National Security (State Threats) Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “activity” insert “including espionage”
Member's explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to clarify whether all aspects of espionage are covered by the reference to “foreign power threat activity”, in the light of the recent conviction of two Chinese spies, one of whom worked for the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has other relevant amendments in this group. Amendment 1 is a probing amendment that enables the Minister to clarify the exact breadth of the intention in the Bill—a Bill that I welcome, and I regret I was not able to be here at Second Reading to say so. The Bill is designed to address the threat posed by foreign state-linked organisations that operate here in the UK.

My amendment relates in particular to the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, whose office manager, Bill Yuen, was recently convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison under the National Security Act 2023 for helping to run a CCP surveillance operation from its premises. The existence of this office dates back to the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Act 1996, passed on the premise that Hong Kong was meaningfully autonomous from Beijing. “One country, two systems” was meant to mean that separate legal, economic and administrative systems would be permitted in Hong Kong, albeit as part of China. Any such pre-1997 autonomy or even post-1997 freedoms are clearly no longer the case, yet somehow the office survives, supposedly independent of the Chinese embassy but with at least one of its staff acting on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party.

This has involved surveillance of some of our own citizens and of Hong Kong dissidents resident in the UK. Indeed, Regina Ip, former convenor of Hong Kong’s Executive Council, even claimed that it was legal for the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office to gather intelligence on activists. Both sorts of surveillance are surely intolerable.

Perhaps it is possible to describe activity against UK citizens as activity involving a threat by a foreign state and therefore a threat to the safety or interests of the UK as defined in the Bill, but what about similar actions affecting Hong Kong citizens? Would they be covered if some foreign policy threat activity included espionage, given that surveillance of UK residents would be reported back to China? I assume it would count as espionage, especially as the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office funded Bill Yuen’s legal costs and its salaried staff attended most of the trial at the Old Bailey to show support for him, even while the office enjoyed the privilege confirmed by Parliament in the hopeful days of 1996.

The Bill is to deal with the threat posed by foreign state-linked organisations operating in the UK. The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office is a foreign state-linked organisation and is operating here in London. We should protect our citizens from its activities but also protect UK residents who are classified as dissident activists by the Chinese state, some of whom have bounties on their heads. I hope, in response, my noble friend the Minister can provide some assurance that this body and its nefarious activities would be in scope of the Bill’s intent. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. This builds on the Private Notice Question which she placed before your Lordships’ House and indeed on our Second Reading debate last week where the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, which, as the noble Baroness has rightly said, is a relic of the past, became the centre of our interest because of some of those who worked there being convicted of being involved in espionage on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party regime in Beijing. That is why it is entirely relevant to this Bill and why it is good that the noble Baroness has placed Amendment 1, this probing amendment, before your Lordships’ Committee.

I have a few points I would like to make on that amendment before turning to my own Amendments 3 and 4, which deal with slightly different questions but are also linked to the malign activities of the Chinese Communist Party regime in the UK. Amendment 3 deals with transnational repression, and Amendment 4 deals with the activities of the United Front, which is not a state but works in line with the wishes and ideology of the Chinese Communist Party. That is why it is problematic in terms of the definitions in the Bill and why I have sought further clarification through my amendments.

I have a few pointers on the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office case, which might be helpful to your Lordships. In May 2024, law enforcement initially arrested 11 individuals across the UK. Only three of those were heavily linked to state funding via the London Hong Kong office referred to by the noble Baroness. Only three were prosecuted under the National Security Act 2023. Two have since been convicted and—as the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, was quite right to remind us during Second Reading last week—were subjected to very lengthy prison sentences. The remaining eight individuals suspected of acting as part of the vigilante team in contact with entities in Hong Kong and targeting an individual on British soil were released without charge.

This case highlights a common practice whereby Chinese and Hong Kong authorities blend private civil disputes, corporate debt collection and local organised crime groups—a point that I heard more about recently at a meeting organised by Tom Tugendhat MP, our former Security Minister, which pointed to the activities of organised crime linked to some of these groups promoting a political ideology. All of those are involved in the execution of transnational repression and jurisdiction overseas while evading national security prosecution.

I have four questions I would like to put the Minister on Amendment 1 before turning to those other two amendments. I am sorry they have been grouped together, but I think it is for the convenience of the House. I hope the House will therefore forgive me if I spend a bit of time speaking to the other two amendments, but here are my questions to build on what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has said already.

First, of the 11 individuals initially arrested by counterterrorism police in connection with the hostile tracking of a Hong Kong resident in Yorkshire, eight were subsequently released without trial. Can the Minister inform the House how many of those eight have since left the United Kingdom and whether any have returned to the jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China or the Hong Kong special administrative region, thereby placing themselves beyond the reach of British justice?

Secondly, is the Minister confident that counterterrorism and the Crown Prosecution Service—the CPS—possess the immediate capacity to process massive backlogs of foreign language evidence quickly enough to meet custody time limits? That has been an issue relevant to these prosecutions. Specifically, was a lack of rapid security-vetted translation capacity a contributing factor in the decision to release the other eight suspects without pressing charges?

Thirdly, is the Minister satisfied that our law enforcement agencies, including the NCA—the National Crime Agency—and regional special branches have the required resources to effectively monitor and map the nexus between Chinese state authorities, overseas proxy organisations and private contractors operating inside the United Kingdom?

Fourthly, what steps are the Government taking to bolster the China capabilities of UK law enforcement? Specifically, are we investing in the recruitment and training of security-vetted interpreters, fluent not just in Mandarin and Cantonese but in crucial dialects such as Hokkien and Fuzhou dialects, to effectively monitor and respond to issues related to transnational state repression and organised crime? This was referred to during the meeting that Tom Tugendhat MP organised in the House Commons recently and which, as I say, I was able to attend.

Let me turn to Amendment 3. I do not want to go on too much about this amendment, because I was able to have a very helpful and constructive meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, yesterday. I say at the outset that I will not press your Lordships to divide on this amendment, in the light of the very helpful assurances which he gave me yesterday. But I will just recap. On 26 February, I initiated a debate on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the privilege to chair, about our report on transnational repression. It was a thorough debate and the Minister replied in his courteous manner. However, his reply did not meet all of the questions which we raised in that debate, or indeed in the report. I returned to it on 21 May, during the King’s Speech debate, and subsequently in a balloted debate that I won, which was secured for 4 June and which dealt with atrocity crimes. This is also an amendment which Alicia Kearns, Member of Parliament, raised in the House of Commons during its six-hour consideration of the Bill.

Without dwelling too much on procedural issues, I think all of us who have been around this place and have had the privilege to serve in both Houses know that to give the House of Commons only six hours of debate on a major Bill of this importance, and then to come to your Lordships and do all the remaining stages in one day flat, as we are doing today—Committee, Report and Third Reading—is clearly absurd, given that this is based on Jonathan Hall’s excellent report of 11 months ago, as is the idea that we have not had time during that period to debate some of these questions. Furthermore, it cannot be right that the Home Affairs Select Committee was unable to take evidence on the Bill, even though it requested it, or that my own committee, which wanted to scrutinise the Bill, was left to just write a letter to the Minister. The Minister has responded to that in his usual courteous way, and I am grateful, but how much better it would have been to have pre-legislative scrutiny and proper consideration of the Bill in the normal way. There are some questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has asked and I am asking, and I know that colleagues from the Conservative Opposition Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches and elsewhere on the Cross Benches have legitimate questions to ask about the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows that I always welcome the views of the committee, and I will look at them and reflect on them with colleagues. I can probably give a definitive yes to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on his point; I was hedging my bets, but I think I can give a definitive yes. I hope that helps him in his assessment. I always like to give the House exquisite legal advice on these matters, rather than finding myself having to examine my own comments at a later date. I hope again that, given all the points that have been made, my noble friend will withdraw her amendment and that other noble Lords will not push theirs.

The Committee will notice that I have not spoken to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, or indeed the clause stand part notice from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which were in this group, because they have not spoken to them. With that, I hope that my noble friend will respond accordingly.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I first thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Beamish and Lord Shinkwin, for their support. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Foster, and in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who managed to get Jimmy Lai’s name in, which we always appreciate. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his assurance that espionage is covered.

This is a live issue. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong, John Lee, has said that overseas activists with bounties on their heads will be “pursued for life”. Activists such as Christopher Mung, Ted Hui, Finn Lau and Nathan Law have all been targeted by the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, so what we are asking for is urgent. That is why I support this Bill going as fast as possible and being implemented as quick as possible. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the sentencing of Peter Wai and Bill Yuen for assisting a foreign intelligence service, what plans they have to (1) protect Hong Kongers in the United Kingdom from transnational repression; and (2) to review the status, privileges and immunities of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Question. I assure her that any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. This trial has shown that anyone working to assist a foreign state to undermine our security will face the full force of the law. The Foreign Secretary has also made it clear to the Chinese Government and directly to the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office that this activity is unacceptable and clearly counterproductive to our relationship.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but given that one of those convicted under the National Security Act for spying on pro-democracy activists was an immigration officer and special constable, himself sentenced to 10 years, can my noble friend assure me that his Government will take greater steps to ensure that no such agents are working under such a guise? Can he also assure me that the Government are taking all possible action to protect Hong Kong citizens living in the UK, especially those with a bounty on their head, from harassment or even worse from the Chinese Government?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As my noble friend indicated, the two individuals concerned received significant prison sentences of eight years and 10 years for their offences. Immediately following the arrest, officials in the Home Office took steps to bolster protections across Home Office systems. This has included further strengthening access management and monitoring of systems, expanding the use of enhanced integrity checks and reviewing conflicts of interest policies. In addition, the Prime Minister set out to the House in April that Sir Adrian Fulford will undertake a review of national security vetting, which will report in due course.

My noble friend asked about Hong Kongers generally and transnational repression. The Government take the safety of individuals who may be at risk from transnational repression extremely seriously. We have recently updated GOV.UK guidance on transnational repression for individuals, and counterterrorism policing in particular has rolled out training across all UK police forces, including upskilling of 999 call handlers to improve front-line identification and response.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 350 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, Amendment 416B in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, and Amendments 356G and 398 to which I have added my name.

I will turn first to Amendments 350, 356G and 398, about drink-driving, something we all want to see end. Amendment 350 would bring the UK into line with virtually every other country by reducing the permitted blood alcohol level from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. This has widespread support among the public and has been endorsed by an impressive range of organisations, including the BMA—which is not very popular at the moment—the National Police Chiefs’ Council, IAM RoadSmart, PACTS, RoSPA, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Society for Acute Medicine, the College of Paramedics, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners—in other words, exactly the people who have to pick up the pieces when drivers have been behind the wheel after drinking. As RoSPA’s strapline states,

“accidents don’t have to happen”

—never so true as with drink-related car crashes.

The arguments are clear. England and Wales are now the only countries in Europe with a limit as high as 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. All the others, including Scotland, have a limit of 50 milligrams or lower, which the bodies I have name-checked want for new and commercial drivers. A 50-milligram limit leads to fewer crashes and fewer deaths and injuries. Drink-driving fatalities have risen to a fifth of all road deaths, the highest rate since 2009. That is 260 deaths a year, with the victims often an innocent passenger, a pedestrian or a driver from another car. That is only part of the problem, with over 7,000 casualties, some life-changing, because while wonderful medicine and brilliant ambulance staff can save lives, they cannot always save limbs. Public support for change is overwhelming, with three-quarters favouring a lower limit, and nearly this number wanting zero tolerance of drink-driving.

Amendment 398 allowing random breath tests, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, would be a major disincentive to drivers, knowing they could be stopped on any road for a quick blow-into-the-bag test. Few would risk their licence if the chances of being stopped were increased and unpredictable. Regrettably, enforcement of our existing laws has nearly collapsed, with the number of breath tests more than halved since 2009. Meanwhile the proportion of drivers who admit to driving while over the limit has been rising, especially among the under-25s, with some one-third confessing to this. Random breath testing happens in many other countries and the effects are evident. In Queensland, Australia, a reduction from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams with the added use of random testing saw fatal accidents drop by 18%. It is easy to see why. If the chance of being caught is slim, then the likelihood of risking it is high, but if the chance of being caught is high, then the likelihood of risking it is slim.

There is a further measure in Amendment 356G in this group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will speak in more detail. This is aimed at the repeat drink-driver who, once caught, would then have to have an alcolock fitted to the car, meaning a compulsory unavoidable breath test before the ignition could be switched on. This measure is clear, effective and preventive, and widely used in other countries and widely supported by the public.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 416B, which might answer some of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. This is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, and it concerns something very different. It addresses an oddity that has grown over the years; namely, that the maximum fine for keeping or driving an uninsured car is now well below the cost of insuring a car. It is a real disincentive to bother with that small matter of purchasing insurance.

There are up to 400,000 uninsured cars on our roads every day, yet, as a result of inflation, the fixed penalty notice for uninsured driving remains at just £300, and for keeping such a vehicle a mere £100—this, when the average insurance is about £560. So the price of doing the wrong thing is half of doing the right thing.

Of course, any accident of an uninsured cover driver is covered by all the rest of us via our insurance premium, because some of that funds the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, which pays out. The victim of any crash caused by an uninsured driver is still compensated, so we are all paying for the uninsured driver. Every 20 minutes, someone is injured by an uninsured driver. Indeed, those drivers account for about 130 of the deaths that I have mentioned each year. Despite that, deterrence against non-insurance is minimal so long as the fine is half the average premium.

Our intention when we looked to table an amendment was simple: we wanted to increase the level of the fine, whether for keeping or driving an uninsured vehicle, to a figure well above the cost of insurance. However, that fell foul of the clerks, who advised that it was out of scope of the Bill, meaning that we could not table a change to increase the penalty. What is in scope is to allow the police to confiscate an uninsured vehicle and to hold it until it is insured or, failing that, for the police to take ownership of it—when I told my noble friend the Minister this, I think he hoped it was a Jaguar that was going to be uninsured, which would help the police no end.

Of course, it would be a real incentive if you would lose your car if it was not insured. It was not the original intention to call for that, but I have to say that now it is on paper I am rather attracted to it. However, my question to the Minister today is: please will the Government either take their own action to jack up these fines for having an uninsured car or take the more radical step of giving police the nod to confiscate any car on the road without insurance?

In summary, the amendments to which I put my name would deter people from keeping or driving an uninsured car. Via the random breath tests, about which we will hear shortly from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, they would deter people from driving after drinking. Via the lower blood alcohol level, they would push down the rates of driving after drinking and, via the alcolocks, they would prevent a drink-driving offender taking to the car for a second time. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I shall speak to Amendment 356G in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, who has spoken so forcefully on the subject.

Drink-driving remains one of the most preventable causes of death on UK roads. The latest Department for Transport figures show that an estimated 260 people were killed in crashes on Britain’s roads involving at least one driver over the legal alcohol limit in 2023, and approximately 1,600 people were seriously injured.

Alcohol interlock technology, or alcolocks, can reduce reoffending and save lives. Alcolocks prevent a vehicle from starting if alcohol is detected on the driver’s breath. The driver has to breathe into a tube, and the levels of alcohol are instantly detected before the engine is able to be turned on. According to the RAC Report on Motoring 2025, 82% of UK drivers support the introduction of alcolocks, so—stops, looks meaningfully at Ministers—it is very popular with voters. Research for the RAC report also found rates of admitted drink-driving near pre-pandemic levels, with more than one in 10 respondents, 12%, saying they had driven when they thought they were over the limit, either directly after drinking or on the morning after. The figures for younger drivers were even more pronounced, with 14% of those aged 25 to 44 admitting to drink-driving, and as many as 18% of those under 25.

The good news is that alcolocks are already in the Road Safety Act 2006, but the experimental wording in its Section 16 effectively turned the interlock provisions into a contingent pilot that ended in 2010. That pilot was never fully taken forward and the powers never came into effect. As a result, alcohol interlocks are not part of the UK courts’ sentencing toolkit. This has left the interlock scheme in limbo, despite years of persistent drink-driving offending and the accompanying road deaths and injuries. However, removing this experimental wording will mean that the interlock scheme under Section 15 of the Road Safety Act can be brought into force, restoring the original purpose of the Act to give courts a rehabilitative, safety-oriented sentencing tool for drink-drive offenders.

Section 16 meant that courts could impose an alcohol ignition interlock programme order only in designated pilots or trial court areas—that is, only in areas specifically chosen by the Secretary of State. This was a purposefully cautious approach for any scheme to be selective and closely monitored to build an evidence base. However, the evidence base is now robust and expansive, and the UK is behind the curve, with all 50 US states, most EU countries, New Zealand and more all introducing a form of alcohol interlock programme, with substantial research available that supports their effectiveness.

This provision is already there in legislation; it just needs a tweak. These international programmes show that alcolocks can reduce reoffending by up to 70% and are as effective as airbags in reducing road deaths. All the Government have to do is accept this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, before I turn to the substance of the amendments in this group, I shall briefly set out the Government’s plans for road safety. As many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate will know, the Government are currently developing the first road safety strategy in a decade. The safety of road users is a top priority for the Government, and we are fully committed to considering the range of existing motoring offences and police powers, while implementing policies that will improve road safety for all. Our intention is to publish this strategy soon. Many of the issues raised in these amendments fall under the purview of this strategy, and I encourage noble Lords to study the strategy once it is available.

Amendment 345 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on his behalf, seeks to make provision for a pilot to help tackle the problem of non-compliant vehicles on our roads—that is, vehicles which are uninsured, unregistered, untaxed or without an MoT. The police already have robust enforcement powers under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Police Reform Act 2002, including the ability to seize and dispose of vehicles for offences such as driving without insurance or a valid MoT. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, the College of Policing provides authorised, professional practice guidance on roads policing, and the strategic policing requirement prioritises this nationally.

Enforcement on the roads is a matter for the police, given their operational independence, and should remain so. We have already talked earlier at some length this evening in Committee about the impact of Operation Topaz on focusing efforts of all partners in improving road policing, and certainly the Government, as we have heard, are investing in this. It is for police forces to enforce road traffic legislation, with chief officers deciding how to deploy available resources, taking into account any specific local problems and demands. Given his experience in road transport matters, it is good to be on the same side of this argument as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, at least on this one amendment tonight. For future days we shall see. Additional statutory guidance, as envisaged by the amendment, is therefore unnecessary. Mandating new guidance and pilots would place further strain on police resources without clear funding or staffing provisions.

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, intends that the pilot would provide a self-funding solution, but it is not immediately apparent to us how this would be the case. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that enforcement pilots will deliver better outcomes than existing measures such as the automatic number plate recognition—ANPR—systems and intelligence-led approaches.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about the APPG report, which talked about ANPR. Of course, we welcome the contribution of the APPG’s report on the issue. I note that the ANPR system is, of course, a valuable tool—as we would all acknowledge—to help the police tackle crime and keep the roads safe. The Government assure your Lordships’ Committee that they keep the effectiveness of police use of ANPR systems under regular review so that it remains a robust tool for identifying vehicles of interest and drivers who break the law to the police. The DVLA and National Police Chiefs’ Council work closely with trading standards, local authorities and other government departments to improve the identification and enforcement of number plate crime.

The danger is that the well-intentioned amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would duplicate existing frameworks, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing guidance. The focus should remain on optimising the use of current enforcement powers and technology rather than introducing a duplicative statutory provision. Having said that, I will arrange for Home Office and Department for Transport officials to meet the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in the new year.

I turn to Amendments 350 and 398, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Bailey, and discussed with some thought and care by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The Government fully share their—all our—commitment to reduce the numbers of those killed and seriously injured on our roads. Driving under the influence of drink or drugs is unacceptable and illegal. We are determined to combat this behaviour and to ensure that all such drivers are caught and punished. We have a combined approach of tough penalties and rigorous enforcement, along with our highly respected and effective THINK! campaign. This reinforces the social unacceptability of drink-driving, reminding people of the serious consequences such practices have for themselves and others.

I assure my noble friend that the upcoming road safety strategy includes serious consideration of lowering the drink-drive limits, as well as testing of suspects, and penalties. As part of this, we are considering concerns raised by campaigners, parliamentarians and bereaved families whom my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport have met. The Government are listening closely to the concerns of those affected by tragic cases of death or serious injury on our roads and want to put them at the heart of this work.

Amendment 356B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seeks to extend the alcohol ignition interlock programme to drivers convicted of certain drink-driving offences. Obviously, there is a very strong argument for alcolocks, not skipping over the fact that they have a lot of popularity with voters. I could not possibly comment on that in your Lordships’ House. As the noble Lord said, alcohol ignition interlock programmes are widespread in many jurisdictions. I reassure the noble Lord that the road safety strategy will consider the case for the use of alcolocks in dealing with drink-driving offenders.

It is worth considering the current regime in place for higher-risk offenders: those who have already engaged in what may be seen as repeated drink-driving or been involved in those alcohol misuse issues. There is a higher-risk offender—HRO—scheme for those who refuse to provide a breath sample, have had two drink-driving convictions in 10 years or were two and a half times over the legal limit. Currently, the practical consequences of becoming a drink-driver HRO is that the driver’s licence is not automatically reissued upon application once the period of disqualification has ended. Instead, the HRO must apply for a new licence, and the DVLA will issue a licence only after the HRO has proved their medical fitness to drive. Having said that, these alcolocks will be considered in the road safety strategy. I hope that gives the noble Lord some assurance and that he will look out for it and study it carefully.

Amendment 416B, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayter, related to the confiscation—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Before my noble friend goes on to the issues that will come under the strategy, can he confirm whether, if anything is agreed along any of these lines, separate legislation will be brought in? Our fear otherwise is that this Bill goes, and it is then a long time before any legislation is brought in.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The road safety strategy review is being undertaken by the DfT, so it is a little outside my bailiwick to speak on it. There may well be lots of provisions in the strategy—this is more my speculation than anything else—that do not require primary or secondary legislation. The strategy will be out soon, and we are about halfway through Committee.

My noble friend’s amendment on confiscation of uninsured vehicles was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, who spoke with considerable knowledge of the insurance industry and the costs of free riding in car insurance and those who do not act responsibly. As I have indicated, the police already have powers under Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to seize vehicles that are driven without insurance. This amendment goes further by making confiscation automatic and permanent after 28 days.

Under the existing regulations, the process for reclaiming a seized vehicle is clear and time-bound. Once the vehicle is seized, the registered keeper or driver has seven working days to reclaim it by paying all recovery and storage charges and providing proof of valid insurance. This ensures that enforcement is firm but fair, giving owners a reasonable opportunity to comply. If the vehicle is not reclaimed within the seven-day period, the police may proceed to dispose of it. Disposal can mean sale, destruction or other lawful means after issuing a formal notice of intent. This step ensures transparency, and due process for ownership is effectively transferred. These provisions strike an appropriate balance between enforcement, cost, recovery, and fairness to vehicle owners.

Having said that, my noble friend has indicated that her underlying point is about the inadequacy of the sanctions for driving without insurance, which the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, was discussing as well. My noble friend has pointed to the fact that at £300, the maximum fixed penalty notice for this offence is about half the cost of average annual car insurance. As I have said, we will soon be publishing a new road safety strategy. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this will, among other things, set out our proposals for changes to motoring offences. I invite my noble friend to study the strategy and accompanying consultation documents once they are published.

Asylum: UK-Rwanda Agreement

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a significant debate, which includes a very serious Motion—the first of its kind, as we have heard. It is absolutely right that it is in front of us today.

I am still on the International Agreements Committee and when I was chair, the agreement with Rwanda was merely a memorandum of understanding, not a treaty. We were rightly critical of that method, exactly because it bypassed the CRaG Act and therefore did not have to be approved, or indeed even debated, by Parliament. As we have heard, the 2010 Act specifically gives this House the right—I would say the duty—to recommend against the ratification of a treaty if it judges that that is appropriate, albeit that the actual decision quite rightly rests with the elected House. But it is part of our role to make recommendations both to the Government and the Commons. For the first time, the International Agreements Committee has concluded that the treaty should not be ratified until its various provisions and new bodies are demonstrably in place, the relevant lawyers and judges appointed, the committees ready to act and other requirements met.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst: yes, the wording in the treaty, its aspirations, may well be sufficient to satisfy the Supreme Court and its concerns, but we need to see those words become reality before the treaty is ratified.

As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, ratification now, before implementation of the safeguards, could mean planes the next day—before the safeguards are in place and before the Supreme Court, if it were allowed to opine, which it will not be because of the clause, could say, “Yes, that is now a safe destination”. Parliament needs to ratify, and agree to ratify, the treaty before it becomes operational—as must Rwanda itself. The treaty, as opposed to the Bill, deals with what Rwanda will do to answer the Supreme Court’s concerns so that it can take responsibility for assessing asylum seekers and caring for them, before and after any decision is made.

There are many who have argued, and will argue, that under international law the UK should never hand over responsibility for those who seek asylum here because, as we have heard, it is not simply to process them but, if they are judged eligible, to award them asylum in Rwanda rather than in the UK. As the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Kerr, said, we are not offshoring consideration but offloading responsibility.

I am not going to enter the debate about whether the whole Rwanda process is right or wrong. Along with the committee’s report and many noble Lords who have spoken, I will focus on whether the treaty answers the concerns raised by our own domestic court—our highest court in the land, the Supreme Court and not some foreign court, as others seem to think. It was the Supreme Court that judged that Rwanda was not a safe place to send asylum seekers and therefore that rendering refugees there would be unlawful. It questioned whether Rwanda’s domestic procedures—its own rules, asylum processes and personnel—were up to handling migrants in accordance with our domestic law, as well as international law. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester said, by this treaty and the Bill the Government are substituting their own opinion on a matter of fact for that of the highest court in our land. If I read her correctly, indeed, she is challenging the Government to go back and ask for the court’s opinion.

As many others have said, there is no doubt that Rwanda wants to meet the expected standards, and in the treaty it has undertaken to provide the law, skills, training, monitoring and so forth that we would expect. I do not doubt its bona fides in this regard but, surely, our Government and Parliament need assurances that all those protections and provisions are actually in place before we ratify a treaty—a treaty by which people landing on our shores after difficult, trying and dangerous journeys, and, as my noble friend Lady Lister said, possible trauma in their home country, can be sent 4,000 miles away to a continent they may not know, and in the process lose all rights to claim asylum in the UK.

The International Agreements Committee has not said that the treaty should never be ratified. It has judged that the treaty should not be ratified

“until Parliament is satisfied that the protections it provides have been fully implemented”

by Rwanda and the safeguards, which many noble Lords have enumerated, are in place. We used the word “Parliament”; it is essential that the Commons should be able to decide whether the treaty should be ratified. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, that it is a matter for them. But for them to be able to take that decision, the Government have to provide time in the Commons for a debate and a vote. The Commons’ own Home Affairs Committee has argued for that, so that the elected House can record its view on whether the treaty should be ratified at this point.

It seems particularly inappropriate, given that the 2010 Act specifically allows for a Commons vote, that the Government are not obliged to provide time for this in the Commons. Our usual channels are rather more facilitating. The Government will be entitled to ratify the treaty once it has been laid for 21 days on 31 January. I was not here in 2010, but some noble Lords here today were and I am certain that, when the 2010 Act was passed allowing for the House of Commons to take a view on ratification, it was never envisaged that that was a theoretical right, and it would depend on the Government giving time in the Commons for such a vote. It was in the wash-up, so I assume it was a bit of an oversight at that moment.

The 2010 Act is not fit for purpose. Today is the first test of one of its Sections, allowing us to at least give our opinions on the matter. It remains the case that the Commons can only defer, not decline, ratification. That would only be for 21 days; we are not talking about this being for months on end. As we have seen, both with Australia and possibly with this one, given that there is no requirement for the Government to make Commons time available for a debate and vote, they are effectively shutting off the one power given to the Commons in the Act.

Today, however, our decision is a simple one. We have been given the right to have this debate, and we have, through the Motion of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, the opportunity to give our view about whether it should be ratified at this stage before we know whether all the procedures are in place. I think that is a judgment for us, and that judgment should be: not now, not today. The ratification should not take place until we have assurances from the Government that what is written in the treaty is ready to work and that Rwanda is ready to receive whatever number of migrants are sent there. I hope the House will support both the Motions.

Rwanda Treaty

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Friday 8th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right: I was unable to answer that question yesterday, for which I apologise. To answer the noble Lord, Liddle, the Court of Appeal said there was evidence of only 100 places in the initial accommodation. Its assessment was based on evidence up to the summer of 2022. Since then, additional capacity has been added, but the exact number is immaterial because the scheme is uncapped, as I did say yesterday. Capacity will continue to be added as required. When claims are settled, people will move out of the accommodation. Finally, when the scheme works, and deters people from making illegal and dangerous channel crossings, we will need fewer places.

Yesterday, as noble Lords will be aware, the Permanent Secretary sent a letter to the Home Affairs Select Committee to disclose a further payment made to the Government of Rwanda through the migration and economic development partnership. This disclosed that a further £100 million had been paid in April as part of the ETIF. The letter also set out that, in the year 2024-25, we anticipate another payment of £50 million, in April 2024, again as part of the ETIF, as agreed with the Government of Rwanda when the migration and economic development partnership was signed. This brings the total spend so far to £240 million. The split is as follows: the initial investment of £120 million into the ETIF, a further £100 million into the ETIF, which was disclosed yesterday, and a separate payment of £20 million to the Government of Rwanda in advance of flights to support initial set-up costs of the asylum processing arrangements under the MEDP.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the International Agreements Committee will be scrutinising the new treaty. Will the Minister make sure that it has all the information it needs when it does that, including whether the treaty allows for any clawback of either unspent or unused money?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have already committed to appropriate scrutiny of the treaty. I will take back the noble Baroness’s points about clawback as I do not know the answer.

Rwanda: Asylum Arrangements Treaty

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend very much indeed for that question, and I agree with the sentiments behind it. The Rwandans have behaved with great dignity in the face of some provocation.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, in answering the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the Minister did not give the answer that I think we were hoping for. I know that it is not the Minister’s department, but when the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone—he is probably here—was in the Department for International Trade, “the Grimstone rule” was agreed. It said that, where a committee asked for a debate, it would be given. I hope that the Minister’s department will act as honourably as the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, did when he was a Minister and that that debate will be given.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I will certainly make sure that the noble Baroness’s comments are reflected back to the department.

National Security Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Motion A1, having had my name on the original amendment—I think it was Amendment 22 at the time—from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

There are two reasons for being concerned about foreign influence in UK politics. One is indeed the ISC Russia report, as it highlighted what was going on and gave good evidence of malign attempts to affect our politics and our elections—the same could be said about China. The other reason is this Government’s decision to give long-term expats the vote, no matter how long they have lived abroad. By doing so, they enable those expats to become permitted donors to UK political parties. Someone living for, say, 40 years in Russia can be on our electoral roll—no checks, no questions asked—and thereby be free to donate to a political party, with no checks on the source of these fundings, nor even whether they belong to that permitted donor. In fact, there is no way to ascertain whether the said donor is in fact in prison, whether they have properly earned income or whether such money that they donate is actually their own or has been given on behalf of a political power.

In the Guardian today, we read of a wealthy Chinese couple banned from Britain after they were accused of donating to British political figures on behalf the Chinese Communist Party. They happen not to be permitted donors but were no doubt able to put their money through somebody who was. Interestingly, that story seems to have come to light following an immigration tribunal, rather than by checks by a political party of the sort that would be required if Motion A1 were agreed by this House.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, PPERA—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act—requires parties to check only that the donors are permissible. The Minister said again today—as all his predecessors did—“Oh, but we’ll check that the donors are valid people”. That is not the point that we are making. We are saying that, by being able to be on the electoral register, they become donors and we do not check the source of the money that they give. We are not asked as political parties to carry out due diligence on donors, even those operating in high-risk countries of the sorts that are listed in the 2022 money laundering and terrorist finance regulations 2022. As a political party, we can take a donor from one of those countries and are not required to do any checks—in fact, we are not required to check anything other than that the donor is legitimate. So overseas-domiciled citizens—who long ago gave up paying taxes here, of course—can donate to a political party without any questions about the money.

Motion A1 would effectively introduce a “know your donor” culture and would make a political party responsible for showing how it would identify and look at donations from a foreign party and for sharing that information with the Electoral Commission. Back in the summer—on the day that we debated this, I think—the Minister wrote to me and said that

“it is in the national interest to have greater openness about the influence on British politics by foreign powers”.

I could not agree with him more. Motion A1 would ensure that foreign donations were properly scrutinised and openly made.

National Security Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I have my name on a number of amendments in this group. I will start by saying, which I had not prepared to say, that when the Minister looks at the speech he has just made, I think he will find that there were some drafting errors—I hope there were—at the beginning. He said that FIRS would apply now only to a foreign Government. I think he said that twice and afterwards went on to talk about a foreign power. He knows very well why I pick up on the difference because one of my ongoing concerns is about the definition of a foreign power, which includes political parties. I hope that was just an oversight because I think that this captures political parties as well as foreign Governments.

There are two or three points I want to make very briefly but before I go on, I want to add my thanks for what the Minister has done, not only in the incredible change. The Minister has sent me the Keeling schedule that shows that we have ended up with a FIRS that is very different from what we started with. I should declare my interest, as I sit on the board of the ABI and it is very content with where we have got to. It did however make the point that this is no way to make a sausage—I have to say that they were not its words; it was far more polite. The way it started was not the best way to make legislation. The ABI and others are very content with where we have got to, and it is right to record that we have ended up with something very different, so I thank the Minister.

My name is on three amendments. I will not press Amendments 114 and 121 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. But on Amendment 115 I am second to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and I think it is an indication of the approval of what he has done that one of the delete clause amendments is in his name—only because he got there first because I was about to do that. I think it is a symbol that we do it.

I have that one remaining query about a foreign political power that happens to be in government engaging with any of us or councillors or parliamentary candidates, even on internal, party-to-party issues, using an intermediary such as the conference arrangement. I have looked at the draft regulations again as the Minister helpfully said. There is no de minimis there, even if they pay £1,000 to a conference organiser to book the stall at a Labour Party conference or a Tory Party conference—I am sure they have stalls; I have been to their conference and they do in the same way as we do. There is no de minimis for a political party abroad seeking to engage with a political party or anyone else here using an intermediary which is simply a facilitator. Therefore, I wonder whether there is a possibility of looking at the guidelines or the forms. There will be a contract. It may be only for £1,000 but there are the implications of having all that to be declared. I am not saying that simply because we have stalls at our conference, it could happen to the Government as well. It captures things that I know the Minister never intended. I know that at the moment he will not give me an answer and a promise written in blood, but some acknowledgement that there is a small ongoing problem would be very helpful. For the moment, I think we have ended up in a much better place than we started.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 166A in my name. I also thank the Minister for the way in which the Bill has been discussed and amended between Second Reading, Committee and Report. It is a model of the way in which the Lords should operate, and we all appreciate the way in which the Minister and his team have responded to reasoned criticisms as we have moved forward.

Amendment 166A merely draws attention to some of the definition problems we have all struggled with, wanting to catch all the problems but not to overload the necessary and highly desirable international co-operation with other Governments and other countries, many of which are governed in ways we do not entirely approve of. As somebody who used to work for an international think tank, I am particularly concerned with the opacity of the funding of some of our political think tanks, which as charities do not have to declare their revenue.

In the United States there is much concern with the extent to which some foreign Governments, in particular the Gulf states, put enormous amounts of money into institutes operating as political think tanks, intending to influence and therefore reshape the American political debate. Although that is outside the scope of the current Bill, I and others are much concerned to insist that there should be much greater transparency about the funding of think tanks that set out to deliberately influence the way in which our politics take place.

That is an example, but we all know that there will be a substantial grey area between direction and influence, which we and the Minister have all grappled with. We are not entirely sure that we can draw the line clearly as we go. This amendment asks the Government actively to keep under review and to consult on where that line needs to be adjusted as we move forward in implementation. I hope the Minister will respond in that way.

National Security Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 1st March 2023 Lords Chamber

So I invite your Lordships—I am minded at the moment to test the opinion of the House on this matter in due course—to consider this with great care and to come up with some pretty good reasons if there are real objections to this and explain what they are based on broad and objective criteria, not on anything that could be suspected of being self-interest.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the reasons for supporting the amendment, to which I have added my name, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, is the Government’s recent change which allows long-term expats to continue to be on the UK electoral register and therefore to be permitted donors to UK political parties. This means that someone living —for the sake of this argument—for 40 years in, say, Russia, to take the example just given, can be on the electoral roll here. A British subject, living for 40 years in Russia, can now be on the electoral roll here, with no checks or questions asked, and that person can then donate money to a British political party—no names, no pack drill, and importantly, of course, no checks whatever on the source of the money they are able to donate to a British political party.

PPERA—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, as most of us know—requires parties to check only that the donors are “permissible”; no checks are needed on the source of their funds. They are not even required to carry out enhanced due diligence on donors operating in high-risk countries which are listed in the money laundering and terrorist financing regulations 2022. There are no obligations on political parties to do the due diligence that we would expect of anyone else handling money from any of the countries on that list.

Incidentally, that is very, very different from those of us—well, all of us in this House—who are PEPs under the AML rules. Indeed, at this moment in the Moses Room the financial services Bill is being discussed, which is trying to reduce the extraordinary number of hoops that we and our children all have to go through in our banking activities because of our presence here. However, Russian-based UK citizens, who long ago gave up paying taxes of any sort here, can donate money, without any question as to its provenance, to a UK political party, surely influencing our democracy way beyond some of the other minor activities that this Bill seeks to make transparent—an issue we will return to later.

Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would capture any possibility that the money could come from a foreign power. As the amendment states, it would include donations made through an intermediary. We on this side would certainly like to know the source of donations made from outside the UK to a political party, whether in government or opposition, or to a party with no elected Members.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has been very helpful on this Bill. To our surprise, in Committee, he claimed that our existing electoral law has

“a stringent regime of controls on political donations to ensure that only those with a legitimate interest in UK elections”—[Official Report, 21/12/22; col. 1166.]

can donate. I question that in respect of someone who has been out of the country for that long, does not use any of our services and does not pay our taxes. Even more, do we check the legitimate interests of those long gone who can put in money from another source?

I trust that the Government have now looked again at what was a rather complacent reply and that they share our interest in revealing full details, including instigating proper checks. I hope that they will therefore accept Amendment 51. As the Minister knows, it has the full support of the Electoral Commission. I hope that he would welcome a duty on political parties to check the true source of donations and assess the risk of accepting money from overseas, particularly from those on the list of the AML regulations. Rather along the lines of “know your customer” which the banks have to do, there should also be a “know your donor”. This should be a culture in all our political parties. It would mean assessing the risk that donors might pose, especially those from overseas countries. There would be an enhanced due diligence on new donors and proper recording of such checks.

I received a letter from the Minister today which I think has not yet been shared with the House. It says that it is in the national interest to have greater openness about the influence on British politics by foreign powers. We agree. Amendment 51 would ensure that all overseas donations were openly made and disclosed.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 51, which would help increase the transparency and accountability of our political system. The ISC’s Russia report of 2020 recognised that the UK had clearly welcomed Russian money, including in the political sphere.

The Government have previously assured the House that the protections within the electoral financing laws are “sufficient”. However, as other noble Lords suggested in Committee, there are clear differences between the requirement on companies to undertake due diligence when receiving foreign money and that on political parties, which have no such duties. This would help close the gap.

I note that the amendment requires a political party to publish a policy statement within three months of the passing of the Bill. The Secretary of State also has three months to produce the accompanying guidance. It may be advisable for the Secretary of State to publish the guidance before political parties are required to produce their policy statements. I simply raise that as a practical point. It does not affect my support for the amendment.

As regards the government amendments, it is not clear why they seek to exclude parliamentary proceedings from the definition of political processes, thereby moving them outwith the scope of any new foreign interference offence. I appreciate that the Government have said that it is to clarify that the Bill does not intend to interfere with parliamentary privilege, but I do not see that the answer is to remove the concept entirely.

To commit the foreign interference offence, one needs to conduct “prohibited conduct” which has an “interference effect”. “Prohibited conduct” includes a variety of unacceptable behaviours—from a criminal offence to threatening to damage someone’s reputation or causing financial loss. Surely, it is critical to prevent any foreign interference in parliamentary proceedings which involves a person conducting such unacceptable behaviour. Perhaps the Minister could explain how including parliamentary proceedings in the foreign interference offence would undermine parliamentary privilege, given the need for the prohibited conduct of the offence to apply. Even if the amendment is warranted, could the Minister explain why the Government have not replaced it with wording similar to that in Clause 70, as amended. This refers to interference with

“a Member of either House of Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament”

rather than “parliamentary proceedings”, which would ensure that no gap was created.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the Minister will assure us that the way in which contacts with the American, Dutch, Danish, Swedish and other Governments are treated will be of a qualitatively different order. I hope he will say that we need to change that part of the Bill. On a previous occasion when I criticised some of what this Government have done in the last few years, the Minister responded, “Yes, but now this is a different Government”. Happily, it is. We now have a Prime Minister who understands diplomacy and understands that we gain more by treating our neighbours as friendly Governments. I congratulate him on the achievement that he has just managed to negotiate. In that case, we need a different approach in this Bill as well. This amendment is a way of pushing us in that different direction, towards the foreign powers that are our closest friends, allies and neighbours. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 74 in my name. It deals with the definition of “foreign powers”, which clearly is a key part of the overall Bill.

However, I first need to talk about this part of the Bill in relation to FIRS, which we will cover next week—or maybe the week after, or the week after that, given the rate at which we are going; I hope not. I need to do that because the definition of a foreign power in Clause 32 determines who will be covered by the scheme we will come to later. In doing so, I make it clear that I greatly welcome the changes to FIRS contained in the government amendments, which again we will come to later, as they take account of the arguments made in Committee.

However, there is an anomaly that remains which particularly worries me. Many external political parties, including those from friendly states—not only NATO, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned, but New Zealand and Australia—will find themselves subject to registration and reporting requirements on issues completely unrelated to Government policy, let alone security issues. This is the National Security Bill we are discussing, not a lobbying Bill. These states will be caught on issues that have nothing to do with government policy or security.

Clause 32(1)(e) defines a foreign power as a political party whose members form the Government. At the moment, that would mean, for example, the Democrats in America, the Labour Party in New Zealand and Australia, and En Marche!—or whatever it is now called—in France. The Minister will know better than I do which of the Conservatives’ close associates are also in Government in various countries and therefore would be caught by this. The definition in Clause 32 covers the whole Bill, which might be appropriate for some parts of the Bill but certainly not for Part 3. The registration and reporting of activities in Part 3 has an enormous number of requirements—if we leave this definition to cover that—for political parties on non-security issues.

Assuming the Minister’s amendments go through, perhaps most worrying is the new Clause 70(3)(d), which means that FIRS covers any communication by a relevant overseas party—one whose members form the Government—which could affect, or is about,

“the proceedings of a UK registered political party”.

Stop and think about that. This will cover a political party in a friendly country having to register its activities in this country. The Minister will immediately pop up and say, “No, not if they do it directly—only if they do it through a third party”, but that is what happens, as we do these things through third parties. For us, it means if a fellow member of a sister party that is in Government—I do not know if the Conservatives call their friendly parties “sister parties”, but we always use the phrase—uses a consultancy, for example, or a PR firm, to ask us to support the change in the venue for the next Party of European Socialists Congress, or our work on the environment or an equality manifesto, the publication of something in a newspaper, an ad about a disaster or anything completely internal to our party-to-party relationships; but if is done by an intermediary, it becomes reportable to the Government, not of our political persuasion at the moment, of course, and published.

I doubt that is what the Government want because this is not about transparency now. We are into Big Brother land. I ask the Minister whether, if members of a party in Government, not the Government itself, contact any of us—if you look at Schedule 14 it could be not only us but, for example, councillors, even candidates, mayors via a conference organiser or a public affairs adviser—about any issue, such as a free trade agreement or a completely non-government issue such as an upcoming internal seminar being run between parties, where we tend to use intermediaries such as conference organisers, and they want to invite a party member as a speaker, it would have to be reported because it is via an intermediary. That is how I have read it and it is what he said when we had a very helpful meeting: if you use an intermediary, it is reportable.

Similarly, if party staffers from the party in Government organise a stall or a workshop at a party conference, and do so via a conference organising company, they are paying these intermediaries; therefore, they are acting under their direction. Those were the very helpful words the Minister gave me. They are therefore doing it on the order of the sister party in that other country. They are being directed by that party; the party is paying them to contact us to appear in a seminar or whatever it is. Is that reportable, and is there a criminal penalty if they fail to do it?

If they use an intermediary, who could be an interpreter or a translator, and they pay for that expertise, and they are again directing that party as to what they should do, would that be reportable—not just reportable, but reportable, for us as the Labour Party, to a Conservative Secretary of State, and a lot of this published? Non-governing parties are not covered, so the French socialists can come over and do what they like with us, and that is fine because they are not in Government, but it applies if we start holding seminars which the German Social Democrats, for example, set up using an intermediary such as a conference facilitating company.

For the Minister’s own party, some of their sister parties would also be covered by this when they go to Birmingham, or wherever the Conservatives have their party conference. I doubt very much that, at the beginning, it was the intention of the Government for their definition of foreign influence to get down to this level.

Over the weekend, or perhaps on Monday, some of us were sent very helpfully all the draft regulations and the forms that have to be filled in with people’s private mobile numbers and all sorts of details about what is going to happen, the dates of it, its purpose, the desired outcome, the individuals involved, contact details, the contact for the intermediary, and the invitations and which MPs they are going to. For possibly one meeting on the fringe of a party conference, or a TV interview, or the drafting of an article done by a party via an intermediary, all this would need to be reported.

I am not asking Ministers tonight to redraft this. I am asking—and I think there may be some willingness to do it—for the Government to look hard at whether it is really the intention that FIRS should include this party-to-party relationship, or party-to-politician relationship, where it is done via a third party. I hope that we can get some satisfactory answers or an undertaking that we could perhaps meet, and, if necessary, that some further tweaking might happen to this part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, ruling parties are the foreign power. As I have tried to be clear and have stressed twice now, registration will be required only where an individual or entity is directed by a foreign power—that is the condition. Therefore, if a think tank was being directed by a foreign power, the answer would be yes. If it was not, the answer would be no.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that an intermediary could be a conference-arranging organisation? If he is coming to that, I would be grateful.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I noted the noble Baroness’s questions about intermediaries, and I promise that I will address that.

I know that we have had some debate about what it means to be directed by a foreign power. I want to reassure all noble Lords that this is a high bar. The natural meaning of “direction” is an order or instruction to act. It is possible that such direction could be delivered in the language of a request but only where there is a power relationship between the person and the foreign power which adds an element of control or expectation to the request: for example, through a contract, payment, coercion or the promise of future compensation or favourable treatment. It is not enough for a foreign power to fund an activity, so generic requests, joint collaboration or simply an alignment of views, absent the power relationship, will not meet the test for direction.

I will quote directly from the letter I sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—I apologise for not sharing it more broadly with the House but I was cleared to send it only this morning:

“In terms of what activity would be registrable, we consider that where a parliamentarian is to be directed by a foreign governing party, for example, being paid or on the promise of favourable treatment, to influence Government Ministers or fellow parliamentarians, this would require disclosure under FIRS.”


I will come back to my quote in a second. I digress briefly into the subject raised by my noble friend Lord Balfe and his quick canter through the Stiftungen of Germany. We are in touch with the German Government on this issue and are grateful for their constructive engagement. We do not consider that, for example, the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung would constitute a foreign power under Clause 32 of the Bill. A person acting under the direction of such an institution would not be in scope of the foreign influence registration scheme. We will have another opportunity to debate these issues next Tuesday. Konrad Adenauer should be reassured that it is not covered.

I want to be clear that there is no requirement for the activity to cease, only for it to be transparent. In these circumstances, there is a strong national interest in greater openness on the influence of British politics by foreign powers. It should be clear not only to the Government, but to parliamentarians and to the public, where this influence is being brought to bear. FIRS seeks to address the gap, providing us all with more information about the scale and nature of foreign political influence in the UK.

I will answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, directly. In the example she described, the intermediary would have to register, if directed by a foreign power. The noble Baroness herself, or a foreign power, would not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

This is at the heart of it. If the German SPD engaged somebody to set up a stall at our party conference, they would be directed, be paying and have a contract for it. This would then have to be registered. I have seen the draft regulations which the Minister kindly sent me. They would have to disclose which MPs they had invited to the event and all of that. As the Minister has just said, as soon as the intermediary—the conference arrangements organisation—is paid by an outside political party to organise this, according to the form that I have been sent, we would have to fill in our names. We may not be the ones registering, but it would be wholly disclosable. It has nothing to do with the Government nor with national security. It is a party-to-party issue. It is simply because they have used an intermediary—a conference arrangements organisation or interpretation.

I think it is clear and that we agree on this. I am not asking that we should be able to bring it back at Third Reading, but I am asking the Minister to leave a little chink of light. Having thought about it, in consultation with his colleagues, the Government might be willing to look at whether this is really what they want to achieve.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. I am more than happy to continue engagement on this subject.

The final amendment in this group, concerning the definition of a foreign power, was initially tabled in Committee and has been retabled by the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Wallace. It seeks to exclude members of NATO and other nations, via regulations, from the definition of a foreign power. I want to put it on record that we do not consider all foreign powers to be hostile. When this amendment was initially tabled, I put forth that the National Security Bill focuses on the harmful conduct undertaken by a person and not the foreign power they seek to benefit. I continue to believe that this is the right approach.

The Government do not seek to create gaps in the legislation which could allow states to act through proxies and thus undermine what the Bill seeks to do—to take necessary and appropriate action against harmful activity. Again, no doubt to groans, I will bring your Lordships’ attention to the case of Daniel Houghton. He is the dual British-Dutch national who attempted to sell sensitive information to the Dutch intelligence service in 2010. If this amendment were to be accepted, and NATO states excluded from the definition of a foreign power, cases such as Daniel Houghton’s would not be captured by the offences and measures in the Bill. This would not be an appropriate outcome which could undermine the Bill. I believe that the Dutch came to us on this particular occasion and I commend them for it. I ask again that these amendments tabled by noble Lords be withdrawn.

Rwanda: Memorandum of Understanding

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government why they used a Memorandum of Understanding rather than a treaty as the vehicle for the agreement with Rwanda on the transfer of asylum seekers. Relevant document: 7th Report from the International Agreements Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted, after four months, to see the International Agreements Committee’s report on Rwanda debated here; albeit, I have to say, because of my success in a ballot rather than because of its importance. Yet this issue is important to the asylum seekers involved but also for the future of our parliamentary role in scrutinising the action of Ministers.

Thanks to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, treaties must be laid before Parliament for 21 days, where they can be debated, evaluated and, in the case of the Commons, their ratification endorsed or delayed. That is a powerful stay over the ability of government to make international treaties without parliamentary consent.

Today, we will hear from members of the International Agreements Committee who wrote this report: the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Lansley and Lord Razzall, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, together with one of our newer members, the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. On behalf of this House, they and other members of the committee examine every treaty and report on it. However, with the Rwanda accord, we see an issue with enormous human rights and rule of law implications, potentially affecting the lives of thousands, yet the agreement was signed not as a treaty but as a memorandum of understanding. This allowed the Government to bypass Parliament; indeed, it came into force on signature without any opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.

Two weeks ago, on 12 January, two Lords committee reports on the usurping of parliamentary power by Ministers were debated in this Chamber. It was stated:

“The abuse of delegated power is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy.”—[Official Report, 12/1/23; col. 1536.]


The first report, Government by Diktat, was in the committee’s words,

“a stark warning—that the balance of power between Parliament and Government has ... been shifting away from Parliament”.

The second, Democracy Denied?, was an alert

“to a potentially serious threat to a cornerstone of our constitution—effective parliamentary scrutiny of legislation”,


it being a

“matter of urgency that Parliament should … consider how the balance of power can be re-set”.

On Rwanda, the avoidance of the CRaG Act treaty scrutiny by means of an MoU makes one conclude that that is exactly why that vehicle was chosen. I will not go into the rights or wrongs of the intention within the MoU—the offshoring of asylum claims—because its legality is being tested in the high courts, while its morality is for other fora. However, we noted in the report that, since this was agreed by a non-binding MoU, its so-called safeguards are not legally enforceable, meaning that neither the individuals concerned nor the UK can ensure that asylum applicants’ rights are protected once they arrive in Rwanda.

Our committee concluded that the Government should not have signed a deal with Rwanda merely as a political statement without parliamentary scrutiny. It has significant consequences for individuals and their rights; it involves public expenditure; and it is a major new policy, with far-reaching implications. Surely something of this importance is the business of Parliament and not just of Ministers.

It is unacceptable that a Government should use prerogative powers to agree important arrangements with serious human rights implications without scrutiny by Parliament. Rather, such agreements should be signed as legally enforceable treaties or, if for any reason that is not possible, the Government should deposit MoUs for parliamentary scrutiny in the same way as a treaty, allowing 21 days before implementation.

Indeed, major constitutional changes to our handling of refugees is even better done by legislation, which, we read in the Times, the Government are now planning. Regardless of whether any of us agree with that policy, being described elsewhere as draconian and possibly removing rights of appeal, should Parliament agree, then that is the law. However, I had concerns when I read in yesterday’s Sunday Times that if a court does something that the Prime Minister does not like, he will pull us out of the European Convention on Human Rights rather than accept a judge’s ruling. The Government seem to think they can be above the law.

Today’s debate is about why the Government chose to bypass Parliament in the method by which they chose to implement a new policy. We invited the Government to engage constructively about how to handle non-treaty arrangements of such importance. Unfortunately, we were given no sensible answer and no debate in your Lordships’ House to put our case in public. Our ballot system for debate is what brought us here today and I am grateful that that at least existed and, for once, I was lucky in the ballot. I hope, however, that today we will get a more constructive answer from the Minister to this serious question: why did the Government use a MoU rather than a treaty for the Rwanda agreement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Well, I am sure that we can discuss this on another occasion.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down—I think we have six minutes—he said that the Government used an MoU rather than a treaty because it could be amended. Does he accept that the detail of treaties can also be amended? More importantly, on an MoU, surely that could still—by the choice of the Government—have been laid for 21 days to give parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament will not be able to scrutinise the committee referred to by the right reverend Prelate, but the MoU could have been laid for 21 days. Does the Minister accept those two things, that the treaty itself could be adapted and that an MoU could have been laid before Parliament?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for those two questions. On the first point, no, to amend a treaty would be a more cumbersome process than the flexibility afforded by a memorandum of understanding. On the second point, it is clear that Parliament had considerable opportunities for scrutiny, as I have set out, and there was no want of scrutiny from the method adopted.