Lords Chamber

Tuesday 23rd June 2026

(began 1 month ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
If the if the noble Lord would will drop me a line with a few more details. I'll certainly look into details. I'll certainly look into that. That particular case. It is that. That particular case. It is the case at 70 and and onwards that that that the rules demand more attention to medical conditions, and rightly so, because there have been some terrible examples of of older drivers unfit to drive who still driven and of course, serious accidents, including including death.

So we are right to worry about this. The process ought to be efficient. I know better than most. I have to renew my licence annually, and I start it on the first day I can, and I'm pleased to say it always comes back, but that may be because my name is on the licence. I do, I do. I just thought I'd say that so that nobody thought that. Nobody thought it was in somebody else's name. It it it it is important.

It is important that people, as they get older, consider whether or not they are capable of and have the right medical conditions to continue to drive. And I realise that that's a that's a real issue about mobility, particularly in rural areas. That's why this portal that I referred to, which is the digital digital digital medical services platform, enables much more of this to be done online. But if the noble Lord would like to give me some further details of his of his very young wife's licence application, I'll I'll certainly look into it.
15:05
15:06
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Here, here. government are more intractable than others. I, I, I, I think that the DVLA, given the statistics that I quoted earlier, about a 10% rise in medical licence notifications, and yet a reduction in the time scale of dealing with them is not an indication of an organisational crisis, but one that is seeking, together with technology to address the issues which it's facing facing on a real time basis. But the noble Lord is right that the government anticipated reducing the length of time for a driving test to seven weeks, and the Secretary of State recently said it's taken a long time to sort it out, and it won't be sorted out until the autumn of next year.

That isn't to say that nothing's. That isn't to say that nothing's been done. Examiners have gone up by 147 in the period between June 25th and May 26th. The. The Dvsa has conducted 242,000 more tests than in the same period. Pass rates are going up, which is very satisfactory, and the noble Lord ought to know that actually. Actions to make the booking system fairer. Limiting learners to two changes their driving test. Restricting bookings so that learner only learners can book and amend tests and limiting the area.

Learner driver can move a test who, once booked, are already producing. Those actions were taken at the end of March, the middle of May and early June, and it's already in clear, clearly increasing the availability of test slots so it's taking longer. He's right. We will solve it.
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:22
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
But I hope he'll be back. My Lord, sir, the statement was made by sir, the statement was made by someone who didn't attend the summit, and in the absence of a summit, and in the absence of a Prime Minister, a decent man forced from office by self-interested colleagues who owed their place in colleagues who owed their place in Parliament to him. As someone else once said at that same podium in once said at that same podium in Downing Street, them's the breaks.

And many unkind things were said back then about my rightful friend Boris Johnson, not least in this House. It was a good day. One allegedly impartial former official, Deplorably gloated well, I'm not going to follow the road of rejoicing in another's downfall. I would like to place on record my thanks to Sir Keir Starmer for his service to our country, even if the results were not always quite as perfect as this statement claimed. Indeed, can the noble Baroness tell us why on earth is he going if everything is as amazing as the statement says? At the summit, as we heard a Sir Keir maintained the unflinching support he has given to Ukraine actually so vigorously begun by the reviled Mr.

Johnson. We support that stand and we will uphold the unity of this House on it. Conduct of foreign policy will now fall to the first Prime Minister since Lord Hume to assume office without facing the electorate at the preceding general election. If we don't have a clue what he thinks, heaven help our allies. If he fails to make a dispassionate assessment of the poor choices that led to Sir Keir's resignation, he risks repeating those mistakes and leaving us in a doom loop of lost opportunity.

The same old Labour with tax and spend policies out of date, even in the 1970s, will deliver the same dismal outcomes. Now, we're told in the statement. The Prime Minister made Britain safer and rebuilt Britain's reputation around the world. Really, my Lords, endless delays to the defence investment plan haven't made us safer. With continued instability in the Middle East, war in Europe and an increasingly reckless Russia, any further delay in the defence investment plan is unacceptable. So can the Baroness noble Baroness, tell us today when it will be published? My Lords, the stunning resignation of the Defence Secretary and the Veterans Minister did not enhance our reputation in the world.

Two principled men, actually the best of the Labour Party, laid bare a bitter truth. Their view, my Lords, not ours. That a government overdosing on welfare spending was unable or unwilling to find money for defence. It's a shambles, my Lords. And what on earth will the Prime Minister tell NATO on the 7th of July? Mr. Khan's, in his statement, was also devastating about the injustice of the legal pursuit of our Northern Ireland Army veterans and the folly of the so-called remedial order that was being rushed forward so the Prime Minister could offer up our compliance with the ease of the so-called EU reset summit that's now been delayed.

So can the noble Baroness tell the House that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vindictive order will also be shelved? Yes. We welcome good news. In the statement on foreign direct statement on foreign direct investment from France, India and Japan, we welcome the free trade agreement with India. This is the agreement with India. This is the Britain we want opening to the wider world. But foreign direct wider world. But foreign direct investment cannot offset the devastating impact of Labour's domestic policies. If we want real domestic policies. If we want real growth, the next Prime Minister must change course.

Change in terms of security is needed to. To Mr. Miliband's obsessive pursuit of net zero. Did the House notice the outcome of the election in Aberdeen South? Working people want our North Sea open. Working people want to exploit our own energy resources and the jobs the oil and gas industry brings. We've heard it here from the noble Lord Lord Woodley and others. We've heard it from the Secretary General of unite. For once they. And we are united in a common sense cause.

We must open the North Sea. And speaking of common sense, the noble Baroness knows how pleased we are. This house stopped the disastrous Chagos deal. Did the Prime Minister try to resurrect this in any way at the summit? Or is this Turkey now dead? My Lords, we hope progress in Us-iran talks will end barriers to free navigation in the Straits of Hormuz. We all want peace in the Middle East, but we must not soften our stance on the murderous regime in Tehran.

We've been far too slow to take action on the IRGC, although I welcome steps now being undertaken. Will the noble Baroness confirm we will remain in lockstep with our US allies in ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon? And can she tell us when the Franco-British action in the. In the Gulf in the Straits will begin. My Lords, we agree that more should be done to ensure civilian aid gets through in Gaza and indeed Lebanon. It must flow more smoothly.

But, my Lords, we are also clear in our view that Israel had and has a right to defend itself. Was I actually alone in thinking it truly astonishing that in 360 words of statement on the Middle East in the statement today, there was not one single word, not one of condemnation of terrorist Hezbollah and terrorist Hamas. Instead, the deputy Prime Minister said Israel must tone down what he called inflammatory language. My Lords, what are they supposed to say of the butchers of Jewish babies on illegal immigration? The deputy Prime Minister promised to build on her own 2018 Sandhurst agreement with France, and we welcome that.

In contrast, this government's so-called one in, one out policy had to be rewritten after illegal migrants, once removed, returned to the UK. Can the noble Baroness tell us how many criminal gangs have been smashed? Finally, the statement referred with regret to the 10th anniversary of Brexit. Some people, it seems, will never accept the verdict of the British

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people or Shown that the fast first Covid vaccine, the free trade deal with India. We just heard about the summer holidays and VAT and so much else would never have been possible else would never have been possible without that vote. I must test the tolerance of the House by declaring tolerance of the House by declaring I voted for our freedom to choose our own destiny ten years ago, and I would do so again. My Lords, we need to look to the future, not plunge back to pass battles.

I wish the next Prime Minister well, but it's not a change of. Prime Minister of this country needs. It is a change of government.
15:29
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> I thank the Lord Privy Seal for allowing the statement to be repeated in your Lordships. How self-evidently I am standing in for self-evidently I am standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and it's a great pleasure to to to follow an unusual pleasure to follow the noble Lord. True. It is, in fact, somewhat appropriate that a stand in should be should be making this speech, because the original speech was it also made by a stand in, in, in, in, in the other place.

Now, as a result, this statement is unusually suffused with praise for Sir Keir. With respect, I will avoid those sections and try to pick the bones out of the bits that actually refer to the G7 meeting, starting with Ukraine. My Lords, all of us join in the condemnation of the hit of the 11th century Pechersk Lavra, but the greater cost is the hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries sustained by the Ukrainian people since the invasion started. What this hit in the church, on the church underlines, however, is the very poor guidance of many Russian ballistic missiles.

Hundreds of missiles are being projected in the direction of Ukraine, with no sense of limiting civilian casualties. The statement is, however, right to characterise the battlefield as one where the fortunes seem to be turning. The Ukrainian mastery of drone warfare has established, excuse me has established, a 25 kilometre plus wide kill zone through which the Russians are finding progress, has been halted in a very deadly way. But when I met the Ukrainian parliamentarians last month, they were at pains to spell out the danger they faced from ballistic missiles and the need for more anti-ballistic defence.

Russia has thousands of missiles yet to be fired. Europe has responded to some extent to that plea for help. But following the Iran conflict, defence systems are at a premium. And it was clear from my visit ten days ago to the factory in the USA, where Patriot missiles are manufactured, that the global shortage of such defensive weapons will only be very slowly filled. Too slow for Ukrainian people. That's why anything we do in Europe, anything we do in Europe to work together to design and manufacture alternative defence systems is really important.

In the short term, it would help the Ukraine and in the medium term it would help Baltic states and the rest of Europe. So can the Lord Privy Seal tell your Lordships House what progress there is in sourcing European anti-ballistic weapons? She may need to write to me with that answer, my Lord. Sanctions also remain important, and given the seeming changes to the Middle East, when will the government hurry up and apply sanctions to Russian refined jet fuel? Also at the G7 did the government raise the proposal of using frozen Russian assets around the world to support Ukraine? And if not, why not? Turning to the Middle East, the statement offers no new information.

The key question is how any international coalition with the French can possibly operate safely. When we are only a truth social posting away from a deadly flare up? What is the government thinking on that? I'm sure fellow peers will have noted comments from the Iranians about tolls through the state of Strait of Hormuz. That was to be expected, but President Trump has been publicly musing on levying fees to protect tankers. Both options are equally unacceptable and have been reinforced overnight. So can the Minister assure your Lordships that the US ambassador has been made aware that we do not support any such protection racket as that proposed by President Trump? My Lords, it is clear that the situations in in Lebanon and Gaza remain unacceptable to the people living there and and destabilising to any possible settlement with Iran.

The statement says that bringing partners, all partners together is the government's aim. Can the Minister please update your Lordships House on any actions that has been taken to bring people together in the last few months? It's disappointing, but typical, that the terrible conflict in Sudan seems to have been ignored again. On illegal migration, I would only note that that we are that were we once again, to have full access to all the policing and immigration data we used to have before Brexit, then the number of boats would more likely fall to the low level they were before we left the European Union.

And my Lords, that swiftly moves on to the final part of the statement on growth and Investment. Speaking nine months ago, before he was burdened with any realistic chance of leadership, Andy Burnham openly referred to Brexit as a disaster and blamed it for making aspirations harder to achieve. In Britain. He revealed his wish to see the UK rejoin at some point, but it was reported he remained pragmatic about how long this would take. Well, once he moves his bandwagon into number ten Downing Street and opens the books, he will see the full extent of the damage done to the life chances of ordinary people, thanks to Brexit, and at that point I suggest a truly.

His truly pragmatic action would be to accelerate things. I invite him to adopt the Liberal Democrats plan for the UK to join a customs union and re-enter the single market, and we would be very willing to help him if he wishes to do that. Instead of urgency, however, everything is on hold. Yesterday's events have caused the UK EU summit plan for the 22nd to be postponed. Does the Lord Privy Seal share my disappointment that even the partial progress expected from that summit is now delayed? And does she agree with me that the sooner we act to get closer to our real allies in the EU, the better the chances for growth and the more secure the United Kingdom will be.
15:36
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
Well, my. >> At my notes which started. Can I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the generous and constructive for the generous and constructive suggestions? Perhaps I shouldn't always believe the notes I've given. I did want to start, though, I have to say which I'm sorry the Lord Dubs didn't do was congratulating, I thought the Conservative Party winning the seat of Aberdeen South. I'd half expected him to congratulate and party on a fantastic victory in Makerfield and also the SNP who held their seat in Arbroath.

You know, all of us know who put ourselves forward for elections. It's never an easy time and consequences follow from winning and losing. But I think we should be generous in this House to those who do put them selves forward. And thank you also to the noble Lord for his comments about myself and the captain of the Gentlemen at Arms, the Chief Whip. I'm grateful for such support. He hasn't always shown such strong support for us, so I certainly welcome it at this moment.

My Lords, both noble Lords spoke passionately and rightly about Ukraine, and I think all of us feel very strongly about this. And you just have to think how the Ukrainian people have for so long now endured what Putin thought would be an easy fight and an easy defeat. And I have to say, others may have seen President Zelensky's statement on the Prime Minister's resignation yesterday when he said, Here in Ukraine we deeply value Britain, and every meeting and every conversation we.

That's him and the Prime Minister, President Zelensky and Prime Minister have had has always been filled with real substance. Thank you for always been in touch, always engaged, and always striving to do what is needed and what will truly help. Keir, you are always a welcome guest in Ukraine and I think my Lords, all of us in this House, will that continue? Whoever's in number ten and whoever has a majority of seats in the other place, the noble Lord true made some.

I thought, well, the derogatory and unhelpful comments about the Member for Makerfield, who has standing to be the leader of the Labour Party. Therefore, Prime Minister, I would point out to him he has a lot more experience than many members of that office have held over years. He has, in fact, experienced Cabinet Minister and experienced mayor. And so I think we should look to see who takes on that position and give them all the support they should in what are difficult times.

But after praising the Prime Minister, he then set about the reputation the Prime Minister oversees. Well, I have to say, coming from the party opposite, I wasn't quite sure the point he was trying to make. I have to say I am full of admiration and very proud of the Prime Minister in the way he has engaged across the world in some of the most difficult issues that have been. And our international reputation was not high. I can think of previous prime Ministers or foreign secretaries who did not enhance our reputation abroad and Brexit, as mentioned by both the Lords.

I have to say, the Conservative Party campaigned in that way for Brexit without really a plan of what Brexit meant. And after having an agreement on Brexit, there wasn't really a plan for growth following that. But what has to happen is to ensure that we have a much closer relationship with the EU and that work will continue and is extremely important. I do share the disappointment that the EU summit is being delayed. These are important issues to be discussed, particularly, I think, the SPS agreement, which we know was not really dealt with satisfactory at all when the deal was done on Brexit and has had a terrible impact in those areas.

So we would want to have that summit as soon as we possibly can to address those particular issues, and I can give him that assurance. The noble Lord talked about about instability in the Middle East. And yes, he's he's right to address these issues. I think this House has raised those issues on many times. And the work that's ongoing is extremely important. Can I say that the Defence Investment plan, the government has committed to publishing that before the NATO summit? But I have to say, we haven't waited for the plan to be published before getting on and doing some of that work that's needed.

Typhoons are now currently being built in the West Midlands. Ships are being built in Scotland. There's a whole range of investment going on that is needed. But he's right. The plan has to be published and take that forward. It's not just about the amount of money and the amount of money has been of great interest. But if you look around the world, how we work with our allies in other countries and the inoperability, how we can work together, because there's no point in the UK spending x billions in one area if it doesn't work.

With money being spent in France and Germany and our allies as well. So that working together is a huge part of the important role that we take. He's right to raise the issue of the Straits of Hormuz. It is absolutely essential that is open and that it is toll free wherever the tolls come from. They are wrong. It must be a toll free passage through there. The noble Lord, where he asked about Iran, can tell me is where the State Threat Legislation that is coming before this House, and I hope we will cooperate to make sure that is on the statute book so we can deal with that state threats as well.

There's a lot of questions I was trying to raise and answer as many as possible in the time I've been given. Can I just say something more about the recent support on for Ukraine, because both noble Lords asked about this, we are providing 150 000 drones, 350 air defence missiles, and they are funded as noble Lord asked about. From the frozen Russian assets. And that's, I think, probably the best use for them. And we've also announced £210 million of export finance, export finance, support for enriched uranium, and that supports the power for Ukraine.

Because as you get into the winter, we need to ensure they have the power they need. And there's a new package of sanctions. So in total, we've committed up to 21, well over £21 billion worth of support for Ukraine, which I think the whole House will join me in saying this money that we need to ensure is spent in the best way possible, both for their safety and security and for ours.
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:47
Lord Harris of Haringey Portrait Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, my Lords, the my noble friend, the Leader of the House has quite properly referred to the quite properly referred to the esteem with which the. The Right honourable, the right of my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister is held by foreign. Most foreign leaders, possibly one major exception. I think we would all share with her the desire that whatever comes next, whoever is the next Prime Minister continues to build on that legacy. The statement refers quite clearly to the increase in the increased number of sanctioned people in the sanctions against Russia in response to the situation in Ukraine, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords.

That response is, of course, extremely welcome. But there is, of course, a potential consequence. We are already suffering as a nation. Grey zone attacks, arson, cyber attacks, arson including on the Prime Minister's property, which is quite extraordinary. Surely under those circumstances, we should be making sure that the public at large are aware of these threats, aware of what the consequences of disruption, and are prepared to do so, not only against those sorts of threats, but indeed all the other risks on the National Risk Register.

Could my noble friend tell us what plans there are? And I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission, what plans there are in the next few months to ensure that the public are better informed and better prepared for the sorts of disruption that might arise.
15:49
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
Liberals right to raise the >> Liberals right to raise the number of issues around resilience. Can I say to him when he says about he hopes whoever takes over the Prime Minister will continue that work, and the Prime Minister has pledged to ensure that there is a smooth transition, and he will give his support in that regard as well to ensure that the work he has been undertaken and has prioritised continues. We have seen an increase in sanctions. This has continue. We have got some plans in the making on how we increase public awareness, but I think that's incumbent, not just on government but on all of us.

We've talked in this House before about the kind of national conversation. I know my friend Lord Coaker is looking at this and doing some work on this. I don't think the public really understand the scale and the type of the threats the country faces today, and resilience and of course, weather resilience as well is another issue. But I don't think people are aware that a single cyber attack could have a major impact on all kinds of issues of infrastructure, whether it's on banking, whether it's on transport.

And so there is a lot of work being undertaken to try and get the public to engage on that. But I think it is a responsibility not just of government, but across the whole House, across civil society as a whole, across local authorities, public agencies, and also for companies who are important to the national security to understand what they need to do to keep their companies safe and banking safe, because the impact that has on, on us all as well.
15:51
15:51
15:51
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:58
15:59
16:00
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I have to say to the noble Lord, I think he has a short memory. Because when we look at what happened under the government, he supported on defence. The record is very poor. When we left office as the last Labour government, we were then spending 2.5% of our GDP on defence. That was cut during the time the Conservatives in office. We've now got it back up to 2.5. We said we would do that by the end of this Parliament. We've done it sooner and we're looking.

But under his government, the army was cut from 100,000 troops to just 72,000. They missed their army recruitment targets every year for 14 years. We lost a quarter of our frigates and destroyers. We cut the minehunters and we failed to decommission decades old kitchen equipment. And they did nothing to address the conditions that our military families were living in. Now, a lot of those issues, we have made huge progress, particularly on accommodation, on procurement, which was a real mess, I have to say.

So taking lectures from noble Lord, I find a little rich, I have to say. But that doesn't mean we've got to do more. It's two things I said to him before. One part of it is money. Part of it is providing the money. But the other part is how we work with other countries and to ensure that we can work together on our procurement, that we can ensure that the systems we use, there's interoperability about them. And I just think that we need to take this extremely seriously and just the noble Lord, to come back, oh, you failed.

He's really not recognising the work that we have done, that we've tried to clear up the mess that was left and we're proud to do. That's not to say we don't want to do more. I think the world is a dangerous place. There's a range of issues. I would suggest he could write a book about it. I feel a novel coming on here, but in in absence of that, can I assure him that this is probably the most serious issue is on top of the current Prime Minister's in-tray, and it will be at the top of the next one.
16:02
16:03
16:04
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move the bill, be now read a second time. It is my pleasure to open this debate on what is a vital bill, and I would like to, first of all reiterate the importance of this bill and what it will achieve. I am also pleased, if I may say so, to have had an opportunity to discuss with a number of noble Lords outside of the chamber the contents, direction and purpose of the Bill, and I'm very happy between now and future stages next week, if members wish to, to have further discussions as well.

State threats are overt or covert actions by foreign governments that fall below armed conflict, but go beyond legitimate diplomacy to harm UK interests. They present a persistent and evolving risk to the United Kingdom and indeed our allies, manifesting across a wide spectrum of activity, including interference in democratic processes, acquisition of sensitive information, threats to public safety and disruption of economic security. Noble Lords will know that certain states have both the intent and capability to conduct such activity to advance their objectives.

This activity is often opportunistic, adaptive, increasingly integrated across multiple domains and combining physical, cyber, economic and information tools. The threats are both evolving and enduring, and our legislation must keep pace now. In December 2024, the former home secretary Yvette Cooper, commissioned Jonathan Hall KC in his capacity as the Independent Review of State Threats legislation to conduct a review into the tools available in terrorism legislation and how they may be applied to the problem of state threats.

I want to place on record on behalf of this House now. Our thanks to Jonathan Hall KC for his work. He proposed that we should legislate to create a state threats power equivalent to prescription under the Terrorism Act 2000. A noble Lords will be aware of those powers as we have within the last year, designated a number of organisations under that act. This Bill delivers on that proposal. The Bill will strengthen the government's ability to disrupt hostile intelligence services and their proxies by adapting counter-terrorism tools to tackle state based security threats to the UK.

The Bill will create a new power for the Secretary of State, in this case the Home Secretary, to designate organisations involved in foreign power threat activity modelled on prescription under the Terrorism Act 2000. It introduces new criminal offences of supporting, assisting or obtaining benefits from designated bodies, and the bill will enable proxy organisations to be treated in practice like foreign intelligence services, making it easier to prosecute those acting on their behalf. The bill will strengthen the overall national security framework so that the United Kingdom becomes more difficult in terms of an operating environment for foreign intelligence services and those state linked proxies, individuals acting for a designated body, will feel the full force of our national security legislation and the accompanying sentences, some of which will carry a life sentence and designation, will send a clear public signal to designated bodies that those prepared to assist them in their malign behaviour will not be tolerated.

Now, my Lords, in developing this legislation, we've worked closely with the police and with the security and intelligence agencies. It has been a year in gestation and I know from question time, from statements and from others that noble Lords will feel that has been too long. But this vital legislation is important and it's important to get it right. The bill gives our operational partners the powers they need, and it does so in a way that reflects the differences between state and non-state actors, Jonathan Hall has himself said of the bill, and I quote, it does the job.

The bill has come to us today, this week, from the House of Commons, and I know that there has been debate in the House of Commons regarding some of the provisions in the Bill. I would like to, if I may, just use this Second Reading opening speech to address why I think the bill is the right thing to do, and to address some of the comments around the bill as a whole. There has been debate in the House of Commons regarding possible amendments to the Bill.

I want to assure people across this House that such amendments are necessary, not necessary, and that the bill as drafted is one that does the job required. If the bill is to exercise through the government the powers in this bill promptly. A swift but thoroughly scrutinised passage through this House will, I suggest, prove beneficial. I would like to provide noble Lords with reassurances today to enable that passage to take place. There are three points I particularly want to address, if I may, around the bill as currently drafted.

The first is the prohibited purpose test, which is applied to the support offence at clause two of the Bill. The Bill makes it an offence to express support for a designated body, including arranging a meeting to be addressed by a member of a designated body, where that support is for a prohibited purpose. Clause two goes on to define prohibited purpose as a purpose that is prejudicial to the safety and interests of the United Kingdom. Now, we've had some comment around that to date from members, both in discussions I've had and also in the House of Commons, and there has been suggestions that the prohibited purpose test should be removed from the Bill on the basis that no such test applies to the support offences in the Terrorism Act.

That, I would suggest, is to understand the differences between state entities and terror organisations. While Prescription Under the Terrorism Act aims to ban the existence of an organisation that cannot and must not be the case with this bill, because even where there is a state entity presenting a threat to the UK, there will still be cases where there are legitimate reasons for engaging with that entity. Indeed, such engagement will often be by the UK's interests as a whole, through British diplomats or NGOs doing vital work on conflict resolution or to deliver humanitarian aid.

My Lord, the reason that we have that prohibited purpose test and to remove it, would be to criminalise such activity. There's also been some discussion, I would suggest, around the issues in the bill, that it does not go far enough to criminalise individuals who provide existence assistance to designated bodies in relation to overseas activities. The new section 17 B of the Bill makes it an offence to provide such assistance. Where the activity undertaken is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and I would suggest that although there has been discussion around this in both the House of Commons and in formal discussions I've had, it will mean that an individual in the UK who is assisting a designated body in hostile activities towards an ally with a recognisable adverse effect on the UK, would commit a crime under the legislation before the Bill today, the Bill does not extend the UK's criminal jurisdiction over all other acts anywhere in the world, irrespective of whether they affect the UK.

It's an important principle of international law that there are reasonable limits to that jurisdiction. But where activities are contrary to our interests, this offence will bite and it's in line with equivalent offences in the National Security Act. And my Lords, if we were to go further, we would not only go beyond what our our operational partners have asked for, we would also push the limits of international law. I suggest the bill has the balance right on this issues. And thirdly, there has been some comment and discussion in Parliament and also outside in relation to the debate of so-called self-directed acts.

That is to say, acts that are inspired by state threat actors but not directed by them. I would like again to assure noble Lords that such acts are caught within the offences in the Bill, and specifically the offence that new section 17 B of providing material assistance to a designated body requires that a person intends their actions to assist that body. They do not have to be tasked or directed by the body for which they are working for the offence to apply.

New section 33 B also introduces the designated body condition of the National Security Act. This means that where a person acts with the intention to benefit a designated body, they may also engage the offences under that act. This includes offences like obtaining or disclosing protected information and sabotage, which both carry life sentences. And again, this does not need any tasking from the designated body and I hope that helps support the concerns that noble Lords have had, but also removes any doubt in the minds of noble Lords.

I also, if I may say so, I know that there has been a considerable discussion around specific bodies that might or might not be designated by this act, and I know, and I did notice, an amendment in the House of Commons to prescribe the IRGC directly, and I've had a lot of pressure on that in this House as well. There have been calls for the government to commit to designating Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. And I hope, again, I can explain to noble Lords today, while this bill is discussed, I cannot give that commitment today.

The powers in this bill are vital ones. Their exercise will have profound implications for the UK's foreign policy and our national security. And it is right that Parliament should set the legal framework for the use of those powers. And it is right. As the Bill provides, the Parliament will be asked to endorse their use through the affirmative procedure, but it's also right that it should be for the Secretary of State on the advice of expert evidence and, in some cases, sensitive intelligence, to determine whether the use of these powers is necessary.

So I will not pre-empt decisions today that have yet to be taken in relation to a law that has yet to be passed. But I will give, I hope, the House a cast iron assurance that where the Secretary of State judges it necessary she will use these powers if they receive Royal Assent, and she will not hesitate to do so, and I'm confident that noble Lords will hold me to account on that point. The sooner this Bill is on the statute books, the sooner the powers within it can be used.

And this bill remains a vehicle for the Home Secretary to determine whether a State Threat Power Act designation is required on any particular body post Royal Assent. There is. I suggest the House and again, we've had some discussion around this in the discussion in Parliament as a whole about why the speed on this. I would suggest the government is committed to a fast track on this bill. That commitment reflects the urgent need to close a legislative gap. It also reflects the interest in this House and in our society of ensuring government has the powers to deal with those state entities who threaten our national security.

It was in response to a series of heinous, anti-Semitic arson attacks in north London that the Prime Minister again committed to bring this bill forward within weeks. We have put it in the gracious speech in May, and we brought this forward in both houses at the earliest opportunity. And I want to see this bill passed by both houses at the earliest opportunity, so that we can get on with examining the requirements of using these powers as appropriate. In our manifesto, we committed to take the approach used for dealing with terrorism and adapted to deal with state based security threats.

So this bill also fulfils a manifesto commitment, and it does just that. Ultimately, at stake is the purpose. We're all sent here to advance the most important thing that we can do as a government and as a parliament, is to ensure that the security of our nation is secure and also all who live within it. I want to pay tribute to the men and women of our police and security services. Their work could not matter more, particularly at this dangerous time.

But as well as thanking them, we must support them to tackle the threats we the threats we face in a dangerous and uncertain world, and to do and to give that support we need to equip them with new and necessary powers which are within this legislation. There is a wealth of experience across this House, I know, but I look forward to further scrutiny if we have a Second Reading approved, that noble Lords will provide, both today and I hope next week.

I know that we have a strong list of speakers today who will provide that fruitful debate, but I would suggest to the House that the urgency of our national security demands this bill be passed, and giving the Home Secretary the powers to, again, make assessments and use these powers at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

earliest opportunity where those threats exist. I beg to move. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be now read a second time. My Lords, I will begin by welcoming. I could say at long last the government's decision to bring the government's decision to bring this legislation forward. I say at long last, advisedly and not as
16:18
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
long last, advisedly and not as mere partisan point scoring. This House will recall that the opposition pressed the government on no fewer than three separate occasions during the passage of the Crime and Policing Bill in the previous session to prescribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. On three occasions, the House voted in favour of our amendments. On three occasions, the government voted against them. Ministers resisted, delayed and demurred until ultimately the weight of public pressure, the urging of the Jewish community and the reality of what is happening on our streets became impossible to ignore.

The Prime Minister made his announcement and here we are. We do not begrudge the government for their change of position. We welcome it. The direction of travel is right, and this side of the House wants to see the bill pass. But the circumstances of its arrival matter because they help explain the deficiencies in the bill as drafted. And this legislation draws directly from the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Review of Terrorism legislation, whose report was published 14 months ago.

That's 14 months. And yet we are now told that this is so urgent the government will not consider any amendments, which is highly disappointing given the bill before us today, contains gaps that, if not rectified, risk rendering its central purpose unenforceable. And I will come to those in a moment. First, we must be frank about the threat we face. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a distinct threat. It is an organisation that has been active on British soil, targeting British citizens and funding terrorism across the world.

In October 2024, Ken McCallum, the director general of the Security service, said MI5 and the police had responded to 20 Iran backed plots since January 2022, involving potentially lethal threats to British citizens. In May 2025, three Iranian men were charged under the National Security Act after a major counter-terrorism investigation, and prosecutors said one of the men had carried out surveillance, reconnaissance and online research with the aim of committing serious violence against a person in Britain. And in March of this year, we saw the horrific arson attack on Jewish ambulances in Golders Green responsibility for which was claimed by an Iran aligned group, they argue.

The IRGC funnels billions of dollars to terrorist proxies worldwide. It gives rockets and advanced weaponry to Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. It manages thousands of fighters operating across multiple continents, and it coordinates assassinations, kidnapping and sabotage operations, including here in the United Kingdom. So it is entirely right, therefore, that the law should treat association with and support of IRGC as a criminal matter. And that is what this bill sets out to do, and that is why we support its intentions.

But good intentions, poorly executed, create only the illusion of security. And I must be candid with the House as drafted, this bill contains at least four significant vulnerabilities that we believe must be addressed before it leaves this place. The first is the prohibited purpose requirement. Clause two of the bill is modelled on section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which is the provision that makes it an offence to invite support for a proscribed terrorist organisation. But the government have introduced an additional element that does not appear in the Terrorism Act, a requirement that the support be given for a prohibited purpose, defined as conduct prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.

So I ask the Minister a simple question, and I hope you will answer it directly, what form of support for the IRGC does the government consider to be beneficial to the United Kingdom? What type of assistance to the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism could possibly be regarded as in our national interest? If the answer is none and it's self-evidently must be none, then I ask why this additional evidential standard exists at all? What this provision, what this provision creates in practice is a perverse hierarchy of culpability.

Under this bill, as drafted a prosecution against an individual for supporting the IRGC would require proof that their support was prejudicial to the United Kingdom. But if that same individual was supporting one of the IRGC's terrorist proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthis, they would face a lower bar prosecution under existing terrorism legislation. The organisation responsible for inspiring, organising, arming and financing those groups would receive greater legal protection than the groups themselves. That cannot be the government's intention. I do hope the Minister will perhaps listen and bring his own amendment to this effect.

If not, then I most certainly will. The second concern relates to omission of provisions on uniforms and insignia under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, as amended by the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, 2019. It is an offence to display in a public place any item of clothing or any article in such a way as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to publish an image of such an article or item of clothing.

That is, the provision used to remove Hamas flags from our streets and to seize Hezbollah insignia. The bill contains no equivalent provision whatsoever. If the IRGC is designated under this legislation, its symbols, its insignia, its flags could be displayed openly in public with complete legal impunity. That is a gap so obvious and so damaging to public confidence in the legislation, that its presence in the Bill is difficult to explain. Now, I believe the government is of the view that this would somehow be inappropriate for this legislation.

I wholly disagree. The Bill will only apply to a UK person, so we are not trying to ban Iranians displaying such insignia in Iran. Of course we cannot do that. But why should anyone be permitted to wave the flag or wear the uniform in the United Kingdom of an organisation which we have deemed to be a threat worthy of designation under this legislation? The third gap relates to the dissemination of publications and materials. Since 2006, it has been an offence under the Terrorism Act to disseminate terrorist publications, publications that encourage, glorify or provide practical assistance for acts of terrorism.

That standard has been part of our counter-terrorism framework for nearly two decades. This bill makes no equivalent provision for designating hostile state bodies, materials, promoting, glorifying or facilitating the activities of designated groups could be distributed without triggering criminal liability. This is not a minor technical omission. It is a failure to apply a basic and well-established standard of counter-terrorism law to a new category of threat. The fourth and final concern is the absence of a preparatory conduct offence. This bill is currently drafted captures those who assist, support or receive money from a designated group.

It does not capture those who are in the process of planning to do so. Section five of the Terrorism Act 2006 addresses this gap in the terrorism context, making clear the preparation for terrorist action is itself an offence. By the time someone has completed an act of support for a terrorist organisation, the damage may already be done. Catching people in the preparatory stages is operationally essential for our security services. So as the bill stands, an individual who has taken concrete steps towards assisting the IRGC cannot be prosecuted unless and until the act itself is complete.

They cannot be prosecuted for those acts because preparatory acts are not covered by any of the offences in the Bill. There is a vulnerability we do not have in our terrorism legislation. It is a vulnerability we should not introduce here. I would like to make one final point. I have read Hansard and looked at the response from the new Security Minister to my hon. Friend Alicia Kearns in the other place, and I must say I found it wanting. The security Minister said, and I quote, there are a couple of themes that run through my response to the hon.

Lady's amendments. The first is that it is not possible to treat a state body the same as one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cannot abolish a state body. End of quote. This argument does not stand prescription, does not not stand prescription, does not abolish a terrorist group. Hamas is a proscribed group in the United Kingdom. And yet we all know they still exist in the Middle East. Daesh was not defeated because the British government had prescribed. Would anyone argue that Palestine Action does not now exist? Does not exist now that it has been exist now that it has been prescribed, and the purpose of prescription is not to abolish a group, but to degrade their ability to operate in the United Kingdom by prohibiting all forms of association with and support for that group.

That is precisely what the government says it intends to do with designation under this bill. So the reality is the prescription and designation really are not as different as the Minister would have us believe. And given that was the government's main justification for rejecting my hon. Friend's amendments last week, I hope they will rethink their objections, my Lords. The rushed nature of the bill's drafting is, I regret to say, visible in the face of the legislation. When a government spends months resisting legislation, then reverses course under political pressure and moves quickly to announce a bill, the risk of corners being cut is very real, and we see the evidence of that here.

None of our concerns are insurmountable. They are, in each case, amendments that would bring this legislation into conformity with the counter-terrorism framework. And it's explicitly, explicitly based upon. And as I've just outlined, there is no reason why this should not happen. The threat from the IRGC and indeed other state linked groups is present, documented and ongoing. The House has an obligation to ensure that when legislation is passed in response to that threat, it is legislation that works, that it is watertight, that it is enforceable, and that it does not permit those who support one of the world's most dangerous organisations to slip through its gaps.

We support this bill. We want to see it on our statute book, but we will not allow the urgency of the cause to excuse the inadequacy of the drafting. We will table amendments in committee, and we look forward to constructive engagement with Ministers.
16:29
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats >> My Lords, the Liberal Democrats support the principles of this bill. We've been clear that we want this legislation on the statute books also, and we will not seek to hold it up. We fully recognise the unprecedented security challenges we face, confronting more serious and less predictable threats than at any time since the Cold War. In 2025 alone, MI5 reported a 35% increase in state threat activity on the previous year, including more than 20 around back plots to kidnap or kill on British soil.

We are in accord with the government. This activity must be stopped. However, while we will not obstruct this bill, our support is not a answer. Such accelerated progress risks important areas not being properly covered or provisions having unintended consequences. Good legislation also involves scrutiny and input from outside parliament, the media and experts from a wide range of professional fields are normally critical in improving a bill. However, the speed of this bill's passage runs a real risk that much needed external scrutiny will be missed.

This bill addresses a critical gap looking to existing terrorism laws to deal with state organs was, in the words of the independent reviewer, shopping in the wrong department by creating a power to designate bodies involved in foreign power threat activity. This bill creates the right tool to penalise the proxies and hired guns that foreign powers use to carry out sabotage on UK soil. The litmus test for this bill will be the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC. My noble friend Lord Marks has constantly argued that if the IRGC were not in power in Tehran, it would be universally recognised as a terrorist organisation.

Yet as drafted, this bill is gentler on the IRGC than our laws are on the terrorists they fund. We must also ensure these powers have teeth in the global financial system. My noble friend Lord Purvis noted on the 11th of June that these groups operate through complex commercial, financial and now digital trade routes. We must use this bill to trigger robust investigations by companies House and the Financial Reporting Council to unmask front companies and starve designated organisations of UK origin funds.

However, I remain a bit concerned by the Minister's comment that a UK connection of some sort is required for designation. In an era of digital interference where state backed proxies can target our citizens and sabotage our interests from behind a screen thousands of miles away, we must ensure this requirement does not become a loophole. We need an assurance that this bill is equipped for the era of digital interference, ensuring that hostile actors cannot evade designation simply by operating entirely from abroad via digital means.

We must also listen to the International Committee of the Red cross and the International Development Committee. They warn that section 17 B is so broad it could unintentionally criminalise in sorry, impartial humanitarian aid. Ministerial intent is not a legal safeguard. We need an express exemption on the face of the Bill for impartial humanitarian organisations such as the International Committee of the Red cross, acting in accordance with international humanitarian law. Anything less leaves our aid workers at the mercy of a 14 year prison sentence for simply delivering life saving medicine.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has identified another trap. Clause one currently allows for designation without even establishing a link to a foreign power for certain acts, such as those under section four of the 2023 act. That is both too weak against our enemies and too broad for a free society on future proofing. The director general of MI5 has rightly warned of the next frontier. Autonomous AI systems that may evade effective human control. The government's own AI scenario 2030 report admits such systems could call existential harms without intervention.

I will be moving a specific amendment in committee to ensure foreign power threat activity captures the development of superintelligence AI capabilities by a foreign power. Finally, because this is a fast track bill, we must have a 12 month statutory review of its adequacy. We also need the safeguard that any removal of a designation must be approved by votes in both houses. Parliamentary oversight must exist at the end of a designation, not just the beginning. My Lords, as I said, we will not hold this bill up, but we will seek to amend it.

We are talking about individuals who actively assist hostile states to sabotage our nation. We owe the citizens and residents who are being specifically targeted by these lethal plots more than just sincere intentions. We owe them a law that holds up in the courtroom and at the border. We look forward to a rigorous, if brief, Committee stage.
16:36
Lord Anderson of Ipswich Portrait Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords. >> Admirable successor. >> As independent. >> Reviewer, Jonathan Hall KC. It is regrettable that this bill is is regrettable that this bill is being brought forward more than a year after his recommendation. Yet, in a manner which telescopes and truncates the debate in both houses, how much more useful and productive it would have been to have seen a draft bill. Its scrutiny unrestrained by tight deadlines and positions already taken. My remarks today are aimed not at what the Bill intends to do, but at the law, which I am afraid it exemplifies the law of unintended consequences.

Two of the new offences, section 17 B and 17 C, have the potential to damage conflict resolution, peace building and humanitarian activity endeavours in which this country excels in parts of the world controlled by bodies liable to designation. I shall explain briefly why that is and how I think the problem might be resolved. I declare a non-pecuniary interest as the chair of Intermediate, an independent peacemaking charity that was founded in 2011 by Jonathan Powell. Now, of course, the government's national security adviser, intermediates staff work discreetly at the highest political levels to support complex negotiations and conflict resolution in some of the most troubled parts of the world.

It will not surprise noble Lords to learn that work of that kind requires intensive dialogue with brutal and unpleasant regimes, to whom it may be difficult or impossible for Western governments to speak. I am also grateful to the International Committee of the Red cross and to the various peace building and humanitarian organisations, from conciliation Resources to Save the Children and the Halo Trust, who have approached me with their concerns in relation to this issue, and I thank the Minister and his Bill team for our discussions on this issue.

Since the bill was published two weeks ago. What do I mean by the unintended consequences of this bill? Take the proposed new section 17 C, which is about obtaining, accepting, agreeing to accept or retaining material benefits from a designated body. That is an offence punishable by 14 years in prison. Quite right too. In the cases highlighted in the explanatory notes, a business assisting a hostile state with new military technology, or a contract criminal who knew or should have known where his fee was coming from.

But material benefits are defined in section 17 C three with remarkable breadth. They include financial benefits. Anything which has the potential to result in a financial benefit and information. Taking that definition at face value. The likes of intermediate could contravene the criminal law by accepting information from a designated body as to that body's objectives or negotiating stance. The definition the defence of reasonable excuse in subsection seven applies only to the retention of information. There is no such defence for agreeing to accept information or for accepting it.

There is protection for public servants in subsection eight B, but not for the charities or churches who often have the reach that governments do not, or one thinks of a charity such as the Halo Trust wishing to clear a minefield. It asks the IRGC, once designated where the mines were laid, that to. On a plain reading of section 17 C would constitute the criminal offence of agreeing to accept information, though only ten years in prison for that one.

Section 17 B, as the noble Baroness has said, presents similar problems. Humanitarian organisations are not usually exempt from paying taxes, duties and fees in order to establish and maintain their operations in a country or territory, for example, tax on staff salaries, import duties on aid items and visa fees. It is at least arguable that anything which swells the coffers of a designated organisation will be of material assistance to the activities of that organisation, locally or by subsection four A in the United Kingdom.

Bluntly, it helps pay for them. That legally prudent interpretation risks blunting the aid effort where it is most needed, and criminalising those who would seek to provide it. The Minister I know will remind us that the CPS prosecutes only in cases where that is in the public interest, and that for those offences or for these offences, the additional consent of the Attorney General will be required. Don't worry. In other words, it may never happen. But with respect and as anybody familiar with these sectors well knows, reliance on the wise exercise of such discretion, so important, is not a sufficient answer.

Charitable trustees. I suspect there are quite a few of us in the chamber are properly cautious about signing off on activity, which could expose ourselves or our staff to the criminal law. So to a still greater extent, our bank compliance departments, insurers and suppliers of humanitarian aid all essential to the activities of those operating in these fields. The experience of NGOs in conflict zones is that banks and others are highly risk averse. Why would they take the reputational risk of getting involved with potential criminality, even if only on paper? Indeed, that is precisely why Parliament has expressly excluded those engaged in humanitarian activity from at least one comparable criminal offence.

The designated area offence in section 58 B of the Terrorism Act 2000. My Lords, we have a week to sort this out. The explanatory notes as they stand are not sufficient for reasons I don't have time to get into. A very clear statement from the Minister that section 17 B and 17 C are not intended to operate in the way I have suggested would be a start. An explicit reference to Pepper and Hart could be a useful signal to.

Prosecutors and judges. Also helpful at a more general level would be an undertaking to co-operate through the established tri sector group dialogue in amending the applicable guidance, and a clear and unqualified statement that the new offences are not intended to apply to bona fide organisations engaged in conflict prevention, conflict resolution or, in the words of the explanatory notes, humanitarian activities or support for basic human needs. These are sticking plasters, but it will take amendment to remove the chilling effect and place the matter beyond doubt.

So though I shall listen with great care, as I always do, to what the Minister has to say. I fear that this is an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue to which we shall have to come back in committee. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lord, it's a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned to follow the noble and learned gentleman. I very much look forward to hearing developing those points at Second Reading. Let me begin directly. Legislation of this kind directly. Legislation of this kind is long overdue. As the library briefing made clear, the character of the state where the state is
16:44
Lord Pickles Portrait Lord Pickles (Conservative)
-
-
treated as evolved over the. Over the years. It's not a criticism that this legislation is necessary. It's not a criticism directly at It's not a criticism directly at this government. Successive administrations have recognised the administrations have recognised the problem with reasonable clarity, but have been slower, often slowing but have been slower, often slowing and delivering a remedy. We identify the threat. We hesitate on the response and we find ourselves once again playing catch up. The bill is an attempt to close that gap.

It is necessary and it is welcome. There is much that merits support the updating of offences, the introduction of Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, the broader recognition reflected in both the library material and other briefing. That hostile activity now spans a wide spectrum. It's no longer confined to classical espionage. It extends into influence operations, economic influence operations, economic pressure, covert funding. A steady shaping of information environment. However, necessity should not be mistaken for sufficiency.

My concern is that the bill, while well intended, is framed too much around the threats that we already understand rather than those that are evolving. Hostile actors adapt quickly. They learn from our frameworks and adjust their methods accordingly. If we legislate narrowly or too rigidly, we will find that the law is outpaced almost as soon as enacted. We cannot afford once again to legislate in arrears. The reality is that modern state threats are often indirect.

They are mitigated through networks, proxies, front organisations and aligned movements that provides distance and deniability. Influences is rarely crude. It is incremental, sustained and frequently embedded within legitimate structures. That presents a challenge which the bill does not fully meet. In particular, it requires us to take seriously the role of transnational transnational ideology networks that make that may intersect with state interests, whether formally or informally. The arguments advanced by my. My noble friend Lord Goodson in his recent article in The Spectator, are both relevant and necessary to engage with.

He draws attention to the way in which the Muslim Brotherhood operates less as a single organisation and more as a diffuse and adaptive network, a movement which affiliates bodies, overlapping structures and a capacity to project influence across civic, educational and political space. This strength lies not in overt confrontation, but in persistence, organisation and reach over time. The point is not to collapse this into a simplistic category of state threat, but to recognise the boundaries between state and non-state activity is often porous, and that serious actors are adept to operating across these boundaries.

Other countries have begun to engage with this reality. France and Austria among them, have examined how such movements function, how they influence institutions and what risks they may pose to democratic resilience over the longer term. In the United Kingdom, our approach has been more cautious, arguably too cautious, and the bill reflects this caution. It is anchored firmly in the concept of state attribution, which understanding has created a limitation. Its influence is exercised through networks that fall just outside the definition.

Then a framework confines to it over overlooking a significant part of the threat. To be clear, this is not part of an argument for indiscriminate measures or broad brush conclusions. It's an argument for clarity and completeness, to ensure our understanding of modern threats is sufficiently wide. Our response is capable of addressing them. At present, the alignment is not yet fully achieved. This is why the next stage of the bill is so important, and has already been demonstrated in another place.

There is real scope to strengthen and redefine the framework. In particular, I think it's reasonable to apply well. But three basic tests. First of all, flexibility. Can the bill adapt to new forms of threats without the need to repeat primary legislation? Secondly, its scope does it adequately capture indirect as well as direct forms of hostile influence? And thirdly, clarity. Are the definitions and mechanisms sufficiently precise to be both effective and enforceable? If the bill falls short against these tests, then amendment is not an obstruction.

It's responsible law making. My Lords, those who seek to undermine open societies are neither static nor unsophisticated. They study our systems. I typify ambiguities and exploit gaps with consistency and patience. If our legislative response is too narrow or too cautious, it will not be enough. This bill is an important step forward, but it must also be a durable one. I believe the bill can be improved and that we can future proof it, widen its scope where necessary, and ensure that it addresses not only direct state action, but broader ecosystems, at which influences exercise.

I think, my Lords, in conclusion, our task is simple not to follow a threat, but to get to get ahead of threat and to stay there.
16:51
Lord Beamish Portrait Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-
I welcome this bill. The fact >> I welcome this bill. The fact that we need it less than three years from the passing of the National Security Act shows, I National Security Act shows, I think, and demonstrates the evolving threat which this country faces. In 2020, the Intelligence Security Committee, which I chair, published its groundbreaking Russia report. And not to just gently remind Lord Davis that it did take three years for the government to implement most of the recommendations of that report, including the FIRS scheme.

But since then, we've produced in 2023 the our report on China. And in 2025, our report on Iran all pose a threat to UK security. The playbook they use are very similar. Sabotage, cyber attack, intimidation of the diaspora, misinformation, kidnapping, assassination. In some cases all carried out across not just in this country but across Europe. Many examples you can find in open source material. And their strategy is not only well thought out, but it's also well funded.

It's to undermine the trust in government, increase social division, weaken the rules based order. And in Russia's case, try to limit our support for Ukraine. Now, post the attack in Salisbury. I think thanks to the efforts of our security services and our international partners, we have made the operating environment in the UK and across Europe far more difficult for these actors, and that's why they've used and gone to using proxies. And again, it's not just about acts of sabotage.

There have been good examples across Europe of the shopping centres in Poland being attacked. I was in Latvia earlier this year where on a daily basis, the railway systems attacked, not because it's breaking down, but the fact that people are being paid to disrupt the network. We've also seen Iran using organised crime networks across Europe to assassinate those who oppose the regime. We've also seen close to home the example of the former deputy leader of UK reform in Wales, Nathan Gill, who's paid to by the Russians to put out a positive image of of Russia, but also to undermine the West's support for Ukraine.

So this is a very difficult environment for law enforcement and security services to act upon, because in many cases, for example, acts of sabotage. It might not be evident straight away that these are being supported by foreign actors. We saw, for example, the case of the of a few last year in terms of the attack on a warehouse in east London, which was being used to store supplies for Ukraine. Now, will this threat increase and is it going away? No, it is not going away.

And I would argue that it's going to increase because I think as certainly in Russia, as Putin comes under more pressure, this is a low risk element in terms of trying to undermine the West Iran. We don't know what's going to happen next in terms of the fallout from the war. But again, this is a low risk, low risk strategy for them because they can deny involvement in many of these these attacks or misinformation campaigns, whether it be, as I say, attacking warehouses in east London or synagogues or anti rhetoric online.

We've also got the increasing activity of the Chinese who are targeting universities but also looking for trade secrets, something that this bill will actually take on. But will this bill be the end of it? Will that be it? No it won't. I think we will be coming back as the as as our adversaries react and adapt, we will have to come back to to more. And I think there is an issue which the last government ignored, even though they gave a commitment to it, and that is the review of the Official Secrets Act of 1989.

The problem I have with this legislation is, is that it's now going to be a huge disparity between 14 years for offences under this to two years for offences under the Official Secrets Act. It was promised in 2019. It was shelved. And I urge the government to revisit that. But it's often said democracy is fragile. It is. It's to be nurtured. And I think we've got to ensure that with this legislation, any type of legislation like this, that we get the balance right between protecting our nation and its citizens and also the rights of individuals.

Now, as chair of the ISC and a member of the ISC for the last nearly ten years, I see the regular reporting on what's happening in terms of the attacks, not just in this country, but also across Europe. And I do think that we do need an honest conversation, a public conversation with people about the threats. And I think, David Anderson, the recommendation in terms of the reviewer's report, when he says that statistics should be published, I think we do need to publish them, whether it's in in his annual report or whether we can do it in the ICS annual report.

But I come on to the issues around designation and reference being made to the IRGC. This was covered in our Iran report. And yes, the current legislation wasn't fit for purpose. And I think this is a way forward. But I would also stress to individuals who are calling to our. On the face of this bill, the IRGC. That is not the way we need to operate, because quite clearly the position of prescription is done independent of politics and is actually done a threat based assessment.

I think they well will meet that threshold, and hopefully we can see a movement forward. I would just like to touch on what Lord Anderson said in terms of some of his concerns. I do agree with him that there are concerns there. We need to alleviate that because it's getting this balance right between protecting our nation from harm, but also making sure that those that are doing good in the world are actually protected as well. There are instances where governments, NGOs and others do have to deal with some very nasty people.

That is a fact of life. And I've got to say, it might not be very popular in this in this debate, but even individuals linked to the IRGC on occasions, NGOs and government have to be involved with them. So I think in closing, this is a movement forward. Will it be the final say on this situation? No, it will not. This is going to be an ever increasing issue. We're going to have to come back to. And government is going to have to be agile to react to it.

Just finally, can I just say thank you? Like my noble friend said to members of our security service and police who keep us safe 365 days a year? Yeah. Very good. My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after Lord Beamish.
16:59
Lord Barrow Portrait Lord Barrow (Crossbench)
-
-
We have had many conversations about national security over the years. Not always agreed, but he knows what he's talking about and I agree with him on this bill. This is a necessary bill, and the sense is a necessary bill, and the sense of urgency is necessary to the National Security Act 2023, as others have already said, was a big others have already said, was a big step forward, and I welcome the cross-party approach that we had to that and to national security matters generally is a huge help, including for those who we've already paid tribute to in our services, our operating partners and the police.

But threats change, our enemies adapt, and we must respond, and we must do so at pace and not get left behind. As others have said, that has already been referenced to Sir Ken McCallum comment that he saw a 35% increase in the number of individuals being investigated for involvement in state threat activity. I have to say to the House, I remember once being told off by a Prime Minister for Beguilingly precise statistics, but the picture is what I recognise, including from my time as national security adviser and my time reading all the intelligence.

So we need to respond now. Sir Ken I'm sure people who know him would agree, is the sort of person who would tell you that you'd won the lottery, or that your house had burnt down and the same calm, professional tone. And we mustn't let that professionalism mask the reality, the day in, day out reality of what we are facing in terms of threat to this country. And that's why I support this bill. But I also support others who talk about the need for a national conversation about that threat, because we need that in order to have the basis for taking our legislations forward.

So we need to respond to this evolving and increasing threat from state actors and their proxies. I commend Jonathan Hall KC. I need to remind ourselves that an independent reviewer, and I think all across the House, there is respect and support for what he has said. He has shown us a way forward, and I commend him, not least because this is really difficult. As we've already heard, we can't simply cut and paste from terrorism to state actors. And I also commend the fact that operational partners have been involved in framing this bill.

And I have to say to the House, in my view, this bill would bring real and direct operational benefits. That's what it's about, and that's what we should support. My Lords, I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Anderson, and I, like others, have also been contacted by NGOs concerned about the effect of this legislation, I thank. I thank them for raising these concerns and I pay tribute to them for their extraordinarily brave work in the most dangerous and difficult circumstance.

Clearly, they have to engage with actors who are not at heart engaged in our best interests, but that's what it takes to operate in those places. So I thank the noble Lord, the Minister and his teams for briefings, which allow some of us to raise these concerns. It is clear to me that the bill is designed to meet that challenge through the concept of defence is only committed by conduct prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK, and also there is an intent and intent element to this as well.

So legitimate humanitarian assistance would not fall foul of this test. There are other safeguards to. But I encourage the government to continue discussions with the NGOs to see if there are anything more that could be done through guidance, including the CPS, and I agree with Lord Anderson to use a trisector approach as well. I see Lord Carlile Lord Carlile listening and I await for further legal analysis in this sector. But one thing I would say is I would not support an amendment creating an exemption, because surely that would be a loophole which our opponents would seek to use, and I think it would put the NGOs then right in a place of greater danger.

But let's continue the conversation and see what we can do. My Lords, I also understand the motivation of those who called for putting a particular actor on the face of the bill, but I do not agree. In my experience, national security legislation should be as actor agnostic as possible, should create the framework through which the government can act with the best intelligence advice, involvement, engagement with the operating partners as possible. But I do say to the noble Lord, the Minister, that if the government gets its way, as I hope they will, and fast track this legislation successfully, then this House and more generally, there will be an expectation of rapid action in exercising these powers with the same sense of urgency and purpose as in pursuing the bill itself.

My Lords, I have one question for the noble Lord. Minister, and this goes to a point the noble Baroness made about a 12 month review. Since this is a bill amending part one of the National Security Act. As I read it, I understand that the independent reviewer would be required to carry out an annual review of these provisions. Could the Minister confirm that? Because I think that would allow for us to respond quickly. If there are deficiencies and they could be on either side of the debate, and indeed, it may not just be that we've got this wrong, but our opponents will move and react.

So we need to know quickly if there's more we should do in this area and take it upon ourselves to respond accordingly. So I'd be very grateful to hear from the noble Lord on that. But in conclusion, my Lords, we all know that we cannot legislate away the threats to our country, but we do what we can and as quickly as possible, try and keep pace with evolving threats. I therefore support getting this bill passed by the summer recess. I would welcome any improvements, but not to the cost of delay.

Let's do what we can now. Let's do the best that we can in the time we've got available to us. And as Lord Beamish and others have said, we will for sure be coming back to this issue in the future because the threats will not go away. They will continue to evolve.
17:06
Baroness Neville-Jones Portrait Baroness Neville-Jones (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, sir, it's a great pleasure to follow Lord Barrow with pleasure to follow Lord Barrow with his comments. I agree, unlike him, I. I welcome the bill also. I think like him, I think we've been waiting quite a long time for it. It's it's not just, you know, that it seems to have taken the government a long time to get going on the issue. It is that real life affects those who are at risk, notably the Jewish community, not only the Jewish community, but certainly and definitely the Jewish community.

So we do need to get on with this legislation, and I'm among those who don't support, therefore, further delay. I think that the points made by Lord Anderson, which for me introduced a new element, but one which quite clearly now has real force, do require us to try and get a balance between contact with organisations of which we deeply disapprove, and whose activities on the line on the one hand, but for purposes that serve our interests, and which are in the general good, and on the other, not creating loopholes by.

Inventing, if I can put it that way. Bone motives which would excuse their lead to the court excusing their conduct, it's not difficult to see, is it, that that the defence can make it quite difficult for the prosecution to get actually its land, its point, if there's an argument about motivation in the court and have to prove, you know, that that that was for a prohibited purpose. So I think one of the things that we need to concentrate on in the short time we have is getting some careful drafting into the into the legislation to get the balance.

Right. Well, the Minister said and I see his point. Nevertheless, he Minister said that he couldn't guarantee that this legislation would actually lead to the prescription of IRGC. Well, all I can say is in the real world, if it doesn't lead to it, there's something very wrong, and I would expect it to see this happen. We do live, I think, in the real world and not in one, which is, you know, composed of nice, nice, nicer situations and actually prevail on the prohibited purpose requirement.

As I say it is, it is obvious that we need careful drafting. But I would also say that that applies also to the provision on prosecution of risks of people planning activities in this country for for malign activity abroad. It's again, it's not difficult to see that unless it's possible to, to, to get to the point that the defence will also have quite, quite a good time arguing about the motive of the defence.

And we mustn't, I think, get a situation where this legislation is passed that it turns out to be a great deal less effective than it should have been, because we have put into it clauses which enable the defence of of these individuals actually to make a monkey put it that way, of the legislation that we put in place. Finally, I think it's Lord Pickles made an important point about future proofing, and I think we should try to include in this legislation individuals who are not acting in direction of, directed by, or acting under the influence of an organisation, but who themselves are motivated to to support state state organisations.

And then so that we can also convict them. And. Because they they're acting themselves on their on their own motivation. If one looks at in current terrorist activity, it's very clear that the self motivated individual is a feature of the scene, the feature of the threat scene. So I think it's important that we should try to include. People of who are acting on their own, on their own authority in this legislation. It's it's an important bill.

I support getting it through. I hope we won't do this at the expense of getting the provisions and the balance of the legislation right.
17:11
Baroness Tyler of Enfield Portrait Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It's a pleasure to follow the >> It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lady who has such deep expertise in this area. I support this bill, which, as others have said, is long overdue, and draw attention to my membership on the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, a point to which I will return. It hardly needs repeating that we live in deeply dangerous and volatile world, and face an array of rapidly evolving threats to our national security. Geopolitics is rapidly changing, and we must be ready to respond and place the national security of the of the country at the top of our agenda.

And as we've already heard, the bill, this bill builds on the National Security Act of 2023 and is intended to strengthen the UK's ability to deter, detect and disrupt threats from foreign states and their proxies, including introducing a new power to designate bodies involved in foreign power threat activity. We've also heard that the bill follows from the review by the Independent Review Jonathan Hall KC into whether existing terrorism powers could be used to address these state threats. Now, well over a year ago, he found that the terrorism prescription charges would not be appropriate.

So instead we have this legislation which will now designate will now designate bodies including proxies, and be applied to bodies such as the IRGC or the Wagner Group. My Lords, the geopolitical context is stark, and we must face very different threats. And we do face very different threats from Russia, from China and Iran, and we must be able to respond to them all individually. It is not a case of one size fits all tactics being employed include attempted and actual assassinations, cyber attacks on major British companies and institutions, marks and Spencers being a case in point.

Espionage, disinformation campaigns and foreign interference in the UK's political system, along with other noble Lords on all benches. I am sure I was simply appalled when it was confirmed that Russian proxies set the Prime Minister's house and car on fire. My Lords are very democracy and the values we hold dear are under threat as never before. And shocking as that was, it is not an isolated event. We've already heard from others who have quoted the remarks of Ken McCullen, the director general of the of MI5, who last year pointed out that state threats had risen by over a third and are now equal or even greater than the threat of terrorism.

And back in May 2024, the director general of the Gchq said that the service, I quote, devotes more resource to China than any other single mission and that China poses a genuine and increasing cyber risk to the UK. Now, clearly that deployment of resources is necessary, but chilling nonetheless. When you consider this is a country, we also try to court as an economic partner. And this twin track approach, in my view, is fraught with danger. And I would ask the government, ask the Minister to set out more clearly its position in relation to China.

And whilst I share the concerns that have been raised across the House about rushing a bill through so quickly without adequate scrutiny, I do well understand we need to take action quickly, particularly in terms of being able to designate the IRGC, which has long been the architect of brutal domestic repression, as well as a threat to UK security and the safety of Iranian and Jewish communities across Britain. So that's the reason. But that's the reason why this legislation should have been introduced, frankly, earlier in the Parliament.

So we will need to ensure that there is appropriate post-legislative scrutiny and a statutory review after one year, as proposed by my noble friend Baroness Doocey. My Lords, this legislation is very relevant and indeed builds on the work carried out by the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy. As a committee, we have raised concerns about the Russian state using proxy actors to commit sabotage in the UK. That was in our inquiry on the National Security Strategy and also internet cables and landing stations, which was part of our subsea cable inquiry.

I think it's also very relevant to the current inquiry we are conducting on options for punitive deterrence against Russia and trying to impose upstream costs and constraints, and I hope that the government will continue to work closely with the Joint Committee on all these issues. My Lords, I would like to finish with a few questions for the Minister. First, it is my hope that the Bill will help with disrupting proxy activity, and the bill appears to reduce the need to prove a chain of connection all the way back to the intelligence services.

So as long as the government can can prove a link to the Proscibed proxy organisation, which might be an organised crime group or some front organisation, then apparently that would facilitate a prosecution. I would be grateful if the Minister were able to assure me on that point that I have got that point correct. Secondly, the International Institute for Strategic Studies has estimated that 600 Russian officials were expelled by NATO states after Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, of which 400 are thought to be intelligence operatives.

And I think, as the noble Lord Lord Beamish has pointed out, Russia, Russia services reportedly have adopted now adapted to using proxies, organised crime groups and freelancers, likely increasing both flexibility and deniability. But at the at the cost of decreasing operational professionalism. So whilst much of the focus on this bill and the discussion around it focuses on Iran at the moment following threats and arson attacks, could the Minister say whether these whether he feels these measures will directly assist in our work regarding Russia, which I.

I've just spoken about, and I think it's relevant that the International Institute for Strategic Studies report, which which was published before this bill, also makes the important point that the ultimate source of aggressive activity is often the intelligence officer running the operation. So arresting the proxy actors might mean that the intelligence officers just find new proxies. So could the Minister say how confident he is that intelligence officers from Russia and elsewhere will be deterred by this bill, or will they simply, as has been suggested, remain untouchable? And finally, concerns have been raised by my noble friend Baroness Doocey, by the noble Lord Lord Anderson and others, which I very much share about unintended consequences, specifically, the impact on humanitarian organisations and charities.

So is the Minister able to give me an assurance that the offences relating to designated bodies do not apply to the activities of impartial humanitarian organisations who who are acting and working in accordance with international law?
17:19
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, no one should be under. >> Any illusion. >> About the dangers facing the United Kingdom, principally from United Kingdom, principally from Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Whether it's assassins hunting down and murdering Alexander Litvinenko or attempting to kill Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, the attack on the Prime Minister's London home, the hate driven scourge of anti-Semitism cyber attacks we call North Korea's 2017 crippling cyber attack on the National Health Service, hacking and false narratives, poisoning minds through social media, the presence of Chinese spies even inside the government and parliament, with two more sentenced last week with bounties on the heads of British residents and coercive sanctions on parliamentarians by Lords, it is clear that these are dangerous times.

I have the honour to chair the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Across several reports, we have highlighted threats to both national security and the human rights of our citizens. Two sides of the same coin. We condemned the failure to bring to justice 400 British citizens who enlisted in ISIS, committed genocide against Yazidis and other minorities in northern Iraq, who returned to the United Kingdom, and not one of whom has been prosecuted for genocide or crimes against humanity. My Lords, how many of them has the government assessed as a future security threat? As we've heard, MI5's chief says threats have risen by more than a third in a single year, with over 20 Iranian inspired plots to kill, maim or kidnap on our sovereign territory.

Perhaps more than anything else, it's been the depredations of that barbaric Iranian dictatorship, which has been reflected in our debate today and driven the need for these new measures, having been sanctioned by Iran in October 2022, along with the noble Lord Lord Polak and others, I might be forgiven for saying, as the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower has said earlier on, but this bill has been a long time coming back. In April 2001, I opened the first of several debates, dozens of parliamentary questions and many cross-party meetings about Iran's egregious violations of human rights, about its nuclear threat, its proclaimed wish to eradicate the state of Israel, its export of terror, and the pernicious role of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, both here and in Iran.

In the 2025 Jqr Report on Transnational repression debated in your Lordships House on February the 26th, we highlighted appalling attacks on pro-democracy activists and journalists, some of whom had been forced to flee the country and one of whom had been left bleeding on the street after an attempted assassination. I would like transnational repression to appear on the face of the bill, at least as an aggravating factor, even if we can't go as far as Sweden, where TNR is defined and is illegal.

Since its foundation in 1979, the Iranian regime has been based on two pillars domestic oppression and the export of terrorism and chaos abroad. Death sentences issued by the revolutionary courts have led to endless waves of executions. Some 2159 in the last 12 months, and recall the death of 22 year old Mahsa Amini, arrested by the morality police for wearing clothes which had been disapproved of by the theocratic regime in 2023. I spoke in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord Lord Coaker, calling for the prescription of the IRGC, and was happy to support the opposition when they moved similar amendments.

Now, I recognise that there is a difference between prescription and designation, and I do at least welcome the steps that are being taken in this Bill. But, my Lords, may I ask the Minister about the letter sent to him by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, sent on June the 26th, it was sent to the Home Secretary with a copy to the noble Lord. I received a response today from the noble Lord Lord Hanson of Flint, and I am grateful to him for that.

But that only arrived about two hours ago, and I'd be grateful if he would agree to place copies in the libraries of both houses, and to circulate it to everyone who's participated in today's debate. It's important the response that the government has sent, because it does deal, I think, very effectively with some of the points raised by the JCR in probing the power to designate a body on the basis that it involved foreign power threat activity, despite there being no link in these circumstances between that body and any foreign power.

And we ask for consideration to be given to an amendment to ensure that under section 33, a only activity linked to a foreign power could be relied upon to satisfy the test for designation. We also ask about assisting a designated body about obtaining material benefits from a designated body, and greater clarity on the safety of the interests of the United Kingdom. My Lords, it was suggested in the House of Commons that there is inconsistency in the thresholds and the more lenient treatment of hostile states than that of terrorists it's been referred to during our debate today as well.

Is that so? And can it be remedied? May I also ask about the point raised by my noble friend, the Lord Anderson of Ipswich and others in the debate? And that's about humanitarian organisations operating with state linked actors, exercised territorial control. And I would draw attention to the noble Lord Lord Hanson of the letter that's been sent to the Home Secretary by the chair of the International Development Select Committee, the admirable Sarah Champion MP, in a letter to Nebo, the international Red cross asked for an amendment to.

And I quote their exact words. The offence is established in section 17 shall not apply to exclusively humanitarian activities carried out by impartial humanitarian organisations in accordance with international law. So I echo the remarks of others and hope that issue might be addressed before next Tuesday. It would be passing strange if Red cross humanitarian work were to be compromised by more than 13 organisations masquerading as charities can stoke the fires of hatred and threaten community cohesion. Why aren't we using this bill to take powers to close them down? And, my Lords, what about China? A point referred to by the noble Lady Tyler and others recall the collapsed spike case and last week's convictions of CCP regime spies.

The bill should enable Ministers to close the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office. The point I referred to yesterday in questions on this issue. It's a spy hub, a cat's cradle of spies and malign actors. We should have a power to close it down. Ten months after the Jcrs unanimous recommendation to put the China onto the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, which we do for Russia and Iran, it hasn't happened. Will trade deals always trump security, human rights and even genocide? My Lords.

Baroness Tyler referred to the point the head of the Gchq made about genuine increasing cyber risk. His words and how we devote more resources to China than any other mission. While Parliament has been warned of infiltration of our universities and threats to our liberties via mass surveillance from Hikvision and other cameras, Chinese made EVs incorporating Chinese cellular modules, along with SIM cards or software. They raise significant espionage and national security concerns, with internet connected vehicles being described as a hostile state smartphone on wheels.

My Lords, the joint Committee is currently looking at AI and human rights. I hope the government is also looking at the way that AI and software and internet powers can be used in order to undermine our public debates and indeed our security as well. And I hope that before next Tuesday. But we can have the opportunity more than the six hours that was provided in the House of Commons to debate these questions. I hope we will be able to come to some agreement around some of the concerns that still remain.

Bill.
17:28
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-
And. bringing forward this long awaited legislation, and I also join others in paying tribute to Jonathan Hall in paying tribute to Jonathan Hall KC, who has paved has done much of the work that has paved the way for this legislation, both as independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and of State Threat Legislation. As he repeatedly pointed out, we cannot deal with a state

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Threats, including state terrorism, by simply using the same approach that we've used for terrorism legislation. There are political, diplomatic and legal differences. One of the key legal differences. One of the key legal reasons why state threats need a different approach is that state officials enjoy immunity from criminal in our courts in respect of their official conduct, and I of their official conduct, and I suspect immunity is one of the main reasons why the government decided that we cannot have a straightforward membership offence, which is which mirrors the offence under general terrorism legislation.

My questions are about the scope of some of the offences and in particular, section 17 B of the National Security Act 2023. The offence of assisting a designated body, which would be introduced by clause two of the Bill and to understand the reach of the offences, it may be helpful to test them against some examples, and I have to. The first one is that of an IRGC plotter based in Tehran, who has coordinated attacks by proxies in the United Kingdom.

If that IRGC plotter happened to fly to the United Kingdom or to another country from which he could be extradited to the United Kingdom, what, if any, conduct would we say has taken place in the United Kingdom for the purposes of the new section 17B17B offence. Now, section 17 B will criminalise the provision of assistance to a designated body in carrying out UK related activities. Subsection five provides that the offence will apply to conduct outside the United Kingdom, but applies to conduct taking place wholly outside the United Kingdom only if the person engaging in the conduct is a UK person or acts on behalf of the Crown or holds office for the Crown.

In my example, the person is not a UK national, does not act on behalf of the Crown and that person will presumably say in those circumstances that his conduct, such as it was, took place wholly outside the United Kingdom, and so the offence does not apply. The person would be able to rely on the judgement of the Supreme Court in El Khoury, which dealt in the context of extradition with the definition of the word conduct. And the Supreme Court held that the word conduct would normally and naturally be understood as a synonym for acts done by the requested person in the specified location and not as including effects, whether intended or not felt in that location of acts done somewhere else.

A compelling reason is needed to interpret conduct as bearing such an abnormally wide meaning. So that's the Supreme Court on the meaning of the term conduct, and I should say the noble and learned Lord Hope is here that the Supreme Court was was dealing with one of his speeches, in another case, Under Armour, where the noble and learned Lord had taken a different approach. And if that approach had prevailed, we wouldn't have the problem that I think we will have under section 17 B in in in my example.

Now, it is true that in the example that I've given, the person may be relying or invoking immunity, but immunity is quite specific to the facts. That person may not have been a state official. So maybe a former state official. And so in the facts of the case, they may not be able to invoke immunity successfully. But in any event, immunity is a separate issue. And it's not a reason for limiting the definition of the offence. And so on. The question of the scope of section 17 B, assuming that all that work had taken place in Iran outside the United Kingdom, what would we say is the conduct that has taken place in the UK so that we can potentially prosecute that person under section 17? B? My second question on scope concerns the definition of UK related activities.

So the offence of assisting a designated body is committed if the person intends that conduct materially to assist a designated body in carrying out UK related activities and UK related activities are defined in subsection five as follows. They are activities taking place in the United Kingdom and activities taking place outside the United Kingdom, which are prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. Now let's take another example here. And that is that of a person who is actually based in the United Kingdom and engages in the conduct of assisting the designated body in the United Kingdom.

But the activities which the designated body is pursuing would be activities against an ally of the United Kingdom, be it Ukraine, the UAE, or Israel. Now it will be argued by the government and the Minister referred to this in in in his opening remarks that the UK related activity would include activity against our friends and allies, but if I understood him correctly, he also said that it would still be necessary for some. I think he said. Recognisable effect in the UK.

So I. And I think he mentioned that as a requirement under international law, which I have to say, I'm a little bit confused about. International law does require certain jurisdictional links between the exercise of criminal jurisdiction and and the state. But in this case, there is an obvious link the conduct would have taken place in the United Kingdom. The person in question would have done the planning, provided the support to the designated body in the United Kingdom, and then the designated body activities would have targeted one of our allies.

But there is already a sufficient nexus with the UK territory for us to take action against that individual. As I understand the position under international law. So why would a further nexus be necessary? I think it's quite an important question, because it will define the extent to which we will be able to use this legislation against individuals who will use the United Kingdom as a base for planning activities against against allies abroad. My Lords, in closing, I would also like to raise the question of the time that has been allocated to to this Bill.

There is broad support for the bill, and I think we all agree it has to be put on the statute books quite quickly, but at some points have emerged that do require further discussion. In addition to the ones that have raised. I would like very much to explore the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. We only have two days to table amendments, and I think then just one day to to debate them, and I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said that we're going to have at least a pretty long session next week to debate the amendments.
17:36
Baroness Verma Portrait Baroness Verma (Conservative)
-
-
My I do welcome this bill, and I'm I'm looking forward to to making sure that its passage is as quick as the Minister wants it. But of course, there will be those amendments that need to be addressed. But I, I want to focus basically on 2 or 3 questions that I put directly to the noble Lord, the Minister. My concern is. And it's around AI, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised, and the usage of AI on 2 or 3 areas that really do concern me in this country through people of this country, because I believe the social contract between the people and the state is, is has actually broken down quite a lot over recent years.

And what we are finding now is that technologies are being utilised through people born and brought up in this country to attack its country, its own country. And so I'd like the the noble Lord, the Minister, to actually just explore the way we protect our critical infrastructure. How do we look at making sure that the the people who manage and run the infrastructures are well versed in how they should be able to protect protected to ensure that outside influence or internal influence does not attack and bring our country to a standstill.

And I say that on the basis that. The energy sector is one prime area, but we've seen attacks on Marks and Spencer's, we've seen attack attacks on hospitals, and these can be done by people sitting within our own country using using artificial intelligence and other means to get into our systems. And that takes me to the other point that I wanted to ask the noble Lord to consider is when we're outsourced, so much of our, our, our, our work to, to other countries, how are we making sure that whilst we're not directly impacted in this country, that that information that belongs to the people of this country is not being attacked from foreign actors outside of the country, in the countries where we're utilising outsourcing.

And the final area that I'm quite, quite concerned about is how we are actually ensuring that information that is ensuring that information that is being is being issued across. The way we, we the way we protect ourselves here and the way this legislation is going to work is to ensure that prescribed groups like the I, R, C, G and others are actually now beginning to to use people of this country to, to be their own proxies here. And, and I worry consistently that we've failed.

We have failed to prescribe them simply on the basis that of, of arguments that I've never made sense to me. And I know that the noble Lord Alton and I agree on this because time and time again, people have been attacked on our soil by, by, by people from the Iranian, the Iranian guard. And we've failed to actually prescribe and protect our own nationals here. So it's it's it's trying to understand why we haven't got to that stage yet.

We're not just that grouping, but others now that are actually taking shape, shelter under the umbrella of what we've not done to prescribe. And other groups are now beginning to actually utilise their own proxies. And I'm afraid those proxies are going by the wayside at the moment because our attention is not on them. It's too much focussed on China, it's too much focussed on Russia. When other actors are now beginning to also come into our systems and utilise our young people, in particular through technologies that we we must be very, very careful.

I've I've come in on this debate only because I think we've we we sort of get caught up in the subject of the day or the matter of the day, and fail to see the wider issues that are bubbling underneath in all our communities. And I know the noble Lord knows that I raise this with him often and, and regularly every time I see him outside of the chamber to, to just make sure that communities that we know have got issues bubbling are, are very vulnerable to the sort of attacks that we are trying to protect here.

And I think this is an ideal time in this legislation to make sure that we also cover those. My Lords, it's a pleasure.
17:41
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham Portrait Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Labour)
-
-
To follow Baroness Verma this afternoon, I welcome the afternoon, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the National Security State Threat Bill. The first duty of any government is to ensure the safety and security of the people it serves. It's in an increasingly uncertain world where a hostile state activity can take many forms, from espionage and cyber attacks to foreign interference and intimidation. It is right that Parliament considers how best to respond to those threats. I therefore support the principles behind this bill and the government's determination to ensure that those acting on behalf of hostile foreign powers cannot undermine our national security, our way of life, or the safety of the people living in our country.

The threats posed by hostile states are real and evolving. They can affect individuals, communities, and our democratic institutions, and it is right that the government responds to them. As this bill progresses. I hope we will also recognise the importance of community trust and cohesion in strengthening our response to those threats. Many of our towns and cities are homes to vibrant, disparate communities with deep family, cultural and historical connections across the world. These communities make an enormous contribution to our society, our economy, and our public life.

It is important to recognise that disparate communities can themselves be the target of intimidation, harassment and surveillance by hostile foreign actors. Indeed, some diaspora communities are among those most directly affected by hostile state activity, with individuals and groups experiencing attempts at coercion, interference and intimidation. Here in the United Kingdom. Given that this bill introduces powers to designate organisations linked to hostile foreign state activity, it is important that legitimate diaspora organisations, community groups, charities and cultural bodies have confidence that they will not be inadvertently affected by those powers.

That is why it's so important that measures designed to protect national security do not create fear or uncertainty among law abiding communities. Trust is hard won and easily lost, particularly in communities that may already feel vulnerable to intimidation or interference. Experience has shown us that, however well-intentioned legislation may be, we must always remain alert to unintended consequences, particularly where community confidence and trust are concerned. Where concerns are identified, there should be a willingness to listen, engage and act swiftly to address them.

The overwhelming majority of people maintain family, cultural and charitable or professional links overseas entirely illegitimately. We must ensure there is a clear distinction between those legitimate activities and those actions of individuals or organisations acting on behalf of hostile states. Can my noble friend the Minister, say more about the safeguards that will ensure legitimate community organisations and disparate groups are not inadvertently affected by these powers, and what steps the government will take to listen, engage and act swiftly should unintended consequences emerge? My Lords, I support the aims of this Bill and look forward to following it through its progression throughout this House.
17:45
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, it's a great excuse me. It's a great pleasure to follow Baroness Dacre, and I think she was absolutely right to remind us that this bill isn't an esoteric subject, nor is it part of some kind of sophisticated spy novel, but rather it affects every citizen in this country, potentially. And that's why it's so important. And as she said, it's the first duty of government to protect its citizens from harm. And that is exactly what is being done by the delivery of this bill.

So in principle and in most of its content, I support this bill entirely, and I'm very grateful to Jonathan Hall KC, my successor. But three, as independent review of terrorism legislation how to field old in one feel old in one sentence, who has done an excellent job just on the subject of Jonathan Hall, I would remind noble Lords who've called for a review after 12 months. In fact, he's required to give a review after 12 months by law.

So that amendment is entirely unnecessary. With great respect to those who suggested it. But I would remind everyone, too, that every independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and Jonathan Hall in his current role as independent reviewer of state threats legislation, can, of his own volition and motion, create a report at any time. My successor as independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, my noble friend Lord Anderson, his successor, and Jonathan Hall and I have all done exactly that, or at least made moves to do exactly that and obtain proportionate and helpful reactions from government when that has arisen.

So I think that the reassurance provided by having an independent reviewer of State Threat Legislation, who does much the same and at the moment is the same person as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation gives great reassurance in relation to the content of the Bill in detail. I don't want to repeat what was said by Lord Anderson, my noble friend Lord Anderson, or my noble friend Lord Verdirame, about some of the content of the bill. I would suggest that much of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.

Suggestion of the need to review section 17 of the National Security Act, 2023, section 17 C can be covered very simply, probably by removing five words by virtue of retaining a benefit from the amended suggested section 17 C, but that will be a matter for consideration in committee. I regret that this bill has taken quite a long time to reach the floor of the House, but I'm bound to reflect, after 40 odd years, in one or other house of this place, that there's an awful lot of glass houses about those complaints.

There isn't a government that hasn't been guilty of serious delays, a much, much longer delays than this. And I don't think we should waste time on matters of that kind. We should simply get on with it. My own view is that we need two committee days, but if we have two committee days, we will complete the need. The necessary amendments of this bill without difficulty with proper debate. If we need one day, then I agree. Let's make it a very long day and get the work done.

My Lords, the state threats in recent years have been described in detail by Sir Ken McCallum, the MI5 director general, and he reminded us in October 2025 that we'd seen a 35% increase in the number of individuals being investigated for involvement in state threat activity in one year. And that is a matter for real concern and reflects remarks made by my noble friend, Lord Alton. I also want to reflect something that was said by my noble friend Lord Barrow, and also by another noble Lord, Lord Beamish, in relation to what I'll call the subtlety of what we are doing.

One should not assume that this is simply extending counter-terrorism legislation. There's much more subtlety to this subject than that. As my noble friend Lord Barrow pointed out very clearly, we can't simply cut and paste from counter-terrorism legislation to deal with countering state threats, because it's quite different in nature. It's been defined very well, in my view, by MI5 as covering overt or covert actions by foreign governments, which fall short of direct armed conflict with the UK, but go beyond peaceful diplomacy and expected statecraft to harm or threaten the safety or interests of the UK or our allies.

Well, if you look at the Terrorism Act 2000, the definition of terrorism is much, much simpler than that. This is a much more complicated subject, and there are views, and it's one that I share and maybe others here do, which is that this bill is much more suitable to deal with the IRGC designation under this bill than prescription under the Terrorism Acts, because those subtle arts which are referred to in that MI5 description, are needed in order to deal with organisations like the IRGC.

I would also refer to the question of charities and other independent organisations. I have a great deal of sympathy with what they do, but Lord Anderson have heard me say this privately on many occasions and I know his. Bored of it, but I do not think we should overlook the importance of the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions. And in this Bill, the Attorney General, the discretion not to prosecute. It is an extremely important protection, which is used on public interest grounds and has been used fairly frequently, though it doesn't arise in what one might call ordinary crime.

So, my Lords, I hope that we can deal with this Bill in fairly short order, that we can keep our mind on what is the issue that we're trying to deal with, not muddle it up with straightforward terrorism, which is much more straightforward than this, and can take into account the need for subtle, clever and extremely able members of our services, the various services that protect us to be able to talk where necessary, to people who are implicit in doing terrible things in order to make the world a more peaceful place.

And our country, one in which the citizens are safe.
17:53
Baroness Northover Portrait Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, national security is, >> My Lords, national security is, of course, a fundamental responsibility of government, and we all recognise that the nature of we all recognise that the nature of security threats has changed significantly. We know that we need to step up in terms of military preparedness, but we now also increasingly face challenges such as cyber attacks, foreign interference in democratic processes and indirect covert covert operations. We need not only to build national resilience, but to tackle such threats and others as they evolve.

We all share that aim. Jonathan Hall KC was asked to identify gaps in our legislation, and the government aims to tackle some of these in this fast track bill. The government has had over a year in which to address these gaps, yet only came forward with this bill in the last few weeks and expects it to be rushed through Parliament. And that is really a recipe for good legislation. So it is vital that we examine this carefully to ensure that there are no unintended consequences, and various people have flagged unintended consequences.

I found that as I read it, I was wondering if some of those potentially implicated in recent attacks would be covered. The bill covers those who would or should know for whom they might be working. But you think of the new development of young men, in particular, being recruited online for tempting cash payments, to take photos of venues or even carry out attacks, yet never thinking that foreign state involvement might lie behind these. Some have termed these actors useful idiots in some ways.

Maybe they are similar to drug mules and how the consequences and who is asking them to do things is far from their minds, as their focus is simply on the financial reward. Will such so-called useful idiots be caught by this legislation? We know the use of such proxies is increasing, giving deniability, of course. And then there are other areas where inadvertently people may be included. And in my view, the noble Lord Lord Anderson has decimated the government's current response in relation to humanitarian work.

And I'm very glad to see the noble Lady, Baroness Chapman, is listening to this debate. The chair of the International Development Select Committee, Sarah Champion, has urged the Home Secretary to amend the bill over concerns that it has negative implications for humanitarian organisations. The IDC want to see, and I quote, an express humanitarian exemption, making clear that offences relating to designated bodies do not apply to the activities of impartial humanitarian organisations acting in accordance with international humanitarian law.

The IDC points out that, and again, I quote, humanitarian organisations often operate in areas where state linked actors exercise territorial control. In such contexts, engagement with all parties to a conflict may be necessary to secure access to affected populations, obtain security guarantees, maintain staff safety, safety and deliver life saving assistance. The committee notes that the bill creates offences are supporting a designated body, assisting a designated body and obtaining or accepting material benefits from a designated body.

Lord Anderson notes that simply getting information on where landmines might have been laid could fall foul of this legislation. The Minister in the Commons stressed that the offences are not intended to criminalise conduct relating to humanitarian assistance. But as my colleague in the Commons, Monica Harding, noted, those safeguards for humanitarian operations are in the explanatory notes for the Bill. They're not in the bill itself. Bonds, the Halo Trust, the International Committee of the Red cross and others argue that there is a risk here which may, at the very least, have a chilling effect on their work.

Among other challenges, as Lord Anderson noted, broadly framed offences may lead banks, suppliers, donors and others to refuse to assist as they do not want to take the risk. I hear what the noble Baroness Baroness Neville-Jones says about the NGOs defence in court, but the last thing that they wish to do is end up in an expensive court case. They will seek to avoid that by avoiding the work. I also hear what the noble Lord Lord Carlile says about them not being prosecuted, but they are likely to try to avoid that risk so they will not undertake that work.

I understand the reaction of the Minister in the Commons that they do not want to have an exclusion to be exploited by malign actors. I understand that, and Lord Barrow made reference to that. But after all, there are diplomatic exclusions in the bill. So there are ways of doing this, and the government I side, therefore, hope that the government is giving thought to how they could amend the bill to make sure that humanitarian organisations are equally and explicitly protected, certainly, as the noble Lord Anderson mentioned, a Pepper and Hart statement would be useful.

But will NGOs actually know the significance of this? Or look at our debates, which is where they'd have to pick up that reference to a pepper and heart protection. An amendment would be much safer. Returning to the challenge of drawing up legislation in a rush, however worthy the worthy the aim, I was struck by what Alicia Kearns said in the Commons, and I quote, we must not write a law for the IRGC alone. We are writing a law for every hostile organ, state organ that comes after it, and the next may look nothing like the mast.

I'm also puzzled that under this bill, and she pointed this out, unlike other terrorism legislation, people cannot be charged until they've committed an act. And noble Lord made reference to this. And from the conservative benches, rather than when they are planning such an act, is there a reason for this? And if it's inadvertent, will it be addressed as we did in the Commons? And as my noble friends have emphasised here, we support the intentions of the Bill. We recognise that we face attacks by state sponsored and state linked actors who actively seek to undermine our democracy.

This is now widespread across the democratic world, where Russia, for example, wishes to create instability in the UK, across the EU, NATO and beyond. Just look at their recent actions in the various elections in Romania, Moldova, Armenia and Hungary. Threats to the UK from foreign states are indeed evolving rapidly, with people receiving their news via social media and social media platforms amplifying division and disagreement. This is likely only to intensify, but as we're asked to fast track this bill, it's important that we look at its potential limitations.

I'm glad that the Minister says he's willing to work across the House to address these concerns, and I hope that we can therefore get robust legislation on the statute books, and that he really means what he says about working with us to try to resolve some of these problems.
18:01
Baroness Helic Portrait Baroness Helic (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, no one can be under any illusion about the nature of the threats we face. Another noble Lords has spoken about this in some Lords has spoken about this in some detail, so I will not be repeating that. It is right that the government seeks to update our laws to. In response, and I pay tribute to Jonathan Hall KC, whose careful review has identified areas where the law requires strengthening. The bill introduces significant offences relating to organisations associated with foreign state threats, and I welcome the government's clear intention to close loopholes to address the use of proxy actors and strengthen deterrence.

However, in pursuing those objectives, I have three concerns. And as a noble Lord Lord Anderson has already pointed out, we must not create uncertainty for those who work and serve an altogether different purpose. Humanitarian organisations and development agencies, including conflict resolution experts, operate in some of the most fragile and dangerous environments in the world. I have seen the value of their work first hand, not only as a supporter of their work, but as a recipient of their aid.

When my own family was displaced by conflict, humanitarian work is often challenging, as uncomfortable in conflict zones. Engagement with the fact authorities is frequently unavoidable. In order to negotiate access to civilian population, obtain permits, rent premises, pay utility charges, employ local staff or secure safe passage to territory controlled by actors. They need our support. No endorse. Without such engagement, the most vulnerable people may receive no assistance at all. Today, many organisations are concerned that this legislation could have unintended consequences.

The ICRC has warned that aspects of the bill are drafted broadly enough that routine humanitarian activities could fall within its scope. Similar concerns have been, as others have pointed out, raised by International Development Committee, humanitarian organisations do not seek to weaken our ability to counter hostile activity. They seek clarity that they can continue to provide vital life saving assistance. Ministers have offered assurances that the Bill is intended to distinguish between hostile conduct and legitimate humanitarian engagement. I welcome those assurances and do not doubt the sincerity within which they have been given.

Yet there is an important distinction between assurance and certainty. Courts interpret statutes, not ministerial statements or footnotes. We have seen before where that where Parliament relies on assurances rather than clear statutory language, uncertainty can persist for years. And I refer here to my own amendment on parental alienation and judicial colleges. And I was given all sort of assurances that the Ministers and the government will will work with the judicial courts, the judicial colleges. But nothing ever happened. And it really takes time.

People change, Ministers go up, governments go. And if it's not written in the law, it means nothing. It's a lovely intention, but it doesn't produce the desired effect. So I just want to draw the minister's noble Lord minister's attention to that. It happens. My second concern is how protections identified by Ministers would work in practice. Ministers have referred to provisions concerning agreements with the government. However, if those provisions are to safeguard humanitarian action, much more information is needed about how organisations would seek or obtain and rely upon such arrangements.

Experience from sanctions and counter-terrorism regimes shows that ambiguity can have far reaching consequences, even where aid agencies are confident that their activities are lawful, the institution on which they depend may decide the risks are way too great. This can lead to the withdrawal of banking facilities, delays in transferring funds and obstructions to the delivery of assistance where it is needed most. While it is clear, while it is clearly not the intention of the Bill to catch organisations such as these, their experience of similar legislation is that for as long as there remains even a paper risk of criminal liability, charitable trustees will act cautiously and no one can blame them for that.

There is also the wider problem of the risk by banks and financial institutions, and the net effect is likely to be a reduction in vital work in some of the world's most troubled countries, including humanitarian relief and conflict relations resolution efforts, both of which depend upon necessary dealings with the state bodies that may be designated under the bill. Civilians ultimately bear the consequences. Aid arrives late, access is reduced, and suffering is prolonged. These are not hypothetical concerns. They have been documented repeatedly across humanitarian operations around the world.

Such an approach would not be noble. Jonathan Hall KC has previously highlighted, as others have mentioned, the tensions that can arise between national security legislation and humanitarian action, drawing attention to the principles reflected the UN. UN Security Council Resolution 2664. The United Kingdom played a leading role in securing that resolution and should show the same leadership here. My Lord, humanitarian action and national security are not opposing concepts. Conflict, displacement and humanitarian crises can fuel instability and create conditions in which wider security threats flourish.

The government's own strategic assessment recognises that reality. My third concern is one of consistency. This bill rightly acknowledges that threats to security may be advanced indirectly through proxies, coercion and conduct that undermines international norms. If we accept that proposition, we should apply the same standards consistently. States that obstruct humanitarian access, contribute to instability or disregard international humanitarian law should be subject to scrutiny, irrespective of whether they are competitors, adversaries or allies. The credibility of rules based international order depends upon such consistency.

My Lords, this Bill seeks to address a genuine and pressing threat and I support the objective. However, if humanitarian activity is not intended to be caught by these provisions, that protection should be stated clearly in the Bill, doing so would provide certainty, support compliance with international humanitarian law and help ensure that measures designated designed to counter hostile activity do not inadvertently hinder those working to save lives, protect civilians, and uphold human dignity in the most challenging circumstances.
18:08
Baroness D'Souza Portrait Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)
-
-
I think this is the first time ever I followed the noble Lady Baroness Hallett, and I'm delighted to do so. My Lords, let me begin by thanking the Minister and his officials for meeting with some of us going through the bill in detail. I welcome the bill, as so many of us do, but continue to believe that there is a lack of clarity on some important issues and that this may result in unintended consequences of very well rehearsed phrase.

In the context of this debate, and the points that I would have wished to make have been eloquently reiterated by many of your Lordships, notably my noble friend the Lord Anderson. So I'm going to cut to the chase in a minute, but I would add that some of the points that have been made repeatedly are so serious that they bear their belly. They bear repetition. My Lords, my main concern remains the danger that humanitarian organisations could fall foul of a future law that forbids supporting or resisting a designated body, or obtaining material benefits from such a body and designated bodies, as we've heard, could include emergency assistance and or development aid bodies, peace building bodies, demining organisations which deal with sensitive material.

As indeed does Inter mediate, these entities regularly communicate with foreign government departments that are likely, under the terms of the bill, to be designated. One example, given by the Norwegian Refugee Council concerned a tax rebate rightfully owed to them by the Iranian government. Another concern, my Lords, is the stringent bank requirements surrounding the sending of funds to dubious foreign government departments. Again, something we've heard of from many different peers. The banks, which have a low risk threshold, as is the case with suppliers, donors and trustees, have made it increasingly clear that they do not accept verbal assurances and demand explicit protection to be on the face of the bill.

The Home Secretary in the other place cited subsection six B of 17 B as providing the necessary protection. She assured the House that anything that has been approved by the UK will not be caught, and urged humanitarian organisations to talk to the FCDO, which I might add they do already at length and frequently. However, the Bill as it stands does not make it clear what exactly will be covered or how such an arrangement could be confirmed or sought.

Emergency responses require licences if operating under current sanctions and necessarily take time, for example, humanitarian action following the earthquake in Myanmar in early 2025 took over a year to negotiate, by which time most people affected by the earthquake had either not survived or indeed were were were recovered. Furthermore, my Lords, any doubts about the legality of communications with designated bodies will have, if not a chilling, then certainly a delaying effect on humanitarian action, something which has been referred to by the noble Lady Baroness Northover, and that on.

Effect on humanitarian action and the transfer of resources. No trustee of a charitable organisation would be happy to risk the reputation of a charity or even legal action, unless there are clear terms of engagement. Moreover, the courts, if it gets to that stage, would not be bound by the explanatory notes which are subject to interpretation. The Bill targets state bodies and this implies, my Lords, that whole ministries could well become designated. For example, the Interior Ministry of a country subject to severe UK sanctions such as Iran, humanitarian organisations of many different kinds necessarily have to deal with ministries to obtain official agreements to operate in a country, to receive licences and to receive work permits.

These take time and should a humanitarian organisation be refused permission and subsequently makes an application to the Secretary of State to exercise his or her power under section 33 A of the Bill to remove the designation status. This will take even longer, with no guarantee that the Secretary of State would find in the organisation's favour. Again, the Minister in the other place, responding to this concern, cited the prohibited purpose clause, which has been much discussed, which serves as an additional safeguard and protects legitimate conduct in that it requires any conduct to be prejudicial to the safety or interest of the UK.

Although I add, and it is added, it is not necessary for the individual involved to know that a body is designated for the offence to apply which which which does seem somewhat odd, my Lords, I trust the Minister accepted our concerns at the meeting that we recently held and undertook to look again at the Bill following its completion. In the other place, however, the Bill remains unamended and our concerns have not so far been fully addressed.
18:14
Lord Polak Portrait Lord Polak (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> It's a pleasure to follow the Baroness, Lady Baroness D'Souza. My Lords, I was not entirely persuaded that this Bill was strictly necessary. I remind the House that Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, and for many years that fact was cited as a reason not to prescribe the organisation in its entirety. Yet in 2019, Hezbollah was fully proscibed without the need for new primary legislation. However, I accept the threats posed by hostile threats, and their proxies are real.

And for that reason, I support this bill. For years, hostile states have sought to undermine our democracy, intimidate and threaten communities within the United Kingdom. The Jewish community has lived with this reality for decades. Synagogues, schools and community centres have required extraordinary levels of security. Families have become accustomed to armed protection outside places of worship. My Lords, my own grandchildren are growing up believing that security barriers and guards are simply part of Jewish life. In Britain, that is not normal, nor should it ever be accepted as normal.

But allow me to thank the police, the security services, the CST shomrim who have protected and protect the community. And they should all they should all be doing other things. The Iranian regime has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to use intimidation, proxies, surveillance and violence against those it regards as its enemies. It has exported instability, extremism and fear far beyond its borders. These threats are real, persistent and increasingly visible on our streets, and the fact that many of these threats have been directed at the Jewish community and members of the Iranian community should never have led us to regard them as matters affecting only one particular group.

The principle at stake is is far broader a hostile state willing to target one group of British citizens is a hostile state, willing to challenge the security of our country as a whole. When it seeks to spread fear within our communities, it is attacking the fabric of our society. And that's why I welcome this, this bill. And as the noble Lord, the Minister said, because the legislation is so important, it is equally important that we get it right. The Iranian regime has consistently demonstrated an ability to adapt its methods, operate through proxies, exploit legal ambiguities and maintain plausible deniability.

The challenge we face is therefore not simply one of identifying a hostile state, but of ensuring that our legislative response is capable of addressing the full range of methods through which that state seeks to advance its interests. And for that reason, I am concerned that there remain areas of the Bill, that there are areas in the bill, in fact, that don't go far enough. It's drafted. There appears to be a higher threshold for prosecution of designated state threat than exist under terrorism legislation.

There also legitimate questions about whether activity planned in the United Kingdom but carried out overseas would always be captured by the offences contained within the bill, and likewise, as hostile states increasingly rely on propaganda, online influence and indirect encouragement, we must ensure that those who act in furtherance of a hostile state's objectives cannot escape accountability simply because they were inspired, rather than directly tasked. My Lords, Iran's activities are not confined to formal state actors or uniformed operatives.

They encompass proxies, criminal networks, online radicalisation, covert influence, and individuals recruited or encouraged to act at arm's length from the regime itself. If our legislation does not truly reflect that reality, we risk creating opportunities for hostile actors to exploit the very gaps we are trying to close. Nor should we view these issues solely through the lens of Iran. The purpose of the bill is not merely to respond to one hostile state. However pressing that may be, it is to establish a framework capable of protecting the United Kingdom from future hostile states whose methods may differ, evolve and become more sophisticated over time.

Legislation that is drafted too narrowly may address today's threats while leaving us, as others have said, exposed to tomorrow. And in that regard, I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, Alicia Kearns MP, who tabled a number of constructive amendments in the other place, and I. I'd be grateful if the Minister could address just two of those. And following on from the words of the noble my noble friend, the noble Lord Davis, on the question of uniforms, insignia and propaganda, if a state backed organisation such as the IRGC were to be designated under this regime, can I ask the noble Lords Minister? Why would it not be an offence to display its insignia on Britain's streets and to glorify it online? Mirroring the provisions contained in section 13 of the Terrorism Act of 2000? If we recognise that such organisations seek not only to operate abroad, but also to cultivate support networks here at home, surely we must address the propaganda that sustains them.

And secondly, on travel document seizure powers Jonathan Hall KC. In his review, he supported the case for allowing police to seize passports and other travel documents for those suspected of assisting designated organisations. So if the government accepts the threat posed by individuals facilitating or supporting hostile state activity, can I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, why would it not provide the police with these powers now? Why defer to such an important safeguard to future legislation when the opportunity exists? Now, there is always a temptation when confronted with an urgent threat.

Although we've been calling this urgent for many years to prioritise speed over security scrutiny, what security scrutiny? But the effectiveness of this bill will not be judged about how quickly it passes through Parliament. It will be judged whether it gives our security services, the law enforcement, the tools needed to confront the the threats that exist. If there are areas where the bill can be strengthened, we should strengthen it. If there are provisions that fall short of the standards Parliament has previously deemed necessary in the field of counter-terrorism and national security, we should examine them carefully and if amendments are needed to ensure that hostile state activity is met with the full force of law, we should not hesitate to make them.

I would suggest that the choice is not before us whether to support or scrutinise the bill. We now must do both, and for that reason, I support this bill and I look forward to ensuring that it emerges from this House stronger than it arrived.
18:22
Baroness Gill Portrait Baroness Gill (Labour)
-
-
For my Lords, we've already heard a lot. How are our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adversaries? I'm so sorry. How Adversaries are looking at the UK seeing a permissive environment UK seeing a permissive environment for causing chaos. Recruiting foot soldiers on the exact. Thank you. Thanks. On the exact same social Thanks. On the exact same social media platforms they used to manipulate the British people, which, incidentally, they have been doing for years. This subversion isn't new. It has been grinding away at our democracy since well before the Brexit referendum. Some of us remember it vividly.

I remember scrolling through my feeds years ago, receiving highly targeted anti EU questionnaires on social media. Platforms like Facebook weren't just places to connect. There were actively weaponised to push anti EU propaganda to manufacture chaos and to systematically shatter public trust, not just in the EU, but in the United Kingdom's core institutions. So what we are seeing today is simply the terrifying escalation of that same campaign. Now, according to the briefing by the Lords Library, MI5 just dropped a metric confirming that investigations into hostile state activity have skyrocketed by 35% in a single year.

This is no longer just a quiet war of digital propaganda. The line between foreign espionage and domestic terror has evaporated completely. First, let's look at how our adversaries have moved from online manipulation to physical violence. It should come as absolutely no surprise that our major political parties are most vital companies, and our public infrastructure are being relentlessly, relentlessly, relentlessly targeted. But let's discard the illusion that this. These are ad hoc attacks by random, frustrated individuals.

These are highly coordinated campaigns by hostile state actors whose focus. Whose objective is to undermine Britain's power, credibility and influence on the global stage. Look at what Russia is doing today. They have moved from manipulating algorithms to hiring street criminals. They sit safely behind keyboards, hop onto social media platforms and encrypted apps, and recruit cheap local proxies like the six Bulgarian nationals convicted in May 2025. Paying them off in cryptocurrency to carry out dirty operations on British soil.

And how far are they willing to go? Look no further than the shocking reports of steady stream of Russian commissioned arson attacks targeting the private properties and vehicle of our own Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. If they are willing to put a torch to the Prime Minister's personal property to spark domestic fear, what stops them from targeting anyone else? At the same time, Russia continues to deploy massive automated network of sponsored bots, expanding the very same digital warfare that polluted our social media feeds a decade ago, all calibrated to pump out venomous disinformation, trigger panic and actively incite civil unrest in our towns and our cities.

Second, we have to talk about the direct physical terror being unleashed on British citizens and many of the many of your Lords have already spoken about Iran, that it's become so emboldened in just 12 months. MI5 had to hunt down and stop more than 20 separate, potentially lethal plots backed by Iran, following the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East in early 2026. Those threats directly hit our streets. We've seen a wave of targeted, terrifying attacks on Iranian dissidents and our Jewish communities.

And again, much has been said about the IRGC. But, you know, it's been noted that they're hiring local thugs as foot soldiers to terrorise Jewish neighbourhoods, effectively dragging foreign conflicts directly onto the British soil to settle scores. Third, we are letting our intellectual and economic future be plundered in broad daylight. China is running an incredibly sophisticated total society operation against the UK through massive sweeping cyber breaches and aggressive campaigns to lure UK academic experts. Our cutting edge technology and training it away.

They're exploiting our supply chains, our university partnerships and FDI to steal commercial secrets, feeding it straight into their own military and economic machine. Therefore, this bill, the National Security State Threats Bill, is and should be really welcomed by this House. But I would like to ask a couple of questions to the Minister. How exactly does the government intend to pierce the veil of encrypted apps, cryptocurrency networks and automated bot networks that Russia is using to build its criminal proxy network? And secondly, when Iran coordinates lethal plots Plunders our universities.

What is the concrete, immediate, diplomatic and economic retaliation? I say to those who want more time and want to deliberate that today, the United Kingdom is facing an aggressive, relentless surge in covert state threats. These are hostile operations planned by foreign governments that stop just short of declaration of war. But their objective is identical to sabotage our safety, leading our economic prosperity and shattering our democratic freedoms. That is why this bill is a crucial step, and I support it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, Lord Shinkwin is participating remotely. I invite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

participating remotely. I invite Lord Shinkwin to speak. My Lords. It's a pleasure to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. It's a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Baroness Bill, in what has been an Bill, in what has been an informative, if alarming, debate. Alarming because it is highlighted the degree to which the freedoms which my grandparents generation fought and died for are now under grave threat. The need for this bill underlines how much the social context has changed. As my little friend Baroness Verma alluded to. I doubt that the older generation could have anticipated just how strong a sense of entitlement to those freedoms their great grandchildren would develop.

It is. It is as if their great grandparents sacrifice made in blood, sweat and tears. Was ancient history, something that belonged in the Hollywood blockbuster, but which was irrelevant to today's. Apparently so much more sophisticated world. I suspect that having made that sacrifice in order that we might be free from the racist, genocidal, Jew hating Nazis, my grandparents generation would appreciate perhaps far more than we do the trouble we are in and the urgency of getting the measures in this bill, and perhaps others on the statute book, they would see the extent to which the threat to our democracy posed by hostile states, use of proxies and malign non-state actors is exacerbated by society's privileged, desensitised indifference to the danger they pose.

My Lords, the Lord Privy Seal said shortly before we began this debate that the public don't appreciate the threat. I would agree with her, but I would also go further because I fear that some are in denial, desperately clinging to the delusion that peace is permanent, that the welfare state is inviolable, and that deterrence doesn't matter enough to justify the necessary recalibration of resources. Meanwhile, hostile states and their proxies exploit our weakness ruthlessly and insidiously.

Turning those hard won freedoms that we take for granted against us. Take racism as an example. This country outlawed racism based, among other criteria, on ethnic origin. 61 years ago. Then our enemies cynically weaponised democracy, exploiting demonstrations between pernicious racist chants as if they were somehow a celebration of democratic rights rather than a concerted attempt by some to single out and intimidate a particular race. Our Jewish brothers and sisters, and thereby undermine our social and cultural tourism.

Shamefully, we let them do it. We let them undermine a crucial aspect of our democracy, supposedly in the name of democracy. So, my Lords, I welcome this bill because it goes some way to addressing the threat that we face. My question is whether it goes far enough. Are its measures truly commensurate with the scale of that threat? I won't rehearse the points already made, but I join with those who wonder whether it takes into account sufficiently the rise of what could be termed hatred for hire, such as we saw in the arson attacks of the Jewish.

On the Jewish community, ambulances, and the attack on the Prime Minister's former home, which noble Baroness, Baroness Dill mentioned. My Lords, I close with three points. The first is a thank you to our wonderful security services who worked so hard within difficult democratic constraints to keep us safe, particularly in our case as parliamentarians. The second is to highlight the importance of pre-emption as a means of prevention. One only has to consider the fact that the odious Chinese Communist Party regime operated a secret police hub here in London to spy on and intimidate Hong torn dissidents.

To know that in some cases, our enemies are running rings around us. Their aggression and hostile intent are palpable. I ask the noble Lord to Minister, who we all appreciate is dedicated to ensuring the safety and security of our country. Whether he is absolutely sure that the powers in this bill are sufficiently aggressive and pre-emptive in return. My Lords, my final point is this to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, whether his confidence that the Bill takes account of the incredibly unstable context in which we consider it, the Hormuz out seems to be a Madeleine as we speak, a previously reliable partner is becoming reliably unreliable.

And yet some would say we're still tripping over ourselves to observe the little niceties. I fear we make our enemies laugh. I hope our combined determination to close any gaps in the bill mentioned during this debate will ensure they have no reason to laugh at us, either today or in the future.
18:38
Lord Docherty of Milngavie Portrait Lord Docherty of Milngavie (Non-affiliated)
-
-
It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Shinkwin, another noble noble Lord Shinkwin, another noble and learned Lords. And can I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for the measured and thoughtful way in the measured and thoughtful way in which he's introduced the Second Reading today. As many have said, there is no more important issue facing our country than our national security and more broadly, our defence. We are living in the most dangerous period in Europe since the 1930s. That is not hyperbole or geographic sophistry.

I studied at Rostov Technical Institute in 1990, during the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in Rostov on the banks of the River Don. Our hosts would proudly point to the other bank of the river and tell us that was where Europe starts. We might have said, it is where Europe ends, but that is where a war in Europe between Ukraine and Russia has now lasted longer for each country than in both world wars. As many have said that Russia is a hostile state, with few, if any, any sympathies for Western democratic norms or our liberal institutions is beyond doubt that we live in a dangerous world that is getting more dangerous is also beyond doubt.

As has been mentioned many times, the director general of MI5 has openly reported substantial increase in the number of investigations of state threat activities. And as the noble Baroness Tyler and others have mentioned, the convictions just last week of a Romanian and a Ukraine national for arson on property connected to our Prime Minister shows how emboldened bad actors have become, and I know the noble Lord Minister will not wish to name individual organisations which may fall within the remit of this act.

However, we also know that Iran, as many have said, and its proxies are increasingly active that state actors and their proxies are attempting to commission surveillance, sabotage, arson, theft or physical violence are manifest and self-evident. The review of counter-terrorism legislation carried out by Jonathan Hall KC, has set out the need for a bill such as this. Clearly, as so many noble Lords have said, my Lords, there are several areas in the Bill which describe the critical issue of finance in relation to potential offences.

An offence can be made when financial assistance is provided by a designated body, or where financial assistance is provided to a designated body, either directly or indirectly. My Lords, that financial benefit will, as has been mentioned, almost always take the form of cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is now the payment method of choice for criminal gangs, for hostile state actors, and it appears for reasons known only to themselves. For the Reform Party, with payments made to wallet addresses and not individuals without the involvement of banks, these payments are, as we know, far harder to subject to anti-money laundering rules or sanctions compliance.

Some cryptocurrency products are specifically designed to avoid detection. In my view, the legitimate use of crypto is becoming increasingly difficult to defend. My Lords, if I may, there is a parallel that can be drawn between social media and cryptocurrencies. The first smartphone was launched in 2007, and you could argue social media, as we understand it today, came into being a year later with the launch of the App Store, and only now, 18 years later, are we seeing a concerted effort across jurisdictions to try and address the harmful effects of social media on children using smartphones, relying less on the professed good faith of big tech and other providers, rather through comprehensive regulation and even prohibition.

My Lords, future generations will look back on our handing over smartphones unregulated to children. In the same way. Today we look at photos of Victorian children smoking a pipe. They will ask, what were they thinking? My Lords, 2008 was also the year that a seminal and anonymous paper was published, setting out the rationale for cryptocurrency. The first cryptocurrency was created the following year. Social media and cryptocurrencies are essentially the same age. My Lords, is it not also time for a similar concerted approach to more effectively regulate crypto and make it less obviously useful to criminals and bad actors? Or will future generations act? Ask, what were they thinking? So may I ask the Minister what steps is the government taking to ensure that the individuals responsible for cryptocurrencies used by any organisation or person designated under the act will be held accountable? And are there any plans more generally on crypto regulation being made much more effective? My Lords, no one should be above the law or beyond its reach.

The security and defence of the country is our first priority, as many noble Lords have said, and for that reason, I strongly welcome this Bill and the provisions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contained within it. A pleasure to follow that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A pleasure to follow that thoughtful speech from Lord Docherty. Although one person that I wish we could have heard from I wish we could have heard from today was our dear friend meta, today was our dear friend meta, Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale. She was such an extraordinary expert on
18:44
18:44
18:44
Lord Walney Portrait Lord Walney (Crossbench)
-
-
moving funeral in last Friday in Glasgow, and I was gathering Glasgow, and I was gathering memories and stories about meta, and one I think it's pertinent to share just now is when she gave a speech, I think it was in Tel Aviv speech, I think it was in Tel Aviv on on the issue of Iran. And she. This erudite, softly spoken woman that everyone really wanted to be their great aunt, gently said, I, I that the IRGC must be eliminated, eliminated.

And I really do mean eliminated. And my friend recalled the the the jaw of the British ambassador next to next to him dropping as he she said that, but I. I hope these words are pertinent because I really hope that the government, the noble Lord, the Minister will listen to that and agree to be a little bit more meta on this bill, because while I welcome it like everybody else, it does not achieve the government's stated aim and Jonathan Hall's stated aim of an equivalent measure to terrorist prescription.

It is weaker in an array of respects. There are excuses provided by the government for each, but the cumulative effect is a significantly weaker regime. So I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Pollock's point on Hezbollah was was pertinent here, and I too, I, unlike the majority of noble Lords who have spoken noble and learned Lords with much greater experience often than terrorism, who appear to have accepted Jonathan Hall's analysis. I still question why we cannot take the the the approach that we did in 2019 with Hezbollah and which the US, Canada, Australia and the European Union has taken in fully prescribing the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

That said, we are where we are. We're going to get this on the statute book. We're going to get it on the statute book with apparently with extraordinary speed, despite us having asked for this and the government having thought about it for more than 14 months, I really do hope that they will potentially agree to take an extra day or so to strengthen this bill, rather than railroading a weaker measure through to the Commons, for one would have to assume, I'm afraid, that the.

That the government, if it does maintain this tight, this this speed of timetable is doing this as an excuse to get a weaker bill on the statute book, rather than taking a couple of extra days to potentially strengthen this. Now, the. The government. The government talk about the the system of immunity and the and the Vienna Convention demands a higher bar as a reason for some of these measures not matching terrorist prescription. But is it not the case? We are not prescribing Tehran here.

We are prosecuting the operatives who are using all the tools of terrorism to do their work. And perhaps this actually points to the need, potentially, for the IRGC to be treated as a conventional terrorist organization, unlike some of the other organizations to which this legislation may end up applying. But while I take the argument that in many circumstances you would not wish to treat as a full, fully terrorist operatives the people who are operating as part of a state enterprise, it is the case that the IRGC has been a effectively a full blown terrorist organization under our very eyes for many years, and they deserve and it would send a strong signal to treat them as such, with all of the authority and the taboo which would surround even those state officials who would try to claim diplomatic immunity.

But we would say that the the the way in which this organization operates is so heinous that they deserve the full force of terrorism law. So I hope the government is opening is open to strengthening the approach. One, I'll just finish to say that one particular. Issue that I'd like I tend to explore in committee is, as many others have said, the. The poster displaying of insignia, dissemination of publication of of, of self directing, promotion of the group.

My preference would be the simply to put this on the statute book. I'd like also to explore the prospect of a flexible discretionary approach to be applied to particular organizations on this by the Secretary of State through regulation. I hope that that's an issue that we can get into in committee.
18:50
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, as my noble friends have said, we on these benches strongly support this bill, but with some caveats about process, scope and drafting. We felt bafflement and frustration as this government indeed the last one, failed to act on the very obvious threat from the IRGC. The conservative government promised to in 2023, but did not deliver in office. But we then accepted that the tool of prescription had to be replaced by a new formula of designation for state bodies.

Although I noted what Lord Pollock said about Hezbollah. Interesting. But Jonathan Hall, Katie's report that was delivered over a year ago and now, having dragged their feet, the government wants to rush this bill through at unseemly speed, at the possible expense of precision. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, understandably suggested a draft bill might have been preferable as a noble Lord, the Minister said in his in his introduction, state threats are, quote, both evolving and enduring. So this bill needs to be scrutinised and stress tested sufficiently in committee that it produces lasting but nimble legislation which is capable of future adaptation.

We know that we are experiencing the equivalent of terrorist acts emanating from states like Iran and Russia in sabotage, physical attacks, arson, fire bombing and propaganda with Jewish communities often shamefully targeted, as well as from China inspiring harassment and death threats to Hong Kong pro-democracy activists. Often, proxies are used for these nefarious activities, in parallel with espionage and cyber threats from state intelligence agencies. So this bill must be fit for designation of foreign power entities backed by any state.

However, the IRGC is the clearest and most obvious one. These benches, therefore, do envisage seeking to amend the Bill so as to ensure on its face that IRG state IRGC designation is properly pursued within one month. Because this is an urgent priority and if not them, and not in this bill, then who and when? The noble Lord. The Minister made encouraging noises about designation for the IRGC, but no commitment. It's a commitment that is needed, not the wiggle room that one suspects.

Some bits of government still seem to want. We also wish to extend the offensive material assistance to a designated body to include the setting up and use of companies or trusts to hide the true ownership of assets belonging to that body, and will explore that in committee. My noble friend Baroness Doocey also sought clarity that organisations could not escape the net of this bill by operating from abroad in this digital world. She also heralded that foreign state threats in this bill should be capable of including superintelligent AI tools.

Many noble laws Lords referred to humanitarian activities, conflict resolution and peace building efforts. Some of this activity requires, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson put it, quote, intensive dialogue with brutal and unpleasant regimes to whom it may be difficult for Western governments to speak. And I think we all accept that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, explained the opposition's objection to the prohibited purpose offence, having the limitation of being, quote, prejudicial, prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK.

The problem, or one problem with removing this limitation, is that it might expose the activities of humanitarian and peacebuilding organisations to criminalisation, and indeed, the fact that this limitation of the offense or defense to it does not appear in the proposed clauses 17 B or C on assisting or material benefits, but only in 17 A on supporting A, supporting a a foreign power entity illustrates perhaps the worries raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. My noble friends, Baroness Tyler, Baroness Northover and and others.

Now other organisations besides the IRGC are in our minds, and we have mentioned the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in this debate. And it was it was debated yesterday was no doubt once an office, an office which did what it said on the tin. But it now seems to be an extension of the transnational repression perpetrated by China. The noble Lord, Lord pickles, also raised the issue of organisations which might pose a threat but do not fit the definition of state sponsored threat, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

One can no doubt think of others. I think all noble Lords who have spoken have welcomed this Bill as an important step forward, but sought to ensure that it is watertight but adaptable, durable but not inflexible. So we do have a task before us at committee, and the government would do well to benefit from all the expertise, which I think has been on display this afternoon in this chamber, to to listen and to incorporate changes where justified.

We are fortunate to have had not only legal, diplomatic and other expertise, but not one, but two former independent reviewers of terrorism legislation involved on this bill in the noble Lords, Anderson and Carlile, as well as the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. So let's draw on all the skills and talents to perfect this bill. I think the government would make a mistake if it was just to rush through without listening to all the very well intended suggestions for amendments that have been made.
18:57
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, can I begin by thanking all noble Lords from across your Lordships House who across your Lordships House who have contributed to this thoughtful and stimulating debate? It's a great privilege to give the closing speech for the opposition benches. Having heard from many noble Lords Having heard from many noble Lords with a huge amount of expertise and experience in the legal security, I see sectors before reflecting on the specific provisions we would like to see refined in this bill, it is worth outlining the context under which your Lordships have received this legislation.

The Opposition Benches have long recognised the growing threat posed by hostile state actors and their proxies, and we wholeheartedly support the aim of strengthening the tools available to protect the UK's national security. And of course, we support the general principles of this Bill and concur with the motivations behind it. Now, I accept this bill goes beyond the IRGC. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave a long list of both threats and sadly events in the UK in recent years, and this bill, rightly should cover state threats in general.

But the IRGC is obviously and rightly the first target of this bill. My Lords, it is undeniable that the legislative provisions here should have been brought before Parliament long before now. For many months, noble Lords from across your Lordships House have repeatedly called for stronger action against the IRGC, most recently in a committee and report stages of the Crime and Policing Bill, where time and time again calls were made in many different quarters for prescription of the IRGC or an equivalent.

Those calls were resisted. Amendments were opposed, arguments were dismissed. The opinion of the House was tested but ignored. Yet we now find ourselves considering a bill whose principal purpose was. Primary purpose is to establish a legislative framework through which organisations such as the IRGC may be designated, and that does raise the question if the government accepts the need for such a framework, why has actually not been taken sooner. The threats posed by the Iranian regime and the IRGC did not suddenly emerge in recent weeks.

And had the government listened to arguments that were being made in this chamber months ago, Parliament would not now be scrutinising significant national security legislation under such compressed timescales. My Lords, that matters because legislation must be more than well intentioned. It must also be effective. And where Parliament identifies legislative gaps or ambiguities, it is our duty to address them. It is in that spirit that we approach this Bill, and it is in that spirit that I wish to address and emphasize a few of the concerns that my noble friend, Lord Davis, raised before.

The first of those is the prohibited purpose test. As it stands, clause two enables hostile state proxies to receive greater protection than terrorist organisations because it imposes a greater burden on the prosecution under this bill than in the Terrorism Act 2000. Pausing there at the point has been made, I think, most powerfully by the noble Lords, Lord Barrow and Lord Carlile, that we should not expect to simply cut and paste the Terrorism Act into this bill. Now, I acknowledge that, but the Terrorism Act remains the blueprint.

And throughout Jonathan Hall's report, he uses the phrase equivalent to powers in the Terrorism Act again and again. So I appreciate the need for subtlety, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Carlile called for. But whilst the threats may be different, these are analogous statutory regimes. Their equivalents. And. They should not. The regime in this Bill should not be weaker than the Terrorism Act, and any differences should have a very clear rationale. So returning to clause two as drafted, there are two conditions for the offence of supporting a designated body.

Those are inviting support for, or expressing a belief that is supportive of a designated body. And and this is the additional part, a requirement that support was given for a prohibited purpose that was prejudicial to the safety of the UK and the requirement that additional requirement that prosecutors must prove both conduct as well as the defendant's prohibited purpose, does create an additional evidential burden. It does make this harder to prosecute, and it does make it harder to secure a conviction, as well as adding another layer of bureaucracy in a process which should be fair but also streamlined.

And as I've said, much of this bill has been drafted with section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 as the blueprint. And yet there is no similar provision in the Terrorism Act. Turning, secondly to preparatory conduct, there is a gap in the bill as drafted in the prevention and prosecution of hostile activity before actual harm takes place, that the purpose of national security legislation is both to punish hostile activity and to prevent it from occurring. Now, the bill primarily focuses on completed acts of support, assistance or financial benefit to a designated body, and that leaves a gap because it may be entirely feasible that law enforcement agencies are aware of an individual actively preparing to assist a designated organisation, but lack the powers to intervene until further steps have been taken.

And that's particularly concerning given the nature of modern hostile state activity, which often relies upon recruitment, facilitation, planning and preparation long before any substantive act or sorry, any substantive offence is committed. Parliament has long recognised that challenge in other areas of national security. The Terrorism Act contains a range of preparatory and precursor offences, and it reflects the principle that intervention at the earliest possible stage is often necessary to protect the public and safeguard national security. If the government believes that designated organisations pose a sufficient threat to warrant the creation of this new designation regime, it is difficult to understand why similar preventative principles should not apply, and the government in the other place has said that the Bill has been deliberately drafted as a targeted and narrowly focused piece of legislation.

Ministers stated that the bill was intended to be narrow, but did not explain why this gap remains. And, my Lords, a bill being narrowed does not necessarily mean it is complete. So I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister will clarify this point because, of course, national security legislation is most effective when it enables disruption and prevention as well as prosecution after the event. Thirdly, the point on uniforms and insignia, the Bill creates an inconsistency with existing national security legislation by failing to address the issues of uniforms and insignia associated with designated organisations.

It has been established in Parliament that support for dangerous organisations is not demonstrated solely through direct assistance or financial support. We know that uniforms and insignia can be used to demonstrate allegiance to a hostile organisation. They can intimidate communities and political opponents, and they can promote and legitimise dangerous organisations. Section 13 of the Terrorism Act makes it an offence to wear clothing or display articles in circumstances that arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.

And yet, my Lords, no equivalent provision appears in this Bill, and that creates the illogical situation whereby Parliament can determine an organisation, prevents a sufficient threat to warrant designation. But public displays of support for the same organisation remain lawful, and the government's arguments against this is essentially that designated organisations are different from terrorist organisations. But my Lords, this again doesn't answer the central question why should organisations deem sufficiently dangerous to be designated under this legislation, be subject to a weaker restrictions than terrorist organisations? My Lords, in closing, I reiterate that the concerns I've just raised and my noble friend Lord Davis has raised earlier are not objections to the principles of the Bill.

Rather, they are attempts to ensure that the framework we establish is as effective as possible. Legitimate questions have been raised during the course of this debate about the operation of particular provisions and gaps that remain within the legislation. As I've said, narrowness is not a substitute for completeness. If there are weaknesses that can be addressed now, Parliament must address them now. We should not leave them to be discovered later in the course of prosecutions under this legislation. I thank the government for finally bringing forward legislation in this area, but the task before your Lordships is not simply to welcome the Bill, but to improve it, and I look forward to hearing the noble Lord Minister's response today.
19:07
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the 24 noble Lords who've spoken in the debate, and I particularly grateful for my and I particularly grateful for my say so, for the contributions from the front benches of HMG opposition and the Liberal Democrats, and Lord Davis of Cameron of Lochiel, Baroness Ludford and Baroness Doocey, who have given broad support to the Bill but have raised important questions, as have other noble Lords, which we seek to respond to during the course of this debate. I just want to pay tribute also for me to Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, who obviously contributed to this House right up to very recently, and the noble Lord Walden.

His comments are welcome for that. Can I just start by reminding the House that this legislation was a manifesto commitment? According to members today, it has been long overdue or rushed, and I'm trying my best to find a happy medium that says a manifesto commitment was put in place and a manifesto commitment was commissioned by the Home Secretary, then to commission Jonathan Hall KC to produce a report 3 or 4 months after the manifesto. Election commitment was ratified by the electorate.

We've commissioned that report. The report has been produced to this government in May, June last year. We've had time to consider that report. Colleagues in the House will know that last year's parliamentary session was very busy, very crammed, and we wanted to bring legislation forward at the first opportunity and at the first opportunity. In the gracious speech, we brought forward this legislation and we brought it forward. Now to give a framework again, I say to the House for the Home Secretary to be able to act on that framework in very short order, if Royal Assent is achieved.

So rushed, long overdue, I hope the House will have patience that we are trying to do the right thing to deal with severe threats, because, again, I notice particularly that the noble Lord pickles said we've got to stay ahead of the threats. I accept that in full. We've had my noble friend Lord Beamish, speaking from the ISC perspective. Baroness Gill, my noble friend, noble friend, Baroness Dacre of Lewisham, the noble Lord Barrow, who speaks with great experience. Baroness Taylor of Enfield, the noble Lord Alton of Liverpool, and Baroness Verma, who have all pointed to the extremely important fact that the director general of MI5 has said to the government and to the House and to the public that state threats have increased by 35%.

So we need to take action. We understand, we need to take action, and we need to do it in a way that maintains the cohesion of the community, as the noble Baroness has said. And to the noble Lord Pollock, I say, you know, his personal experience is one that should not be acceptable to society as a whole. His grandchildren should not fear walking to school or face barriers that my grandchildren don't, just for the simple reason that we were both born in the same city, but we have both potentially different cultural and religious backgrounds.

His grandchildren should not face those threats for those reasons, and that individual impact should be at the back thought of all we do in bringing this bill forward. And the noble Lord Shinkwin reminded us of the freedoms that all of our grandparents fought for and great grandparents fought for, and they're important that we do. Now, there's a number of issues, and I'm going to try and deal with each major issue. In turn, that has been raised and the issues that have been raised is the IRGC self-evidently and other nations.

The preparatory act issue, the prohibited purpose issue, uniforms and insignia, the humanitarian issue, which a lot of noble Lords have spoken to in detail, the issue of a review and a series of other issues, which I'll try and touch on if time allows. The House has tempted me to talk about individual nations China, Russia and indeed Iran. What I want to try and do is to just explain to the House, again, this is a framework for the Home Secretary to take action on advice for an affirmative resolution, going to the point that the noble Baroness Doocey mentioned for designation under this act of any body, particularly noble Lords have mentioned the IRGC, in particular the noble Lord Davis, Lord Beamish, Lord Barrow, Lord Walney, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and Baroness Doocey, Baroness Neville-jones, Baroness Tyler of Enfield and Baroness Verma.

I understand what those concerns are. That's why we've put sanctions on the IRGC already. That's why we've taken a range of measures against the IRGC members already. But the powers under this bill are a framework for the Home Secretary to look at the significant implications that this will have for national security and for foreign policy. Parliament should set a framework about how these powers are used, and I say to all those who have raised the IRGC in particular, this government understands that, absolutely understands it.

Absolutely. But the framework of this power is if we receive Royal Assent for the Home Secretary to determine how and when this power is used. And again, I come back to the point there will be an affirmative resolution in the event of any designation coming forward. But I'm not going to comment today on the IRGC, particularly, and I don't think, as I've explained privately to both Frontbenches, the hybridity of this bill with the IRGC included, would damage the capability of taking these matters forward in a very early way.

So I hope we can look at the bill and the power, and not necessarily at the moment, how it would be used. The second question, which was raised particularly by the HMG opposition front bench, and I understand this is the one about the preparatory conduct offence. I would argue this additional offence is not needed. Preparatory conduct is an offence in the existing National Security Act under section 18, and that offence applies to specific offences including spying, espionage, entering a prohibited place for a prejudicial purpose and indeed sabotaging, and also covers acts of violence, serious risk and issues impacting upon members of the public in the UK.

So I would argue it isn't needed now. We may end up having a debate at committee on that, but I think for the moment I just want to say that to the noble Lords. We've also had the prohibited purpose test, which the noble Lord Davies of Gower mentioned in his opening remarks. It has been suggested that the prohibited purpose test that applies to the support offence at new section 17 A is unnecessary and should be removed. I would like to reiterate that doing so, in my view, would criminalize legitimate humanitarian aid activity, and the inclusion of this test reflects that.

There will be occasions that we might not like it, but there still will be occasions when UK persons need to have legitimate dealings with the state entity, whether that is a British diplomat or an NGO delivering humanitarian aid. And to remove that would, in my view, again be very difficult and challenging. We may again revisit that at committee, but I hope that we can look at the arguments put forward and accept those arguments at the moment. There's also been a question about overseas activity, and it was suggested the bill does not go far enough in in support of Fence as it applies to overseas activity.

It's claimed that the offence should reapply to existing assisting a designated body in any activity overseas. Again, I would just suggest that we can reflect on this in the next few days. But the noble Lord, I would suggest the amendment would be unnecessary. Lord Verdirirmi touched on this. I'll come back to his point again in a moment. But new section 17 be introduced by clause two of the Bill does make it an offence to assist a designated body in its overseas activity, where those activities are prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK.

And if I give a concrete example in this, a UK person, for example, assisting a designated body in its efforts to disrupt the military supply chain of an ally would commit an offence because the ally is still an ally, and that is the key necessary test that we make. And similarly inspired acts would again deal with those who are inspired by state actors to commit self-directed acts. The offences in section 17 A and 17 B do not require there to be any direction or tasking from a designated body.

Only the intention to support that body. Now, the fourth issue that's been raised is the important issue of criminalising the wearing of uniforms and insignia. Now, again, we've asked Jonathan Hall KC to review this area of legislation. His view clear in his report, independently produced, was why it was necessary to take a different approach to state bodies. It would impact on legitimate engagement with the designated state body, which would need to continue, for example, in diplomatic channels. Like it or not, that's the reality of the world at large.

We've instead crafted the support offence to ensure it would capture conduct that was calculated to advance the harmful activities of the designated body, and this would include the use of insignia and publication of images to support the designated body where the person wears, displays or publishes for the purpose and again, key legal tests prejudicial to the UK. And I also just want in touching on that area, I'll go back to the noble Lord Pollock's point about passport seizure. We're committed to legislating on that.

We're going to do it. We're just not going to do it in this bill. But this this bill, again, is a specific, designed piece of legislation to give powers to the Home Secretary. And we have further national security legislation later in this Parliament. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the humanitarian aid, and I want to focus on that in detail because it's an important issue. Noble Lord Barrow, Baroness Doocey, Lord Liverpool, Baroness Baron Anderson of Ipswich have particularly raised these issues.

I want to assure the noble Lords that we've crafted the Bill to ensure that legitimate activity, such as diplomacy and activities that support basic human needs, are not caught within the offences. The key test here is that support for a designated body or overseas activities by the body must be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK. Officials have already talked with a number of NGOs. Ministers will meet with the Red cross very shortly to listen to their concerns, and we are satisfied that the tests in the Bill properly protect legitimate humanitarian assistance.

Now again, Baroness Helic, Baroness D'Souza, Baroness Northover, Baroness Tyler of Enfield and Lord Anderson have all raised this issue. If I can, can I just potentially help the noble Lord Anderson, particularly by covering the issue of Pepper and Hart? Receipt of information by an aid worker would not be criminalised by this bill. The word information in the bill does not mean any information which is clear from the preceding words. It has to possess an inherent value that enriches the recipient.

I'm happy to make a Pepper and Hart statement that new section 17 C does not apply. Likewise, I'm also happy to confirm that section 17 A and B will not criminalize, not criminalize legitimate humanitarian aid, as that is not contrary to the safety or not, is not contrary to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. And ultimately, again, as the noble and learned Lord Carlile of Berriew mentioned, there is a legal backstop on this in that the security decisions on those prosecutions are taken by the Attorney General.

Ultimately, in these areas. I also don't want to create a blanket exemption which could be easily exploited by state actors. That's an important issue. I have a genuine concern that exemptions would potentially create a relatively simple loophole for hostile actors to exploit, but I just want to reassure all those who've spoken on this that it is not the intention of the bill to criminalize the provision of legitimate humanitarian aid, and it's also not the effect of the offences as drafted. This was clearly set out by my right hon.

Friend the Home Secretary in the other House last week, and we will,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of course, look at this in detail. I'm very grateful. To the Minister. He's referred a number of times to humanitarian aid. He's also referred to diplomacy. And, of course, diplomats have a special defence or exemption of special defence or exemption of their own. He hasn't said anything about those engaged in the prevention or resolution of prevention or resolution of conflict. And I wonder if he would like to associate them with the statements he's made about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

humanitarian aid. To to to do that. But I want to give clarity on these matters. So if the noble Lord will allow me, given that has been raised separately, I will write to him with an assurance on that. And if necessary, I'll share that. I'll. I will share that if necessary, I will share that with both opposition front benches. So they're aware of that. But I want to give absolute legal clarity, as the noble Lord would expect on these matters.

But of course you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is he intending to meet the Red cross? Life and diaries are fluid, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Life and diaries are fluid, but it will be before next week of the second. The sorry, the Committee stage and Report stage and Third stage and Report stage and Third Reading of this bill. So it will not be. After that. It will be for that. But as we speak, representations and diaries are being coordinated. Leave it at that. being coordinated. Leave it at that. If I may. I. Anyway, the sixth vital point and this again was was raised and by Baroness Doocey legitimately, but also by Lord Barrow, by Baroness Taylor of Enfield and by the noble Lord Carlile, which is the issue of whether we'll be a review.

That's a valid and significant point. But as has been pointed out again by the noble Lord Carlile of Berriew, the National Security Act of 2023 already gives the independent review of state threats legislation the right to oversight, and also mandates them absolutely to carry out an annual review of the operations of the provisions of the bill. So I would suggest that I hope that is sufficient to head off at the pass an amendment on this issue, because not that the amendment is not right or wrong or necessary.

It's because the bill already is covered by the National Security Act. On those particular points, Lord Viridor also mentioned in passing the question of assisting a designated body offence, not capture non-UK nationals. I'll just say to him there. There are non-UK national planning and attack in the UK from overseas would be materially assisting activities taking place in the UK. It is the activities of the designated body, such as an attack in the UK that determines whether assistance is captured, and the Bill also introduces the designated body condition, which allows the existing National Security Act offences to apply to activity linked to designated bodies, not just to foreign states.

Lord Alton continues to cheer my ankles correctly about the issue of transnational repression. I would argue that the bill will make it easier to achieve prosecutions where there is a designated body, such as a proxy organisation involved in transnational repression, and we will continue, as I said yesterday in our statement, to try to tackle transnational repression in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

number of ways. I might not be. Very grateful to the opportunity to chew at the noble Lords ankles to chew at the noble Lords ankles again for a moment, if I may, can I ask him specifically if he will continue the discussions that the continue the discussions that the Security Minister's Office has been having about the United Front Works having about the United Front Works Department that acts on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party, which wouldn't be covered by the terms of the bill, and although I agree he the bill, and although I agree he would not want to put actors onto the face of the bill, the generic issues that it involves should be.

He also perhaps could take the opportunity of confirming whether he will circulate the reply that he has sent me on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate. Absolutely. I will make sure that the reply I gave to the noble that the reply I gave to the noble Lord again in recent time today, because it's a fast moving pace and we're trying to, you know, get this matter sorted. I will do that for the noble Lord, and I'll refer the points that he's made to the points that he's made to the security Minister. Also, my noble friend Baroness Dacre has rightly mentioned the question of diaspora.

The power is actor agnostic and applies equally to all individuals in the UK. So we're not targeting particular diaspora. It targets conduct that is carried out for a purpose prejudicial to the UK's safety. And we've also had the question of inverted commas. I use this phrase guardedly useful idiots, which was quoted by Baroness Northover and echoed by my noble friend Baroness Gill. The new offences concern various thresholds for criminals to be caught. For example, criminals can be caught by the offence of assisting a designated body where they ought to know their conduct is materially existing a designated body.

But it's also important to put on the record for the noble Baroness. The criminals do not need to know that a group has been designated for offences to be committed that carries, I hope that issue for inverted commas. Useful idiots. I call them terrorists, but useful idiots is also a reasonable phrase that we can attribute to them. My noble friend Baroness Gill and my and the noble Lord, Lord Doherty of Milton Guy also mentioned, quite rightly, the issue of cryptocurrency and whether cryptocurrency used by designated bodies or individuals.

How do we hold that more accountable? The government, already committed to tackling all forms of economic crime, including the misuse of crypto assets. All UK crypto asset firms are now required to register with the Financial Conduct Authority to comply with money laundering. We've also strengthened law enforcement through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, and we're now going to go further with the introduction of further measures, which include the Financial Conduct Authority delivering a new crypto asset regulatory regime. UK crypto asset firms are required to conduct due diligence, and the Financial Services Bill 2026, introducing targeted powers to allow more crypto asset recovery powers.

I'm trying to, given the time, to cover all of the points that noble Lords have mentioned. I hope I have, but I will obviously read Hansard again, and if there are further points I can respond to, I will do so because what I want to do, and this is the key point, is get this bill through to Royal Assent so the Home Secretary can determine how she uses those powers to deal with the issues that have been raised on the floor of the House today.

That's an important measure. I want to ensure that between now and next Tuesday, that we deal with any of those points, and I try and get a consensus to pass this bill, make it an act, put it to Royal Assent for the His Majesty the King to agree to and for us then to, as a matter of some urgency, determine how we tackle the very many threats that are facing this country at the moment. I thank the noble Lords for the engagement, but also for the expertise brought to this debate today.

But ultimately, I beg to move. This bill has a Second Reading, and I hope that the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will support it tonight. This bill be now read a second time, as many of that opinion will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time, as many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content, but contents have it. To move that the commitment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To move that the commitment motion standing in my name on the Order Paper be agreed. That this Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, as Committee of the whole House, as many of that opinion will say, content and do not content. The contents have it. We'll have a contents have it. We'll have a short break before I call the next Carbon Carbon Budget Carbon Budget Order Carbon Budget Order 2026, Lord Whitehead.
19:29
Lord Whitehead Portrait Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move that the >> My Lords, I beg to move that the House approves the draft. Climate Change Act 2008, Carbon Budget Order 2026 and the Climate Change Act 2008, Credit Limit Order 2026. I thank the Committee for their consideration. The Draft Carbon Budget Order 2026 was laid before the House on the 2nd of June, and the draft Credit Limit Order 2026 on the 14th of April. Now, my Lords, it may be that the fact that we are sitting here this evening on the second of four hottest days that there ever have been in June, and after a similar number of hottest ever days in May, we may think whether we should debate whether to do anything about climate change or not under those circumstances sort of answers itself, I think.

But we have a far more scientific way to do that. Action on climate change at the moment, and that is that this carbon budget order sets a science led budget to reduce emissions by about 87% for the period 2038 to 2042, compared to 1990 levels. And this is in line with the level recommended by the Independent Climate Change Committee and endorsed by the Environmental Audit Committee. The detailed impact assessment, published alongside the Carbon Budget Order, provides a rigorous assessment of options, all showing significant benefits of continuing towards net zero over abandoning it, and the proposed seventh carbon budget sets a pragmatic and achievable path that would enable the UK to continue seizing the benefits of clean energy and climate action, including energy security, lower bills, good jobs and growth and health and nature

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benefits. This is also consistent With the action needed globally

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the action needed globally to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement binding on the UK. Sorry. Agreement binding on the UK. Sorry. The UK's 1.5 degree aligned Nationally Determined contribution Nationally Determined contribution for 2035. We can only fight for our national interests by pushing for national interests by pushing for global action built on the power of our domestic example, a delivery plan setting out how carbon budgets will be met will be published as soon as is reasonably practicable after Parliament has approved the budget, and I would emphasise that point, inasmuch as what we are debating today is the question of the level at which carbon budget should be set.

We are not debating or should not be debating the policies that will follow on set by the government in response to making sure it can meet that particular level and those particular policies, as I have emphasised, will be published shortly. But that is not really a question for debate in detail today. Under the Climate Change Act, the Secretary of State is required to set a limit on the number of international credits that can be used towards a carbon budget at least 18 months before the budget period starts, and that is very relevant to the second C we are discussing tonight concerning credit limit order, and this order sets a zero credit limit for the carbon budget five period of 2028 to 2032.

It does not represent a change in policy, but reflects that carbon budget five can be met through domestic action. All other carbon budgets to date have been delivered solely through domestic action. The order takes into account the advice of the Independent Committee on Climate Change that carbon budget five can and should be achieved without the use of international credits, and this also ensures that the UK economy will profit from the co-benefits of the transition. Now, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has reported on the Carbon Budget order, and I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for their report on the order and for the careful consideration of this draft instrument, and the Committee noted the importance of incentivising the shift to clean electricity.

The government recognises that rebalancing the price ratio between electricity and gas is important to long term fairness, so that electricity prices reflect the falling cost of clean power, and we are taking steps to address this. From budget 2025, removing £150 of costs off energy bills to the success of the contracts for difference scheme in bringing forth new renewable assets at fixed competitive prices, which are beginning to decouple electricity and gas markets and reforms through reformed national pricing. To enable us to further bear down on network constraint costs and improve system efficiency.

Now, my Lords, I recognise the non-fatal amendments tabled by the noble Lord Moynihan for discussion today, and I will address the points that the noble Lord has raised in turn in relation to the Carbon Budget order. The noble Lord firstly suggests that this will increase reliance on intermittent renewables. The government is in fact strengthening energy security by reducing dependency on volatile fossil fuel markets and delivering a diverse, secure and clean energy system. This will be backed by unabated gas only when it is essential, and any residual emissions would be offset by removals.

The noble Lord suggests that the order will cause higher energy prices. Now, the main driver of high energy costs has been global gas prices, which have also pushed up electricity prices. Clean power is what will give us control over prices. With the offshore wind secured in our recent auction, 40% cheaper than building and operating new gas plants on causing deindustrialisation. This government is committed to supporting UK industry to decarbonise whilst protecting and creating thousands of jobs across the UK, and we are taking ambitious steps to lay the groundwork for further industry investment.

And last year, the government set out its Modern Industrial Strategy, which will drive forward ambition for UK business operating in the clean energy space. With regard to economic growth, setting carbon budget seven at this level builds on the UK's pioneering Climate Change Act 2008, providing a framework for combining economic growth and climate action. Now a fairly simple and straightforward comparison, the UK has cut its emissions by 54% since 1990, whilst growing the economy by over 85%.

In other words, emissions reduction and growing the economy has been fully and effectively decoupled over that period and indeed, since July 2024, the UK has seen over £100 billion of private investment announced in clean energy, and the government's clean energy plans are expected to support 400 000 extra jobs by 2030. With regard to claims that retaining the carbon tax negatively impacts household and industry well, the biggest threat to energy security is the UK's dependency on volatile fossil fuel markets, not the carbon price applied under the emissions trading scheme.

The UK has had an emissions trading scheme in place for over 20 years. It provides stability to UK businesses and industry, supporting them to take long term investment and planning decisions, while free allowances protect sectors at risk of carbon leakage. Ensuing we decarbonise over time without undermining UK competitiveness and limiting many sectors exposure to carbon price. It has already played a key role in ending the burning of coal for electricity, setting us on our way to being a clean energy superpower.

In relation to behavior change, the noble Lord suggests that the carbon budget order relates to. A reduction in livestock numbers and meat and dairy consumption. This government has been clear that we will meet our targets in a way that does not tell people how to live and behave. The transition will be led by consumer choice, accepting the C6 recommended target does not mean we replicate their pathway. There are a number of other issues which I'm sure will be raised in the debate this afternoon.

Among other things, offshoring UK emissions. And indeed, there are clear actions being undertaken as far as sebum and various other things to make sure that doesn't happen. And we're taking precautionary action to prevent carbon leakage. In conclusion, these orders set a clear, credible pathway to net zero and ensure that these emissions reductions are delivered at home. And I urge noble Lords to act together in the interests of current and future generations by agreeing these Statutory Instruments, which will give us energy security, will give us lower bills, good jobs, cleaner air and to protect our homes for our children and grandchildren.

I beg to move.
19:39
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
That this motion be agreed to. Amendment. Lord Moynihan. >> My Lords, whilst proceeding, my noble friend Lord demon, I'd like noble friend Lord demon, I'd like to pay tribute to his lifetime work which he's done on climate change. And whilst our views will certainly differ this evening, I share with differ this evening, I share with him a passionate belief that we should work towards tackling climate change to which there are, as you will agree, many different routes to achieve that goal. We are meant to be the revising chamber, capable of detailed consideration of government measures.

Yet we have just six minutes each and, as the Minister has shown, that is insufficient. My Lords, as Minister for energy and the salient benchmark year of 1990, I launched the first renewables round, the Non-Fossil Fuel obligation, whilst also encouraging the growth in offshore gas with strong environmental prerequisites to ban non-essential flaring, whilst securing gas to ccgt, thus creating firm, low cost power to generate economic growth, jobs and prosperity. Low cost electricity is the lifeblood of a successful economy.

My business, career and time in politics have taught me that a headlong rush based on business zealotry will be costly and unattainable, and will not just jeopardise but destroy economic growth. The UK produced circa 367 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2025, meaning by 2039 we will have to reduce our annual emissions by more than two thirds. With all the low hanging fruit already picked, the capital and finance costs alone are estimated to be £880 billion. Government claims for the benefits are all target derived prices to justify the policy, and we've seen the stumbling blocks impeding the rollout of heat pumps and zero emission vehicles, not to mention the commercial challenges facing carbon capture and storage.

The Climate Change Committee has estimated that in order to meet the emissions target, household consumption of meat and dairy would have to fall by 25%. The number of sheep and cattle would have to fall by 50%. Farmers will be required to diversify away from livestock farming to double tree planting rates by 2030, and double peatland restoration by 2040. Where is the plan? When will the government tell the public that they intend to halve the number of sheep and cattle in the United Kingdom, with inevitable price rise increases in the supermarkets? And when does the government intend to tell the residential building sector that it will have to spend up to £15 billion a year on low carbon heating systems? And add to all this the costs we introduce through this measure demand management to apply to air travel, increasing the cost of short haul flights such as between London and Alicante by £150, and long haul flights such as between London and New York by £300.

Industry is already facing the stark reality of the highest prices for electricity in the OECD, but the Climate Change Committee now estimates that British industry would face net costs of up to £3 billion per year in every year between 2025 to 2050. My Lords, does Ed Miliband have the remotest idea of what this will do to British industry and the economy? And what is worse is that my reading of the economics is that the capital expenditures required for solar and offshore wind are hugely underestimated.

Perhaps the Minister can explain how the SEC expects offshore wind to cost around £1,500 a kilowatt hour, whereas actual projects like Hornsea Three are expected to cost over double that. And if he can't, then the upfront capital costs are underestimated, making the claim of operating cost savings compared to fossil fuels highly questionable. I look for the total gross cost of their pathways, and I cannot understand why they're absent. And no wonder the UK boss of EDF energy has said, and I quote, we should stop building wind farms and focus instead on raising demand for electricity.

As a country, we've always got it wrong. So now we have this large infrastructure twice as much as we need, which means we also need to build twice the transmission grid. No wonder almost £800 million has been spent on so-called curtailment payments so far this year alone, putting 2026 on course to eclipse the 1.4 billion spent on switching off turbines last year. Heavy manufacturing and chemical sectors argued that orders before us this evening introduce additional bureaucracy without tangible environmental benefits.

Customers are understandably worried about the cost burden and the major lifestyle changes required by law, not by choice, as the Minister just said, but by law in how people heat their homes, what they can eat and how they travel. And all of this is based on an accounting policy which wholly ignores the impact on global warming from the supply chains we rely on. We're blind to the coal fired CO2 belching furnaces in China. Many in Xinjiang province with Uyghur labour, which produced the polycrystalline and solar panels for us.

China delivers an estimated 140 to 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually, just manufacturing solar panels, accounting for about 1% of China's total annual emission. And we don't count that. And the Democratic Republic of the Congo produces 70% of the world's cobalt, a core component in lithium ion batteries used for electric vehicles and grid scale energy storage. With its forced evictions, land disposals and child labour. And we don't count that. We ignore that. My Lords, we do not have clean home grown energy.

It is time to prioritise cheap energy over clean energy, remove the heavy weight of carbon taxes off our electricity prices and exploit all remaining North Sea oil and gas reserves in the same way the Norwegians do on their side of the median line gas, which is four times less polluting than the LNG, we have to import instead from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

states, and that would strengthen our energy security. Yeah. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Thank you. The original question was that the regulations laid before the House on June the 2nd be approved, House on June the 2nd be approved, since when an amendment has been moved by Lord Moynihan at the end to insert the words set out on the to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I declare an interest of having been chairman of the Climate Change Committee for 11 years. I chair a company advising on sustainability, business continuity and risk, and I am a partner in a small organic arable and livestock farm. So it may be said that one knows a little bit about what we're talking about. And I do say to my noble friend that I listen to him yesterday make a brilliant speech on sport. And the brilliance of it was that, first of all, he explained why the government had got it wrong.

Secondly, he explained how to put it right now. The problem with his
19:46
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
speech this evening is that neither of those have been part of it. It is no good standing up and saying they don't like this or don't like they don't like this or don't like that. The truth is, a conservative government was previously, when in government was previously, when in opposition, the creator of the Climate Change Act turned it into a Climate Change Act turned it into a cross-party agreement with every conservative government has supported these policies to end up with meeting our Paris Agreement, which a conservative government signed.

And yet, at the moment, all we're hearing is opposition to what is being proposed by the government on the basis of the very best advice that they could have. Now, there are a number of things I think the government is getting wrong. I think any idea of loosening the. The movement to EVs is a great mistake. And I do think that the government is spending too much money on carbon capture and storage, as a matter of fact. But those are reasonable arguments to have from the point of view that we have actually got to protect ourselves from the climate change, which surely we're beginning to understand, as all the businesses I deal with understand, is no longer on the risk register.

It's on today's issue. How do we deal with this? And the public and our grandchildren will never forgive us if what we do is to pretend that we are in favour of this in general, but not actually prepared to take the measures which are necessary. And these figures are the necessary measures, and they are done far enough in advance for us to be able to deal with this. And therefore, I have to say, it's very interesting. We should talk about intermittent renewables.

The intermittency at the moment is with with actually fossil fuels. The problem is that we cannot rely on them. And it's interesting that it's that this is evidently causing higher energy prices. 67% of the higher prices in this country and around Europe is because of the higher price of gas. And what the proposals of my noble friend is to spend more money and more time on gas, instead of recognising that there is another fault of this government, and that is that it has wrongly continued the conservative policy, which I opposed for 20 years, which was to put the cost of the necessary change on the bills of the customer instead of what they did between 1945 and 51, when the Labour Party did the last huge change in our system, when they rightly said that was a taxpayer's price.

Now, if that came off now and was put on to the onto the taxpayer's bill, we would be properly competitive and we would become more and more competitive as we moved. All right. Talking about the Chinese, the Chinese are going to be net zero by 2060, which means 2050, because they always promise in advance much, much less than they actually deliver every other country in the world that's thinking about the future is moving in this direction because renewables are dependable and they are also cheaper.

And this idea that somehow it's D in D industrializing Britain, the the GVA of manufacturing industry has grown in real terms since the Climate Change Act. The CBI points out that there was £105 billion investment in added value in in 2025 alone. This is a whole operation presented improperly. There's nothing in this which is going to change whether I can grow my excellent red poll cattle or not. What the fact is that what the Climate Change Committee has been suggesting as a reduction in our meat eating is considerably less than the medics think we ought to do, considerably less than Dimbleby said we ought to do in his food strategy, and actually is less than is happening now.

Naturally, we've had a 10% cut in the way that people are eating, and there is nothing in this that forces people to do more than that. And it seems to me that what we really have to recognise is that many of the people who are going to be proposing this, opposing this tonight, are the same people who told us how wonderful leaving the European Union was. And the truth of the matter is, we can look at that. We have got to look forward into a society in which we've protected our children and grandchildren from the menace of climate change, and until the opposition is prepared to stand up with an alternative system that delivers, that, it must be right to support what the government is putting forward here.

My Lords, as a Member of Parliament, I was unable to vote for the original climate change legislation. It
19:52
Lord Redwood Portrait Lord Redwood (Conservative)
-
-
seemed to me to be totally unrealistic. It was likely to be extremely expensive and I thought extremely expensive and I thought it would be self-defeating. It was quite obvious. A large number of important economies around the important economies around the world would not adopt this. It was extremely likely that an economy like China would use the huge opportunity of our self-inflicted wound to export more and more to us, wound to export more and more to us, burning lots of coal and gas to do so, and marine diesel to get it here.

And we would de-industrialized too rapidly. And that is, of course, exactly what is happening. The noble Lord, my friend on these benches has just asserted we have not de-industrialized well, he needs to look at the facts. We are losing massive amounts of traditional industry, of petrochemicals, of ceramics, of glass, of glass fibre. Many, many companies have gone down, many plants have been closed. We're losing our traditional steel industry. It is true. We've had great success in an industry like pharmaceuticals, which is what maybe had in mind with the figures he was quoting, but he cannot get away from the fact that he's doing huge damage now, closing factories, closing plants, losing his jobs.

But my first objection to this proposal of the government's tonight is that I don't think we should adopt a national, very tough carbon budget without knowing what the impact is going to be on carbon dioxide produced elsewhere in the world. And you need to look at the net position, not just at the UK's position. And I suspect it's going to be like in the future, the last 20 years where there won't be a big net reduction in world CO2.

There'll probably be an increase in world CO2 because there will be all the extra marine diesel for the imports. There will be the shifting of our gas down a pipe from our own fields into LNG, which my noble friend from the frontbench has stressed is much more CO2 intensive, and we will be dependent more and more for traditional industrial products on countries that may use methods that are more CO2 intensive, as well as all the obvious extra environmental costs from the way they get the raw materials out of the ground, all the social costs of the conditions of labour they use for producing the products, and the extra transport involved in the imports.

My, my second big objection to this. This measure is cost. We are given a provisional figure of 880 billion or 35 billion a year. My noble friend is right that this is likely to be a gross underestimate of the true cost. I would challenge the Minister on how much he thinks grid expansion is going to cost, because the grid expansion has to be on a completely unprecedented scale, because he's, first of all, needing a much bigger grid to deliver the current amount of power we need when it all becomes renewable, rather than more dependable gas fired, which doesn't need nearly so much grid.

But if we are really going to treble or quadruple our use of electricity to replace the gas we burn in our home heating and replace the petrol and diesel we burn in our transport. Because electricity is still a minority part of the power we use, then the mind boggles that just how many pylons are going to have to be all around the country, and just how much grid capacity there is going to have to be to deliver all that extra power.

I think the Minister also needs to understand that whilst he is right legally, that he can meet his commitments now by coming up with a probably completely fictional plan for 12 to 16 years time for the amount of carbon the country will actually produce, he doesn't have to show in any detail how you might get there. My advice to all governments is don't try and predict the future. After ten years, nobody can. Everything's going to change. We couldn't even predict who the Prime Minister was going to be a year ago.

In the current government. As we meet tonight on the eve of a new Prime Minister. So how on earth can we predict how big the UK economy is going to be in 2040? How can how can we predict whether any of our industry of a traditional kind has survived or not? How can we predict what the technologies are going to be? Because it may be that the so-called new technologies around the lithium ion battery currently being the main marketing ploy of of those who favor this kind of policy, will be completely old hat in in 10 or 15 years time, there may be something genuinely better.

There may be an electric product I want to buy because it really works well and it is genuinely cheaper. My next challenge to the Minister is, I do not believe this line that electricity is cheap and will get cheaper. The more renewables we use. The evidence is there for all to see. We have gone further than most with renewables. We have the dearest electricity in the advanced world, and one of the reasons is, is the cost of renewable. A lot of renewable power is contracted at very high guaranteed prices.

But worse still, we need the gas power stations. We need to pay them for doing nothing because you need the backup. And so of course, it's going to be a lot dearer to have the electricity from renewables, because you've got to pay twice, because you've got to have two different lots of capital equipment. The Minister is wisely limited. My time to I will have to suffice with just those few very strong

**** Possible New Speaker ****

objections. I back my noble friend with his proposal. Yeah, well, my Lords, this has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, well, my Lords, this has been a very interesting debate so far, and I thank my noble friend for his very detailed explanation of the orders before us. I'm not sure we're spending much time on the detail of the orders he requested. And clearly we're requested. And clearly we're turning this into a debate about net zero and climate change. And my
19:58
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
net zero and climate change. And my Lords, although the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, did acknowledge climate change, I must say that I do think, as Lord deben said, it's very, very difficult to square what is being said tonight by members of the party opposite, and I suspect by rather a few more of them as the debate ensues with what the conservative government did. My Lords, after all, it was the conservative government who legislated for net zero. I know the Lord Redwood didn't vote for it, but in fact it was their responsibility.

They did make the agreement. The Paris Agreement. The Soviet government made a bold statement that energy transformation and net zero are among the greatest opportunities facing this country, as indeed I think they are. My Lords, we may hear a little bit about North Sea oil and gas, as the party opposite now seems obsessed with that. It's worth pointing out that production in the North Sea between 2010 and 2024 halved under the Conservative government's stewardship. And my Lords, I just want do want to come back to Lord Devon's really pertinent point.

Both the noble Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord Redwood have criticised the carbon budgets and the whole net zero approach by the government. But what is the alternative? I mean, it's rare now that members of the Conservative Party say they don't believe in climate change, but it's almost as Augustine, oh Lord, deliver us from sin, but not yet. We will tackle climate change at some point in the future. But let's carry on with our obsession with oil and gas.

Well, I was on on the issue of business, obviously, Lord deben has referred already to the CBI report, but this is one of the most thriving sectors of our economy. In fact, looking at the last year of the conservative government, it was the one sector that actually gave some growth in in the economy. And what they want to do is snap it off. Whereas our competitors have seen that the impact of the green economy can be profoundly changing and progressive.

I give so many opportunities to people. And the CBI report says that the net zero economy now supports 1.1 million full time equivalent jobs, and they are good jobs, and they're jobs that our young people can go into on China, my Lords. I mean, the international experience. Again, we're lectured that for some reason, by going into a leadership role in relation to decarbonisation, we are letting other countries take great advantage of it. Well, if you look at the reports of the International Energy Agency, particularly their 2025 report on renewables, there is a huge advance in the use of low carbon energies globally and in China.

China is at the moment accounting for 60% of global renewable capacity growth. They're going to meet their targets way ahead of schedule in 2035. And I agree with Lord deben. They tend to set conservative targets and then meet them much more quickly. And so to talk about China as if it's carrying on simply with oil, gas and coal is misleading. My Lords, on the North Sea, if I can just end on that. North Sea has been a tremendous asset to our country.

If only we'd set up a sovereign wealth fund like Norway to invest in our infrastructure, I think we'd be in a much better condition than the people working. There are brilliant people. But my Lords, if you look at the North Sea Transition Authority estimates, they reckon that only around 10% of the basin's historic output could be recovered in the future. Analysis by the University of Oxford Smith School using pre-crisis price data suggests that households powered fully by renewable energy could save up to £441 per year on energy bills.

By comparison, maximising North Sea oil and gas extraction was estimated to reduce household costs by around 16 to £82 per year. And as we know, increasing UK production and it would be a marginal increase in UK production, would not directly reduce prices. Because, my Lords, we don't influence global prices and we buy on the global market. And I would also point out that the conservative government, over 14 years, they issued many licences in the North Sea for exploration and extraction, but actually it only led to 20 developments.

And that, I understand, has would produce the equivalent of just 36 days of extra gas. Some of the challenge, it seems to me, for the party opposite, is to stop running down the approach, the consensus that we had on net zero, and if they are opposed to it, then come up with some suggestions about how we might go forward. Yes.
20:04
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Yes. >> My Lords, I rise to to address the issue of carbon pricing in the UK and its unfortunate consequences for policy making and devastating for policy making and devastating results for the public purse and the future of our economy. This confusion is embedded in these instruments. And so I speak in support of my noble friend's motion. I refer the House to my register of Interests as an owner and developer of wind and solar energy generation projects, and as an owner and developer of forests that target carbon sequestration under the Woodland Carbon Code, as well as growing timber that addresses the UK's structural deficit in construction grade timber.

And I'm also a regenerative, partially regenerative dairy and beef farmer. My Lords are carbon pricing in the UK is muddled. UK woodland carbon code units traded around £30 per tonne. The UK Emissions Trading Scheme is trading at around 55 to £60 per tonne. The government's internal valuation for carbon emissions that it uses, and calculating the relative merits of policy and projects, ranges from the low case of £130 to a high of £390 for this year, and that rises to £568 from 2050.

The average carbon emissions per head in the UK are nine tonnes per annum, and that includes scope two and scope three. So offshore emissions that can be offset for a total cost of £270 through woodland carbon units, £510 through the Emissions Trading Scheme. And yet the government's cost used for policy implies up to £3,510 per head. The first two figures sound reasonably affordable to me. The third does not sound at all affordable. I believe we're expecting the government to publish an update to this valuation framework alongside this carbon budget order.

Could I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, first, when is this five year review of valuation of greenhouse emissions likely to be published? And secondly, whether he is prepared to look again at the whole basis of how this valuation is done in order to create an environment for better policy making. The argument that this is based on marginal abatement costs is ludicrous. Effectively, the government is using the extortionate cost of some of the technologies that are throwing money at to justify that cost in Microsoft Excel.

This would cause a circular reference error. Net net zero can be achieved through pragmatic decision making based on orderly markets, where technologies are assessed based on a cost of carbon set by buyers and sellers. Unfortunately, this government is chasing fantasies around green hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, direct air capture, as well as some of the renewable projects coming forward. And these have been justified by this ludicrous carbon pricing it is leading us to ruin discredits any efforts to keep atmospheric carbon down and needs to be reassessed.

It takes no heed of affordability for the consumer, who feels cost of living pressures everywhere, and is already providing huge subsidies to renewable energy and grid improvements through their electricity bills, and suffering the tax burden of funding fantastical technologies. When this money really should be spent on our defence, it pays no heed to industry, which is forced to compete with peers that can access

**** Possible New Speaker ****

considerably cheaper power almost anywhere in the world. Yes. As my noble friend has described, this will simply lead to our jobs and industry being taken offshore and probably gives the best chance of meeting these targets by of meeting these targets by industrialising our economy even further. My noble friend's motion regrets the impact on meat and livestock production and consumption, which I fully support. Later. Scientific evidence and Later. Scientific evidence and dietary advice concludes that animal protein, fat and vitamins are critical to our health.

Calculations underpinning Livestock's impact on greenhouse gases are highly biased and unfairly penalised livestock for the transitory impact of methane in the atmosphere. These failed to recognise that livestock farming, particularly in regenerative system, is simply recirculating carbon in the same way as supposedly sustainable aviation fuel. Drax and renewable heating installations. Why are animals being villainized and these are promoted and granted. This also undermines the affordability of dealing with climate change, exposes the government to ridicule and poses a threat to our health.

And I look forward to the noble Lord Minister's replies.
20:08
Lord Harlech Portrait Lord Harlech (Conservative)
-
-
It's a pleasure to follow my noble friend, and I declare my interest as the owner of a Welsh interest as the owner of a Welsh upland portfolio with agricultural tenancies, livestock, woodland and tenancies, livestock, woodland and heritage assets serviced by renewables. And so someone who therefore lives with both the duty of stewardship and the economics of the transition. We're debating. But let me say at the at the outset, I'm not going to deny the science nor unpick the architecture of the Climate Change Act.

Climate change is a real and present threat to our food, our water, our coasts, and our security. And the conservative tradition of conservation demands that we take it seriously. My concern today is not with the direction of travel, it is with the means. The means before us are too reliant on central direction, too costly and too inattentive to the people and the industries asked to carry them. Consider the foundation of this budget. The Climate Change Committee tells us that electrification must deliver around 60% of the savings through heat pumps in our homes and electric vehicles on our roads.

Yet we ask families and businesses to electrify while our electricity remains among the most expensive in the developed world, the ratio of electricity to gas prices in this country is roughly 4 to 1, against a European average of 3 to 1. If we want people to make that switch, the most effective step this government could take is to make clean electricity cheaper through levy reform, market reform and competitive auctions, rather than through state led projects that risk crowding out private investment and adding further cost to the bill.

Let me pay your Lordships an example. So the House in North Wales that I mentioned in my interests is power is the domestic hot water and heating is generated by two water source heat pumps. But since the price of electricity became so expensive that like blew out of the water, all the projections of cost saving and the non-domestic RHI and all of that went completely out the window. And we've actually had to consider whether it's more worthwhile turning them off and going back to LPG.

And I'm sure we're not alone in facing that, that cost crisis. So affordable power is not a threat to this budget. It's the condition for delivering it. Then there is the land, and the committee's pathway implies halving the national flock and herd and reducing consumption of meat and dairy by a quarter. My Lords, I know the people that farm that land and they are the ones that plant the trees, restore the peat, and they work to hold carbon in our soils.

Because good farmers have long been among among our first conservationists. But we do not decarbonise this country by reducing British livestock production and importing food from countries that farm to lower standards. Yeah, that approach moves emissions abroad rather than removing them. The better course is to reward farmers for the public goods they already provide and to support domestic food production alongside the recovery of nature. So I put this question directly to the noble Lord, the Minister. If the government intends to press ahead with these reductions in livestock numbers, will they pay farmers full market value and compensation for the herds and flocks they're asked to give up? Or is this simply another thinly veiled attack on farmers and the rural economy? That brings me to the second order, and to the concern that my noble friend Lord Moynihan sets out in his regret motion, which I will support a limit of zero on overseas credits set against the carbon price, among the highest of any market in the world, risks a self-defeating outcome.

Energy intensive industry may relocate abroad, taking its jobs, tax revenue and emissions with it so that those emissions reappear on another country's account. While global emissions are no lower at all, carbon leakage of that kind is not decarbonisation, and it weakens our industrial base in the process. So let me conclude where I began. I support the framework and I support the goal the United Kingdom should lead, but leadership means delivery that is affordable rather than not, that supports our farmers rather than reduces them.

And that keeps industry here rather than driving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it overseas. Director of the company Net Zero Watch and my lost. Ten years ago Watch and my lost. Ten years ago today, we had the referendum that decided on whether we will be decided on whether we will be governed from Britain or the EU who governs Britain. But I wonder, when I look at the carbon budget and the piece of legislation that's before us today, whether the actual government in Britain is the government in Britain is the Climate Change Committee, I do not make that point rhetorically.

I
20:14
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)
-
-
make it seriously. Once the carbon budget is in place, that affects every single aspect of what the every single aspect of what the government and much of the private sector actually does. It constrains sector actually does. It constrains activity. It shapes what can be done and what can't be done. It is an absolutely central feature of an absolutely central feature of the way this country is governed, and we are just waving it through and we are just waving it through tonight on the piece basis for piece of secondary legislation, the noble Lords, Lord hunt said that we were not paying enough attention to the detail.

Well, perhaps the government would like to provide some time to debate the detail then. The carbon budget is 400 pages long. There's a supplement of 60 pages. We are spending an hour and a half discussing something that will affect the entire UK economy. If we are to leave it for a period of five years. So let's get serious about this. I think there are a number of problems with this carbon budget and this piece of legislation, which have been to some extent mentioned by others.

First, even his own terms. The government isn't choosing the cheapest path. Probably all the figures before us are completely worthless, but the impact assessments own table shows that option one is better in cost benefit terms, has a higher net present value. Ministers choosing the more expensive path because they're focused on achieving the target, rather than worrying about what happens to the British economy. Second, a lot of the savings that are meaningless paper numbers of the so-called 1.6 trillion a headline benefits identified in the impact assessment.

Almost all of them, over 90%, are simple carbon savings. But these values are not set by any objective reality. They are defined by what is necessary to reach the target. It's an entirely circular process, and these are not real benefits in the sense that any normal person would recognise them in any way. Third, the generation of technology cost figures are implausible. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan has already stated, there are consistent underestimating of the costs of renewables, offshore wind, onshore wind.

There's also a belief that products, heat, pumps. Many other things will fall in the future, a belief for which there's no evidence. As far as I can see, for carbon capture and storage. I'm very glad I could find something I can agree with with the noble Lord on, because as far as I can see, the assertions are based on nothing. The target requires us to capture 80 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent every year by 2050, using what we're told as state of art technologies.

And unfortunately, the state of the art is that these technologies don't work and can't be made to work, and probably are never going to work. We're being asked to legislate for a fantasy. Fifth, there's dishonesty about lifestyle impacts others have already. Other noble Lords have already mentioned that, but the government says it won't do what the Climate Change Committee says is necessary on farming. OK, so what is it going to do? As I've said, these carbon budgets affect everything. If you don't make the saving in one place, it's got to be made somewhere else.

Simply saying we're not going to do that is not really an answer, my Lords. There's simply no reflection in the discussion, in the legislation of the policy reality, the fact that the rest of the world are paying much less attention to this than we are, that the US have essentially moved away from net zero policy entirely. Even the European Union is beginning in its internal discussions, to question whether this is absolutely the right way forward. And if they are, I really think that that we should be.

To conclude, my Lords, we're asked. A number of speakers today have already asked us what would you do then if you're not happy with this? Well, how would you deal with the problem of climate change? Well, I say in return, why should we take seriously those who have a policy that simply cannot achieve its declared goal? They seem to have a belief in the miraculous powers of action in this country to affect what happens all round the world, and carbon budgets ever means the destruction of the British manufacturing economy over the next 20 years.

Huge hits to British. The. Inhabit the lifestyle of the inhabitants of this country and we are asked to do this if we use the methodology of the IPCC, we are asked to do this to reduce global temperatures by 0.01% 0.1°C in the year 2100. That is the effect that we are going to have. I say that this is a crazy policy, an irrational policy, and one that simply should not be followed. That's why I support the amendment of noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.

We can speak against the government's policy today. We can vote against it. Perhaps if we can, obviously it will make no difference. But I take comfort in the fact that by 2038, when this budget comes into force, the full irrationality of this policy will long have become evident, and it will never come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into force. My Lords, I declare my farming and forestry interests as set out and forestry interests as set out in the register, and I rise in support of my noble friend, Lord Moynihan. Motion. I would also like Moynihan. Motion. I would also like to associate myself with the comments by my noble friend Lord Hollick and Lord Roborough. I do Hollick and Lord Roborough. I do believe that there are a few challenges with the proposed Carbon
20:20
Lord Douglas-Miller Portrait Lord Douglas-Miller (Conservative)
-
-
challenges with the proposed Carbon Budget Audit 2026. The issues that I have are not so much ideological and technical, but more practical in the wider context. If passed, the carbon Budget order will increase the UK's reliance on intermittent renewables, causing higher energy prices, further accelerating de-industrialisation and driving lower economic growth. As we've heard many times this evening, even the Climate Change Committee have estimated that British industry would face net costs of up to 3 billion per year every year between 2025 and 2050.

Clearly, this will make UK businesses uncompetitive and add to the general cost of living for the British public. Yeah, but the area that I would like to focus on is the impact that it will have on British farming, farming, particularly livestock farming and the UK's future food security. Two weeks ago in this chamber, we debated the impact of Labour Party policy on the rural economy, and it was widely agreed that a number of policies that have been introduced policies such as the family farm tax, national insurance increases and the hike in the minimum wage, have had a strong negative impact on sustainable farming and food production across the UK.

So with this in mind, further negative impacts should really be avoided. Otherwise, rural productivity will fall even further. This seems challenging given what is proposed in the 2026 carbon budget order. As we've already heard from Lord Lord Moynihan, what this 2026 order means is that by 2038, we will have to reduce annual emissions by more than two thirds. What that translates to on the ground. According to the Climate Change Committee's own report, is that household consumption of meat and dairy will have to fall by 25%.

What that means in farming speak, is that the number of sheep and cattle will have to reduce by 50%, forcing farmers to diverse away, diversify away from livestock farming and further reduce our national food security. My Lords, can I ask the Minister, is this either sensible or even realistic? If we were to reduce livestock by 50%, it would render every livestock farm economically inoperable, threaten the future of many of our livestock, breed varieties, and collapse meat and dairy production, and any domestic meat supply, completely leaving us wholly dependent on foreign imports.

Why would we want to do this, particularly at a time when food security should be higher up the government's agenda? Given what is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going on in the wider world? Yeah, yeah. Suggesting that meat and dairy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Suggesting that meat and dairy consumption is going to drop by 25% flies in the face of all current statistics. There's no indication statistics. There's no indication that this is happening now, or that it's likely or even desirable in the future. And it just seems pie the future. And it just seems pie in the sky, excuse the pun, unless the government is planning to restrict what the public wants to eat. In essence, if this carbon budget order proceeds, the most likely outcome will be that meat and dairy consumption will stay exactly the same and domestic production will collapse.

Suggesting otherwise is simply ignoring the reality of living in the world. That is as it is today. We live in an era where global commodity prices and international trade. If our domestic prices go sky high, the supermarkets and the public will switch to imports from other countries, which will increase to fill the void. As well as collapsing our domestic food security, it is just offshoring emissions to countries with more polluting energy systems, and that will negate any savings at home. This is a hopeless outcome and will ultimately make little or no difference to anything.

Rural communities are always at the sharp end of the climate change policy debate, and in addition to the farming community, can I also raise the issue of additional costs for those who live off grid? This might sound like a niche issue for a small number of hillbillies living in the Outback, but it's not. There are 1.7 million oil heated rural houses that are not connected to the gas grid. So can I ask the Minister what support he might offer to the 1.7 million households who, in the Climate Change Committee's own estimate, will consistently pay more to decarbonise through electrification? As I said in my introduction, there are quite a few challenges with this carbon budget order that impact across many areas.

My comments have been largely focused on farming, but pursuing this carbon budget order seems the wrong route for UK farming, the wrong choice for the British public, and will achieve little or nothing in the way of carbon savings. Yeah,
20:25
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, my Lords, now. >> The unintended consequences that flow from the six words in the order that place an arbitrary cap order that place an arbitrary cap on our nation's economic potential. There are hard truths that need to There are hard truths that need to be told about the practical effects, which include incentivising the invitation of the most polluting products whilst jobs are lost at home. My Lords, I don't deny the importance of decarbonisation. Decarbonisation. The oil is going to run out eventually, but setting a 535 million tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent cap from 2028, more than a decade away, in a world of uncertainty, is to take a path that makes our people poorer and, counter-intuitively, make global emissions worse in the rest of the world.

Now, I declare my interest as someone involved in the fertiliser trade, and whilst I don't produce it, I'm involved in the trade that brings it to our shores and it's always useful to follow the money. And from 2013 to the end of 2025, just last year, EU ETS auctions have raised over 258 billion in revenue for the EU. In 2025 alone. Just last year, the ETS revenues totaled more than 43 billion. This is a tax gusher dressed up as environmental virtue signalling, and on that basis, it's hardly surprising that the EU has introduced trade barriers to keep everybody else out.

And now the UK wants to follow suit. Let's deep dive into the industry I know best which will be subject to insane fertilizer taxes from next January. You see, I know about the carbon budgets and the paraphernalia that flow from it the emission trading system, the carbon border adjustment mechanism, free allowances and default values that bizarrely will create powerful fiscal incentives to send the most polluting fertilizers to the UK. They all sound so good. In theory, the Cbam and his evil twin, the ETS, are making a structurally uncompetitive and as a double whammy, the way that Britain has chosen to implement them in the UK, like VAT, is architecturally incompatible with the EU system, which relies on permits and registries.

These orders tie us to the EU ETS, but there are many other ways in which the UK ETS differs from the EU. One. Not only is it euro denominated versus sterling, the UK versus the EU a reflecting two different economic territories. No see bam hedging liquidity in this country, all sorts of arbitrages that place the UK at a competitive disadvantage and a wilful refusal to provide the clarity on free allowances which the EU is now diluting, but which are essential to enable future trade in our country.

I ask, why would we tie ourselves to the EU via the Draft Climate Change Act 2008 credit limits order, which is so incompatible with the K, a, the sterling and default values. This isn't dynamic alignment or mutual recognition. This is forcing our future based on today's values in an uncertain world, putting a cap on our country's ambition and capability. And the risks are that if the EU changes the goalposts for any of the carbon components and they are.

At the moment, we are left at a comparative disadvantage all the way for the next 15 years. The EU has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Coming. Something our government can't see for itself. Why are we running towards this danger, I ask? Worse, we are hard coding numbers 12 to 16 years hence. Yet the Chinese who don't share our worldview have unilaterally changed the way in which they calculate carbon emissions, leaving us high and up that proverbial creek without a paddle. And the naive without a paddle. And the naive good chap way in which we have chosen to account for carbon in divergent ways to the EU and the rest of the world will make us the natural dumping ground for the world's most polluting fertilisers.

Success was never meant to be like this. In the last two months, the Chinese have reversed a fertiliser export ban and turned coal fired urea production up to 11 to exploit the global shortages. Our proposed default carbon values, which flow from these orders, provide the perverse incentive to import these polluting products at the expense of cleaner products. The system of free allowances has diverged into an Alice in Wonderland fantasy land, where there is just the aim of levelling the playing field will be taxing the imports of carbon intensive goods that aren't even made in this country.

All that does is drive inflation and the UK industry. The UK is proposing a free allowances for fertiliser industry that doesn't exist in this country any more, making farmers pay even more for their most expensive input. That is clearly contrary to the WTO and the rules based order. The outgoing Prime Minister purports to support. It's madness. And last week, the EU extended carbon taxation to be announced on secateurs and and gardening tools. I asked the virtue signallers to accept that by making the UK fertiliser feedstocks uncompetitive by.

By forcing our highest energy prices on our chemical industry, they will actually increase global emissions by outsourcing production to more poorly regulated nations, throwing thousands of Britons onto the dole and across industrialisation so that members of the Labour Party can virtue signal how green they are whilst sipping the greenies on their separate bifold access terraces, grazing tofu picked up on at Whole Foods. The facts are that for everybody else, these carbon budgets and taxes are driving up the cost of beer, biscuits, bread, butter and barbecues.

I hope the Mancunian Messiah recognises this simple truth in the coming weeks.
20:31
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> My Lords. >> I wish to express my regret that these Statutory Instruments. >> Let me begin by recognising that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me begin by recognising that carbon budgets are a vital part of the UK's approach to tackling climate change. They provide long climate change. They provide long term clarity on the pathway to net zero at some future date. Set a direction of travel for policy and investment, and signal the seriousness of our ambition. My concern lies not only in the pace, the manner and the potential consequences of the course now proposed, but on the realism of the pathway itself and the practical deliverability of the measures that underpin it.

The Carbon Budget Order sets an exceedingly ambitious and legally binding cap to reduce emissions to little more than a quarter of their current level for the period 2038 to 42, a period still far removed from present realities. In doing so, it risks committing the United Kingdom to a trajectory of decarbonisation so steep as to be impractical. It is one thing to aspire, quite another to legislate for a future shaped by uncertainties in technology, economics and geopolitics. Today in this country, oil and gas accounts for roughly three quarters of our own energy demand, and they will remain a significant part of the energy mix for decades to come.

This very evening, we're using, about 50% of our power is generated from gas. We already use roughly 10% fewer hydrocarbons than global average. The global average consumption by country and make no use of coal, which remains a substantial contributor to energy consumption worldwide. Domestically, we already face some of the highest electricity costs in the G7, placing a heavy burden on households, business and industry alike. There is every indication that these pressures will intensify. The latest round of offshore wind licences has been awarded at a strike price of about £90 per megawatt, almost twice that in R6.

And yet the Climate Change Committee suggests that there needs to be six fold increase in offshore wind, a doubling of onshore wind and a quadrupling of solar power. I wonder what the next round of auctions will actually cost. This is without mentioning the necessary grid expansion required to cope with the transmission of this power to the end user, which my noble friend Lord Redwood mentioned. The KSI also suggests further enormous demands on the heavily troubled agricultural sector, which has already been noted.

Carbon dioxide emissions may fall sharply under this framework, but at what economic price and who pays? We are already seeing signs of industrial migration. Companies are reconsidering their presence here, with some relocating production overseas. The implications for jobs, investment and the long term resilience of our industrial base are deeply concerning. One must ask how long heavy industry can be sustained under such conditions. I would also hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. My Lords, the situation in the North Sea provides a cautionary illustration.

Our offshore sector, developed over many decades, supports not only oil and gas, but also technologies of the future. Carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and offshore electrification. These capabilities are deeply interconnected. They depend on a skilled workforce, a resilient supply chain, and an active industrial base. As we saw from the electorate in Aberdeen South, that system cannot be maintained or scaled. If the investment environment becomes unstable or uncompetitive and the resource is left unexploited. The sanctioning of jackdaw, Rosebank and renewed drilling would assist this immeasurably, as opposed to relying ever more on more polluting imports.

As to the means of achieving these targets, much rests upon technologies that are not yet proven at scale. Renewable energy, as suggested by the C.c.c. will play a vital role, but alone cannot meet the demands of electricity, heating and transport. Nuclear energy capacity takes time to deliver, while large scale carbon capture, hydrogen and long term storage remain in development to anchor binding commitments upon their rapid deployment is, I fear, a considerable gamble. We have often reflected in this noble House on the United Kingdom's relatively small share of global emissions, 0.8% of world emissions.

The top three emitters account for over 50%. There is a real danger that in acting unilaterally, we merely displace emissions abroad, while in a further disproportionate harm on our economy that would serve neither our national interests nor the global emissions cause. budget.
20:36
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
On a day when our warming climate is making itself known. The climate is making itself known. The Conservative Party may feel that fighting climate change is no longer urgent or possible, but the longer urgent or possible, but the extreme heat begs to differ. We support the carbon budget and credit limit orders. We express our disappointment at the regret motions. CB seven is not a discretionary gesture. It is a statutory requirement. Setting the path to an 87 emissions reduction by 2040.

To waver now, as these motions invite us to ignores both scientific certainty and economic opportunity. Our ever warming climate is an existential threat. Until recent times, we have all benefited from cross-party consensus on climate change. It is regrettable to see the conservative parties continue to retreat from reality. The Conservative Party introduced the Climate Change Act and implemented half of our carbon reductions to date. In 2013, it introduced the carbon price support and in 2019, the carbon emissions tax.

In this very motion, the noble Lord now seems to regret. There are real issues to debate, but the need to fight climate change is not one of them. To describe this transition as a threat to industrial sovereignty or as a cause of impoverishment is a serious miscalculation of the risks. It is the abandonment. It is the abandonment of Climate Change Act and its implementation that would put our energy security at risk and strip away the legal certainty that investors in British industry rely on on intermittent renewables and higher prices.

The evidence does not support the argument. The Climate Change Committee has shown that renewable electricity and electric vehicles are now cheaper than fossil fuel equivalents, and at the cost of the path to net zero every year. Out to 2050 is less than the cost of a single fossil fuel price shock. It is fossil fuels that are insecure in supply and volatile in price. The price of electricity is too high, but that is not the fault of renewables. It is hard to defend a market in which a unit of electricity costs 4.3 times as much as a unit of gas.

This is the real barrier, holding back heat pumps and EVs, which is why my party continues to call on the government to break the link between gas and electricity prices. Strict policy costs, off bills and introduced an essential energy guarantee on deindustrialisation. The risk runs precisely opposite to the arguments. Advanced CBI economics has found that the failure to transition our car industry to EV manufacturing could cost the economy £34 billion and over 400,000 jobs. The net zero economy generates over 100 billion a year in value, supports 1.1 million jobs and nearly half £1 trillion of investment in the pipeline.

Conservative and reform plans to weaken net zero targets with pointlessly destroyed business confidence, investment. The jobs and growth this country needs. The regret motion also misrepresents the credit limit order. It sets a zero limit on the use of overseas carbon units for the fifth budgetary period. This is not a loophole. It is the opposite. We support this order because it sends a clear signal to investors. The UK's reductions will be delivered through domestic infrastructure and domestic supply chains not purchased on paper from elsewhere.

Support for this order will not obstruct us in pushing the government further to improve energy security for individuals and business. It is sensible for the government to keep open the option of joining the EU carbon budget border adjustment mechanism properly designed, this framework protects British industry from offshoring. Farmers need fair reward. Last year's harvest was one of the worst on record, costing arable farmers over 800 million. My party continues to call for an extra 1 billion a year for environmental land management schemes, so farmers can diversify into woodland creation and peatland restoration.

The government has the opportunity to implement a policy reset on electrification. Around 60% of the emissions reductions required by 2040 depend on EVs and heat pumps. Yet reports suggest the government may weaken the Zev mandate 2030 target from 80% down to as little as 50. That mandate is a single biggest carbon reduction lever this government holds, and I hope that the Minister can rule that out. UK heat pump sales are the lowest of 19 major European economies because of price.

The nature and climate crisis are conjoined. Tree planting and peatland restoration both need to double. More must be done to restore our habitats and fight the growing threat of wildfires. Labour's airport expansion plans to growth go well beyond targets by 2040. Aviation will be our single biggest emitting sector. Government plans seem incompetent, incompatible with that budget. My party oppose all airport expansion in the South East. My Lords, this country led the way in 2008 with the Climate Change Act.

76 other countries have since followed. The seventh carbon budget is in the Climate Change Committee's own words, the most credible and balanced option open to us. It will shield households and businesses from price shocks and increasingly volatile fossil fuel market and strengthen our energy security. We must not let short termism undermine the only path to cleaner, more secure and prosperous Britain. Our message to the government is you need to go further and faster. Don't do two people. Work with them, support them.

Help them to benefit from community energy. Fight for climate and nature. Adapt. Above all, bring down the cost of electricity which would do the most to put the transition within reach of every family and business. I welcome the citizen's panel. Their message is clear this transition must be equitable, affordable and fair. Government must do more to make it so.
20:43
Lord Whitehead Portrait Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
Hear, hear. >> Well, firstly, my Lords, let me thank noble Lords for their. It says here valuable contributions to this debate. I can't quite say that's something I could entirely endorse. And I can't quite get my mind around the sort of parallel universe that we seem to have been. At least some noble Lords present this evening seem to have been inhabiting, whilst making their points this evening, and I would. In terms of parallel universe, I would just draw noble Lords attention to a very significant speech that took place today, just a few hundred yards from this building, from the Secretary General of the United Nations, who made an impassioned speech on climate change and what we need to do about it, and how quickly we need to do things about it, and what we need to do, particularly on electrification and low carbon economies in London Climate Week.

And I would hope that noble Lords will go away this evening and look up that speech and have a look at it, because, among other things, it actually gives completely gives the lie to the idea that no one else in the world is terribly interested in this climate change business, but no one else is doing anything about it. That really what we are doing in terms of the activities that we're undertaking as far as climate change is concerned, is just blowing in the wind, but we're giving away our industries to other people who are going to take advantage of them.

When a number of the industries that they're talking about are industries that are actually sunset, industries that are being replaced by low carbon industries, which, if we're not careful, the rest of the world will run away with and actually overcome the advantages that we have at the moment in green industry, which we are doing very well in. And indeed, the green economy grew three times as fast as the general economy in the last few years. And the people who live in this fantasy parallel world appear to say that none of that counts.

None of the fact that we are. We are making tremendous changes in terms of the low carbon economy and how the the energy is distributed in that low carbon economy, not just in terms of the fact that this is a good thing in climate change purposes, but it actually will bring people's bills down in the long term, that the energy that we are using is going to use is inevitably a cheaper and more affordable and less volatile and more stable than the energy that we are using at the moment.

And indeed, that that will produce a very large number of jobs. £100 billion in green investment coming into this country over the last 2 or 3 years, and none of that appears to have any effect whatsoever on the parallel facts that are put forward in, in, in, in support of those debates. And indeed, the noble Lord Frost appeared to be saying that people are moving away and the rest of the world from action on climate. And I can tell him that I was a an international meeting this morning where people from around the world were standing up and saying what they were doing about this, how committed they are to a low carbon future, and how important it is for their own countries and for the world as a whole, that we actually continue to go down this particular path.

So the context in which the climate budget is being set has to be set in that real world of facts and information about where our world is going and what we need to do to make sure that it doesn't go in the direction that it appears to be going at the moment, rather than quite a lot of what we heard this evening about why all of this is a waste of time. And I would, I'm afraid, single out the noble Lord Redwood in this respect.

You really can't make a serious case that because we can't completely know the future, therefore we should do nothing whatsoever about it and just hope that the market somehow sorts it out. We. We have got to take action. We have got. And we did indeed take action with the setting of the. As the noble Lord, the Lord demon mentioned this evening with that Climate Change Act, which was carried by everybody in the Commons for five people, and I can name them if you want to.

Yes, indeed. One noble Lord Lily is with us this evening, as at least I can say that the noble Lord, the noble Lord Lily, is consistent that he. He didn't sign it in the first place, and I don't think if he had the opportunity to sign it now, he would actually go and sign it again. However, that Climate Change Act, which requires us legally to carry out these carbon budget examinations, sets up the Climate Change Committee to advise us on the science behind the whole proceedings and tells us what we need to be doing, not just now, but in a number of years in the future.

So we've got time in terms of policy to make up what we're going to be doing to match what is required in those carbon budgets. We have that that legal obligation to do this because we pass that Climate Change Act together in the in in that particular year. And that has stood us very in very good stead in my belief. It has directed what this country tries to do without actually telling us what we do in detailed policy.

And some of the discussions this evening appear to have set up what the government appears to be going to do and then have said, well, we don't like it very much. No, the government is not going to go round shooting cows and and rounding up livestock and slaughtering them. The government is actually going to do what it is doing now, and putting indeed £5 billion, investing over two years in farming, largest amount that has happened for a long time on sustainable food production and nature's recovery in this country's history.

And alongside that, the government is actively exploring ways to reduce livestock related greenhouse gas emissions, including through scientific research on mitigation strategies and management feed such as the increasing adoption of methane suppressing food products and breeding. There are many alternative ways of making sure that agriculture and land use plays its part in climate change emission reductions. Without the straw man that some of the opponents of climate change action seem to have set up in this chamber, and that is that the government is somehow going to chase livestock out of the country in order to meet climate change restrictions.

So in order to produce alternative theories, then I'm afraid you do need alternative facts. You also need, for example, not as the the impact assessment alongside this carbon budget. Publication points out. And by the way, I always advise noble Lords to go to impact assessments if they want to know the truth about what is happening on any piece of legislation. What the impact assessment points out, among other things, is a fairly exact examination of the costs of doing nothing, as opposed to the costs of doing something.

And this has been a long standing theme. But the University of Cambridge, for example, estimates that climate damage will reduce global GDP by up to 24% under a high emissions scenario by 2100 and pages of other information about the costs of doing nothing, as opposed to the cost of doing something. And that is indeed what my noble friend the Lord hunt underlined, that the regret motions that we have in front of us are big on things that are not like very much tiny to insignificant on what, if anything, to do about it.

And indeed you have a responsibility if you don't like what is being done now to say what should be done. Alternatively or alternatively, if you don't like, say, the climate change legislation, stand up and say that and say what else you're going to do instead. Or, as some hon. Members have said, just deny the whole thing is an issue and have an alternative universe of facts to try and underpin that. Now, I'm conscious I'm going to have to write to a number of a number of a number of noble Lords for the specific issues, but I thought it was necessary to actually put what we are doing tonight in the right context.

And what we are doing tonight is making

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sure that our futures are secure in this way. Before the noble Lord sits down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble Lord sits down. I'm grateful for the opportunity to ask. I asked two specific questions relating to these orders. One is relating to these orders. One is about the timing of the update to the valuations for carbon, and the second is whether the noble or the Minister would reconsider the faulty basis on which I think they're calculated. And if he doesn't have answers today, would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doesn't have answers today, would he commit to write here? Yes, indeed. The noble Lord makes those points which I have taken well on board. Question of. Carbon pricing, of course, is a long standing issue as far as carbon valuation is concerned. But I certainly will write to the noble Lord about the particular points he raises as soon as possible.
20:54
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I disagree with the >> My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, the Minister, on one thing that I do think this was a valuable debate. I thought that valuable debate. I thought that contributions from every member of your Lordships House this evening have been helpful and constructive. I don't think it's been, to quote him, a waste of time. I don't think anybody who spoke this evening wasted anybody's time. There is cross-party recognition of the importance of addressing these issues, of addressing the carbon order, of addressing climate change.

The question to this evening before us is about the Carbon Budget Order 2026, and he's completely right to say that we should be addressing this in the context of the impact assessment, which he considers the Minister considers this evening, shows us the truth. He is completely right to have identified that importance. And everything in my speech related to that this evening, everything. And I have to say to my noble friend Lord deben, that the public and our grandchildren will never forgive us if we destroy our economy with high energy prices.

That is a real concern across this chamber. And we currently have electricity prices that are four times higher than the United States. And that is the issue that we need to address. And what the impact assessment shows us this evening is that the prices will go even higher if we follow these measures. Now, finally, conclude by saying this to the conclude by saying this to the noble Lord, Lord hunt. He shares with me one factor that neither of us is real concern, though, and I think it's cross-party concern with what is being proposed.

I mean, Tony Blair has said that the net zero policies which are being pushed forward are viewed as unaffordable, ineffective and politically toxic. The GMB Gary Smith, who is absolutely all over these issues, has recently said that the policies being pursued by the government are economic madness and I quote even the unite union. The large unite union says no ban without a plan and I think these are worthy of consideration, these points, because the North Sea issue is very important.

I know everybody may have been distracted by Macclesfield, but there was an important referendum which was effectively being undertaken in the constituency of Aberdeen South, which was overwhelmingly won by the conservative candidate. And it was an overwhelming rejection of both the measures that are in this climate change carbon budget order and the current government's policy, which is referred to in here to the North Sea. I just say in closing that it is, I have to say, important for all of us to recognise that there is a universal position across this House that we have to get policy right, and we cannot afford to damage our economy, irreparably damage our economy through a zealotry on net zero, which goes too fast, too far, too early, and jeopardises our economic recovery and the key underlying policy of the government with which we agree with which is economic growth.

I do not think this does this. I think the impact assessment is fundamentally flawed. I think, not least on the important point of CCS, which is, interestingly enough, one point which was criticised criticised by my noble friend Lord deben on CSE. It's one of the three fundamental pillars on which the whole of this is based. And so with those concluding comments and with my gratitude to everybody who has contributed to this debate, which I think has been valuable, I seek to test the will of the House.
20:58
None Portrait Division
-

Yeah. name of Lord Moynihan, be agreed to, as many of our opinions say, content. The contrary is not content. The contrary is not content consent. The question will be decided by division. I will advise the House when voting is advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the Taking Taking my Taking my car. Taking my car. Although Taking my car. Although I was worried about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question. My Lords, the question is that the amendment in the name of Lord Moynihan be agreed to as many of that opinion say, content. The country is not content content. The content will go to the content. The content will go to the right by the throne. They're not content to the left by the bar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And And not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And not be And not be agreed And not be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And not be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the original motion, as amended, be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to as many as that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. What?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What? I'll put the question again. The question is that the original motion be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content to content, not content. The contents content, not content. The contents have it. Regulations 2022. Climate have it. Regulations 2022. Climate Change Act 2008. Credit Limit Order 2026. Lord Whitehead. Move formally. The question is that this motion be agreed to. Amendment. Lord Moynihan not moved. The question is that the original motion be agreed to.

As many as that opinion will say content contrary, not content the contents have. It will have a short Employment Employment Tribunal extension employment tribunal, extension of time limits, miscellaneous amendments and Transitional Provisions Regulations 2026. Lord Young.
21:11
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. noble Lords will want to join me in wishing the England team good luck and all the very best wishes for tonight's matches. My Lords, I beg to move that the House approves the draft Employment Tribunal extension of time limits, miscellaneous amendments and Transitional Provisions Regulations 2026 and the Draft Employment Tribunals extension of Jurisdiction England and Wales Amendment Order 2026. I note the regret motion tabled by the noble Lord hunt, and I will address the points the noble Lord has raised.

For context, these instruments were laid before Parliament on the 28th of April and approved by the other place today. Their purpose is straightforward to extend the time for bringing certain employment tribunal claims from 3 to 6 months. The draft Employment Tribunal extension of time limits, miscellaneous amendments and Transitional Provisions Regulations 2026 apply across Great Britain. The Draft Employment Tribunals extension of Jurisdiction England and Wales Amendment Order 2026 applies to England and Wales, subject to the approval of this House.

Both instruments will come into force on 1st of October this year. My Lords, I've turned first to the regret motion. It raises concerns about the current capacity of the employment tribunal system, and the possibility that a longer claims window could place further pressure on it. Let me assure the noble Lord that these issues have been carefully considered. We fully recognise the pressures faced by the employment tribunal system and the wider dispute resolution framework, including a growing caseload. That is why we are working across government to ensure the system is resilient and able to support the effective enforcement of measures introduced under the Employment Act, employment Rights Act.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice have established a dispute resolution task force. It brings together representatives from business trade union, the legal profession and the third sector. We are pursuing a combination of immediate targeted measures and longer term reforms. Together, these are intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. We are taking a phased approach with several measures already under way. This programme of reform will continue at pace to ensure the Employment Tribunal system has the capacity it needs for the future.

The noble Lord also raised concerns that, along the claims window could prolong disputes and put greater pressure on the system. The current three month limit was originally introduced when employment tribunals were intended to offer a quicker, more informal route to resolving workplace disputes. However, demand has increased significantly. Experience has shown that three months is often insufficient for claimants to prepare a robust case, a point the Law Commission recognised in 2020, extending the time limit to six months strike a better balance.

It preserves the principle of timely resolution, while providing claimants with a realistic opportunity to prepare their case. Better prepared claims should improve the quality of proceedings, reduce the need for applications to extend time limits and allow judicial resources to be focused more effectively on delivering justice. Turning now to the instruments itself. First, the Draft Employment Tribunal extension of time limits, miscellaneous amendments and Transitional Provisions Regulations 2026 extend the time limit from 3 to 6 months for a range of workplace rights.

This includes rights for part time workers, fixed term employer employees, zero hour contracts, information and consultation representatives, negotiating representatives, trade union blacklists and certain NHS related protections. The regulations will apply where the relevant workplace issue arises on or after 1st October 2026. If the issue arose before that date, the existing three month limit will continue to apply. Secondly, the employment tribunals extension of Jurisdiction England and Wales Amendment Order 2026 extends the time limit for bringing employment tribunal claims for breach of contract or sums due under a contract of employment from three months to six months.

This order applies only to England and Wales. It does not extend to Scotland because the power to amend the equivalent Scottish regulation legislation rests with Scottish Ministers, not the UK government. We are working closely with the Scottish Government to ensure a corresponding corresponding change in Scotland. We expect the change to take effect in mid November 2026. Clear guidance will be issued to ensure that individuals and employers in Scotland understand the temporary difference in time limits. The order will apply where the termination given rise to a breach of contract claims, occurs on or after 1st October 2026, where the contract was terminated before that date.

The current three month time limit will continue to apply. These instruments are necessary to ensure consistency with the changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. They also align these claims with the existing six month limits that apply to statutory redundancy and equal pay claims. Without these changes, my Lords, the system would become unnecessarily complex for employees and employers alike and would create additional administrative burdens. My Lords, in closing, these measures will give both employees and employers more time to resolve disputes internally, to engage in conciliation, and to properly consider the merits of bringing a claim.

This is particularly important in sensitive cases, where individuals may need extra time before deciding how to proceed. By encouraging better preparation and greater use of early resolution processes, these changes may help ease pressure on the employment tribunal system. I hope noble Lords will support these instruments and the wider programme of reform that sits behind them. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. This motion be agreed to. Amendment. Lord Hunt of Wirral.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. Lord Hunt of Wirral. My Lords, may I start by echoing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, may I start by echoing the noble Lord the Minister's wish for every possible success tonight for every possible success tonight for the English team, and also may I declare my own interests as set I declare my own interests as set out in the Register. In particular as a partner in the global commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft, and also as an honorary bencher of the Inner Temple. My Lords, I beg to move the regret motion in my name and let me explain why.

The latest official statistics show that in 2025, 26 employment tribunals received 5000 single claims but disposed of only 26,000. At the end of March, there were 64,000 open single claims, a rise of 53% to 55% in a year. Behind those figures are people who have lost a job, suffered discrimination, not been paid wages or raised concerns at work. There are also employers, too often small businesses left with disputes that cannot be resolved promptly and with witnesses, documents and regulatory recollections becoming less reliable as time passes.

In many instances, small businesses in particular are being forced to live under the shadow of vexatious claims claims without merit that any effective system or triage of triage would filter out in no time at all. There is now evidence of
21:19
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
cases in some areas being listed for hearings as late as 2030. This for hearings as late as 2030. This is a warning that in all parts of the country, access to an employment tribunal is ceasing to mean access to justice within any meaningful period. Now, the Constitution Committee of your Lordships House anticipated Lordships House anticipated precisely this concern during consideration of the Employment Rights Bill. It noted the government's own assessment that there was already a backlog with waits of about a year, and that extending time limits was uncertain, but likely to add pressure.

The committee said, and I quote, a potential increase in the number of claims seeking redress in employment tribunals, combined with the extension applicable time limits could have a significant impact on the existing backlogs in the employment tribunals and therefore on the constitutional principle of access to justice. That conclusion is not the view of opponents of the government's programme. It is the government's own assessment, and it accepts that the effects of extending time limits are uncertain, but likely to add further pressure to a system that's already had weights of around a year.

It estimates additional claims and recognises that unless capacity rises, the practical benefit of these new rights will be reduced. Why? Why is this taken so long? Why was there no credible, funded and operational plan for employment tribunal capacity before the bill was even introduced? Why were Ministers content to legislate first and ask the most basic implementation questions later? Now the government will surely point to consultation with businesses, other stakeholders, employee representatives. Of course, such engagement is welcome, but it's also revealing when the government is now seeking views on how to make these changes work in practice.

The obvious question was why on earth was that work not done before Parliament was asked to enact them? Indeed, the explanatory memorandum makes clear that there was no new consultation on these regulations. The government instead relies on a Law Commission consultation conducted in 2018 and 2019 on a different context, before the current scale of pressure on the tribunal system had emerged. So, my Lords, this goes to priorities. The Employment Rights Act contains a substantial programme of new rights, duties and protections for trade unions.

Ministers found urgency, legislative time and administrative energy for those provisions. Yet the machinery that permits an individual worker to vindicate an existing right, the tribunal system was left without an equivalent plan for capacity, speed or access to advice. So we on these benches remain skeptical. But let's for the short debate, take the government at its word. Let us assume these measures will indeed confer genuine, valuable, much needed protections. Even then, the government's case collapses. Unless those protections can be enforced, a right that cannot be vindicated within a reasonable time is not a right.

So I just say to the noble Lord, the Minister, we really do need some answers as to what the solution should be. When the government made these choices. Why was so much effort devoted to strengthening the institutions that speak for workers, and yet so little to strengthening the system through which workers actually enforce their rights? So many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

questions. We await the answers. The original question was that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that the regulations laid before the House on 28th April be approved, since when an amendment has been since when an amendment has been moved by Lord Hunter will, at the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to. Apologies to the Deputy Speaker. My Lords, I to the Deputy Speaker. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord hunt for getting the old team together.

I was missing the Employment Rights Bill. It had been such an important part of my life and so it is always
21:24
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
good to, to, to to get a refresh. My Lord. UK Employment Tribunal waiting times. The point that that waiting times. The point that that the noble Lord hunt touched on a 2026 analysis based on published decisions, estimates an average of about 17 months for unfair dismissal cases in England and Wales, and a slightly better 14 months in Scotland. In some cases, months in Scotland. In some cases, the BBC reports that claimants in England and Wales have had to wait even longer, much longer than that at tribunal delays vary a lot by the case type and whether a case is single or multiple.

Similarly simpler unfair dismissal cases obviously are faster than discrimination or whistleblower cases, which tend to have longer hearings and require more evidence. There is also regional diversity. As I've pointed out, Scotland appears to be materially faster than England and Wales. And I wonder, can the Minister explain why that is the case and what is Scotland doing that's significantly better, although still taking longer than it should overall? My Lords, the the the the noble Lord pointed about is the system resilient and able to sustain this change? I think it's fair to say that this doesn't look like a resilient system.

It looks like a system that's been stretched to or beyond breaking point. Now, I'm very pleased to hear the Minister say that, that the Joint Task Force is beginning to take to take some or offer some some measures. He didn't go into details as to what those measures are. The noble Lord hunt talked about triage and triage would be a really sensible way of starting to sift cases and to, to, to, to file them in the right way and improve the workflow through the, the, the tribunals we have has analysis been done of the current waiting list to, to identify what the, what the sticking points are and, and how they might be relieved.

And are some tribunals better than others? Is there a league table going on and what extra resources have already been been been allocated and what can be allocated. The noble Lord said that the that the task force was working at pace, which is a phrase that we all know we should avoid. So I do, and I'm sure it was an accidental point. So overall, my Lords, this this regret motion is less about the actual measures that it's seeking to regret and more about concern about the tribunal.

And. And as the noble Lord hunt pointed out during the Employment Rights Bill, we talked a lot about the tribunal, and I said that once a case goes to a tribunal, both the employer and the employee are already in a losing hand. They're already in a losing position. Justice delayed and delayed a long time. Is justice denied both, both for the employer and the employee. So? So I hope the Minister can, can, can address the actual issues that we've raised, which I would say to, to, to, to your Lordships have very little to do with the actual Statutory Instruments in front of us.

And of course, the regret motion is merely a device that the noble Lord hunt has has played to make sure we miss football, and I can point out that the England team are still nil nil, and I wish them very best wishes and I wish the Minister speed in his response.
21:28
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Well, firstly, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and I respect their very thoughtful and I respect their very thoughtful contributions. Let me address the point that the noble Lord made about the review of section ten. The noble Lord is absolutely right. I mean, we are committed to the review of section ten of the Employment Relations Act, 1999, and I'm sure that we will update the House on that in due course. But I cannot say more at this stage. Let me address the issue of the dispute Resolution task Force.

My Lords, the government are considering reform measures from early resolution to enforcement to ensure that the system is more efficient and resilient itself, and task force expertise will help. As, as I mentioned earlier, is made up of representatives from across the various stakeholders, and all that will help inform government to develop these reform measures itself. We are working on a mix of both more immediate, targeted measures intended to reduce the current pressures and the longer term, more ambitious reforms designed to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and the resilience of the system itself.

So we intend to use a phased approach rather than sort of doing everything in one go, and will work on some of these measures already in train, such as targeted awareness raising, raising to reduce workplace conflict. The government is continuing to invest in recruitment to build the employment tribunal capacity. New salaried employment judges will be sitting from this summer, and recruitment is underway for up to 55 employment judges, who will add capacity from 2027. In addition to that, My Lords recruitment for up to 150 non-legal members will also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conclude this year. So we are adding capacity to it And we are recruiting as as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And we are recruiting as as a stands today for 2020 627. The Employment Tribunal has been funded for 34,590 sitting days, and this for 34,590 sitting days, and this is more than has been utilised in each of the last 12 financial years, each of the last 12 financial years, up to 2425 remote hearings are expanding through a virtual region, enabling around something like 20,000 sitting days annually without geographical limits. My Lords, as noble Lords would know, the Employment Rights Act itself.

One of the key points of the act is the establishment of the Fair Work Agency, so the Fair Work Agency will now enforce rules including the national minimum wage. In time. It will also enforce additional rights, including holiday pay and easing pressure on employment tribunals. So from 2027, the Fair Work Agency will enforce key rights. Like I said earlier, holiday pay, statutory sick pay to make enforcement faster and more accessible for workers. So and we are working on a mix of both immediate, targeted measures intended to reduce current pressures and more targeted, longer term, more ambitious reforms designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system.

The government's long term view, or longer term view includes looking at opportunities for the Fair Work Agency to take on enforcement, where that would help both workers and businesses reach resolution more quickly before or without needing to go on to the employment tribunal. So with all this in place, we hope to see a reduction in some of the case load that we currently experience. My Lord, in closing, I would like to reiterate the positive impact that these regulations will have for employees and employers and our ongoing reforms to reform the employment tribunal system so that it's more resilient in to any future changes.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords are back to move. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox. We are speaking, as we did several times during the course of the Employment Rights Bill, with of the Employment Rights Bill, with one voice and the voice tonight is has met with a response from the Minister that still requires a whole range of actions to be taken, whole range of actions to be taken, and I would like to join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in recommending that everything possible should be done to resolve disputes at an earlier stage.

This is the key. Rather than overloading an already existing system that is creaking under pressure. Although I know that tribunals are determined to try and meet the problems of a overreliance and overcapacity. Can I just say two things about early resolution? I am troubled that there are discussions taking place as to the lack of resources for Acas. Now. Acas could hold a great deal of. Would provide a great deal of opportunity for early resolution and can I also just say that I do recall, I think it was the noble Lord Fox who pressed for it, or one of his colleagues, a review of section ten that, including the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary and grievance hearings.

Now, given the the pressure on the employment tribunal system, does the Minister not agree? And perhaps he might write to me about this, that better support for employees at an earlier stage may prevent some workplace disputes. Escalating unnecessarily. If he could at least indicate to us at some stage, perhaps in correspondence, how a review of that whole mechanism could proceed. But lots of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunities I hope to resolve. Yes, of course. But I was planning to write a letter on that very subject because letter on that very subject because I felt that it wasn't necessarily due in this debate. So there is a letter heading on right to a letter heading on right to a company in your direction. So I appreciate you raising that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Another demonstration that the opposition speaks with one voice, and it's now up to the Minister to answer. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment by leave withdrawn. The question is the original motion, as many of that opinion will say, content not content. The contents content not content. The contents have it. Employment tribunals. Extension of jurisdiction. England and Wales amendment order 2026. and Wales amendment order 2026. Lord young move formally, the question is that this motion be agreed to as many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents have it. Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
14:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Adequacy of legal protections for ancient trees
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page