Chinese Embassy

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I think I am agreeing to write to him. I genuinely do not recognise, nor have I been aware of, that report regarding the journalists. I cannot comment on specific mitigations or on some of the issues. The noble Lord will have heard, both during my comments and those of the Security Minister, that we have discussed the cables. So I would find that concerning, but I will write to the noble Lord.

With regard to getting things into the hands of the Prime Minister, I will give it a go, but I assure the noble Lord that I will get the reports into the hands of someone in No. 10, in the hope that they will get to him before he leaves.

On the potential judicial review, the noble Lord will be aware that the Government are completely adamant that our actions are lawful and, on that basis, we will continue to proceed with the appropriate processes.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend, in her answer, referred to the ISC. The ISC has looked at this very closely. We were given access to all the confidential and sensitive documentation, and we took evidence from our security services and Ministers; I thank them for that. We came to the conclusion that Ministers, in making their security assessment, had been given all the information available, and also that the mitigations that could have been put in place on some of the issues that did concern the embassy were satisfactory and could be put in place.

In saying that, in 2023, we published our China report, in which we were very clear about the threat that China poses to the UK in terms of security. It also, as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, laid out the golden era that opened up many aspects of our society, business and academia to the Chinese state under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Does my noble friend agree that this Government will take a very strong and robust approach to our national security when it comes to China, while recognising, as she said, that China is one of our main economic trading partners, but what they will not do is put that in the place of our security, which the last Government did?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the work that he and his committee have done, both in terms of ensuring appropriate scrutiny of the Government and more broadly. He raises a really important point, which I should have done earlier on. As ever, we need to thank the intelligence services, which work every day to keep us safe. One of the things that is so important in this space is that MI5 has 100 years of experience in keeping us safe and managing risk. It is at the forefront of our national security, especially in this space, and we are grateful for it.

My noble friend is absolutely right that there is a clear threat posed by China. We fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber security attacks and foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions to transnational repression of dissidents in the UK. That is why, since we came into government, we have done the following: we have launched the new cross-government state threats unit; we have done the training models, as I spoke about earlier; we have invested £600 million in our intelligence services; we have strengthened support for political parties in the Elections Bill; we have provided £170 million for a new sovereign encrypted technology and £130 million for integrated security funds, and we have removed surveillance equipment that would be subject to the National Security Law companies. We are acting because there is nothing more important than national security. That is the first responsibility of this Government and that is what we are acting upon.

China Espionage: Government Security Response

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

To reassure the noble Lord, I am still delighted that he is back. He raised some very important points. I cannot go any further at this point on the enhanced tier of the FIRS, but the noble Lord will be very aware that, before I joined the Government, I ran Index on Censorship, so the issues related to Jimmy Lai—I have met Sebastien Lai—and the issues about Xinjiang and transnational repression are ones that I campaigned on for many years.

I will be clear on some of the specifics that have been raised. I have to be very careful when discussing Sheffield Hallam, because ongoing legal processes are happening there. I recognise the admirable and tireless work of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, whose name is on the centre at the heart of this. Her work to progress social justice and human rights, including as a patron of the Centre for International Justice at Sheffield Hallam University, is at the heart of the allegations. Any attempt by a foreign state to intimidate and coerce universities to limit free speech and academic freedoms in the UK will not be tolerated. The Government have made this clear to Beijing after learning of the case of Sheffield Hallam and other recent cases. The new Office for Students guidance makes it explicitly clear that universities should not tolerate attempts by foreign states to suppress academic freedom.

The noble Lord knows better than I about some of the actions we have taken in tackling transnational aggression in the UK and the ongoing support that we are giving to Jimmy Lai and the Lai family. We will continue to do so. The genuine anguish that that family is currently experiencing because of this case is simply unacceptable. I reassure the noble Lord that even while he was off, we continued to do our work, and my right honourable friend Foreign Secretary raised the case of Jimmy Lai with her counterpart on 6 November. I will write to him on the other points he raised.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, as chair of the ISC, I welcome the Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, most of it, if not more, was covered in our 2023 report on China. The reason China has got a foothold here has to be looked back on very clearly, including whether the golden era for UK-China relations during the coalition Government allowed it to get a foothold in a whole host of areas.

Obviously, my main concern is academia, where universities—because of the decisions on the funding of universities—have now become dependent on the drug that is Chinese student finance. I urge the Minister that, if we are going to tackle that—not just the reliance of individual university institutions on Chinese finance but the intimidation of individuals who attend them—we need to take a very robust approach to it.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for all the work he has been doing on this, both through the ISC and beforehand. He has talked to me a great deal on this issue, and I am grateful for it. I completely agree with some of his assessments regarding the importance of academia and making sure that universities both understand their responsibilities to academic freedom and have the tools to combat some of the challenges that they currently face. It is one of the reasons we are arranging a closed meeting for all vice-chancellors, which will be led by the DfE but will have the relevant officials in the room to make sure that they know what is happening and what support they can get, as well as the expectations that we have of them as the caretakers of our academic freedom values.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that, as chair of the ISC, I do not recognise some of her comments about our security services concerning China.

This confuses me because, as I understand the situation, the prosecutor has taken the 1911 Act. It was the ISC that, in 2020, called for reform of the Official Secrets Act, and there is still undone business on the 1989 Act, for example. But the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Roussev did not raise but lowered the bar in terms of the definition of “enemy”, if I am reading it correctly. So, on the idea that the CPS should just rely on the Government’s input into this, I cannot understand why it could not, for example, have used the ISC’s 2023 China report, which outlined our concerns about the threats. It would be interesting to know why the CPS did not look at that judgment. If they were not satisfied with what the Government gave it, there was plenty of other evidence out there that it could have used.

I say to my noble friend that the ISC meets on Thursday, and we will discuss this, as she can imagine. If—as is likely—we ask for the intelligence on this, I ask that we are not hindered in receiving it.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his work as part of the ISC and his work in these areas for several decades. I would expect full co-operation with the committee in terms of what happens next. We want to be as open to scrutiny as possible but, given the issues, talking within the appropriate processes—the ISC is one of them—will be a matter for his committee and future conversations.

We need to remember that this was an independent decision made by the CPS. We genuinely believed that this case was going to proceed until we were informed by the CPS just before the embargo. We provided full co-operation with the CPS, I am reassured, within the constraints available to the Deputy National Security Adviser at that time, based on what had been said.

We need to remember—the noble Lord is absolutely right—that it was not until 2019 that the integrated review first mentioned China at all. Until that point, the previous Government did not consider China worthy even of mentioning in the security review. Importantly, at the point that we are discussing, the then Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, when asked whether China was a threat, said it was

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”

to sum up our relationship with China in one word. As I said yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition, when she was Trade Secretary, said:

“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe but we can describe it as a challenge”.


That is the constraint within which the Deputy NSA gave his evidence. We need to be very clear about what government policy was two years ago.

Pensions: Low-income and Self-employed Workers

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My very good friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, as always, be considering these matters on an ongoing basis. Her Mansion House speech made clear our direction of travel. She will come forward with more activities in the future.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the Local Government Pension Scheme provides pensions for local authority workers, many of whom are on low pay. Could I have a commitment from my from noble friend that she will resist any attempt, as suggested by Reform-led councils, to abolish this scheme?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My noble friend is very aware that I am a former trade union official who represented local government workers. I can give a complete commitment to the Local Government Pension Scheme. To be very clear, the terms of reference for the Pensions Commission do not touch on public sector pensions schemes. Anyone who thinks it is appropriate to target the pensions of some of our most important but poorer paid workers should be ashamed of themselves.

Fujitsu: Government Contracts

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an incredibly important point. Yesterday, we saw the first volume of Sir Wyn Williams’s 160-page report, based on 2 million pages of evidence, which included 19 recommendations, and we will come back to it in due course. The Government are committed to responding in full to the findings of the report by 10 October.

With regard to Fujitsu and the ongoing contracts, I believe that the Treasury contract is about the HMRC platform. Some of this is about continuity of service, to make sure that we are still able to have business supply secured. But I think everyone in your Lordships’ House would agree with the noble Lord’s sentiment that this is about how we operate in a way that is based on evidence going forward, so that we can ensure that those who need to be held accountable are held accountable and we do not make mistakes at the Dispatch Box, which I might by saying something that is unhelpful going forward as we progress after volume 2 is published.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, yesterday Sir Wyn produced the first volume of his report. It is worth all noble Lords reading section 2, because it gives a summary of individual cases of those who have been affected. I challenge anyone to read some of those without being moved: something that my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and I have got used to over the years.

He also raises in the report the issue around compensation and Fujitsu. To date, the Government and taxpayers have paid over £1 billion, quite rightly, to those victims. Fujitsu has not paid one penny piece. It may have a moral obligation, but moral obligations do not pay compensation. I have raised on numerous occasions an issue that has been raised about ongoing contracts. I dispute the fact that some of these are ongoing contracts; some are new contracts. I have called, along with my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for Fujitsu to at least pay some interim payments. When will the Government get on and force Fujitsu to act on its moral obligations, put its hands in its pockets and at least pay some interim payments?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the work he has done and for his ongoing participation in the Horizon compensation schemes. I agree that all noble Lords should review the 17 cases Sir Wyn Williams has highlighted. Many of us will have listened again last night to the personal testimonies of Jo Hamilton and Seema Misra, which are totally and completely heartbreaking and give us an indication of the human cost of the Horizon scandal, including the 13 people who have committed suicide because of it.

We have urged Fujitsu to make interim payments. There are ongoing conversations with Fujitsu, including regular meetings with the Crown Representative, the Cabinet Office and DBT. We will continue to have such meetings.