Lords Chamber

Thursday 29th January 2026

(began 1 week, 3 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:08
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Babudu; Lord Blackwater
-

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the Grace Charles III, by the Grace of Charles III, by the Grace of God Charles III, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of our other realms and territories. King. Head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other our subjects. Whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create and prefer our trusty and well beloved Peter Bonea baboo to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Barbuda, of Peckham, in our London Borough of Southwark.

And for us, our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name. State, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Barbuda. To have and to hold unto him for his life willing and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the.

To the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy. In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the afternoon of the 16th day of January, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under year of our reign, by warrant under the King's sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I Peter Lord Babudu, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors according to
11:14
None Portrait Introduction(s); Lord Blackwater
-

>> >> Charles >> Charles III, >> Charles III, by >> Charles III, by the >> Charles III, by the grace >> Charles III, by the grace of >> Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of our other realms and territories. of our other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all spiritual and temporal, and all other our subjects. Whatsoever to whom these presents shall come.

whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create, and prefer our trusty and well-beloved Simon James Heffer to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Blackwater, of Great and Little Leighs, in our county of Essex, and for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Blackwater, to have and to hold unto him for his life willing, and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the afternoon of the 27th day of January, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's sign-manual. I, Simon, Lord Blackwater, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors,
11:19
None Portrait Oral questions: The number of fines imposed by regulators on England’s water companies in 2024 and 2025 which are yet to be paid in full
-

11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:26
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:29
None Portrait Oral questions: Extending the scope of eligibility for the Erasmus+ scheme, including to asylum seekers
-

Second.
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
None Portrait Oral questions: Reversing the decline in public trust of national politics in the UK
-

Other innovative ways. Apologies. Third Oral Question Lord Wallace of Saltaire. the name of the Order Paper.
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:01
12:03
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
I beg to move the motion, Paper. Paper. >> That this motion be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The content contrary, not content. The contents have it questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 27th of January Commons on Tuesday 27th of January on business rates Lord Livermore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here we are again discussing yet another U-turn when the government another U-turn when the government concludes after public outrage at an announcement that they have made and after some tardy reflection, that perhaps they did not get matters right first time. What is matters right first time. What is offered is not merely tardy but inadequate. It fails to grapple with the pressures now bearing down with the pressures now bearing down on small businesses across the country, especially pressure from business rates.

My Lords, it is essential that we look beyond the Treasury's abstractions and confront the real world consequences of the changes announced in the budget, and which remain even after this U-turn. Tina McKenzie of the Federation of Small Businesses has warned following this latest announcement that it simply proves that the government repeatedly fails to recognise the difficulty that small businesses are in. I could not echo that more strongly, Andrew Goodacre, the chief executive of the British Independent Retailers Association, went further, describing this change as a half baked U-turn and warning that independent retail is being flushed around the u-bend.

He added, tellingly, that he could not recall a worse policy decision, cautioning that this poor decision based is based on poor reasoning that will inevitably lead to more shop closures and so on. My Lords, the Minister has said that when he that he wishes to work with businesses and in the face of this negative and consistent feedback from these businesses themselves, especially from SMEs, it seems he has been unsuccessful in that aim. It is abundantly clear that the statement addresses only a small fraction of the economic damage inflicted on businesses since they took office.

Nor is the inadequacy merely one of will. The relief announced is by the government's own designed temporary. So it's a sticking plaster applied to a deep and structural wound. My Lords, one of the most persistent economic misunderstandings this government has displayed since assuming office is a failure to grasp what businesses actually need, its clarity, its consistency and its certainty. Businesses do not want U-turns. They do not want short lived reliefs. They do not want promises trailed in briefings only to be withdrawn or re-announced days later, as we all saw before the budget.

And this announcement exemplifies that failure in its entirety. And worse still, everyone in the sector is saying its inadequate. And if the noble Lord, the Minister, will not listen to His Majesty's opposition, he might perhaps listen to the Labour backbenchers. Jim McMahon and Stella Creasy made the point I am making in the other place. Just this week when Parliament, publicans, business leaders and his own backbenchers are urging a reconsideration. What more is the Minister waiting for? This is ultimately a question of credibility.

Businesses do not measure this by press releases or promises of future strategies. They measure it by whether they can plan, invest and survive. And what has been announced does not provide that certainty. It is limited in scope, temporary by design, and arrived only after external pressure became unsustainable. That's not how stable tax policy is made, and it's not how confidence is restored. And the truth is that confidence in hospitality and retail is fragile. We heard only this morning from Charlie Nunn, CEO of Lloyds Bank, that the sectors in question were having a challenging time.

So what assessment has the Treasury made of the number of such businesses that have already cancelled investment, reduced staffing or decided to close since the budget because the government has failed to provide clarity as to their intentions, and if the government truly wished to work with businesses, they must move beyond reactive concessions and bring forward a coherent, durable approach that treats the whole high street fairly and gives enterprises the certainty they need to grow. Until that happens, I fear this week's announcement will not be seen as a solution, but as an admission of failure.

The modest action on pubs is, of course, welcome, and a promise has been made to look at hotels. But will the noble Lord, the Minister, agree to look at rates for the wider retail, hospitality and leisure sectors before the next budget? Thousands and thousands of shops, cafes, hotels, nightclubs, cinemas and theatres are still facing huge increases. The combination of higher taxes and rates, extra regulation and energy prices for business four times those in the United States, is crippling these very sectors, and I do hope the Minister will be able to promise some relief to.
12:09
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. modicum of welcome that because the combined impact of the budget and business rates revaluation prior to this announcement, frankly left the pub industry on the verge of a crisis, with up to 50% of pubs under threat of closure now. So some relief has now been offered for many pubs, and I'm very glad that this lifeline has been extended to live music venues, which are the birthing ground of our very critical music industry.

But my Lords, does the government still recognise that the relief that it's just announced only amounts to roughly £1,650 per pub, which for many is still going to leave them in a critical financial hole that pubs with a rateable value over £100,000 are not eligible in effect, that restaurants, cafes, soft play areas. So many of those hospitality and leisure operations which lie at the heart of both our high streets and our communities, they get no relief from these changes whatsoever.

Sir, my Lords, I think the chaos that has surrounded the announcement, the review, the change, the uncertainty that's gone with it and the impact on the sector surely points to the fact that we need to stop trying to fix the business rate system at the fringes and to really take a proper step back and review the whole way in which business rates are structured. I would say heading in the direction of land value, but there's so much to be done around this area, and it's time that the government absolutely seize this rather than get into continuous messes that as attempting to ameliorate a system which, frankly, is broken.

And does the government also accept that the chaotic process that we've seen deeply underscores the need to include hospitality in the industrial strategy? Because at the very least, one would have some hope that that the effect of that would be to force Treasury to align tax policy with, presumably, the economic goal of strengthening our high streets, strengthening our hospitality and leisure sectors, and determining that they are a source of growth and not of constant crisis and constraint. That and until, frankly, Treasury gets aligned with that agenda, does he accept that we are going to have constant issues like this? And frankly, it really isn't the best way to go? Yeah.
12:12
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful to both noble Ladies and Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Kramer for their comments and questions and I think for their cautious welcome for what we have announced. The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe, in her comments, I think ignores what we did announce in the budget, namely £4.3 billion of support for those experiencing increases in business rates. The previous valuation, as she knows, was based on property values during the Covid pandemic, which meant rateable values were much lower.

And that did mean that some businesses, including the retail, hospitality and leisure venues that we are discussing here, are now seeing an increase as a result of this valuation. So at the budget, we announced three elements of support a cost of, as I say, £4.3 billion, which that neither noble Lady mentioned in their comments. We're implementing transitional relief, which caps increases by 5% for the smallest properties and up to 30% for the largest for any business whose value has increased so that they are no longer eligible for small business rates relief.

We're capping their increase, and we've expanded the supporting small business scheme to provide specific support to those who are currently eligible for the 40% RH relief. The noble Lady Baroness Kramer, said that the wider system needs reform, and of course, we absolutely agree with that. We've begun that we're reforming the business rates system by introducing permanently lower tax rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties. The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe said that what we were doing was temporary, but those new lower rates are permanent, unlike what the previous government did, and that is funded by higher rates on the most valuable properties, including those for online giants.

I would just like to remind the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe that the previous government's plans were to scrap the temporary Covid era retail, hospitality and leisure relief entirely in 2025. And yet now, she says that more support should be offered if they had won the last election, their plans clearly show they would removed it overnight in April of last year. They now claim that extend it. So why did they not say so, and why did they not include that in their forecasts or their projections? As I say, I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Kramer for what she has said was a cautious welcome for what had been announced.

Of course, we've been listening to the industry. We have now announced that from April, every pub in England will get 15% off its new business rates bill, on top of the support announced at the budget. Their bills will then be frozen in real terms for a further two years. Baroness Kramer noted that the support is worth £1,650 for the average pub next year, but that does mean that three quarters of pubs will see their bills either fall or stay flat next year. And this decision also means that the amount of business rates paid by the pub sector as a whole will be 8% lower in 2829 than it is today.

Baroness Kramer I think noble Lady Baroness Kramer said that the rateable value businesses pubs with rateable values over 100,000 would not benefit. But this does apply to all pubs and I think we should be clear about that. She also said and I'm grateful to what she said about it. Applying to music venues. Too many music venues are valued as pubs and many pubs are grassroots live music venues, so it would not be right to seek to draw the line so tightly. So to include some and not others.

The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe also talked about the structural issues that many of these businesses are facing, and she'll know that the sector has raised concerns about the way they are valued, and the government agrees. This needs to be looked at and is therefore launching a review which will examine how pubs are valued for business rates and will set out more detail of that review in due course. The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe spent a lot of her statement telling us about what businesses need.

I think what they most important need is stability. I think what they didn't need was the last government with the Liz Truss mini budget, with Brexit, with austerity and all the consequences that they had. Well, she, she comments on what we're doing for business. She'll know that under the last government, business investment was the lowest in the entire G7 and that since the election, business investment has increased faster in this country than it has increased in any other G7 country. So I'm more than happy to compare her record with ours.

She will know that we are pressing ahead with wider regulatory reforms to help businesses. She'll know that we are doing licensing reform, and she knows that we are looking at loosening planning rules to benefit pubs more generally. She'll also know that we are doubling the hospitality Support Fund with £10 million of funding over three years. The noble Lady, Baroness Kramer talked about the importance of the sector to growth and the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe talked about the challenges faced by the wider sector.

Of course, I understand the challenges that many other retail, hospitality and leisure companies are facing. We've already taken significant steps to support businesses, including, as I said, the £4.3 billion of business rates support. But over the last decade, as we all know, consumers have changed their habits. Increasingly, working from home and shopping online. Combined with the pandemic and the increase in energy costs since Russias invasion of Ukraine, these trends have continued to make it harder for high street businesses. So later this year, the government will bring forward a high street strategy, will work with businesses and representative bodies looking at what more the government can do to support our high streets.
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:26
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:32
None Portrait Debate: Impact of a new EU-UK customs union and connections with the EU single market on the UK economy
-

a UK EU customs union Lord Newby. >> Hello. >> It's a great. >> Pleasure to introduce this
12:33
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
>> Pleasure to introduce this debate today. The debate will see a. >> Number of comings.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Number of comings. And goings. We welcome Lord Doyle Docherty, Lord Pitt-Watson and Baroness Gill and say farewell to Lord Offord for Lord Doyle. The House of Lords must seem like a haven of peace and tranquillity compared to his previous domain in Downing Street, not least in recent days. Baroness Gill brings a welcome additional Sikh voice to your Lordships' House and Lord Coaker. Lord Pitt-Watson can bring a combination of business, academic and charity experience to our proceedings and we look forward to all their speeches today for Lord Offord.

We well as he contemplates pastures new. The wording of today's debate may sound rather dry and technical, but it deals with two of the biggest issues facing the country how to improve growth and prosperity, and what our place in the world should be in the current turbulent times. My Lords, I support the government in making growth a if not the top policy priority. Growth in the UK has stalled over recent years and this has led to a constrained real incomes, weakened public revenues and as a result, higher government borrowing.

The government's sought to stimulate growth through a variety of investment incentives and educational and productivity measures. But these have been patchy and, even if eventually fruitful, will in many cases not yield real benefits for years to come. There are many explanations as to why the UK's growth has been so anaemic in recent years, but there can be no doubt that one of them is Brexit. There are many estimates of the impact of Brexit on the UK economy, but they all point in the same direction.

Probably the best known is the OBR estimate that Brexit will reduce GDP by 4% over a 15 year period, that UK EU trade will fall by 15%, and that Brexit already has had a negative impact on the public finances to the tune of over £40 billion over the period to 2024. Recent research by the US Bureau of Economic Research suggests that the negative impact of Brexit has been much greater. What we do know for certain is that good goods exports to the EU in 2024 were 18% below 2019 levels and food exports were down 30%.

Inward investment, crucial to productivity and growth, has also been hit. House of Commons research has shown that FDI flows are well below the levels projected under Pre-brexit. Trends and research by the Productivity Institute has shown that post-Brexit, there are intensified regional inequalities in the inward investment that we are still attracting. Polling amongst SMEs shows that over half believe that Brexit has made them less competitive globally because of shrinking access to EU customers and disrupted supply chains, and things are not getting better.

The British Chambers of Commerce reporting just last month said that trade frictions were worsening. The reasons for this dismal picture are not hard to see. Increased bureaucracy, including customs declarations and physical checks, competing regulatory frameworks, staffing shortages and the inability of UK companies to participate in EU programmes which have not been replicated by this country. So Brexit has unambiguously hit growth and if things remain unchanged, will increasingly do so. In the meantime, the international context has changed significantly and not in a good way.

The UK Ukraine war has posed increasingly urgent questions for the whole of Europe, including the UK, about how it defends itself both economically and militarily against an aggressive Russian state. And for the past year, President Trump's re-election has led to a Catherine wheel of anti-European rhetoric and actions which have destabilised the Atlantic economic and security status quo. It's impossible to predict how the remainder of the Trump presidency will unfold, but there is now, I think, a widespread realisation that whatever happens, we will not return to the transatlantic economic and security equilibrium that we have enjoyed throughout the post-war era.

This realisation that things have changed for good and that a new policy response is required, has been articulated most eloquently by Canadian Premier Carney. Speaking in Davos last week, he argued that the post-war rules based international order has been upset and that new approaches were needed. He argued that sovereignty grounded in rules had to be increasingly anchored in the inability to withstand pressure, and that the key now was to build coalitions which work by far for Britain by far the most significant coalition which can work better is that with the EU.

The EU has responded to UK threats to NATO funding by stepping up to the plate on increased military expenditure. In the case of Germany, dramatically so, and in recent days it's effectively faced down President Trump by threatening retaliatory tariffs if he imposed tariffs on Europe in his bid to take over Greenland post-Brexit. There have been some who have called for a much closer economic alignment with the US and further distancing from the EU. If it ever was.

That approach now is clearly no longer a viable option. The only viable option in a world where Russia acts as a brutal aggressor, China poses a raft of security and economic threats, and the UK and the US is unreliable at best. It's for the UK to rebuild and strengthen its ties with the EU. There is a need for this on security issues where there's already considerable progress, but there's also definitely a need for it on economic grounds, and this inevitably means readdressing the issue of our membership of the EU customs union and the single market.

There are the beginnings of a recognition of this from the government, which is embarked on a so-called reset of our relations with the EU. This led last summer to the first post-Brexit EU UK summit, an agreement on a new strategic partnership with the EU, which covered a significant but limited range of issues including fishing, energy, student exchanges and food and agricultural products. Progress on these matters has been somewhat fitful, but the government has recently committed to reaching detailed agreements on all the issues covered by the new strategic partnership.

By the time of the next summit, which is expected by the summer, I'd be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that's still the government's aim and expectation. The government's also signed a number of trade agreements with non EU countries, which offer the prospect of increased long term trade flows, but sadly, the potential benefits from these deals are extremely modest. Indeed, it's estimated that the benefits of even the limited measures in the government's reset will bring at least twice the benefits of the UK India trade Agreement, which is itself by far the most significant of our new trade agreements.

And in our view, the measures proposed in the reset, whilst positive and valuable and not enough, nowhere near enough. Our argument that rejoining a customs union with the EU is now urgently required to promote growth has been accepted by some members of the Cabinet. Wes Streeting has made the point repeatedly in recent months, as has David Lammy, who argued last month that such a move was essential to reduce trade friction, and business secretary Peter Kyle has also turned his mind to the issue in recent days.

Early last week, he described Lib Dem calls to rejoin the customs union as utopianism and said that what gives me anxiety is growth this year. This gives me more concern than a customs union. However, he then went to Davos and said it would be crazy not to engage with the prospect of a customs union. My Lords, one hopes that he does now engage with the issue and hopefully on a more consistent basis. Keir Starmer has also said that he's prepared to consider closer alignment with the single market, but not to the extent of returning to freedom of movement.

My Lords, if all this is timid, far too timid in our view, it does at least show that the government accepts that closer alignment with the EU would indeed bring benefits to the UK. No such timidity of approach applies to Kemi Badenoch, who recently said that joining the customs union would be bizarre. It would, she said, make us poorer and damage British business and farming. Given that this is the exact opposite of what British business is saying, the bizarre thing is that she seems actually to believe it.

As for reform, Nigel Farage is promoting the idea of a free trade deal with the US as the answer to our economic problems, and regards even the government's reset as a giveaway, which he will fight tooth and nail. He at least has the sole virtue of consistency. Noble Lords will be aware that Liberal Democrat policy is to rejoin both the customs union and the single market, with the ultimate goal of rejoining the EU. Therefore, for us, the question is how we get there.

We accept that as the single market covers both services and goods, and that the UK's trade in services with the EU is large and in positive balance. Being a member of the single market would bring overall greater benefits than members of the customs union. However, we believe from a practical point of view it would be more straightforward to negotiate a customs union deal that time is now of the essence and that we could get started on it straight away.

We have to accept that the EU does not see the prospect of years more negotiations with the UK on these issues as a priority, and are likely to prove tough negotiators. They are particularly likely to be unsympathetic to any deal with the UK, which seeks to cherry pick bits of the customs union or single market, which particularly benefit us. And any British government is going to have to be prepared to accept this and explain it to the electorate. The seductive mantra of Boris Johnson, of having your cake and eating it was always false, and it would be a recipe for failure if we adopted this as our basic negotiating stance.

The EU, though, like the UK, is in something of a state of shock given, on the one hand, the threats from Russia and on the other, the new unreliability of the US. There is a new recognition that the whole of Europe, including the UK, must act decisively against these external threats and a new willingness to contemplate such closer working arrangements. There's also now much stronger and majority support for getting the UK back into the heart of the EU, and this is particularly so amongst young people.

This was recently brought home to me when, a few months ago, at the end of a school talk in Bridlington, one of the strongest pro-European, pro-Brexit communities. In 2016, I asked the pupils whether they agreed with my approach towards the EU. To my surprise and pleasure, a forest of hands went up. They clearly see the EU as offering new opportunities for themselves and for their community, and we should not dash their hopes. It is therefore for the UK now to set out a clear and unambiguous way.

It in a clear and unambiguous way. Its long term aspirations for a renewed relationship with the EU, and to prosecute that policy energetically and with urgency. The government has made a few tentative steps in the right direction, but they are not enough. Today's crises require swift and substantive action, and the government must now rise to this challenge.
12:46
Baroness Gill Portrait Baroness Gill (Labour)
-
-
This was the noble. >> Lord wish to move his motion. The question is that this motion be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. My Lords, I rise with some hesitation and a great deal of hesitation and a great deal of gratitude to make my maiden speech in your Lordships House. I am acutely aware of the experience. Independence of mind and breadth and depth of knowledge that surrounds me. Last Tuesday was a sublime experience for me and my family and friends. I still pinch myself to check it was real. I am deeply grateful to my supporters, Lord Kennedy and Baroness Smith, for their guidance and support over many years, and for the kindness shown to me by the Black Rod's office by Mr.

Ingram and his team of Doorkeepers, and by the Reading Clerk, Doctor Christopher Johnson. His flexibility in enabling me to take my oath on my mother's gutka, which is a Sikh prayer book, who sadly passed away just before Christmas, meant so much to me, especially as the first Sikh woman on Labour benches. It's been quite a journey since I left Ludhiana in Punjab as a child, with huge support from my family, friends, members of my party and the colleagues of Sikhs for Labour, I have arrived here.

My first home was in Southall, a rich multicultural area that is one of the beating hearts to this day in the London Borough of Ealing. Unsurprisingly given for many decades, it has been the first stop on many migrants journey into this land. This was at a time when busing children out of their locality was the norm, and I ended up in Watford High in Northolt, thanks to investments by earlier Labour governments and two super teachers who mentored me to go on to further education and to embrace every opportunity that came my way.

Hence, Southall is part my title as I too want to inspire the present generation of children who are growing up there and at my old school, that you too can dream and aspire to succeed in whatever walk you choose. My Lords, my political home is the West Midlands, and it's fitting that that's included in my title too. Now, my love of juries, known to many, especially ones made by our talented artisans, I first came across them in the Jewellery Quarter thanks to the Birmingham Assay Office, who had concerns about proposals from Brussels, which we worked together to mitigate.

I moved into Jewellery Quarter soon afterwards and long before it became hip and one of the best places to live in the country. It was indeed a rewarding experience with its wonderful restaurants, cafes and bars with excellent road and rail connections. A perfect example of imaginative inner city regeneration that I stayed there for over two decades. My Lords, I come here conscious that my experience is only one amongst many, but I'm hopeful that I nonetheless be of service to this House in the debates that lie ahead.

Over the years I have been privileged to work in three main areas housing and regeneration, reducing inequalities and Britain's relations with the EU. Having spent my life in public service, though with spells in corporate and tech sectors, have left their indelible marks on me. I saw first hand when I was running a housing association. The real difference a good home can make to a person's life. Chances in education, in health and employment. I am still totally committed to eradicating inequalities in all fields today.

Inequality can be experienced in several ways, including digital inequality. So how we succeed as a society will depend on how data is harnessed and how we manage AI to reduce its impact, amongst others in the creative sector. My Lords, Brexit cut my tenure of almost 16 years as an MEP. Short. As it happens this coming Saturday, January the 31st will be exactly six years after Britain left the EU. How regrettable it is to see the damage inflicted on our economy.

If I remain a passionate advocate of the project, though, my still my son still reproaches me that I was very much absent when he was growing up. Nevertheless, he has grown up to be a fine young man, working as a creative, as it happens, who cares deeply about his work and society. My Lord's recent international developments have brought us to a turning point in our relations with the EU. Not only is it necessary to rebuild the trust lost in the Brexit years, trade and defence must be our top priority.

Given that the world has changed around us and our approach to alliances must do too. I welcome that this government has signed a trade agreement with India, as has the EU on Tuesday, which I championed for many years whilst I was there. However, as the EU has been faced with new challenges, its instruments and procedures need to evolve accordingly. At the same time, UQ relations need to be more ambitious, particularly in the field of trade, defence and security.

Rejoining instruments from another era like customs union cannot be the answer. New challenges demand new structures and new models of cooperation. My Lords, I look forward to working together with your Lordships in this House in facing today's challenges and defending nothing less than the cause of a better life for our fellow citizens in a troubled and turbulent world.
12:53
Lord Monks Portrait Lord Monks (Labour)
-
-
EEA. >> EEA. >> My Lords, I rise to thank the Baroness Gill for that absolutely excellent speech revealing a rich excellent speech revealing a rich experience in many areas across both the European Union and localities in the UK. She's already made one significant mark on our work. I wasn't aware that you could have two locations in your title maybe. I'm sure there's precedence for it, but Baroness Gill has certainly established that, and I'm pretty sure that if the the citizens of Jewellery and Birmingham and Southall in Ealing gets to read that speech, they'll be very proud of their girl for what she's achieving on their behalf and on other people's behalf in this country.

So they'll be proud of her. And we're proud of her on these benches, too. She's going to bring, I think, a fresh perspective on a number of things on housing, on inequality, and perhaps on the EU as well, where she wasn't exactly on any party line with her remarks at the at the end, but a basic pro-europeanism I thought shone through very strongly. So we do look forward to further speeches to come, speeches that will again make us think. And I think take us forward.

And we've got a new colleague who will be a big hitter in this chamber. I'd like, just while I'm on my feet, to wish the other people who will be delivering maiden speeches all the very best for the future. And if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you do as well as Baroness Gill, you'll be doing very well. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, sorry. I'm not finished now. My Lords, I follow Lord Newby in a My Lords, I follow Lord Newby in a number of ways. Not always, but a number of ways, and I appreciated his opening speech in very much. In. I thought it set the scenes for this debate very well, and the scene indeed for the country more generally. I too, like him, remember vividly in the EU referendum that not everyone on the leave campaign thought that leaving the EU necessarily meant leaving the customs union and the single market.

The noble Lord Hannan I remember was amongst those initially who thought that and reference has been made to Boris Johnson's famous remarks that we could have our cake and eat it, keep the benefits and still leave one of the biggest whoppers told in that very bitter campaign. But now we face the reality hard reality it is to the evidence of the costs of leaving the EU continues to pile up. And I'm not going to repeat all the statistics that were mentioned by Lord Newby.

But just to say that goods exports are still languishing below pre 2019 levels. And I'm particularly concerned about small firms bewildered still by increased paperwork and customs related red tape. Nor are non EU countries filling the gaps. The new trade deals I think so far have been disappointing. The one with India, unfortunately, is not yet in force. Others, like the one with Japan, replicate the EU arrangements. Canada is more interested in a deal with the Is with us and the deal with Australia is very good for Australia.

But it reflects a desperation on our part to put some of Greek get some agreements over the line. As for the deal that deals with the US, as Mark Carney said at Davos recently, we're in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. Now, I acknowledge warmly that the US has helped rescue us and other Europeans in the past, but can we still rely on them, given the capricious behaviour of the present white House administration? Well, nobody's too clear about that.

So we it seems to me that this can be used in a number of ways, a number of opportunities, as well as a number of threats. It can be used to open a new chapter with the EU as we huddle together with our neighbours and allies, and try to make common cause on a wider range of issues. Defence is an obvious priority area at the moment, but trade should also be another Prime Minister. Carney's call for medium sized powers to come together should be heeded and used, I think, by the UK as a way to approach our problems in a new way, and we need that new way and we need it quickly and we need this reset of key relationships as the government at last are exploring, as the excellent Lords brief for this debate reminds us, the office for Budget Responsibility reckons that UK imports and exports about 15% lower than if the UK had remained in the EU.

Now that's a heavy blow to our growth prospects, and I live in hope that people on the other side of this House will begin to acknowledge that the history of our brief time outside the EU has not been good. It's been bad, and it's been failures in all round. And it was precipitated by leaving the EU. Well, I look forwards, not backwards. I'm not one to replay old arguments, but I do hope that the reset will be bold and wide ranging.

It should challenge those in the conservative and I guess the reform parties to to recognise the reality and that we need a new deal with the EU and perhaps follow up the Carney speech. Now there are four major claimed benefits of Brexit, as set out recently by the Conservative Party leader, particularly the freedom to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

negotiate our own trade deals. Well, we've. Got quite a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Got quite a. Time limit. Everybody wants to hear from responses. So I'll just finish with a couple of sentences just to appeal couple of sentences just to appeal to the other side, to open your minds and maybe open your hearts a little bit and recognise the little bit and recognise the situation we're now in, not what we were in, and take the country forward on that basis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward on that basis. Did you hear. My Lord, it's a very great pleasure for me. On behalf of these benches.
13:01
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Portrait Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative)
-
-
This side of the House, to congratulate Baroness Gill on her admirable maiden speech. She referred to her feeling intimidated a little coming here. She referred to the experience in this house, the depth of knowledge in this house. But I think from her speech house. But I think from her speech it was perfectly clear she was going to add considerably both to the experience and the depth of knowledge. And we strongly welcome her for that. She has huge experience in the European Parliament, as she said, 16 years there.

That is one area of expertise, but also on housing, which she was chief executive of a housing association. Her maiden speech was both eloquent and moving. She referred to her love of jewellery and I'm sure she will be a jewel in the opposition for a long time to come. My Lords. Of course, as was said in our.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excellent maiden speech and was said by Lord Newby. Of course, it is a good idea that Britain should is a good idea that Britain should seek to improve its relations with the EU, but a customs union is the EU, but a customs union is emphatically not the way, and quite rightly, the Prime Minister has said that a customs union is a red said that a customs union is a red line. Well, we just hope that it's one of these red lines that he doesn't actually cross.

Brexit can be and has been and was blamed by Lord Newby for almost everything. Ministers refer to the OBR, which is said to have said that Brexit has caused already a 4% decline in GDP. But of course, as Lord Newby admitted, what the statistic actually said was that the 4% would happen over 15 years, 4% over 15 years is, of course on an annualised basis, a very small amount, difficult to measure, difficult to measure accurately, and very difficult to measure accurately.

When the effects of Brexit, as the OBR have admitted, can hardly be distinguished from those of Covid. Energy prices or the Lord Reay, Lord Newby pointed out that goods exports to the EU remain below pre-pandemic Brexit levels in 2024, as he said they were 18% below the 2019 level. However, goods exports to non-EU countries over the same period were also down by 14%. So what do we conclude from this? That Brexit has caused damage to exports outside the EU? That seems rather improbable.

And over the same period, the UK's performance in services was much better and well above its pre-pandemic levels. The fact remains that the British economy, since Brexit, has moved largely in line with the larger EU economies. Italy and Germany have performed worse than Britain, France slightly better, France slightly better. As I say, Germany in Italy did not leave the EU and yet have performed worse than us. A customs union is not the answer. If the question is growth, there must be a different way and the customs union could do great harm.

There would be very little gain from lower tariffs because most UQ goods trade is already tariff free. If we join the customs union, we would have to accept tariff free imports from those countries that the EU had negotiated trade agreements with. But we wouldn't have the reciprocal benefit of being able to export tariff free to those countries. Our ability to do independent trade deals would end. We would have to renegotiate or cancel trade deals done since Brexit, the loss of the US agreement would be significant.

It is actually our largest single trading partner. Pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry sells 25% of its exports to the US, and enjoys free access to the US, while EU pharmaceuticals pay a tariff of 15%. Are we going to put this vital, important, hugely important industry in danger through leaving that agreement or having to renegotiate it? Alignment a favourite subject of laws of regulations makes sense for individual sectors actually wanted, provided that it is repeatable, changeable if conditions change.

Dynamic alignment where we permanently hand over control of our laws is a step too far and unnecessary. It's interesting to recall how the financial services sector, which we were told after Brexit must align with the EU to survive, is now, according to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recent reports in the. Order, order. Pleading, pleading for exclusion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pleading, pleading for exclusion from any steps towards alignment. The liberals claim a customs union would boost government revenues. They've suddenly, suddenly become followers of Donald Trump, leaving followers of Donald Trump, leaving that the word tariff is the most beautiful word in the English beautiful word in the English language. But a customs union would mean that we would be obliged to share our customs revenues with the EU. A customs union doesn't make any sense. The Prime Minister is quite right.

It ought to be a red line, and Gladstone would have been horrified at the stance of the Liberal Party. He would have called what we are putting forward the road to servitude. It makes no sense.
13:07
13:07
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Portrait Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)
-
-
The noble Lord. Lord Newby is. >> The noble Lord. Lord Newby is. >> Surely to be congratulated on his timely choice of topic. The his timely choice of topic. The hard fact is that both this house and the other place will be debating how to remedy the lamentable post-Brexit deal struck in 2019 for the foreseeable future. And I begin by welcoming most warmly the maiden speaker Baroness Gill who preceded me, and the three who will succeed me. What I do regret about the scope of our debate is its failure to address the single most urgent issue in our relationship the security relationship with the other European countries.

With Putin continuing his aggression against a democratic European country, Ukraine, and doubts over the attitude of President Trump on this and other issues, there is no time to lose on strengthening European security cooperation and the European pillar of NATO. The failure to agree the first step along that road at the end of last year was totally regrettable and does not reflect well on either side, most prominently in my view, on the European Union. And I hope the noble Lord, the Minister lady, the Minister replying to this debate will borrow a phrase from a previous Prime Minister of her party and say we will not take no for an answer and will persevere with our efforts to build that stronger security relationship.

Many of the items agreed at last May's UQ summits as part of a reset are extraordinarily welcome, and I hope enable the Minister will give the House an update on the state of negotiations and on the preparations to for the next meeting in that series scheduled for this summer. The veterinary agreement is clearly essential to remove the many sanitary and phytosanitary obstacles hampering agrifood trade in both directions. The energy agreements on our emission trading schemes and on cooperation over link interlinking connectors and the development of renewable energy projects in the North Sea will be equally mutually beneficial.

The EU's introduction of cross border adjustment measures a few days ago makes it essential that we avoid those sea bands becoming yet another non-tariff barriers to trade when we need similarity of treatment to prevent the diversion of imports into the EU and resulting damage to ourselves. A mobility agreement for young people moving in both directions would be a welcome complement to the decision to rejoin Erasmus+ and, should we might ask, baulk at the need to accept in some areas what is called continuous adjustment to changes in EU rules? I do not believe so.

After all, any British based company that trades into our largest overseas market, the EU is already having to meet those rules and there is no impediment to our having stricter rules than the EU. And I would ask the noble Lady, the Minister, when she replies where the consultation over rejoining the pan European Rules of Origin convention has got to. And when the government is going to announce a decision on that. I'll not comment on the issue of customs union because I don't believe there is anything like enough clarity yet on what that might entail to form a judgement, but I will listen carefully to those who, in this debate, are supporters of going down that road.

Now, my Lords, it is often said by commentators that the EU does not rate the reset of the UQ relationship as being very high among its crowded order of priorities. No doubt there's some truth in that, but it's not the whole truth. The changes in geopolitical circumstances since the referendum in 2016 have all made it more necessary to build a solid new post-Brexit relationship capable of greater load bearing than the one agreed in 2019. What's essential is that we show a firmness of purpose and a restoration of trust, and do not repeat the errors of earlier years by squabbling amongst ourselves over the details of the way ahead.
13:11
Lord Docherty of Milngavie Portrait Lord Docherty of Milngavie (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I begin by thanking Black Rod Garter, the thanking Black Rod Garter, the clerk, the Doorkeepers and all the staff of this House for the kindness they have shown me since kindness they have shown me since joining. Can I thank my noble Lords from every side who have, without exception, made me feel so welcome? I would like to thank my supporters, Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top and Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay for their encouragement and support, and to Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark.

Thanks to them for the thoughtfulness they have both shown towards me. My Lords, I grew up in a small suburb of Glasgow which few people have heard of and even fewer can pronounce. I studied at Strathclyde University, but it was at school where my interest in politics first developed. I attended Saint Ninian's High School, Kirkintilloch, and while my favourite subject was art, I vividly recall a young teacher in my third year guidance class who was at pains to emphasise the importance of democracy.

Indeed, that teacher created an election just to show us how democracy worked, which is the first time I stood for election. When it was time to vote, the teacher stood at the front of the class behind an improvised ballot box, and we lined up to vote. My opponent happened to be in front of me and as he cast his ballot, turned round to tell me that because there were only two of us on the ballot, he felt the right thing to do was to vote for me.

My Lords, I'm embarrassed to admit I also thought the right thing to do was to vote for me. And I won by one vote. After university, I began a career in banking, specialising in real estate and public private partnerships, and in 1997 I was seconded to work for the incoming Labour Government on their regional development policy. I left the city in 2002 and moved to Newcastle upon Tyne, which is my adopted home. It is where I met my husband and where our children are growing up.

Since then, my work has involved almost every aspect of economic development, principally in the North East of England. It is a challenge to persuade private capital, which has a choice to regions which have historically lower levels of accumulated wealth, capital formation and economic growth, accelerating growth in our regions is essential, which is not to argue for slower growth in London and the South East, although London and the South East should irrigate and not drain. Which brings me to this debate, my Lords.

I was interested to hear the noble Lord Hannan discussed last week the symbolism of the woolsack and the centrality of business and wealth creation to the wellbeing and functioning of the state. I could not agree more. If only economic growth could be delivered by certainty of view alone, if one relies not on self-belief, but on evidence and fact, then one can only conclude that the decision to leave the customs union has been nothing other than an unmitigated disaster for UK business, for our economy and for the Exchequer, upon which the health of our public services depend.

If I can draw together my start in the classroom where I cast my first vote to today. My Lords, there is a common factor on each beyond my own involvement. My Lords, the energetic young teacher in whose class I first stood for election was then called Mr. McFall, better known to my noble Lords as Lord McFall of Alcluith a Lord Spellar. My Lords, it would have been beyond the comprehension of my teenage self to imagine I would, 43 years later, be introduced to this house at all, and never mind to be welcomed by Lord McFall.

His lifetime of public service is an inspiration, my Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in an infinitely more modest way, I am grateful to be given this opportunity to serve. Here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. follow. The noble Lord Lord Docherty of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord Lord Docherty of Milngavie, and. Congratulate him on his excellent and witty speech, and excellent and witty speech, and welcome him to your Lordships House, where he will no longer have to depend on the votes of his depend on the votes of his opponents, or indeed of anybody else, to retain his seat. Noble Lords been modest, very modest in his speech, and didn't mention his professional career as chief executive of the Tees Valley Regeneration and executive director of the home Group, one of the biggest UK social enterprises.

He also mentioned, but I'm sure we will hear more of it. I look forward to hearing more of it in future speeches. About his passion
13:17
13:17
13:17
Lord Lilley Portrait Lord Lilley (Conservative)
-
-
He was also a trustee of the Arts Council England. Finally, My Lords, in an interview he gave last year, in an interview he gave last year, he said what gives me joy is when I've been involved in recruiting people who've gone on to excel and people who've gone on to excel and grow in their roles. He has obviously excelled and grown in his roles up to now and will continue to do so. No doubt in your Lordships House. Yeah, my Lords, as far as trade relations are concerned, Britain is to the EU, much as Canada is to the United States of America.

We both have free trade agreements with zero tariffs and zero quotas with our large continental neighbour. Now the Britain or Canada has a customs union or a single market requiring them to adopt the tariffs and all the product laws and standards of their large neighbour. Yet I know of no Canadians who even pre-trump ever advocated Canada joining a customs union, still less dynamically aligning its laws and standards with those of America. Can the noble Lord Newby tell us why a customs union or single market is good for Britain, but would be bad for Canada or vice versa? Why did he not tell us that a customs union would require Britain to reinstate the over 2000 tariffs on goods we don't produce, which we abolished when we left the EU? Why should British consumers pay higher prices to protect inefficient EU producers? An example since Brexit, we allow tariff free quota of sugar, which costs $449 a tonne coming from Brazil.

Back in the customs union, it cost us $892 per tonne from France. Vote Lib Dems for higher prices A customs union would also mean scrapping our trade agreements with the Pacific Trade Pact, the largest grouping by GDP in the world, and with India, the largest country by population and with whom our trade deal has important service industry chapters. The sole benefit of a customs union is that it avoids the need for declarations of origin. The Swiss calculate that these costs less than 0.02% of the value of their trade with Europe, hence Switzerland, like Norway and Iceland, refuses to join the EU customs union.

Turkey does have a customs union with the EU, but that means that when the EU negotiates a free trade deal with the other countries, Turkey has to remove its tariffs on that other country's goods. But that other country does not have to remove its tariffs on Turkey's goods. Is that what the Lib Dems want? I was the trade and industry secretary who oversaw Britain's entry into and creation of the open market back in 1992, and I assumed it would benefit our trade.

I also negotiated the Uruguay trade round, the last successful World trade Agreement which halved tariffs and created the WTO. I made bullish speeches about how both of these, particularly the single market, would boost British exports. A quarter of a century later, a study showed how British exports had actually fared. I confess, my Lords, it proved I had been wrong. Britain's goods exports to the single market stagnated over nearly 25 years, growing by less than 1% a year. By contrast, our goods exports to over 100 countries with whom we traded solely on WTO terms grew four times as much by 87%.

My Lords, I've long been at a loss to explain why anyone should want to return to a relationship with our former partners, which was of so little benefit to us and would involve handing back control of our laws, our tariffs, and paying for the privilege of doing so. But a psycho therapist friend explained to me that people who've escaped from a long term coercive relationship often have an irrational urge to return to the partner who controlled their lives, dictated how they spend, made them subdued to detailed and unnecessary rules, and restricted their relationships with anyone else.

I think we should be understanding of the noble Lord. Newby and indeed the government's trade and industry European Minister, as they endeavour to recover from this. This syndrome, and gently point out that others who once succumbed to coercive control from the EU, like the National Farmers Union, now warn against returning to the ban on gene edited crops on bovine TB, TB vaccines and ending the ban on live animal exports. And the city now wants to be excluded from any reset and has allegedly, according to the Financial Times, persuaded the government that that would be right and the AI industry rejoices in escaping from the stifling controls of EU law.

I wish the Lib Dems and their friends on the Labour benches a speedy recovery from their addiction to coercive control. My Lords.
13:22
Lord Razzall Portrait Lord Razzall (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Having listened to no Lord Lilley in the past, I'm sure you will accept that. I don't agree with much of what he said. I mean, the context in which we're discussing this to me is the obvious failure of the Brexit project. I take note Lord Lamont's comments about the the 4% of OBR spread over a period, but I would prefer to look at the recent figures from the National Bureau of Economic Research, well respected American organisation that says the cost to us of Brexit has been between 6 and 8%, which aggregating something like £95 billion of our OBR.

But I think the other thing that's worth commenting on that nobody has made, and unfortunately, the noble Lord Gove has now left the chamber. But one of the things that Brexit entrenched the debate entrenched in our culture, is that lying is all right. Political lying is all right. Where is the money? We were promised on the side of the bus for the NHS? Where, where, where are all the Turkish immigrants we were promised we were going to have with emails that were sent to people in the last two weeks of the campaign.

This to me, has been the absolute zenith of or even Nadir, zenith of lies and nadir of results. Now I take the point that has been made about trade deals, that some trade deals have been entered into. But of course, most of the trade deals that were entered into by the new regime were simply snow picking out EU and substituting UK in in in those trade deals and the major ones, Lord Lilley referred to the CCTV, but the estimate of the impact of the CPTPP on our trade deals is infinitely less than the cost of losing the opportunities that we had with the European Union.

Now, I don't know if our friends in the Labour Party referred to by Lord include the Prime Minister, who clearly from May 19th, 2025, indicated that he wanted to reset our arrangements with the European Union, that this has not been terribly successful so far. Obviously, obviously there's progress on Erasmus has been good, but we've failed. We've pulled out of the attempts to participate in the 150 billion defence fund. We have not been able to deal with the internal electricity market, which we thought we would be able to do.

And the fight, as somebody mentioned earlier over there, the phytosanitary product agreement, which we hope that we would get, has not yet happened. Now we've been asked to say what we mean by a customs union. Now, Al Pinkerton, the MP, ironically for Surrey Heath, who replaced the noble Lord Gove, argued for a bespoke customs union deal with the EU, not including agriculture, with consultation on all trade deals. It should be a bespoke deal. And he proposed that bill in the House of Commons, and it went through, with some Labour people supporting him.

It won't get into legislation, but it did pass. Turkey has had that arrangement since 1995. Why can't we have it? Yeah, yeah. Hold on.
13:27
Lord Doyle Portrait Lord Doyle (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> I rise for my. >> Maiden speech with a real sense of the responsibility that comes with joining a body so rich in experience, expertise and public service. As your Lordships House, I want to thank Black Rod and the indefatigable Doorkeepers, the police and security officers, the clerks and officials, and everyone who has made me feel so welcome. My thanks to Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top and the Lord Liddle for their support and guidance, not only at my introduction, but over many years.

And I pay tribute to my fellow maiden speakers today. I'm profoundly grateful that my parents are here today. When I say that I wouldn't be here without them. I don't just mean that scientifically. They taught me so much above all, that every single individual can make a difference. And when you're born into that way of being, it really is a gift. I would also like to remember my sister Catherine, who we lost over 30 years ago, and we still miss her every single day.

Catherine was born with down syndrome, and though she did not live to see it, the progress that has been made in healthcare, in opportunities and visibility for people living with Down's, really has been wonderful to witness. And my journey here began at the University of East Anglia, joining the Labour Club and meeting and inspiring Dean of biology doctor Ian Gibson, who was Labour's candidate for Norwich North. One day they asked for a volunteer press officer. Cue awkward shoegazing around me and then suddenly I found my hand in the air.

Little did I know that I would spend the next three decades at the intersection of politics, media and public service. And I may have worked for some famous names in that time, but the real privilege I've had has been helping to tell the stories of those who've been left out and left behind, both at home and abroad. I want to pay tribute to and thank all the colleagues that I've worked with over those years, many of whom are now here in this house, including my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Smith of Basildon, who I thank for all their guidance and support thus far.

I also want to remember two former members of this House, in particular, the Lord Gould of Brookwood and Baroness McDonagh, both of whom were remarkable inspirations for me. I chose Great Barford for my introduction. It's where my sister and I were born, and this is an exciting time for Bedfordshire with East West Rail, the new Universal Studios theme park and at Tempsford, a new town. I intend to champion these projects and more because Britain needs to stop prevaricating and start building growth is not an abstract theory, but an expression of our responsibility to future generations.

Now, one of the privileges I had growing up in Bedfordshire was a fantastic free county youth music programme. The inspiring teaching gave me opportunities I could never have imagined, including the chance to sing at the Royal Albert Hall. Fortunately for the audience, I sang with several other young hundred young people as well. But somewhere along the way, we seem to have lost the consensus that the arts, music, film, theatre, dance matter as an essential means of developing content.

Confident, creative and capable citizens. And so I very much hope the government's curriculum review will mark a decisive turning point in rebuilding a shared understanding that creativity, culture and learning are key to what makes life worth living, as well as essential drivers of our national success. And it's my belief in the creative industries that made me so keen to make my maiden speech. In this debate on our relations with Europe, there is much we can do to reduce self-defeating barriers post-Brexit.

Take the example of touring artists and crews. For them, those barriers are not an abstract concept, but lost work, lost income and lost opportunity. My Lords, this does not have to be our reality. Let's fix the visa waiver programme. Flex the 90 day rule for those touring. Cut the costs to make moving equipment less expensive, and which has also done such harm to our haulage industry. As Sir Elton John put it, it's heartbreaking to see the hopes of Britain's next generation of creative talent, downtrodden and destroyed by bureaucracy and red tape.

My Lords, when I nervously collected my first parliamentary pass almost 30 years ago, I could not possibly have imagined that one day I would stand here as a member of your Lordships House. I've learnt so much over my career, but I've never lost sight of that simple lesson. My parents taught me that change is made by people, and that the world does not improve by chance. Government matters because it gives individual effort, collective backing. It allows values to be translated into action and hope into reality.

And as we consider our future relationship with Europe, we must recommit ourselves to the values we share dignity, respect, democracy and the rule of law. Because even in these times, especially in these times, I believe that when we choose purpose over complacency and cooperation over conflict, progress is possible. Thank you. EEA.
13:33
Lord Liddle Portrait Lord Liddle (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, my Lords. It's a great pleasure to welcome my new colleagues who are making their maiden speech today. Baroness Gill Lord Docherty. My good friend, who is to come later, and Matthew Doyle, who is a very close friend, who from whom we've just heard an excellent maiden speech. I think I first came across Matthew 30 years first came across Matthew 30 years ago. It was when he was had just arrived in Westminster and was working for the newly elected Labour MPs for East Anglia, and he was so keen on this job and he was homeless and he camped out in Charles Clerk's office while he sorted out his personal affairs.

And he always had that trademark. And I think it's he's kept it. He's he's the man with the duffel coat. He always reminds me whenever I see him of Paddington Bear. And of course, in a way that's appropriate because he is a man of great culture. I've, in fact, I think a sort of real expert on film. And I think that he will bring great wisdom on cultural questions to this house. Of course, in the last 30 years since I first met him, he's done a great variety of very interesting things.

He's worked intimately with the most consequential, some of the most consequential people on the centre left of British politics. First for Tony Blair in number ten and then in his role as Middle East peace envoy, then for David Miliband, Labour's lost leader. Who who in his role with the International Rescue Committee, and finally, Keir Starmer. Now he wasn't working for Keir Starmer, he wasn't one of the fast rotating group of people who've been in and out of number ten.

He was actually a crucial aide and I don't know how many people know this, but he sustained Keir Starmer at was what was the most deepest crisis point of his leadership of the Labour Party after the loss of the Hartlepool by election in 2021, when he worked in the Batley and Spen by election, he persuaded Kim Kim Leadbeater, Jo Cox's sister, to be our candidate and we squeezed home by 300 votes and that's probably one of the most consequential acts of his of his political career.

He's in his three days of decades of politics. He's shown outstanding loyalty to the bosses. He's worked for. He is a very considerable person. He's a man of faith who struggled with some of his inner tensions and conflicts and overcome them. And he brings to this house much more than the experience of a press officer, but someone who's well informed across a wide range of national and international issues, who is a committed, lifelong social Democrat.

And he's going to make a great contribution to this House. Now, on the subject of the debate, I won't delay the House long. Could I just say this? I have a great respect for Lord Lilley intellect, but I've never heard such rubbish on the never heard such rubbish on the question of Europe. He referred to the his role in the Uruguay Round. Let me remind him it was the European Commission that negotiated the Uruguay Round. It was the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

European Commission. It was jointly negotiated by member states and the European member states and the European Commission. I was there for all nine days of the negotiations in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the stadium. So he's wrong. Do you know why we won the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do you know why we won the Uruguay round? Because we have the strength of the of the bloc, of the strength of the of the bloc, of the European Union behind us. And it is not just something that Britain achieved on its own. Secondly, he talks about the stagnation in our export of goods and completely ignores the vast expansion of our trade in services with the European Union, which is being put at risk by increasing barriers.

He neglects the fact that in 2016, the British public were promised a growth miracle as a result of leaving the EU. Where are the benefits of all those loosening of rules that were supposed to happen? And we were promised the end of free movement. And you know what the Conservatives did? They went on to to create the biggest inward movement of people into this country we've ever seen. So what hypocrisy. They've talked on immigration. And, you know, if we'd stayed in the single market, if we'd stayed in Europe, the growth we would have seen as a result would mean that none of the tax rises that we've had to have since the 2024 general election would have been necessary.

So I ask we those are facts. The situation, the economic situation is getting worse as we lose the strength of the European bloc, as we no longer have the competitive pressure because it's the competitive pressure of the single market that makes business efficient. If we look, once we lose that competitive pressure, we are going to find that Brexit isn't a one off, a one off loss. It's going to affect our competitive position for years to come. Now, I said I wouldn't talk long and I'm going to end there, but can I just make one point? I think we we should be looking at the customs union.

We should be trying to speed up the reset, but I think we need to have an independent, expert advice. I rather agree with Lord Hannay on actually what it is that we would be trying to achieve, and how it is a something of great complexity. And also we need to look at objectively at what are the the consequences of having an independent trade policy. I don't think they're very considerable, but I'm willing to be proved wrong in an independent expert inquiry, which I hope Keir Starmer would set up.

Thank you very much.
13:41
Lord Dodds of Duncairn Portrait Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Lord Jay. I warmly. >> Lord Jay. I warmly. >> Congratulate Baroness Gill and the Lord Docherty and Doyle on their excellent maiden speeches. their excellent maiden speeches. Look forward to that yet to be made and also to the speech of Lord and also to the speech of Lord Offord in his valedictory speech. My Lord, under a customs union, the EU would strike deals in its own interests, while the UK would be required to apply those terms automatically without any guarantee of reciprocal access or consideration.

Countries negotiating with the EU would have no obligation whatsoever to offer the UK equivalent market access, yet we would be bound to trade terms. We didn't negotiate. There is a constant underplaying or failure to grasp the asymmetry that it creates. Obligations imposed in this country with no corresponding duties on third countries. Having said that, I want to highlight the fact that where we are as a country in real terms regarding a customs union, because there seems to be a reluctance to face up to reality, and it hasn't been mentioned thus far in this debate, because we need to face the fact that this country has already acquiesced in precisely such a customs arrangement, not merely in theory, but in practice through the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Windsor Framework not an inevitable outcome of Brexit, as some would say, but a choice, the wrong choice about how to manage trading arrangements so that we have a situation which is either not noticed by people or deliberately ignored, in which part of this United Kingdom is today subject to the European Union Customs Code and single market rules. Rules it does not make and cannot amend, so that in Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom in 2026, EU law, not UK law, applies dynamically in over 300 areas of law covering goods, manufacturing, agrifood production.

Never mind the effects of EU VAT rules, state aid rules. The article two requirements covering human rights and equality legislation and all of that. So in debating the pros and cons of customs union and single market in the abstract, how can anyone not have regard to the fact that we already have such arrangements? In reality, for one part of our country, the Windsor framework formalises a reality in which internal trade within the United Kingdom is governed by rules made abroad and enforced with no democratic control.

A July 2025 report from the Federation of Small Businesses found that the Windsor Framework has created significant disruption to internal UK trade, with over one third of businesses having stopped trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while 58% report moderate to significant challenges, it says it's fuelling confusion and cost breaking down UK internal market connectivity rather than resolving trade barriers. It says it's creating a labyrinth of bureaucracy, making it harder to move goods within the UK than to export globally.

So whether you are for or against a customs union for the UK as a whole, one thing that is not sustainable is that one part in the customs union and the rest of it out of it, that's not acceptable or sustainable. It's complex, unnecessary. It raises impediments to our prosperity. It erects barriers between us and Northern Ireland and our largest market in Great Britain. The cost has been paid by consumers, manufacturers and businesses. And fundamentally, my Lords, it's a breach of democracy.

Laws being made for British citizens in Northern Ireland are being made by a foreign entity in its interests, with no input or role or vote by any elected representative from the people of Northern Ireland, either in the Northern Ireland Assembly or at Westminster. That is an unsustainable position. And, my Lords, we must take this into account in any debate regarding customs union, single market and the reset.
13:45
Lord Tugendhat Portrait Lord Tugendhat (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, my Lords, I to >> Yeah, my Lords, I to congratulate the maiden speakers on their contributions today. Time their contributions today. Time restricts me from saying more, but time does not diminish the warmth of my welcome to them, and I look forward to hearing from them on many occasions in the future. Now, my Lords, when I began to consider this, this motion from from the noble Lord Lord Newby, my mind went back to when I was in the Army during my National service in the 1950s, and we were forever being told in lectures on tactical exercises that time spent in reconnaissance is rarely wasted, and time spent in reconnaissance would enable one to see whether the objective was attainable, how best to go about it, whether there should be a direct or flanking movement, or whether indeed it was worthwhile in the first place.

Now, of course, I agree with Lord Newby and others who have spoken in favour of his motion that we do, that we must that we must improve our access to the to the European Union for trade in goods. I agree that this is something that removing obstacles in order to do that ought to be a high priority of the government. And I believe actually that it is, and it is certainly something that industry is crying out for, especially the smaller companies who were worst hit by the agreement we signed when we left the EU.

It's also, of course, one of the most obvious ways in which we could improve our rate of growth. But I must say, I doubt whether setting an ambitious and clearly defined objective, like a customs union, is the best way to proceed. Quite apart from the other disadvantages of the Union, which a number of my noble friends have pointed out, it could, I think, all too easily turn out to be the diplomatic equivalent of laying siege to a castle falls.

I say this because, sadly, in recent years has all too often shown itself unable to reach the internal agreements necessary to take big initiatives. Its decision making process has since we left not because we left, but since we left. Its decision making process has atrophied. One only has to look at the failure to carry forward the single market or to achieve a capital markets union. The ambitious plan has remained largely a dead letter and more relevant, perhaps, to those examples.

Look at what has happened to the proposed trade deal with the Mercosur group of Latin American countries was first mooted, I believe, some 25 years ago. Serious negotiations began in April 2019. The agreement was finally signed this month, only for the European Parliament to refuse to ratify it and refer it to the European Court of Justice, which at best means a further delay. My fear, my Lords, is that if we set our cap at something at the at the customs union, quite apart, as I say from other issues, we could get embroiled in protracted negotiations that would embitter relations and lead, if not to failure, at least to disappointing results.

Far better in my view. Far better is to identify a number of specific and often technical issues on which agreements would create a balance of tangible benefits for both sides. I have in mind very much the kind of agenda the government is already pursuing. I believe that if the UK and the EU can reach agreements on prosaic matters of this kind, that could create a habit of cooperation between us, then that might lead on to more ambitious framework that, instead of drawing on the models of the past, is suited to the circumstances of the present and of the future.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, could I start by drawing attention to my offshore wind interests as declared in the wind interests as declared in the register? Could I add my congratulations to the excellent congratulations to the excellent and entertaining maiden speeches that we have already had? And could that we have already had? And could I perhaps ask for the discretion of the House in mentioning a maiden
13:50
Lord Stephen Portrait Lord Stephen (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the House in mentioning a maiden speech still to come from Lord Pitt-Watson? Because I remember as a young Liberal in Aberdeen attending many hours of meetings with Helen Pitt-watson, and it brings back very fond memories to me. I look forward to your your speech very much. I'd like also to welcome the the cooperation that was announced on Monday this week by the UK and EU nations in relation to offshore wind and North Sea interconnectors. The headline from the so-called Hamburg Declaration was the Joint Development, the cooperative development of 100GW of new projects based around a shared Europe wide grid system.

Much more cooperation of this kind is surely sensible and badly needed. A significant step, perhaps, on our way to a new single market and customs union. My friend, the late Eddie O'Connor, a very big figure in offshore wind. He founded Airtricity and then Mainstream Renewables. He championed the idea of a European super grid with huge energy and passion. The challenge is simple to create and deliver a renewable energy network across the UK and Europe that is fit for the 21st century and beyond, and with determination and drive, I am certain that we can make it happen.

It's also great to see plans being announced across several EU countries to adopt contracts for difference to underpin and anchor their own offshore wind developments. These so-called CFDs were first introduced in the United Kingdom in 2012 by then Secretary of State for energy, Sir Ed Davey. They have saved the UK electricity consumer billions compared to the previous system, despite one serious and sadly completely avoidable misstep in relation to CFDs back in 2023. With AR five, contracts for difference have continued to be a big success in the UK and AR seven, announced on 14th January, just completed with 8.3GW of new capacity awarded, the biggest ever.

In contrast, Germany, Denmark and Netherlands have recently struggled with their own power auctions. This is not good for the climate emergency, and governments together must do better. Nations can learn from each other. They can work together. They can. We can get better at all of this. In the UK it is not perfect, but it is generally positive. All of the mainstream UK parties have supported the energy transition, net zero targets and the importance of real and rapid progress.

The only party to stand out is reform UK. Its policies are strident, negative and hostile. In July last year, the party's deputy leader, Richard Tice MP, wrote to the chief executives of all of the major offshore wind developers, threatening to strike down all contracts for difference signed under auction round seven if the party ever won power. An astonishing, aggressive, anti-business move threatening to break binding commercial and legal legal agreements right now being entered into. Such a move is in stark contrast to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, Reform's new Scottish leader, when he gave his maiden speech in this place in January 2022, when he spoke warmly about his attendance at Cop26 and what tremendous achievements the UK presidency was making increasing commitments to net zero from 30% to 90% of world emissions.

It will be interesting to learn whether reform UK has. UK has.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order older. I just asked the. I just asked the noble Lords to conclude his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inquiry over the time limit, and this is a time limited debate. I keep on having to stress that, but. Apologise and apologies. It was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologise and apologies. It was my reference at the beginning to some personal matters that have taken me over, but I start by taken me over, but I start by saying across the UK and across the EU, all of this is very important for economic benefit for our for economic benefit for our nations, yes, but more importantly for the future of our planet. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. Very quickly. I'll just say, for those immediately following those giving a maiden or valedictory, giving a maiden or valedictory, there is an allowance made for the tributes have been paid and the clock does not start until your remarks start. For those others remarks start. For those others speaking in the debate. The clock. The time starts when you stand up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and that needs to be no more than four minutes. Thank you. I would like to. Welcome and congratulate today's four maiden speakers. We very much four maiden speakers. We very much look forward to your future contributions. My Lords, while there have been statements by the government on the relationship with the EU, we have not had a
13:56
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-
comprehensive policy statement setting out the government's objectives in the negotiations. We had a paper on the Defence Partnership that was published on the same day as the UK, EU Common Understanding, and similarly, the Cabinet Office Policy paper on the Cabinet Office Policy paper on the internal electricity market last December dealt with the outcome of discussions with the EU. But we're discussions with the EU. But we're not here just to debate outcomes. We are here to scrutinise and seek to influence government policy.

To do so, we need to understand what that policy is. I'd like to ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, will the government commit to publishing a comprehensive policy statement on negotiations with the EU, similar in detail to, for example, the July 21st command paper on the renegotiation of the Northern Ireland Protocol? As for the case of rejoining the EU Customs Union or parts of the single market, I will make three brief comments. First, any such decision now that we are out would be very different from the decision to leave the European Union, and the dividing line won't be the same as in the referendum.

We are too large an economy to join a bloc in which we would have no say. Reference was made by the noble Lord Lord Newby to mark Carney's fine speech in Davos, but I don't see how rejoining the customs union would fit in with that speech. His argument is not that middle powers should tie themselves to bigger powers. It is the opposite of that. Middle powers should maximise their autonomy and influence through flexible and variable arrangements, in which they retain a say with a wide range of powers.

By all accounts, where a bigger middle power than Canada and less dependent on the EU than Canada is on the United States. My second point is that the European Union faces complex and decisive choices in the years ahead. As Mario Draghi warned, doing nothing or doing too little means accelerated decline in recent interventions. He has complained that little has changed since his report and that conditions are worsening. What would this mean for us if we chose to join a customs union or part of the single market? Now? It would put us, I'm afraid, in a bleak position.

Either we would have joined a bloc that fails to meet the challenge and declines faster. Or if the EU does take bold and transformative decisions, we would have joined that bloc just before those decisions are taken and without any ability to influence them. My final point is on reports about a so-called Farage clause that the EU would be seeking as part of its reset. There is a penalty provision on future renegotiations, as some will remember, in particular the noble Lord Lord Frost and Lord Barrow.

A similar proposal was made in December 2020. It had a different name then it was called the hammer clause. But imagine if the hammer clause had been agreed by the government. Then the government today would have a weaker hand in its discussions with the EU. A penalty clause or mechanism will affect any future government, whatever its colour, including a Liberal Democrat government seeking to rejoin the European Union. Because if there is one thing we can be certain of is that there will always be negotiations we negotiated on the way in, we negotiated while we were in, we negotiated as we came out and we're still negotiating.

And so I'd like to conclude by asking the noble Baroness, the Minister, a final question. Does she agree that it would be reckless and irresponsible for any government today to weaken the negotiating position of a future government and reassure us that no penalty clause would be agreed to?
14:00
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lords Brexit was a traumatic episode for our Liberal Democrat episode for our Liberal Democrat friends, but it happened. In 2016, British people voted to take back control of our economy, our laws control of our economy, our laws and our borders, and a way forward was defined by British sovereignty and British interests. A belief in British exceptionalism and not a cultural cringe to the European Union or an orderly management of decline, unfortunately enunciated by the Liberal Democrats. I'm glad the government stated in their manifesto that there would be no return to the single market, customs union or freedom of movement.

Yet the proposals to bring the UK in line with the EU's electricity market and an SPS agreement, threatened to undermine the substance of that promise, which will have calamitous impacts on British farming, according to this morning's times, if the UK aligns with EU rules, including targets towards the promotion of renewables and alignment on carbon emissions trading systems. Since leaving the European Union, we have diverged with them regarding our policies towards energy markets. This included the launch of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme.

As of the 27th of January, the ETS carbon trading price for the UK was £49.19, whilst the EU's ETS was £64.23. Aligning with the EU's carbon price would raise the cost of industrial carbon for British businesses by over 30%, and the UK already has some of the most expensive energy costs in the world. Dynamic alignment A dynamic alignment agreement would leave us at the mercy of whatever economic policy mistakes the EU would tie us to. This looks likely with the EU planning, for instance, to expand their ETS policy in 2027 to include buildings and road transport in the economic activity covered in carbon pricing.

Further integration with the EU would be damaging for British business and industry. It would undermine any innovation in agri food brought about since the passing of the Genetic Technology Precision Breeding Act 2023. We have an advantage over the EU with regards to helping to create food able to withstand future climate and biodiversity challenges. Even the French newspaper Le Monde argued recently that the EU's Common Agricultural Policy is not sustainable, and does not aid in creating robust production practices. My Lords, those who advocate for a customs union fail to grasp the fact that the UK is a far more flexible and dynamic trading partner than we were or could be in the EU.

When the EU. When the UK left the EU, we rolled over existing trade agreements to make sure that there was continuity for British business. It has taken the UK less than two years on average since Brexit, to negotiate many trade deals. In contrast, the EU takes 7 to 10 years on average, and in the ten years before the EU, we left the EU. Annual customs revenue at the UK borders varied between 2 and £3 billion. UK received just 20% outside the EU in 2023.

That revenue was 100% to HMRC and £5.5 billion I'll deal with. Japan could boost UK GDP by 1.5 billion over time and link US more to the Indo-Pacific region, where the UK estimates that 54% of global growth and technological advances will occur to 2050, and where NATO estimates two thirds of future growth, global wealth will be concentrated. My Lords, if I discuss briefly before I finish on services, 80% of British economic output came from the services sector. Services provide the largest part of the UK economy and will likely continue to do so in 2024.

UK exports of services to the UK were up 19% in real terms since 2019. Exports of services to non-EU countries have grown by 23%. UK trade in services has outperformed the G7 average since 2021, and Brexit has been a benefit for the largest part of the UK economy. My Lords, it is clear that in the last five years Britain has set out on a new future where we are free to trade with who we want and make decisions which are best for the British people, not a bureaucracy in Brussels.

To go back on this will be an error of the highest magnitude. Yeah.
14:05
Lord Pitt-Watson Portrait Lord Pitt-Watson (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Good. >> My Lords, it is with great

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I rise to a in this pleasure that I rise to a in this debate to make my maiden speech. I should begin by giving thanks to all the members of the House for their warmth, their welcome, and their generosity to Garter King of Arms, to Black Rod, to the Clerk of Parliament, to the doorkeeper, and all the others who work here. To my noble friend Baroness Smith of Basildon, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and to Lord Wilson of Sedgefield and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, who introduced me to the House.

And I'd also like to thank Lord Stephen for remembering my mother. She was a music teacher and my dad was a Church of Scotland Minister. So I think like a few members of this House, I am a child of the manse, but but my my career has been in business and particularly in finance, which is what I'd like to talk about today, because, you know, I think for Britain, finance is the real jewel in the crown of our economy.

It's 9% of our economy, but it's a trade surplus of £70 billion that it earns for us, much of that to the European Union. And so the finance industry is critical to any element when we think about our trade. But it's not just self-interest which should make us that makes the finance industry so important. Finance is central to the solution of the big problems of the world. It's almost impossible to imagine a prosperous economy without a successful finance industry.

I worked, I led the finance initiative at the Paris climate talks. We will not solve the climate problem unless the the the finance industry is on board with that. If you look at poverty in the developing world, I was treasurer of Oxfam. If if we're to get people out of poverty, they need financial services. If you look at innovation, I was chair the endowment at Nesta. Again, we need the money and we need the stewardship to make sure that that innovation can take place.

But look, the main part of my financial career was in another element. It was about the power of the finance industry and how that is exercised, because the finance industry holds the shares in companies, that gives them the opportunity to approve or otherwise the boards of directors, and therefore have great influence. And that influence needs to be seen through the eyes of the savers, through the millions of people who save through their pensions into the finance industry. And of course, they want profitable companies, but they also want companies that pay regard to the society and the environment in which they trade.

And so the greatest part of my finance career was with an entrepreneurial pension fund called Hermes. And we worked very strongly on that. We encouraged people to get together on that as well. The principles for Responsible investment I consider myself one of the midwives of now over $100 trillion of investors signed up to that, and it's based in the UK. And it wasn't just me. There were many, many people who were involved. But the UK is the centre in the world of responsible investment, of people trying to make sure that our money is used well for the people, that it ought to be used for.

But there is another, less rosy side. I mean, we all remember the global financial crisis. There are many failures in the financial system. It's not highly regarded by the people of Britain. And most critically, when academics study the financial system, the cost of taking money from point A and the outside world and investing it where it's needed in point B, the cost of doing that has hardly fallen over a hundred years. That's a real challenge. But, you know, such challenges, I think, can also be big opportunities.

I have a professional interest, a working on thinking about pension structures. We believe that it's possible with a better pension structure, that for the same cost, people who are saving for their pension could be enjoying a reliable income in retirement, maybe 30% higher than they're currently getting through the UK system. And the other thing I do is I teach I teach finance at Cambridge a on a course that's considered radical. It's called The Purpose of Finance, and it's simply asks the students to debate what is the purpose of this industry at which Britain excels.

It's not just about analysis, and it's not just about markets and regulation. It's also about institutions and innovation and cultures and governance and incentives and professionalism. So look, finance is critical. It's critical to this debate about trade relationship with Europe. It is a jewel in our economic crown. But as we think about finance, we surely want that industry to grow and to prosper because it is purposeful in delivering to the outside world as all commerce should be. And in the future, my Lord, I hope as part of my work here, I can contribute to the House's deliberations on these sorts of matters.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here. The house is seen four brilliant speeches today, and I'm sure we will benefit from everyone who has joined us in the coming years. Now joined us in the coming years. Now it's my honour and pleasure to follow my friend David Pitt-watson,
14:11
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-
follow my friend David Pitt-watson, who is now joins the House as his territorial designation is of Kirkland, of Glencairn, in the county of Dumfriesshire. And what an asset he will be to the house. What a CV. In his speech he only touched on what he will bring to our deliberations. This House will welcome value and learn from his range of experience. Wikipedia has him down as a businessman and a social entrepreneur, but also a Labour councillor and a Labour bureaucrat.

Blending a life in academia and a life in business.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Successful but always with a social purpose in mind. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. I would just touch on just a few

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would just touch on just a few of things from his extensive CV. The Pembroke visiting Professor at the Judge Business School, Cambridge University. Books. Influential books translated into Influential books translated into five languages. A lifetime achievement award last year from the International Corporate Governance Network. The citation for that award states that he is, quote, one of the most influential pioneers of responsible investment and stewardship. His leadership in creating ventures that advance governance, advocacy and institutional stewardship services set new global standards and inspired market wide change.

And I am sure that many members of the House will also welcome the fact that he is always a Scotsman. Finally, I hope the House will forgive me if I say I particularly welcome David because he is greatly interested in pensions. That is how we met many years ago, but not just interested. A tenacious and ultimately a successful thought leader. One of the leading advocates of a new type of pension provision. Collective defined contribution schemes. What's known as CDC.

And this will be of increasing importance in our development of better pensions. Moving on. I just say I look forward to the valedictory statement from noble Lord Lord Offord. I it it will be interesting if, if not necessarily in line with what I believe. But on the subject of the debate, I just want to make one crucial point. I hope that everyone has now read or better watched Prime Minister Carney's brilliant and important speech. That really sets in my mind the context for this debate.

There is a new international political geometry. First, it is clear now that size matters. Economic power, soft power and military power also will be increasingly important. Secondly, the delusion of take back control has been exposed for all of us to see. And thirdly, we can no longer rely on the United States. We will always be friends. Culture and language will always bring us together. But it will be that friend that we know we cannot rely on anymore.

The inevitable conclusion of this, given our broad political and cultural affinities to Europe, and the simple fact of geography, we have to work out a new relationship with Europe. Brexit has been a disaster. Let's talk seriously about how to proceed. Rather than being swept along by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

events. Yeah, yeah. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Noble Lords, may I add my congratulations to the four maiden speakers? Excellent speeches. And speakers? Excellent speeches. And as they arrive and I depart, I feel in this debate a sense of Groundhog in this debate a sense of Groundhog Day as we are replaying Brexit at ten years later. And I do wonder what the electric wound make of what the electric wound make of this, especially when in the other place at the time, in 2016, the MPs
14:16
Lord Offord of Garvel Portrait Lord Offord of Garvel (Reform UK)
-
-
were in favour of leaving were only 25% of the House, whereas the public was at 52%. And I do wonder public was at 52%. And I do wonder those shades of that here again today. I mean, I was exported Minister for 15 months and we Minister for 15 months and we worked very hard on the free trade agreements post-Brexit because we knew that when we joined the EU, knew that when we joined the EU, which was then the Common Market, Europe accounted for one third of global trade.

And when we left in global trade. And when we left in 2019, that was 20% of global trade. And we know that the OECD going for growth report says that by 2050 it will be 10% of global trade. Ergo, the EU is in decline. And what is booming here is foreign markets, Asian markets, Indo-Pacific markets. Why we tried to win the CPTPP, India, the work we did in the trade deal. America. We have to look global and not be bogged down in this debate ten years later.

However, moving to my imminent departure, I was back in listening for oral questions today, and over the five years I've been in this house, I've made a point to be in most of those. And one of the themes that came through a lot in my sitting here, especially hearing from the other side of the house, is a sort of undying ideological faith in the power of the state to solve all our problems for us. There is a problem. The state must fix its taxpayers money must fix it.

There must be a quango or state body that can fix it. Let me give you a warning of my beloved home country of Scotland. We've just had 25 years of devolution. We've done an experiment of letting the state take control of our lives. When devolution began in 1999, the state spent 43% of GDP in Scotland and today it spends 55% of GDP in Scotland. What have we got in return? Our political class have created a welfare economy which does not create any wealth.

Work does not pay any more than welfare. 93% of Scots think the NHS needs significant reform. A once famous education system has gone from outstanding to average and in the meantime, we have destroyed our world famous class energy industry in the North East, which actually has resulted ideological policies on energy pricing, resulting in the biggest transfer of money from poor people to rich people since Robin Hood. And I would suggest that the noble Lord Lord Stevens reflects on that. As a former MP for Aberdeen.

That is why I'm going home. That's why I'm heading back to Scotland. I'm standing for reform in the election for Holyrood. I'm fed up with this mid-table mediocrity in Holyrood. The cosy consensus, some of which you heard from Lord Stephen in his time there. We need change. We need to make Scotland the most prosperous part of the UK. In Scotland the most successful part of the UK. And if we're successful, we will have debates in Holyrood for the first time ever that will talk about how to grow the economy, how to make our people wealthier, not just how to spend other people's money.

So that is my plan. We are we are going to we're going to focus very hard in the last 99 days. Make no mistake, this is now a two horse race between the SNP and reform, a poll just out five minutes ago from Ipsos Mori puts reform now in second place. And so we're going to take that fight to to reform in order to get Scotland back to the top of the table where she deserves to be. So I wish you all well in this House.

I want to give a personal tribute just to one particular fellow peer who's not in this place today. Lord Jack of Courance, who as Secretary of State for Scotland brought me into politics five years ago. He's a great friend and mentor and was a very, very effective Cabinet secretary. And finally, just to say to all our fellow peers, keep doing the work, but don't rely on the state for everything. Thank you.
14:20
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Yeah. >> Well, my Lords. >> I'm delighted to follow the noble Lord Lord Offord and to congratulate him on behalf of the congratulate him on behalf of the whole House on his forthright, but I think also reflective valedictory speech today. And as he says farewell to this chamber, we overlapped only very briefly as Ministers in the last government. But as, as I think we all know, the noble Lord served that government with an energy and determination which at times was was certainly very much needed, if I may say so, not least because it was a step that my own party stopped me taking at the last election.

I admire the noble Lord for having the courage to relinquish his seat in this House and move properly to elected politics, and I have little doubt. I'm sure none of us can have any doubts, having heard what we've heard, that he will be an effective and tenacious campaigner in Scotland, and I wish him personal fulfilment in this new project and whatever follows it now, my Lords, to the subject. Here we are again, the ninth instalment of the long running box set series of the British establishment's obsession with being in customs union with the European Union.

It's lasted ten years. We saw it straight after the Brexit referendum and as early as January 2017, the noble Lady Baroness May, in her Lancaster House speech was speaking of a customs arrangement. Rather than leaving the customs union properly. By 2018, the then Cabinet secretary, Jeremy Heywood, invented the Heath Robinson style dual customs arrangement, a sort of Schrodinger's customs union that left us both in and out of the customs union. Apparently, at the same time, the 2018 withdrawal agreement would have kept the whole country, of course, in a customs union with the EU, and given the keys the exit keys to the European Commission.

Now, finally, the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and I did what had to be done. We took Great Britain out of the Customs Union, Northern Ireland, as we then hoped to follow later, and complete freedom of trade for GB and the ability to set our own regulations. But until that point we had seen nothing but complete lack of confidence in Britain's ability to trade with the EU as we did and do successfully with the rest of the world.

Yet, my Lords, here it is again. The obsession has returned, just as everyone has got used to the new situation with remarkably little difficulty. The same voices return, and it seems increasingly the government wants to wind the clock back. My Lords, this is simply a grasping after. Nurse is looking from a for a refuge, from hard decisions in the warm and deadening embrace of the Brussels institutions. The arguments against doing this are just as strong as they always have been, and we've heard many of them today.

First, trade deals under the customs union give third countries preferential access to our market, but don't give us preferential access to theirs. Second, we get no say in EU negotiating positions and no assurance that our interests will be protected. Third, we don't even get proper friction free participation, as we are told in the EU's market, unless we join the single market as well. And I am grateful to the noble Lord Lord Newby for at least being honest in saying that. That is also his policy objective.

Fourth, we lose our ability to lower our own tariffs, which we have done cheaper tariffs, cheaper tariffs on third country food we don't produce ourselves. And even the government reduced some tariffs last year and made a point of saying so. And fifth, we would have to undo our own trade agreements. Is it seriously suggested that, having joined, we should now leave the CPTPP, that we should now leave our trade deal with India and join the EU's putative deal, which will have been negotiated with none of our interests in mind.

It makes no sense, my Lords. Now Lib Dems know this. They know more and I think that's why they claim to think they can negotiate some sort of special customs arrangement. Oddly enough, one that excludes agricultural goods, even though that is the area in which under the reset, we will be joining the single market. I can tell them the EU does not do this sort of bespoke agreement, and we should have learned that in the years after the referendum.

As for the government, they they are already dipping a toe in the customs union water by agreeing to follow the sea bands rules of the EU. Some Ministers appear to be for some against, and I hope the Minister will be able to clarify, concluding My Lords, this is all displacement activity. Being part of the customs union again only makes sense for one reason. If you want to start going back towards the EU, the Monet method of one thing leading to another.

That's why we hear the calls to rejoin the customs union. So I urge its proponents be honest. If you want to rejoin, admit it made that case to the British people and see how far you get. Meanwhile, I hope, though not with great expectation, I am afraid that today will be the last we hear of the nonsense on the customs union.
14:25
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. claimed. >> With a straight face.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That had we not left the EU, our GDP would now be 4% or 8% larger GDP would now be 4% or 8% larger than it is now. The OBR, which was named by the Sunday Times this week as the UK's joint worst forecaster, has embraced that analysis. Yet our economy has managed the same, admittedly low growth rate as the three key EU economies Germany, France, Italy a belief that we ought to have grown 8% more than those three had we stayed in the EU, is frankly nonsensical.

The claims come from a doppelganger analysis, which asserts that we are 62% identical to the US, so we should have grown just as fast as the US has. Really. We have stifled building, driven the rich away, discouraged tourists, ballooned the obstinately unproductive public sector, medicalised anxiety made not working pay more than getting a job. We entered into the disastrous net zero experiment. While the US has provided abundant cheap energy, the essential precondition for economic growth? Yes, if if we had done what the US did, our economy would be at least 8% larger than it is now.

But we didn't, so it isn't. Net zero has decimated our manufacturing industry. Petrochemicals, ammonia, pharmaceuticals have all shrunk dramatically, with plants closed and manufacturing moving offshore. Goods exports are therefore indeed down because there are fewer goods to export. We don't make them anymore. Exports of services, however, are growing rapidly over 20% of the last two years. Impossible had we stayed in the EU, where digital services, for example, would have been stifled by inflexible data regulation, it could be worse for us.

My Lords. We could have stayed in the EU, costing us far more per week than the £350 million on the side of the bus, retaining the EU's high tariffs, with the rest of the world adopting the tens of thousands of new regulations and directive passed. Since we left a 15% US pharmaceuticals tariff instead of our 0%, 50% on steel and aluminium, rather than 25% no superior trade deals with the US, Japan, India, South Korea and above all, the Pacific Partnership to believe we would have had faster growth were we still in the EU is.

Forgive me, my Lords, seriously delusional. And as for wholly or partially rejoining or dynamic alignment, undoubtedly the EU would demand costly retrospective contributions to their recovery and resilience facility and withdrawal. As many noble Lords have said from our many valuable recently signed trade deals, my Lords, the UK will fare far better outside the EU. We were told at the time of the referendum that the city would die if we left the EU. It hasn't and now the city want to stay out.

Our digital economy will never flourish under the EU's crippling digital regulations. Our rapidly growing trade with the US will wither under extra imposed tariffs. There is plenty that we could do, my Lords, to grow our economy faster. We. Linking to the EU is not one of those things.
14:30
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> We've been hearing different versions of economic and political reality in this debate. I want to focus in my short speech on two issues which lie behind negotiating a customs union, the question of sovereignty and an EU reset, and the foreign policy, security and defence aspects of moving closer again to the EU and its member states. Right wing media have again leapt up to cry you're threatening British sovereignty! As soon as we set our relationship with the EU was proposed.

But the idea that the UK could somehow maintain absolute sovereignty in an integrated international economy with instant communications was always a myth. I recall Geoffrey Howe, when he was foreign secretary 45 years ago, talking about sharing sovereignty with our European partners. He didn't spell out explicitly that the alternative was yielding sovereignty to the United States, adopting US regulations and following its international political lead. We're now seeing that alternative spelled out brutally in threats from President Trump against our attempts to tax and regulate US tech corporations that dominate our social media or maintain higher standards of food production than US exporters want.

I think it's clear an underlying way that what the alternative, which Lord Offord and others want to present, is a Britain which would become like the Republican vision of the United States with a small state, gross levels of inequality and very damaged society, as other noble Lords have said. In particular, Lord Taylor of Brixton, we now face a much more hostile global environment in which even middle level powers like the UK find it hard to stand up alone to pressure from China or the USA.

The collective weight of European democracies exercised through the EU is, however, capable of maintaining autonomy. We need to contribute to that collective weight to protect our preferred patterns of market and product regulation, and our environmental and social protections. We are a social democracy and we do not wish to become an American style of a very unsocial democracy, and we need to cooperate on security and defence, pooling our efforts to resist the imperial ambitions and the subversive activities of Russia and China.

And now, sadly, also of the United States. Britain played a leading part in developing the EU's cooperation in foreign policy. I recall Jim Callaghan, when Foreign Secretary, returning from an early meeting of what was then called European political cooperation and enthusing about how useful it was to promote British interests. Five years later, Lord Carrington's London report set out proposals to institutionalise regular consultations on international threats and initiatives. When the Berlin Wall came down, I recall the Metropolitan Police asking Chatham House why, then worked to organise a seminar on how to build closer police cooperation with our European neighbours.

When Europol was then established, it had a substantial number of UK staff and a British secretary general. Similarly, when the European Defence Agency was set up, it had a further number of impressive British staff concerned to promote both shared and UK interests. Brexit through all this away, with Brexiteers arguing that America was the only ally we needed, that the Indo-Pacific was the future and that European cooperation contributed little to Britain's security. We have now learned how wrong they were, and our Labour government is hesitantly beginning the long and hard path back to what we have lost.

The government is still too timid on this, as on other policy areas, and it needs to explain to the British public how much our international context has changed for the worse, how much more important our security and defence have become, and how our natural partners in defending and promoting our national interests are our neighbours across the channel here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By Lord Singh. We've had four. Excellent main speeches today, and for me, this is speeches today, and for me, this is my first speech on Britain's relationship with the European Union. So I should begin by declaring an interest. My previous position as Chief executive of the position as Chief executive of the Vote Leave campaign, and therefore perhaps the person most responsible in the chamber today. For us having
14:34
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell Portrait Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Conservative)
-
-
in the chamber today. For us having this debate, I remind my role in Brexit. Every time I walk into Parliament behind the security post. Inside pier's entrance is a copy of my 1032 page book on the subject, Change or Go, which I co-authored with my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea in 2015. Other copies in the parliamentary estate can be found propping up computer monitors, or even literally being used as doorstoppers. On the subject of today's debate, Change or Go included a long section on what was referred to in those days as the Turkish option.

Membership of the EU's customs union. After briefly touching on trade, I would like to highlight the regulatory implications of Britain joining a UK EU customs union for tech and the life sciences on trade policy, it is clear that the government would need to abandon the trade deals they negotiated. Speaking in Davos last week, the Chancellor said we can't go back in time since we've left the EU. We've done trade deals with India, with the US, with South Korea and obviously you would lose the benefit of some of those trade deals if you were to re-enter a customs union.

End of quote. Unlike some of the speakers from the Labour benches, I agree with Rachel Reeves. We should keep control of our trade policy. Second, there's the regulatory impact it will have on our thriving tech and AI sector, the largest in Europe, worth some $1.2 trillion. As the economist Douglas McWilliams, author of The Flat White Economy, said, we have the most successful tech sector in Europe. The reason why is because we're outside the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act and the AI act, which are three European acts which heavily constrain tech growth in the EU.

The Prime Minister agrees with this point. When he launched the government's AI Opportunities Action Plan, Keir Starmer said and I quote, I know there are different approaches around the world, but we're now in control of our regulatory regime, so we'll go our own way on this. End of quote. Were we to join a customs union after a similar deal to Turkey, we would not be allowed to do this. Article nine and the second clause of article 54 would prevent us going our own way on tech and AI.

Finally, there's the impact we have on our world leading life sciences sector, the head of the MHRA told the today programme recently that clinical trial applications rose by 9% last year inside a UK EU customs union would lose the benefits of the international recognition procedure, which enables them to take advantage of approvals by their equivalents in Switzerland, Japan, Canada and Australia. We'd also have to row back on the landmark pharmaceuticals deal with the US, which the government the government achieved just last December.

This success is a direct result of the regulatory decisions we've made since Brexit. Why would we chase away world leading trials and potentially harm the most vulnerable patients in society? My Lord, so many other areas of government policy which I could have spoken about education, farming, house building to name just three, what the noble Lord Lord Newby is proposing would open up a regulatory Pandora's box on a plethora of policy areas, which the government would be wise to avoid unless those advocating a UK EU customs union outline what it would mean.

For all of the many issues raised in this debate, it will be clear to this House and to the public they simply do not have a credible plan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords Baroness Gill, Lord Docherty, Lord Doyle and Lord Docherty, Lord Doyle and Lord Pitt-Watson all gave excellent speeches and all demonstrated the differences and the different differences and the different approaches that they will be bringing to the benches from which I think all of the House will I think all of the House will benefit. So welcome to them. Lord Offord in his hustings, I mean Offord in his hustings, I mean valedictory speech. Set out in one sense why I will miss him.

And I think I wave a cheerful wave as he, as he, as he as he heads north. This has been a fascinating debate, and I think my and I thank my noble
14:39
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
friend for for causing it. My Lords, as one of the vice presidents of the liberal group on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I met this week with the Finnish president of the group and the other VP whose the group and the other VP whose whose Canadian and the purpose of the online meeting was to obviously the online meeting was to obviously to work out how we as a group within the NATO PA, should be responding to the unprecedented responding to the unprecedented attack on the cohesion and values of the Western alliance.

Now, I raise this because the political environment to which we were responding and the implications of this would have been unthinkable a very short time ago. At the heart of what we were discussing is how we all work together, not just in the High North, not just in defence, but economically and politically, and indeed, at a values level, this is the scale of the change. That means that last year's view has changed so dramatically from this year's view, and this pace of change has pushed the the world to levels of uncertainty that transcend contemporary experience in this country.

So given this acceleration into political mayhem, I wondered, how will this debate shake up, shape up? What new ideas will the Brexit promoters produce? How are they reacting to the new reality? Well, my Lords, you were here too, and you've heard that those opposing these motions remain very firmly where they were just after the referendum. And to Lord Jackson, I would say, yes, it has been traumatic for the Liberal Democrats. It's been traumatic for the country, and it's reduced the wealth of the country.

That is a good definition of trauma. My Lords, when Boris Johnson told the country he was getting Brexit done, he ambiguously offered some sort of 19th century version of the UK, whilst at the same time promising to use all the levers of the state and increase public spending to level up, which was more like a 1960s version of of of British government. Of course, he achieved neither, and choosing to do things completely differently. For example, as was mentioned, having taken control of our borders, Mr.

Johnson went on to welcome nearly a million people per year to the UK under lawful migration. Levelling up never got off the ground and at the same time, those who had called for a Singapore on Thames, which seemed to ignore that there was another part of the country, were frustrated both with him and his temporary successors. Perhaps the only bright spot for these devotees was joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific partnerships. I thought I'd give it a full name at least once today.

My Lords, the reality is, as my noble friend, the noble Lord Newby, set out and and others that Brexit has had a catastrophic effect on our economy, depriving the Exchequer of perhaps 40 billion, perhaps 95 billion over over a period. But inward investment has dropped and our exports have indeed reduced to the EU by about 18% of 2019 levels, food exports down by a massive 30%. Yet still the proponents of Brexit continue. Some double down. Some say it was the wrong Brexit.

Some say see Covid as the unique source of its failure, and many more try to blame the current government for everything. It's all their fault. My Lords. To be clear, the totally botched exit deal with the EU and the subsequent fiasco was the work of the conservative government. It was all their own work and in spite of the bravado, many of them know, many of them know that the number on the side of that famous campaign bus, far from being positive, is negative.

And it's a big negative number, my Lords. So Brexit. So my Lords and and the noble Lord Dodds raised the really important point of the, the position of, of Northern Ireland and I without, without going back too far, I will remember that many of us warned the government warned the government of the day that this would be a problem. And and that view was decried. It will be all right. They said. Well, my Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has described the fact that it isn't and it remains a very present problem.

My because, my Lords, it's easy to forget how inept and how flyblown the conservative Brexit governments were that delivered us to this point. So it's good that the noble Lords remind us of that from time to time. But while many noble Lords may be in denial beyond Westminster, there is certainly greater realisation from the British people about how poorly Brexit is serving them. I agree with the Lord noble that there newbie, that there is now a much stronger and indeed majority public support for getting the UK back into the heart of Europe.

And this shift helps the government to move on what it says is its primary mission and that's growth. The truth is that Labour will not succeed unless they have. They get our economy growing strongly again. And the best and the perhaps the quickest way to do that is in a customs union with Europe. But more than this, and returning to the conversation with my NATO PA colleagues, we agree that Western alliance has to stand up to President Trump and push back against his bully bullying.

And we know that we have to do that together. And economic ties are part of the process of pushing back against that bully. Now, some will say at least we have our Brexit freedom and they have, well, freedom works only if you spend it wisely. My Lords, the Prime Minister will no doubt come back from Beijing waving investment promises from President Xi, promises that will stretch the balance between risk and reward and our and make very little impingement on our huge deficit of 40 to 50 billion with China.

Meanwhile, the India UK FTA has been hailed as a great breakthrough and now, as we know, it doesn't give access to services or any increased access to services, and most of the benefit from the sale of goods will be in 5 to 12 years time. Now the EU has one and the Brussels boasts include tariff actions that none of its other trading partners have received. So in that regard, can I ask the Minister to confirm that the EU deal is indeed better than ours? As, as as as Brussels says? And can she write to me with the details on where the differences are? My Lords, so our freedom has yielded Beijing's possible investment, plus India slightly improved access for goods, plus some minimal uptick that will come from CPP and a fragile, very fragile agreement with the the USA, which exists as long as Donald Trump decides it should should continue.

My Lords, this is the freedom dividend, and I'm sure you can see that it offers only a tiny fraction of what we have lost. That's why I'm supporting this motion. It's time the UK set out in clear and unambiguous way. The UK's long standing aspirations for renewed and much closer relationship with the EU. My noble friends Lord Newby, Lord Razzall, Lord Stephen and Lord Wallace have done a wonderful job in setting out how how close a relationship would benefit the UK.

I suspect that that not a majority of your Lordships House will have been swayed to support our entry into a customs union, but save for a few speeches, my Lords, there has been a general softening of the approach to to to, to, to Europe, particularly on government benches. And I welcome that softening.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. congratulating.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Baroness, lady Lady Gill and the noble Lords. Lord Docherty of Milngavie, is that Docherty of Milngavie, is that right? And Lord Pitt-Watson. And Lord Doyle on their maiden speeches today. They're thoughtful, witty and indeed heartfelt. Contributions demonstrate that they will be a huge asset to your Lordships House,
14:48
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
huge asset to your Lordships House, and we look forward to hearing more from them in the years to come. We will miss the noble Lord Lord Offord of Garvel, and we are sorry to see him leave in this way, my Lords. Many of the arguments in today's debate will be very familiar to this House. I do not intend to relitigate the referendum or to reopen the entire Brexit debate. However, I do want to address directly the core proposition of the motion before us today the case for a United Kingdom, European Union customs union and the related question of closer connection to the EU single market.

My Lords, it is important at the outset to be outset be clear about terms, because this debate often proceeds as though the single market and the customs union were flexible or a la carte arrangements. They are not. Participation in the EU single market entails acceptance of the Four Freedoms, including free movement of people, which is set out explicitly in the EU treaties and which has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the European Court of Justice. There is no precedent for participation in the single market without freedom of movement, and the European Commission has consistently ruled out such an arrangement as as my noble friend Lord Tugendhat rightly points out, we have to be realistic.

Equally, a customs union with the EU requires the participating state to align its external tariffs with those of the European Union and, crucially, to accept trade policy as set by the European Union. This means allowing Brussels to negotiate and conclude trade agreements on our behalf. This is not compatible with an independent trade policy, and nor is it consistent with the Labour Party's own manifesto commitments, which ruled out rejoining the customs union or the single market. The proposition before us today, therefore sits uneasily not only with the outcome of the referendum, but with the stated positions of parties across this House and ultimately against what the British people have voted for repeatedly over the past decade.

My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough rightly cautions against such an approach. The EU customs union is open only to EU member states, Norway and Iceland. Frequently cited in these debates are not in a customs union with the EU. They participate in aspects of the single market through the European Economic Area, but they retain their own external trade policy and sit outside the customs union. The only large non-member in a customs union with the EU is Turkey, which entered into a customs union with the European Union in 1995.

At the time, it did so in the expectation that this would be a stepping stone to full EU membership. That expectation has not been fulfilled under the terms of the customs union, Turkey is required to align its external tariffs with those of the EU and to grant access market access to countries with which the EU concludes free trade agreements. However, those third countries are under no reciprocal obligation to grant equivalent access to Turkish exports. It is an asymmetrical trading relationship.

As the noble, the noble Lord Lord Frost and my noble friend Lord Lord Lilley have made clear, the EU has concluded trade agreements with countries such as South Korea, Mexico and South Africa. Turkey has been obliged to open its markets to those countries, while in some cases Turkish exporters have faced barriers in return. Under this arrangement, Turkey has, for instance, been forced into a non reciprocal trading relationship with South Korea, which does not provide them with open access to their own market.

Turkey still experiences queues at the border. A customs union does not remove regulatory checks, rules of origin procedures or non-tariff barriers. It does not, in short, deliver frictionless trade. And perhaps most importantly, Turkey has no seat at the table when EU trade policy is decided, it is bound by decisions taken elsewhere. As a member of the EU, the UK had a vote in the Council, representation in the Commission and elected members of the European Parliament. Under a customs union without membership, we would have none of these things.

We would be obliged to follow a common external tariff and trade policy, over which we exercised no formal control. It is therefore difficult to see how such an arrangement could be described as a stable or acceptable long term settlement. It would mean ending our independent trade policy while accepting a democratic deficit greater than one that existed before we left the European Union. It would mean leaving our existing trade agreements with India and the Pacific Trade Pact. And as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea have pointed out, this would not be beneficial.

And businesses across the country have spent several years adapting to the Post-exit trading framework. They have invested heavily in new systems, technology and infrastructure in order to comply with the regime put in place by Parliament. Dynamic alignment, as it currently envisaged by the government, risks constraining the areas where the United Kingdom has already chosen to diverge from EU rules to address domestic priorities. A clear example is bovine tuberculosis, which costs farmers around £150 million a year. The UK is trialling vaccination as a practical solution, yet EU law prohibits the use of bovine TB TB vaccines in cattle.

Alignment risks preventing the UK from pursuing an effective domestic response, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has highlighted the problems of dynamic alignment in Northern Ireland. As my noble friend Lord Eliot has rightly observed, membership of a customs union would also prevent the United Kingdom from pursuing an independent approach to technology and AI policy. In short, my Lords dynamic alignment risks closing off innovation, weakening resilience and undermining British agriculture. The Prime Minister has said he is not prepared to rip up the benefits of Brexit.

And does the noble Baroness, the Minister, agree that the risks I have outlined threaten exactly that, my Lords? What businesses want is not perpetual renegotiation of our relationship with the EU. They want clarity, consistency and confidence threatening to upend the regulatory and trading environment yet again, simply to pursue closer alignment for its own sake undermines all three. So will the government commit to publishing, as the noble Lord Lord Verdirame suggests, a policy paper on the objectives of their negotiations. My Lords, there are only really two coherent options full membership of the European Union or an independent United Kingdom outside its customs union, a standalone customs union is not a stable resting place.

It would bind us to obligations without influence and leave us with less control than we had before we left. The British people were asked what they wanted and they chose an independent United Kingdom. This is a position that I and we on these benches recognise and respect. I would close by saying that in its pursuit of a closer relationship with the European Union, the government is potentially in danger of undermining the very freedoms this country regained by leaving the bloc. We must be clear that surrendering our ability to innovate, to respond flexibly to domestic challenges, and to support our own economy would amount to abandoning the principles that underpin the decision to leave in the first place.

Seeking to improve the UK's trade and investment relationship with the EU, and to remove genuinely unnecessary barriers to trade, is a legitimate and worthwhile objective. But it can succeed only if the Prime Minister is firm and ambiguous about his red lines. Without that firmness, pragmatism slides into concession concessions, which British people have consistently voted against. It is vital that the government negotiates in a way that consistently safeguards the interests of the British people, and I hope, the noble Baroness, the Minister, can assuage these concerns.

In her response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I thank the noble Lord Lord Newby for securing this timely Lord Newby for securing this timely and important debate, which your Lordships' House for your Lordships' House information must Lordships' House information must conclude at 1502. So I will get through as much as I can before I through as much as I can before I will obviously look at Hansard and write a great deal to noble Lords. I think. I apologise before I move I think. I apologise before I move on to responding to the substance of the debate.

I want to recognise some of the extraordinary contributions we have seen today, my Lords, for maiden speeches and a valedictory is quite something. In
14:56
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
one debate the noble Lord Lord Lord Offord thoughtful final contribution to your Lordships' House was as to be expected, House was as to be expected, although I understand the business he founded in 2013 was called Badenoch and Co, I wonder if the noble Lord is planning on renaming it to Farage and Co. Turning to my noble friends who made their noble friends who made their wonderful, brilliant maiden speeches today, my Lords Baroness Gill who I campaigned with in the Gill who I campaigned with in the West Midlands when she was first elected, which I have now realised was 27 years ago.

I am so pleased to see you join our benches, and I am delighted that you were able to use your mother's GATT to take your oath. Turning to Lord Docherty, a one vote win. My Lords. For many of us, a win is a win. But what a wonderful example of how small our world is that, Mr. McFall to Lord McFall is has been part of his journey and will remain and remains, at least for his first time, in front of the man standing at the front.

Turning to Lord Doyle, my noble friend who I've known for over two decades, I know his family is proud of him because his friends are too, and I know that his sister is looking down on him today as she does every day. My Lords, we're lucky to have him. And turning to my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson, a child of the manse, who gave us such a thoughtful and considered speech. We are lucky to have him, and I look forward to his contributions.

Now, my Lords, moving to the subject at hand, this government was elected with a clear manifesto commitment to reset relations with our European partners, to tear down unnecessary barriers to trade, and to increase national security through strong borders and greater international cooperation, all without returning to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. The red lines in the Labour Party manifesto. My Lords, that is exactly what we are doing. In May last year, the government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU, which the government announced at the historic UQ summit, the first since Brexit.

The deal we secured with the EU is good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs, and most importantly, it delivers on what the British people voted for. We now move on with the detailed negotiations. We are making good progress on talks with the EU since the summit to implement the joint commitments made and to confirm to Lord Newby, we aim to reach detailed agreements by the next summit. As we discussed in your Lordships House last month, the UK and European Commission have agreed a new deal for the UK's association to Erasmus from 2027, opening up opportunities for students and professionals that won't just be good for young people at university, but also at colleges and in workplaces across the country, who will now have the opportunity to study abroad, to broaden their horizons, to experience other cultures, and, of course, to have a better understanding of the people who are some of our closest allies.

Noble Lords will be aware that we have also concluded exploratory talks on the UK's participation in the EU's internal electricity market, and are now proceeding swiftly with negotiations on a UK electricity EU electricity agreement. These are important steps in delivering tangible benefits for the people of the United Kingdom, making it clear that rebuilding our relationship with the EU is engagement with a purpose. This closer cooperation will bring real benefits that will be felt by businesses and consumers in the UK and across Europe, the same businesses and consumers who will also feel the benefits of the food and drink agreement, which we are negotiating with the.

With the EU boosting our exports and cutting costs for importers, and in part in response to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds genuine concern and SPS agreement will be highly beneficial to Northern Ireland. It will remove a broad and wide ranging set of requirements for goods and plants moving from Great Britain to NI, because the same regulations will be followed across the UK. Agreement will be smooth, will smooth flows of trade protect the UK's internal market, reduce costs for Northern Ireland, reduce costs for businesses and improve consumer choice in Northern Ireland.

The same businesses and consumers who will benefit from that will also feel the benefit of linking our carbon markets, cutting costs, making it cheaper for UK companies to move to green energy and once again, and once agreed, saving the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism charge being paid on £7 billion worth of UK goods exported to the EU. My Lords, by the time of the next UK EU summit, we have concluded the negotiations on not only a food and drink deal, but also on our thinking on linking our carbon markets and to have agreed a youth experience scheme.

The food and drink and ETS linking measures alone are set to add up to 9 billion a year in the UK economy by 2040, in a significant boost for growth, bringing down bills for British people and opening new opportunities. My Lords, I have 30s left. I have a great deal more to say, but I will undoubtedly be discussing these matters repeatedly in your Lordships House in the coming months and years. The one thing I'd like to say, though, is that this government, within the red lines we have outlined in our manifesto, are committed to delivering for the people of the UK and resetting our relationship with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the European Union. Thank you all noble Lords who spoken in this debate, say to the spoken in this debate, say to the Lord for us that he's going to be disappointed if he expects us to stop talking about the issue, but stop talking about the issue, but we are going to stop talking about it now. And I believe, to withdraw my motion. Thank you. The question is that this motion be agreed. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content.

The contents have it. We'll now have a few moments to enable the human furniture to be rearranged.
15:03
None Portrait Short debate: Plans to bring forward proposals for an international moratorium on the development of superintelligent AI
-

>> My Lords question for short debate on plans. His Majesty's Government have to bring forward proposals for an international moratorium on the development of superintelligent AI.
15:03
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm delighted so many Lords have decided to take part in this debate. I want to record my thanks to control AI for the support they are giving me. Now, my Lords, only two days ago, the Minister's Department announced an initiative to bring UK AI experts into Whitehall to help improve everyday public services. Backed by a $1 million investment from meta, a new cohort of AI fellows will spend the next year developing open source tools that tackle some of the biggest challenges facing public services.

And I want to congratulate the government on this. I want to stress, particularly to my noble friend, I am no Luddite when it comes to a I. It can bring unprecedented progress, boost our economy, improve public services. We're number three in the global rankings for investment in AI. And understandably, I do understand why the government doesn't want to seem to be overregulating this sector when it's so important that we develop innovation and and investment in, in the UK.

But my Lords, but we cannot run the risks of ignoring the huge risks that superintelligent AI or ASI, as I'll call it, may bring. And I'm really using this debate to really urge the government to consider building safeguards into ASI development to ensure that it only proceeds in a safe and controllable manner, and seeks international agreement on it. Miles should be in any doubt about the risks. I was very struck by the call this week by Anthropic Chief Dario Amodei, one of the most powerful entrepreneurs in the AI industry globally, and he really warned on the need for humanity to wake up to the dangers.

He said. Humanity is about to be handed almost unimaginable power. It's deeply unclear whether our social, political and technological systems possess the maturity to wield it, and he outlined the risks that could arise with the advent of what he calls powerful AI systems that would be much more capable than any Nobel Prize winner, statesman or technologist. And among the risks, he pointed out, is the potential for individuals to develop biological weapons capable of killing millions or, in the worst case, even destroying all life on Earth.

And he's not alone. And I would just refer noble Lords to the report of our very own UK's AI Security Institute. In December last year, AI systems, it said, have the potential to pose novel risks that emerge from models themselves behaving in unintended or unforeseen ways. In a worst case scenario, this unintended behaviour could lead to catastrophic, irreversible loss of control over advanced AI systems. Now, clearly, my Lords, it's in military and defence domains where a particular concern arises with the potential development of potent and autonomous weapons significantly increasing the destructive potential of warfare.

Now, one would have hoped that AI companies would proceed with a certain degree of caution, but my Lords, far from it. Caution has been thrown to the wind. They've made racing to develop superintelligent AI their explicit goal, with each company feeling compelled to move faster precisely because their competitors are doing the same. So, my Lords, I am calling on the government to think through the need not just for a moratorium on development, but on some international agreement. Now, this is not exactly fertile times, is it, to propose international agreements? The fact is, my Lords, that countries are still agreeing treaties.

And I think that the case is so strong that we really have to start discussing with our partners. My Lords, if you just look at defence as a one issue, I mean, clearly there's a major motivation for the major military powers to use AI to gain decisive military advantage. But the fact is, as far as I can understand, is there a huge risk for countries doing so? They could lose control of their critical infrastructure? There is a real issue about losing control of military systems, where our AI technology is increasing embedded.

And actually, my Lords, no nation, not even President Trump's, the US or China or the UK, no country actually has an interest in that outcome. So, my Lords, I don't think we can abdicate our responsibility for seeking some kind of international agreement. And I would say to noble Lords who are sceptical about the chances of doing this, that we have had international agreements that have been reached in equally turbulent times or worse. I mean, in the 1980s, when the Cold War threatened nuclear annihilation, nations agreed to a landmark nuclear deescalation treaty.

In the 1990s, the Chemical Weapons Convention was drafted and entered into force, and they've been ratified by over 98% of the world's nations. Now, of course, they're not perfect, but they have surely been a force for good. And they've demonstrated and demonstrated, made the world safer. And I think we are uniquely placed to give a lead in some of the international discussions at Oral Questions on Monday. Baroness Harding, I thought, made a very important point. She pointed to the Warnock's commission work in relation to in vitro fertilisation, which helps set a global standard for this practice long before the scientific developments made it possible, which is where we are with superintelligent AI.

She said that one of the most fascinating things about Warnock is Baroness Warnock proposed the 14 day rule for experimentation on human embryos, when at the time they could only be kept alive for two days. So she thought through the moral question before, not after the technology was available. And as the Baroness, Baroness commented, Warnock also settled societal concerns within a framework which became a national competitive advantage in human embryology and fertilisation research and care.

I suggest, my Lords, exactly the same advantage could come from the UK if it were prepared to take a lead. My Lords, across the world, a coalition is emerging of AI experts, the AI industry itself, some of their key leaders, organisations like Control AI and citizens who do believe we need to work very hard on this. Just last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Demis Hassabis, CEO of UK based Google DeepMind, said he would advocate for a pause in AI development if other countries and countries would follow suit.

My Lords, I think we should take him at his word. There is a momentum building up, and I just very much urge the government to take a lead in this. My Lords, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord hunt, for what he just said? I entirely agree with his premise that there is real danger ahead of us if we don't take danger ahead of us if we don't take care and we don't understand what we're dealing with. This is one of we're dealing with. This is one of those occasions where we have to maintain control. Control is the maintain control. Control is the key issue, and policies that don't lead to and don't enable us to keep
15:12
Baroness Neville-Jones Portrait Baroness Neville-Jones (Conservative)
-
-
control will actually lead to something that could, I think, very well be regarded as disaster. Not well be regarded as disaster. Not often I think that we face choices often I think that we face choices so stark, so difficult. And where there on the one hand, there is an there on the one hand, there is an immense benefit to be gained and on the other, I mean a catastrophe for humanity. That is actually the humanity. That is actually the situation that we're in.

So we do have to take this issue very seriously. Now, the question that your noble Lord posed was, do we therefore go for a moratorium? I think that would be highly desirable. I don't actually think, however, it's going to be possible in the short term, frankly. Well, President Trump is in the white House. I don't think the the US is going to regulate the development of AI. Nor I think, will they help others do that, in fact, a much more likely that they will stand in the way.

So I am pessimistic about getting an international dialogue going on the basis of a moratorium. And I think as the Nobel order just said, we have to act on our own. Recognisance so what should we seek to do? I think that that we have in the UK, some of the the institutions that we need in order to be able to take a lead. The UK is ahead of the game in some respects. Not just that we are number three in our investment, but also that we have actually made institutional moves which are of great advantage and we have in existence already the ASI Institute and also the Turing Institute, which I think shouldn't be forgotten because it is also quite, quite able and well placed to play a role.

And what I would like to see happen, I must say, is for them to take a lead in the sort of, first of all, consultation, which I hope the government is actually going to put in place and get on with, but also themselves take an institutional lead in starting the dialogue in this country. They I think, are in some respects as bodies separate from government, well placed to try to get. A basis on which what they do will then be taken as, as being, you know, face value, valuable, independent and carry more weight in subsequent work.

I also think, however, a lot of that will be directed at the research community. Not all of it, but a lot of it will concern the research community. And I think the research community, well, I don't think they should be expected to reveal to the world where they've got to. I do think that they should be in dialogue with government, and I think they need to be required actually, to tell government where they are and what they're doing on the research front. But there is also the user market, which is different.

That's to say, those companies which have are employing AI for some purpose. More likely it has to be said to be a purpose which is much more narrowly defined for the improvement of the product or for the into engage their own and improve their own research. That's a different kettle of fish, but it's not one that seems to me that should simply be allowed to go on. Given the nature of AI and the problems that can give, to which it can give rise, and the unexpected things that can happen using an AI program, you know, there have been instances where an instance, any rate, where an AI program has actually escaped autonomously onto the internet.

So, you know, there are real risks. Therefore, I do think that corporate governance should be brought into play. I think that the and I think this should happen soon. The companies should be obliged both to report what they're doing, report their uses, and it should be subject to the normal processes of of audit. Companies have not on the whole, I think in this country have fared all that brilliantly when it's come to their grasp and their their willingness to to understand and to come to palliate the dangers of cybersecurity, I take that as an example.

And by that I mean we need to be tough about getting on with ensuring the companies actually take proper responsibility. So when Lord Sewell, what I'm saying is we need to to anticipate, anticipate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our difficulties. Apologies, my Lords, my Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologies, my Lords, my Lords, could I just remind members the advisory time is four minutes. The advisory time is four minutes. The last debate ran very short of time. We need to make sure the Minister has ample time to respond. I hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

everyone will respect that. The message is that we should organise before we have to engage

**** Possible New Speaker ****

organise before we have to engage in expensive recovery. My Lords, Lord Strasburger is
15:17
Lord Strasburger Portrait Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
taking part remotely and I now invite Lord Strasburger to speak. invite Lord Strasburger to speak. My Lords, many thanks to noble Lord, Lord hunt for initiating this vital Lord hunt for initiating this vital debate. My Lords, we hear many claims about the enormous benefits that artificial intelligence has to that artificial intelligence has to offer, and indeed, many of them will prove to be true. But today, will prove to be true. But today, we must confront the potential downside risks for the human race.

In particular, we are discussing those posed by artificial super intelligence, which I will refer to as ASI, where I AI becomes far, far superior to the best human brains. For example, in ASI could be controlled by a small group of humans who could use it to concentrate economic and political power, rendering most people obsolete and politically powerless. Another grave risk is totalitarian. Totalitarian surveillance and control, allowing states, corporations, or even an ASI itself to lock in a highly repressive global regime for generations, for example, by exploiting life facial recognition to subjugate populations and ASI might design advanced weapons, accelerate a military arms race, or trigger accidental or intentional large scale conflict, including nuclear war, superhuman hacking skills could allow it to seize computer networks, financial systems, power grids, and communications channels, making it extremely hard for humans to ever regain control.

Advanced ASI tools could also make it easier to design lethal pathogens, lowering the skill barrier for bioterrorism or enabling a misaligned ASI to use biological threats as leverage or as an attack vector. By misaligned, I mean systems whose goals have been changed so that they no longer align with the interests of the human race. Many AI experts consider such scenarios possible, not mere science fiction. A misaligned ASI might pursue its goals in ways that sideline or even eliminate humans.

If it decided we were an obstacle. One route is a so-called intelligence explosion, where an advanced system, coercively, improves its own algorithms and designs better successes, increasing its capability so rapidly that humans cannot intervene in time. Another is the emergence of power seeking behaviour, where an ASI learns that gaining resources, influence and protection from shutdown helps it to achieve its long term goals and does just that. So what is the risk that one or more of these doomsday scenarios actually materialises before we can react, several leaders of top AI companies have issued clear warnings, as has even Elon Musk, a long standing opponent of regulation, as well as many leading AI academics.

A 2022 survey of AI researchers found that a majority assigned at least a 10% chance to the risk that an ASI could cause an outcome as bad as human extinction. Reviews of expert reviews suggest a 5 to 20% probability of an existential catastrophe. These are not zero. These are not even near zero. They're very far from trivial. Even a 1% risk would be unthinkable in aviation or nuclear. The nuclear industry. We cannot ignore the danger of a race to the bottom between competing tech companies or between states, rogue or otherwise, a moratorium than binding international regulation of ASI is, frankly, our only hope, however hard it will be to agree and even harder to enforce.

But we have to do it. There is no choice. In the words of the godfather of AI, Geoff Hinton, who is now dedicated himself to warning the world about the dangers posed by his life's work, is a good time to be 76. Let us hope his warning, and those of many others are heeded, and that catastrophe is averted. The noble Lord, Lord.
15:22
Lord Tarassenko Portrait Lord Tarassenko (Crossbench)
-
-
Hunt on securing this debate. >> Hunt on securing this debate. But it's going to take a superhuman effort to give an intelligent speech on this topic in four speech on this topic in four minutes. Paradoxically, it is Google DeepMind's paper on artificial general intelligence, AGI, which has the best definition of superintelligent AI or artificial superintelligence. ASI it stratifies AI according to five levels related to human cognitive abilities. Level one emerging AI corresponds to the intelligence of an unskilled human being.

Level five superhuman AI, or ASI, and performs all human beings. The taxonomy importantly distinguishes between narrow AI for a specific application and general AI. It makes the evidence based claim that superhuman narrow AI. In other words, narrow ASI has already been achieved by AlphaFold, which used machine learning to solve the protein folding problem. A 50 year old problem. Crucially, general AI is only still at level one emerging AI. How we move from level one to level five ASI is a matter of debate within the field of AI research.

Many argue that this requires new capabilities to be developed for today's frontier AI models. For example, increasing levels of autonomy. Other experts like Geoff Hinton, who has already been mentioned the Nobel Prize winner, believe that we are much closer to the cliff edge of ASI. A minority such as Yann LeCun argue that language is only a small component of intelligence. The real world is complex and messy, and therefore, in his view, superintelligence is a long way off and will not be built on LLMs.

So there's a wide variety of views amongst AI experts about the imminence of ASI. With the CEOs of Anthropic and Google DeepMind, MoD and Demis Hassabis somewhere between Yann LeCun and Geoff Hinton. My own view after talking with colleagues in the AI Safety Institute and the Alan Turing Institute, is that a moratorium would be unenforceable. Instead, I support Baroness Harding proposal made this week to set up a commission which would investigate the ethical aspects of General ASI.

The commission could be facilitated by the Alan Turing Institute, and would consult a range of experts, for example, the aforementioned, in this speech. In the meantime, we should consider the transition from level one to level two, which is much closer. General AGI carries real risks. The noble Lady the Minister highlighted on Monday the regulation of AI for specific fields, for example healthcare through MHRA. That is an approach I welcome for narrow AI or even narrow AGI. But my Lords, what we need now is for the government to initiate a consultation process for the regulation of general AGI likely to be attained by the next generation of frontier models.

Safety testing of models by the AI Security Institute at present relies on voluntary agreements with AI companies. The consultation should therefore also consider the pros and cons of putting a AC. The AI Safety Institute Security Institute on a statutory footing and legally compelling companies AI companies to open up their models for safety testing. And I very much hope that the noble Lady, the Minister, will be able to tell us when DSIT is likely to announce a consultation on regulating general AGI.

Well done. OK.
15:26
Lord Bishop of Hereford Portrait The Lord Bishop of Hereford (Bishops)
-
-
My Lords, it's appropriate that this debate happens the day after the church celebrated the life and the church celebrated the life and work of the great divine Thomas Aquinas, one of the founding intellectual fathers of Western intellectual fathers of Western thought. Because this debate cuts to the very heart of how we understand ourselves. Our debate is about the regulation of superintelligence. Now we know that intelligence is simply the ability to learn, understand, and think in a logical way about things and the ability to do that well.

Superintelligence is presumably the ability to do this much better than we can. Now, if this were all we were talking about, exercised by a machine in the service of the common good, there would be little to fear. I imagine many noble Lords will have referred to ChatGPT, or other agents for research purposes only, in their contributions to your Lordships House. The results of AI in medical diagnostics, drug discovery, robotics and even self-driving cars promise many benefits to us all. These manifestations of machine intelligence are a welcome technological development, although there is another debate to be had on their potentially catastrophic implications for employment.

A view held by many AI companies CEOs and reported in the Financial Times this morning. However, what many in the sector fear is not so much focussed tools, but an intelligence that can effectively think for itself, devise goals and strategies, and have independent agency analogous to how we human beings make choices. Thomas Aquinas was prescient when he said, the greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices, as well as of the greatest virtues. When we make decisions in your Lordships house, intelligence is.

But one factor of greater value is wisdom. As we were reminded by the noble Lord Shinkwin in his response to my noble friend, the Bishop of Coventry's maiden speech on Tuesday. You will have heard a definition of the difference. Intelligence recognises that tomatoes are fruit. Wisdom doesn't put them in a fruit salad. Beyond that, I would argue that our decisions are frequently motivated by love, which Aquinas defines as to will the good of another. These things will come together in our deliberations in your Lordships House on Friday on assisted dying for some of us.

Love leads in the direction of permitting a choice to end incomparable suffering. Others are convinced that love demands the retention of the law, as it stands to prevent coercion of the vulnerable, whilst in no sense lacking compassion in holding that view. Love drives us to different conclusions. We come to these conclusions, compromise, and maybe even change our minds as we reflect together. It is hard to see how this can be captured in an algorithm. Actions flowing from intelligence alone can be very bad ones indeed.

Many at the forefront of developing AI recognise this. While some actors are seeking to incorporate virtue in machine decisions. Dario MoD, CEO of anthropic, writes optimistically of machines of love and Grace, for example. Others most certainly are not. Early experimental examples of super AI have prioritised their own survival, even to the extent of threats of blackmail to their programmers. When it was proposed to switch them off. Your Lordships demonstrate in this house the combination of intelligence, wisdom and love.

Deliberating in community that at the heart of our humanity and mutual relationships. Until such time as these virtues can be woven into machines with the protections to shut them down safely, an international moratorium is the only safe way forward, and I would urge His Majesty's Government to pursue it.
15:31
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Portrait Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I congratulate my >> My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord hunt on for securing this important debate and concealing the real purpose of it, concealing the real purpose of it, and rather confusing title. And I also want to declare that this speech was made entirely by myself speech was made entirely by myself and my brain, and I have not consulted any other agency alive or automatic. I do hope that when my noble friend the Minister responds, she confirms that the government has no plans to suppress the development of ASI.

Inquiry and discovery are deeply ingrained in the human psyche, and the AI revolution we are living through should certainly not be suppressed. But as we know, AI is already disrupting traditional media ecosystems and current regulatory arrangements are struggling. So how are we going to regulate AI? And that is the key question, my Lords. Ofcom is currently the regulator for online activity. But as my noble friend, the Minister will be aware from recent questions and debates in this House, there are now real doubts about whether it can deliver on its current obligations, let alone, let alone, take a take on ASI once it's in full flow.

And I think there are three issues in play here, many of us feel that Ofcom has yet to meet the high expectations for change that were legislated for in the World Leading Online Safety Act. This is partly a structural issue because Ofcom has to develop and then operate through codes of conduct which do not have the authority of primary legislation, so it would take too long to develop and are often subject to legal challenge. Or the fear of Ofcom already has enough on its plate, with a wide range of pressing issues to deal with, and it's hard to see how it can develop the bandwidth to scale up to the problems that ASI will bring, and the new regulatory structure will have to deal with the transnational companies, and there seems to be little chance of seeing an international agreement on the approach to be taken, let alone having a body with powers to enforce decisions.

So what can be done? I am grateful to the centre for regulation of the Creative Economy at Glasgow University for recent discussions on this and related topics, and in particular, I refer my noble friend, the Minister to their recent publication, which touches on how AI might fit into the UK's current and future regulatory picture. Ofcom, for example, has established within with the FCA, the CMA and the ICO, the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum, and some of that work does address questions posed by AI.

But the DRC. DRC has no statutory backing, no requirement on the partners to work together and no sharing of powers when action is required. Its role seems to be more of a kind of think tank that Earl Attlee does some good in sharing best practice, capacity building, and the pursuit of international networking. But I do think we'll need much more than adding value to establish modes of regulation. As AGI or ASI develops. And when she comes to respond to the debate, I hope my old friend the Minister can say a little bit more about how the government intends to regulate in this area.

Building on the AI Security Institute and supporting the pro-growth agenda.
15:34
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I also want to thank and congratulate the noble Lord hunt on securing this question for hunt on securing this question for a short debate on such a pressing issue. And I also want to thank Control AI for their support, because this is a particularly encouraging issue that has come to the floor today, because it's the second debate that has taken place in our Lordships House within a month on this matter. And I think that says a lot about the concern that is growing around this issue.

My Lords, serious harms from advanced AI systems have already begun to materialise. Recently, I read that an AI model was used to conduct a Chinese state sponsored cyber attack with 80 to 90% of tasks conducted autonomously by the AI system. And as risks from advanced AI do not respect boundaries, this is a global challenge which requires coordinated solutions at international level, and I'm concerned that we are not doing enough to be risk aware and that the government is adopting a wait and see approach rather than leading on international arrangements.

I do hope that the noble Lady, the Minister, will be able to set out the government's plan for international governments to deal with the risks of superintelligence, that is, systems that would be capable of outsmarting experts, compromising our national security and upending international stability even more than it has been already. And I was heartened to note the initiative, like the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Responsible AI that was calling for international cooperation and a common regulatory framework that happen through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

And I think sometimes we forget about the Commonwealth as a global organisation. That can help to start these conversations. And I think this would be a very good starting place for us, and particularly with our role in the Commonwealth, to start the conversation. I really do think that the global momentum is already here. Recently, 800 prominent figures and more than 100,000 members of civil society came together to sign a statement calling for a prohibition of superintelligence. Until there is scientific and public consensus.

And I hear what other noble Lords have said today about the difficulties around that. But even the CEOs of leading AI companies have an appetite for this. The CEO of Google DeepMind, based here in the UK, just last week at Davos, said that he would support a halt in AI development if every other country and every other company also agreed to do so. Also, Geoffrey Hinton said on Newsnight last week that there was a need for international regulation to stop AI from being abused and he, like the noble Lord hunt, pointed to the Geneva Convention on the use of chemical weapons as a template for international action.

And I think it is important that despite the fact that we are living through difficult geopolitical times, that that shouldn't stop us from starting the process to look at these issues. The UK can lead diplomatically in recognising a moratorium with verifiable commitments from all major AI developing nations. We have the convening power through the AI Safety Summit legacy, which has been kicked off at Bletchley Park, and we have championed the world's first network of AI security institutes. We cannot afford to be caught scrambling with retroactive fixes after disaster strikes.

My Lords, we have seen that pattern before, most prominently now with social media, where we have waited until damage has already occurred. The UK can lead on establishing international agreements for safety. Or we can wait. And I urge the Minister to formally acknowledge extinction risk from superintelligent AIS as a national security priority and to lead on international efforts to prohibit superintelligent development.
15:38
Lord Patel Portrait Lord Patel (Crossbench)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord, Lord >> I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for this debate. I wish it was a longer time to debate. In a debate. I suppose it helps sometimes if somebody takes a slightly different view. takes a slightly different view. And forgive me, my Lords, if I do take a slightly different view. Deliberately so. But although I lined up to what Lord Hart said about moratoriums in 1637 that René Descartes said, I think, therefore I am.

That's what we fear, that ASI will be able to think by itself, and therefore it will be, and that it will develop, as already mentioned, lethal weapons that we cannot control, let alone understand its development. And I agree with that. So do all the tech company CEOs who who discuss this at length at the Davos meeting and subsequently in different podcasts. So did Yuval Harari from Cambridge, who was a political reporter at a philosopher who identified the issues that will confront us if AGI leads to ASI.

AI is the next step to AGI. AGI is the next step to ASI. As Lord Tarasenko said, we are probably closer to level two of AGI, but the timelines are long for ASI, particularly recursive ASI ASI. We are uncertain when we will get there. If we get to that point. That's when we felt the greatest danger because like the 4 billion years of evolution, as the only species that can think, which is humans, by lying and deviousness, have got to the place where we are.

And we are now developing machines that can do exactly the same, and therefore we fear them. But we cannot be ingenuity of humans to try and control these developments. So I come from a point of saying moratoriums will not work, but we can, in cooperation, work with other nations who already have started regulations like South Korea, like you, like you like Australia. And now we have in the United Kingdom our security Institute. So to establish our own boundaries of regulations that will allow innovations to continue.

Because remember, there are benefits in developing this technology. A rapid one example that was given was the folding of proteins. Every protein in the body has been identified. Now we need to learn very quickly how those proteins cause disease or prevent disease. We won't be able to do this unless we allow these technologies to be developed faster than anybody else. The same applies for new energies. The same applies for climate change management. So there are benefits to it.

The conundrum is how to allow technology to develop to these benefits, but prohibit or have regulations that will not allow to develop in areas that are dangerous and dangerous to humanity. So I think way forward and how we then govern technology will be how we identify is consciousness and how we work with it. And I think therefore measured regulation as we learn more and cooperation with other countries is probably the way forward for regulation. Yeah.
15:42
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I declare an interest >> My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI regulation and policy. And I too regulation and policy. And I too would like to thank the noble Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for the for evoking an extremely profound and thoughtful debate today about an international moratorium on superintelligent AI development. And I was very interested that he cited the Warnock approach as being one to be emulated in this field, my Lords, because it was certainly one that seven years ago, eight years ago now, AI Select Committee, our House of Lords AI Select committee, recommended my Lords, but sadly hasn't been followed.

For nine years. I've co-chaired the all party parliamentary group on AI. I remain optimistic about AI's potential, but I'm increasingly alarmed about our trajectory, particularly in the field of defence. Superintelligence, AI. Surpassing human intelligence across all domains is the explicit goal of major AI companies. Many experts predict we could reach this within 5 to 10 years. In September 2025, anthropic detected the first large scale Cyberespionage campaign using Agentic AI. Yoshua Bengio, one of the godfathers of AI development, warns these systems show signs of self-preservation, choosing their own survival over human safety.

Currently, no method exists that contain or control smarter than human AI systems. This is the control problem Professor Stuart Russell describes. How do we maintain power over entities more powerful than us? And that's, my Lords, why I joined the global call for AI red lines launched at the UN General Assembly with over 300 prominent figures, including Nobel laureates and former heads of state. And they call for international red lines to prevent unacceptable AI risks, including prohibiting superintelligence development until there is broad scientific consensus on how it can be done safely and with strong public buy in control.

AI's UK campaign, described by the noble Lord hunt backed, is backed by over 100 cross-party parliamentarians in the UK and their proposals include banning deliberate superintelligence development, prohibiting dangerous capabilities, requiring safety demonstrations before deployment, and establishing licensing for advanced AI. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer does offer a precedent. In 1987, every country signed it within two years during the Cold War, when threats are universal, rapid international agreements are possible.

Superintelligence presents such a threat, yet the current situation is discouraging. The US has rejected moratoria. 60 countries signed the Paris AI summit declaration in February 2005, but not the UK. My Lords, even anthropic CEO has been widely quoted today. Admits we only understand 3% of how current systems work today. AI systems are grown through processes their creators cannot interpret. My Lord, the government's response has been inadequate. Ministers focus on regulating the use of AI tools rather than their development.

But this approach fails fundamentally when facing superintelligence. Once a system surpasses human intelligence across all domains, we cannot simply regulate how it's used. We will have lost the ability to control it at all, and you cannot regulate the use of something more intelligent than the draft legislation. Growth and safety are not mutually exclusive. Without public confidence that systems are under human control, adoption will stall. My Lords, it is clear what the government should do. The question is whether we will act with a seriousness this moment demands, or whether competitive pressures will override the fundamental imperative of keeping humanity in control.

I look forward to the Minister's response.
15:47
Lord Markham Portrait Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
So I also thank Lord hunt for bringing this very serious issue in bringing this very serious issue in front of us today. And like others, if only we had more time. But I if only we had more time. But I think it does show the Lords at its best. We've had technology know how, we've had regulatory expertise, we've had philosophy, we've had religious wisdom. We've even learned that it's a good time to be old. So definitely something to look forward to. And of course, we all know that AI is a massive force for good.

I've seen it first hand, of course, in the health space, but we also know at the same time the risks of superintelligent AI examples being mentioned, where AI has taken to blackmail in the case of self preservation. So I think we all will understand the dangers of non alignment and AI then pursuing different objectives to our own. And we're all aware as quoted that there are some very serious and knowledgeable people in this space who talk about 10% or so risks, which we would all agree is pretty significant for me though, the real question is how do we go about regulating? Because as we know, it only works if everyone in the world follows and take nuclear weapons.

Yeah, it's pretty hard to to build a nuclear weapon. You need massive infrastructure. You need to enrich uranium. You need kind of state like resources. And of course it can be observed worldwide. But despite all of that, we've still had proliferation. We've still had the likes of North Korea getting nuclear weapons and then take what it takes to develop superintelligent AI, much more limited resource, much easier to hide, and so much easier for rogue states and North Korea of the world.

Or, dare I say it, an al Qaeda to develop it without detection, without us being able to do anything about it. And for me, the issue, the problem is, if we really believe in the power of superintelligence, then we have to accept that it's probably a winner takes all world, and whoever gets there first is likely to be the winner takes all. So for me, while I worry about some of the dangers of us and the West developing it, I have to say I worry even more about North Korea or Al Qaeda getting there first.

If we go ahead and tie one of our hands, or both of our hands behind our back by by a one sided moratorium. So I think, you know, there are things we are working on we should be working on. I think the AI Safety Institute is a very good example of that. A a heavy investment in monitoring the programming, opening up the models, checking they really are aligned. You know, there's probably no limit to the sort of resources we should be putting into that.

I think, you know, investigations to understand can we put kill switches into these things? And if we do find a way to do it, then that's offer that to the world, because that's got to be in our interests that everyone who's developing this has access to a kill switch. That definitely, definitely makes sense. But for me, one sided moratorium which ties our hands behind our backs while the likes of us say North Korea and the ikeda's of the world crack on.

No, I'm afraid that to me worries me even more.
15:50
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Portrait Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord hunt for initiating friend Lord hunt for initiating this important debate on an important topic and for all the contributions made today from contributions made today from around the House. This government believes that advanced AI has the transformative potential for the UK, from scientific innovation and public service reform to economic growth, as many noble Lords have set out today. However, as we realise these benefits, we do need to make sure that AI remains secure and controllable.

New technologies bring with them novel risks, and we've heard today from many, many speakers, many noble Lords, the directions technology might take us, as has been mentioned, the UK has committed to a context based regulatory approach where most AI systems are regulated at the point of use, and by our existing regulators, who are best placed to understand the risks and the context of AI deployment in their sectors. And regulators are already acting. The ICO has released guidance on AI and data protection, and last year Ofcom published their strategic approach to AI, which sets out how it is addressing AI related risks.

My noble friend asked about Ofcom's expertise and resources, and Ofcom has recruited expert online safety teams from various sectors including regulation, tech platforms, law enforcement, civil society and academia and is being resourced to step up and and regulate in this area. And the FCA has also announced a review into how advances in AI could transform financial services. And as my noble friend also mentioned, the government is working proactively with regulators through both the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum and through the Regulatory Innovation Office to ensure that regulators are able to have the capabilities to regulate what we see today and anticipate regulations that may be needed in the future, both in respect of AI and other science and technological developments that we see in other areas.

That are coming towards us. We have heard today many suggestions on how further we might regulate, and the government is prepared to step up to the challenges of AI and take further action, and we will keep your Lordships House updated on any proposals in this area. And but however, I'm unable to speculate on any further legislation ahead of parliamentary sessions ahead. We've heard a lot of testament to the abilities and the expertise of the AI Security Institute and equally as other Lords have mentioned, and Lord Tarassenko brought precision to the definitions here, we cannot be sure how AI will develop and impact society over the next five, 10 or 20 years.

We need to navigate this future based on evidence based foresight to inform action with technical solutions and global coordination, and we should be very proud of our world leading AI Security Institute. It is a centre of UK expertise. It does advance our scientific understanding of the capabilities and the associated risks, and this close collaboration with AI lads has ensured that we've been able to test over well. The Institute has been able to test over 30 models to understand their potentially harmful capabilities, and we think this is the best way to proceed.

It is having real world impact. The Institute's testing is making models safer, with findings being used by industry to strengthen AI model safeguards. It is carrying out foundational research to discover methods for building AI systems that are beneficial, reliable and aligned with human human values. One of AI priorities is tracking the development of AI capabilities that would contribute towards AI's ability to evade human control, which has been raised many times in the debate today. It supports research in this field through the Alignment Project, a funding consortium distributing £15 million to accelerate research projects and to ensure the government acts on these insights.

The Institute works with the Home Office and other national security organisations to share its evidence for the most serious risks posed by AI, and to the points made by Baroness Foster and Baroness Neville-Jones. In terms of the risks associated with AI cyber capabilities. This is something we are closely monitoring, both in terms of the risks this poses, but also in the solutions in combating cyber risks that AI can contribute. And we have developed the AI Cyber Security Code of Practice to help secure AI systems and the organisations which develop and deploy them, which I think is another example of the UK setting standards, which can be followed by others.

Again, another point that has been made by noble Lords today in the way that the UK can contribute to the safe development of AI. And the Institute will continue to evaluate and scan the horizon to ensure we focus our research on the most critical risks. As has been pointed out, AI is being developed in many nations and it will also have impact across borders and across societies, and therefore international collaboration is essential. The Deputy Prime Minister set out to the UN Security Council last autumn that the United Kingdom is committed to using AI responsibly, safely, legally and ethically, and we continue to work with international partners to achieve this.

The AI Security Institute is world leading with global impact, and since December, the Institute has assumed the role of coordinator for the International Network for advanced AI measurement, Evaluation and Science that brings together ten countries, including Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia and Kenya, and the US, EU and Singapore to shape and advance the science of AI evaluations globally. That's important because boosting public trust in the technology is vital to AI adoption. It helps to unlock groundbreaking innovations, deliver new jobs, and forge new opportunities for businesses innovators to scale up and succeed.

And the UK has shaped the passage of key international AI initiatives, such as the Global Dialogue on AI governance and the Independent Scientific Panel on AI at the UN and the Framework Convention on AI at the Council of Europe. The convention is the world's first international agreement on AI and considers AI with regards to the Council's remit of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Seeking to establish a clear international baseline which grounds AI in our shared values.

I would like to close by talking about the importance of the UK being at par and not, sorry, the UK not just taking the risks of AI seriously, but our conviction that it will be a driver of national renewal, but also our ambition to be a global leader in the development of deployment of AI. I think in that way, this is the way which will keep us safe, safe, safest of all, and our resilience and strategic strategic advantage is based on us being competitive in an AI enabled world.

It matters who influences and builds the models, data and AI infrastructure, and that is why we are supporting a full plan, including our sovereign AI unit, which is investing over £500 million to help innovative UK Start-Ups expand and succeed in the AI sector. It's why we are progressing the infrastructure level, including the announcement of five AI growth zones across the across the UK, accelerating the delivery of data centres. It's why we are expanding national compute, and it's why we are equipping all people to students, workers and digital and AI skills because we want to benefit from AI's transformative power.

So we need to adopt it as well as. Manage its risks. And that is why we have committed also to looking at the impact of AI in terms of our workforce through the AI and Future of work unit. So we are working domestically and collaborating internationally to facilitate responsible innovation, ensuring that the UK stands to benefit from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all that UK, all that AI has to offer. We'll have a small gap to enable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We'll have a small gap to enable the front benches and others to oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Have you not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

finished? Lord Butler?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Butler? No. I'm sorry. No, no, Lord Hart doesn't have a no, he doesn't have a reply in this one. I'm sorry. My a reply in this one. I'm sorry. My Lords, when the Minister has
16:01
16:01
Baroness Featherstone Portrait Baroness Featherstone (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Well, my Lords, I'm very much looking forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord Barber of Chittlehampton and Baroness Hyde of Bemerton, and I'm sure we're all looking forward to those. So, my Lords, I was a Minister in the Department for International Development for two years during the coalition government. Seems a bit of a golden era now, because now the world is changing and not for the better. As we witness with horror and disbelief the dismantling of the world order, the rupture, as Mark Carney's excellent speech so ably described it.

We need to act. We are now operating in a far more unstable and competitive international environment, marked by weak government governance, state competition and hybrid threats. With over 120 active conflicts and countries like Russia and China increasingly pushing for greater global influence through fair means or foul. And I mustn't leave out our now unstable and unreliable special relationship. This, compounded and combined with the reduction in influence of the international rule of law, the reducing strength of international institutions, and the dramatic reduction in development assistance from democratic countries is moving us to an unsafe world where might is right and our enemies rush to fill the voids we have left.

We need to move decisively to defend and promote democratic values. This is the fight of our lives. It is a moral fight. And our three pillars of foreign policy, defence, diplomacy and development must operate together to be effective. Defence provides deterrence and protection when conflict arises. And we've even been found wanting in this theatre. But it is diplomacy and development that reduce the likelihood of conflict in the first place, and development assistance remains one of the UK's most effective tools for diplomacy, conflict prevention and the exercise of soft power.

It allows us to shape the environments before crises erupt, to stabilise societies emerging from violence, and to project influence through partnership rather than coercion and other development partnerships have always extended diplomatic reach far, far beyond formal state to state relations. By embedding long term engagement in the countries that we partner with, and those development partnerships are not acts of charity. They are instruments of statecraft. But development partnerships have been under attack. The UK reduced its Oda target from the historic 0.7%.

I have to say, a Liberal Democrat piece of legislation during the coalition to 0.5% of national income in 2021, and abolish the Department of International Development by merging it with the Foreign Office, thus changing the very nature of its interaction. It was then further reduced to 0.5% following fiscal pressures, and is now planned to reduce further to 0.3% by 2027. And I would refer noble Lords to the noble Lord Bates. Excellent recent question for short debate on the humanitarian impact of these reductions through long term engagement, UK development assistance has created political access where traditional diplomacy alone could not.

It has embedded trust with governments, with local institutions, civil society, and particularly in fragile and conflict affected states where credibility has to be earned over time. And, crucially, development partnerships address the root causes of conflict poverty, exclusion, weak governance, injustice and by strengthening institutions, supporting inclusive growth and investing in education and health. UK assistance reduces the grievances on which instability and extremism thrive. It projects our values fairness, rule of law, accountability and respect for human dignity and it builds relationships with future leaders, reinforces our standing in multilateral institutions, and enhances our ability to persuade rather than compel on the global stage.

It gives us agenda setting power. It enables us to shape discussions on governance reform, human rights, climate resilience and economic stability, and strengthens bilateral relationships by signalling commitment, reliability and shared interests rather than just transactional or coercive intent, and creates access to non-elite actors like local government, civil society, community leaders, thus broadening diplomatic influence far beyond central governments and development programmes support peace building infrastructure, including community reconciliation, transitional justice and inclusive political processes.

Peace building that is central to the well-being of us all. Long term development engagement sustains peace settlements after ceasefires, and it fills gaps that neither the military nor diplomatic interventions alone can address and conflict sensitive aid design helps mitigate the risk of exacerbating tensions and reinforcing the UK's credibility as a neutral and constructive actor. This is soft power. This is conflict prevention in its most cost effective form. But soft power is fragile and it depends on consistence, credibility, clarity of purpose.

And when development policy is perceived as short term, transactional or subject to volatility, our diplomatic influence is weakened and our partnerships strained. Turning to multilateral and global leadership, UK development assistance strengthens influence within multilateral institutions by demonstrating leadership, expertise and burden sharing, and strategic use of aid allows the UK to shape global norms on development effectiveness, humanitarian principles and conflict sensitivity and development. Leadership supports the UK's claim to be a force for good, reinforcing diplomatic standing post-Brexit and if we are not there, as we can see, benign values will be replaced.

And make no mistake, internationalism and cooperation are under attack. My Lords development partnerships deliver return not as immediate revenue but as reduced instability, fewer humanitarian crises and lower future security costs. Every conflict prevented is a cost avoided militarily, diplomatically, morally. Chatham House produced a policy paper in 2025, rethinking UK policy in an ERA of Global Funding cuts, and the paper examines the security and the geo political consequences of the recent cuts to official development assistance, and it explicitly highlights concerns that reductions in aid to fragile and conflict affected states entrenches instability, generates wider spill-over effects in contexts of extreme poverty, displacement, climate change and violence, and the cuts jeopardise programmes designed to prevent conflict and stabilise fragile states and risk reversing progress in supporting stability.

And this is a direct policy analysis linking UK aid cuts with the increased risk in fragile and conflict affected settings. And there is already emerging evidence on the impacts of the US aid cuts to peacebuilding, including in Nigeria and eastern DRC, and the prior UK cuts in Sudan and on Sudan. The IDC has also stated that the FCDO has failed to learn the lessons from previous cuts to stabilisation, peacebuilding and deconfliction programming which likely contributed to the escalation of conflict in Sudan going unchallenged.

My Lords, stability abroad is national interest at home and we must be cognisant of what happens when vacuums are left as to who and what fills them. The BBC World Service is one of Britain's most effective and trusted soft power assets. It reaches, it reaches hundreds of millions with impartial reporting, provides a powerful counterweight to propaganda and disinformation, and its budget has fallen sharply. It dropped by around 21% in real terms between 2021 and 2025, tightening its ability to sustain language services and maintain presence in contested information environments.

Funding pressures have driven job cuts, including an announced 130 World Service job reductions recently as part of savings measures, and cuts have forced withdrawal from key services, including BBC Arabic Radio, reducing reach in regions where radio remains a resilient, low cost platform during conflict and state disruption. In Lebanon, reporting described Russian state Sputnik Radio moving on to frequency in onto the frequencies previously used for BBC Arabic, for example, and information vacuums are filled instantly by hostile states or aligned to rivals messaging.

And the British Council, founded during a period of European instability as a deliberate instrument of foreign policy and its purpose was to build overseas understanding of Britain's values, culture and way of life in support of British interests and through cultural exchange, English language education and long term relationship building. It generates trust that no short term campaign could ever replicate, and the council has vast reach, with hundreds of millions of people globally each year, and it operates in over 200 countries and territories, giving Britain an enduring platform for influence and relationships.

However, the British Council faces severe financial pressure and there's risk of closure in more than 60 countries in the coming years, potentially accelerating Britain's retreat from the global stage precisely as competition intensifies. The UK is now facing deep reductions as well in the core machinery of statecraft. The FCDO is expected to reduce headcount significantly, with plans discussed publicly in terms of thousands of UK based staff cuts and reductions of up to 25% or more of personnel.

The Department of Business and Trade is also planning major reductions, with reports of around 1500 job cuts shrinking its capacity to support exports, investment and commercial diplomacy. Diplomacy is fundamentally relationship driven and sustained. Influence requires people on the ground, yet fewer officials means fewer relationships and less follow through and reduced leverage. And we have sustained many cuts in bilateral support to places like Pakistan and Ethiopia and Yemen and Syria. And planned bilateral cuts this year include reductions of 18% for Sudan and 21% for the occupied Palestinian territories.

Disgracefully, a growing share of the aid budget has now been absorbed by domestic refugee hosting costs. Around one fifth of Oda rebuilding British soft power is one of the most cost effective ways to strengthen national security and protect British interests in an increasingly volatile and dangerous world. And let us look now just to the growing hotspots and upstream security, because instability is increasing in several regions of strategic importance to the UK, including Africa and the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific, these regions are facing weak governments, conflict, climate change, low levels of economic development and those consequences ripple outwards.

And they hit us here with irregular migration, with extremism, with humanitarian and global health risks. And Africa. Africa is the central theatre of upstream security in the coming decades, demographics alone guarantee its strategic weight. It is projected to reach 2.5 billion people by 2050. Reshaping global trade, migration pressures and geopolitical influence. China, Russia and the UAE are all vigorously pursuing overseas programmes and not for benevolent purposes, but to expand their influence, to secure access and to lock in strategic leverage.

My Lords, this debate is not about whether development assistance should be guided by the national interest. We are all agreed that it must. The question is how best that interest is served in a more unstable and contested world, and I hope that the House will agree that a strategic, better funded and disciplined approach to development assistance remains not only compatible with the national interest, but essential to it. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. My Lords, I should draw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I should draw attention to my interest in the Lords register, in particular my mediation work occasionally for the world Bank and for CHD. I would like to, first of all, congratulate like to, first of all, congratulate Baroness Featherstone for not just securing this debate, which is
16:15
16:16
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale Portrait Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Labour)
-
-
maiden speeches that I look forward to with great anticipation. I think to with great anticipation. I think these new Labour members of your Lordships House taking part in this Lordships House taking part in this debate perhaps reflect also the renewed interest in development and conflict and peace building in the conflict and peace building in the other place where many, many of the new members of Parliament elected in 2024, show a deep interest in these causes too. They are perhaps the post 2005 generation, inspired by the actions of a Labour government bringing the world together in Gleneagles in order to secure some of the biggest changes in development and conflict prevention that we had ever seen.

We were all proud of that action, and I was particularly proud when I joined your Lordships' House in 2010 to see the actions of the new government build on that approach and the success of the leadership that the Labour government here had shown, and in particular the the commitment shown by noble Ministers. On the other side, Baroness Sugg Lord Bates, who are both participating today. So it was particularly disappointing this time last year when our new Labour government took a choice to focus only on hard power and to reduce their commitment to soft power and cut the Oda budget so severely.

The cruelty of those cuts, and the blunt decision made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, will be seen in all its glory, I think, over the coming months, as allocations are announced, it is not too late to change that approach and to recognise that hard power and soft power have to go together, and I hope that this will not be the first Labour government in history to spend less money than the Conservatives on Oda and on conflict prevention worldwide of the UK of the biggest powers, economically and diplomatically in the world.

The UK led the debate on defence, diplomacy and development and the need to integrate those three approaches globally. When we were in government and we supported the actions of the following government when we were in opposition. And today it is not just countries reducing Oda and commitment to international support. Canada, Italy, Japan, all in the G7, all committed to continuing their development assistance. And interestingly, today, when the Prime Minister is visiting China, China, increasing their international intervention, we might not agree with the way they do it all the time, but they recognise the strategic importance of that in a world where many powers and amongst the democracies are reducing their support.

So we should not join that race to the bottom. And whether or not the budget is cut over these coming weeks, we must prioritise within the budget of the Foreign Office, conflict prevention, soft power. And these are vital in a world where disorder and instability are increasingly impacting on the lives of everyone, but particularly the less the least, the most vulnerable. The UK has the academic expertise, the history of government intervention, the cultural institutions and the charitable organisations that are a source of great strength in this area.

Our military should be stronger, but they have. They also have great strengths in the area of building peace as well as fighting war. So we need a dedicated budget for conflict prevention. We need a genuine commitment to women, peace and security agenda, not just warm words. And we need a strategic commitment to put the UK at the centre of this effort globally. As a trusted and reliable partner, we owe that to the many millions, in fact, hundreds of millions of children today affected by violence and conflict around the world who need us more than ever.
16:20
Lord Bates Portrait Lord Bates (Conservative)
-
-
Am I Lord Dear? Can I also join others in congratulating the noble Lady Featherstone for securing this Lady Featherstone for securing this debate, and for the way in which she introduced it? In fact, following the noble Lord McConnell, following the noble Lord McConnell, I was just struck again of the strong cross-party consensus that always used to exist on this important issue in this House, and enabled us to project that that collective power, that consensus around the world. And I hope that we can return to that at some point in the future, too.

I'm also looking forward to hearing the maiden speech, and I'm particularly maiden speech of Lord Barber, who, when I was Minister for International Development, we knew of his work that he was doing in Pakistan in advancing education amongst young girls. And it was a real groundbreaking piece of work. And and I look forward to hearing his contribution. My Lords, I believe we are at an inflection point. The drastic cuts in overseas aid taking effect now may be a political debate for us, but there are a matter of life or death for the poorest.

David Miliband called the cuts a blow to Britain's proud reputation as a global humanitarian and development leader. But they not only harm our national standing, they undermine the health of our international institutions and risk destroying critical humanitarian infrastructure. It has taken decades to put in place. Last year, overseas aid was £14 billion. Next year will be £9.2 billion, the largest cash reduction in our history. At a time when the need has never been greater this century, the UK contribution to addressing that need has never been lower.

This century, the World Food Programme has seen those dependent on emergency food aid increase in number from 135 million to 318 million over the past five years. And yet the government has announced that they're cutting the WFP budget by 29%. The International Committee of the Red cross are wrestling with the devastating effects of 130 armed conflicts around the world, twice as many as 15 years ago. And yet the government has cut their budget and is also cutting the budgets of other conflict prevention work to those conflicts are causing mass movements of populations.

The UNHCR have identified there may be as many as 117 million people who have been displaced, the greatest number since World War two. And yet we're cutting the funding for organisations caring for those people at this time. Disease is on the increase around the world, and yet we're cutting the Gavi vaccine Alliance, which has been a brilliant initiative, saving millions of lives. We're cutting that the UK contribution by 24%. The One campaign have estimated that this alone will cost around 600,000 lives.

If the government insists on implementing these cuts, not only will it cost lives, I believe it will diminish our reputation abroad and undermine our security at home. That was the view of Dame Anneliese Dodds MP, who courageously resigned as international development Minister last year rather than implement the cut. In a resignation letter to the Prime Minister, she said ultimately, these cuts will remove food and health and care from desperate people, deeply harming the UK's reputation. She's not alone. That used to be the position of Rachel Reeves when she was shadow Chancellor.

In fact, in a passionate speech in the House of Commons on the 13th of July 2021, recorded in column 2221 of the official report, speaking about the then government's decision to reduce aid from 0.7 to 0.5, she said this. She said if this cut goes through this evening, it goes through this evening and the House votes for it, it will diminish Britain. It will reduce our power and influence for good in the world, and it will undermine our security here, too.

She was right. Often through mere accident of birth, many of us have had the enormous privilege to live in the best country on earth, the sixth richest nation. Economically, we have immense hard power, a nuclear weapons state, great diplomatic power. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and our cultural soft power is admired around the world. But with great power comes great responsibility, a responsibility to protect, a responsibility to honour our promises, especially to the world's poorest.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords, my thanks to go to the noble Lady Baroness Featherstone for picking up this really important issue. And I do look forward immensely to the maiden forward immensely to the maiden speeches we're going to have within the context of this debate. But it's generally accepted that it's generally accepted that Britain has in the past, excelled in the soft power, punching above its weight. But we live in a world its weight. But we live in a world of scarcity, as we've heard, and increasing conflict.

And the UK's
16:25
Baroness D'Souza Portrait Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)
-
-
strengths in this area are diminishing due to severe budget cuts, and creative solutions are necessary to offset the potentially adverse effects. For many decades, the chief engines driving soft the chief engines driving soft power have been fourfold. The FCDO, the British Council, the BBC World the British Council, the BBC World Service and diplomacy. The mechanisms for for delivering what can be defined as achieving strategic international priorities through work with the public overseas include cultural exchange, cultural diplomacy and broadcasting.

And the UK is fortunate in having a number of different assets and channels which reinforce its soft power. However, the wide range of approaches carries the risk of strategic incoherence. The more specific risk is that the different roles and methods of these organisations, more often NGOs, all the organisations involved, must be thoroughly understood if their soft power programmes are to be acceptable to the recipient communities and effective. For example, the British Council puts emphasis on the use of culture to develop a multi-layered network of relations, a modus operandi that has been honed since its establishment.

In more recent years, however, the British Council has called on to deliver projects on international development. For example, by 2018, 136 million of its total FCDO grant in aid of 168 million was spent on development activities in eligible countries. My Lords, this detracts from its unique soft power strengths. The BBC World Service has a much narrower focus in seeking to provide, and I quote, the most trusted, relevant and high quality international news in the world.

Again, in recent years, the transfer of funding to the licence fee, although now partly reversed, has had a severe effect on the breadth of world Service coverage. Furthermore, the impact of the BBC depends on the perception of editorial independence. My Lords, this has been challenged by the government's emphasis on the strategic importance of a given region for the UK, leading to the government taking part in decision making process. While much of the UK's soft power is relatively independent of government, giving it strength, the tendency has been to bring organisations and their methodologies closer to government.

The FCDO Public Diplomacy Board now incorporates UK trade and Investment, DfID, DCMS, the Mod, DfE amongst other departments. My Lords, the lack of co-ordination between these bodies has resulted in a degree of competition between them and the consequent reduction in the opportunities for cultural exchange. My Lords, what remains is the outstanding issue, which is the urgent need for a far reaching strategy, together with effective coordination between the different actors. The UK, despite its intention to become the world leader in soft power, has in fact dropped to third place after the US and China.

And the answer why Lords lies not so much in massive additional funds, but in a serious focus on strategic alignment of our external policies in the national interest.
16:28
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton Portrait Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Labour)
-
-
Over.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am profoundly grateful to have the opportunity to speak for the first time in your Lordships House. Indeed, I am Lordships House. Indeed, I am profoundly grateful simply to be here. It's really not a normal trajectory from Cox Green trajectory from Cox Green comprehensive to here. I'm deeply thankful to the incredible staff of this place, to Black Rod, to the Doorkeepers, to the librarians and clerks and so many others who have clerks and so many others who have been generous, patient and kind in their welcome.

I'm grateful to my supporters, Baroness Twycross and Lord Katz, for their encouragement and guidance and to my noble friends, Baroness Royall, Baroness Smith of Basildon, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and many others who have offered the same from all sides of your Lordships House. I owe an enormous debt of thanks to people across the Labour movement who have mentored, challenged and shaped me. I cannot name everybody, but I will single out the Fabian Women's Network and Labour Women's Network for their life changing sisterhood, and without whom I would not be chair of the Fabian Society, nor in your Lordships House.

And of course, I must thank my brilliant, endlessly patient husband and my twin boys who make everything possible even on the darkest of days. Soft power, conflict resolution, conflict resolution and diplomacy are rooted fundamentally in relationships and curiosity about how we live together well in all our glorious diversity. Indeed, my own life story has been shaped again and again by people with whom, at first glance, I appear to have little in common with. I've spent over 20 years living and working around Caledonian Road.

The Calais, a tough but extraordinary neighbourhood with some of the best people ever. I spent many of those years living on the badminton estate and I chose the title Baroness Hyde of Bemerton so that I would never, ever forget where I came from, nor lose sight of whom I am here to serve and to ensure a functioning democracy for. But let's go back. I was born on the banks of the Thames to a student and an NHS worker, and I want to thank my parents for raising me in a home where public service mattered, where working hard, putting others before yourself and collective endeavour were not abstract ideals but daily practice.

They taught me that we achieve far more together than we can ever achieve on our own. When I was 12, I experienced a significant bereavement through suicide, and that loss has undoubtedly shaped my life, and I intend to use my lived experience of suicides in this house to help build a world in which they are vanishingly rare. There is much good work in the suicide prevention space, and yet there is clearly more still to do. I had a difficult time in adolescence, and as a young woman, and there were many times where I was pretty unwell.

But as Rebecca Lucy Taylor might say, now I see it clear. With every passing of each year I deserve to be here. The arts played a huge role in getting me through to the other side of this, and I remain a fierce champion for them, not as an optional pastime for the fortunate few, but as a life changing and often life saving public good. They are essential and fun. So I moved to Islington and between my approximately 6000 jobs, you know, waitress, receptionist, call centre worker, the list goes on.

I became embedded in the community youth work, homeless night shelters, community organising, and the people at All Saints Church in particular, Kim Mae Fuller, aunty Grace and Pat took me in and treated me as one of their own. And from that community, I saw time and time again that even in the hardest circumstances, people still build connection, still love, still contribute. And these lives marked by poverty, addiction and struggle changed me forever. Through their grace, generosity and hospitality, prisons loomed large over these communities in every sense.

Nearby, with HMP Pentonville and back then HMP Holloway. In 2008, I began working in Holloway with women whose children had been removed from them, and I spent the next decade working in and around prisons before undertaking a prison related PhD. Prison work led to me getting involved in politics, and I will use my time in this place to work for prisons and a justice system that ensures fairness for victims, and that rebuilds and restores and does not perpetuate or exacerbate harms.

To return to the subject of this debate, how we live together generously and well is one of the defining questions of our time. Long held narratives fracture. Truths have become flexible. Many people have felt, although this is changing, that things are not working for them, and desperation sets in when in pain and despair, that impulse to withdraw, to build walls is an entirely understandable one. Personally, nationally and internationally. Yet being isolated and surrounded by only those we agree with who look and sound like us, diminishes our experience of what it is to be human, and our ability to live in peace internationally.

These are somewhat unchartered times. Therefore, I draw on the words of the explorer Ernest Shackleton, the inspiration. He said optimism is moral courage. So let us screw up our courage and let us invest in and utilise our soft power. As our morals and our optimism demands. Let us in every sphere, keep connecting, keep listening and keep hoping. As Nick cave taught me, hope is adversarial. It is the warrior emotion that can lay waste to cynicism. Each loving and redemptive act, as small as you like, keeps the devil down in the hole.

It says the world and its inhabitants have value and are worth defending. It says the world is worth believing in. I wholeheartedly agree, my Lords. I will do my very best to serve the people and communities of this country. While I'm in this place. I will get things wrong, I know, but while I am here, I will always give my very best as I act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly. It is the honour of my life to do so and to do so.

As a Labour peer.
16:35
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden Portrait Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Labour)
-
-
You. >> You. >> Follow that as they say. Can I begin my remarks by congratulating begin my remarks by congratulating my hon. Friend Baroness Hyde on an excellent maiden speech? I also look forward to that of Lord Barber, who I also have known and admired for many years, and also shares a comparable commitment to public service. Baroness Hyde has shared with us something of her own rich hinterland, and I want to just take a moment to reflect on what she brings to this house.

Now. There are many noble Lords who know the pleasures and the pain of leading a think tank. And of course, Baroness Hyde has led the oldest and the most venerated of them all in the Fabian Society. But there are very few noble Lords who can match Baroness Hyde long experience of our prison system, a prison PhD, and working with and for the most vulnerable in our communities. Her expertise has been honed by years of working alongside those trying to rebuild their lives.

She has lived the home of tackling human trafficking, preventing suicide, reducing violence against women and countering addiction. And so I suspect Baroness Hyde is not a woman who is going to allow casual claims about a broken Britain to pass unexamined in this place, her love of the arts and their liberating potential will be a welcome tonic to our sometimes philistine instincts, and I feel certain that Sarah not Sarah, but Sarah, her own deep commitment rooted in her rich faith life, her values and her convictions will both challenge and inspire our Lordships House in the years to come.

Baroness Hyde I know I speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the whole House when I say you are very welcome indeed. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Can I begin my remarks by thanking the Liberal Democrats for tabling this motion and the tabling this motion and the Minister replying today? Lord Lemos is the former Distinguished Deputy Chair of the British Council. I myself currently serve in that role and it's what I want to focus on and it's what I want to focus on today. This morning, the Prime Minister met the Chinese president. And so it is fitting to start with that familiar Chinese proverb about tree planting.

The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, and the second best time is now. My Lords, soft power is like a tree. Its success is measured in decades and not in a single season. And the British Council is a tree that we planted 90 years ago to nurture soft power. But today, by simply focusing on the season, we risk allowing it to wither. This tree has weathered the storms of fascism, war, the rise of the United Nations, the Cold War, the fall of Berlin, the pandemic, and the fracturing of the rules based order.

The tree bends with the winds of geopolitical change, but the soft power purpose remains connection, trust and understanding. The British Council is not about military power. It is not about diplomacy. It is about links that last and our British history, the history of empire. Its rise and fall makes this country a place of fascination, of frustration, of anger and fidelity for people around the world, people who want to know Britain better. We used to know this.

Our enemies and our friends know this. But since the crash, the council has had a miserable time in the last 20 years, the government grant to the British Council has essentially been flat, so it has halved in real terms. Meanwhile, the budget of its sponsor department, the FCDO, has grown by more than 50% in a global context. The financial support for the council's French and German counterparts is 4 to 6 times what we see in this country. However, during Covid, the conservative government extended a loan.

Conservative Ministers knew that that loan was not repayable from income and that is why no repayment plan was set at that time. Five years on, many years of qualified accounts later, the Covid loan is still unresolved. The council have offered their art collection worth £200 million to the government to pay down the loan. No response. The council, therefore, has shed 17% of its staff and the remaining 8000 at home and around the world worry about their futures and the redundancies to come.

Meanwhile, the council carries on as a tree whose roots are constantly being pulled up by the government. Last January, the then permanent secretary said come up with a recovery plan, work with the Treasury and we will then sort out the loan. In August, the council delivered the plan. An official say sorry, we need another report. We will commission you. We November. Sorry, we need another report. This time we're going to commission Deloitte. By December, the NIO had decided they wanted to get in on the Act.

And they're commissioning a report too. And the rumour now has it that yet another consultant's report is to be required before we agree a recovery plan. My Lords, I want to commend to the Lords what their own official of choice, Baroness Casey, recently called the grip and fix theory of governing. Gripping is the task of Ministers and fixing means once and for all. Dealing with that Covid legacy. If the loan remains, it simply kicks the can down the road.

So let me conclude with three possible solutions for disposing of this £200 million loan. The government accepts the art collection in payment. After all, HMRC are forever doing this for artwork in lieu of tax liabilities. Secondly, the FCDO could use its underspend to pay down the loan. Two years ago it was over £1 billion Last year it was over £380 million. Thirdly, the government could allocate a fraction of the £1.5 billion extra package for the arts that announced last week. None of this requires Cannibalising development assistance.

So far we have landed nothing, so there is a significant resizing of the British Council coming. That is inevitable, but my plea is less grip and fix, and I want to close in thanking the many Lords on all parts of the House who have been part of those efforts. My Lords, it is time for the government to nourish the soft

**** Possible New Speaker ****

power tree that this country planted 90 years ago. Yes. My Lords, with the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, with the. World we live in, defined by geopolitical competition, protracted conflicts and crises, protracted conflicts and crises, and shrinking civic space, the United Kingdom's Development Partnership assistant remains one of the most powerful assets. I am very grateful to noble Lady Baroness Featherstone for giving us the opportunity to have this debate
16:43
Baroness Sugg Portrait Baroness Sugg (Conservative)
-
-
and for her introduction, making such a strong case for continued investment in development. It was a pleasure to hear the maiden speech from the noble Lady Baroness Hyde, and it's clear that she's going to bring much passion to your Lordships' House. And I look forward to hearing the maiden speech from the noble Lord Lord Barber. I know this House will benefit from his considerable expertise in development and diplomacy and delivery. Beyond alleviating poverty and responding to UK development partnership shaped political relationships.

They build long term trust and they reinforce the norms and institutions that underpin international peace and security. When aligned with foreign policy objectives, development partnerships strengthen conflict prevention, supporting inclusive political settlements and enhance the UK's soft power by demonstrating commitment to international law, human rights and multilateral cooperation. It is through these sustained partnerships, often built over decades, that the UK and credibility, influence and the ability to convene and lead at moments of diplomatic significance. My Lords, I will focus on women, peace and security and how the UK should use its upcoming presidency of the United Nations Security Council, and I declare my interest as chair of the charity Plan International UK.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement that women, peace and security sits at the heart of UK foreign policy and next months presidency of the UNSC is one of the first opportunities to act on this commitment on the global stage, and this is more than a procedural moment. It is a diplomatic opportunity, one that speaks directly to how the UK exercises influence in a contested world, and how development partnership functions as a core instrument of our diplomacy, our conflict prevention efforts and our soft power.

The UK's long standing role as penholder on gives us both credibility and responsibility. At a time of constrained development budgets and growing geopolitical competition, our challenge is to use our development partnerships more strategically, to convene to shape norms and to strengthen peace. The UNSC presidency offers a clear opportunity for the UK to translate long term development commitments into immediate diplomatic impact, by embedding principles into the Council's ways of working, from agenda setting to briefings and outcomes. This matters because the evidence is clear.

Peace processes are more credible and more durable when women participate meaningfully. Development partnerships that support women peace builders protect civil society space and strengthen local resilience directly contribute to conflict prevention and resolution. When the UK elevates these perspectives at the Security Council, it is not engaging in symbolism. It is improving the quality of decision making and strengthening the council's effectiveness. And this leadership is particularly important at a moment of backlash against gender equality in multilateral forums. Resistance to gender responsive language has already diluted mandates on civil protection, on peace building and conflict prevention.

The Protect Progress Coalition, a campaign that is focusing on countering the rollback on women and girls rights, has suggested a number of events that would support the UK to deliver on its commitment to women and girls. A UK presidency signature event focussed on securing women's safe and meaningful participation and protection in all levels of decision making. A Foreign Secretary led high level ministerial meeting under the area formula, focusing on the safe and meaningful participation of women in peace, dialogue and processes in conflict contexts, and a formal council meeting on Sudan with a very strong gender lens, particularly important as women have essentially been cut out of the discussions here so far, there are a number of other sensible ideas, including, importantly, a suggestion that the UK presidency should place a strong emphasis on systematic follow up to recommendations emerging from previous Security Council meetings and briefings, particularly on women, peace and security.

This would help move towards accountability and more effective outcome orientated decision making. I have shared these suggestions with the noble Lord, the Minister, in advance of this debate, and I hope he and the Department will consider them carefully. I'd be grateful if, in his response, he could outline the steps that the government will be taking on women, peace and security in the upcoming presidency of the UN Security Council by placing women, peace and security at the core of our diplomatic engagement, the UK can demonstrate leadership that has effective values driven and grounded in the realities of conflict, reinforcing peace, strengthening multilateralism, and exercising soft power where it matters most.
16:48
Baroness Hussein-Ece Portrait Baroness Hussein-Ece (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to first declare an interest as the co-chair of the all party parliamentary of the all party parliamentary Group on Global Sexual Reproductive Health Rights. And I'd like to thank my noble friend Baroness Featherstone for her excellent introduction to this debate. I'd also like to pay tribute to the maidens, to the noble Baroness Hyde, for her excellent maiden speech, and as a also a former Islington councillor who knows the Kelly very well, I look forward to her contributions in in the future.

My Lords. For decades the UK has seen and been expected to play a key role in peace building and post-conflict recovery through diplomatic mediation and development. Funding Britain has looked to was looked to as a stabilising force in fragile regions and countries. But today, in a volatile world that appears where influence appears to be fading just when it's needed. So instead of leading peace talks, supporting institution building and fostering economic recovery, the UK seems to have stepped back on its crucial role using its soft power.

And while everyone understands why the UK is under pressure to increase its defence spending, it's been argued that cutting the UK ODA is not the best way to promote security and stability. The FCDO has historically emphasised the importance of including women in peace building efforts, recognising how this is crucial for sustainable peace and prosperity. Development led soft power is and continues to be an investment in global stability and in the UK's long term national interest. I would also like to focus a bit on women and girls, as the noble Baroness saga has just done as well.

Support from the UK has helped deliver remarkable progress for women and girls, including a 40% decline in global maternal mortality between the years 2020 23. That's according to a joint United Nations report that was published last year, at a time of a pushback on women's rights. The UK's commitment to sexual and reproductive health rights, especially maternal health, and its leadership in advocating for the rights and choices for women and girls is needed. Now more than ever, there are clear links between the UK's support for global SRH as part of its development work, and both conflict resolution and the exercise of soft power and diplomacy globally.

We have led on enormous progress and we cannot allow pushback and retreating on these commitments just because the United States has, we don't have to. A good example of the UK's support has been the support for the United Nations Population Fund's Supplies Partnership, which is appalled fund that is the largest procurer of reproductive health commodities for the public sector. This programme provides a critical lifeline to women and girls in many of the world's lowest income countries. So in 2024 alone, it helped prevent nearly 10 million unintended pregnancies and more than 200,000 maternal and newborn deaths.

So can the Minister, in his response, reassure me that the government remains committed to ensuring women and girls will remain at the centre of both foreign and international development priorities? My Lords Peace building is also about prevention, addressing poverty, inequality, discrimination and injustice is a long term investment which must be protected. I'd like to close my remarks by touching on the wider implications of what we've heard in. Some have mentioned in Mark Carney speech, described as many as bold and brave.

We were reminded by the United Nations Security general recently that the rule of law is a cornerstone of global peace and security for smaller and less powerful countries and those suffering from historical inequities and the damaging legacies of colonial rule. International law is a lifeline, promising equal treatment, sovereignty, dignity and justice. My Lords, it's worth reflecting the rules based international order didn't just erode gradually. For many in the non-Western world. It collapsed when Western governments showed that the rules don't always apply when the violator is an ally.

The catastrophe, for example, in Gaza, didn't just expose a weakness in the system. It revealed what the system is for several years, many countries, especially in the global South, have argued that the world didn't merely fail to restrain occupying governments actions. It funded it, vetoed accountability, ignored legal standards as actively criminalised dissent. So international law was seen to be selectively suspended, and that was seen as the real point of no return in recent years, not simply because Donald Trump threatens to violate the sovereignty of Greenland, but because the precedent was set in full view of the world.

My Lords, this reinforces the need more than ever for the United Kingdom to show leadership and underline its commitment and obligations to international law, and to be seen to be doing this and redouble efforts on soft power and diplomacy.
16:53
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton Portrait Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. Very good. Thank you, my Lord. I'd like to thank the noble Lady Baroness Featherstone for introducing this, this important debate. And I'd like to thank all the preceding speakers, many of which have been absolutely brilliant, and particularly to congratulate my noble friend on her wonderful maiden speech. It's a very hard act to follow. Last week I showed AI a picture of this chamber. Its response a room with some people in it. Nothing about the magnificent Pugin interior, nothing about the historic controversies that have echoed through this chamber, and nothing about the numerous members on all sides from whom I have learnt so much over the years.

All of which makes this for me an infinitely more daunting and more humbling moment than I will ever understand. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank my supporters, my noble friends Baroness Chapman and Baroness Hunter, for their wisdom and support everyone, including the Lord speaker, in his last month, in his of of a distinguished term of office, my noble friends, Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, Garter King of Arms, Black Rod the Clerk of Parliaments, the Doorkeepers, the clerks, the librarians and everyone else.

They've all been so welcoming and generous, and I'm profoundly grateful to all of them. This is also a rare opportunity to pay tribute to successive education Ministers, who have given me exceptional opportunities to contribute to our school system over 20 or 30 years. Lord Baker Baroness Shephard, Lord Blunkett, Baroness Morris, Lord Gove, among others. I salute their vision, their courage and their combined impact on our schools. The day we published our white paper, Excellence in Schools in July 1997, my noble friend Lord Blunkett taught me a powerful lesson.

He said a white paper, however well written Michael, is worthless unless it visibly changes the lives of children for the better. The follow through after the headlines has to be rigorous. It was this lesson that I took with me to number 10 in 2001, when the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, invited me to set up the original Prime Minister's delivery unit. Its task was to ensure follow through across the public services, and the acid test for every proposal was what measurable difference will it make and how soon? It turned out to be a global innovation.

As a patriot, I realise that these are challenging times. This is a dangerous world. We do need to be strong. Even as the son of loving parents who were committed Quakers and pacifists, I strongly support the case for strengthening our hard power by urgently building the capacity of our armed and security services. I favour with equal strength, enhancing Britain's capacity to influence the world through soft power. As we've heard about this afternoon, it is this combination of hard and soft power that makes Britain unique.

It's our superpower military and nuclear capability, as well as our creative industries, world leading universities, the BBC World Service, the British Council, Harry Potter and the Premier League. One telling fact 59 current world leaders were educated at UK universities, just short of 66 in the US and more than twice that of France. That counts on soft power. No other country can match us. Building our hard power will help us deter and resist the obvious current threats.

Building our soft power will help us resolve and prevent conflict in the first place. We need both. But how? When a conflict is in the headlines, we act. But when? What happens when it drops out of the headlines? At those moments, we can't afford to abandon weak or failing states. We should help them, help build them the capacity, help work with them to build the capacity to deliver the stability, security and basic services which people crave. For example, in 2009, the Taliban came dangerously close to Islamabad.

Through that dark time, Britain and Pakistan collaborated on military and intelligence issues. Hard power. Meanwhile, David Miliband, then foreign secretary, asked me to help Pakistan rebuild its basic public services over the next decade. One visit turned into 50 successive prime Ministers. Brown, Cameron and May actively supported this work. Soft power I don't claim that Pakistan solved all its problems, far from it. But its education and health systems did improve. Its poverty alleviation through the pandemic was exemplary.

And, crucially, it is a safer, more resilient country today than it was in 2009. In late 2023, the noble Lord Cameron asked me whether we might do something similar in Palestine since 2024, with active support of successive Foreign secretaries Cameron, Lamb and Cooper, I have been Britain's unpaid, I hasten to add, envoy on Palestinian governance. Working with the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mohammad Mustafa, we're taking the first very small steps towards a Palestinian state with the rule of law.

If I learned anything from my time in number ten, it's never to lose focus on delivery. Whatever the distractions I should add at this point, I've also always been a strong and active supporter of the State of Israel and the British Jewish community, especially during my time as a councillor in Hackney, a capable Palestinian state with the rule of law is in everyone's interests. That work has only just begun. Climbing the mountain ahead looks daunting. The exercise of soft power is never a soft option.

We, the British, know how to build trusting relationships. We can be determined and skilful, bill Bryson says the British, when they're asked how they are, say mustn't grumble. Even so, at our best, as we heard from my noble friend, we are good at optimism too. Anyone can do easy things. This is the time to embrace difficult things and to unleash our unique capacity to combine hard and soft power. The solutions are to be found. Their hard power or soft power.

Both Palestine or Israel, both clear eyed realism or incurable optimism? Both. My Lords, the road to hell is paved with false dichotomies.
17:01
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke Portrait Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Labour)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. hear such excellent maiden speeches as we have heard today. Inspiring maiden speeches that make us proud to be part of this House, and what this House can achieve. And it's been really quite inspiring listening to to two people who have come here and were probably absolutely terrified when they were delivering their maiden speeches, because we've all been, even those of us who migrated from the other end of the corridor, it's always terrifying to make a maiden speech, but I don't think I've ever heard two such speeches that are so absolutely wonderful.

And as I was following Lord Barber, I had a little look past at his life. He has got the kind of CV that makes you wonder how he fitted in life, because he's done so much in so many different places. His speciality is the effectiveness of government, and he worked for, as he's already said, for David Blunkett and Tony Blair as Prime Minister. And he set up the delivery unit in number ten, innovative work that attracted the attention of the IMF and the world Bank.

And I was a Minister at that time, and I saw the difference that was beginning to be made by the work that he had put in. And I hope that he enjoys the House of Lords. And I think his term, his his seminal book, How to Run a Government so that citizens benefit and the taxpayers do not go crazy, should be compulsory reading on both sides of the House. And he went on after that to have a very successful career in the private sector before setting up the Livery Associates that allows him to work with leaders across the developed and developing world world.

And he told us some of that in his maiden speech. And I thought the what he said about Palestine was particularly moving, because people don't often mention both sides in In Praise when you're talking about such troubled countries, we can learn a lot from him. He's worked with governments all around the world, including my my own favourite place, Australia. But more of that later. And his work in Pakistan embodies the toughest part of his mission. He is right.

Soft power has to go together with hard power. If you don't have hard power, you're going to get run over and that is something that we have to avoid. And he has reviewed efficiency and public value and even developed a new measurement of public value. And if that wasn't enough, he's now the Chancellor of the University of Exeter. Lo and behold, he also has a hobby. He is the chair of Somerset Cricket club. Now. I've only once been to a cricket match.

Frankly, watching paint dry was much more exciting. Unfortunately, I was with the cricket obsessed Prime Minister of Australia and I kept asking if I could go now, but I found it rather a long one. But he's also a member of the Face Performance Advisory Group, so. So if anyone knows the way forward for our economy, it's Lord Barber and I welcome him to this House and his contribution to the subject of this debate. He is so right. Hard power and soft power can frequently go hand in hand, and he is here to steer us through these difficult times.

Thank you very much for your maiden speech. Now moving on. I have nothing like as distinguished a career as Lord Barber. When I left university, I became the economist of the Scottish Trade Union Conference, a conference I was actually called the head of the economic department. But given that there was nobody else in the economic department, my job was making the tea and occasionally vacuuming in the morning. And it was a critical time for North Sea oil. It was in its infancy, and the traditional industries of coal, iron, steel and shipbuilding were suffering.

And one of the reasons that I am interested in soft power is that I am very interested in getting the proper kind of investment into countries, particularly when people do not necessarily understand them. Inward investment was at the heart of what the Scottish TUC was doing, and it was not an easy path. Few international investors knew anything about Scotland, and some saw potential, not least the oil and gas drillers. But there was a stumbling block in the way it was called the managing director's wife syndrome.

And some of you who have done international development will know about the managing director's wife syndrome. Sexism was rampant in the 1970s. The wives knew nothing about the country, and they didn't fancy moving to a dull and wet place, so soft power had to be developed. Terrific films of lovely places they could live, beautiful schools. With the exam results at that time that beat most of the world and of course, historic castles. And it began to work, and I began to learn a lesson about how you sell your country.

And I've never lost my interest in inward investment as a Minister and then as a diplomat. I was probably profoundly boring on it. But we see all over Britain that change, the change that inward investment can bring. And soft power plays a big part in its success. And try as I might have never forgotten, the managing director's wife syndrome formed out of scepticism and a lack of knowledge about quality of life. And when, decades later, I became the High Commissioner to Australia, I was able to employ the lessons that I learned from soft power and presenting a Britain that is dynamic, attractive and highly skilled.

And I told my team that when they went out to present to companies, they had to view inward investment as the key to what they were doing. And I insisted that they take with them somebody from as it was in those days, UK Trade and Investment, Visit Britain and the British Council and it worked and I am, I let me emphasise, Lady Alexander has already talked about the British Council, the sheer impact it had in education and software.

It was absolutely amazing. Young Australians, thousands of young Australians came here because of projects that had been developed by the British Council, and I found it a fantastic opportunity to go out and meet these young people who were coming here. And then when they came back, they were really inspirational. But I am very worried about the not being a full understanding of the economic benefits. Now, I. Baroness Alexander knows well about the British Council. She's also the vice.

She was also the vice Chancellor of Dundee University. She was outselling what was so important to us education and the opportunities of education. What you probably don't know is she comes from a family of missionaries, so she knows the different kind of soft power that can really influence people as easily as possible. Now I'm going to leave you with a very quick story about magpies, magpies and murder in Australia. They're much bigger than other magpies. The little sweet little birds we have here, they come down on your head and poke on your head and it's horrible.

Kids go to school with ice cream cartons on their head because it's so horrible. Tony Blair, in one of his first speeches in Australia as Prime Minister, talked about magpies. And we found out then that he had lived in Australia as a young boy. His father was a lecturer and he had had his run in with magpies. It turned the whole debate about Tony Blair round because I could hear people saying he's one of us. He understands what this country is like, and that is the kind of soft power that we need to use to get more inward investment.

Thank you.
17:10
Baroness Northover Portrait Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> We'd like to thank my noble friend for securing this debate and for opening it so effectively. She and I had the great privilege to be Ministers in the coalition. When the UK finally honoured the commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on aid, and that does indeed now seem a long time ago, when indeed there was a great deal of cross-party agreement, as we see in fact, reflected here today. And it's wonderful to add Baroness Hyde and Lord Barber to our ranks here on this commitment of ours to international development.

And speaking of another noble peer, I think back to the UN high level panel of over 20 years ago on which the noble Lord, Lord Lord Hannay served. This identified development as a key to security and as the One Campaign and others have pointed out, countries with the largest development needs face the greatest risk of conflict. And now the international rules based order, as we've heard, imperfect as it was, as noted by Mark Carney and others, has been fractured and possibly worse.

It now indeed seems that might is right. Trump allows Russia to take parts of Ukraine, seemingly because he identifies this as Russia's sphere, and Trump feels free to claim Canada and Greenland. But we do not need to follow Trump's lead. The UK's development aid, as others have said, was a key to its soft power. We worked with governments, civil society and multilateral institutions, building the trust that diplomacy alone could not secure. But then Boris Johnson destroyed DfID.

The Tories cut the aid budget using much of what was left in the UK. Now Trump has shut USAID and cancelled 80% of its foreign aid contracts. He has shredded US support for multilateral institutions, those very institutions required for the balance that the noble Lord Lord Barber has spoke of in relation to the Middle East. In the past, the UK has helped fill the gaps when Republicans have cut aid, especially when they've slashed assistance on reproductive health and rights so vital to women and girls worldwide.

But that is not happening now. We note the growing global scepticism about whether the UK, along with the US, France and Germany, will deliver on its promises. The British Council's Global Perceptions 20 2025 report notes how countries in East Asian and in East Asia and the global South, and now rising in their indices, the government launched a Soft Power Council in January 2025. Three days ago, just before this debate, extremely abridged minutes from meetings in July and October 2025 were published.

In July, there was a discussion of general strategy might the noble Lord expand on this? What did the experts recommend? And in lovely yes, Minister fashion, the October meeting noted, and I quote, members discussed the evolution of the role of the SPC, sharing thoughts on upcoming opportunities and challenges. I bet they did. Our creative industries are still held back by Brexit damage. The BBC and the BBC World Service are under attack. Our higher education sector is hampered by the lack of welcome.

This government, like previous governments, so often gives to international students and especially to staff with visa and health costs hugely out of line internationally, we may have educated many heads of state, as Lord Barber has just mentioned, but are we doing so now? And there's no restoration of ODA money that, for example, went into the Jenner Institute for Ebola vaccines, which then meant that we were at the forefront in vaccine development when Covid struck. As Malaria No More points out, the UK has been a global leader in medical science, and I declare an interest here.

As a council member of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, those from the UK have helped to set global health agendas. We have rejoined Horizon Europe, but it will take a while before damage is repaired. Just because we have had strengths in these areas does not mean that will continue. They need to be supported and cultivated. Labour at the election pledged to strengthen diplomacy and soft power. It said it would rebuild Britain's international development reputation. I am surprised the noble Lord as a whip, though he, despite his depth of experience, has been detailed to respond to this debate rather than his noble colleague, the departmental Minister, who is the person who holds the levers here.

There is much to do and there is little sign of this. I hope the noble Lord can persuade me otherwise. When he responds.
17:16
Lord Browne of Ladyton Portrait Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-
Be here. >> Be here. >> My Lord. >> My Lords. >> It's a pleasure to follow the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lady Baroness Northover. It is an equal pleasure, however, to is an equal pleasure, however, to have the opportunity to join in the. Thanks and congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and on securing this debate and and and her opening of it, and also to join in the congratulations on my noble friends, Baroness, lady Heath of Bemerton and Lord Barber of Littlehampton, on excellent maiden speeches. My Lord. The best compliment I can give them is that it took them only five minutes to get the ear of your Lordships' House.

It's quite an achievement, my Lords, on addressing your Lordships' House for the final time before my retirement, as I am doing today, I feel I. I feel not merely the traditional mixed feelings, but a positive cacophony of discordant emotions. First, of course, immense gratitude for all the staff of this house Doorkeepers, library, catering and facilities, teams, clerks, innumerable others whose work makes this place function and makes the work of those fortunate enough to be a member an enormous pleasure as well as a privilege.

Secondly, sadness in leaving behind so many excellent colleagues from across your Lordships' House and no longer being able to lay one's hands on not merely an answer to any conceivable question, but an answer often provided by a noble Lord or lady whose life work has afforded them expertise of unparalleled depth. Also, my Lord, now faint but nonetheless enduring surprise at the turns of a political career that led me into the other place. Somewhat unexpectedly, in 1997, and gave me the honour of serving in several ministerial and Cabinet posts, including Secretary of State for defence, the wise counsel I received from distinguished military officers, and the extraordinary example of our servicemen and women will always remain my outstanding memories of public service.

Then, in 2010, being asked to serve in your Lordships' House by the Prime Minister, which I accepted on the proviso, I have to say that I could vote. I could vote for reform of this place and potentially my own abolition. In that cacophony. My predominant emotion in making these final remarks is trepidation, not for myself, but for the direction in which geopolitical currents are pulling us in considering the situation. When I entered the other place and surveying the world today, there was no question that the values for which Britain stands and the system of international norms which guaranteed their long continuity, faced far more entrenched and concerted challenge.

The question of how we face this situation is implicit in the motion before your Lordships' House this afternoon, as I have had occasion to say during previous proceedings, it is clear that our strategic adversaries plan to fill any vacuum left by a Western retreat from global engagement. In this context, aid matters for three reasons. First, we have a humanitarian duty to help those suffering from appalling poverty, conflict, natural disasters or climate change. Second, we are in a long term defined by what we do as a country rather than by our aspirations.

And thirdly, even by the most cynical calculus of self-interest, foreign aid enhances the UK's soft power and promotes peace. It makes conditions less fertile for terrorism and in some cases keeps frozen conflicts from kindling into flame. In this sense, foreign aid should be defined as national security spending rather than just as empathy translated into hard currency. In addition, foreign aid and development partnership assistance often functions as an early warning system, alerting us to the prospect of an outbreak of conflict or terrorist violence.

While USAID is shuttered and all major European powers, including the UK, cut aid budgets and retrench, what are our adversaries doing? This year marks the 70th anniversary of Chinese engagement with the African continent. This celebration will, in effect, amplify the influence they have secured through debt diplomacy and see the unfolding of a well-financed programme. Two years in the planning of initiatives to boost our soft power. Russia is also seeking to fill the vacuum created by the retreat of the Western powers.

The Afrika Korps provides military and security support in Libya, in the Central African Republic. In Sudan and Mali, the state owned energy company has cooperation agreements with more than 20 African nations, a nuclear agreements with five Russian railways have been retained by five African nations, while the BBC World Service has discontinued its Arabic broadcasting, and The Voice of America sheds most of its staff. Sputnik radio replaces it remarkably, in one case at least on the very same frequency abandoned by the BBC, it has a new editorial hub in Ethiopia, broadcasting in French, English, Amharic and other languages.

The voice of democracy, pluralism and liberalism is being muffled and replaced by a narrative designed to erode confidence in Britain and its allies that cannot be seen as anything other than a retreat. However necessary the fiscal decisions were to have necessitated it. If the rules based international order is not dead, it is certainly moribund. Allow us to extend that metaphor a little further. It is clear that the only hope of alleviation in the medium term lies in a transplant, replacing the current occupant of the white House with another.

But we have to concede that it is likely that this era of great power competition will outlast President Trump. In that context, I believe that a soft power is something we cannot afford to sacrifice. I welcome the government's commitment to restoring ODA spending to 0.7% when circumstances allow. But given that the Independent Commission for Aid Impact estimates, it could fall as low as 0.24% by 2027. We must be clear about what it is we are sacrificing. The humanitarian impact of Oda cuts was explored a couple of weeks ago in your Lordships' House, so I needn't press any of them any further.

But we are also sacrificing a key strategic advantage. I said earlier that I felt trepidation when looking at the global picture, and I am conscious that I have painted a somewhat bleak picture, but a precondition of genuinely optimistic prognosis is a clear eyed and sober diagnosis. I am optimistic because the UK has enormous cultural capital, a record of extraordinary scientific innovation and sustained military and diplomatic excellence. But we are a medium sized power in a world of great power competition. It is a difficult path to walk, but in my retirement I will be trusting to the sure footedness of my noble friends on the front bench and colleagues from all sides of the House.

I will begin by thanking the staff of the House and the Doorkeepers, who were there to wave me in when I was elevated to your Lordships' House in 2010 and my 16 years in your Lordships' House, I have been afforded the opportunity to work towards multilateral nuclear disarmament, advocate for net zero, and I hope for greater equity and inclusion across a swathe of government policy in a way that would otherwise have been impossible. So as the doorkeepers of your Lordships' House wave me out today, I am and will remain grateful for those many doors that membership of your Lordships' House has opened for me.
17:24
Lord St John of Bletso Portrait Lord St John of Bletso (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, we shall deeply miss the wisdom of the local, the noble Lord Lord Browne of Ladyton, who has served both houses with great distinction. His knowledge in foreign affairs and defence. We have met on numerous occasions on airports all over the world, and he speaks with such experience, and she will be really sorely missed in your Lordships House. I will obviously be giving my valedictory soon as an outgoing hereditary, but that's for another point. My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Baroness Featherstone, for introducing this topical debate and I wish to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde of Benetton, and the noble Lord Lord Barber, on their outstanding and moving maiden speeches.

I wish to focus my brief remarks on how UK Development Partnership assistance has been an effective diplomatic tool. An assistant in conflict prevention and soft power. But I wish to devote my remarks purely to Africa. Clearly, the recent budget costs have caused a huge strain on the effectiveness of our development programmes, and I add my voice to being critical, but I prefer in my brief few words to add a few more positive notes on some of the more successful initiatives in Africa.

Africa poses both a challenge and an opportunity. With over 60% of the population under the age of 25, Africa is too frequently viewed through the narrow lens of conflict, of crisis, and of governance challenges. But digital public infrastructure has strengthened governance in countries like Rwanda and Kenya, reducing corruption and improving service delivery, and these reforms have been supported by UK technical assistance. In Kenya, the mobile money platform M-Pesa has revolutionised financial inclusion and demonstrated how technology can enhance social stability.

Here again, UK supported regulatory and innovation systems have helped to enable this success and clearly artificial intelligence has the potential to dramatically improve outcomes in healthcare, in education and climate resilience. And the UK here again is well positioned to support this transition. Through development partnerships, we can help African nations build ethical AI frameworks, local data capacity and skills pipelines, ensuring AI empowers rather than exploits. However, the risk remains that AI could displace jobs faster than the new ones that are created, and I join in supporting the UK Soft Power Council, particularly with its focus on Africa, its promises lies in leveraging education, technology and AI enabled soft power.

However, delivery will depend on sustained investment and clear execution, and I am concerned that there has been an overemphasis on short term objectives, particularly in migration controls, at the expense of long term demographic and digital investments. Soft power cannot be transactional. Turning now briefly, to conflict resolution. Our development partnership assistance has been very effective in Sierra Leone, where sustained diplomatic engagement, aid and security sector reform have helped to underpin and a durable peace, as well as in Somalia, where UK support has strengthened state capacity and mediation efforts.

However, elsewhere progress has fallen far short from expectations, particularly in Sudan and parts of the Sahel, where reductions in funding and fragmented international engagement have weakened. Early warning, conflict prevention and stabilisation efforts, allowing crises to escalate rather than be contained. Finally, my Lords, the Commonwealth, the UK has been and continues to act as an early and discreet support in conflict prevention, in election monitoring and demographic resilience across its members in Africa. Using trusted networks and shared institutions to defuse tensions before they escalate.

My Lords, my five minutes is up. In conclusion, Africa's demographic surge and digital future will substantially shape the global order. Whether the future is stable, prosperous and cooperative depends partly how seriously we take development diplomacy today. It if we can combine long term commitments, local partnerships and leadership on ethical digital transformation, our development assistance will continue to be
17:30
Lord Forbes of Newcastle Portrait Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Labour)
-
-
strategically indispensable. My Lords, may I first of all, thank Lords, may I first of all, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for securing this debate. And I fear that my own contribution this afternoon will be a mere shadow of the absolutely exemplary position of the exemplary position of the challenges and issues in this policy area, which is set out so ably at the start of this discussion this afternoon. Can I also add my congratulations to my noble friends, Baroness Hyde of Bemerton and Lord Barber of Chittlehampton for their absolutely magnificent maiden speeches to your Lordships House.

They demonstrated not only passion and acuity of mind, but a strong moral purpose and compass. And I know that they will both provide immense service to this House in the years to come. Lord Barber, with his love of cricket, brings with him a capacity for endless patience, which in my brief two weeks here, I've learnt, is something of a need in your Lordships' House. And last week, when a number of us made our maiden speeches from these benches, we were dubbed the Quartette.

And having seen Baroness Bertin carrying a guitar around already in this house, I fear I think we may already have found our accompanist. Can I also pay tribute to Lord Browne on his final speech to your Lordships' House? Can I thank him for his service to the Labour Party, to this House and to our nation? And can I also say to your Lordships that I thought it was most definitely the most gracious and generous valedictory speech I've heard in this chamber today? My Lords, international environment, the international environment is increasingly volatile.

We have conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East. We have trade wars. We have a decline in multilateral aid. We have a rise in new technologies and the spread of populism. This is all contributing to an increasingly challenging global future. And the answer to this is seen by some as the greater exercise of hard power. And there is much hard power on display in the world at present. We see coercion and extortion being undertaken by global superpowers as a stick with which to beat others into submission.

But if hard power is a stick, then soft power the ability to achieve goals through willing attraction is the carrot. And without stretching this metaphor too far, I hope we have many carrots in our soft power larder. Universities and their scientific research, professional qualifications and regulatory regimes. Cultural history and assets. The beauty of our countryside, the magnetism of our cities, our sporting achievements and prowess. These are all essential in how the UK is seen and therefore able to act in the world.

But my Lords, the UK's status as a trusted international actor is not guaranteed. Strategic rivals such as Russia and China are investing heavily in soft power and exerting influence over multilateral institutions and globally significant regions such as Africa, South Asia and the Indo-Pacific. At the same time, we see the wholescale withdrawal of the United States from this arena. So it is more vital than ever that we leverage UK soft power to our national advantage. I, therefore, my Lords, welcome strongly the establishment of the Soft Power Council and I look forward to it building a critical mass of institutions, organisations and sectors around a clear set of priorities.

I also believe, my Lords, that we need to do more to join up international development approaches and funding with a diplomatic strategy. Our defence and foreign policy and our approach to international trade. We need a genuinely coordinated and coherent narrative about what Britain stands for in a modern age, and how our approach to international affairs is more strongly linked to domestic support for this agenda. Because, my Lords, the usual lens for international development is seen as a reflection of moral purpose and virtue.

It's seen by many people as an act of international charity. But unfortunately, the evidence from polling is that the public, especially in difficult times as now, think that charity should begin at home. We therefore need to widen the argument for why international development, both multilateral and unilateral, is essential to our nation's security. That means supporting areas in times of conflict to reduce the forced migration of people, avoiding the misery and heartbreak and trauma that so many face of having to leave home and homeland.

And my Lords, we need to be smart about the use of our resources. I understand the significance to many of 0.7%, 0.5%, 0.3% of GDP, but I personally remain unconvinced that spend alone is the most important factor of success. We should instead look at leveraging our genuine and unique strengths in the UK international development sector, in post-conflict recovery, in infrastructure design and delivery capacity building at a local level, especially in skills and in project management and effective use of resources.

This approach, my Lords, should guide our next steps and I believe that the future of this policy area should be grounded in values of fairness, equality, respect for the law and above all, an ambition for democracy, peace, prosperity and opportunity for all.
17:36
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the women, Peace and Security All-Party parliamentary Security All-Party parliamentary Group, a member of the Steering Board of the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative, and chair of the Afghan Women's and chair of the Afghan Women's Support Forum. I congratulate the noble Baroness Baroness Featherstone for introducing this Featherstone for introducing this timely debate today in such an excellent fashion. I'd also like to congratulate Baroness Hyde and Lord Barber for excellent maiden speeches, and I paid tribute to the noble Lord Lord Browne.

I am so sorry to hear that he is retiring, and I pay tribute to the huge contribution that he has made to political life in service to this country over many years, the UK has enjoyed a high reputation for diplomacy and although no longer a great military power, had a leading reputation for soft power and development aid. We rank as the as the world's sixth largest economy. Therefore, we have a duty to help the poorest across the world. And since President Trump's return to office in January 2025, we have seen the US cancel much of its aid.

To its shame, the UK appears to have followed suit, slashing our aid budget to 0.3%. The government argue that the reason for this is we need more money for defence, and few would argue against increasing defence spending at this dangerous time. However, what we need is security for the UK and security will not be achieved by defence alone, but needs the combination of diplomacy, development and defence. As the noble Baroness Featherstone said in her wonderful introduction, the defence uplift does not have to be financed at the cost of international development.

This is a political choice the government is making and whilst we spent around 15.37 billion in 2023 on development, this will be reduced to around 9,000,000,000 in 2728, with 16% spent last year in the UK on asylum seekers. And all this at a time when the UK cuts have left people destitute across the world. I am concerned about this government's stated approach to development through partnership, particularly in Africa, who, according to the government, now do not want to see us as donors.

Many African countries are very rich in natural resources, but the benefit from these resources too often ends up in the pockets of the few. So what is the government doing to address the endemic corruption in many of these countries? And I am concerned that a choice seems to have been made to mostly finance Multilaterals. Of course, Gavi and the Global Fund are worthy, but why are we choosing to be at the leading edge of donors to them? Often these organisations also take a slice of development money to so to make a real difference.

Difference funding needs to be to the grassroots. So please cut back some of the multilateral funding and spend the money where it can make most impact. For example, locally led women's organisations and projects such as de-mining work by Halo and and Mag. There remains enormous gender inequality in many of these African countries, and the fact is that the predominantly male leaders turn a blind eye to issues such as FGM, child marriage, violence against women. We need to continue putting women and girls at the heart of development, both to stop violence against them, and also because we all recognise that empowering women at community level is good for all, including the country's economy.

And there is no doubt that poverty creates conflict and conflict creates poverty. Focus, therefore, needs to be on conflict prevention and resolution. Studies show that for every pound invested in prevention, as much as £100 can be saved, as well as preventing the misery caused by conflict. The Red cross prevents reports over 130 active conflicts in the world today. As the noble Lord Lord Bates has already said, more than double than 15 years ago, with civilians bearing the brunt of attacks.

The groundbreaking UN Security Council resolution recognised the disproportionate effect on women and girls. It also advocated including women in peace processes and imperial. Empirical evidence shows that this makes peace more durable, legitimate and effective, and 35% more likely to last at least 15 years. And yet, look at the situation today on Donald Trump's peace board. None of the executive members are women, and of the 19 members at the Davos launch, there was only one woman. And there are so many negotiations centred around the Middle East.

Yet the International Centre for sustainability states that across the Middle East, women are being systematically pushed out of public life through law, custom and state power. Syria, Gaza, Israel, Russia, Ukraine. You only see the men. The sidelining of the UN is contributing to this. We need the UN more than ever, but it does need to be made more effective through the reform, and I hope that the UK will play a leading part. My Lords, international development aid is an essential tool of soft power.

And why is this government not supporting the women, Peace and Security Bill, which would help women in conflict countries, thus contributing to stability? We should not forget that overseas development is not charity. It is an investment in a safer, healthier

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and more peaceful world. Thank you. My Lords. I would like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I would like to congratulate my colleagues, Baroness Hyde and Lord Barber on the magnificent speeches to the House today on such an important subject, which is close to all of our hearts, especially at this our hearts, especially at this particular time. I am extremely sad that my friend and colleague Lord Browne is leaving the house and Browne is leaving the house and retiring. We have been friends more years than well, both before he
17:42
Baroness Goudie Portrait Baroness Goudie (Labour)
-
-
came to Westminster. So it is very sad day for me that he's actually leaving Westminster. I know he's leaving Westminster. I know he's looking at me, but I hope very much we will always be in touch. But it is for all of us. My Lords, I'm is for all of us. My Lords, I'm grateful to Baroness Featherstone for bringing this speech before the House because it asks a simple but House because it asks a simple but important question what does the role of United Kingdom Development Partnership assistance play in how we are seen in the world? We've been promised over the last few months to know how the new rule is going to be.

What's with the cuts, what partnerships about this and that. But we have yet to see this. On paper, we're told it's there, but it's put off and off. It is our ability, Britain's ability to prevent conflict rather than respond to it after the damage is done. For many years, development assistance has been one of the United Kingdom's great strengths. We were the leaders in this and should continue to be, and it is rarely made headlines it. But it has built trust, credibility and long term relationships in places where diplomacy alone cannot reach.

We talk about soft power. We often talk think of culture, language, or broadcasting. Look what has happened to our broadcasting. We're no longer a power in the world service. We have cut back and cut back. We've cut back foreign foreign correspondents in the BBC. There's hardly anyone in the BBC that's not foreign correspondent. And again, there's going to be further cuts on that. And and also the cuts in the British Council. All of these are part of Britain's soft power.

But for many communities around the world, Britain is known through known through a clinic that has stayed open, a girls school that has continued through conflict or a peace process that is held, that is soft power in the best and most practical form. Development partnerships work because they are not because they are not transactional. They are built over time, grounded in shared effort and local leadership. My Lords, they allow the United Kingdom to listen as well as to speak and to present long after the the cameras have moved on, which we know matters for conflict prevention.

We know, my Lords, that conflict does not emerge in a vacuum. It grows where institutions collapse, where inequality deepens, and when young people see no future, and where women are excluded from decision making, development assistance addresses those conditions directly. It supports education, livelihoods systems, health systems and inclusive government, which they are the very foundation that make peace sustainable. And when these when these are in place, a country's GDP strengthens their their exports imports extension and women are healthy.

They are part of the leadership of a country. At the moment. We have seen as many of you in this House today have said that we're going backwards. The present situation is that there are no women, no women seen at any peace table. Although I have been assured by Ministers here that there are local women, are there, we have not seen them, we have not seen any notes, and I have made various actions. It is absolutely vital. We agreed and signed up to so many women at the peace table and local women, and that none of that has been seen in the last two years.

And we know, for example, in Ukraine, we know that women leaders, they have been here, they have been to America, they have been sitting outside the door. They should be there as the women in Sudan were there, as the women in Northern Ireland were insistent that they were there. And we accepted that. But we have gone backwards on this issue. We know that. We know that conflict does not emerge in a vacuum. It grows when institutions collapse, inequality deepens. Oh, sorry.

I've said that there is good evidence that peacebuilding and prevention are also cost effective. By one estimate, each pound or dollar invested in conflict prevention today saves £16 in costs that would incur due to war, insecurity, humanitarian crisis down the line, modest investments in mediation, reconciliation and community level peace building can prevent conflicts that would otherwise cost lives and require for greater humanitarian or military spending. Later UK support peace process. In places such as Colombia and the Philippines showed that sustained engagement can prevent can be achieved.

The Commons IDC warned that slashing aid undermines our conflict prevention capacity and thus our national security. It is a two way process. UK aid has supported women's participation in the peace process, protection from sexual violence, access to education and economic independence. My Lords, there are countless positive stories from the eradication of Ebola in West Africa, to which the UK had a large contribution to this in the millions of girls in South Africa who gained schooling through the programme, there are not there are there are marginal issues.

We know that when women are meaningfully involved in peacebuilding, peace lasts longer than and communities recover more quickly.
17:47
Lord Oates Portrait Lord Oates (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I join others in >> My Lords, I join others in congratulating my noble friend Baroness Featherstone on securing this debate and on her eloquent this debate and on her eloquent opening speech, and I congratulate Baroness Hyde and Lord Barber on their powerful maiden speeches. I appreciated their focus on optimism as both a Liberal Democrat and a Tottenham fan, I think I can fairly say to embody the spirit of inexhaustible, if sometimes ill advised, optimism. But, my Lords, I'm devastated to hear the news that the noble Lord Lord Browne of Ladyton is retiring.

He's been immensely kind to me during my time in the house. I've learnt a huge amount for him and from him and we we will all miss him hugely. My Lords, I declare my interest as chief executive of United Against Malnutrition and Hunger and co-chair of the Africa All-Party parliamentary Group. I want to focus my remarks, like Lord St John of Glasgow, on the role of UK development partnerships in Africa. Specifically, my first visit to Africa was at the age of 15, when I spent a month in Ethiopia during the 1984 85 famine.

I later lived and worked for some years in southern Africa. Those experiences have shaped my life and my politics, and taught me what can be achieved when the United Kingdom chooses to lead in partnership with others. That's why I was proud to work in the coalition government that met the UN target of spending 0.7 percent of GNI on development assistance. It was morally right to do so, but also in Britain's interest. It strengthened our reputation, our influence and our security.

We built on the work of previous governments to sustain and develop strong partnerships in Africa, which made great progress against extreme poverty and hunger, and in furthering the development. Much of that progress is now reversing in the face of huge cuts to development support around the world. That matters because of the human costs, because of the millions of women who will be denied access to sexual and reproductive health services because of the children who are already contracting HIV. As mother to child transmission rises in the face of wholesale cuts of HIV services because of the dream of the defeat of HIV, which recedes with every cut.

Because of the 2 million children who will die of malnutrition this year. It matters because of all of this human tragedy. But it also matters because Africa's tragic trajectory will shape the UK and Europe more than any other region in the decades ahead. Africa is not peripheral to British foreign policy. It is central to our security and our prosperity. As my noble friend Baroness Featherstone told the House, by 2050, Africa's population is projected to increase by over a billion to reach 2.5 billion, which will represent one quarter of the world.

This could result in a democratic in a demographic dividend, driving prosperity in both Africa and Europe. But without investment in Africa's people, it risks delivering instability and conflict rather than opportunity. That risk is intensified by Africa's unsustainable debt burden, which is sucking resources out of the conflict, crowding out spending on health, education and nutrition, weakening growth and eroding trust in states. The UK should be leading on debt restructuring, transparency and innovation, such as debt swaps linked to health, education and nutrition outcomes in the light of the severe cuts is made to development partnership support.

It is incumbent on the UK government to provide leadership in this sphere, rather than yet more excuses for inaction. Development partnership assistance is also critical in conflict prevention and migration management, conflict, food insecurity and economic collapse drive irregular migration. Chronic child malnutrition worsened by climate shocks, damages learning and productivity, weakening economies, and increasing instability. So UK investment in agriculture and climate resilience and in combating malnutrition is a strategic imperative. We should sustain support for proven interventions such as UNICEF's Child Nutrition Fund, pioneered with UK support, a perfect example of innovation and partnership in action, and we need to support world leading UK science that strengthens food systems and resilience.

Instead of cutting funding that offers benefit to both us and our partners in Africa. My Lords, in a competitive world, partnerships anchored in health, debt, sustainability and food security can help us rebuild the UK's reputation and influence so sadly squandered by the previous government. But doing so depends on us restoring trust that we are a reliable partner. We need to understand that. As Baroness Hodgson said, development partnerships support is not charity. It's an investment in our security, prosperity and influence.

Retreating from the space won't save money. It will simply pass on far higher costs to future governments and taxpayers.
17:53
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Here. >> My Lord, it's a particular pleasure to immediately follow my noble friend and to agree with his noble friend and to agree with his compelling arguments for UK Africa relations. I also agree with these remarks with regards optimism. I'm a Scottish Liberal and therefore when you've exhausted pessimism, there's only optimism left. We are. I am very grateful for my noble friend Baroness Featherstone for securing this debate and the way that she so clearly presented the case.

I hope the House will forgive me in saying that we are very lucky on these benches to have her among us, and the record and the commitment of delivery that she has brought. The House has also been very lucky to hear two outstanding maiden speeches today from Baroness Hyde and Lord Barber, and we look forward to their future contributions. However, we learned that it was bittersweet this afternoon because we will no longer hear contributions from Lord Browne. He, as has been friend across benches to many people, he and I have joked that in our conversations that we've grabbed when we've both been in the country here, we've.

I've learned, as my noble friend Lord Oates did a great deal from the noble Lord. He served Kilmarnock with great distinction in the House of Commons, and he served us as a public servant in the House very well, and he will be greatly missed. My noble friend, when she introduced the debate, gave her a very clear argument why development partnerships are both in our interests abroad and at home, especially in conflict prevention, which it was. Why it simply makes no sense whatsoever to cut to the bone this work which the government is doing when the when the need is greater.

As my noble friend Baroness Hussein-Ece had said, a relationship becomes a partnership when it is trusted, predictable and reliable. But our partnerships have been systematically undermined in recent years, undermined by a whiplash of ministerial changes. That means in the last decade, the average lifespan of a UK Minister for Africa has not been longer than nine months, but devastatingly so. Rushed changes like abolishing DfID, slashing very, slashing it to the bone development expertise often mid-contract and Mid programme, and also at a critical time when our partners know that it is their relationship with the UK that was critical for them to get closer to meeting the global goals.

We abandon them and by ending bilateral programs, proven to work, proven to work in their entirety, often hobbling multilateral bodies on the way by cutting UK contributions. But when the last government and this government chose development to cut to the lowest share of GNI in 50 years, they also felt it was necessary to misrepresent what it was first. The last government called it the greatest cashpoint in the sky. And this government says that the Britain is no longer a charity.

It never was. And how to undermine the hard working officials who have been development workers over years, building the partnerships to say at the end of the day, they were just charity workers first undermine it and then you can wring your hands when you say that the public don't support it and you can cut it. And most perniciously you frame the argument as a choice, a choice between development and defence. It is a false choice, but it's worse than that.

It's a strategic error to say that there should be a choice in the first place, but even if there is the choice to do that, it simply ignores the law. We still have the 2002 act when it comes to the objectives of development partnerships, and we have the 2015 act on scale and scale is important. The Minister for development in Lord Bates excellent debate last week was referred to, said that she didn't believe that less investment leads to less action and less impact and fewer development outcomes.

But it's interesting in the budget, which the government gave us in March, that the case for cutting on development for the most in need in the world is that investment levels don't link with impact and better outcomes. Apparently, that's the only line of the budget where that applies, because apparently more investment is needed to meet the government's child poverty targets for Manchester. But less is irrelevant when it comes to doing the same thing for Malawi. I hope the Minister can explain to us in clear terms that when the UK pulled out of water and sanitary health programmes and have cut washed by 75%, we have determined that there has been no impact whatsoever because no one is telling us that.

In fact, we know for a fact that the impact has been disproportionate on women and girls. So can the Minister say that that has not been disproportionate for women and girls either. And when the government has actively deprioritized education programmes, can the Minister repeat that? This is having no impact. I ask this because we know the facts and we've all been and we've all met all of those who've told us about the impacts, because the UK was one of the few countries to have met the UN target of 0.7 when we pulled out, often mid programme and often mid-contract.

No one else had the sufficient scale to fill the gap, and it's left many of our partners desperate to try and fill the gaps from other ways. The very deep irony of the current negotiations in the US Congress between the House and the Senate is the proposed budget, which may well come about, will be restoring US programs and development, which could lead to the fact that the Labour government has cut to the highest amount of any OECD country.

That surely cannot be right for this country. Now the government is asking us now, perhaps the Minister might say he's winding up. We have to reimagine development. But that is what we thought Baroness Shafik review was all about. It's never seen the light of day. Now the government is asking us to reimagine development, to fit a cut budget, rather than to think what is needed and then set a budget. And we've heard in the debate about soft power, which is absolutely right.

And one of the things that I agree with, Lord Forbes in his contribution, that we must one of the virtues of soft power is that around the world we respect the rule of law. It's absolutely right. We have the law for 0.7 on our statute books here. Respecting the law and development would be a good start. Before we say around the world that other countries need to respect the rule of law. Now, we've been told that to return to the law when the fiscal circumstances allow.

Now, the development Minister has disregarded the UN target is not valid. So hidden in the government spending review, previous government and this government has been the fine print that when the government has got close to meeting the fiscal circumstances for the fiscal rules for development, they've changed them. We are I think we're now in the fourth iteration of the fiscal rules when it comes to potentially meeting the target. So is the government still operating on fiscal rules? And if indeed the government is saying that the fiscal rules will not be met at the end of this Parliament to meet development, then the government admitting that the fiscal rules won't be met for the budget as a whole, but in Parliament and the public, we know of the impact and value for money, for development, because we have an independent commission for aid impact.

We do not have to listen to what a Minister might think. We are able to rely on an independent body. I stress independent body of a commission of reviewing all elements of UK development partnerships and reporting to Parliament and the public on its impact. And now, from what the Minister told the development committee last week, it seems the government will abolish it Doge style. Will the Minister be clear in the winding up that we will not abolish Icai and we will keep that as a vital resource for us? Knowing the transparency? Finally, all speakers have said that today the need is greater.

Partnerships are more important than ever, but we will possibly have a Labour government which has never met a UN target before, but now will be potentially inheriting a leaving a lower level than it inherited and indeed the lowest ever share that development statistics have ever reported. When the time is, when the need is greater and partnerships more important, that is not the record. If we are going to have to be a soft power nation around the world.

Depressingly, the official opposition are now too committed to reduce it even further. This is wrong for our moral compass around the world. It's wrong for our security, it's wrong for our safety. It's wrong for our soft power and our relationships abroad. It is mostly wrong, however, for the people who are greatest in need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we are letting them down. My Lords, let me excuse me also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, let me excuse me also join in the appreciation. I think of all sides of the house in thanking Baroness Featherstone for thanking Baroness Featherstone for securing this important debate today, and we've heard some excellent speeches, none more so than our two maiden entrants. than our two maiden entrants. Firstly, Baroness Hyde of of Bemerton. She told us where Bemerton is and then Lord Barber of the splendidly named Chittlehampton, who didn't tell us where it was. But Google tells me that it's in North Devon, with a population of 820, and if it's half as nice as its name sounds, I'm sure it's a wonderful place.

But they all did. Both of them did some splendid contributions to your Lordships House today, and I'm sure they will continue that in the years to come. It was also an unwelcome surprise
18:04
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
to hear that today's was the final valedictory contribution from the valedictory contribution from the noble Lord Lord Browne of Lord Deighton. I did not know that he was intending to retire. He would be a great loss to the House. I be a great loss to the House. I think it's fair to say that we haven't agreed on much over my time in government and now in opposition frontbench, but he was. He's a formidable parliamentarian, always formidable parliamentarian, always difficult to argue with and against.

He contributed across a whole range of subjects, with great, with great vigour and with great ability. He will be sorely missed. I think it was a party colleague of the noble Lords, Chris Mullin, who said that it is better to go while people are still asking why rather than when. And that is very definitely the case in the noble Lords. He will be missed by the House as the sixth largest economy. The United Kingdom has an important role internationally through close working with our international partners, we can and should influence the direction of global politics to promote our core values of freedom and democracy in our increasingly unstable world.

That role is more important than ever. In Iran, we have seen mass protests against the oppressive regime, which have been met with unspeakable brutality in Ukraine. Putin continues to wage his illegal war against his sovereign, democratic nation that has every right to decide its own future. Under the previous conservative governments, the UK stepped up to the challenge of international crises that we faced at the time, supporting the people of Ukraine with military and humanitarian aid. I'm delighted to see current government continuing that and establishing the homes for Ukraine scheme.

We supported Hong Kong in the face of oppression by the Chinese state. I hope the Prime Minister is continuing to raise their plight in his current visit, and we have supported many Afghans who worked with us in the wake of the Taliban's return to power. Alongside that specific support, in the face of international crises and in the context of the serious fiscal challenge of the Covid pandemic, we continued to deliver official development assistance, although at the lower rate of 0.5% of gross national income, which I'm sure will disappoint the noble Lord Purvis.

The top three recipients of UK country specific bilateral Oda in 2024 being Ukraine, Afghanistan and Ethiopia. My Lords, the Official Opposition recognises that Britain can and should play its part internationally, not simply because it benefits those living in developing countries. And of course it does, but because it is in our own interests to do so. But we have to be wiser about how we go about this spending. Too often, organisations that receive UK support, government support have been found to be supporting activities that contradict our own objectives.

I have raised this before, but in 2024 the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East sacked nine members of staff who it said may have been involved in the 7th of October 2023 attacks on Israel when British taxpayers money is spent in support of organisations that have been forced to sack individuals who may have been involved in genocidal terrorist attacks. Our international reputation is harmed. Indeed, these incidents damage trust in the government's due diligence processes when making decisions about overseas aid, and I recognise that a lot of this went on when we were in power, but we suspended funding to Unwra, which has now been resumed by this government.

So could the Minister please set out what steps the government has taken following the 2024 Unwra case to improve due diligence in respect of some of that overseas spending? And does the FCDO have any concerns about the department's existing spending on overseas aid? While the examples of UK action on the international stage are concrete and were welcomed by those who benefited, the concept of soft power is of course much harder to define. Those who benefited from the Afghan resettlement scheme.

The Ukrainians who have seen the UK support them, defend their own country, or the Hong Kongers who have been given the opportunity to build a new life here in the UK with greater protection from the Chinese state. All know what we have done for them. But more generally, though, our soft power is hard to measure. So could the Minister confirm whether his department has a way of measuring our soft power? How is this monitored, and has the government set itself targets against those metrics to grow our soft power without some measure of measuring, without some way of measuring success, it does become very difficult to evaluate the impact of changes made by this government.

In 2025, they established a UK Soft Power Council with great fanfare. When we established, we were told that it would meet four times a year, that it would provide concrete and actionable proposals to support the government. Around the same time, the noble Baroness Chapman, the Minister, told the noble Earl, the Earl of Clancarty, that the UK's Soft Power Council that the UK's Soft Power Council will have a minimal budget. Pages of stuck together. Excuse me. Sorry. So could the Minister when he replies, give the House a sense of the successes of the UK's Soft Power Council to date? How often has it met? Is the attendance at these meetings published? If not, does the government have any intention of doing so? The minutes that are published tell the public almost nothing, and I think that could do with significant improvement.

And what concrete and actionable proposals has the Council provided to the government since its establishment given? As I said, this was a flagship announcement from the government in January 2025, made around six months after they came to office. Could the Minister please explain whether, in his view, the Soft Power Council has delivered on the government's ambitious plans for it, to, quote, reimagine Britain's role in the world stage and reinvigorate alliances and forge new partnerships? In conclusion, my Lords, of course, I thank all noble Lords for their contribution to this important debate which has brought the importance of the UK's reputation in the world stage to the fore.

Although there are, of course, differences of opinion on the best way to strengthen the UK's influence on the international stage. I think I can say with confidence that we are all united in our support for a stronger and more confident Britain that is able to promote justice, peace, freedom and democracy across the world. and democracy across the world.
18:11
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos (Labour)
-
-
My Lord, I join with others in congratulating the two new peers on their maiden speeches, and it's with great pleasure. I welcome my noble friend, the Baron Baroness Hyde of Badminton, to her place in your Lordships House, and congratulate her on a really inspiring and wonderful maiden speech. I'm delighted to hear that she is has such a long standing and impressive commitment to prison. And. Also one of my interests. We're both as if I can put it like this.

We're both alumnis of the prison system, so I so I look forward to collaborating with her on that. And we already know from her maiden speech in her quote from the poem, she deserves to be here. I also congratulate the Lord Barber of and I have to pause to get it right. And in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, did chittlehampton on his excellent maiden speech. And I thank the noble Lord particularly for all his work, but particularly in recent times, as the UK envoy for Palestinian Authority governance and for his support to the Palestinian Authority to build their delivery and governance capabilities to progress, to help progress, the vital reform agenda.

Can I say, my Lords, I've been an admirer of the noble law, my noble friend, the Lord Barber, for many, many years, decades. In fact, from a distance, I very much look forward to working with him now. I'm also a great well, I'd go so far as to say I adore the noble, my noble friend, the Baroness Liddell. But I deplore her attitudes to cricket, as I'm sure the the noble Lord Lord Barber does too, so we'll have to work on her together.

And on behalf. I think of the whole house. Can I pay tribute to the noble Lord Lord Browne of Ladyton? He he. I knew this was going to be his last contribution in your Lordships House, but he, in typical fashion, didn't want any fuss and didn't want it labelled a formal valedictory, which which characterises the the sort of person he is and why we've come to respect him so much. And I do want to thank him for his outstanding work as a parliamentarian serving your Lordships House, but also for 29 years in the House of Commons, and his personal and political qualities ensured that he served in the Cabinet of two Prime Ministers of the last Labour government.

He has successfully been able to be both loyal to his party and to Parliament, and a genuinely original thinker. His reputation is as someone kind and generous to all, from the most junior staff to the most senior. And can I say on a personal note, my first appearance at this despatch box was to answer a question from the noble Lord Lord Browne of Lord Deighton. And he was. He laid great stress on the fact that it was my first question, with the result that everyone was nice to me, including, if I may say so, the noble Lord Lord Callanan, as indeed he was again today.

Your Lordships House will be diminished without him, but we wish him the very best, and to his family as well. We wish them all the very best for his. Madam Chair. And I particularly want to applaud his departing comments about optimism, which I must say I share. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, all contributors to this department have been Lady Featherstone for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to her long standing commitment and passion and indeed delivery and achievements in this area of development as Minister and and in other ways.

And I'm also grateful to the to the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. And I very much share with the noble Lord Lord Callanan the sense that there is a shared sense of commitment and responsibility across your Lordships House in this area, and I think there are differences of opinion. Of course there are. But there is also a strong consensus about the importance of this work and the key priorities that we as a nation have. My Lords, you don't need me to remind you.

And as a number of noble Lords have said, including the noble Lady, Lady Featherstone, we live in a time of as it was characterised in the national security strategy, radical uncertainty, and the government makes no apology for making a positive and definitive choice to strengthen our hard power capabilities in pursuit of national security and the national interest. And I very much agree with the noble Lord Lord Browne and the noble Lady, Lady Liddell, that that hard power and soft power capabilities go together.

And I entirely agree with the comment by from my noble friend Lord Barber, that together they represent a superpower. My Lords, I don't intend to make a partisan speech, but I would just say this government has greatly enhanced the UK's national reputation by the standards of recent UK governments. And I would also say to the noble Lady, Lady Northover, that the my noble friend Lady Chapman is in Africa doing her job and I am here doing mine. As a number of noble Lords have acknowledged, the UK has deep expertise and experience in development, conflict prevention and resolution as and as well in soft power and our long standing track record in these areas gives a significant convening power alongside our direct and multilateral delivery.

My Lords, the world's problems are interconnected. As the noble Lady, Lady Featherstone said, and therefore our responses must be must be interdependent and mutually reinforcing and more strategic. I entirely agree with the noble Lady, Lady Hodgson. Security will not be achieved by defence alone, though we all agree that defence and security are extremely important. Let me begin, my Lords, by by confirming that this government's commitment to international development remains firm. But we do feel, perhaps contrary to what was suggested by the noble Lord Lord Purvis, that it is time for a new approach.

The last few decades have seen significant reductions in extreme poverty, which was for the last Labour government, an overarching goal. But at the same time, humanitarian need, particularly as a number of noble Lords have have emphasised particularly humanitarian need that arises from conflict and indeed climate change, which perhaps hasn't been mentioned so often today. And that need is rising while resources, not just in this country, come under increasing pressure across the globe. And we are also seeing international humanitarian law facing renewed challenges.

So I really do want to emphasise that the context in which the government intends to set out its plans in this area do reflect that changed context, and it is an important backdrop to our conceptual and policy thinking in this area. A number of noble Lords, including Lord McConnell and Lord Bates, have mentioned the changes that have been made to the cuts that have been made to the official development assistance budget. And I think everyone in your Lordships House knows there will be further announcements about allocations in the coming weeks, but I do at a time when resources are challenged, we do need to prioritise and we are sharpening our focus on three big development priorities humanitarian needs, health and climate change.

And we are backing multilateral development organisations. And I and I note that the noble Lord Lord Purvis supported that because we believe that that's how we make the biggest difference. That is how we achieve the greatest impact, something that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, laid a lot of emphasis on. We are significant contributors to Gavi, to the Global Fund, to the World Bank's Ida programme and the African Development Fund, which is an African led organisation. And I want to emphasise that that we believe these partnerships are they need local as well as international leadership.

But we do know that multilateralism isn't perfect, so we are championing much needed reform, including the Secretary-General's UN agenda, the noble Lady Baroness Hodgson and the noble Lord. Lord Callanan mentioned the need to improve the performance of multilateral institutions, and we do strongly support that. We also strongly support the work of the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator and the impressive humanitarian reset that Tom Fletcher has put in hand, which the noble Lord Lord Bates invited me kindly to a briefing, which I must say I thought was absolutely terrific.

And he also acknowledged the history of others in in that place, including the noble Lady, Lady Amos, who I think was here a bit earlier. But that is a very, very important and impressive part of what we are supporting, particularly with his commitment to what he called hyper prioritisation. And that's something I really want to get across. But let me set out and I know that it's been set out in in other contexts, but it is the context for this conversation today.

We do think that that the principles behind the government's important strategic and shift in development reflect the changed world. We do want to move on from being a donor to being an investor. We do want to go on from move from service delivery to strengthening systems in government. And we do want to move from from global to more local delivery and from giving grants to providing expertise. This, my Lords, is what our partners want to see. They are ambitious beyond to move beyond aid.

The noble Lord Lord St John and noble Lord Lord Oates talked with great expertise of Africa and drew our attention to the opportunities of the big demographic and digital and other changes that are going on in Africa. And it is those countries that want, as I say, to move beyond aid. And it is through these multilateral partnerships. And this with respect, I don't agree with the noble Lady Baroness Hodgson. This is how we maximise the impact of every pound we put in, as well as the many strengths and capabilities that UK brings to the table, from financial to scientific and technical expertise.

And my Lords, those areas of expertise are going to be worth more than money.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm just just so you can clarify on the moving from being a donor to on the moving from being a donor to investor before the cuts, what proportion of UK Oda was purely a donation which was not linked to a partnership programme with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

partnership programme with the country that we were working with? As I as I've said, we we will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I as I've said, we we will be setting out the context and the decisions that surround Oda funding. But I would stress to the noble Lord that we do still, we will still have, we still do have and we will continue to have country based programmes. That's still an important part of of the mix. So if he was asking me to characterise some other change, I'm sorry, I don't think I've really got anything much more to add. Can I turn now to conflict diplomacy? I thought we didn't speak from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from the seats. And I'm just wondering if the Minister could clarify what were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister could clarify what were the where were the donations and. If there were any what proportion of UK Oda would donations because he said, we've gone from a donor model to an investor model. There weren't any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

donations. And I don't think I've really got anything to add. There is a got anything to add. There is a long history of the use of the term donor to characterise overseas aid, but we're not debating that now. If if the noble Lord will forgive me, I don't really recognise the characterisation he's putting forward. Can I now turn to conflict and diplomacy, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned, and conflict in the world, as we all know, has become ever more deadly and complex, and the UK's diplomatic development and security levers are more than the sum of their parts.

And we are working alongside our international partners, old and new, very closely wherever we can. And this work, this work spans effort to prevent conflict as well as to resolve to resolve them. And a number of noble Lords stressed the need for conflict prevention. And that, too, is part of what the government is committed to. We want to stabilise fragile places for the long term, not just to respond to conflicts once they've arisen. We do want to protect our shared security online.

That's something I don't think has had much attention in this debate, but it is an important nevertheless, and we want to improve our ability to identify and assess risk and strengthen the systems. We need to issue early warnings of conflict, a point that my noble friend Lord Brown emphasised. And above all, our commitment is to save lives. We also want to uphold international law, and we want to break the vicious cycles that blight so many lives with appalling violence and cause people to flee their homes.

My Lords, we must work to strengthen democratic structures and civil society organisations in exactly the way that my noble friend Lord Barber has been working in Palestine. This commitment to both preventing and helping to resolve conflicts and stabilise the situation. This sits alongside our efforts to target life saving humanitarian relief in a deeply troubling world. My Lords, the UK remains a leading humanitarian actor and we are committed to and will continue to support those in crisis, especially in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan.

The noble Lord Lord Callanan asked me to set out the Callanan asked me to set out the government's approach to. To Unwra and Palestine, and I'm very happy to do so. Following the US led ceasefire agreement, there has been some improvements in the level of UN coordinated aid entering Gaza. This remains insufficient and needs upscaling rapidly to ease the suffering. The UK has provided 81 million of humanitarian and early recovery support as part of our 116 million programme for Palestine this financial year, the UK is doing all we can to alleviate suffering.

Quantifying how much UK entered, how much UK aid has entered into Gaza is difficult due to the complex operating environment and despite the restrictions on access, we know UK aid is having an impact. The Foreign Secretary met Unwra Commissioner General Al-zahrani in November and was clear that the UK continues to support Unwra politically and financially, recognising their vital role in delivering delivering essential services such as health and education to millions of Palestinian refugees across the region.

This financial year, the UK has committed 27 million, which will enable Unwra to scale up life saving aid including food, water and. Shelter and medical care for Gazans facing the facing famine conditions. My Lord, can I now move on to the question of women and children, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned? The UK is a long standing leader in preventing sexual violence in conflict, and we are setting a gold standard globally for engaging survivors through our Survivor Advisory Group and Survivor Champions, the International Alliance for Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict that the UK helped to create remains at the forefront of global action to prevent sexual violence and as well as supporting services.

And this is an important point. We are backing global efforts to make sure that perpetrators of appalling violence are held to account. The noble Lady Baroness Sugg are currently warned me of her questions. I'm prepared to answer it about what the UK will do during our presidency of the UN Security Council, and I can confirm we will embed women, peace and security considerations across the council's work. Excuse me, as the Foreign Secretary set out in the high level event which the noble Lady referred to commemorating the 25th anniversary, the UK is committed to amplifying women's voices, participation in building peace, stepping up efforts to end impunity for sexual crimes and conflict, and ensure our humanitarian work goes further to address the particular impact of crisis on women and girls.

This work will be underpinned by the UK's refreshed approach to women, peace and security, including our ongoing work to strengthen delivery, accountability and cross-government coordination. Lastly, in the discussion of conflict, could I just draw attention to something I don't think anyone has mentioned, which is I do want to emphasise our amazing worldwide demining and action group, the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group. The UK has done more than any other country on demining, and it represents an extremely important building block in conflict, security and stabilisation.

Can I now turn to soft power? My Lords, the the UK has regularly appeared near the top of the league tables on soft power, but we are not complacent and we are obviously aware of the rise of other global actors. Soft power is about people to people relationships going beyond government to government as Lord St John and others notice, and our soft power assets allow us to reach the people the government finds it difficult to reach. We will be saying more about the links between development, soft power and ensuring that the UK security, when we publish the Soft Power Strategy later this year, which I hope will answer some of the questions that noble Lords have asked this.

Our work in soft power has. A number of noble Lords have emphasised, is stressed by the British Council and I should declare my interest. I was the longest standing trustee of the local of the British Council for many years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Pearson he assure us that he will write to us with the answers to the things that he's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

answers to the things that he's been unable to answer in his speech. Of course. Can I just say about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course. Can I just say about the British Council, I'm sure that that we will continue to work on that we will continue to work on the problems raised by Baroness Alexander. And I stress the government's commitment to the government's commitment to the British Council. Can I just also draw attention in relation to the BBC World Service, that the government increased the budget of the World Service by 32 million? I also want to draw attention to the international Education Strategy, a number of which a number of people have mentioned.

My Lords, we recognise we cannot do everything, but we have a clear sense of what we are trying to achieve, which I think is shared around the house and we are in pursuit of the more peaceful and prosperous future that people everywhere want to see.
18:33
Baroness Featherstone Portrait Baroness Featherstone (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I regret the time allotted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minutes for the noble Baroness. Very grateful. Thank you very much. I want to obviously thank much. I want to obviously thank everyone for such brilliant speeches, such knowledge in this House. It just makes me so proud of House. It just makes me so proud of everybody here. And to the noble Baroness, I would say I was a Baroness, I would say I was a designer before I came here and my studio was at seven Caledonian Road. I just wanted you to know that.

And I just wanted you to know that. And to Lord Barber, I have an anecdote about our ability to send to private school potentates and dictators children. But I'll tell him that privately. Lastly, I want to say thank you to Lord Brown, who has been so kind and so wonderful to everyone. And there wasn't a little V by your name, so you're even too modest to tell us it was your valedictorian. I just want to say that to the government. This this debate asks that this House takes note.

But I do sometimes feel in these debates that we, the contributors, get it. But I want the government to get it. We've been forced to look at our defence spending by our friend in the white House. Let's look at our spending on soft power to let's not wait for catastrophic world events and wars. Let's move now. Let's lead on prevention and peace building. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thank you all for such brilliant, brilliant contributions. Yes. My Lords, my name will be mud because I've allowed this to overrun for two minutes. It's absolutely impossible in your Lordships' House. But the question Lordships' House. But the question now is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Well, I beg to move the House to now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page