in the production of this report, I independently express my view, and the views of many to whom I have spoken, on its excellence and that it needed doing and that what it said needed saying. All those who produced it deserve a great thank you. Having said that, I want to deal with one topic, partly to reinforce the strength of this report in one minute area. I will draw on what I have observed happening elsewhere in Europe, and on how steps have been taken to undermine the rule of law; we must learn from that. The central lesson we learn is that those who seek to undermine the rule of law make the judiciary the prime focus of their plans and actions.
I will give your Lordships three examples. First, you weaken public confidence, primarily through attacking judges through the media, exploiting inefficiency in the courts or delays, and attacking what might seem incautious decisions or incautious extrajudicial statements. The second is undermining the self-governance and unitary structure of the judiciary. The third is appointing compliant candidates to high judicial office and then using disciplinary proceedings and other measures to remove strong judges. These are the means that are used, of which there are readily available examples, particularly in Hungary and Poland, of what has happened in neighbouring countries in the last few years. It has all been done, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out, subtly, and in some cases with considerable success.
Now, why should we bother to learn from elsewhere? We have our long traditions and our conventions. We have the Constitutional Reform Act; its author, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is here. So we say, “Why bother?”, but I think we should. I will look at four matters.
First, the area where we really do need action, and where the report underlines the need for action, is communications. The Judicial Office’s press office was set up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, with the help of Sir Hayden Phillips, just as the Act came into existence. But there is a need to keep it up to date. The media has changed beyond all recognition and therefore I strongly endorse what is said at paragraph 123 of the report in the message it sends to government and the judiciary. The Government, it appears from paragraph 36, have got the message. I hope the judiciary will get it too, because it must appreciate that if it does not take responsibility for the way it communicates, someone else will do it for it. It is an important lesson that must be learned.
The second is the effective and timely running of the courts. Resources play an immense part in the way in which you can administer justice. But judges have a responsibility too—a responsibility from which they cannot run away. They need to put right things that are wrong or systems that do not work. Here, the Constitution Committee, maybe not in this report, but generally, has played an important role by holding judges to account for anything that has gone wrong in the courts. That holding to account is extremely beneficial because it enables the judges, in a neutral forum, as Parliament is for them, to point out what the problems are, which so often are a lack of adequate resources. Here is an important role of the Constitution Committee.
The third matter to which I wish to refer is protection against attacks on judges. The report is more than 100% correct—if there is such a concept—at paragraphs 112 to 114 in drawing attention to this. But it is important that restraint is shown by everyone concerned. The judges have to be as careful as media magnates and Cabinet Ministers should be. It is a very important principle. If there are mistakes made, you put things right quickly, as has been done so successfully by the Lady Chief Justice in recent weeks, and people can see that. Those are things where the Constitution Committee sends an important message and has an important role.
I will touch briefly on other areas where I think we should be careful. First, on appointments, the JAC is extremely important, but its role is not properly understood, and the first step of any Minister who wishes to subvert the judiciary is to get control of appointments. We need to make certain that the appointments commission is strong. Secondly, on discipline, by the system that was devised for disciplining judges, we have shielded ourselves from the accusation that people such as Mr Berlusconi could make—that the judges look after themselves. But the operation of the system needs careful monitoring. The third is self-governance of the judiciary. I strongly welcome what is in the Bill, which I hope will be taken forward at least in this respect, to bring together the courts and the tribunals. It is important that the judiciary is unified.
What conclusion should we draw as to the role of the Constitution Committee? I hope it can, over the years, keep an eye on the examples we see elsewhere and on the matters on which we need to keep an eye. It is very important that, when the heads of the judiciary and Ministers come, a health check is made of each of the aspects that safeguard the independence of the judiciary. Perhaps I could persuade the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and his successors to take up this role, because vigilance, as has been said so strongly, is absolutely essential. We need not merely to say it, we need a mechanism, and that mechanism should be the Constitution Committee.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the matters we debate today are both sombre and urgent. They are sombre because, as the committee’s report highlights, the challenges faced by the rule of law in contemporary society are very grave. To give only one example, the then Lord Chancellor said in evidence to us that the justice system
“is not worthy of the name ‘justice’”—
surely a breathtaking condemnation of the present state of affairs. They are urgent not least because the evidence to the committee suggested widespread public disillusion with the surely basic idea that the laws that protect us all will actually be enforced and evenly applied.
Today I will highlight the rule of law as experienced by the ordinary citizen in daily life. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to whose chairmanship I pay my personal tribute, has indicated, the “rule of law” as a phrase does not just mean protection against the arbitrary power of the state, vital though that is; it is essential to the everyday functioning of a peaceful and orderly society. Every citizen is expected to obey the law, and the counterpart—the compact, the bargain, that underpins the whole of society—is that those who do not obey the law must be held to account. But, as others have said, if that does not happen and laws can be broken with impunity, public confidence in the very idea of a society governed by the rule of law is weakened, leading ultimately to the anarchy referred to in the title of the committee’s report.
As the committee highlighted, the widespread public perception that laws against, for example, shop theft, car theft, phone theft, house burglary and fare dodging are broken with impunity is a major, insidious and, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out, gradual threat to the rule of law. One could add, for example, fly-tipping, the pollution of the rivers, dodgy vape shops, online fraud, and so on, not to mention the daily spectacle of people smugglers operating with apparent impunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, rightly emphasised.
Even more important is the principle that the law must be enforced equally and fairly. If the law is perceived to be enforced unequally, that compounds the problem. In particular, as the committee points out, perceptions of bias and discrimination within the police, even if unfounded in fact, corrode public confidence in the rule of law. If we add to these matters the delays in the criminal courts, the delays in the civil justice system and the numerous difficulties of access to justice summarised in chapter 6 of the committee’s report, one can understand the current disillusion of the general public with law enforcement and the effectiveness of our legal system.
I am reminded of those opening scenes in “Measure for Measure”, when, in ancient Vienna, law and order has broken down and, in Shakespeare’s words,
“liberty plucks justice by the nose”.
Angelo is sent by the Duke to restore order, and he cries:
“We must not make a scarecrow of the law”.
It is a vivid image of a legal system that is allowed to become tattered, lopsided and ineffective.
We are not yet, thankfully, at that point. I certainly agree with the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Waldegrave, and others, that our system is not broken. But one cannot thrust under the carpet or ignore some of the matters and threats which I have mentioned. In these circumstances, all those in politics and public life should treat the threats to the rule of law that are the subject of this debate with the utmost seriousness. Politically, justice and the rule of law have all too often been an afterthought, coming behind health, welfare, education and so on. But, in truth, the rule of law is the keystone on which everything else depends. Nurturing and protecting that keystone is a matter of the highest importance, not only morally but politically.
Earlier today, as others have already said most movingly, we paid tribute to the life of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who embodied in his office of Lord Chancellor and in his person the authority and dignity of the rule of law. Let us try to live up to the example of Lord Mackay and once again place the rule of law, a healthy justice system, fair and effective law enforcement and access to justice at the core and centre of our public life, with all the resources and attention to excellence that is required. Let us never make a scarecrow of the law.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as the second Member speaking today who did not contribute to this excellent report, I also commend the Constitution Committee. It focuses on the common ground that we have on the rule of law and on practical challenges. I will pick out a few themes.
First, the committee rightly says that judicial review should not be presented as a blocker to government action. The Government, in their response last February, accepted that but pointed out quite fairly that judicial review can cause delays to government projects. They referred to changes they were considering to increase efficiency and certainty. Can the Minister update the House on those plans? This might be quite urgent, because the latest Ministry of Justice figures show some positive trends in the length of civil proceedings—the Government must be commended for that—but also reveal a dramatic increase in judicial review applications in the first quarter of 2026. There were around 1,300 new applications in that quarter, up 98% on the same quarter of 2025, and there was also an increase throughout 2025. Can the Minister tell us more about the reasons for this increase and what the Government are doing to ensure that the courts can cope?
Secondly, as we heard before, attacks on judges undermine the rule of law. The same is true also of attacks on practising lawyers. I am afraid that no political side is immune from those. From one side, there have been attacks on lawyers acting for wealthy clients or sanctioned individuals and, from the other side, there have been attacks on lawyers acting for asylum seekers. All these attacks violate the same basic principle: lawyers should not be associated with their clients. Of course, if there are serious allegations of malpractice, they should be investigated thoroughly and promptly.
There is perhaps another reason why public trust in the profession has been undermined, which has to do with how lawyers engage with the media and on social media. When I was called to the Bar, there were very strict rules on media engagement. We were prohibited from expressing personal opinions to the press in cases in which we were involved and any public commentary that we offered as barristers had to be objective and fair minded. The purpose of these rules was to reassure the public about the independence of the Bar. I am afraid we now see some advocates thinking of advocacy in the American sense, where it means campaigning. In our tradition, the two are not the same; an advocate is not a public campaigner and advocates must maintain their independence. Our right not to be associated with our clients carries a corresponding responsibility, which is to keep a distance from our clients and not to become too closely identifiable with them.
It is also wrong and risks discrediting the legal profession in the eyes of the public for lawyers to describe some legal work—for example, acting for claimants against the Government—as inherently more valuable than other legal work, such as representing the Government in defending those claims. We cannot look to the Government for answers to these challenges because, as the Government say in their response, ethical standards are ultimately a matter for the independent regulators. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out, this is not just about rules or guidelines but about a culture that we are trying to defend. It falls on practising lawyers—many of us speaking today are lawyers—to ensure that standards in that culture do not slip.
The third area I will address briefly is the positive uses of artificial intelligence. One recommendation in the report is that short summaries of judgments be produced in as many cases as possible. This is already the practice of the Supreme Court and a number of other courts do it in high-profile cases. Producing an accurate summary is quite resource intensive. However, high-quality AI summaries can be produced more widely, for example through the “Find Case Law” platform at the National Archives, and some commercial legal databases already do something similar. Does the ministry have any plans in this area? I was pleased to read in the Government’s response about the positive feedback on the new AI capability for generating Keeling schedules. Are there plans to expand the system so that all of us involved in scrutinising legislation can use that kind of facility regularly? Legislative scrutiny is key to the rule of law. We all perform that function here, but we need the help of these very practical tools for assessing legislation quickly.
Finally, there was one footnote in the report with which I disagreed. It stated that some evidence before the committee was sympathetic to including international law within the rule of law, while other evidence, apparently including from myself, advocated the contrary position. That is not quite my position. I agree with everything the report says about our obligation to comply with international law, whether treaties or customary international law, but the question of whether international law in its present state satisfies the conditions of the rule of law is a much more complex one.
I refer to the excellent foreword by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, to a recent Policy Exchange report in which he says that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on climate change and the litigation that it may pave the way for risks undermining the legitimacy of international law and the rule of law. Indeed, a recent study has revealed that a very reliable predictor of how ICJ judges will vote in a given case is how their home states vote in the UN General Assembly. Imagine if it could be shown in a domestic court that judges’ decisions could be predicted based on where they come from. We would have a rule of law problem.
We must comply with international obligations, support these institutions and continue to promote the international rule of law, but we have to understand that this remains an intensely political environment. The international legal order is still very much a work in progress and, like much work in progress, it can be set back by an excess of zeal.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am very glad to be able to make a brief contribution to this debate. I was not a member of the committee—in fact, I have always wanted to be a member of the committee, so I hope my remarks will not rule me out from consideration in future—but I applaud the report and the speech of the noble Lord introducing it. Incidentally, I pay my own tribute to Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who was widely admired in the household in which I grew up.
We are rightly proud of our legal heritage. As a matter of fact, earlier this afternoon we had a debate about the UK’s role in the space economy, and one of the aspects—–Members may not realise—is that, looking ahead, we very much hope that the UK can be a centre for international arbitration and the regulation of space, which is going to become more and more important.
I will direct my few remarks to that part of the report that deals with Parliament and its role in making the law. I was brought up to believe in the supremacy of the House of Commons and parliamentary sovereignty, but I am bound to say that my first visit to the Royal Courts of Justice gave me a very different view of the law. Given the eminence of the legal Members of the House here, I hope they will not mind if I say that my memory is of going to the Royal Courts of Justice with my dad, who had been elected for the fourth time as the Member for Bristol South East and was refused entry to the House of Commons—the only Member in the 20th century to be refused entry, having been elected. In the course of the judgment before an Election Court, which consists of two judges, it was held that the ruling of Mr Justice Dodderidge in 1626 took precedence over the electors of Bristol South East in electing their Member of Parliament. Noble Lords will appreciate that that shaped my view of the law to some extent.
The story of country and Parliament, and power in this country, over the last few hundred years has been one of progress and change from the power of the monarch to the power of Parliament, and now the power of a Prime Minister who exercises so many of the powers that a monarch used to hold and does so in his name. I would argue that the balance of power between the Executive and the legislature has changed, and to the disadvantage of the legislature. This is illustrated by that part of the report which deals with the issue of delegated legislation. It is true that you cannot do everything in primary legislation, but that is not to say that secondary legislation receives the scrutiny that it should. Our inability, in effect, to reject secondary legislation, much less to amend it, is eroding, and could erode in the longer term, some element of respect for the rule of law because Parliament itself is unable sufficiently to exercise control over it.
A few years ago, we had a debate in this House promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, about the use of skeleton Bills. It was a very interesting debate and I recommend it to anyone. It is true that, over time—I do not blame any one Government for it at all; I am happy to blame them all—the temptation has been to introduce legislation that enables Ministers in particular to have greater powers exercised through secondary legislation. Mention was made of the fact that change can sometimes be slow, but there is a pressure cooker building up here and I cannot predict when it may burst. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could address this.
The report lists 11 questions that the Constitution Committee applies when looking at Bills before giving its view, and they are all very good questions. I end by asking my noble friend the Minister whether she could give what I would call an honest assessment of the extent to which these questions are in fact considered by the Government in producing Bills. This House would like to feel that the Government are taking seriously the need for Parliament to be as effective as possible in its scrutiny and to have them exercised accordingly.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union.
One of the key findings of this excellent report is summarised as follows:
“Public confidence in the judiciary is vital for trust in the fair administration of justice. This requires that judges make decisions independently of bias and external influence, and that they are perceived to do so. However, the committee stated confidence was being increasingly challenged by political rhetoric that criticised the judiciary, and this was being amplified on social media”.
This is the aspect of the report I would like to talk about today: what is legitimate and illegitimate criticism of the judiciary, particularly the senior judiciary?
In chapter 4 of the report, in the section headed “Attacks on judges and the judiciary”, it rightly says that:
“The judiciary, as with any other state institution, should not be immune from scrutiny or criticism”.
The report goes on to say that, while attacks on judgments are fair game, attacks on judges are not. It particularly condemns attacks that claim a decision is based on a judge’s political views or bias. The Lady Chief Justice is quoted in the report as singling out
“newspaper articles about ‘outrageous judicial overreach’”,
and those which used the words “lefty” and “liberal”, and described decisions as “crazy”. The implication is that such attacks, which attribute political bias to judges, originate for the most part with the populist right, not the left. Frances Gibb is quoted in the report, as saying that, every so often,
“‘you get an eruption—often in the tabloid press—against judges’”.
However, it scarcely needs pointing that such attacks come from both sides of the political divide. I am thinking in particular of the attacks on the Supreme Court for the decision it made in the For Women Scotland case. Maggie Chapman, a Green MSP, who was the deputy convenor of Holyrood’s equalities committee at the time, accused the Supreme Court justices of “bigotry, prejudice and hatred”. We heard similar criticisms, if not quite so extreme, from Stonewall, Consortium LGBT and the Good Law Project. More recently, following this week’s judgment in the case against Associated Newspapers, the Duke of Sussex and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, issued a joint statement attacking Justice Nicklin and accusing him of a “complete and obvious whitewash”, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, pointed out.
I share the report’s view that, if the public are to maintain confidence in judges and the judiciary, there should be no perception of political bias. However, are such accusations always based, in the words of the report, on
“inappropriate, and often inaccurate, public criticism by politicians and journalists”
based on misinformation? Last year, Robert Jenrick MP, then the shadow Justice Minister, pointed out that over 30 immigration judges have links to open borders charities. He pointed out that one serving judge openly celebrated on social media the defeat of the last Government’s Rwanda plan. Surely this activity has played a part—perhaps a small one, but a part none the less—in the perception of bias in the decisions of the Upper Tribunal.
More pernicious are the requirements, as part of the process for selecting members of the senior judiciary, that applicants affirm their support for diversity and inclusion. In the Judicial Skills and Abilities Framework, against which the Judicial Appointments Commission assesses applicants, one of the effective working criteria is:
“Takes an inclusive approach to those with differences from themselves … Is able and willing to challenge inappropriate behaviour by others”.
Under leadership skills, it says applicants are expected to:
“Ensure an inclusive culture for all, irrespective of background”.
I am sure most noble Lords do not regard such requirements as political, but I remind them that Reform UK, for all its recent setbacks, is still leading in the polls. I suspect that many supporters of that party would regard these criteria as political. Do we not want supporters of right-wing parties to have confidence in judges and the judiciary?
The commitment that applicants for Silk are required to make is stronger still. The KC Competency Framework has five competencies. Competency D—
“Diversity action and understanding”—
requires that an applicant:
“Demonstrates an understanding of diversity and cultural issues, respects the needs and cultural wishes of others and is proactive in addressing the needs of people from all backgrounds”.
The indicators include:
“Takes positive action to promote diversity and equality of opportunity … Confronts discrimination and prejudice when observed in others; does not let it pass unchecked … Acts as a role model for others in handling diversity and cultural issues.
Is there not a risk that these requirements will contribute to the perception of bias, whether accurate or not? Take the requirement that applicants for Silk must take positive action to promote diversity. To some, that will sound like code for “take positive action to promote people who are not white men”.
The requirement to respect
“the needs and cultural wishes of others”
is, I submit, something of an ideological litmus test, requiring those wishing to take Silk to affirm their alignment with the principles of equity, diversity and inclusion. Note: it asks applicants not simply to tolerate the cultural wishes of others—which may be a wish that women should cover their heads—but to respect them.
It is worth bearing in mind that the latest batch of High Court appointments all took Silk before they were appointed. They all passed this ideological litmus test. Is it not wanting to have your cake and eat it to, on the one hand, insist that members of the senior judiciary should affirm their commitment to EDI at various points as they clamber the judicial pyramid—a contested ideology, I think it is fair to say—and, on the other, condemn journalists and politicians for launching political attacks on senior judges?
In 2024 the Bar Standards Board consulted about introducing a new duty to promote EDI in its code of conduct. That was rightly condemned by a broad coalition within the legal profession, including the Law Society. Surely the same requirement has no more place in the KC Competency Framework than it does in the BSB’s code of conduct. I was, I am afraid, disappointed that the report did not recommend its removal from the KC framework as well as its removal from the Judicial Skills and Abilities Framework.
I share the concerns of the report that critics of judges, and the senior judiciary in particular, should play the ball and not the man, but if we want to achieve that ambition, we have to stop insisting that the man affirm his commitment to a politically contested ideology.
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (CB)
My Lords, I echo other non-contributors who have expressed appreciation of the outstanding report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and his committee. I thank them for the very substantial work that clearly went into it. The wide scope of the rule of law, and the multifarious topics it covers, were well illustrated by the excellent speeches that preceded this one. I agreed with virtually all that was said—“virtually” being a cautious lawyer’s word in these circumstances.
The rule of law is not only an essential ingredient; it may be the most important ingredient of a civilised, just and peaceful society. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned in his speech, of serious economic value to people. The 2024 Nobel Prize was awarded to three economists who demonstrated that the rule of law and sound institutions are fundamental to sustained long-term growth. This is supported by a 2015 survey of more than 300 large international companies carried out by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, of which I have the honour of being president, and the Economist Intelligence Unit. The survey established that the rule of law was the third most important factor in deciding where to invest, behind the ease of doing business and a stable political environment—and both of those are strongly influenced by the rule of law.
However, the rule of law is as potentially precarious as it is precious. Thus, it is not something that has much traction with the average citizen. Ask him or her, “Which is more important—that the UK retains the rule of law or that England win the World Cup?”, and I fear that the latter might be the runaway winner. Particularly in a democracy, what the average citizen thinks is pretty important. We need to explain to people, above all the young—as a number of people here, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Laing of Elderslie, have emphasised—why the rule of law matters and what it can do for them. As the committee rightly records:
“Public legal education is a key enabler of a rule of law culture”.
Education in this context should concentrate not on high-falutin’ principles but on practicalities that non-lawyers care about. But education is a longish-term project, and we have to face the fact that, with a general election no more than three years away, we may be in a precarious situation.
The precariousness is all the greater under the UK’s unique constitutional arrangements. Unlike almost every other country, we have no codified, overriding constitution; instead, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said, we have parliamentary supremacy, which means that Parliament—in practice, the other place—can do what it wants. Any safeguard, whether statutory, judge-made or founded on convention, could be swept away in an afternoon by a simple majority of constitutionally challenged parliamentarians.
We do not have separation of powers. A Prime Minister and a Cabinet can often get Members of the other place to vote the way they want, which reinforces the precariousness. If an illiberal Government ever commanded a majority, remarkably little—by way of checks—stands in their way. If the rule of law can be trampled on by the head of the Executive in a country such as the United States, with its overriding constitution and its separation of powers, how much easier would it be to trample on the rule of law in this country? The flexible constitution that has served us so well for over three centuries may also contain the seeds of its own destruction.
I mentioned the relative absence of checks on the Executive. One such check is the Human Rights Act, a topic on which this report, otherwise very thorough, is strangely quiet. In a country without overriding constitutional principles, the existence of a statutory document that enshrines fundamental individual rights is essential for the rule of law. The indirect incorporation of the European convention into our law by the cleverly drafted statute ensures that fundamental rights are enshrined in our domestic law and can be reinforced by the courts but without impugning or impinging on parliamentary supremacy.
Although I do not agree with every Strasbourg court judgment and I believe that the convention could do with some overhauling, I am very much against withdrawing from the convention. If we decided to join Russia and Belarus in being the only European countries outside the convention, we would be undermining the rule of law in the UK if we did not have, as we withdrew, an equivalent set of human rights involving similarly effective, constitutionally appropriate judicial powers.
Talking of judges, I do not have much to add to what has been said by previous speakers, but it is essential that we maintain the independence of the judiciary at all levels and in all ways. As the US experience has again shown us, it is essential that we keep party politics away from the judiciary and the judiciary away from party politics. Judges have no democratic legitimacy and should be appropriately cautious about stepping into policy issues. Sometimes they are called to do so—as with the two Miller cases where they had to face a dispute between the Executive and the legislature. Apart from in such cases, they should keep out of political issues.
I have little to add to what has been said, apart from adding my fond memories of Lord Mackay of Clashfern. If ever anyone stood for the rule of law in an acceptable, coherent and attractive way, it was him. It is appropriate that we are having this debate in the week when he sadly died.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I have too little personal experience of Lord Mackay to be able to say anything substantial. But as a former church leader speaking to him as a wee free, we had animated and friendly conversation on more than one issue. At that level and in those terms, I add my own expression of admiration for, and enjoyment of the memory of, Lord Mackay.
I am a member of the Constitution Committee, the fourth to speak in this debate. We are restoring the focus. For a report of this kind to have generated a debate of this kind, with this divergence of views, is a tribute to the report. I thank all those who have spoken. I said in my membership of the committee that I am not from a political background; others around the table were. I am not from a legal background; others around the table were. So I must be vox populi—except that I had the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who never hesitates to be the vox populi himself. It has been, for me, a learning experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing, talked about being a member of a committee where she had as much to learn as to contribute, and I certainly feel that way myself. Indeed, I felt it was like a prolonged seminar. I remember signing up for a lengthy seminar series on 14th-century Icelandic literature in 1962. I felt then as I feel now: that the learning I acquired in the course of that has equipped me for life in all its shades and colours.
It has been a privilege to be part of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I thought seriously about adjectives for him: “genial” is one and “skilful” is another; the third, he will have to wait for when we cross in the corridors. The learning and experience around the table, the opportunity to have breakfast with the judges of the Supreme Court—things such as that have registered in my memory. They have made me, as an ordinary member of the public, far more aware of these luminaries who appear in the press, who have now become personalised by those simple events.
In contributing to this debate, I do not want to add to any of the substantive things that have been said about judges, for example. I want to fix my attention on solicitors. The Law Society sent us a briefing. It said that, in general, this is a pretty good report, but there was one point at which it raised a question that I will lay before Members now. We heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, a moment ago about the extent to which we ought to listen to and interpret things that come out of Strasbourg. I am a member of the delegation that goes from this Parliament to Strasbourg, to the Council of Europe. Just over a year ago, it produced the Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, or, in short, the Luxembourg convention. It was aware that across Europe—and we are not immune in this country—lawyers, solicitors, are on the front line facing people’s opinions, violence and abuse when things happen such as the 2024 riots in the north of England after the dreadful tragedy there.
Lawyers are reporting in greater and greater numbers that they are being subject to the same kind of popular, violent and abusive comments as judges. So we must think about them. I ask His Majesty’s Government and my noble friend the Minister, why, if we could sign the convention a year ago when it was produced in Strasbourg, we have not yet ratified it. Until we ratify it and take it into our own system, the solicitors it seeks to defend will not have the defences they are looking for in the protocol.
Finally, I turn to something rather more personal, and I make no apologies for it. It is a little story from my own life, but it is an elephant in the room that I feel I must bring into the debate. I mentioned it when we were with the judges, my friends—I consider them to be that—from the Supreme Court. I just love working in a cross-party group: it is marvellous, when we are so party-oriented, to have that opportunity, so I mentioned it there too.
My first memory of a court, unlike my noble friend Lord Stansgate, was not the Royal Courts of Justice; it was Llanelli Magistrates Court. It was way back in 1947, when I was five years of age. I was on one side of a big mahogany door—that is what registered in my memory—on the other side of which my parents were fighting out their marriage. A divorce ensued, and my mother brought us up—just the two boys—in one simple room for the rest of our life there. But I do not tell this story to invoke tears, pathos or anything like that. It is simply that, when my mother died—and I am going back home in a month to commemorate the 50th anniversary of her death—her estate amounted to one cardboard box of documents. One of those documents, which I had never seen before, was from my father’s solicitor. It indicated that, since his client had proved to the satisfaction of the court that my mother was the guilty party, he was writing to tell us that we—my mother and her two boys—must get out of the family home within a fortnight. That shaped and coloured the rest of my life.
I tell this tale for a simple reason. We heard about access to justice in the second speech; access to justice is one thing, but fairness for the people involved in that justice is another. Money enters into things at that stage. My father could afford a lawyer and my mother could not. She was the guilty party, and she was therefore obliged to raise two boys in abject penury during their formative years.
Let us look at these things in the round. Let us offer solicitors the protection they want, but never forget that glib phrases such as “access to justice” need to be quantified and measurable.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I am not a member of the Constitution Committee, but I was its first chair. I welcome the committee’s excellent report and endorse all the recommendations it makes. As I shall argue, it deserves a wide audience.
The committee provides a first-class analysis of the meaning of the rule of law. It is a concept that is core to liberal democracy. As the committee recognises, the basis of it predates the development of democracy by centuries; it is at the heart of the liberal part of the phrase. It can be traced back to the origins of the English polity and, I would argue, is recognisable in the coronation oath of the 10th century.
As the report recognises, in essence, there are two problems in upholding the rule of law: one is in the failings of the institutions of the state to ensure that it is upheld and, crucially, seen to be upheld; the other is a public lack of knowledge not so much of the core concept but of its centrality and the means by which it is upheld. The failure of public institutions to uphold the rule of law, be it through partiality or inadequate resources, gives succour to those who seek to undermine confidence in the British political system. This is exacerbated by the nature of social media and AI.
Two weeks ago, we debated the challenges posed to our system of government by disinformation, not least disinformation disseminated by bodies opposed to our way of life. Disinformation is a major challenge to a democratic polity. People now have short attention spans and often do not bother to interrogate the credentials of those posting claims online. We are generating a gullible society; the long-term implications are horrendous.
I argued then that the response needed to be not only reactive, countering disinformation, but proactive, ensuring that we have a population that understands and appreciates the value of our system of government—not just the way it operates but the values that underpin it.
As the report argues, we need to ensure that all those who are engaged in upholding the rule of law—the courts, the police, Parliament and other public bodies—do so and are seen to do so. We need to address both the resources, not least the physical resources, and the personnel, ensuring that those who are engaged in public life are appropriately trained, fully understand their task and are well led.
In terms of policing, I very much welcome the report of the Police Leadership Commission, chaired by my noble friend Lord Herbert and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. We need to ensure that the courts and Parliament do their job effectively and that each understands and respects the position of the other. The relationship should be one of democratic dialogue, not one of competing authority.
However, the key point I wish to make this afternoon is that these changes, while necessary, are by no means sufficient. Here, I follow the comments of my noble friend Lady Laing. The report concludes by stressing the need for public legal education. That needs putting within the broader remit of citizenship education. Ensuring that citizenship education is embedded in our education system is crucial for the well-being of the British polity. As I said in the debate on disinformation, we are in reactive mode in dealing with disinformation by malign agencies, but we must be proactive in ensuring that we have an informed population, understanding not just how the system works but why it matters to everyone. Citizenship education is an essential tool in restoring public trust in our institutions. That trust is undermined by how some public servants behave, but also by ignorance and a willingness to believe false claims spread through social media.
I welcome what the Government have announced about citizenship provision for 2028, and I welcome the resources provided by Oak National Academy, but the key point is ensuring not just that those resources are available but that schools have the ability—and the incentive—to teach it effectively. It needs to be taught by trained citizenship teachers, not teachers drafted in from other subjects. It needs to contribute to league tables. No school should be rated as outstanding or good unless it is delivering citizenship to the highest standard.
Citizenship education needs to extend beyond schools. It needs embedding in the wider society. We should be ensuring that what is in this excellent report, or at least a summary, reaches far and wide, to civic bodies and basically any organisation that draws people together. It should be required reading for anyone applying for citizenship. More challengingly, we must reach those who do not usually engage in civic activities. In many respects, those are the people we most need to reach.
This report deserves more than simply being debated in this House and then left to gather dust. We need to take it as a manifesto for action. The Government need to act on it. We have the government response to the report, which is welcome, containing as it does a series of actions to address the first problem I mentioned, though not addressing it holistically, and addressing the second, not quite as an afterthought, but in four short paragraphs at the end. The key issue is to recognise the sheer importance of problems to the health of our political system. There needs to be more joined-up thinking from the top, treating the issue for what it is: a national crisis.
Lord Moraes (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Norton. This is one of those places—probably the only place—where you follow a speaker who was actually on your reading list for constitutional and administrative law. I do not know why I feel the need to say that I passed—no distinction, by the way, but I did pass. I know that the noble Lord was a very young professor, writing at a very early time—certainly when he appeared on my list.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, talked about how this report was put together. I must be speaker number eight or nine who is not on the committee, but I am willing to see how valuable the report is because it does something very difficult, which is to look at the thin and thick concepts of the rule of law. On the one hand is the profound idea of what the rule of law is at the highest level, the Bingham level, and on the other there is the day-to-day stuff that people have to deal with, and which my noble friend the Minister has to deal with in her department: delays, access to justice, access to legal aid where it is available—the nitty-gritty stuff that people have to deal with, and have had to deal with for a long time, but now it becomes more acute and difficult. The report brings together both these things, and noble Lords have spoken eloquently about it.
So much has been covered. I will alight on one experience of mine that might contextualise what is happening here in the UK, to give some perspective. In the 2010s I was chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee in the European Parliament. I know that sounds very boring. Unfortunately, under the treaties it gives you formal powers, along with the Commission and the Council, to investigate rule-of-law breaches, or alleged such breaches. Again, that sounds fairly mild, but there is nothing mild about it. It required months of going to countries such as Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and, yes, even Malta, where there were genuine rule-of-law crises. Under the treaties there was an obligation to address and investigate those crises.
I want to give the House an idea of what the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, mentioned about saying that our system is broken and comparing it with what is happening in some countries. He did us a favour, by the way, by saying that up front. When you visit those countries, you find that there is a deep anxiety, even among those who support the Government, who may be moving to a more autocratic position. That is an important point because it speaks to the independence of judges from party politics, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, mentioned. Independence is not a perfect state for judges in Poland, Hungary or Slovakia. By the way, in Slovakia it was a centre left Government who were in crisis, so it is not all about party politics and the right or whatever.
In Poland I talked to judges, lawyers, community groups, businesspeople—anyone who was interested. Article 7 of the treaty was first invoked because of the crisis of the rule of law in Poland, which today is much repaired. They said, “Look, we feel very anxious about this”. Why? It was because the older generation had emerged from communist states where there was no independence. State judges, state police and state institutions are the very opposite of independence. So even those who wanted to move in a more autocratic direction were deeply anxious. For the younger generation, as both the report and the Government’s response have said, the rule of law is a live issue. It is about the economic health of the country, not just cultural and identity issues. They believe that, when their country is looked at in a certain way, it inhibits investment in, and a certain image of, their country. That is also important, and I saw it when I was in those countries.
We went to countries such as Slovakia, where there was a rule-of-law crisis because of widespread allegations of government corruption, corruption among judges, and so on. Investigative journalists were murdered when they were investigating it; it is real stuff. When you examine what is going on, you find that people often mention Lord Bingham and the Bingham Centre, and what they want and respect is a model that is about independence. They do not believe that would be perfect, and this speaks to the point about whether or not judges are party political, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, said. They want judges to be as independent as they can be—they are human beings, after all—but the issue is not to be overtly party political in their systems. That is the point, and that is all they were asking for.
In Poland, they did not want a set of judges who were pro the Government at that point to be replaced by a set of judges who were pro the opposition. No, they wanted judges who were as independent and as objective as possible. That would restore the rule of law, and it would affect the enforcement elements of the rule of law, the police and all those agencies that had been a real nightmare under communism—these were now post-communist states. Those were the lessons I learned, and they contextualise what is happening here.
To return to what the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, said about everything being broken, there are clearly issues that my noble friend has to deal with—delays, legal aid and all sorts of other issues. These days, the Ministry of Justice is not an easy department in this context. It has to fight for resources.
The rule of law is not some nebulous, abstract concept. I spoke to my son before this debate. I should not do this, because he has just finished his GCSEs and he really does not want me to talk about what I am doing in the House of Lords. I said to him, “You’re 16, you’ve just finished your GCSEs. What is the rule of law? What does it mean to you?” I regretted asking, because I thought he would just not answer. But he did: “Oh, it’s an idea”, and then he paused, as teenagers do, and said, “It’s rules”. Then he paused again and said, “In our country, we’re good at them”. I thought this was really interesting. In every country I visited where the rule of law mechanism was under attack, people cited the United Kingdom as having a robust set of institutions. There are some problems, but they can be corrected. This report, in my opinion, really contributes to that journey.
Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, and I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to our much-loved noble friend, the late Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on the powerful call to action that he and his committee have produced in this report.
Naturally I agree with my former tutor and noble friend Lord Norton of Louth that this is a major report, not just in terms of its 93 pages and almost 30 recommendations but in its significance. It does, as noble Lords and my noble friend have said, deserve a wide audience. In the few minutes allocated, I will focus on the conclusions and recommendations that relate to a section of society all too often regarded as insignificant. This is absolutely not a criticism of the report, but it underlines my point because, as far as I can see, disabled people did not figure in it at all. I am not suggesting that there should be some tokenistic checklist of protected characteristic groups who must always be mentioned, regardless of the subject matter. Rather, I would suggest that many disabled people’s life experiences would actually support some of the report’s observations, conclusions and recommendations.
I will focus my remarks on paragraphs 26, 49 and 50 in particular. With regards to paragraph 26 and the role everyone has to play in upholding the rule of law and the importance of our understanding
“what a society that displays the rule of law looks like in practice”,
paragraph 49 hits the nail on the head. It states that it is about the value system that underpins the rule of law. It is surely sadly right that, as the report argues, if the core values of equality, fairness and justice
“are not present (or are perceived not to be present) in our society, then the rule of law … is liable to be degraded and to break down”.
I give one pertinent example of a wheelchair user, dressed in a suit and tie, who was wheeling across Parliament Square only last month. Three teenage lads passed by; each laughed at him in turn, and one was heard to say to the other two, “Have you seen that video?”—shocking perhaps, but not unusual for this individual and, I would suggest, for many disabled people whose disability makes them look different. What was clear in that moment was that these young people had absolutely no concept of the values of respect, equality and fairness that inform the rule of law culture. Indeed, such concepts might just as well have been so abstract as to be completely alien to their thinking.
That is how far we have regressed as a society in the 31 years since your Lordships’ House passed the Disability Discrimination Act. That is how much the rule of law culture has been degraded, undoubtedly aided by the subversive subculture of ridicule and hatred spawned by social media, whose role in misinformation is highlighted in paragraph 117. Social media seemingly grants a licence to laugh at and, in some cases, to dehumanise other human beings on account of their difference. Being a Peer of the realm affords no protection from prejudice. I know because I was the wheelchair user being laughed at.
I also relate, as someone with a mobility impairment, to paragraph 50 and how confidence in the rule of law is challenged by perceptions of disrespect for the law, particularly when this is seen within those institutions that play a role in upholding the rule of law, such as law enforcement. I know I am not the only Member of your Lordships’ House who must wonder why on earth the police, for whom I have the greatest respect, are failing to enforce the law with regard to cyclists going through red lights and cycling on pavements, both of which pose an enormous risk to disabled people and non-disabled people and both of which are illegal. It would only take an inexpensive, well-publicised social media campaign, backed up with real penalties, rather than just warnings, being awarded to law-breaking cyclists, including those using e-bikes, for the public to get the message: this is the rule of law on the roads, enforced by those with responsibility to uphold it—the police. You have absolutely nothing to fear as long as you do not break it.
In conclusion, the judiciary is quite rightly at the apex of society; it deserves our respect. But surely an equally crucial indicator of how much the rule of law is respected in practice is the degree to which it, and the culture and value system underpinning it, are upheld in situations affecting the most vulnerable members of society, not those with the most power. The report may not mention disabled people specifically, but that does not make its conclusions and recommendations any less relevant or important. I thank the Constitution Committee for its work and hope very much that the Minister will show in her reply that the Government are determined to respond positively in practice.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, in this debate. In a world where so-called “strong men” are ruling with tyranny and anarchy around the globe, in total disregard of the rules-based international order, we should consider ourselves hugely fortunate to live in a country where compliance with the rule of law is still considered important. The Constitution Committee’s report is an invaluable reminder of the central part the rule of law plays, or should play, in the way our constitution works in practice.
Because the rule of law is so critical, and compliance—or non-compliance—with it has consequences for all of us, I am going to start at the very end of the committee’s report, which recommends a “huge improvement” in the way it is taught as part of citizenship education. That point has already been made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton. I am not going to repeat the points that they have made, albeit that was the first part of my speech—that is one of the hazards of coming towards the end of the pecking order.
I should declare an interest, since my Private Members’ Bill would require citizenship to be taught by trained teachers at all the key stages of the national curriculum. I will elaborate on why citizenship education is so important. Engaging our young people with the constitution will help to combat their apathy towards politics and politicians—a point that I think the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made earlier. Recent surveys reveal that they feel deeply disconnected from the political establishment, and that some are even disillusioned with democracy itself, feeling that politicians largely ignore their needs. Perhaps this explains why only 37% of 18 to 24 year-olds voted in the last general election.
Part of the problem is that, as ONS statistics show, there is a low level of trust in the political parties. This carries the danger that our young people will be drawn to a more authoritarian system and to populism, as is happening in countries such as the USA, the Netherlands and Germany, among others. This was the warning from the noble Baroness, Lady May, in her memorable Lord Speaker’s Lecture last year. One reason why there is scepticism about the political establishment is that parties do not keep the promises they make. As Lord Bingham said in his definition of the rule of law—which was quoted by the committee—Ministers, in whatever party, must exercise their powers for the purpose for which they are conferred. To my mind, that includes not just the well-known Padfield principle in public law but keeping faith with undertakings. Breaking promises undermines our democracy and leads to the political turmoil we have seen over the last 10 years, where the only stable thing in No. 10 has been Larry the cat.
There are many examples over both Conservative and Labour Administrations, but I want to point to Henry VIII clauses. Shortly after Labour came into office, we were told by the Attorney-General, in an impressive Bingham Lecture on the rule of law, that there was a need to consider the balance between primary and secondary legislation and the use of Henry VIII powers, since it raises real questions about how we are governed and therefore affects each and every one of us on a daily basis. We were told the Government would lead by example, yet—through no fault of the Attorney-General—Henry VIII clauses are “increasingly being … used” by departments
“to make policy that should more appropriately be made by primary legislation”—
the committee’s words, not mine. Governments, of any colour, who fail to deliver on what they have said undermine trust in our democracy, which is inextricably linked to the rule of law.
As we know, Henry VIII clauses can be used to amend primary legislation, but, like all SIs, they are subject to significantly less scrutiny than primary legislation. As we know, they cannot be amended but only struck down—but when was the last time any SI was rejected?
One is spoilt for choice in terms of recent examples of Henry VIII powers, but just look at those which apply by virtue of Section 54 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act. These are Henry VIII powers that are well concealed in other legislation by being applied via the back door of Section 54 to a vast array of new statutory provisions by virtue of amendments to that other legislation. Legislation should be clear and accessible, as we have heard.
This brings me to my last point, which is that legislation is difficult to navigate, even for lawyers, let alone laypeople. The fact that many Acts of Parliament consist largely of amendments to previous legislation makes the task doubly difficult. The recent Representation of the People Bill is a classic example of a Bill heaping yet more complexity on to an already hugely complex Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Again, the Constitution Committee has said that legislation should be clear and accessible.
To conclude where I started, we need to engage our young people with our precious constitution, combat some of their apathy towards politics and politicians, restore public trust in our political leaders and make the legislative process clearer and more accessible. All this would help enhance interest among our young people in citizenship issues, including the rule of law, and help create the political leaders of the future.
Lord Blackwater (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, but it is alarming that respect for the rule of law, once unquestioned, should be increasingly fragile, and that this vital requirement of our ordered and free society is under threat. If belief in the rule of law is eroded, that society becomes less free and less ordered, endangering us all.
This thoughtful report—and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and his committee on their work, and him on his excellent speech introducing this debate—mentions the most egregious problems. They are summed up by what has been perceived as “two-tier justice”. There is much debate to be had about whether those perceptions—of the police as enforcers of our laws, and of the judiciary, who dispense justice—are real or illusions. The report mentions crimes far too familiar, such as mobile phone theft, Rolex rippers and the epidemic of shoplifting, which appear to continue with general impunity. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Shinkwin mentioned that posse of cyclists around England, not just in London, who seem to think the rules of the road do not apply to them.
The “tyranny” in the subtitle of the report may, for the moment, be hyperbole, but the “anarchy” is brewing nicely. The report, as my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, has said, gives a very good definition of the rule of the law. However, to communicate the idea unequivocally and effectively, it must be kept simple. Let me presume to suggest what the decent, law-abiding majority of our people understand by the term, the better to understand how to reverse erosion of the ideal.
First, there must be a body of law that we widely accept. Such laws have authority if they have long existed as part of the common law, handed down by courts and accepted by Parliament and people; or, they will have been passed in the other place and agreed by this House before receiving the Sovereign’s assent. That process leaves, or should leave, no cause for complaint.
Secondly, the police must enforce the law with absolute equality. Respect for the rule of law cannot endure accusations of two-tier policing. We must not, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said earlier, prejudge the inquiry into the conduct of officers in the shocking case of Henry Nowak, murdered last December. However, many have seen the bodycam footage, which raises deeply disturbing questions about training and the attitudes and practices encouraged by senior officers. It is vital that these questions are answered.
Thirdly, as well as people having ready access to justice, the judiciary must be perceived to operate entirely impartially and not as activists—an accusation thrown at some immigration judges. The recent disquiet about lenient sentences for two teenage rapists, now reversed by the Lady Chief Justice, has highlighted problems with sentencing that ever more rigorous guidelines were supposed to have eliminated.
There is no evidence that our laws lack authority, but there is plenty that they are inadequately enforced. The public want blatant lawbreaking rigorously punished, otherwise anarchy will grow, as more people see less reason to conform. I understand entirely how difficult correcting this will be. Though financially overstretched, Britain needs more police, more prisons and a swifter criminal justice system, with more courts and more judges. Given the need to increase our defence budget, this accentuates the urgency of cutting the welfare bill to realistic levels so that that money can be found.
In my lifetime, confidence in the police has declined gravely. Stories of disgraced officers feature in our media depressingly often, whether extreme cases, such as that of the appalling Wayne Couzens, or the Walter Mitty chief constable who lied about serving in the Falklands. But there are other damaging perceptions. Something is wrong with priorities when precious resources are, for example, wasted sending police to caution people for being rude on social media, as happened just a week ago to a man in Chiswick, or when police are perceived as missing in action, as shown in footage broadcast last weekend of thugs fighting in broad daylight in the streets of once-sedate Bournemouth, with a drug deal being done openly in public there. Equally, as has been mentioned, people wonder why shops whose main function appears to be money laundering are allowed to proliferate in our high streets.
Our present Home Secretary seems a woman of ability and resolve. However, we plainly have some amoebic senior police officers, into whom she should urgently put some backbone. In that context, I was delighted to read the report on police leadership by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs, which I hope we shall have a chance to debate at length.
As we have heard, the Constitution Committee’s report mentions political rhetoric and social media criticising the judiciary. Free expression is implicit in a free society, however much some may dislike it. None of us is perfect, and, as the occasional revision of lenient sentences shows, this includes judges. But I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, that personal vilification is entirely unacceptable. The Lady Chief and the MoJ should reflect upon why judges are criticised and how better to obviate such criticism.
Lawlessness is deeply demoralising. It is also increasingly dangerous. A fundamental message should go out from this debate that the rule of law will fall into contempt if police will not or cannot make it their priority to enforce existing laws, and if courts cannot rapidly and effectively process the criminals they catch—and, if guilty, punish them in a fashion that protects and remoralises the public.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, there has been unanimity around this Chamber in welcoming the fact that we are debating the rule of law in the week in which we honour and commemorate a great upholder of the rule of law, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. There is also a degree of unity around the Chamber in welcoming the report and the work and leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who has enabled us as a committee to produce such a welcomed report.
What is the rule of law as it is understood in the British constitution? It is not the rule of lawyers and it is not the takeover by judges of the policy-making role of political leadership. It is, primarily, the mechanism by which the use and misuse of power are regulated. That applies to the use of power by the state but also to the use of power by commercial businesses on which we rely to deliver public services, and sometimes to protect us from aggressive neighbours. We expect a lot from it. As Lord Sumption has put it,
“the rule of law is a body of principles without which we cannot exist as a society because, in their absence, human relations are nothing more than a contest in the deployment of power”.
Although the rule of law helps us to safeguard democracy, the two concepts are not the same. It is at least theoretically possible for the rule of law to operate in a society in which laws are not made democratically. We had that with the suffragettes, for example. We had the rule of law for centuries before most people could stand for election or vote. If laws are not democratically or fairly made, the rule of law can become the enforcement arm of the oppressor.
However, there are those, particularly some in political leaderships, who see the rule of law as an impediment to the pursuit of political objectives. They resent and rail against judicial review of executive action, which they see as inhibiting the rapid implementation of policies they believe they have a democratic authority to pursue. But judicial review of executive action does not turn the judge into a policymaker; it allows the judge to determine whether the Executive have the legal power to do what they propose, whether they have followed accepted procedure and whether it is manifestly irrational.
In considering the rule of law, it is important to recognise that it sits alongside the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament is free to make whatever laws it chooses, and no Parliament can bind its successors. We do not have a written and entrenched constitution. The day job of the committee, as I sometimes call it, is to look at all legislation to see what constitutional implications it has, and to alert the House to dangers and constitutional threats such as those explained by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in the way legislation is constructed.
The belief that no one should be above the law or beyond its scope is fundamental to the way British people understand our democracy. I say that no one should be above the law because people are far from confident that that is true in practice. We saw that during the Covid pandemic, when the public were being instructed not to visit their dying relatives in care homes, while those who issued these instructions were having parties in Downing Street. “There’s one law for them and there’s one for us”, was the cry. The eventual fining of Ministers and officials for the parties was a needed corrective.
There was further damage to the rule of law during Covid, because Ministers and officials made statements which confused legal prohibitions with mere guidance, leading the police to impose fixed-penalty fines which were later overturned when they came before the courts. The concept of the rule of law suddenly acquired visible significance in the lives of citizens. I suggest that President Trump’s intervention in the matter of a red card being suspended illustrates how suddenly an issue will present the fact that observing rules and making sure that they apply to everybody is fundamental to the way our democracy works.
Governments need the rule of law. Often, they find it irksome or inconvenient, but without it, governance would become impossible. In words used by the committee, the rule of law is holding the line against tyranny and anarchy. Governments ought to be more careful with their actions and their words to support, rather than undermine, the rule of law, even unintentionally.
Too often Governments see laws as a way of signalling disapproval of actions or behaviour. Law defines penalties and punishments for failures to obey it; it is not a press release or a policy statement. Yet new laws are brought before Parliament on the basis that the Government must be seen to be doing something about an acknowledged problem. Even when there is no prospect that the new law will usefully add to the substantial amount of law already on the statute book, Governments say that “this law will send a powerful signal”. That is not what laws are for; they are to determine conduct and penalise people who do not carry out that conduct.
The rule of law is not simply a legal principle; it is a culture. It depends on acceptance that we are each obliged to obey the law, and an expectation that other people will do so. When one drives a car along the road or, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, pointed out, when one goes in a wheelchair down the street, it is a reasonable expectation that all but a few of the other drivers and pedestrians will keep to the law and observe the Highway Code. Otherwise, I would not want to risk getting behind the wheel or crossing the street. For most people, most of the time, it is not fear of getting a legal penalty which governs their behaviour; it is a culture in which we expect the law largely to be kept.
The Constitution Committee sets out in detail, which has been explained by noble Lords in this debate, the various principles involved in the rule of law. It is easy to see ways in which we fall short of these principles. Delays and backlogs in the criminal courts are appalling, and access to civil justice is restricted by delays and by the cost. Yet we have genuinely independent judges who are unbiased and not subject to control by the Executive.
We have complex ways of making the law—statute law, regulations, statutory guidance and common law—and that complexity makes it difficult and costly for individual citizens, so people depend on the voluntary sector of law centres and Citizens Advice, which cannot meet all the demands. We may have to develop artificial intelligence tools to help fill this gap. AI is already widely used to process routine legal work. Early legal advice can often avoid much higher costs in the courts and should be a priority.
What can the Government do to protect the rule of law? They should defend it and the judges who carry it out; they should educate people about it in ways which have been put forward in this debate; they should improve access to the law; and they should make better and preferably fewer laws.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for securing what has been an excellent debate. I join other noble Lords in thanking members of the Constitution Committee, many of whom are currently in their place. I must say, in a similar vein to the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who talked about legal eminence, that it is a huge honour and privilege to be speaking in a debate on the rule of law following no fewer than four noble and learned Lords, as defined by the Companion due to their previous seniority and renowned expertise within the judiciary.
At the start of this Parliament, the Government declared that the rule of law would be the “lodestar” of their term—words which commanded support from all sides of your Lordships’ House. But surely the true measure of government is found not in ministerial opening speeches but in the legislation that follows. With all due respect to this Government, there appears to have been a deviation from that very lodestar.
The committee reminds us that the rule of law performs a dual function. It protects citizens against arbitrary power, but it also protects society against disorder and lawlessness. It is the line held against both tyranny and anarchy. It is difficult to point to a better illustration of the first danger than the Government’s courts modernisation Bill. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition readily acknowledge the serious pressures facing the criminal courts. Victims deserve timely justice and defendants should not wait years for their cases to be heard. Surely constitutional rights should not be treated as administrative burdens. The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, gave your Lordships an insight into the potential power of AI and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, flagged digital technology to reduce waiting lists. Is this something the Government are working on?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, referenced the constitution which has served us so well for three centuries. The right to trial by jury has outlived centuries precisely because it represents a profoundly important foundation stone; namely, that justice is not administered solely by the state but with the participation of the public themselves. It is one of the principal safeguards against the concentration of state power. Yet the Government now propose to remove that safeguard for significant categories of criminal offences, not because the constitutional principle has changed but because a number of Ministers—purportedly not all—regard it as more efficient to do so. Efficiency is indeed a legitimate and worthy objective of government, but efficiency has never been the highest constitutional principle. If it were, many of our liberties would long ago have disappeared. The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, were correct when they said that the system is not broken. The UK is a brilliant country, but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, advised, a health check on the judiciary is a most sensible proposal.
The committee also reminds us that the rule of law requires legal consistency and coherence. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing, rightly proposed that people must have confidence that power is being exercised fairly and equally and there must be a widespread culture of respect for the law. Citizens should be able to understand what the law requires and why Parliament has legislated as it has. Citizens are entitled to expect that one Act of Parliament will not contradict another enacted only weeks before. Yet too often the perception is that the Government’s legislation appears to have been drafted in departmental silos rather than according to any co-ordinated approach to criminal justice or constitutional government.
When justifying the stripping back of the right to jury, the Lord Chancellor claimed that defendants were “gaming the system” by electing for Crown Court trials for relatively minor offences. The Minister for Courts publicly asked, “Do we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a mini-mart should receive the right to trial by jury?” But in the Crime and Policing Act, the Government included a section specifically to designate low-value shoplifting as a triable “either way” offence; in other words, there is a right to jury trial. If the Minister could clarify the Government’s position, many noble Lords would be grateful.
If the Minister for Courts believes that shoplifting offences are examples of minor offences for which jury trial should be removed, but just months later another Minister believes that low-level shoplifting offences are sufficiently serious to justify expansion into “either way” territory, it is understandably challenging to reconcile the Government’s position. Some would suggest that this is a Government legislating without a coherent direction on criminal justice and is a suboptimal way to uphold the rule of law.
If the courts modernisation Bill demonstrates one threat to the rule of law, the Government’s sentencing reforms illustrate another. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, reminded us that perpetrators are rarely held to account. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, mentioned disrespect for the law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, ended his contribution by flagging that the system is undermined if rights are not enforced. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, talked about widespread public disillusion; laws must be actioned and evenly applied. The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, highlighted a shop being robbed and nothing happening. The noble Lord, Lord Blackwater, summarised it with a laser focus when he flagged that it is alarming that the law, once unquestioned, is now fragile. There is an epidemic of shoplifting and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, reminded us of the posse of non-law-abiding cyclists all over the country.
Without wishing to state the obvious, laws that are not enforced or whose consequences become increasingly remote inevitably lose their deterrent effect. The Government’s new presumption against short custodial sentences rests on the proposition that imprisonment should become an exceptional rather than ordinary response to a significant range of offending. This means that some shoplifters who now have the right to a trial by jury will waste time and resources in the Crown Court, only to be given a suspended sentence and face no prison time—surely we should ask: does this make sense?
The committee rightly reminds us that the rule of law depends not only on citizens obeying the law voluntarily but on public confidence that the law will be upheld fairly and consistently. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities, and nor can legal obligations exist without meaningful consequences. The rule of law must be respected and non-compliance must carry a real expectation of sanction.
Public confidence is further eroded when, on those occasions when offenders do receive custodial sentences, prisoners who should be behind bars are mistakenly released. The public are entitled to expect that criminal justice is administered fairly but also competently. Under this Government, releases in error have more than doubled. At the end of last year, a convicted sex offender was released by mistake. The Lord Chancellor expressed considerable remorse at the individual’s release, promising to remove him from the streets as soon as possible, yet under this Government’s new sentencing reforms, those convicted of such a crime will not go to prison in the first instance. This raises serious questions. Is it a coincidence that the previous Safeguarding Minister resigned and has publicly called for exemptions to the Government’s indiscriminate early release proposals? Indeed, the Prime Minister in waiting has quite rightly expressed apprehension at the prospect of sex offenders being released early this autumn. It should be no surprise that, in the other place on Tuesday, the Motion from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition regarding early release was carried through unopposed and, in fact, supported by a number of Government Back-Benchers.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, referenced Shakespeare in 1584. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, talked about American independence in 1776. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing, referenced William Pitt in 1801. If I may, I will finish by referencing Edmund Burke, a renowned political thinker from the 1700s, who observed that society is a partnership not merely between the living but between those who are dead, those who are living and those yet to be born. This country’s constitutional arrangements are part of that inheritance. They have evolved over multiple centuries because they reflect lived experience and deep wisdom concerning the relative balance between liberty and authority. That balance is never maintained by accident. It is because the rule of law guards against both tyranny and anarchy that it remains one of the defining principles of our constitution. That is why respect for the rule of law is critical and must be adhered to, as has been so well put by many noble Lords today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin, as have so many of your Lordships, by saying a few words about the late Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Many have spoken of his career as having been one of exceptional distinction, and observed that he served this country with great integrity and wisdom. I echo that and add a brief memory of my own. I met Lord Mackay a number of times when he was Lord Chancellor and I was a member of the Bar Council. I say I was a member—I was in fact the most lowly and undistinguished member of the Young Barristers’ Committee, having been called to the Bar about a year before and being still in pupillage at the time. Lord Mackay was unfailingly kind and courteous to me and always asked me what I thought. It really was the mark of the man to notice the least significant as well as the most important. We send the best wishes and great sympathies of your Lordships’ House to his family. He is going to be greatly missed.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for having chaired the Constitution Committee during its inquiry into this important topic and for securing this very interesting debate. The issues debated today seem to take on ever greater significance in modern times. This has been reflected in the contributions of all those who have participated and it has been, as one would expect, a debate of exceptionally high quality. I am grateful to the noble Lord and the members of the committee for their thoughtful report. The Government recognise the growing public interest in what the rule of law means, not only in principle but in our fellow citizens’ experience as they go about their day-to-day lives.
The report rewards careful reading, together with the committee’s earlier work on the roles of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers, and on relations between the Executive, the judiciary and Parliament. These issues, concerning constraints on how Ministers act and how the different branches of our constitution work together, are fundamental to a healthy democracy and the strength of the rule of law.
In responding for the Government, I am not going to repeat everything we have said in response to the report, but I will highlight a number of key themes. I begin with the Government’s commitment to the rule of law. I want to make this Government’s position clear. We have been unequivocal in our commitment to upholding the rule of law from the moment we were elected. We recognise that this commitment is a constitutional responsibility which must be carried into practice. It requires, among other things, the protection of judicial independence and respect for the institutions that sustain democratic life. The rule of law is not merely an abstract constitutional principle. Laws that are fair and clear, and courts that are known to adjudicate impartially, are among the stabilising features of a functioning democratic society. They provide the framework which allows our citizens to order their affairs, resolve disputes, hold public authorities to account and conduct business with confidence. The Government agree with the committee that this is not something we can ever take for granted. Indeed, as other Members of your Lordships’ House have said, around the world we have seen that the rule of law is weakened, or even breaks down, when Governments act unchecked or judiciaries are put under political pressure. The Government’s evidence to the committee referred to what has been described as a “global rule of law recession”. In that context, vigilance is essential.
This Government have described the rule of law as one of the most enduring of British values. It is not uniquely British, of course, but it has long shaped the constitutional development of the United Kingdom and its constituent nations. Over time, safeguards for judicial independence have developed and the limits of executive power have been settled. Those achievements require constant vigilance, as well as careful and disciplined maintenance. The relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts is central to the health of our democracy. A strong rule of law depends not only on what statutes say but on the habits of restraint, mutual respect and accountability that govern the way the institutions behave towards one another.
Within that framework, the constitutional roles of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers—I notice that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has materialised on the seat next to me—are of particular importance. The committee returned to these questions, and the Lord Chancellor recognised the continuity between this report and the committee’s earlier work on those offices. Their responsibilities form part of the architecture through which the rule of law is upheld within government. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General have led the way in setting out the Government’s commitment to the rule of law—which started in the very early days of this Government with my noble and learned friend’s Bingham Lecture—both within the United Kingdom and on the international stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, observed that many of our fellow citizens are perhaps broadly unaware of what is meant by the rule of law, but it concerns us all. It is a subject not only for lawyers or constitutional specialists; it matters to every person who expects the laws to be applied fairly, decisions to be taken lawfully, rights to be upheld and state power to be exercised within proper limits. Anyone who buys a house, opens a business, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, observed, falls out with a neighbour, is entitled to trust that society is effectively and fairly regulated by law.
Against that background, I turn to a few of the themes that have been raised by your Lordships during today’s very interesting debate. I start with judicial independence. It is one of the clearest themes in the committee’s report, and the Government are clear in their agreement. Independent courts are of fundamental importance. They are a vital protection against overreach by the Executive, and their impartiality gives the public confidence in our justice system and brings stability not only to public life but to social and, importantly, business relationships.
The Government are concerned about the danger posed by baseless attacks on the integrity of judges. We agree with the many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Beith, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and Lord Burnett, and my noble friend Lady Andrews that in recent times we have seen a regrettable and intolerable rise in reckless criticism of judges. We see their impartiality being called into question and attempts to bring their independent role into the political fray. The Government are very concerned that abuse of the judiciary, on social media and elsewhere, has led to unacceptable threats to judges’ safety. The Lord Chancellor has spoken out against such attacks and has made clear his concern about attempts to erode public trust in the independent judiciary.
Judicial decisions will often be debated, scrutinised and criticised. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, that that is entirely proper in a democratic society. However, our position is that such debate must proceed with care, accuracy and respect for the constitutional role of the courts. The committee’s observation, echoed by the Lady Chief Justice, that this is a shared responsibility and that we are stronger together is an important one. I am sure we can all agree on that point.
Where the Government do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, is in his suggestion that the requirement that our judges and KCs have understanding of the principles of inclusion is some kind of ideological brainwashing. I think I may speak for many when I say that I am proud that our judges respect, understand and embrace the values of our diverse society. Our diverse society is not just about colour; it is about disability. I think we will all have been moved by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, about his experience as a wheelchair user recently. We understand that that understanding in our judges is how we preserve their independence.
I turn to the committee’s consideration of issues relating to legislation, legal certainty and the legislative process. We recognise that the rule of law is shored up by the approach that we take to the ordinary business of governing—in the clarity of the laws that we pass, the discipline of legislative practice, the quality of scrutiny and the strength of institutions. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel publishes materials and drafting guidance designed to ensure that legislation is clear, accessible and consistent. It gives further support to legal clarity by reviewing Bills to make sure that legislation is comprehensible, including to those who do not have a detailed knowledge of the subject. We also recognise and pay tribute to the essential role played by committees of this House, which carry out scrutiny of legislation as it progresses. That is critical to maintaining the integrity of our legislative process.
The issue of delegated powers was raised by my noble friend Lord Stansgate and the noble Lord, Lord Carter. We take seriously and agree that delegated powers should be properly framed and strike the right balance between what is put in primary legislation and the flexibility that can sometimes be offered by delegated legislation. The Government publish a delegated powers memorandum for each Bill that contains such powers, setting out the proposed powers, their purpose and justification. This memo, alongside the Bill, will be subject to rigorous scrutiny by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
The committee’s report highlights several important challenges relating to the maintenance of an effective justice system. These were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. These include delays in courts and tribunals and issues in accessing legal advice and representation. The Government are well aware of the scale of the challenge and are committed to reducing backlogs and improving the performance across courts and tribunals. Steps are being taken to increase judicial capacity. Working closely with the judiciary, the Government are also exploring the scope for achieving greater efficiency through the innovative use of technology across courts and tribunals. That includes AI-enabled tools for tasks such as transcription and document summarisation, with a view to supporting more timely case progression.
We also agree with the committee on the importance of a properly functioning system of legal aid. The scope of legal aid provision is under review. I reassure my noble friend Lady Andrews that there has been considerable investment in the legal aid system. For example, in response to the acute pressures in the housing and immigration sectors, the Government have increased fees in these categories for the first time since 1996. We have also increased criminal legal aid solicitors’ fees and invested up to £34 million a year for criminal defence advocate legal aid fees. The Government agree that people and businesses must be enabled to resolve disputes quickly and fairly.
On the subject of delays in the courts, the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, asked four questions. I am looking at the clock, so I will write to him and place a copy in the Library, as there are answers to all of those but I do not have the time now to go into the detail that I think he would want.
I turn to trust in policing, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Waldegrave, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Blackwater and Lord Shinkwin, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. We acknowledge that confidence in policing declines if there is a perception that the police are not consistently effective in responding to crime. This can be contributed to by a reduced visible presence in neighbourhoods and lower satisfaction among victims with how incidents are handled. Trust is shaped by how fairly and respectfully people feel that they are treated, particularly in the use of intrusive powers such as stop and search, where perceived disproportionality can undermine confidence among some communities. The Government are rebuilding trust in policing by being more effective in tackling the crimes that have the greatest impact on communities. The police have been successful in reducing knife crime, but we recognise that less dramatic crimes such as anti-social behaviour can have a corrosive effect on confidence within communities. That is why we have brought in a number of new orders designed to reduce this.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes that the term “two-tier policing” is used mainly to drive division and hatred. It undermines the brave work of police officers up and down the country who do their job, as they should, without fear or favour. Irresponsible claims of two-tier justice are not supported by the evidence and risk undermining confidence in the institutions that uphold the rule of law.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, all mentioned the teaching of the rule of law in schools. The Government completely agree that a healthy democracy depends on informed citizens. It is important to present the rule of law as a foundational principle in this context. Work to improve the education given to young people on these points is well under way. For example, the Attorney-General’s office has been working with the Oak National Academy and the Association for Citizenship Teaching to develop new lesson plans on the rule of law for all key stages, and new lesson plans were launched on 2 July. More broadly, the Attorney-General’s Youth Ambassadors Programme recruits young people from across the United Kingdom and plays an important role in ensuring that the rule of law is communicated across the United Kingdom and beyond in a way that is accessible, engaging and rooted in the voice of the youth.
My noble friend Lord Griffiths asked about the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer. I asked for the answer, and all I can say is that we are working towards ratification. I am afraid it is not what my noble friend was hoping for; I cannot give him any more than that at present. My noble friend Lady Andrews asked about the Legal Support Strategy Delivery Group. I am happy to tell her that it next meets on 28 July. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, I am afraid to say, turned the debate into rather a partisan attack on the Government. I hope that he and your Lordships will forgive me for not going into the issue of jury trials today.
The Government welcome the committee’s contribution, together with the further thoughts that have been expressed in your Lordships’ House today. We will continue to reflect carefully on the recommendations the committee has made. We should not take our courts and tribunals, or the wider constitutional culture that supports them, for granted. Events in other parts of the world show what can happen when public confidence in these institutions is undermined. The challenge before us is not a theoretical one: it is a practical constitutional responsibility. This Government are dedicated to ensuring that the rule of law remains not only a defining principle of our constitution but a lived reality in the governance of the country. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave: Britain is not broken. We are proud of the United Kingdom’s long history of respect for the rule of law, but our pride must be matched by vigilance.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and all those who spoke in the debate. I am particularly pleased that the Minister again said that the Government have unequivocal support for the rule of law. I never thought they would not have unequivocal support, but it is good to reaffirm these things. In that context, I very much welcome the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to our deliberations; it is a pleasure to see him today.
I was struck, early on in the debate, by something said between the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and my noble friend Lord Waldegrave. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is a long-term, well-known, political heavyweight bruiser of the Labour Party and, of course, my noble friend Lord Waldegrave is renowned for his intellectual integrity and great skills, and yet the two of them got together on this committee and agreed wholeheartedly with every aspect of this. None of us should be surprised by this, because the rule of law is genuinely universal. It is part of the reason we are here.
My noble friend Lord Blackwater asked why we are debating this subject. We occasionally do need to reaffirm the underlying beliefs of the rule of law and how important they are. That is why I also very much welcome what the noble Lord and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said. They joined this debate, saying that they had not been on the committee but felt moved to do so because we discussed some really important matters that needed to be covered. I am also particularly grateful to noble Lords and noble friends who talked about Parliament and legislation, and for what the noble Baroness said about legislation.
I said earlier that we are all guilty of sometimes trying to rush things through Parliament, but the Constitution Committee and some of the other committees in the House are ever vigilant of secondary legislation and Henry VIII powers being taken inappropriately. We all understand the pressures that fall upon government, but it is important that we safeguard our own integrity.
I will just finish by making a final tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who sat on the Woolsack for 10 years as Lord Chancellor, Lord Speaker and head of the judiciary. His integrity shone from every pore and I like to think that he too would have very much enjoyed this debate. I am very grateful to all those who took part.