Civil Service: Impartiality

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to strengthen impartiality in the civil service and the delivery of public services.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who are due to speak, as I will not have an opportunity to thank them later; I promise to take careful note of everything that is said today.

There is much evidence of polarisation across the country in recent years. This is not about politics or parties. I refer to something much more pervasive: a sense that the state itself, exemplified by our public services, is not there for all of us and that, irrespective of what a party’s manifesto says or what voters expect, nothing much changes. “They’re all the same”, is the mantra that is used to describe being let down. Here in Parliament, the only sameness that we all want is to do better by the country; that is why we are here.

This may apply to our public servants, too, but it is not evidenced in public trust. The OECD’s most recent public trust survey, which was conducted across more than 30 countries, shows Britain falling behind on the trust table. Only 33% of us have moderate or high trust in government, a term that incorporates all public services. The OECD average of 40% is low, presumably as newer democracies are still rebuilding after authoritarianism. Another domestic survey, Two Britains, describes how divergent public servants’ views are from those of the public—something I have mentioned before.

Currently, we have the largest number of public inquiries under way to establish wrongdoing. Too frequently, they find that public servants did not do their jobs properly, ostensibly because some internal value or culture led them to believe that appearing racist or Islamophobic had to be avoided at all costs, including the cost of justice for victims. The groupthink that distorts professionalism is what I call “progressive conformity”. It is a state where, in order to be accepted in the prevailing culture of an organisation, individuals do not speak their mind, are not sufficiently curious when they should be, or hold back, as they could be denied advancement if they had a different approach to the culture pervading that body.

I saw this at the ECHR, which I chaired, on my appointment in 2020. Without breaching confidentiality, I can say that, within three months, I had to commission impartiality training across the whole organisation. There was enormous pushback on policy agreed by commissioners, and individual commissioners had to show great resilience for the board’s decisions to prevail. My experience is that there is a real and serious problem in delivery, as well as downstream from Parliament and policy-making, when it comes to accountability in our public services.

I welcome the new review of the Civil Service and its much-needed focus on more effective delivery, which will, I hope, prevail. So far, so good. I am hopeful that what previous Prime Ministers have not achieved—a significant shift in capabilities, culture and outcomes—will transpire. We are told that the Cabinet Secretary is to be guided by an advisory group. Has that been established? Is its composition in place? It should be, for accountability and transparency.

Dame Antonia Romeo needs to take a hard look at the Civil Service Code. Its core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality appear worthy but are irrelevant. Let me explain. Integrity requires, inter alia, accurate record-keeping, for accountability and transparency. However, we are told in written exchanges in the Commons that the records relating to the recently announced policy on anti-Muslim hostility, which will apply right across government, have been destroyed. So, evidence for a controversial policy has no audit trail in terms of who was involved and what was said. This smells, and I predict that it will end up in court at some point.

Honesty requires that staff are not influenced by improper pressure from others. Yet we know about the reach of advocacy groups across government. An example is the influence of Stonewall. The charity Sex Matters has produced an entire dossier about EHRC staff improperly allowing Stonewall to influence decisions, without the knowledge of commissioners. This was of course before my time. Government departments themselves apply what is known as Stonewall law instead of equality law, which adds considerable costs to the public purse in settlements. The Cabinet Office does not appear to have changed its policy advice across government after the Supreme Court ruling of 17 months ago to protect single-sex spaces. Can the Minister confirm that its policy is still in breach of the Equality Act? A new code should emphasise that conformity with the law is not an optional extra but mandatory. Will the Minister restate that it applies to local government as well?

Impartiality, as described in these values, is most contradictory. It is overly narrow, in that personal political views are not permissible but it is silent on non-political views. For me, all personal views should be impermissible if they influence decisions. Some of the most contested debates in recent times are not political in an ideological sense. Racism, sex-based rights and speech are not culture wars; they go to the heart of expectations of what is legal, fair and just. Those latter values—fairness and justice—are described as a requirement for staff in the code, yet they are not defined, so we have a situation where individuals are allowed to be the adjudicators of what is fair and just. It follows that some staff networks use their beliefs to advocate for certain causes, whether at home or abroad.

Another problem is the code’s reach. It permits individual departments and related ALBs to adopt their own values alongside it. While the intention is that different service providers translate their own specific functional needs into their corporate ethos, this allows dilution of the overarching duties and ends in legal settlements in departments, without any apparent learning across government.

For me, it is essential that the duty of impartiality should stand above the other three core values. It should be clarified, strengthened and made an overarching requirement across all public services, with stronger sanctions for disregarding it, irrespective of the independence of the NDPBs. Where tax­payer pounds are spent, high standards of behaviour should follow. Our tribunals are replete with cases of members of the police, the NHS and even government departments flouting impartiality and accountability for their actions.

The problem is here and palpable and it needs resolving. This is an opportunity for a proper reset, so that the public can have confidence that they will be treated as they should be—impartially, objectively and, to use a word missing from the code, professionally—so that we can all be sure of getting the service we deserve from our public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to answer this Question for Short Debate on what steps the Government intend to take to strengthen impartiality in the Civil Service and the delivery of public services. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, and noble Lords for their contributions to what has been an interesting debate, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, that it is a timely one.

Before I move on, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my ministerial declaration of interests. I also ask noble Lords to note that my husband is a serving civil servant in the Government Digital Service. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I have nothing but praise for the private offices with which I have worked and which have supported me since 2024; it is probably universal across Ministers that we rely heavily on our private offices to help us navigate the Civil Service.

The key aspect here is how the impartiality of the Civil Service is a vital component of our constitution and of how we run government business on behalf of the public. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, stressed, the basis of our politically impartial, permanent Civil Service goes all the way back to the Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1854, which urged a move away from recruitment based on patronage and set out the standards that laid the foundation for the modern Civil Service that we have today.

The Armstrong memorandum of 1985 set out:

“It is the duty of civil servants to serve their Ministers with integrity and to the best of their ability”


and said that

“the British civil service is a non-political and disciplined career service”.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, highlighted, this was codified in 1996 with the creation of the Civil Service Code—a vital document that sets out the standards of behaviour expected of civil servants to this day. The code’s importance is such that it is now based in statute, as set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. It is a contractual obligation for civil servants to abide by the code.

The code sets out four key values that should be demonstrated, which underpin those standards. Those core values are integrity, honesty, objectivity and, of course, impartiality, including political impartiality. These values largely stem from the Nolan principles, established in 1995, which civil servants and all public office holders are expected to adhere to, meaning that civil servants are also expected to demonstrate selflessness, accountability, openness and leadership. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, that these values are still relevant and appropriate, and I look forward to reading the report she referenced, which is on my pile of reading but which I have not read yet.

Impartiality, as was noted by a number of noble Lords, is fundamental to the code. In order to serve effectively, it is essential that civil servants do so impartially. Impartiality means faithfully and fairly serving the public as a whole rather than any particular group or interest. It also means loyally serving the elected Government of the day—a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn—whatever its political persuasion and no matter what their political beliefs may be. That essential requirement ensures that the Civil Service can gain and retain the respect of Ministers, Parliament and the public and maintain the highest possible standards in everything it does. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, in how she described what this means in practice and how impartiality applies. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that both impartiality and the perception of impartiality are key in this regard.

The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, asked about civil servants seeking to influence based on identity. It is civil servants’ duty to provide honest, objective advice to Ministers which presents options and takes account of expert advice. Good advice should be informed by understanding and awareness. However, advice should never be determined by a civil servant’s own personal or political views. Civil servants must also speak up and take action if someone is acting contrary to the code.

The Government are keenly aware of the need to protect this important constitutional principle and the importance of the Ministerial Code. The Ministerial Code includes a requirement that Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code.

I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pack, turning the debate on its head, in a way, and looking at the behaviour of Ministers but also the issue of lobbying reform. It is right that we look at lobbying, and the Government are considering the recommendations of the EIC following its review, so I look forward to reporting back on that to your Lordships’ House. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, that I will be very happy, when we have our long overdue meeting, to pick that up as well.

In turn, civil servants are required by their code to act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of Ministers. It is a clear and established part of our democratic system that it is for Ministers to decide government policy, operating within the legal frameworks which apply. Ministers are accountable to Parliament, and civil servants are accountable to Ministers.

On the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, on the enforceability of the Civil Service Code, as part of the contractual relationship between civil servants and their employer, civil servants are obliged to abide by the Civil Service Code, including its requirements on impartiality. Departments take these matters seriously, and breaching the code can result in a range of disciplinary actions being taken, including dismissal in severe cases.

As noble Lords are aware and as has been mentioned, the Cabinet Secretary set out her intention to refresh the Civil Service Code to ensure that it is up-to-date, well understood and adhered to across the Civil Service, including on the importance of impartiality. She spoke about this in her oral evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on 15 June. This work is ongoing, and the Government will communicate further on the subject in due course.

The issues of diversity and groupthink were raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner and Lady Spielman. The latter suggested that bringing your whole self to work is a potential issue, as it could, in her view, blind civil servants to impartiality. I strongly feel that a diverse Civil Service ensures that we truly reflect the communities we serve; in my view, this leads to better policies and stronger public outcomes. I feel that, rather than contributing to groupthink, diversity can actually help us avoid it, but noble Lords may wish to debate that matter with me in future.

I want briefly to talk about the subject of the future of the Civil Service in the UK. We must ensure that the Civil Service is equipped and supported to meet the challenges of the future. This Government are committed to that, including safeguarding its impartiality and core values so that we can enhance trust and confidence in the institutions of government. The Cabinet statement Rewiring the State set out that devolution by default will lead to good growth in every postcode and a more strategic Civil Service that is focused on the challenges that can best be dealt with at a national level.

The review into the organisation, performance and transformation of the permanent Civil Service, led by the Cabinet Secretary, will define a clear vision for the Civil Service as a world-class organisation, delivering a once-in-a-generation transformation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I and the Government agree that she means it. The review will consider, among other things: the size, shape and structure of the Civil Service; the impact of artificial intelligence and technology on the service, which was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox; our ability to attract and retain the best talent from across the country; and the statutory footing of the service. The review will draw on a wide range of expert advisers from academia, the private and public sectors, civil society and international spheres.

The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, made a specific point about the review’s expert advisory panel. It will be constituted in due course to inform the review. A report will be published before summer next year, and any decisions will be for the Prime Minister to make.

On the offer from the noble Lord, Lord Young, to provide evidence to Antonia Romeo, the review welcomes input from across Parliament, so I can certainly take that offer back to the Cabinet Secretary.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

May I ask for some clarification before the Minister concludes? I fear that she is coming to a conclusion, and I do not want to stop her mid-speech. The most significant question I asked was: does the Minister believe that teams across the Civil Service are now compliant with the clarification of the Supreme Court on single-sex spaces on 16 April 2017? Can she either say that they are compliant or, if they are not, write to me and place a letter in the Library explaining when she expects them to be?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thought I had an insert on that. I have been going a bit fast because I am running out of time; if I have skipped over an insert, I apologise. I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness on that point. I am now over time, but we have a short amount of time—

Telegraph Media Group: Proposed Sale to RedBird IMI

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The Secretary of State is making her decision in a quasi-judicial capacity under the stipulations of the provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I will not ask the Minister to respond about the Secretary of State’s role, but the Minister will be aware that assurances have been reported in the papers that RedBird IMI would provide an independent advisory board to ensure journalistic independence. Can he tell us his assessment of the word “independent” going alongside “advisory”? Will he contemplate what the impact of that board will be, given that Meta’s advisory board has done nothing to improve Meta’s standing?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me, but I think it is important that I and other Ministers do not opine on anything while the Secretary of State is making her decision in the capacity she is making it in. As I say, it is important that there should be no perception that she is taking into account any political or presentational considerations. She is, of course, considering all of the relevant information as set out under the Enterprise Act.

National Heritage Act 1983

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for initiating this debate and I also congratulate him on his chairmanship of the Parthenon Project. That is of course the brainchild of Mr John Lefas, who has donated something like £10 million to it. Apparently, his wealth comes from manufacturing plastics. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, says that he is confident that a deal is within reach—that was the report in today’s papers—and that support for “reunification” of the sculptures in Athens from the public, and in particular from Conservative-leaning voters, is clear. Later today, in a BBC interview, the noble Lord also told us that perhaps a deal might have to be a fudge. In a few hours today, we can see how his faith may be regarded. The combination of money from plastics—as if we do not know enough about polluting the climate—the advocacy of a “fudge”, which is terrible for our health, and finally calling in support Conservative-leaning voters might go down rather badly with the rest of the country. Maybe he should start afresh.

Let me consider what happens when the general principle of returning or the restitution of pieces of art is in place. The noble Lord has mentioned the Benin bronzes; they are a good example, because he is quite right that the museum is all over bending over backwards to return them to Nigeria, or what they think is Nigeria. I commend all those who wish to understand those arguments—and those arguments are related to these arguments—to read the Atlantic. David Frum’s article, “Who Benefits When Western Museums Return Looted Art?”, powerfully sets out the pitfalls here.

There are three sets of interests—the Benin Dialogue Group, the Oba of Benin and the Nigerian federal Government—who see themselves as the sole decision-maker in claims of heritage to the Benin kingdom. The Oba of Benin has announced that he is the legitimate owner and custodian, and the Benin Dialogue Group, which has morphed into something called the Legacy Restoration Trust, wishes to establish a museum in the interests of others, but mainly through raising philanthropic donations from millionaires. It would own the objects, were they to go to it.

This comes against the backdrop of previous attempts. In September 2020, Oliver Dowden, the former Culture Secretary, said in a letter to museums and galleries:

“History is ridden with moral complexity.”


This goes to the heart of the fundamental question. Should history be unwound? Can it be unwound? A standard that art should belong to the present-day Government of the place where the art was created centuries ago does not feel right, especially when those taking decisions to deprive their own populations do so in the mistaken belief that returning art somehow atones for the brutalities and injuries of the past. It takes more than the return of a few physical objects to express a genuine sense of regret for, by today’s standards, injustices of the past committed under different norms.

I suggest that we think hard about this but that public opinion should not be the mere determinant. The trustees of museums have an obligation to behave responsibly, and the Act rightly directs them to do so.

Freedom of Speech

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Friday 10th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I too thank the most reverend Primate for giving us the opportunity today to discuss this profoundly important human right. In doing so, I declare an interest as set out in the register, but I emphasise that I am speaking from a personal perspective. I shall draw on my own background and experiences, as they have profoundly shaped my view of why this human right, the right to express oneself freely, is so important to those of us who care about a freedom-loving democracy.

As I grew up, I lived in several countries. What united them was that they were all authoritarian and all socially conservative. All were politically repressive in varying degrees, but the combination of the two, if you were a woman, was, at minimum, stultifying and at worst, led to a life lived in social and political ostracism. That loss of voice eventually snuffed out your fundamental autonomy. You retreated into family, religious sect and tribe, with a narrow space to express yourself that got narrower and narrower. For those of us who have been lucky enough to make it to democracies—I think I speak for many who arrive on our shores today—the allure of a democracy is palpable. It has meaning beyond knowing that you can vote; it is expressed most tangibly in the ability to think what one wants and to express that as one wishes, with bounds, but with few bounds. These two, the freedom to think and free speech, are inexorably bound together. One cannot have the one in the absence of the other.

For me, a thriving democracy is one where contestation is rife and vigorous debate allows us to change our minds, to be open to contrary perspectives and, indeed, to disagree—to disagree well, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury reminded us. The role of the Opposition in a democracy’s constitution reflects that public disagreement, and the reason we elevate and provide for the formal role of an Opposition is precisely because we accept that others have the right to hold a different view from ours. Periodically, we accept that their views must hold, and we peaceably move over to allow them to rule over us. That is the compact and we all observe it.

But we know that this space is being eroded, and its erosion is most dangerous in institutions which are integral to our values. I speak of education for young people and universities. In both spheres of education, there appears a diminution of the value of opposing thought, and an elevation of that of respect and tolerance, a perspective where individual “safety” is elevated as the principal objective, and where “harm” is alleged by exposure to ideas that might provoke. Let me be clear: I do not for a second believe that respect and tolerance are not important values. Indeed, without them, in this increasingly multi-ethnic and multicultural society, we could not rub along together in coexistence, so they really matter. My point is that they are values that command our loyalty only because they follow from the freedom of speech and thought that is intrinsic to a democracy. The fact that we know we can disagree and express that disagreement publicly allows us to put up with views and actions that offend us. When we do not like what is said, we can say so and be listened to.

However, as we saw in Sussex University, in the case of Professor Kathleen Stock, and numerous others, we are in danger of a situation where tolerance for one perspective applies only when it is our perspective. “Join my tribe or lose your job”. She lost her job, supposedly because she made some people feel “unsafe”. Could it be that when young people open themselves up to these other, contrary ideas, which may be uncomfortable to accept, universities are actually playing an important role, beyond knowledge? They are building our resilience to prepare us for later life, when we all have to leave our tribe and rub along with, and even tolerate, those who do not hold our views. As a member of a minority, an ethnic and religious minority, I can testify that this is especially true for us. If universities become primarily spaces where, beyond a formal curriculum, in all other activities group-think prevails, eventually all are diminished, not only the academy itself.

One has only to look at the current issue of Prospect magazine; the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, referred to Alan Rusbridger, its new editor. Prospect this month has an article about freedom of expression, and it has a sorry list of academics, journalists and others who have been subjected to sanctions in the United Kingdom and the US, both societies, one would have thought, that pride themselves on freedom.

I close with a simple thought: in order to uphold our freedoms, we accept the proposition that the struggle to keep them is for every single one of us—every day, every year, as we go forward. Today marks the day the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in Paris 73 years ago. It has served us well, as it enshrined for the first time freedom of expression in international law. Today is a good day to celebrate that.

European Football Championships: Travel

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to exempt from quarantine restrictions (1) UEFA and FIFA officials, and (2) associated visitors, travelling to the United Kingdom for the final of the European football championships.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are proud that the UK is hosting 12 Euro 2020 matches, including both semi-finals and the final at Wembley. We already permit certain officials and accredited guests to enter the UK for these matches under the elite sport exemption. We will continue to keep the scope of these exemptions under review, and are working closely with the FA and UEFA to ensure that these Euro 2020 matches take place successfully. At all times in this pandemic, public health remains our priority.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I am pleased to hear the Minister’s reassurance on that count. However, given the Government’s track record—travel from India having seeded the Delta variant and Cornwall spiking 2,400% after the G7 summit—does she accept that the public are rightly concerned that their right to life and livelihoods might again be at risk due to the possible importation of what we might call the UEFA variant if the exemptions highlighted in the media go ahead? Will the Government publish an impact assessment so that we can see on what basis this potentially risky and unfair decision has been taken?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I stress that no decision has yet been taken, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for acknowledging that public safety remains our top priority, including the safe delivery of Euro 2020. We have testing protocols and international restrictions in place to help ensure that this tournament can take place successfully and safely.

British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Bill

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate and support the Bill. I had a small walk-on part with the British Library: I was on the advisory council until December last year while the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was its distinguished chair, with the brilliant Roly Keating as chief executive. I must say, now that I have left it—to chair the EHRC—I look back at how well run the British Library was in the time I was there. I hasten to add that that is not to imply that my other institution, the EHRC, is not fabulously well run, but it was a period when the library grasped innovation with both hands and leapt forward in many ways.

This institution absolutely deserves our wholehearted support but, with the events of the past year, there is a real danger of children and younger people forgetting the import of a physical book. Although the library does great stuff digitally, we must not forget that it is still the place where we can come in off the street, walk into that great building—I rather like the building, I must say—and stand there in awe, looking up at those towering stacks from the old great Reading Room of the British Museum. It is a pleasure to be in that physical space.

However, one of the key points of this Bill is to recognise that the library—in common with its museum peers, which already have the freedom—is an innovative and responsible custodian of public finances. Other museums have used the freedom to develop their commercial offers, borrowing at low rates to invest in income-supporting works that can create a return on their investment and supplement the grant in aid. In 2018-19, the library generated £17.1 million of commercial income, representing growth of 29.5% since 2015-16—the last time for which we have reliable statistics from the pre-Covid era.

I want to end on a point that I think is really significant in terms of the work that the library does. The people who have spoken in this debate may not know that it is a real challenge for hard-to-reach communities to engage with libraries. Children from those communities tend not to engage with libraries and instead go straight into digital; even then, they tend to learn in other ways. Adults and businesspeople do not realise that the British Library has a fabulous centre for entrepreneurship and IP. Over the past several years, the library has done an enormous amount of outreach work in those communities. I hope that, if the borrowing capacity for it in the Bill is approved, it will be able to progress that work, especially on its levelling-up agenda, and reach out to those communities and bring them into itself—our national library—but also other libraries across our country.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard
Thursday 4th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I join the Minister in congratulating our telecoms providers on rising to the challenge of providing relatively comprehensive connectivity to the nation in response to Covid.

However, I am reluctant to speak to Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, other than to say that I do not support it, for the reason that it appears to place additional burdens and apportion impractical and potentially onerous rights. It would be injected into the Bill in its closing stages when we do not have the capacity as a House either to examine the issues or to reflect on the Electronic Telecommunications Code and the impact of the new rights being given to operators. My approach is that it is best not to introduce additional complexities to Bills during ping-pong.

However, I intervened on the Bill as far back as 19 May 2020 with my amendment to prevent vendors defined by the National Cyber Security Centre as high-risk. From the outset, I welcomed the aims of the Bill. My intentions were narrow and were to protect our critical infrastructure and, by definition, since that is built for the longer term—20, 30 or perhaps 40 years —to protect it from being compromised by firms that today might seem benign but in the long term may be able to jeopardise our security as technology becomes more complex.

My amendment was described as being anti-Huawei, although its wording was much broader. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to other noble Lords who joined me in that endeavour because I was constantly being told by the Government Benches that the amendment was inappropriate. However, the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, and Lord Adonis, stuck with me as we continued to argue that Huawei or, indeed, any other future telecoms provider that might jeopardise our national security should be removed from being able to operate with impunity in this country.

I truly regret that the Bill was delayed in our seeking those safeguards, but that is what we exist for here as a scrutinising Chamber. We give the Government an opportunity to think again and that is what has happened through those amendments. We currently have before us in the Telecommunications (Security) Bill the right place to discuss those matters as we go forward, and the Government have also seen the light of day on the use of Huawei.

I therefore thank the Minister for her openness throughout the year in having given us valuable time and discussing where we might go with our amendment. I thank all noble Lords who participated in the Bill for having put up with us and a slightly otiose amendment. Nevertheless, we got there in the end.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive introduction. I agree with her emphasis on the importance of internet services and the need to eliminate digital exclusion. It is hard to think what the consequences would have been if we had suffered this pandemic just 10 years ago, when our broadband services were less extensive and much slower than now.

In the name of inclusivity, I welcome the first part of today’s business, Motion A. Throughout the course of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Fox, the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Liddle, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and others have been arguing for as inclusive a definition as possible of those who could be regarded as tenants, without straying into the territory of licensees or licences. It includes those with assured shorthold tenancies or assured tenancy agreements, as well as students living in short-term lets, where a tenant has, or tenants have, exclusive possession of the let property.

We have been concerned throughout to ensure that all tenancies such as renewable tenancies are included, even if they are not, strictly speaking, leases and that there should not be any grey areas that need to be interpreted by the courts. I am pleased that the Government have now produced an even more inclusive definition than the one that I argued for on Report. My sincere thanks go to the Minister and the Bill team for their care and consideration on what we have always regarded as an important issue.

However, I do not welcome Motion B. The original purpose of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, which was strongly supported on these Benches—I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that it was introduced not at ping-pong but on Report—was to ensure that the code is fit for the purpose of delivering the Government’s manifesto commitment of broadband capable of 1 gigabit per second to every home by 2025. The need for this has become even more important, particularly since the Covid-19 lockdown has demonstrated our increasing dependence on good broadband connectivity for remote working, education and many other aspects of life, as the Minister mentioned.

Sadly, it is clear that the Government are backtracking in their ambitions—the 2025 1 gigabit per second target has been watered down and the budget for rollout expenditure slashed by two-thirds. Even so, it is clear that the Electronic Communications Code needs regular review to ensure that the Government’s objective, however watered down, is met and that operators have all the rights under the code that they need.

My noble friend Lord Fox rightly commented on a universal service obligation of a miserable 10 megabits per second and I completely agree with him. However, looking to the future, I am glad that during the course of the Bill we have started a genuine debate around whether we can describe broadband as a utility and what the appropriate rights of entry are.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for answering what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, described as a blizzard of questions on telecoms supply chain diversification in her extremely informative letter last month. Some of the work being carried out on open RAN, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fox, is ground- breaking for the interoperability and competitiveness of our 5G networks. It is good to see that international collaboration is regarded as essential and is ongoing.

However, at the end of the day I am left with a sense of bafflement. This has been a ridiculously modest Bill, given the challenges of the broadband and 5G rollout ahead. Of course, as the Minister has mentioned, we now have Access to Land: Consultation on Changes to the Electronic Communications Code, which was issued in January. Notwithstanding this Bill, it seems clear the Government think that further changes are needed to clarify the position on rights to upgrade and share. Why not an earlier consultation? Why were these issues not considered before this piece of legislation? Are these long-standing questions or are they thoughts that have arisen during the course of the Bill? Is there another Bill on the way? We know from the representations made that the operators are calling for other changes that are not included in the Bill or the consultation.

I have another quote from Matt Warman. In his introduction to the consultation he says:

“The government is committed to ensuring that the Code is fit for purpose in order to deliver our digital connectivity targets.”


That is excellent. A review of the kind envisaged in our amendment would have been perfect for that purpose. The Bill has taken an inordinate time to get through, but it is clear that more reforms are in the pipeline. The question remains: could we have been spending our time better and enacting a more comprehensive Bill with a wider range of revisions, instead of this piecemeal approach?

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 28th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey of Didcot, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB) [V]]

My Lords, last night at 8 pm, I lit my candle to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day. Yesterday, Jewish leaders asked us to include later, less egregious events that have been committed against other groups—notably, and most recently, Chinese Uighurs. China is a superpower and we are a mid-sized state, but if the measure of a people is its moral standing, the United Kingdom has stood tall in the past and should continue to do so.

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is evaluating whether to press this amendment. I say to the House only that the amendment is modest. It seeks to prevent companies using UK telecommunications infrastructure to facilitate human rights abuses. The consumers of that infrastructure would not want infrastructure delivered to them on the back of human rights abuses. It would also give investors a steer, because they would know that the law is clearly set out, and they could make their choices accordingly. There is little that I would add, other than to say that the people of this country rightly hold their leaders to high standards, and this House should uphold those expectations.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak at the Third Reading of this Bill. Like other noble Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long, because it has taken some time to get to this stage.

I want to speak to Amendment 1, but it is worth reminding noble Lords that this Bill is, of course, intended to help the 10 million people in this country living in flats and apartments have the right to ask their landlord to help them get better broadband connectivity. This is a Bill to stop landlords failing to engage with telecoms operators. If we have learned nothing else in the past 10 months, although I am sure that we have learned plenty, broadband and better connectivity overall is now absolutely essential for people to be able to go about their daily lives in this country. As we have been hearing in the Covid-19 Select Committee of this House, the need for strong and reliable digital infrastructure will continue even after the pandemic has receded.

We have heard a very powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I remember him asking me the question this time last year. I will just say this to him: as he set out in his powerful speech, since the Bill was first debated last summer, events have indeed moved on. Although, as the Minister set out in her letter to all noble Lords, the amendment is not in scope, I am pleased to note that he and other noble Lords have recognised that the Minister has worked very hard to see if a way could be found to bring forward an amendment to the Bill that was in scope. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will accept that the motivation behind his amendment and the passion and knowledge with which he speaks have been recognised and widely accepted, and are already influencing policy. He rightly pointed to the recent statement made by the Foreign Secretary as well as, of course, to the Telecommunications (Security) Bill which is being considered in the other place and will reach us.

I want also to pay tribute to the 5G Supply Chain Diversification Strategy which was published last month. When I was the Secretary of State with responsibility for digital, we made the decision last year about who would be able to work to roll out better connectivity. It was absolutely clear that we must not find ourselves in the situation again of being overly reliant on one supplier; we need to have more suppliers in the chain. I think that the new US Administration will help us through working together to achieve that.

The noble Lord, with his amendment, has compelled the Government to act. He has outlined the fact that there will be another opportunity, next week in the Trade Bill, for the House to consider the very important matters that he and other noble Lords have raised. For the reason that our fellow citizens need better connectivity, and that those who live in flats or apartments must be able to ask their landlords to engage in connectivity issues, this Bill is much needed now on the statute book.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I doubt very much whether the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, could ever possibly watch from the sidelines—but that is an aside.

After an unusually long gap between Report and Third Reading, we are sending the Bill back to the Commons in much better shape than when it arrived. It is still, however, a modest Bill with much to be modest about, to coin a phrase. We on these Benches have never thought that it was adequate in itself to deliver the ambition of one-gigabit-per-second broadband capability by 2025, and of course the goalposts themselves have now been moved by the Government. However, we now have the consultation on changes to the Electronic Communications Code, which is a step forward. I do hope that the Government will see the wisdom of retaining the review mechanism of the code in Clause 3, which the House inserted on Report, which can assess after that what other measures might be needed. We on these Benches will continue to press the Government on their electoral promises.

We also stressed during the passage of the Bill that we would like to see broadband treated as a utility, as with gas, water and electricity, with all the necessary and equivalent rights of entry. The last year could not have demonstrated more graphically the essential nature of good broadband to all our lives, alongside, if not ahead of, all those other utilities. We on these Benches advocate strongly for the universal service obligation to be raised to 25 or 30 megabits per second—that is, superfast levels—which should be treated as the minimum for these rural areas.

That said, I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, together with her Bill team, as ever, for their very good nature. I also thank her for her kind words, good nature and patience with us all throughout the Bill and for her willingness to listen, even if she did not always accept our arguments. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his collaboration and co-operation during the course of the Bill, which showed how we always achieve better results by cross-party working.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising some extremely important questions with reference to human rights abuses and modern slavery. His campaigning has clearly changed the Government’s approach and, despite what the Minister has said, it might become even more relevant in the context of the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, which, as we have heard, will come to this House shortly. Of course, the acid test will come next Tuesday on the Trade Bill ping-pong. This is of great significance in terms of the relationship between human rights and trade as a whole. Like him and many other noble Lords, I urge the Government to reconsider their position ahead of that vote.

Lastly, I thank Sarah Pughe in our whips’ office for her valuable help, and my noble friends Lord Fox and Lady Northover, who have contributed so knowledgeably throughout on different aspects of the Bill that they have given me a very easy run when leading on it.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a privilege to make the concluding speech for the Cross Benches on this Bill today. I place on record our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the Bill team, who have been so ready to engage with our concerns, albeit to limited avail in the end.

It was the late Robin Cook who, as Foreign Secretary, first set out a framework for the UK to have an ethical foreign policy in 1997. Given where the UK is now—debating sanctions only an hour ago against Russia in defence of human rights and democracy, standing up for the rights of people in Hong Kong and shortly to be in the process of discussing the National Security and Investment Bill—I think he would have been pleased with the progress made in the intervening period, not least with our efforts to prevent Chinese commercial enterprises, under the control of that country’s national security laws, from participating in egregious human rights violations and cashing in their profits in this country.

I first spoke to my amendment preventing firms that are a security threat operating our critical national infrastructure on 19 May 2020 in Committee on this Bill. In the intervening eight months and numerous debates, it was never my intention—and I think I speak for all other noble Lords who have led this charge; the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Forsyth and Lord Adonis, joined by the Front-Bench speakers of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party—to prevent the necessary tools needed to roll out broadband to those who need it. Our concerns were well grounded and have, regrettably, come to pass as more information on the treatment of Chinese Uighurs comes to light.

It is also the co-operation between the House of Lords and the other place, so ably led by my noble friend Lord Alton, on these numerous amendments that has allowed us to help the Government to think through where the balance lies in relation to commerce and complicity in human rights abuses that has helped us reach this place today with our amendments. It is now for the other place to decide where that balance lies. I wish the Bill well.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 29th June 2020 Lords Chamber

Given all that we now know, the question for Parliament is whether it is willing to turn a blind eye and let Huawei march on regardless. In Committee, I drew a parallel with Siemens and its role in the Reich when, 80 years ago, it built its vast commercial interests on the backs of slave labour in Ravensbrück. Do not let us pretend to ourselves that this is any different; it is not. While a delay may suit the Government, it does not suit the Turkic Muslims in western China. For all these reasons, I commend the amendment to the House.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to have added my name to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, whose expertise on human rights is paralleled by no one else in this House.

Deng Xiaoping, one of China’s most impressive leaders, had a lesson for his countrymen: “Hide your light and bide your time,” he told them. What he meant by that was that China’s power was extant but that it needed to be cautious as it became more important to the world for fear that the disruption that rising powers bring to the international system might paradoxically damage its interests. Under President Xi Jinping, this has been thrown aside as China stakes out its ambition as a global hegemon.

The current impasse between the United States and China is often referred to as the “Thucydides trap”, from his description of the Peloponnesian war. The idea is that, when two great powers are rivals for the top place, they will inevitably come into conflict. The choice then for middle-level powers, like the United Kingdom, is to decide on which side of the conflict they sit. I do not subscribe to this view of the inevitability of conflict, not least because the US is a democracy that operates with public accountability and checks and balances. The Chinese people not only have no such right of democratic consent, but for many of them the fact of their birth seals their fate—think of Xinjiang or, to a lesser degree, the Hong Kong of the future.

As we enter a harsher state of international relations, the display of Chinese power, some would say assertiveness, poses choices for the rest of us—those who are middle-ranking powers, be they Germany, France or even India—as we will have to confront it in the years ahead. The choices will be around values, economics and the rule of law.

If this Parliament has any meaning, it is as the expression of constitutional democracy. Its very purpose is to protect the citizens of this country from harm, be it their national security, however narrowly defined, or, more broadly, their privacy, their finances and their jobs. It is the job of the Government today to partner with Parliament in order to uphold those functions. We are not seeking to undermine the Government through this amendment; we are simply asking them to uphold their own responsibilities in the protection of the interests of the United Kingdom. That is the context in which the Modern Slavery Act and this amendment should be seen.

So let me speak of our values. I have not heard anyone outside China deny that, without trial, it has thrown more than 1 million people in Xinjiang province, the ethnic Uighur Muslims, into gulags. It has built internment camps, carried out a programme of forced and compulsory re-education and, as the Economist magazine put it this week,

“They have been selected … because of habits such as praying too often to Allah, showing too much enthusiasm for their Turkic culture or refusing to watch state television.”


Add to this the fact that men are not allowed to grow a beard, even during Ramadan, women are not allowed to wear headscarves—something I have witnessed myself in Beijing—and they are forced to eat pork, which is reminiscent of the treatment afforded to the Muslims of Spain during the Spanish Inquisition. This is the largest round-up of a minority anywhere since the Second World War who, since these people do not face charges in a court of law, do not know when they will be released. Today, we have also seen evidence that Uighur women are undergoing forced sterilisation.

According to several different reports from academics in the US, Australia and Germany, one of which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the Chinese have official schemes to send tens of thousands of ethnic Uighurs from the camps to perform forced labour all across China. Factories are paid by the Government for each worker taken. They live in dormitories with watch-towers and undergo forced indoctrination—we called it brainwashing in the old days—and are unlikely to be paid. All of this is in violation of international human rights law.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has named 83 companies which have used this forced labour. When the firms are challenged on their supply chains, they ask us to work with them to change behaviour through legislation. They are so frightened of Chinese economic power that they need essentially to hide behind us, the western countries, to pressurise China. The Chinese companies whose products we use have no such qualms. While the US is moving towards stronger legislation as regards the use of Uighur forced labour by firms, we are not asking for that in this amendment; we are merely asking the House to vote to uphold legislation that it has passed previously, the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

Let me turn to the potential harm that high-risk vendors can pose to our citizens. As Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, has explained with regard to the future of the internet and telecommunications, the most likely scenario that we in the West are facing is bifurcation of the internet into a Chinese-led internet and a non Chinese-led internet led by America. When describing the Chinese alternative, he has said:

“There’s a real danger that along with those products and services comes a different leadership regime from government, with censorship, controls, etc.”


That should serve as a warning about defending our rights.

At the heart of Chinese attitudes towards its tech dominance is a view of cybersecurity. At the second World Internet Conference held in 2015 in Wuzhen in China, President Xi Jinping defined cyber sovereignty as something that

“covers all aspects of state-to-state relations, which also includes cyberspace. We should respect the right of individual countries to independently choose their own path of cyber development, model of cyber regulation and Internet public policies, and participate in international cyberspace governance on an equal footing.”

Of course, we know that there is no international cyberspace governance that China subscribes to. It pushes us to incorporate its firms into our markets, but it does not give our firms market access. It is a vision of global corporate dominance that is based on unfair competition, data capture and flagrant breaches of commercial law. What is evident is that this idea of cyber sovereignty does not extend to other countries following their own path, as he advocated. No sooner did Australia announce that it did not want high-risk vendors such as Huawei and ZTE in its 5G network than it got the most vociferous bullying campaign directed against it.

Huawei—the high-risk vendor in question here—tells us that it is

“a private company wholly owned by its employees”

and therefore independent of the Chinese state. I think that the notion of independence is stretched in this description. Huawei is headquartered in China, regulated in China, while the lack of transparency in its financial and technological rise is not verifiable in terms of the transparency in corporate governance that we subscribe to here in the West. The founder, Mr Ren Zhengfei, and his daughter, Ms Meng Wanzhou, are members of the supervisory board, while almost all the members of that board have been at Huawei since the 1990s—something that corporate governance norms would frown at. We can safely deduce that the very fact that they have been there for some 25 to 30 years implies that they are party men and women.

EU: British Musicians

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

We absolutely recognise that musicians, and the performing arts more broadly, are a crucial part of our culture and our economy. We are working towards a reciprocal arrangement for a touring visa based on best precedent, so that UK musicians could work short term within the EU. However, we do not currently believe that a touring visa, such as the noble Earl suggests, is legally possible.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)]

The Minister mentioned reciprocal arrangements for UK citizens, but I wonder if she could disaggregate that and concentrate only on people in the performing arts. If reciprocal arrangements are not negotiated, will she consider the UK unilaterally allowing access for EU musicians to come here, in the hope that at least individual EU countries will then reciprocate? If we wait for the arrangements for all professionals to be able to travel back and forth, it will be too late for musicians who have contracts that are signed years in advance.

[Baroness Barran]

I am sorry if I was not clear; I was aiming to refer specifically to those in the performing arts. There are not currently plans for a unilateral agreement. We are optimistic that we can reach an effective reciprocal agreement. We are not looking for a bespoke or unique deal. We are trying to build on existing free trade agreements and ensure that they are appropriate for our performing arts and wider service sectors.