King’s Speech

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the immigration and asylum Bill includes welcome provisions to change the modern slavery system, including better tools for law enforcement to tackle exploitation and stronger processes to identify children. However, the Bill continues to emphasise alleged abuse of the system, despite no data supporting this. That approach risks blocking survivors from support, weakening the prosecutions of traffickers and failing to deliver the reforms needed to identify and support victims effectively. Measures to improve identification and support for children are positive, but the absence of provisions to strengthen corporate accountability is a missed opportunity.

Two years ago, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who spoke earlier, I was a member of the Select Committee in your Lordships’ House reviewing the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which recommended proportionate sanctions on companies that fail to meet supply chain requirements. The Government responded that legislative change would follow “in due course”. Eighteen months later, supply-chain accountability is entirely absent from the King’s Speech. Can my noble friend the Minister explain why the Government are not building on the Modern Slavery Act to create a level playing field for responsible businesses, by introducing legislation to make human rights due diligence mandatory?

I am concerned that the Government have dropped their promise of binding legislation on the most powerful AI systems. Even the scientists building these systems warn that superintelligent AI poses threats to our day-to-day lives and national security. That is why, earlier this year, I joined over 100 parliamentarians in supporting the campaign by ControlAI to address this urgent threat. In 2024, the King’s Speech explicitly called for regulation on the developers of “the most powerful” AI models, but last week’s King’s Speech contained no mention of the risks from advanced AI and the need to regulate the most powerful AI systems. The speech did set out the Government’s ambitions on national security, resilience and sovereignty, but sovereignty and national security mean little without control over emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence. The Government’s decision not to introduce legislation on advanced AI seems a concerning signal about their shifted priorities.

I also want to say a few words about the police reform Bill. The move towards a more centralised policing model must not lead to the weakening of local specialist services supporting child victims of exploitation and trafficking. Home Office estimates show that more than 15,000 children were identified either as at risk or involved in child criminal exploitation in the year ending March 2025. Too often, children who are exploited or trafficked are as likely to be criminalised as recognised as victims. Structural changes to policing will not address these systemic problems. Policy and culture change within the police is needed on this issue.

I very much welcome the proposal to include violence against women and girls as a national policing priority. But policing reform must include investment in specialist services, such as mandatory training on trauma-informed and child-centred approaches, as well as action to build trust with children, particularly those from Black and marginalised communities, who experience disproportionate harm and discrimination.

Finally, several noble Lords have expressed concern over the future of the union, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. I agree with both: the noble Baroness rightly said that the alarm expressed over the largest parties in all three legislatures now being those which want to leave the UK is overblown. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, warned of the Scottish Government’s plans to seek a second referendum; he offered wise counsel in setting out three steps which must be taken to prepare for such an eventuality producing a majority in favour of separating Scotland from the rest of the UK. Although a threat to the union is being talked up just a bit too much, that does not lessen the need for vigilance. I believe that the Government must ensure that they are sensitive to key issues within the remit of all three of those legislatures.