Tax Burden and Economic Growth
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(3Â weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord is now an independent, I believe, so he will ask his question and be followed by the Cross Benches.
Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(3Â weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Regulations and Orders laid before the House on 13 July be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 14 September. Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(3Â weeks, 1Â day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(3Â weeks, 1Â day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Grand Committee do consider the Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to these regulations, I will speak also to the Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026 and the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026. These statutory instruments make certain changes to the electoral system in Northern Ireland. They will make participation in elections more accessible to more people in Northern Ireland, and will bring certain rules governing Northern Ireland elections closer in line with those in Great Britain.
The first instrument updates the list of permissible forms of ID that can be used by voters at polling stations at parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. The second instrument makes identical changes to the list for local elections in Northern Ireland. The third instrument will uprate expenditure limits for candidates standing in local elections in Northern Ireland to reflect rising costs due to inflation; an equivalent uplift in the spending limit for reserved elections in Great Britain and for UK Parliament and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland was approved by Parliament in 2023.
Before I proceed further, I draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip for the local elections draft order, which corrects a minor typographical error. In the last paragraph on page 1, the words “on Him section” have been amended to “on Him by section”. This refers to Section 84 of the Northern Ireland Act, which allows Northern Ireland’s local election rules to be amended by Order in Council, and “Him” refers in this context to His Majesty the King—one would have thought that would be slightly more polite than “Him”.
I turn to the specifics of the first and second instruments. The documents being added to the list of acceptable IDs that can be used by voters at polling stations are a Commonwealth passport, a Proof of Age Standards Scheme card, an HM Armed Forces veteran card and a blue badge from the disabled person’s parking scheme in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. These forms of ID are already accepted at polling stations in the rest of Great Britain. Adding to the list of acceptable IDs will support participation in elections for a range of people in Northern Ireland. The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission are both supportive of this change.
It is vital to ensure that those who cast their vote are eligible to do so. Photographic ID is an important step in the process of protecting this important principle of elections and maintaining trust in Northern Ireland’s electoral institutions and processes. Producing photographic ID at polling stations has been a requirement in Northern Ireland elections for more than 20 years. It is a well-understood, established part of voting. The list of acceptable IDs in Northern Ireland has historically been more restrictive than the list in Great Britain and is updated less frequently. Expanding the list of acceptable ID will remove barriers to voting and support more people in Northern Ireland—including some of the most vulnerable in society—to participate in our democracy, while retaining important security measures.
I will now set out in more detail the measure in the third instrument relating to uprating local election candidate expenditure. This draft order will uprate the spending limits for candidates in Northern Ireland’s local elections. The limit will increase from £600 plus 5p per elector registered to vote in the district electoral area in which they are standing to £960 plus 8p per elector registered to vote in the district electoral area. This will bring the spending limit in Northern Ireland into line with the spending limits for local elections in England. The current spending limits in Northern Ireland have remained unchanged since 2005. Consequently, candidates contesting local elections face a disadvantage as compared with those contesting parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. They are also at a disadvantage as compared with those contesting local elections in England, where spending limits were uprated in 2023.
Democracy relies upon the ability of political parties, candidates and other campaigners to communicate their views, so that voters can make an informed decision. The current limit means that local election candidates in Northern Ireland are restricted by lower real-terms spending on their campaign, which impacts on their ability to communicate with voters. The Electoral Commission has been consulted on these changes, in line with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s statutory duty, and is supportive of the new measures.
In conclusion, these draft instruments are necessary to support more people in Northern Ireland to participate in and engage with our democracy. Expanding the list of acceptable voter IDs is an important step in updating electoral processes to reflect the modern electorate in Northern Ireland, while preserving the additional security features that are essential to maintain trust in Northern Ireland’s electoral system. Uprating local election campaign spending limits will ensure that those limits remain aligned in real terms with the original limits set by Parliament.
I hope that, following my setting out of the details of these statutory instruments, the Committee will support them. I beg to move.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, there was me thinking we were just going to talk about elections in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I immediately confess that one of my ministerial responsibilities is for elections in Northern Ireland. Given the imminent elections, I think that in part answers some of the questions about the timing and further reviews that we may need to undertake. We have an urgency before us to make sure that there is a level playing field for the elections that are about to happen.
I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful consideration and input today. I want to take this opportunity to provide some further detail on some of the points that have been raised. I start with the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, on electoral fraud. He asked several questions; I will have to reflect on some of them and come back to him. On the breakdown of veterans’ cards and the number of veterans who likely to use this form of ID as well as wider forms of ID, that information is not published. We are not sure whether it is collected by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, but I shall ask and write to the noble Lord with a follow-up.
The issue of absentee voting was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Weir.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
Just to clarify, although I raised the issue in relation to the veteran card, it was in reference all four forms of identification. I appreciate that the Minister probably does not have the figures in relation to those to hand, but perhaps she could write to me on them.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Absolutely; it is about take-up as well as who is likely to have access to those pieces of ID.
On absentee voting, Northern Ireland security checks are among the most stringent in the whole of the UK. As in the rest of the UK, applications are checked to ensure that the name, address and national insurance number of the applicant are valid. Requiring a digital registration number means a further level of security that does not exist elsewhere; I hope that that is reassuring to the noble Lord, Lord Weir, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie.
Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, touched on the potential issue of electoral fraud. The Government, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Electoral Commission are all clear that there is no current evidence of organised electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. Research commissioned by the Electoral Commission following the 2024 general election suggested that public confidence in the electoral system is growing, but this does not mean that we should not always be vigilant about current initiatives—especially as the use of technologies develops—and about what people can and cannot access.
On the addition of new IDs and communication, my noble friend Lady Ritchie was absolutely right about making sure that people have enough time to know what is coming in front of them. I assure her that the Government have been working closely with the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission on these changes. They will publicise the changes in their literature and voter information campaigns. This is why it is so important that we do these SIs now: so that both voters and future candidates are aware of the changes that are in front of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked whether any other ID documents are being considered. The Government have not seen any demands or had any requests for additional pieces of identification, so we have not considered any and dismissed them. However, as and when other forms of ID appear, we will keep electoral legislation under constant review in case there is additional demand.
The noble Lord also mentioned postal ballots and their reissue. Given my ministerial responsibilities, I would very much welcome the opportunity to have a meeting with the noble Lord to discuss what can and cannot be done in that space.
The noble Lord, Lord Caine, raised two issues—well, more than two, but I will come on to his last one right at the end. On ID for voters at 16, we will consider what measures in the system may need to be updated to ensure that 16 and 17 year-olds are able to vote at polling stations in Northern Ireland as the legislation that is currently being discussed in the Chamber progresses through your Lordships’ House.
On a change to make bank cards eligible voter ID, let me be clear that there are no plans for that to happen in Northern Ireland, given the wider context; the noble Lord will know that context well, and the Committee will be aware of the specific challenges that we have faced in Northern Ireland. There has been a requirement to show photographic ID in Northern Ireland since 2003; this is not the same as the requirement in England. The voter ID system in Northern Ireland is well established, and the Electoral Commission agrees that it is well understood and trusted.
I want briefly to touch on some other issues before I come on to the really easy question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Caine. On the cost of where we are, many Members of your Lordships’ House have, I think, stood for election. It is very easy to underestimate printing costs, especially if you use a trade union printer—as you should—in order to ensure that there are appropriate terms and conditions and that payments are paid to the people actually doing the printing. That has to be reflected in the cost of what we are doing.
Noble Lords raised videos on social media and the demands that are on all of us. Some of these things are mitigating election campaigns, especially for those who are standing not as independents. However, inflationary costs need to be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, rightly raised how much these costs have gone up and the cost increases that we are allowing. These allowances have not been uprated since 2005. Although this is a significant one-off hitch, we need to keep this under review. However, it is important to get the figures done now.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
That is precisely my point. I do not argue with the need to uprate them, for the reasons that the Minister has set out, but why has it taken so long? Why has it been 21 years since there was any change in these limits, given the massive increase in costs that there has been? Can she give a guarantee that, as with the forms of identity, costs will be kept under periodic review and that we will not go for another 20 years without any change in the spending limits?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
It is very easy for me to say “yes” from this Dispatch Box, so I will. There is an issue about how the limits have not been uprated in that time. However, we have been very clear that, in advance of next year’s elections, the uprating must come into effect. This is the first requirement of this Government to ensure that there is a level playing field for elections.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, raised an important issue about foreign money in elections. The Rycroft review has made significant recommendations on this, all of which the Government have accepted. There is always, as with everything else, a Northern Ireland element to it. I look forward to having discussions with the noble Lord about it as this continues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, raised adding new ID. This is under constant review regarding any new request for ID. We will review as circumstances change and as people use ID in different ways, not least on their phones rather than as physical ID. She also asked an interesting question about the devolution of local government in Northern Ireland. I would prefer to get through next year’s elections before we talk about what comes next but, given the priorities of the Prime Minister, we will undoubtedly have these conversations about what devolution in England means for the rest of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Caine, raised an important point on the canvass and the NIA response. I have not had advice on this yet but I expect to and I look forward to discussing it with him. I will write to him with that view. On the constitutional settlement of the status of Northern Ireland, President Trump is entitled to his opinion, as is everybody else, but there is no evidence to suggest that the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to separate from the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister is personally committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, as am I. The noble Lord will be aware, as we all are, that the only mechanism for a border poll is determined under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
On that easy, cheerful note—I loved the news at the weekend—I know that all noble Lords agree that encouraging participation in our democracy is paramount. I hope that the Committee agree that these instruments enable us to ensure the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland by maintaining the safeguards that are already in place while ensuring that the system adapts and keeps pace with modern practices. I am therefore pleased to be able to introduce these measures.
International Financial Fraud
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(3Â weeks, 1Â day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress in combatting international financial fraud they hope to make during their two-year presidency of the Financial Action Task Force.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK assumed the presidency of the Financial Action Task Force in July and has made tackling fraud its key priority. Under UK leadership, FATF is developing practical steps to help countries prevent, detect and disrupt fraud, particularly scams linked to organised crime groups operating across borders. This work will also focus on strengthening co-operation between Governments, law enforcement, banks, technology companies and online platforms.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I am glad that the British Government are taking the lead in combating international financial fraud and money laundering, particularly now that cryptocurrency and its problems are so much in our minds. I note that one of the Government’s priorities as president is improving information sharing. The British Government are responsible for a large number of Crown dependencies and overseas territories, many of which are offshore financial centres. They do not share information fully, and I note that the British Virgin Islands, for example, are on the FATF’s grey list, which deals with countries with strategic deficiencies in efforts to prevent fraud and money laundering. What do the Government intend to do to make sure that our leadership against financial fraud includes making sure that our overseas territories and Crown dependencies are up to the mark?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point. The overseas territories and Crown dependencies are committed to meeting international standards on tax transparency, anti-money laundering and illicit finance. They have committed to introducing publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership, going beyond international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force and putting them ahead of most jurisdictions. The UK Government respect their constitutional autonomy on domestic tax matters while supporting the implementation of these commitments, including through technical assistance and engagement with organisations such as Open Ownership. The overseas territories and Crown dependencies are also independent members of FATF and therefore are subject to those standards that are set out. They have committed to combating financial crime in their relevant jurisdictions.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as a former Minister for the Overseas Territories, I worked closely with our OTs. Many of them represent the best of British and we should stand by and support them. They operated a scheme of exchange of notes, which allowed for legal authorities and tax authorities to get through. Can the Minister reassure me that overseas territories that need support will be supported by His Majesty’s Treasury? Some do not require a SAMLA register: Tristan da Cunha does great lobster, but it is not a centre for financial services. Can the Minister reassure me that we will look at this tactfully and strategically?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I will have to take the noble Lord’s word for it on whether the lobster is any good; being Jewish, it is not really something I would have tried. However, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Where our Crown dependencies require our support, they will get it. Where it is not appropriate for them to operate in that space, it would seem a tad illogical for us to deploy resources in that way.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend encourage positive engagement with the draft international anti-corruption treaty during our presidency?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
How could I say anything other to my noble friend than yes, of course?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister may have seen the RUSI paper published in July by Veronica Stratford-Tuke on the UK’s efforts on anti-money laundering, counterterrorism financing and the risks. It says:
“The UK does not appear to have appropriate mechanisms to work through trade-offs between its financial crime risks and competing political objectives”.
Will the noble Baroness acknowledge that that is a problem and see that there is a problem in the Financial Services and Markets Bill, given that it is a Bill to deregulate the financial sector and aim to grow it?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I have seen the report. I disagree with the noble Baroness’s suggestion that we would prioritise political decision-making. Let me just touch on what the Government have done. In terms of fraud action, there are 400 new specialist investigators at the national fraud squad. We have established the National Cyber Security Centre and its early warning service. We have established the Online Crime Centre with the NCA as a public/private initiative. The measures in the Online Safety Act to protect against fraud are now being fully implemented. We have funded the UN and Interpol’s Global Fraud Summit. This Government are doing more than just talking; we are taking action.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, about two or three years ago, FATF removed Cambodia from the risk list. Cambodia is widely seen as one of the most corrupt countries in Asia and is one of the major sources of fraud and scams globally. Given that decision, does the noble Baroness think FATF is fit for purpose?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord will know better than I do that FATF assesses every country, including ours. Where there are concerns, it puts in place an action plan to make sure that people are fully compliant with their commitments under the standards of FATF. Given that we are now the global president for the next two years, I would very much believe us to be fit for purpose.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, stopping the money laundering means stopping the enablers. Will the Government rethink their legislation to transfer from professional bodies to the FCA the direct AML supervision of professional firms? Have they now recognised that the FCA lacks the resources and the expertise but, worst of all, that it has no capacity to provide the myriad small firms with adequate support rather than general guidance, thereby creating huge loopholes?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Baroness’s expertise in this area and, while I understand her concerns, the Government do not share them. We have invested a significant amount, not least through the economic crime levy, to protect against AML, which includes an extra £110 million per annum.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, according to a former Minister, 40% of global illicit financial flows pass through the UK, its Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Can the Minister explain why UK Governments continue to fail to curb the flow of illicit financial funds?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord—my noble friend rather, although maybe not based on that question—has significant expertise in this area. While I appreciate his concern, this is of course something that the Government take very seriously, which is one reason why we have been elected to chair the FATF presidency for the next two years. It is also why we are taking action on anti-money laundering and in the fraud space. We are very aware that 47% of all crime in England and Wales is through fraud and we are working to protect the victims of this crime.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, fighting financial fraud is very important, but it imposes huge costs on honest and reputable businesses without always catching the criminals. How do the Government gauge whether regulations and their enforcement, which she described so graphically, are proportionate?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I occasionally agree with the noble Baroness, and in this instance, I find that I do. One of the issues here, though, is the wider cost of fraud to UK plc: it is currently ÂŁ14 billion a year. While I appreciate the concern about the impact on individual companies, the reality is that there were 6 million attempted frauds in the UK last year, 80% of them were online and 70% had an international dimension. I appreciate the concern, and there is a reason we have been very targeted in the economic crime levy about who is paying for it, but there is a genuine issue here that is undermining us in every corner of the economy.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I raised this last week, talking about the billions of pounds in fraud. Can the Minister kindly tell me when they are going to recover the millions of pounds of fraud from the noble Baroness, Lady Mone?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend will be aware that there are current, ongoing legal cases, so I cannot comment on an individual case.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I want to return to the question of the overseas territories, recognising the difference between Tristan da Cunha and the Cayman Islands, other than merely the question of lobsters. I speak as a member of the Constitution Committee, where we have urged the overseas territories time and again to come up with bilateral compacts, recognising the differences between the territories and allowing us to judge progress or otherwise in each of them according to their own lights. The slowness of reports coming forward is proverbial, and I wonder if my noble friend the Minister can inject some energy into that process.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend is aware that I tend to inject energy everywhere I go, so I will endeavour to do so here. There are two issues, one of which is about the role of FATF, which undertakes a review of every jurisdiction, as I said. There is a responsibility on us too, but I will have to write to the noble Lord about where we are with the bilateral conversations.
Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(3Â weeks, 1Â day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Grand Committee do consider the Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026.
Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(4Â weeks, 1Â day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 July be approved.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 September.
Social Mobility: Local Roots, Lasting Change (Social Mobility Policy Committee Report)
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(1Â month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, as a member of the committee, I also express my gratitude to our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, along with our clerk and her outstanding team. I draw attention to my registered interests as an employer and an active Army Reserve officer. I also pay tribute to the exceptional staff at Blackpool and The Fylde College, and all our witnesses. However, I want to reiterate our chair’s point that the publication of the Government’s response took eight months and was published on the day immediately after the House adjourned. I have formally written to the Government Chief Whip, the Minister, and the chair of the Liaison Committee regarding the timing of this response and performance.
The rate at which people are speaking makes this debate feel like a QSD. In conjunction with the meagre three minutes offered to respond to the committee’s serious hard work of nearly a year, my personal view is that this behaviour from the Government displays more than a degree of contempt for the committee’s work. It is also a shame that not a single Labour Back-Bencher who was part of the committee is here today; they were all very valid members during the committee’s work.
Turning to the substance of our report, employment remains the single most effective vehicle for social mobility—far surpassing any strategy, taskforce or policy framework—but to create the jobs, you need to create the right environment, including housing, transport and digital connectivity. However, cumulative burdens since 2024 have made hiring increasingly costly: higher employer national insurance contributions; above-inflation minimum wage growth, which has narrowed the youth pay differential; and immediate employment rights under the Employment Rights Act. Consequently, sectors like retail and hospitality—traditionally the primary entry point for young workers—are experiencing severe job cuts. The British Chambers of Commerce now projects youth unemployment to reach 17.6% next year. We should not be surprised that taxing employment results in fewer available jobs.
When our committee recommended lowering the levy rate for smaller businesses, we were informed that levy operations fall under Treasury jurisdiction. This policy environment leaves nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training. Among them, 60% have never held a job, compared to 40% in 2005. Government reviewer Alan Milburn calculates the annual economic cost of youth disengagement at £125 billion, exceeding our national education budget. The repercussions extend beyond economics. Milburn’s findings indicate that young men in the NEET category are five times more likely to acquire a criminal record than their peers, while half of those aged 15 to 17 in youth offender institutions possess primary school levels of literacy and numeracy.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
The noble Lord has exceeded his speaking time.
Lord Harlech (Con)
It is advisory. In the absence of legitimate career paths—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: the speaking time is advisory. However, given the number of speakers we have in all three of today’s debates, if the Ministers are going to have appropriate time to respond, and if we are going to finish at a reasonable hour on a Friday, it is three minutes.
Lord Harlech (Con)
I will then put forward two direct questions to the Minister. First, will she advocate with the Treasury to expand national insurance exemptions to cover all employees under 25 in the upcoming Budget? Secondly, will she confirm that the final Milburn report will be released promptly and that it will incorporate participation conditionality?
Government Political Priorities and Legislative Agenda
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(1Â month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That this House takes note of the Government’s political priorities and legislative agenda.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, as set out on Today’s List, Back-Bench speeches in this debate should be limited to four minutes. I am sure I speak on behalf of Members across the House when I say that I would be grateful if Members could stick to this advisory time to ensure that the Minister has adequate time to respond to the points raised.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I want to start this debate by paying tribute to Sir Keir Starmer for his immense services to the country. He took Labour to a landslide general election victory. He inherited a country reeling from 14 years of Conservative rule resulting in a weak economy, failing public services and shockingly run-down defences. Under his stewardship the economy grew, public services improved, violent crime reduced and our international reputation has been enhanced, not least because of his stalwart support for Ukraine.
No one can be in doubt that this country faces considerable challenges. As the Prime Minister told the Commons on Tuesday:
“Things are not working as they should. Life is too expensive and too hard for too many”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/9/26; col. 26.]
The Prime Minister believes that much of this malaise has been caused by a series of damaging wrong turns that centralised political power and surrendered public control over vital utilities, leaving citizens vulnerable to inflated cost, which was then compounded by Brexit.
The noble Lord, Lord True, said in his eloquent tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sarwar, that we do not shout at each other in this Chamber. That is right, but I want to comment on a remark he made yesterday on the Statement when he accused this Government of going back to the 1970s. I gently point out to him that this country was much more equal in the 1970s. The last 40 or so years have seen us lose that equality, with 10% prospering but 90% falling behind or stagnating. Many of the places and people most affected have not recovered from deindustrialisation.
The Government are ambitious to improve the standard of living, sort out social care and housing, boost vocational education, meet our NATO defence commitments and make the UK’s voice count. The Prime Minister is clear that devolution is the key to progress and prosperity, with the setting up of No. 10 North at the heart of the growth agenda. As a Brummie, I say that we have now redefined ourselves as being part of the north.
The immediate measures taken by the Government are important both in themselves and as a visible sign of intent for the longer term. They include: capping bus fares at ÂŁ2 in England, which has been a huge boost to many, many people; cutting VAT on electricity bills; reducing tax on pubs; investing to get rough sleepers off the street; funding to support the delivery in the first instance of more than 70,000 social homes; and action on the mountains of illegally dumped waste. The Prime Minister is using government to make a difference for people who feel hard pressed, solving problems that have been long neglected or where public authorities have been too slow, unwilling or seemingly powerless to act.
The economy is clearly critical to this. Despite doom-laden predictions, the UK economy had GDP growth of 0.6% in the first quarter, followed by 0.4% in the second quarter. In fact, the UK is currently the fastest-growing G7 economy. Borrowing this fiscal year is running ÂŁ6 billion below last year and, as the ONS has noted, it was the 12th lowest April to July period since 1993.
The noble Lord, Lord True, mentioned borrowing yesterday. We hear a lot from the Conservatives about borrowing, and they certainly know a thing or two about it: the last Conservative Government borrowed more than the G7 average in every single one of their 14 years in Government. This year, this Government are borrowing less. I have to say that the appointment of Andrew Griffith, the co-author of Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, as shadow Chancellor makes one question the seriousness of the claim that the party opposite has to economic competence.
In relation to debt, recent analysis by Morgan Stanley compared its estimate of the UK’s 96% general debt-to-GDP ratio at the end of this year with that of 120% for China, 120% for France and 125% for the US, with Japan and Italy higher still. Morgan Stanley commented two weeks ago that the UK stands out among the major economies in trying to do something about rising debt.
Clearly, growing the economy becomes crucial to the future. There are three points that I will put to my noble friend that I think are important to growing the economy. The first is tackling the high costs of and long timescale for building essential infrastructure in this country. The Centre for British Progress has reported that British public investment is on a par with OECD averages but we get less back from it. The government response to the Fingleton review on nuclear regulation put it very well:
“Our regulatory, environmental and planning processes have become too fragmented, too cautious and too slow, driving up costs”.
The recently enacted Planning and Infrastructure Act will deal with some of the blockages, and I am delighted that elected mayors are going to be given powers to take over large-scale planning applications. I urge the Government to go further and extend that to energy infrastructure projects, and to speedily legislate for Fingleton’s recommendations.
A second key factor in growing the economy is sticking to our commitment to net zero in the face of ever-worsening climate change. The Conservatives’ retreat from their commitments on net zero—this was the party that actually legislated for net zero—is no reason why we as a Government should resile from those targets; nor will obsessing about marginal increases in output from the rapidly declining North Sea oil and gas reserves have any impact whatever on energy prices. I readily acknowledge that energy prices are too high both for industry and domestically, but I hope the Government will be brave on this and fundamentally reform our flawed energy pricing system, in which volatile gas prices can set the cost of homegrown renewable energy. So, no retreat on net zero—it has huge potential for growth. CBI analysis recently estimated it to be a £105 billion sector, generating highly skilled jobs across every part of the UK.
A third factor in growth, for me, is getting young people into work. Alan Milburn’s seminal review identified nearly 1 million 16 to 24 year-olds who are not in education, employment or training, and of course behind those statistics lie stagnated aspirations and hopelessness. Over the past decade, the proportion who say they are NEET due to a work-limiting health condition has increased by 70%. Once health-related inactivity takes hold, moving those people into employment becomes incredibly challenging.
In contrast to the Conservatives’ brutal approach to welfare, I believe we need a welfare system to protect those who cannot work and provide proper financial security for people with severe or enduring disabilities. But for young people who could participate with the right support, our welfare system should be a springboard to employment. That is why the Government’s emphasis on vocational education, with links into local industry, is so important, and that was a subject of an excellent debate earlier today led by my noble friend Lady Morgan.
I am convinced that negative attitudes towards vocational education have bedevilled this country over decades, leading to an FE sector deprived of resources, where staff are underpaid compared with schoolteachers, and where a VAT burden is unfairly placed upon them—I hope my noble friend may have some good news in relation to that. There is no question in my mind that technical excellence needs to be recognised as being as valid as academic excellence. Encouraging and allowing young people to follow a skills route at 14 opens the gateway to huge opportunities. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, spoke eloquently in the earlier debate about the importance of technical education.
Of all the social issues we face, for me the provision of adult social care is the most pressing. Its current shortcomings impact badly on the NHS, as can be seen from the spectacle of corridor care, delayed discharges and too many people admitted into hospital. I also echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, said in her July speech to the LGA when she argued that previous attempts at reform have failed because they have either tinkered with parts of the system or tried to push through changes without securing public consent for the tough choices involved, and there will be tough choices.
The NHS needs to change as well. One reason—this comes from my personal experience with in-laws and my mother—that so many people are inappropriately in hospital is that, in too many cases, the NHS itself puts up barriers to treatment at home or in care homes, which forces people into A&E. We need the NHS to really start to shift that proposition.
On the global stage, the Prime Minister is making the UK’s voice count. His decision to help Ukraine build long-range missiles is both encouraging and a sign of the UK’s unwavering support for that country.
The global picture is one of increasing instability, as Mark Carney, the Canadian Premier, pointed out in his Davos speech last year. He said that
“there is a rupture in the world order … we live in an era of great power rivalry”,
with the rules-based order fading. In calling for co-operation among middle powers, Carney said that middle powers are not powerless:
“They have the capacity to build a new order that encompasses our values, such as respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of … states”.
We have huge potential in the UK to co-operate with like-minded countries, and that of course must include the EU. On that, the Prime Minister emphasised the benefits of a closer UK-EU relationship, forging links on trade, security and economic growth. This of course very much links to defence.
The 2025 strategic defence review was clear. It said:
“For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the UK faces multiple, direct threats to its security, prosperity, and democratic values”.
The UK is committed to reaching NATO’s target of 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. The defence investment plan has brought an additional £15 billion for defence over the period to 2029-30, on top of what was allocated in the 2025 spending review. Despite media comment over the last few days, the Chancellor has been consistent over the last few months that he would set a clear path to meeting our 3.5% NATO commitment at the next spending review and a target date for 3%.
I just repeat the words of the Prime Minister and Chancellor when they said:
“The determination that we share is to do what’s necessary to keep the country safe, and a recognition, quite simply, of that truism, that for any government the first duty is to keep citizens safe”.
What else is there to say? I believe that our new Prime Minister offers us hope through strong intent and hard actions, actions to deliver economic growth, improve security, and provide better public services and relief from the cost of living increase. For all our problems and challenges, we as a country have very much to be proud of. We have so much going for us and it is that and the hope that the Prime Minister brings that underpin this Government’s programmes and priorities. I beg to move.
Security Update
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts(7Â months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place earlier today relating to espionage. The Statement is as follows:
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement regarding three arrests that took place this morning as part of a Counter Terrorism Policing investigation into suspected National Security Act offences. I can confirm that this relates to China. I can also confirm that this relates to foreign interference targeting UK democracy.
Mr Speaker, for reasons that you will understand, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any aspect of what is now a live investigation. It is absolutely critical that we do not hamper the work of the police or prejudice any future legal processes by what we say in this House today. I would, however, point the House to what Counter Terrorism Policing has just said in its own statement: namely, that this morning, officers from Counter Terrorism Policing arrested three men as part of an investigation into suspected National Security Act 2023 offences. All three men were arrested on suspicion of assisting a foreign intelligence service, contrary to Section 3 of that Act. Of course, any decision as to whether to proceed with a prosecution will be a matter for the CPS.
The Government stand resolute in our resolve to counter foreign interference activity targeting the UK from any state actor. The Government have been consistent and unambiguous in our assessment that China presents a series of threats to the United Kingdom. We remain deeply concerned by an increased pattern of covert activity from Chinese state-linked actors targeting UK democracy. This involves attempts to obtain information on UK policy-making and interfere with our sovereign affairs.
From the November MI5 espionage alert warning about Chinese intelligence officers targeting individuals with access to sensitive information on Parliament and government to the attempted interference activities of Christine Lee in 2022, this Government will not tolerate it. I can confirm to the House that British officials have formally démarched Chinese counterparts in London and Beijing about these allegations to raise our strong concerns. However, as this is a live investigation, it would not be appropriate to comment further. But let me be clear: if there is proven evidence of attempts by China to interfere with UK sovereign affairs, we will impose severe consequences and hold all actors to account.
In the meantime, the Government are taking robust action to ensure that the UK’s democratic institutions and processes are a hard target for this activity. The National Security Act provides our intelligence agencies and law enforcement with the modern legal tools they need to deter, detect and disrupt the full range of state threats. The action that Counter Terrorism Policing has been able to take this morning is an example of that legislation working well. The political influence tier of the foreign influence registration scheme under the National Security Act also provides an essential framework for ensuring that those who seek to undermine our democracy are held to account.
I also continue to drive across government the delivery of our counter-political interference and espionage action plan, which I announced to Parliament on 18 November. This is being co-ordinated in strong partnership with the parliamentary security authorities. Our aim is to forge a cross-party and whole-of-society shield to safeguard UK democracy. This includes strengthening our legal defences, cutting off channels for interference, and supporting those on the front line of UK politics to recognise, resist and report the threat.
Members should have seen the guidance that the National Protective Security Authority and the National Cyber Security Centre published last year, on what to look out for in terms of malicious foreign targeting and some basic steps that Members can take to protect themselves. I urge all Members to read carefully through the guidance that was issued. If honourable Members experience any suspicious or out-of-the-ordinary interaction, whether in person or online, they should report it to the Parliamentary Security Department. The Government will continue to work in collaboration with the Parliament Security Department to set up a range of more tailored, bespoke briefings for those at greatest risk.
In January, I joined the director-general of MI5 and the chief executive of the NCSC to brief the chief executives of the UK political parties on the developing threat culture. I can confirm that officials are now focused on developing a programme of work to engage with the UK’s think tanks and non-profit sector to discuss the threats that they face from foreign interference. Our intent is to work with them to strengthen their resilience, ensuring that their hard-won reputations and networks are not exploited by our adversaries as platforms for covertly influencing UK public discourse and policy-making.
In February, we introduced the Representation of the People Bill, which will further strengthen safeguards against foreign interference through political funding. Our proposed Bill includes introducing tougher rules for donor recipients to conduct risk assessments before accepting donations, as well as increasing the powers of the Electoral Commission to ensure that it has the tools necessary to fulfil its duties.
The Government eagerly await the report of Philip Rycroft, following his independent review of regulations and safeguards against foreign financial interference in UK politics. The review was commissioned to rigorously test the financial safeguards we currently have in place and will specifically consider safeguards against illicit funding streams, including the use of crypto assets. The review’s findings will be delivered to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and me by the end of the month, and I can confirm that recommendations, where appropriate, will inform the Representation of the People Bill. We are also working on new powers to counter foreign interference, including a proscription-style tool to disrupt proxy organisations undermining our security.
It continues to be in our long-term strategic interest to engage with China. We are engaging with China confidently and pragmatically on areas where engagement is in the UK’s national interest, including climate, global health, trade and scientific research, but also illegal migration and serious organised crime, to name just a few. But let me be crystal clear: this is not a question of balancing economic and security considerations. We do not trade off security for economic access. Instead, by taking tough steps to keep us secure, we enable ourselves to co-operate in other areas.
We will always challenge any country, including China, that attempts to interfere with or undermine the integrity of our democratic institutions, and we will always prioritise UK national security. That is why the Prime Minister’s visit opened up a direct channel of communication to deliver in the national interest, enabling us to raise frank concerns about activities that impact our national security at the most senior levels of the Chinese system, including domestic security issues.
I assure Members of the House and the public at home that further steps can and absolutely will be taken to defend our democracy. The Government are steadfast in our commitment to disrupting and deterring China’s interference activity wherever it takes place. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their contributions, the very tone of which demonstrates how serious these matters are. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for her congratulations on my appointment. My introduction to being a Minister has been a really easy 24 hours.
I hope I speak for all sides of the House when I say that these matters require us to put the protection of our democracy at the forefront—there is nothing more important. As noble Lords have rightly acknowledged, matters of interference, particularly those relating to Parliament and your Lordships’ House, are of the utmost importance to both Houses and the entire nation. They merit careful consideration by the Government, decisive action by Ministers and appropriate scrutiny by Parliament. It is right that the Opposition have the opportunity to scrutinise, to question Ministers in this House and the other place, and to be appropriately briefed on developments, which is why my colleague in the other place, the Security Minister, was on his feet at the Dispatch Box within an hour of the police statement today, and why I am here this evening.
The Government have not hesitated to acknowledge the threats China poses to the UK, from cyber espionage operations to foreign interference. The Government are taking robust action to ensure that the UK’s democratic institutions and processes are a hard target for this activity. We will continue to engage with China confidently and pragmatically in areas where engagement is in the UK’s national interests; however, we will never compromise on our national security.
Members of your Lordships’ House will appreciate the sensitivity of these issues. Protecting the operational integrity of our police and security services is of the utmost importance. To protect the live police investigation, noble Lords will understand that I am extremely limited in what I can say regarding the specific details of the active case. However, both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised a number of questions in their remarks and, while I must be circumspect to avoid any prejudice to legal proceedings, I will seek to address as many of the points that I can now—I will reflect on Hansard if I miss any—within the broader policy points. If I miss anything else, it is because I am unable to address those points, but I will revert to both noble Lords outside.
On the specifics that have been raised, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, in thanking our national security staff. They are keeping us safe every single day. As we saw earlier this week with the Statement on Iran, 20 threats were safeguarded by our national security and, in this space, they are working to protect us. I am grateful for it.
A number of questions were asked and I hope that I will be able to answer them as they were asked. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked about the steps that we can take as parliamentarians. In the last few minutes, the Lord Speaker has issued an email to all Members of your Lordships’ House reminding them of the security that is available. I urge noble Lords to look at the guidance that was issued last year and that has been reissued today about their own security. If your Lordships have any concerns about your work as parliamentarians or who is contacting you and why, please contact the Parliamentary Security Department.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, highlighted the fact that, because of the political nature of what is discussed, it may be about events here or elsewhere associated with different organisations. If anybody is approached by the organisation, I urge them to be fully supportive. I assure Members of your Lordships’ House, as I was challenged on, that the Government make a commitment, and I make it from this Dispatch Box, to work to deliver a prosecution with our independent prosecution service, if it makes that decision.
On the points raised on the Chinese embassy, the Government have been clear throughout that the planning decision was for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to make in an independent, quasi-judicial capacity. We are confident that the decision is lawful and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this time given the ongoing action.
With regard to China as a threat, which is fundamental to everything that we have been discussing, the Government fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber attacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions to transnational repression of Hong Kongers. Yet we are also alive to the fact that China presents the UK with opportunities as the world’s second-largest economy and the UK’s third-largest trading partner. Not engaging is no choice at all. That is why the Prime Minister discussed a series of UK national security concerns with President Xi during his recent visit and agreed a new joint law enforcement pact to disrupt the supply of equipment used by people-trafficking gangs operating in the English Channel. We will therefore continue to develop a consistent and pragmatic approach to economic engagement without compromising on our national security, as every other member of the G7 rightly does.
On the FIRS, a genuinely important point that has been discussed many times in your Lordships’ House, no decision has yet been made in relation to specifying China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. I have made it clear multiple times to Parliament and to Members of your Lordships’ House that we are carefully looking at whether other countries should be added to the enhanced tier. We keep specifications on the enhanced tier under constant review to ensure that we are protecting the safety and interests of the UK. Any changes will be announced to Parliament in the usual way. Adding countries to the enhanced tier requires the consideration of a broad range of interests, including but not limited to security considerations. It is important that we get it right.
With regard to the comments on foreign interference from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, this is at the heart of why we are here. It is and always will be an absolute priority to protect the UK against foreign interference, and the UK has a strong record of responding robustly to state threats. Through the National Security Act 2023, the security services and law enforcement agencies have the tools that they need to deter, detect and disrupt modern-day state threats, as they have done today.
The Government are delivering the counter-political interference and espionage plan, which includes a protective security communications campaign. As part of this, the National Protective Security Authority published guidance for those working in democratic institutions in October last year. The plan also includes exploring how to strengthen legislation and regulation and work to degrade the use of proxies. There is also ongoing cross-government work to address academic interference, information threats and transnational repression.
I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referenced the report on China. The work of the ISC is incredibly important in this space and I am grateful for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, who is taking on huge projects at this point. I appreciate what has been said about the China audit that was incorporated into the security and defence review. The noble Lord is right that there are some things that now need to follow on from the SDR and we continue to make sure that that happens. We need to have a national conversation about all the threats that we face so that people understand what is in front of them and they can protect themselves and protect us all at the same time.
The noble Lord made a very important point about think tanks and universities, some of which will be addressed in forthcoming legislation. I look forward to discussing it when we are looking at the Representation of the People Bill. We are also awaiting the recommendations of the Rycroft review, which will touch on some of these issues. The timing of the legislation is such that we seek to be able to incorporate some of his recommendations, if needed, in that legislation.
It is important—and noble Lords will appreciate this—that when I was last at this Dispatch Box talking about these issues I highlighted the fact that the vice-chancellors had all been invited to a meeting with the Security Minister for a proper briefing on how they needed to protect themselves. We are repeating that exercise with think tanks to make sure that they can also protect themselves in this space.
I have presented and did present at the tail-end of last year the counter-political interference and espionage action plan to help disrupt and deter spying from states such as China. It included removal of surveillance equipment, which has been done, and additional funding for new and bespoke sovereign IT capabilities. The plan also reminded every one of us, I hope, of our own responsibilities to protect both ourselves and each other, because there are people who wish us ill. We need to make sure that we strive together to deliver for the people of the United Kingdom and to protect this very important institution.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord. I believe I have all my fingers, but he is right—this is about how we engage, what issues are in our national interests, where we can co-operate and where we need to challenge. We appreciate that we have a £100 billion trading relationship with China, which means that there are tens of thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom dependent on our relationship. But, at the same time, we seek to do everything we can to protect ourselves. How we do that is a matter for ongoing discussion, but the Government have made a clear decision that engagement is key and, in areas of global diplomacy, more words are definitely better than fewer.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of the Free Speech Union. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said that, because our universities are so financially dependent on China, there may be a risk of interference at the behest of the Chinese in academic freedom and free speech. The noble Lord recommended various measures to address that risk and the Minister also referred to various measures. But there is an additional measure, which would be to commence Section 9 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which requires universities to disclose to the Office for Students their foreign funding and then the Office for Students to monitor those universities to see if there is any interference in academic freedom or free speech as a consequence of that foreign funding.
We know that there are some examples of this. I can think of two off the top of my head, Michelle Shipworth and Laura Murphy, but there are numerous others. It was referred to in the recent report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which we discussed in this House last week. Will the Minister take this opportunity to set out a timetable for the commencement of Section 9 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord has campaigned actively on these issues through the Free Speech Union, as I did in my previous iteration at Index on Censorship—slightly different approaches and campaign tactics, but with the same aspiration to ensure academic freedom. Our universities —our cathedrals of challenge, engagement and thinking —are incredibly important. I know that the noble Lord has raised these issues directly with the Minister responsible and I will follow up on those conversations.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the newly promoted Minister. My noble friend richly deserves this.
If it is genuinely true that the Government make no trade-off between national security and economic access, what other reasons can there be not to place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme now?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, who is also my friend whom I have known, I hate to say, for two decades—so this is all his fault. He raises a very important point about the foreign influence registration scheme. No decision has yet been made in relation to specifying China on the enhanced tier of FIRS, as I said earlier. Any changes to that position will come before Parliament in the usual way, but I promise noble Lords that their arguments in both your Lordships’ House and the other place have been heard.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
To follow up the point about universities made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, the Xinjiang province of China grows 20% of the world’s cotton. Since it became technically possible to check garments for where the cotton was grown, the laundering of that cotton by the Chinese—because they do not want to put “grown in China” on it—is massive. It was Sheffield Hallam University that produced the report by Dr Murphy on the laundering of cotton, which has been used once or twice in this House. It is a trade issue as well. They are hiding what they are growing because they know there will be reactions against it, and therefore there is every reason to develop these situations, as far as the universities are concerned.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, who had a Question on this specific issue last year. It encouraged me to check where my clothes are made when buying them, which has made shopping on Vinted a challenge. He is right about some of the things that may or may not have been happening in Xinjiang province and what that means for the wider supply chain. I will have to get an update for him on where we currently are, but given that he raised the issue of Sheffield Hallam, I again place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, whose name is on the institution that was targeted in the way that we are all aware of.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the Minister spoke about taking tough steps and the seriousness of this. Can I press her further on the location of the Chinese embassy? I know that she attempted to answer the question from my noble friend Lady Finn, but why has the decision been made? Surely this is one occasion on which the decision to allow the location should be rethought.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I believe the noble Viscount was present when I presented the Statement on the national security element of the Chinese embassy. I and other Minister have repeatedly come before your Lordships’ House to make clear the Government’s line. Given events, I repeat that the Government have been clear throughout that the planning decision was for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to make, in an independent, quasi-judicial capacity. We are confident that the decision is lawful, and it would be inappropriate to comment any further at this time.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, further to the excellent question from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the Chinese make British Army uniforms. On the point about the content of those uniforms, can the Minister let the House know why the Chinese are making British Army uniforms?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I did not see the question going there. The noble Lord is aware of my commitment to the Armed Forces and that I consider myself to be part of the extended military family as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. He raises a very important point about MoD procurement. I will have to revert to him about when the contract was signed, because I think it pre-dates this Government.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, some years ago, while in China with a British university, somebody happened to mention to our hosts that I had been the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation for the UK. The following morning, the audience had increased from a desultory dozen to about 150.
The point I wish to make to the Minister, whom I also congratulate, is that we have managed to avoid a lot of terrorism incidents by having a methodology to ensure that at all times we are not only vigilant but carrying out training in which many echelons in our public life and society are required to participate. Can we now consider creating a sort of Prevent-type training for those who may be at risk of the attention of the Chinese Government and others to become involved in forms of espionage, which start in a very subtle way and into which people can be drawn all too easily?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations. I cannot believe there were not already 150 people signed up to listen to him. He is right that, in this space and everywhere else, we need a clear methodology and process to make sure that there are not knee-jerk reactions to anything and that the right people receive training in the right way. Counterterrorism police already offer training on the issues of transnational repression to all police forces to make sure they have the skill sets available to them. On the further detail, I will consider the noble Lord’s suggestion and discuss it with other Ministers.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, I also congratulate the Minister on her appointment, but can I upbraid her? She referenced in one of the answers that there had been an agreement between the UK Government and the Chinese Government in relation to law enforcement on people-trafficking gangs trafficking people across the English Channel. People smuggling is different from people trafficking, and I urge the Government to be precise in their language.
In relation to the new legislation that the Government are bringing forward on representation of the people, she referenced crypto assets. Given the use of crypto- currencies by organised criminal gangs and hostile state actors, will she guarantee to this House that the Government will bring forward very robust proposals in that legislation, in relation to the use of cryptocurrencies by political parties and in our electoral processes?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She is right about the precise language. I will go back and reflect on my pack, and make sure that is fed back to everybody. She raises an important point about crypto assets. That is why we have asked Philip Rycroft to undertake a review to make recommendations in this space, among others. When we have his report, I look forward to discussing its details with the noble Baroness and Members of your Lordships’ House, and how we will take it forward.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, a few months ago the CPS dropped the charges involving spying on Parliament against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry. At the time, most legal experts took the view that this was a staggering decision. Does this not send a signal to China and other foreign actors that they can try it on, and try to find individuals to infiltrate and spy on Parliament? After this trial collapsed, I recall the Minister saying at the Dispatch Box that there would be some report back and lessons learned, so have we got anywhere with those?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. I do not remember saying that, but I will reflect on the Hansard and see whether I promised to report back. If I did, I apologise and will seek to deliver that. Noble Lords will remember from our extensive discussions on the collapse of that case that its prosecution was being sought under the 1911 Official Secrets Act. One of the things the police were very clear about is that the arrests made today were under the revised legislation that Members of your Lordships’ House brought forward: the National Security Act, which we would hope has a slightly more updated framework than something that is over 100 years old.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made a very pertinent point about the amount of trade we do with China, which none of us in this House is naive about. Therefore, we have to take decisions in the round. Notwithstanding that, it is not that long ago that we realised how dependent and reliant we were: when Covid struck, and we were trying to get hold of protective clothing and other things the medical profession needed for the people of this country.
This is not a party-political point, but the lesson learned was that we always need to be very careful to determine who our friends are. It is important to recognise that, when we need something that involves an element of national security, such as during the Covid outbreak, we must ensure we are trading and doing deals with countries that are reliable friends. Does the Minister agree that it would be quite useful to have the Government’s update on that issue now?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her two points. First, on the point relating to Covid, the Covid public inquiry is under way and its recommendations will come forward in due course. I look forward to debating those with Members of your Lordships’ House, because it is a project overseen by the Cabinet Office. The fundamental point, which is important for every Member of your Lordships’ House but also for the Government, is to make sure that discussions about our sovereign capabilities and what we are able to provide, both in the defence space and more broadly, are always considered when we are looking at matters of national security.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, it must be clear to all that China is not interested solely in this country; it will be interested in many other countries, too. Is the Minister confident that the exchange of information on such material between the appropriate channels is and continues to be sound?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point. We are spending £170 million on sovereign encrypted technology to make sure we can talk to each other, and I hope with our allies, regarding interoperability and safe and secure environments. He also raises a genuinely fundamental point, which I touched on with regard to the China audit. One of the reasons the audit was not published in full was our commitments through Five Eyes, which is why it was a summary—as is normal when we are discussing such issues—as part of the SDR.