Security Update

Debate between Baroness Finn and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this important statement, and I congratulate her very much on her recent and well-deserved promotion. I look forward to continuing our spirited and enthusiastic discourse over many months ahead, and I shall try not to try her patience too far. We are also grateful to Ministers for making a Statement so swiftly and for allowing us to repeat the Statement in your Lordships’ House today.

Ministers will recognise the seriousness of this situation. If these charges are proven, it will not be the first time that China has spied on us here in Parliament. Interference with our democracy is unacceptable. I pay tribute to all those who have been involved in this investigation, and especially to those public servants who have put themselves in harm’s way to keep us all safe.

This is a fast-developing situation, and I understand that there will be limits to how much the Minister can say to the House on the details of the case. The Guardian has reported that one of those arrested is the spouse of a sitting Labour MP, and that another is the spouse of a former Labour MP.

The Security Minister in the other place reassured Parliament of

“the Government’s determination to stand with all Members to ensure that they are properly protected”.

Can the Minister provide any additional detail on the steps that Members of both Houses should be taking in response to this latest espionage case? Will Members of your Lordships’ House be contacted about any additional measures that should be taken? Given that the individuals arrested for these alleged offences were involved in politics, some apparently over many years, are there steps that we as politicians may take to support the investigations that are ongoing?

Although we accept that Ministers, government officials and parliamentary officials will be working very hard to respond to this shocking news, I cannot let this pass without noting the wider background of the Government’s stance towards China. Since the Government took office, we have seen the collapse of a high-profile China trial. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government have learned the lessons of that case and that every effort will be made to ensure that this case does not collapse in the same way?

Ministers have previously shrunk from calling China what it is: a national security threat. They refused to publish the China audit and failed to place China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, so can she also reassure the House that when the Government are asked whether China is opposed or hostile to the interests of the United Kingdom, the response will be unequivocal? Will the Government now also place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

More recently, the Government announced a thawing of our relationship with China. The mega-embassy in the heart of our capital has been approved. The Prime Minister went to Beijing to foster closer relationships with his counterparts there. The news of yet more aggressive espionage activity undertaken by China makes the Prime Minister’s new approach to China look faintly ridiculous. Does the Minister accept that these attempts to rekindle a closer relationship with China, at a time when it seeks to spy on us here in Parliament, send the wrong signal to China? Can she see why China might see this thawing of relations as a green light for more aggressive and intrusive activities here in the UK? Will the Government now reconsider the decision to approve the embassy in the heart of our capital?

In conclusion, this is a shocking situation and although Ministers are right to respond rapidly and keep Parliament informed, they should bear in mind that the first duty of any Government is the defence of national security. The Minister has said that the Government will prioritise national security; on that basis, they need urgently to reassess their approach to China. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we also thank the Minister for repeating this Statement, and appreciate the subtleties of where we are now and the limits as to what we can say about this specific case. I declare an interest: I went to China for the first time in 1982 and have been many times since. I was, professionally, an academic working in a think tank on international relations and teaching international relations at a number of universities, and was actively involved in negotiations at the London School of Economics to build joint degrees with Fudan and Tsinghua universities. I well remember the difficulties we had in years after that with the pressure from the Chinese to double the number of students every year and not to maintain the careful controls that we wanted to have on them.

We know that China has become much more of a threat than it was 20 or 30 years ago. That is part of it. We also know that we all live in a bit of a glass house on this and we should not throw stones. This afternoon, I reread the ISC report on China and it is deeply critical of David Cameron—the noble Lord, Lord Cameron —George Osborne and a number of others. We have all walked the very delicate line between maintaining good relations, including good social relations, and not allowing foreign Governments to gain information they should not have or get involved in any sense in undue influence. Foreign influence in British politics is unavoidable. Foreign interference, particularly when it involves money and covert activities, is completely unacceptable.

It is not just China or even Russia. We had the statement from an under-secretary in the US Department of State the other week that she intends to use State Department funds for international development to influence British and European politics. That is also foreign interference in British politics. Some of us feel that right-wing foundations in parts of the southern United States now putting money into think tanks and lobby groups in Britain is also unacceptable foreign interference. We hope that will be part of what we will all actively discuss when we come to the Representation of the People Bill. We look forward to the Rycroft review and to the Government taking an active role in accepting the conclusions of that review and putting them in that Bill.

The strategic defence review talked about building a whole-of-society approach to the diverse direct and indirect threats we now face. It is well over 12 months since the strategic defence review was published and we have heard nothing about that. It also spoke about the need for a “national conversation” on the hybrid threats we now face, many of which are not entirely easy to see but could clearly, in the long run, cause deep damage. We need public education, public information and public engagement. I urge the Government to take some action on that. We do not see it at present. For example, we are told that the Defending Democracy Taskforce is doing very good work, but we are not told what it is doing. I found this sentence on page 61 of the ISC report on China:

“Effective Parliamentary oversight is not some kind of ‘optional extra’—it is a vital safeguard in any functioning Parliamentary democracy”.


I encourage the Government to think how much they need to inform us and, through us, the public of the nature and complexity of the threats that we now face.

I make one more point on think tanks and universities, all of which unavoidably work on a global scale. I have talked to vice-chancellors who tell me that among the biggest problems they face, in terms of discipline on campus, is relations between Chinese and Hong Kong students. I am conscious that a number of universities are now deeply financially dependent on the revenue they get from Chinese students. That is the result of the previous Government encouraging them to depend on Chinese students. I ask the Government to take into account that, if we are going to resist Chinese interference, they may need to look again at how they fund some of our best universities to ensure that they remain as good as they are.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Debate between Baroness Finn and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal for the opportunity to respond to this Statement.

We are three weeks on from the Motion passed in the other place for this humble Address to be presented to His Majesty, and not a single document has yet been published. We often hear that Ministers are moving at pace, but this time Ministers are moving at an unacceptably slow pace. Transparency delayed is transparency denied. The Government must not drag their feet in complying with the clear instruction of Parliament. Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that there will be no further slippage in the timetable for publication?

In the other place, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister accepted that compiling the material will take some time and spoke of publication “very shortly” in tranches. But “very shortly” is not a plan. Parliament’s instruction requires urgency as well as completeness, and we will continue to hold Ministers to account for delivering both.

The Chief Secretary also told the other place that the first tranche would be published in early March. Can the Lord Privy Seal clarify what the Government mean by early March? For example, should the House expect publication within the first week of March, and can she confirm the precise date on which the first tranche will be laid?

The humble Address expressly exempts papers that would be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. These papers are instead to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee, the ISC. Can the Lord Privy Seal explain what test officials are applying when they decide that disclosure would be prejudicial in each case? Will she also confirm that material identified as engaging those exemptions is being passed to the ISC promptly as it is identified, rather than being held back and sent only once the wider collation exercise is complete, so that the committee can begin its work without delay?

It has also been noted that the ISC’s secretariat is provided by Cabinet Office officials. We unequivocally do not question the independence or integrity of the ISC, but given that the Cabinet Office is also leading the Government’s sifting and handling of material for publication, what steps are being taken to ensure that these parallel roles do not create even the perception of a conflict and that the ISC has the resources and independence it needs to do this job quickly and thoroughly?

I turn to the documents the Government say they are withholding following discussions with the Metropolitan Police. In the other place, the Speaker has been clear that the police cannot dictate to that House what may be required under a humble Address. Will the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal confirm that the Government accept the principle behind that statement—that the duty to comply rests with Ministers, and that any documents withheld because of the live investigation will be published as soon as it is possible to do so? Will she also consider setting a clear backstop for further updates to Parliament so that the process cannot drift indefinitely? More broadly, humble Addresses are understood to be binding resolutions of the House. Does she accept that a failure to comply with the humble Address without proper justification could be treated as a contempt of Parliament?

The official Opposition have called for clarity on what is to be published, what is being withheld, and why. Will the noble Baroness commit to publishing a comprehensive list of the categories of documents within scope, identifying which have been disclosed, which have been referred to the ISC and which are being temporarily withheld—for example, because of the police investigation —together with the reason in each case? If she cannot give a firm commitment today, will she undertake to write to clarify the Government’s position?

We have been patient and constructive, but the public interest in these papers is clear. They must be published in a timely way if lessons are to be learned and accountability secured.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we all now recognise that it was a massive misjudgment to appoint Lord Mandelson to the post of ambassador in Washington. The Prime Minister has already apologised for that. He is not the first Prime Minister to have made such a serious error, and opposition parties should avoid pretending that they are entirely innocent of similar past mistakes. That will persuade the public only that all politicians are aggressively partisan and potentially corrupt.

However, there should be a much wider canvas for this investigation. We need to know not only about the involvement of Lord Mandelson in the Epstein network but how far others in the UK were involved and whether any of the trafficking of young women took place through Britain and British airports. The interaction between a sexual exploitation network and the provision of confidential government information to rich financiers is a potentially explosive mixture. It could deepen public mistrust in not only our political elite but the City of London and its links to New York banks. Then there are the rumours of Russian links with all this. It is vital to demonstrate as much transparency as possible, with a vigorous attempt to uncover what has really taken place.

We recognise the challenge that the vast mass of documents to be examined poses. We also recognise that there will be some areas where national security interests unavoidably prevent full publication—particularly the rumours of Russian links, if they turn out to have some foundation—but we ask the Government to publish and explain to the public as much as possible, in order to rebuild public trust.

I hope the Minister also recognises that the British Government are now in a position where they can and should set an international example of our adherence to democratic accountability and the rule of law. There have already been a number of comments in Washington on the contrast between American and British reactions to this developing scandal: no recent arrests in the United States, reluctant release of heavily redacted documents and an Administration doing their best to deny any involvement, contrasted with the Government and Head of State in London taking the limited British involvement seriously.

Democracy and the rule of law are under attack in the United States and elsewhere. We on these Benches therefore encourage our Government to demonstrate in everything they do in this developing scandal that accountability and the law matter enormously. There is likely to be a lot more still to come out from all these documents that will embarrass the US Government and America’s financial, high-tech and business elites, as well as their counterparts in the UK.

The previous Conservative Government resisted publication of the full extent of Russian penetration of British politics, primarily because its deepest penetration had been of the Conservative Party. We still do not know how far it extended or what lessons we all need to learn. I again encourage the Government to publish a much fuller version of the ISC’s Russia report to alert the public to the threats of foreign interference in British politics that we face, and as helpful background to the sad mixture of money, sleaze and sexual exploitation that Lord Mandelson, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and perhaps other leading British people were caught up in.

National Citizen Service Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Finn and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th November 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, should declare an interest. I have done most of my politics in places like Bradford, Huddersfield, Leeds and Manchester, particularly in areas where the people who we would now call the left-behind are clustered. That is where I have come across the National Citizen Service and been impressed by what it does. However, I also recognise that it is one useful initiative in places where government funding has been cut by 40% in the last 10 years, and where the state is not at all evident.

My worry—and the reason for all these probing amendments—is that we have here something that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, rightly called one part of a bigger jigsaw, and that can only be part of a bigger jigsaw. It needs not to be set too permanently in cement. It needs to have the flexibility to become part of a wider strategy, because we desperately need a wider strategy towards those who no longer feel that they are really citizens and part of our society. Other voluntary bodies are working in the same area. Just in the past six months I have visited the York schools partnership between independent schools and local state schools. It is excellent: Saturday extra curriculum throughout the year—including a week in the Lake District—funded by contributions and other sources. In the middle of August I visited a summer school run by local volunteers in north Bradford for children between primary school and secondary school, some of whom are still struggling to read or count. That point, at which children are moving from one area to another, is crucial. The local Tesco provided the food and we managed, with contributions from people like me, to take the children to the Lake District for a week to work together. Some of them had never been that far from their homes.

There is a range of activities run by the Scouts and others; they need to work together. If the National Citizen Service is to expand at speed, as is proposed, it also needs to be locally linked and networked, and not have yet more national organisation imposed on it. The choice of local partners and local providers is important.

We will need to develop a wider strategy and look at how one works the volunteer dimension and how far it can fit into the things that desperately need doing for younger people—not just the 15 to 17 year-olds but all the way through from when children enter nursery school. That needs to be discussed further. I worry a little. The reason why some of us are testing this royal charter is that, when one hears about permanence and cement, one wonders whether this is being put down as a great lump, when there is a huge amount that we need to do. Whatever we think about the outcome of the referendum, the scale of the vote that we saw not just against Brussels but against London, the elite and all the outsiders in these areas shows us that we have a major, long-term underlying problem, to which this is one useful response, but as part of a wider strategy—it is only part of a bigger jigsaw.

I have just a few hesitations from my limited experience in the coalition Government about the total independence of royal charter bodies if appointed by the Prime Minister on the advice of the Cabinet Office. There are occasional, small political interventions at that level. Perhaps I had better not say any more than that, but I have watched it with a degree of interest.

One should not overstate the contribution that NCS alone can make. The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, talked about giving it a higher status. If this is to be a rite of passage—almost the rite of passage—we need to do a lot more. We need to do a great deal for those in secondary schools. This is a useful contribution to that, but there is a great deal more that this House might usefully debate—we might even have a sessional committee to investigate it further—because we know that we face a much wider problem.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 14 and 15, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord O’Shaughnessy, and to Amendment 17, also in the names of my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord O’Shaughnessy, which relates to the wording on appointments in the royal charter.

I reiterate that I am completely delighted that the NCS Bill seeks to put the remarkable success story of the National Citizen Service on a statutory footing. I fully support the aim of the Bill to achieve that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord O’Shaughnessy that the independence factor is vital. For me, it is absolutely critical that the National Citizen Service is not classed as a non-departmental public body.

This real and perceived independence will give the National Citizen Service a status that is above petty party politics. To imperil that independence would be completely wrong. The NCS must not be seen as an arm of the state. I believe that the royal charter route, which brings a sense of permanence, is the best route to achieve all these aims. Like my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, I believe that the Cabinet Office guidance on this matter—that a publicly funded body can be unclassified if it is genuinely unique and unclassifiable—is the best solution in the case of the National Citizen Service Trust.

Having established that maximum independence with proper government oversight and accountability is essential, I turn to the vexed issue of appointments to the National Citizen Service board. The appointments lie at the heart of the real and perceived independence issues. I do not believe that the NCS Trust should have a formal government or opposition appointee on the board. There are several reasons for that. First, there is a very real conflict of interest. The Secretary of State has a role in regulating both the National Citizen Service and wider civil society. It would therefore be wrong to have the regulator as such sitting as a non-executive member of the board.