Democratic Institutions: Threats

Lord Walney Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the co-chair of the new All-Party Parliamentary Group for Defending Democracy, which I urge all noble Lords who have made such compelling contributions today to join. That group has a remit in part following the Defending Democracy Taskforce. I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said at the beginning: that it is regrettable that there is not more prominence from that taskforce in communicating and engaging with parliamentarians—and indeed anyone else, as far as I can see. That is one of the things the APPG wants to do.

It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Doyle. I am not sure whether it was by coincidence or mischievous design that the final three of our Back-Bench contributions have been from people who in the past have had senior roles in Downing Street—which many people would say has contributed over recent decades to decline in faith in democracy, but we will leave that for others to judge.

I commend the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, for what I thought was an excellent speech. I thought he was a bit too harsh on the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and a bit too lenient on Kneecap, but his central point, that democracies need controversy and freedom of speech to be able to evolve, and if they cannot evolve they will ultimately die, is fundamentally important and not sufficiently understood in the current political discourse. I spent close to five years, in the end, as the last Government’s—and for a while, this Government’s—independent adviser on political violence and disruption. It is one of the reasons why I recommended in my 2024 report, Protecting our Democracy from Coercion, that we should be very careful in the way in which we seek to restrict freedom of speech through noble objectives such as online safety and cutting out misinformation.

Nevertheless, it is incumbent on us to accept how big a problem this can be. The explosion in artificial intelligence can genuinely warp people’s perceptions. So much of our understanding of the world, the country and the community around us now comes from a screen. While misinformation and disinformation have always been used as a tactic to disrupt people, it is qualitatively different now, as it has become so difficult to tell reality from fabrication, which is fundamental to a functioning democracy. My noble friend Lord Doyle’s suggestion for increased responsibilities on social media companies to detect fakes—which artificial intelligence can also help to do—is important.

Another of my recommendations from the 2024 review was that, while it was always going to be difficult to draw where the boundaries ought to be on freedom of speech, and while we should not be quite as gung ho as we often are in restricting topics for debate, there should be a much broader consensus on saying that foreign state manipulation is wrong. When talking to the intelligence services during the making of that report, they were clear that they lacked a level of resource to shut down some of the sources of this misinformation, having identified them. That has been acted on somewhat since then, but we clearly have a significant way to go.

While this is not a new venture, there is a sustained attempt by hostile states—particularly Russia and Iran, and I would count China in that—to use the freedoms in our democracy to undermine that democracy from within. The noble Baroness, Falkner, made a very important point about manipulation: while the manipulation from Islamist actors who want ultimately to replace democracy may not be state based, that is an organised activity for which there ought to be more resource, focus and recognition in this country.

In my final two minutes, I will make two more points. The first is an issue that I have spoken about at some length in the Chamber: the way in which extreme illegal disruptive protests are used as a tool to undermine democracies. Many noble Lords who are generally on the right side of things in this place should be more hard-nosed and clear-sighted on what organised groups are trying to do here—often funded or supported in some way by foreign states—ultimately to twist the sense of a right to protest into a threat to our democracy. We should do better at standing up for our parliamentary democracy. If we always think that the right and the nobility is on the side of those outside who are shouting at, abusing and intimidating us then we cede too much ground and contribute to our own undermining of democracy.

I turn to my final point. Important as all of that is, the biggest threat to democratic institutions may soon be the speed at which AI is developing. There has been a lot of discussion about AI’s role in misinformation, which is important, but there has not been enough discussion about the potential for the incredible national and global economic upheaval that may be inflicted on us by the replacing of jobs with AI. That will need to be very skilfully managed so as not to create enormous levels of disruption.

Finally, if the Front Bench will forgive me, my eyes were opened by a documentary called “Chasing Utopia”, which noble Lords should go and watch, by the same people who put together the Al Gore documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. It pointed out that if AI reaches parity in intelligence with people by the end of the decade and comes to grow exponentially beyond that then that will have fundamental consequences for who we are as human beings, where we are in the world and how our democracies will function. We need to think a lot more about that potential danger.

Security of Government Devices

Lord Walney Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I need to tread carefully here because, of course, security in Parliament is independent of government. So this is a matter for the parliamentary authorities. I understand the drift of the noble Lord’s question, and he can see what steps the Government have taken in relation to government devices. I am not sure I am allowed to put apps on my parliamentary device without the permission of the IT department. We stand ready to assist the parliamentary authorities if they would like us to share information on this important matter.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

Further to that question, does the Minister accept that it is difficult for parliamentarians, and that it is a potentially unsatisfactory situation, if the message is essentially that it is our personal choice, but we are not—probably for very good reasons—privy to the sensitive security advice on which the Government have made their assessment? So will they encourage Parliament and the parliamentary authorities to allow a collective position to be reached on this?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I can certainly pass the concerns that have been expressed back to the security authorities in Parliament. I add that we have a Defending Democracy Taskforce, headed up by Tom Tugendhat, and the parliamentary authorities are involved in that because of the importance of sharing information, including sensitive security information, which it may not be possible to make public.

Strike Action

Lord Walney Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Walney]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to minimise disruption to essential services over the Christmas and new year period, given proposed strike action by workers in several sectors.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, as a responsible Government, we have been planning and continue to prepare for a wide range of scenarios. Tried and tested contingency measures are in place to minimise the impact of potential strike action on the public. Our priority over the coming weeks is to limit the disruption to the public as much as possible and protect critical services over Christmas and the new year.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. On the health service, is it not the case that this dismal negotiation over what constitutes a category 1 emergency—that is, life-threatening—itself risks further increasing unnecessary loss of life if people are deterred from ringing 999 in their hour of need? On the wider situation across the transport network, regardless of people’s views on the overall merits of particular pay claims, is it not the case that we all, both in this House and in the other place, have a responsibility to say unequivocally that it is wrong to bring the economy to its knees and threaten mass damage to people’s livelihoods, particularly in the hospitality sector, at this critical time of year?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

On the noble Lord’s first point, I will write to him as it is really for the Department of Health and I do not know the answer. On his wider point, I agree with him that it is very important that people take account of what is happening across the country and how industrial action has affected businesses in lots of different sectors, as he said. Of course, we regret the decisions taken by multiple unions to strike. We greatly value the work of the public services but pay deals have got to be fair and affordable.

Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill [HL]

Lord Walney Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 25th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Walney (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I refer the House to my entry in the register relating to my role in the levelling-up goals created by Justine Greening. I have three brief points.

First, I add my praise, not only to the inspiring noble Lord, Lord Bird, but to my successor representing Barrow and Furness in the other place, Simon Fell, who introduced the legislation there this week. I used to be dismissive of suggestions about widening the focus of various bodies from a relatively narrow interpretation of economic growth to one of wider well-being. Bluntly, people like me were wrong and we should be grateful to those who have made the running on this issue.

My second point is about how to make that meaningful. I have a note of question and caution on an aspect of the Bill that would introduce the requirement for a fresh set of impact assessments on public bodies. I hope that the likely effectiveness of this measure will be carefully considered in Committee. Impact assessments are a blunt tool, even when applied to well-defined datasets and outcomes. It may well be true that recent Administrations have been sceptical about equality impact assessments because they were less committed than they should have been to equality outcomes. Nevertheless, there is a genuine concern that impact assessments often do not drive better outcomes; they can simply load more bureaucracy on already overburdened and underresourced public bodies. That risk is surely manifold in the area of future well-being, a concept which of course can be contested and is certainly less easy to define.

Finally, have the Bill’s sponsors considered, or might they consider, a role for the National Infrastructure Commission in this endeavour? The noble Lord, Lord Bird, and others have rightly identified the need to tackle the short-termism that blights decision-making here and in democratic nations across the world. The commission was established specifically to counter the way that this short-termism damages major spending projects. It is making some impact but its influence on the political landscape—where, bluntly, the damage is often done—could and should be greater. It strikes me that a formal link between the infrastructure commission and the proposed future generations commissioner could significantly increase the influence of both, to the great benefit of those future generations about whom so many have spoken powerfully today.

Early Parliamentary General Election

Lord Walney Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I am responding to the previous question.

The reality of the situation is this. We have secured an extension to article 50 until 31 January. It was not automatic, not guaranteed and not given by return of email. It was deliberated and agonised over by our EU friends, and certain members of the EU were pushing very hard for there to be a very short extension of article 50. They said very clearly that there needed to be a clear purpose for article 50. If the House of Commons made it clear that the purpose would be to have a people’s vote, I would be delighted. We have been campaigning for that for three and a half years. This afternoon, I tabled an early-day motion calling again for a people’s vote. If MPs really want to demonstrate that the numbers are now there, go to the Table Office and sign it, but do not give me wishful thinking that the numbers are there when the real risk is that we could crash out on 31 January instead of 31 October. That is no better.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)]

If the election goes ahead and the hon. Lady is successful in stopping Brexit, would she share government with the Leader of the Opposition? I do not see how else it would work.

[Jo Swinson]

I have been very clear that I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister are the right people to be in government and leading the country. I am crystal clear about that. In a general election, I will go to the country and make my case that there should be a Liberal Democrat Government. A Liberal Democrat Government would revoke article 50 on day one, and that is the best way to stop Brexit. We need to find a way forward. If it is not through a people’s vote—if there is not the support for that in this Parliament—we need to look at the other way to do that, and right now, that is through a general election.

Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

Lord Walney Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am very sorry that the hon. Lady’s questions were not answered. We will and we have published extensive information about our preparations for exit, and I would be more than happy to direct her to those. However, I would stress that Yellowhammer—a reasonable worst-case scenario—is just one aspect of the preparations that we have undertaken, and it would be wrong to think that it was the only thing that the Government were concentrating on.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)]

The Minister has repeated his assertion that in the event of a no-deal Brexit some food prices will go up and some will go down, but our constituents deserve a straight answer. Will the cost of the weekly food basket of an average low-income family be higher, lower or the same in the event of a no-deal Brexit?

[Michael Gove]

That is a very fair point, but it is one of those questions that it is impossible to answer, because none of us can predict the variety of factors, from fluctuations in exchange rates to harvests to world grain prices, that will all affect the price of food. The one thing that I would say is that the Government are doing everything they can, and everything all of us can, in order to ensure, through application of the correct tariffs and through making sure that we have correct flows at the border, that people can continue to have access to not just plentiful but competitively priced and healthy food.

Priorities for Government

Lord Walney Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, our intention is to make sure that there are no tariffs imposed, and that we leave with a zero-tariff, zero-quota outcome, which I am sure that he would support.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)]

There was no mention of defence in the Prime Minister’s statement, and still less of nuclear deterrence. Does he recognise that we are in a race against time to build the new Dreadnought class of submarines in order to maintain continuous at-sea deterrence? Will he throw the whole weight of Government behind that vital task?

[The Prime Minister]

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to a vital national asset that is, of course, made in his constituency. I only draw attention to the real risk that would be posed not just to the economy but to the security of our country, if it should ever be governed by the party that he has rightly left.

G20 and Leadership of EU Institutions

Lord Walney Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I recognise the concern that my right hon. Friend has expressed in relation to this case. I was able on a number of occasions to raise the overall issue of Venezuela; I was recently also able to discuss it with the President of Colombia when he visited the United Kingdom. We are all concerned about the state that we see in Venezuela, about actions that have been taken in that country, and about the appalling circumstances and conditions in which so many Venezuelans find themselves living, which is why so many Venezuelans have been fleeing their country to neighbouring countries, putting a significant burden on those neighbouring countries.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)]

It is good to hear the Prime Minister making it clear that there is no question of normalising relations with Russia while it remains in flagrant violation of the international norms that, as a permanent member of the Security Council, it is supposed to be at the forefront of upholding. Does it not gall her to see the man who is supposed to be the leader of the free world—the President of the United States—laughing and joking with this rogue President, Putin? Should not the UK be leading the charge to increase the pressure on Russia, potentially even through expelling its ambassador, while it enables atrocity after atrocity in Syria, gravely damaging the multilateral rule of law and order that is vital to ongoing peace and security in the world?

[The Prime Minister]

I think what is important for the United Kingdom is that we continue to take this strong position in relation to the activities of Russia. I have referenced a number of those already; I have not yet referenced in response to questions the actions that Russia took in Ukraine, which are matters that I also raised with President Putin.

It is important to look at the actions that the United States has taken. After the attack that took place in Salisbury, it expelled about 60 Russian officials. We saw a significant and unprecedented international response, but in fact the largest number of expulsions took place from the United States. Its actions, I think, have been important in this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Walney Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)]

Q1. If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 22 May.

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

Today marks two years since the Manchester Arena attack. It was a cowardly and sickening attack that deliberately targeted innocent and defenceless children. Members across the House will want to join me in sending my thoughts and prayers to the families and friends of all the victims. I am sure that Members will also want to join me in paying tribute to the emergency services for the immense bravery and courage they showed that night.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and, in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[John Woodcock]

I know that the whole House will want to associate themselves with the Prime Minister’s words about the Manchester attack.

The Prime Minister may not have long left—good luck with those meetings later today—but she can act now against the return of banned chemical weapons. British experts are this morning investigating a suspected chlorine attack by al-Assad in Idlib. If it is proved, will she lead the international response against the return of this indiscriminate evil?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of the evil that is the use of chemical weapons. We of course acted in Syria, with France and the United States, when we saw chemical weapons being used there. We of course suffered the use of chemical weapons here on the streets of the United Kingdom, and we made a robust response, supported by our international friends and allies. We condemn all use of chemical weapons. We are in close contact with the United States and are monitoring the situation closely, and if any use of chemical weapons is confirmed, we will respond appropriately. But our position is clear: we consider Assad incapable of delivering a lasting peace, and his regime lost its legitimacy due to its atrocities against its own Syrian people.

European Council

Lord Walney Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Lady believes in trusting the people, she should trust the result of the 2014 Scottish referendum.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)]

I implore the Prime Minister not to believe that she can run down the clock to the extent that she puts her deal back to the Commons with days to go and think that Members across the House will vote differently. If she takes it to the wire and makes it a choice between her deal or no deal, she will usher in a period of economic chaos and political damage that will give succour to the extreme fringes of our politics on the left and the right.

[The Prime Minister]

I want us to be able to leave the European Union in an orderly way. I want us to recognise the vote, to deliver on that Brexit and to do it in an orderly way, which, as I have said before, protects not only our Union, but jobs and livelihoods for people and our security. That is what I will continue to work for.