Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office to an Urgent Question in another place on the Government’s response to the humble Address agreed by the House of Commons on 4 February 2025. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, last week, the House made a humble Address to His Majesty for the Government to disclose material surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. On Monday, my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister updated the House on further action that the Government are taking.

My right honourable friend confirmed that the Government will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced Peers, and that Peter Mandelson will be removed from the list of privy counsellors. He also explained how we have changed the process for relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles. He also set out other areas in which we recognise the need to go further, including tightening transparency and lobbying.

In that Statement, my right honourable friend also set out how the Government are responding to the humble Address Motion, and I am pleased to provide a further update to the House today. The Government will comply fully and publish documents as soon as possible. As I said in the House last week, we welcome both the principle and content of that Motion, and we will deliver on it as soon as we can.

As such, departments have been instructed to retain any material that may be relevant, and work is under way to identify documents that fall within the scope of the Motion. We will do so as soon as possible when the House returns from recess.

In line with the Motion passed by this House, where the Government consider that documents may be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations, the Cabinet Office will refer that material to the independent Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister has written to the ISC, and senior officials have met the committee to discuss what it requires in order to fulfil that role. As I said in the House last week, full resources will be made available to ensure that that process happens, and we will work with the committee to explain the Cabinet Office’s process for providing material relating to national security or international relations. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its work, and we commit to full engagement with it to ensure timely and effective release.

The House will also be aware of the statement from the Metropolitan Police regarding the ongoing police investigation. That statement made it clear that the

‘process to decide which documents should ultimately be published remains a matter for … parliament’.

That is absolutely right, and we agree, but as the House would expect, the Government rightly do not wish to release anything that may undermine an ongoing police investigation. As such, we are working with the police as they conduct their inquiries to manage this process. I think that is the right way forward, Mr Speaker, and I hope you and the House agree.

In conclusion, the Government continue to take this matter incredibly seriously and, given the nature of the issues at stake and the scope of material in play, we will comply fully and deliver this material as quickly and transparently as possible. The Government will keep the House updated as they do so, and my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will publish a Written Ministerial Statement later today”.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Events have moved on somewhat since the humble Address on 4 February. Then, it was Lord Mandelson; now, it is the noble Lord, Lord Doyle. Unless the vetting process has changed recently, this is a question not about process but about the Prime Minister’s judgment. I do not think the House wants to hear a repeat of what we have heard all week, about how the Prime Minister is such a decent man—that is not the point in question. The point in question is the Prime Minister’s judgment.

The Prime Minister now needs to appoint a new Cabinet Secretary. What specifically will be different this time, and has the updated request in the other place, asked for by today, been provided?

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

I thank the noble Baroness. She knows more than I do, outside of media speculation, about the appointment of a new Cabinet Secretary. I will not comment on any speculation regarding the position of the Cabinet Secretary or anyone who may or may not ever hold that role. However, the question from the noble Baroness was about the integrity and judgment of the Prime Minister. Noble Lords will be aware of why I am in your Lordships’ House: it is because of a horrible chapter in my party. From 2020, when I lost my seat, the Prime Minister asked me to work with him to root out antisemitism from my party. The Prime Minister underpromised and overdelivered. I trust the Prime Minister and I trust his political judgment. He is not just a nice and good man; he is a very good Prime Minister.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the degree of transparency that is happening over the Mandelson appointment. We stress as strongly as we can that the maximum amount of transparency is now needed to restore public confidence and trust. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned that events have moved on. Events will continue to move on for some time on the broader Epstein issue. We have already heard about flights in and out of Britain; we will no doubt hear more names of people—possibly in British politics, very likely in British financial and company circles—which will continue to come out. All of us share a responsibility in making sure that public confidence is not cut further. I make a plea to those in all parties not to be too partisan about the way we handle this, because trust in democracy as a whole is now at stake.

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

The noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the things I find so distressing about the events of recent weeks is that we keep forgetting that the victims have to live and breathe every part of this time and time again, ad infinitum, both because of the way in which this is coming out, with the release of the files, and because of some of the associated events that have occurred. It is right and proper that we remember there is a responsibility on every Member of both your Lordships’ House and the other place to rebuild trust in politics, which, let us be honest, is at an all-time low, as we have discussed in your Lordships’ House in recent days. This helps nobody except those people who seek to undermine our core democracy and our British values. We need to work together to fix what is so clearly now broken, but we also need to make sure the victims are at the heart of everything we do.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows, Sir Lindsay Hoyle said that the ISC is completely separate and independent, so there should be no barrier to releasing the information. At the same time, the Minister for the Cabinet Office is supposed to have released a Written Statement today giving more details. As of a minute ago there had been no publication, going completely against the protocols of Parliament and the guidance by the Cabinet Office. When will the information start to be released to the ISC and when will that Written Statement be published? Time is ticking.

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

Time is indeed ticking, but the noble Baroness will be aware we still have two more debates in front of your Lordships’ House before the House rises. The Written Ministerial Statement will be published today, as I said.

On the independence of the ISC, we are incredibly lucky to have Members of your Lordships’ House on the committee, led by my noble friend Lord Beamish. I would never question either his integrity or his ability to do the job. As we laid out, and its correspondence from yesterday makes clear, engagement has already happened. There were meetings between very senior members of the Cabinet Office and of government with members of the ISC on Tuesday, and the process has started. On the timing, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office made clear in the other place, we expect the process on the documentation to continue at pace—and I do not mean at Civil Service pace, I mean at pace—after the Recess.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, as a member of the ISC, I note that my noble friend the Minister did not say anything about my integrity, which is a bit worrying. I make it absolutely clear that deciding what is in scope to be released is totally for the Cabinet Office. The ISC will have nothing to do with that whatever; it will see only the material that the Cabinet Office says that it cannot release because it includes intelligence or foreign affairs. Those will be the only things we look at.

On independence, we have already said that we will not be working in conjunction with the Cabinet Office. We are completely independent. We can be quite bolshie about things, which is good. We will look at it totally separately and work through at pace, as soon as this comes from the Government, where there are difficulties about the Met Police and things such as that. As soon as it starts coming our way, we will work on it.

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

I thank my noble friend—the idea he could be bolshie would be completely beyond my appreciation of him. He should take it as a given that I consider him to be a man of great integrity. After all, he is a senior officer in our senior service. I will always appreciate and accept him in that way.

What my noble friend said about the role of the ISC is absolutely correct and aligns with my understanding. Obviously, the ISC met with the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, the FCDO Permanent Secretary, the Deputy National Security Adviser and the acting director-general of propriety and ethics this week to set out how this will work. That meeting was considered fruitful and constructive, and I hope that, in the coming weeks, the relationship will continue in that vein.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the National Security Adviser, who is not a civil servant and was very deliberately chosen by the Prime Minister to be a special adviser, will have no involvement in the scrutiny of what information is going to be released, and that it will be entirely in the hands of the Cabinet Secretary, subject to the process agreed by the ISC?

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

I have been very clear on who participated in the meeting on Tuesday. On the role of the National Security Adviser, who is a man of huge experience and great integrity, I am not aware of any specific role for him, but if that situation changes I will update your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to new legislation to remove peerages from disgraced Peers. When might we expect to see that legislation?

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

I thank the noble Baroness. She is absolutely right. The reality is that we need to make sure that any process of getting to the point of legislation on something that is so important to Members of your Lordships’ House is done through consultation and engagement with the appropriate bodies, and that conversations are had in the usual channels. We want to work at pace to make sure that future legislation is in front of your Lordships as quickly as possible, but we want to make sure we get it right, as the Lord Privy Seal said on Tuesday. We will definitely see it after the Recess; I just do not know when in terms of the specific dates. I look forward to working with the usual channels to make sure that the consultation is as broad as possible and that noble Lords see the legislation as soon as it is ready.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that legislation to do with bringing the House into disrepute will not cut across differences of opinion, differences of political views, and the absolute principles of freedom of speech and parliamentary privilege?

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

I absolutely will. The noble Lord and I may not always agree on certain issues; I do not believe we did when we were in the other place either. However, that is what this debating Chamber is for. That is the principle of Parliament. It is so that we can argue with each other to make sure that legislation is better. That is the role of your Lordships’ House. I do not think that anybody would ever suggest that we should limit our own freedom of speech or expression, nor would I expect any such suggestions ever to be in legislation that would pass your Lordships’ House.

Civil Service Pensions: Capita

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what actions they are taking in light of recent reports of problems arising from the transfer of Civil Service Pensions administration to Capita.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, the service being experienced by some members of the Civil Service Pension Scheme is totally unacceptable, and I apologise for the distress caused to members. We have established a recovery taskforce led by HMRC’s Second Permanent Secretary and have deployed a 150-person government surge team to help to support recovery of this service. Interest-free bridging loans of £5,000, and up to £10,000 exceptionally, are available for those in hardship. We are holding Capita to account through rigorous performance indicators and financial penalties.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer and I am pleased to hear that the Government are seized of the seriousness of the situation. I hope my noble friend has had the opportunity to read the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, when MP after MP, speaking on behalf of their constituents, described the extreme circumstances that they were facing, from the bereaved not receiving death benefits to new pensioners having to wait months for their benefits. Obviously, the priority must be to get benefits to members. However, does my noble friend agree with me that perhaps the answer lies in the Labour Party’s commitment to bring about

“the biggest wave of insourcing of public services for a generation”?

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

My Lords, it might be helpful if I lay out what the Government are doing. I know that many Members of your Lordships’ House may have been contacted for details, not least because they may be members of this scheme. If there are specific concerns or cases that people have raised with Members of your Lordships’ House, I have sought assurances that we will have the same access to the services being provided to MPs for casework in this instance and can share details with noble Lords. As regards the contract and the issue of insourcing, this contract was signed in November 2023 and came into place last year. While there may be questions about insourcing and other contracts, that simply is not going to be able to be done with this contract.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the transfer of British Army recruiting to Capita was a total shambles. What lessons were drawn from that experience and what precautions were put in place before handing Capita the responsibility for the administration of Civil Service pensions?

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

My Lords, I think many of us have had different experiences with Capita in different contracts over time. I fear that I may be on the record not calling it “Capita” in other parts of Parliament. Specifically, noble Lords may be aware that the Public Accounts Committee in the other place raised concerns about this contract last summer and therefore a whole series of assurance reviews were undertaken and put in place. There are ongoing issues about what has happened and how it has happened, but the priority at this point has to be how we prioritise those who are waiting for deferred salary, but also, at the most extreme end, people who have died in service and who have taken ill-health retirement. To reassure noble Lords, the recovery plan expects that those cases will have been caught up and dealt with by the end of this month, and the hardship loans have started to be paid this week.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, the Cabinet Office told the Public Accounts Committee last year that it was aware of very significant problems with Capita’s preparations to take over the contract on 1 December and that the Cabinet Office had a contingency plan ready to use if necessary. Why, therefore, did the Cabinet Office decide to go ahead with the 1 December transfer to Capita rather than invoke its contingency plan?

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

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that this was discussed by the Public Accounts Committee last year. Following that, and the assurances we got before it went live, the Paymaster-General met with Capita and it confirmed 194 full-time equivalent staff put in place to mitigate delays in automation testing, contingency plans and triaging arrangements, and then a series of independent assurance reviews were undertaken in advance. That is not to say that there are not now serious concerns about what has happened in the last month.

To be clear, our priority at this point is fixing what is broken and making sure that the system stands up. This is a very complicated pension system: it is the third-largest in government. However, I am sure that there will be numerous opportunities to discuss what went wrong and what we need to learn from this. But I want to assure noble Lords that we are taking this with the utmost seriousness, which is why Angela MacDonald, the Second Perm Sec at HMRC, is leading the recovery taskforce. There is a 150-person government surge team supporting the Capita contract, and we are working with Capita and meeting it every day to make sure that these KPIs are being met.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that one of the areas that will be prioritised—I do not know whether she is aware of this—is that former Civil Service employees who are living overseas now cannot access the online portal, so, in addition to not being able to get through on the telephone, they cannot use the online service at all. Can that be fixed as a matter of absolute urgency for those people?

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

I can reassure the noble Baroness that, as part of the recovery taskforce timetable, we expect that the online portal will be up and running in its completion at the end of next month. By the end of this month we are prioritising dealing with the people who cannot access money and those who desperately need it in terms of hardship. So, yes, I can give an assurance that by the end of next month the portal will be fully operational.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, in the wake of the Post Office scandal, we have seen the Government continuing to give contracts to the company that behaved so badly in relation to Post Office employees. Can the Minister assure the House that Capita will not get the same sort of treatment and that its behaviour in this particular contract will be used in evidence when weighing up similar contracts?

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

With regard to Fujitsu, I think the noble Baroness will be aware that there are ongoing issues that relate to the Horizon scandal. With regard to Capita, there are two companies at play here: the company and whether it fulfilled its responsibilities for the previous provider and what Capita actually inherited, which was double the backlog that it was expecting. So there are more complex issues at play here and I am sure that, in the coming months, we will be discussing this in great detail in your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, whatever the failings of the contractor, the agreement will contain options for the contractee, but those potential remedies are only effective if the contracting authority itself is on the case relentlessly. Can the Minister tell the House what concrete steps the Civil Service has taken over the years to improve the quality of its contract management? No well-run business would tolerate a contractor underperforming in this way, so why should the Government allow such behaviour?

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

I want to be very clear that this was a contract signed by the noble Baroness’s Government in 2023, and we are now managing the contract that they signed. As regards where we are in holding Capita to account, we have withheld £9.6 million in transition payments up until this point, from a contract value over seven years of £285 million. That is a significant withhold at this point. We are making sure that Capita is meeting its KPIs and we are meeting it every day as part of the recovery taskforce. However, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that a great number of public procurement challenges relate to the original contract and all this needs to be looked at in the round.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, the challenge of contacting many people affected by this is that some of them may not be digitally proficient and may be digitally excluded. What measures are the Government putting in place to make sure that those who are digitally excluded or not digitally proficient can be contacted and made fully aware of the issue?

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

The noble Lord is absolutely right and there are various mechanisms being put in place, not least the call centre, which people should be able to access. I want to touch on something explicitly because the noble Lord has raised an important point. Some of the most heartbreaking issues that have come to light relate to people who have experienced death in service and bereavement. Therefore, they are receiving calls but not necessarily with the data on service, never mind their digital proficiency. So we have asked government departments to engage directly with the families of their former staff, to arrange the hardship payments in that case, and individual government departments that were the original employers are managing that, which is how we are able to ensure that the money is getting into people’s bank accounts within days, not weeks or months.

Think Tanks: Funding

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the level of transparency required for the funding of think tanks, including in relation to funding from abroad.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is for each individual think tank to publicise and declare their sources of funding. Think tanks with charitable status must follow Charity Commission guidance, ensuring political activity remains subsidiary and exclusively furthers their charitable purposes. The Government are committed to responding to threats of foreign interference in our democracy. We eagerly await the findings of Philip Rycroft’s independent review into countering foreign financial influence, which will report by the end of March.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, for 25 years, political parties have had to declare their significant sources of income, but so-called think tanks that promote the causes of some political parties, and undertake research and produce reports helpful to them, do not have to declare any such funding. The right-wing think tanks based at Tufton Street refuse to declare their sources of funding but have been linked with the fossil fuel industry, property developers, tobacco companies and dark-money trusts in the US. Since 2012, anonymous foundations in the United States have poured over $14 million into these groups. Money to them is also filtered via charities. Will the Minister confirm that the elections Bill will tackle this anomaly and make such funding completely transparent?

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

I thank the noble Lord for his work in this space to make sure that we have faith and trust in the many democratic institutions that are part of the wider ecosystem. On the substance of his question, electoral law already covers think tanks that donate or spend during regulated election periods. Our reforms will ensure that those with a genuine UK connection can contribute to our democracy—for instance, by requiring recipients to undertake “know your donor” due diligence to guard against illegitimate foreign funding. The Government are committed to protecting our democracy from foreign actors. As I said, the Rycroft review will form a vital part of this work. I look forward to discussing this—over many hours, probably—in your Lordships House when the legislation is in front of us.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation—one of those institutions that occupies an address in Tufton Street. I can declare most absolutely that the foundation has never and will never take money from the fossil fuel industry. But if changes are afoot in this whole field—the Minister said clearly that if institutions are involved in the political field, they are already caught by regulations requiring reporting to the Electoral Commission—let us hope they apply as well to the left-wing charities that some would prefer, if they are to apply to right-wing charities that some do not like.

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

I am not sure there was a question in there, but I will take the opportunity to reassure your Lordships that, just as CC9 guidance for the Charity Commission applies to every charity, regardless of their charitable objectives, and just as the electoral law applies to every third-party campaigner, the issue is making sure that people who actively participate in our elections are duly registered as third-party campaigners.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, on transparency, is the Minister aware of the Fundraising Regulator’s concerns about the registration of very small community interest companies at Companies House? They prefer that route of registration in order to avoid Charity Commission oversight and evade all accountability in terms of fundraising. I understand that the Government are in talks with the Fundraising Regulator and others to improve that situation. Can she tell the House when those talks might come to an end?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am afraid I am not in a position to update her on the timescale or the development of those talks, but I will make sure that she gets an answer.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest: I used to work for the all-party think tank Chatham House, which always declares its donors, as all partisan or non-partisan think tanks should. The Minister may have noticed that, some days ago, the Free Speech Union took out an emergency injunction to prevent the publication of its donors. We are talking about a range of bodies which are partisan think tanks, lobbies trying to influence the political debate, and third parties, in effect, and we need to tighten the rules on those bodies. It is money coming in from the United States and the UAE, as well as from hostile states such as Russia and China in much smaller numbers. Some of the money coming in from the Gulf states to the Blair Foundation, I think, is very considerable. Should there not be tougher rules to make sure that transparency is insisted on in all cases?

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

The noble Lord will be aware that last year, we published our anti-corruption strategy, which outlined the risks posed by corrupt actors who are seeking to influence UK institutions or launder their reputations by engaging in some organisations. As I have said before from this Dispatch Box, we have also recently launched the Counter Political Interference and Espionage Action Plan, which addresses how some state actors use different elements of the state. But the one thing that is incredibly important within the context of all these issues is that fundamentally, our country is run by the Government, and it is Ministers who make final decisions, supported by an impartial Civil Service. Those aspects are key and, while engagement with wider stakeholders is incredibly important and is covered by the Ministerial Code, it is about the integrity of our Ministers and making sure that we have a consistent, impartial Civil Service.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the only way to address this to require all think tanks to publish annual reports on where their sources of funding are coming from? It is clear that many have a political agenda, and it is important for our democracy that they are transparent.

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

My Lords, if a think tank is a charity, it is subject to regulation by the Charity Commission. If it is engaging in election activity, it is subject to the Electoral Commission for any spend over £10,000 and donations over £700. But the noble Lord raises an important point, which is why we asked Philip Rycroft to undertake his review, and I look forward to reading it at the end of March.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, think tanks plays an important role in advancing democratic engagement by developing ideas and policy. There is currently no legal requirement for them to disclose their funders, and imposing such a requirement on charities and research institutes would risk a disproportionate intrusion into civil society. The ability of organisations across the political spectrum to contribute freely to public debate is an important part of our civic strength. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government recognise the value of the current arrangements in enabling think tanks to carry out this work and that they have no plans to change that existing regime?

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

I hate to disappoint the noble Baroness, but I cannot and will not. To be very clear, while I appreciate and have worked directly with think tanks—as I think most Members of your Lordships’ House have—and sat on panels and engaged with them, the reality is that if a regulatory framework is required to make sure that people know who they are engaging with and whether there are any ulterior motives, we have to be clear on what those are. I have written for organisations such as the Policy Exchange, and I used to run HOPE not hate, a third-party campaign organisation. There are different structures that everybody has to engage with, but it is only right and proper that we know who is funding what, when and why.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, do the reforms the Government have coming down the line cover the structure and scale of think tanks? One might call itself the “worldwide progressive institute” and you would think, “Oh, they must be good”, but it is actually just a chap and his dog in his mum’s spare bedroom. So, will the reforms cast some light into the spare bedroom?

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

I was hoping we would go for the dog rather than the spare bedroom.

As I have said, Philip Rycroft is looking at some of these issues of foreign interference in the round. There is a genuine issue, and my noble friend raises a genuinely important point about knowing who we are engaging with and why. We have seen in recent days, not least when I was in front of your Lordships’ House discussing it, why we need the espionage strategy, and to make sure people know who they are talking to and why. This is the case for lobbying as much as for think tanks, and we need to make sure the right regulatory environment is in place.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, one of the previous questions to the noble Baroness was about all political parties having to declare where their sources of income are from. Of course, that is not the case: Sinn Féin does not have to declare this because it is an all-Ireland party. Can she confirm whether Philip Rycroft will look at this issue as well? It is an important issue, because Sinn Féin is standing in elections to the other place.

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

I knew I was going to get that question. I would like to thank the noble Baroness for the question—I think. She is absolutely right, and I have had several meetings, including with the Election Commissioner for Northern Ireland, about some of the things operating in this space. I will talk to the noble Baroness outside your Lordships’ House, but I will also write to her with any specific details.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I fail to understand the logic of both the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Barker, in setting their face against collecting more data. The fact is, we are not certain. We are still not certain as to the veracity and accuracy of any of this data. To give an example, the Royal College of Gynaecologists has issued “Making Abortion Safe” guidelines to providers for the safe use of medical abortion after 20 to 22 weeks. These guidelines recommend the use of feticide to avoid the foetus being born with signs of life, which can cause distress for women and their care providers. In the same guidelines, the RCOG states that there will be a

“need for further intervention to complete the procedure”

in 13% of cases. That is more than twice the highest rate reported by the—

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

Order. My Lords, I am ever so sorry, but an intervention, according to the Companion, should be short, brief and specific to the point. So, if the noble Lord could actually make his point, I would be grateful.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Standing Order 29 does not apply, and I am entitled to speak more than once in—

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

Absolutely, but this is an intervention.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I have not finished yet. Standing Order 29 does not apply in respect of the ability for a Member individually—

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

My Lords, the hour is late, and I appreciate that this has been a very difficult debate. What I am saying is that the rules on an intervention are clear. The noble Lord is absolutely right that he can speak repeatedly, but he said

“Before the noble Baroness sits down”,


so we believed this to be an intervention.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The Government Chief Whip is very flexible when it comes to that side of the Chamber segueing between speeches and interventions, and she does not intervene. It is only on this side that she intervenes, to throw off this side. The points she has made are not in line with what the Standing Orders and the Companion say, which is that a mover of an amendment and others are entitled to speak more than once.

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

The noble Lord has just promoted me, and I thank him for that. However, we have a very good Government Chief Whip, who I am privileged to serve under. The noble Lord will appreciate that, through my whipping, I have been trying to manage this in such a way that everybody has been able to be heard. Regardless of position, I do not think anyone here knows my personal views. On the current topic, it is the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that is still on the annunciator, and the noble Lord indicated that he wanted clarification on a point before the noble Baroness sat down. That is what I was saying. We all believed it to be an intervention. If it is not, we can move on and revert back to the noble Lord for his second speech.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

462: Clause 192, page 223, line 24, leave out “subsections (3) and” and insert “subsection”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 192, page 223, line 27.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness will bear with me, we cannot have an intervention on an intervention. She must allow the response.

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel (CB)]

Can we just clarify what we are talking about? I am tempted to say that those putting forward these amendments are living in a world of fiction, but I am not so rude as to suggest that. I am not suggesting even that they are misguided. I think all these amendments and their proponents are doing this with a total conviction that wrong will be done if this provision gets through, so let us just address what wrong will be done.

The wrong that will be done is that a woman may try to abort or kill her baby at a late gestation or an early gestation. The criminality would be the same because she is doing so outside the 1967 Act. That will be the case, but that is not what the problem is. The problem is that hundreds of innocent women are wrongly accused of a criminal act and sent for police investigation. One person was sent to jail, and 10 of the other 100 that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned had further investigations carried out and were then taken to court.

The Whip is trying to accelerate me, but we cannot accelerate unless I can address the issues raised.

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

I apologise, but can I remind Members that interventions are short and sweet? But because this is Committee, people can participate in the debate at their chosen point.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, to conclude, I do not have long comments on this. The Attorney-General would be there in such cases to examine whether something illegal and wrong has occurred, and he could withhold his consent for a prosecution if he considered that that was not the case. He would look at the particular circumstances. He or she would act quasi-judicially and independently of government.

Amendment 456 strikes a perfect balance and should give reassurance to women who have good cause to have a late termination, while preserving the criminal offence for those cases where a late abortion cannot be justified. It therefore meets Clause 191 half way, and I urge fellow Peers to support it.

Public Trust in National Politics

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what proposals they are considering to reverse the decline in public trust of national politics in the UK.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

The Government are committed to restoring public confidence in our politics. On entering office, the Prime Minister issued a new Ministerial Code strengthening the powers of his Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, increasing transparency on ministerial gifts and hospitality, as well as establishing the Ethics and Integrity Commission. The Public Office (Accountability) Bill will place a new legal duty on public servants to act truthfully and to fully assist inquiries and investigations. The Government have also announced an independent review into foreign financial influence and interference in the UK’s political and electoral system.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I and others are grateful for those small steps, but the size of the problem of public distrust of politics is enormous. Fewer than 60% of voters voted in the 2024 election. Multiple surveys show real public disillusionment with Westminster politics—not with democracy but with Westminster politics. Should the Government not start a national conversation on a cross-party basis on how we rebuild trust in our national political institutions, including both Houses of Parliament?

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

The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point about trust and politics. We spend a number of hours, in your Lordships’ House and the other place, discussing things that have an impact on people’s lives every day. There is a responsibility on us to make sure that they know what we are doing and that we are doing it in their name. Some of these things happen every day already, whether they are Select Committee reports or are about how we all come together, but there is a responsibility on the leaders of our country to make sure that people understand what we are doing. The politics of easy answers will get us nowhere. We need to be candid that life is difficult and to make sure we are delivering. I would say there is a battle for truth here, and the battle for democracy is the same thing, and we must work together to ensure those things happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, talking about truth and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, looking for proposals, can I propose through the Minister that the Liberal Democrats’ use of fake local newspapers and misinformation to slur political opponents is something she might want to consider?

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

My Lords, but where would we be without their bar charts?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

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

I say that with love. Noble Lords are aware that I am very fond of an election leaflet, but, especially given how many elections are in front of us, we need to make sure that they are accurate and true and reflect the fact that there is a responsibility on all of us to bring some of the heat out of politics and put the truth back.

[Baroness Shah (Lab)]

My Lords, trust in politics is also affected by the safety and well-being of elected representatives and candidates. In my role as the head of the Labour office at the Local Government Association, I have seen a worrying increase in abuse and threats towards representatives from all parties and physical attacks on them. Only a couple of weeks ago, a councillor’s car was set alight. Democracy is at its best when we can respectfully disagree. Can my noble friend assure this House on what the Government are doing to address these concerns?

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

My noble friend is absolutely right. Soon, we will mark 10 years since my friend Jo Cox was murdered, which brings all this very much to a point. There are many things that we are doing together, including the Joint Election Security Preparedness Unit, which is jointly run by the Cabinet Office and MHCLG. In the run-up to the elections, it will reinstate its election cell, and the National Protective Security Authority exists. Noble Lords, especially those who have stood for election in the last decade, will be aware that Operation Bridger exists for MPs. That is now extended to include Operation Ford to protect councillors and council candidates. Language is incredibly important, and there is responsibility on all of us to make sure we take the heat out of this, because it is our activists and candidates who are knocking on doors and speaking to people every day. We have a responsibility to take some of the heat out of politics to protect them, too.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, I frequently talk to young people, and they generally feel that we are overfocused on the problems and challenges of the 20th century such as friendships, rivalries and conflict. They feel that we live in a smaller, interdependent world, with common challenges, and that we should focus our attention on active co-operation to meet those challenges. Could they be right?

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

My Lords, I helped run HOPE not hate for many years, and I was on the board until the general election. There is a responsibility on everybody to make sure that we are celebrating the hope, and embracing hope rather than hate, in our society and looking at what unites us rather than what divides us. Especially since 7 October, that has proved to be very challenging for parts of our community, including my own, but we need to make sure that core British values remain at the heart of who we are and that we can celebrate those things that bring us together.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, trust is something a Government must earn. It is built on honesty, transparency and consistency, all of which are essential if we are to begin restoring public confidence in politics. Against that background, can the Minister tell the House what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the 14 policy U-turns we have endured during this Parliament? Does she accept that repeatedly promising one course of action and then pursuing the opposite risks further undermining that trust?

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

My Lords, I asked the Labour Party unit how many U-turns the previous Government had done in their 14 years, and they are still to come back to me because they are still counting.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

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

Regarding the substance of the noble Baroness’s question, this Government have made over 3,000 policy announcements in the last 18 months because of the mess that we inherited from the previous Government. We may have made 14 U-turns, but that is because we have listened where things needed to be tweaked. We have had to do so many things so quickly that it is not a surprise that, occasionally, we have to reflect on whether they were the right things to do.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that building trust in politics needs to start with young people? The measures in the national youth strategy on civic engagement are extremely important, but we need to stop the misinformation on politics that is directed specifically at young people. Can she assure me that the Government will engage with tech company bosses to prevent this poisonous spread of misinformation?

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

My noble friend is absolutely right that one of the biggest challenges we face—and I say this as my stepdaughter is 15 years old—is what young people are exposed to online, but there is a balance here with the fact that current 13 and 14 year-olds will be voting at the next general election. We need to balance protecting them with making sure that they have access to accurate information and that, through the national curriculum, they are taught how to interrogate information so they know what is right and wrong and can ask questions of the people who seek to represent them.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, is not a key element of trust in politics that elections are run fairly and independently? Therefore, I hope that the Minister might commit to restoring the full independence of the Electoral Commission and repealing the power for a Government of any political persuasion to set the policy and strategic direction for the commission. Is not an independent regulator a far more trustworthy regulator?

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

My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting point, and I will write to him about the details of it. Obviously, one of the basic tenets of the British values I have talked about is free and fair elections. Making sure that the Electoral Commission can facilitate those across the United Kingdom is very important.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, the greatest mistrust in politics at the moment is among young graduates, who have seen all three parties renege on promises in relation to student loans. Significantly high interest rates, with repayment at 9%, mean that the majority of young graduates are paying much more tax than the other generation. How will we restore the trust in politics among young graduates, who are central to our future?

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

The noble Baroness raises a genuinely important point about the next generation, which will be dealing with some of these issues for decades to come. With regards to the specifics of her question about our plans for student fees, I am afraid that I do not have that information available, but I will write to the noble Baroness.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, given the Nolan principles of public life, leadership is one that has been neglected, and given the close relationship between contractors and the Ministry of Defence, what progress has been made on ensuring that senior Ministers and senior officials have a clear understanding of what future they may have once they leave office and leave employment?

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

I am so sorry. I did not get all the noble Lord’s question. I would be grateful if he could repeat it.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

The substantive part of the question was: given the close relationship between contractors and the Ministry of Defence, what progress has been made on ensuring that there is a clear understanding about what would be appropriate for senior Ministers and senior officials to take in terms of employment after they hold office and when they step down from those senior posts?

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

I thank the noble Lord for repeating his question and apologise that he had to. Obviously, the noble Lord has significant experience in this space because of his previous roles at ACOBA, and I thank him for his work. He will know that, through the Ethics and Integrity Commission, we are reviewing how all this will work together. I will think about the issues that he raises and write to him if that is okay.

Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Carer’s Assistance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2026

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 8 December 2025 be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 28 January.

Motion agreed.

Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Carer’s Assistance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2026

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Carer’s Assistance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2026.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this order today. As with all of the Scotland Act orders that we have considered since the start of this Parliament, this is the result of collaborative working between the UK and Scottish Governments.

The order before us will be made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act, which, following an Act of the Scottish Parliament, provides the power for consequential provisions to be made in the law relating to reserved matters or the laws elsewhere in the UK. Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action. I am pleased to say that the Scotland Office has taken through 12 such orders since this Government came to power in July 2024.

The Scotland Act 2016 devolved responsibility for certain social security benefits and employment support to the Scottish Parliament. This included the carer’s allowance, which the Scottish Government replaced with the carer support payment in 2023. This order is being brought forward to make provisions in consequence of further changes that the Scottish Government have made to their carer support payment. The Scottish Government requested this order, and the UK Government have worked collaboratively with them on this draft order, showcasing devolution in action.

The draft order under consideration today makes amendments to relevant UK and Northern Ireland legislation as a consequence of the Carer’s Assistance (Miscellaneous and Consequential Amendments, Revocation, Transitional and Saving Provisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2025, which were made on 6 November 2025 and come into force for the provisions that are relevant to this order on 15 March 2026. The Scottish Government’s regulations introduce additional support for those receiving the carer support payment and caring for more than one person, in the form of the carer additional person payment; extend support for carers from eight to 12 weeks after the death of the person they care for; and introduce a new Scottish carer supplement, which will, for most carers, replace the carer’s allowance supplement that is currently paid under Section 81 of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. This order will ensure that the changes the Scottish Government are making to the carer support payment are reflected in reserved benefits.

In summary, this order makes consequential amendments to UK legislation to reflect the introduction of changes to the carer support payment in Scotland. As I said, it is an example of devolution in action. It is about the UK Government working with the Scottish Government to deliver for the people of Scotland, and it reflects the continued strong co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments. I beg to move.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. I have one or two questions about both the general process of transferring social security to Scotland and its implications, specific to this instrument.

As I understand it, at the moment, the carer’s allowance is £83.30 per week, and that is the same in England, Wales and Scotland. Can that be varied? I assume that it can be, under this devolved measure, but, as I understand it, that is not the intention. What is being implemented is a supplementary payment, every six months, of £293.50 to carers in Scotland. I assume that the £293.50 that we get in Scotland will not be paid to people in England, and that is the differential clarification for that. Can the Minister confirm this?

This is the third or fourth instrument the Committee has debated that relates to the transfer of social security from the DWP to the Scottish Parliament and Government. I have raised this issue before but, unfortunately, we do not have SNP Members in this House, which would be useful, as they could explain exactly what is behind this. However, I can legitimately ask a UK Minister a question about the way this is presented and whether she is satisfied that the UK Government’s role in Scotland is not being undermined by the way that this is being delivered, rather than by the fact of it being delivered.

In other words, I do not oppose the devolution of benefits. Members know that the leader of my party is very strong on improving support for carers, and we support that, but there is an important point here. What has happened with this and other benefits is that the UK Government have made an assessment of the cost of the claimants in Scotland and transferred that amount to the Scottish Government, who then pay it, through their own instruments, and, if they wish, add additional benefits. The problem is that the contribution of the UK Government is obscured, at least, even though it is substantially more than the top-up that the Scottish Government provides. There is nothing wrong with that in principle, but there is a lot wrong with the politics of the way it is presented.

First, we have an election coming up in three months, and we are going to get SNP candidates saying that, thanks to the SNP, people will get wonderful additional benefits across the piece in Scotland. Most of those benefits are paid for by Scotland, but they have just added something. That does mean that people in Scotland are getting more—it is not as if they are not making a legitimate claim—but they are not really acknowledging where the bulk of the money is coming from. Secondly, we are heading for a financial crunch in Scotland, because a lot of these additional benefits are not being properly costed and funded. The projection I got from the Library is that the deficit on social security could be £1.8 billion in three years, and there is no real indication the Scottish Government have any way of funding that, and so a crisis might loom, or they might have to take money from somewhere else.

I will make a brief, slightly out of order reference to the situation with student grants and student loans. The previous coalition Government in Scotland effectively abolished tuition fees, although the final role was delivered by the SNP Government. They will boast, quite rightly, that those who go to university in Scotland do not pay fees. However, there are two problems from that: first, Scottish universities are going bankrupt from underfunding; and, secondly, to cap the budget, the number of places offered to qualifying students in Scotland has been pushed down. An awful lot of students in Scotland are going to universities in England because they cannot get a place in Scotland, so they are actually paying fees. This is presentational stuff that the UK Government should get a grip of.

I strongly believe in devolution and supported the creation of the Scottish Parliament, but I also strongly believe in the partnership between the two Governments. It is important that the people of Scotland know exactly what contribution the UK Government are making and the separate contribution that is being made by the Scottish Government. That is my point.

My final point has been slightly triggered by events in the last week. The leader of Reform in Scotland— I think he is still a Member of this House, for a few more minutes—said that the party would cut taxes in Scotland at a cost of £4 billion. He has not really explained it, but clearly the implication, which the party has acknowledged, is that it would be funded by massive spending cuts across a range of things. What if, if such a Government came into being—I hope that does not happen—they then turn around and say that they are going to abolish these security benefits? Could we see a situation in which people in Scotland get no benefits, or far reduced benefits compared with people in England, as opposed to now when they get a bit more but most of their benefits are still being funded by the UK?

My plea to the Minister is to take this away and have a real think about how the UK Government present the way that Scotland is being funded—what party it is does not matter, but taxpayers do. As somebody who lives in Scotland, I know that people are easily taken in by the idea that all these wonders are paid for exclusively by the magnificent stewardship of the Scottish finances by the Scottish Government, whereas anybody who knows anything about what is going on says that their stewardship has been a lot less than magnificent. We are heading for a major deficit while they are offering these kinds of sweeties to the electorate without explaining where the money comes from or how they can be funded in the long term. While in no way wishing to oppose what is being proposed, I urge the Government to have a proper look at the way in which this is presented in future and—to be frank— not allow politicians north of the border to get away with it.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister has set out, this statutory instrument is technical in nature and its purpose is clear. It makes the necessary consequential amendments to ensure that the Scottish Government’s changes to carer support interact properly with a reserved benefit system. For that reason, we on these Benches will not stand in its way. It is right that new or additional devolved benefits do not lead to unintended knock-on effects elsewhere in the UK system, and this instrument sensibly preserves the agreed approach between the UK and Scottish Governments.

However, although we will not oppose this order, I wish to place on record our ongoing frustration with the Scottish Government’s approach to carer support. The creation of a parallel system, duplicating work already carried out more efficiently and at lower cost by the DWP, adds unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. This continual duplication adds complexity to what should be a simple and accessible system for carers, while also increasing administrative costs and wasting public money. This reflects a broader tendency towards unnecessary bureaucracy, with the bill ultimately falling on Scottish taxpayers.

We have always stood firmly behind carers and recognise the vital role that they plainly play. Our concern is not with supporting carers but with a system that prioritises administrative expansion over efficiency and value for money. For these reasons, although we will of course allow this technical instrument to pass, we remain critical of the wider approach that has made such extensive consequential legislation necessary in the first place.

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

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to the debate this afternoon; some very important points were made, even if our time was short. I reiterate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about the vital role that carers play. Although this makes technical amendments, and the approach of the Scottish Government is a decision for them, we should all put on record our genuine thanks for the work that carers do every day to look after some of the most vulnerable in our society.

I turn to the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Regarding a clarification on finances, I will write to him so that he has it in writing. My understanding is that he is absolutely right—the core remains the core; it is the additional element—but I will write to him.

He raised a very important point about the strength of the union while we have devolved Administrations. As Noble Lords will be aware—many of us will be on the doorsteps in the coming months—a very important election is coming in Scotland. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the contribution of the British Government can be obscured on such points, when political parties tend to be interesting with their definition of events to make sure that they do well. There is a responsibility on the political parties represented here today to make an argument both for the union and for truth in how the British Government interact with the Scottish Government in the forthcoming elections. We have a proud argument to make. This Government strongly believe in devolution, but we also believe in the strength of the union, as we made clear during the referendum.

I clarify for the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that the UK Government consider all changes to be in line with the fiscal framework that we have outlined. We may need to review that position if there is deemed to be a significant divergence in the future, such as in the costings associated with this policy.

Both noble Lords made points related to the increasing differences between the carer’s allowance and carer support payments, as well as how those now look across the country. The Scottish Government have designed their own carer benefit to be broadly similar to the carer’s allowance at the outset, with minor differences in the past presence test, enabling some carers to access the carer support payment while studying full-time. The UK Government consider all changes that the Scottish Government make to their social security benefits in line with the fiscal framework.

In this instance, the changes are not considered significant. This Scotland Act order ensures that the carer additional person payment, the Scottish carer supplement, the replacement for the carer’s allowance supplement and the extension to the carer’s support bereavement run-on, which come into force on 15 March 2026, are treated appropriately by reserved and Northern Ireland social security.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also asked an important question about Reform, including any changes that a Reform Administration in Scotland may make and their impact. Obviously, as noble Lords will appreciate, many of us will be campaigning to make sure that that does not happen; I look forward to seeing Anas Sarwar as First Minister. However, devolution means that the Scottish Government are able to design their own benefits. We have to win the elections and convince the electorate to make sure that our view of the world wins in the forthcoming elections, so that we do not necessarily have to worry about some of the things that the noble Lord, who is about to depart, may or may not be saying.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

May I seek some clarification? It occurs to me that this benefit is in two parts: the transfer of the benefit, which is the same across the UK; and the additional bit, which is funded by the Scottish Government. I appreciate that that part is entirely a matter for the Scottish Government but, if a Government in Scotland decided to reduce the basic allowance below the UK level, would there not be a reduction in the transfer of the cash? After all, the funding has been transferred on the basis of the assumption that the Scottish Government will continue to match the benefit. If the Minister cannot answer that now, she may write to me.

I seek clarification on this because, in effect, they do not have that money to fund tax cuts in Scotland if, in reality, the money will be withdrawn by the UK Government because it is no longer being put towards the purpose for which it was devolved. That seems perfectly legitimate to me, but clarification would be useful.

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

That is a very interesting point. I will write to the noble Lord so that he has answer in writing; that will come soon.

In closing, this instrument demonstrates the continued commitment of the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland.

Motion agreed.

Chinese Embassy

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I was reminded that it was only in 2015 that the then Chancellor George Osborne declared the creation of a “golden decade”. I wonder how long it lasted.

At the very least, this decision will relocate China’s comprehensive security and surveillance efforts on to one huge 21st-century site. We believe it will amplify the threat and potentially endanger the security of vital financial data. It seems a clear indication of political weakness that the Government have taken this decision in the hope of furthering our relationship with China. This concession, along with issues such as the Government’s consistent failure to place China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme and their total failure to invoke sufficient legal protection against transnational repression of Hong Kongers, reinforced this message of weakness.

The Statement talks about the Government’s desire for a relationship with China and it says that the Government do not trade security for economic access. I agree, because given the scale of the trade deficit we have with China, we are actually increasing our security risks while continuing to give China virtually unfettered economic access. It is a win-win situation for China. There seems very little on the plus side of this relationship for us, except perhaps allowing Chinese Government-controlled firms to take large financial stakes in our critical national infrastructure.

Having made this announcement, what, if anything, does the Prime Minister hope to bring back from his visit? It is a transactional world. If the Prime Minister was to negotiate the freedom of Jimmy Lai, secure the removal of the bounties from the heads of Hong Kongers and close the university-based Chinese police operations then perhaps the extra risk that our security services describe flowing from this super-embassy might be worth taking. However, if all he gets is a handshake with President Xi, then he will have conceded—we will have conceded—a lot for absolutely nothing.

I will say a final word on the scale of this embassy. The plans for the super-embassy include the provision of 232 flats. I believe there are currently 146 embassy employees, which means that there will be accommodation for nearly 90 extra people—an expansion of at least 60% in the number of embassy staff. So what realistically does the Minister expect all those extra people to be doing?

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their points and questions on this matter, which rightly concerns us all.

To reiterate, this was a quasi-judicial decision taken independently by the Secretary of State for Housing. I also remind noble Lords of the premise of the Statement made by the Security Minister in the other place, which focused on the national security considerations of China’s proposal to build a new embassy at the Royal Mint Court. This concludes a process that began in 2018, when the then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson—who I believe may have been a Conservative—gave formal diplomatic consent for China to use the Royal Mint site for its new embassy, subject to planning permission, and welcomed it as China’s largest overseas investment. I think we have seen how much has changed in a few short years on the Opposition Benches. Nevertheless, I am aware of the significant interest that this issue has provoked in your Lordships’ House, and as such I am grateful for the opportunity to provide an assurance of the work that the Government have undertaken to ensure that UK national security is protected.

I am very fond of the noble Baroness, but her comments about the Government’s prioritisation of national security were outrageous. National security is our number one priority. The Home Office and the Foreign Office both provided views during the planning process on potential security issues around the build and confirmed in writing when these were resolved. We have engaged with key allies throughout, and our security and intelligence agencies have been integral to the process. As the director of GCHQ and the director-general of MI5 wrote in their letter,

“as with any foreign embassy on UK soil, it is not realistic to expect to be able wholly to eliminate each and every potential risk … However, the collective work across UK intelligence agencies and HMG departments to formulate a package of national security mitigations for the site has been, in our view, expert, professional and proportionate”.

They also judged that

“the package of mitigations deals acceptably with a wide range of sensitive national security issues, including cabling”.

Indeed, they noted that there were “clear security advantages” from consolidating China’s diplomatic estates in London.

I am also grateful for the close consideration and scrutiny that my noble friend Lord Beamish and the Intelligence and Security Committee have given this matter. His committee concluded:

“On the basis of the evidence we have received, and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the Committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated”.


National security concerns that have been raised in media reports again in recent days are not new to the Government or the intelligence community, and an extensive range of measures has been developed to protect national security. We have acted to increase the resilience of cables in the area through an extensive series of measures to protect sensitive data. The Government have seen unredacted plans for the embassy and have agreed with China that the publicly accessible forecourt on the embassy grounds will not have diplomatic immunity, thereby managing the risk to the public. Based on all that and our extensive work on this matter, we are content that any risks are being appropriately managed.

On our approach to China, I note that it is a fundamental and normal part of international relations that countries agree to establish embassies in each other’s capitals. The Government are engaging with China confidently and pragmatically, recognising the complexity of the world as it is and challenging China where we need to. Of course, we recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber attacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our diplomatic institutions, to transnational repression of Hong Kongers and China’s support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Government have responded and will continue to respond to these challenges.

However, taking a robust approach to our national security also includes engaging with China. Indeed, it is only through engagement that we can directly challenge China on its malicious activity. By taking tough steps to keep us secure, we enable ourselves to co-operate in other areas, including in pursuit of safe economic opportunities that are in the UK’s national interest and in areas such as organised immigration crime, narcotics trafficking and serious organised crime. That is what allies do and what we are doing: delivering for the public, putting more money in their pockets and keeping them safe through hard-headed, risk-based engagement with the world’s most consequential power.

I would like to clarify some specific points raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. The noble Baroness asked what this is for. She knows what this is for: as a result of a quasi-judicial process and a planning application, this is the consolidation of seven different sites into one. There are significant security benefits that come from that.

On the planning and building processes, I reiterate that this is a British planning application that has gone through a quasi-judicial process. The normal building inspections will apply as the building is developed.

As I said, national security is the first responsibility of any Government, and especially this Government. Any other suggestion is frankly appalling.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I say that we will see the results of the PM’s visit when he returns and I look forward to discussing it in your Lordships’ House at that point.

On FIRS, we are looking carefully at whether other countries should be added to the enhanced tier. Any decision will be brought before Parliament in the usual way. Countries are considered separately for specification, and decisions are made on the evidence. The Government have a range of capabilities to manage and mitigate threats emanating from foreign states. FIRS is one of many tools that we use.

I will touch on the number of diplomats who will be present at the embassy. Under the Vienna convention, having an embassy is not a reward for like-minded partners but a necessity for any country with which we have diplomatic relations. On the issue of pragmatism, I say that we are talking about a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the second-largest economy in the world and our third-largest trading partner, so a level of diplomatic relations would be wise. It is also a fundamental and normal part of international relations that countries mutually consent to other nations having embassy premises. However, as the Vienna convention states, the UK has control over the number of diplomats in the UK on diplomatic relations. Any diplomatic position at the Chinese embassy must be approved on a case-by-case basis by the FCDO’s protocol department. The FCDO will work with allies on any additional extensions of that. As I have said, the Government have seen the unredacted plans. It is based on this and our extensive work on this topic that I am content that any risks are being appropriately managed.

The noble Lord raised a very important point about transnational repression. Noble Lords may be aware that I ran Index on Censorship until the general election and spent a great deal of time campaigning on these specific issues. The Government condemn the Hong Kong police’s efforts to coerce, intimidate, harass and harm those living in the UK and overseas; these acts of repression will never be tolerated in this country. We have raised these concerns directly with Chinese authorities, reaffirming that the extraterritorial application of Hong Kong’s national security law is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the UK. The safety and security of Hong Kongers in the UK, including those on the British National Overseas visa, is of the utmost importance. The UK will always stand up for the rights of the people of Hong Kong. This is demonstrated through the bespoke immigration route for BNO status holders and their eligible family members.

The UK’s response to tackling state-directed threats is world leading. Appropriate tools and system-wide safeguards are in place to robustly counter transnational aggression. Following the Defending Democracy Taskforce’s TNR review, we have strengthened our response by implementing the National Security Act 2023, which provides a comprehensive suite of powers to counter the threat of TNR. We have rolled out training across 45 territorial police forces, including the upskilling of 999 call handlers to improve front-line identification of and responses to state-directed threats. We have published practical guidance on GOV.UK for individuals who believe they may be at risk, with advice to help them protect themselves physically and online. We have deployed tailored support and security assistance for individual victims, where we have become aware of them, that are proportionate to the threat and varied in scope and approach.

This Government will always welcome the knowledge and experience of noble Lords and Baronesses in your Lordships’ House, particularly when they pertain to matters of national security. So let me again reassure your Lordships that upholding national security is the first duty of government and we will continue to take all measures necessary to disrupt these threats. Based on the extensive work on this topic, the Government are content that any risks to the UK’s national security are being appropriately managed.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. She made a great deal in her remarks of the quasi-judicial process that has been used. No reference, though, has been made to the Royal Mint Court Residents Association’s decision to open a judicial case challenging the mega-embassy on the Royal Mint site. Has the Minister considered imposing a moratorium while that legal process continues?

She also made a great deal about transnational repression, and I salute the work that she has done in a previous incarnation on that important issue. I thank the Government for providing time on 26 February for a full-scale debate in your Lordships’ House on the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights on transnational repression. May I appeal to the noble Baroness to make available a copy of that report and a copy of the committee’s report on the use of slave labour in our supply chains, which touches on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about how we cannot compete with a country that uses slave labour? Will she ensure that those two reports are in the hands of the Prime Minister before he travels to Beijing?

I have two questions for the noble Baroness. It has been claimed publicly by Richard Holmes of the i paper and Caroline Wheeler of the Sunday Times that, during 2025, while both journalists were working to uncover the risks associated with the sensitive cabling below the mega-CCP embassy, government media officials sought to discredit both journalists and denied that there were any such cables. Is it true that government officials denied the presence of sensitive cables? Is it true that these two good journalists were smeared by officials, who well knew that they were working on a true story, which the Government have themselves now admitted? If the noble Baroness does not have the answers to those questions immediately, I would be grateful if she would agree to write to me.

[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.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, in 2015, if I recall, we were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats and I think that Nick Clegg clearly agreed with George Osborne’s position on China. But I did agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, when he highlighted the numbers of staff who will be allocated to this embassy. I wonder whether there is ever a limit on the number of people who can come here when an embassy is either created or expanded.

I turn to the point. The reality is that the regime in China is up to its neck in committing heinous crimes against its own citizens. It is up to its neck in supporting Russia and its invasion of Ukraine. It is up to its neck in the attacks that took place in Israel, and now in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where thousands of unarmed civilians are being slaughtered as we speak by the Ayatollah and the IRGC. Cyber attacks here in the UK are on the rise and are becoming much more frequent. So how can the Minister and this Government be so naive as to justify permitting the approval of this site?

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

I would like to clarify a couple of points. First, unless I missed something, the coalition ended in 2015. It was 2010 to 2015, so that was a matter for the noble Baroness’s party, not for the Liberal Democrats at that point. Secondly, on the number of diplomats, as I said earlier, that is subject to the Vienna convention. The Protocol Minister decides on a case-by-case basis on any additional applications for diplomats.

I have been very clear on the range of threats that China poses, but there are 370,000 British jobs that are dependent on our relationship with China. We need to have a level of pragmatism and a sensible relationship with the second-largest economy in the world and our third-largest trading partner. We just need to remember what we are doing and why we are doing it. The idea that this Government or any British Government are naive in their approach to foreign policy is frankly insulting.

On the specific matter that the noble Baroness raised about our relationship with China and where they have sat, the Prime Minister said, when he met President Xi at the G20 in 2024, that he also wanted to engage honestly and frankly in those areas where we have different perspectives, including on Hong Kong, human rights and Russia’s war in Ukraine.

We have genuine debate, we make our position clear, as we have on the national security law and on a range of issues, including Jimmy Lai’s status and the ongoing trials. You can have those conversations with allies only if you talk to them. While the world is as volatile as it is, I suggest that more words rather than fewer are important, which requires more people to have those conversations

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

My Lords, the events of last week and this week demonstrate to us the difficulties of managing superpowers and the challenges they present, as well as the opportunities. So, while the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, is right to suggest that China presents areas where we must oppose, there must also be areas where we seek to co-operate when we can. Does my noble friend the Minister recognise the need for expert advice to guide embassy location decisions, and is that the way to avoid the sort of ricocheting we have seen from the golden age that has already been referenced tonight to the ice age that we have also been presented with?

Can my noble friend the Minister also just confirm that the heads of MI5 and GCHQ stated that

“this consolidation should bring clear security advantages”?

Did she have the opportunity, exactly a week ago today, to hear this point reinforced by the director-general of MI5, speaking in this place, when he reiterated and dwelled on the fact that the greater threats surrounding espionage come not from within an embassy building but often from activities beyond an embassy that dominate much of the work of our security agencies? Finally, does my noble friend agree that, as we go forward on the question of embassy locations, we should be led by the UK’s most senior intelligence officers in our decision-making?

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

I thank my noble friend for her questions. One thing that is really clear, given that this Statement is about our national security, is about being led by our national security experts, who, as she rightly said, have been clear in their opinions about the mitigations that are required but also about the nature of this. With regard to the location of embassies, this is a piece of land that was bought in 2018 and was granted the diplomatic permission to move forward as an embassy, subject to planning permission, under the last Government—or, in fact, as I said, under Boris Johnson. But what is clear is that a quasi-judicial process has since followed. There is a 240-page document which outlines why that decision was made and how it was made, and it is all available to all Members of your Lordships’ House online. But she is absolutely right: my honourable friend the Security Minister in the other place and the directors-general of MI5 and GCHQ, have all made it clear that there are also clear security benefits to the amalgamation of seven sites into one.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister acknowledged earlier the concern among Chinese dissidents in the UK about the embassy. She may have heard the comments from Chloe Cheung, a British resident and former Hong Konger—a young woman who has a bounty on her head from China. She has said she feels betrayed by the agreement to this embassy: it looks like a Chinese castle, and it sends a message about overweening Chinese power. Can the Minister sympathise with and understand the fear felt by those dissidents—and more widely than just those who are explicitly identified as dissidents?

I note that the Statement refers to a closed meeting with vice-chancellors that is going to be held next month. We of course have huge numbers of Hong Kong and Chinese students at British universities, and we have had experience of them being intimidated and subject to physical violence. What can the Government do to ensure that universities can protect those students? If we think about a Chinese student who has always followed the line and come here and just starts to ask some questions, what are we going to do to make sure that that student is safe here in the UK?

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

My Lords, I have met many Chinese dissidents who live in the UK and did significant work with them in my former iteration. It is really important that we make sure that their voices are heard and that on British soil they have the protections afforded to everybody here.

On academic interference, 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 new Office for Students’ guidance makes it explicitly clear that universities should not tolerate attempts by foreign states to suppress academic freedom.

With regard to the closed meeting with the Security Minister, which will be held shortly, there is a reason why that meeting is closed: to make sure that the advice received by people is for them as regards how they manage and mitigate their risks. It would be inappropriate for me to go further on that.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I would be grateful if the noble Baroness, if she does not have the figures available right now, could send me a letter and put it in the Library as to how many diplomats from the People’s Republic of China are accredited to the United Kingdom and how many United Kingdom diplomats are accredited to the People’s Republic of China. It would be very interesting to see what the figures are. She mentioned a quasi-judicial process. I suspect that the head of the planning department in Beijing would have very little say in whether we built a super-embassy there. It would be dealt with by other people. Only we could come up with that kind of process.

As regards Hong Kong, since the crackdown started, we have done virtually nothing and, in my opinion, we are going to do virtually nothing, because that is what we do well. I fear that the universities have laid themselves wide open to interference and pressure—money talks. The Minister has just pointed out that we have to be pragmatic because 370,000 jobs are at stake with regard to Chinese companies. But as long as we have a trade deficit of the scale that we have, and as long as we cannot invest in China under the same terms as the Chinese can invest here, that is the major letdown in the security of our country, because we are making ourselves, in effect, at their disposal. Will the Minister bear those points in mind and, if she will be kind enough, make the figures available to the House?

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

I find it very wise always to listen to the noble Lord and to bear his comments in mind. On the number of diplomats, I will have to write to the noble Lord as I do not have the figures to hand. As my noble friend who is the Minister for MHCLG in your Lordships’ House is here, I will leave her to ponder the noble Lord’s suggestions about revisions to the planning regime.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I certainly support the noble Baroness our Front-Bench spokesperson and the noble Lord the Lib Dem spokesman. This is a regrettable decision but we now have to move on. I am being pragmatic; I accept that it is going to happen, and we have to make the best of it. China wanted this embassy very badly, the Chinese will be delighted at this decision, and it will undoubtedly create a lot of good will. Just to build on what the Minister said about trade and investment, when the Prime Minister comes back from China, can we have a full audit of all the deals that have been agreed and the investment decisions that have been discussed, so that we can get a very clear picture of exactly how that bilateral trade relationship will move forward?

I will ask the Minister another question. I have visited getting on for 60 UK missions abroad, and one thing that has struck me is that we have always been very strong at employing locally engaged staff. Normally, it is a ratio of probably 2.5:1 or maybe even 3:1. My impression of China is that it employs very few locally engaged staff. We heard about the increase in accommodation that is going to be required in the new embassy. Can the Minister say something about the representations that she and the Government are going to make to the Chinese about employing more local British people in what is going to be a huge operation and a massive project?

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

My Lords, there are several things to unpack there. First, I highlight the fact that while the Prime Minister is going tomorrow, the UK has been an outlier since 2018 in terms of our engagement with China. President Trump met President Xi in October and will visit China in the spring. Since 2018, President Macron has visited China three times, German leaders have visited four times, and Chancellor Merz is soon to travel to Beijing. Prime Minister Albanese went in July last year and Prime Minister Carney was there this month. There has not been a prime ministerial-level visit to China—the second-largest economy—since 2018, when the noble Baroness, Lady May, travelled when she was Prime Minister. There is a challenge here about how we chose going from one extreme to the other: a golden age to a golden ice age.

With regards to the trade agreements that will come out of the Prime Minister’s imminent visit to China, noble Lords will have the opportunity to discuss that in due course. What I would say is that this Prime Minister is going to China to deliver for the UK, and I look forward to discussing the details of what comes from that meeting in your Lordships’ House. With regards to the employment of local British people, I think that everyone should always want to employ local British people, but I will leave it for my colleagues in the relevant department to make that case.

Public Inquiries: Costs

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Spellar]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what was the cost of public inquiries in 2025, and what were the Government’s legal costs for representation in public inquiries.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, individual inquiries report their own costs. The Covid inquiry, for example, spent approximately £31 million in the first two quarters of the 2025-26 financial year, whereas the Post Office/Horizon inquiry reported spending of approximately £26 million in the 2024-25 financial year. The Cabinet Office also published Covid-19 inquiry legal response costs of £25 million for the 2024-25 financial year. Public inquiries remain vital for investigating serious concerns, shedding light on injustices and spurring change, as well as getting answers for victims and their loved ones.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the response, but the public will be slightly concerned that the Government do not seem to have an aggregate figure for the cost of inquiries, let alone the costs of their own legal expenses and of Civil Service time. At a time when cash is immensely tight, it would be a very good idea to tighten this up. Would it not be much better for future inquiries to set a fixed limit on how long they will take and a fixed budget that they cannot go beyond?

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

My noble friend raises some interesting points. It may help him to be aware of two developments that this Government have done in recent months. First, changes to the Ministerial Code have made it clear that, since October last year, any government department that wishes to bring forward a public inquiry has to bring forward a business case to a Cabinet Office Minister before the request goes to the Prime Minister. This is so that we can ensure that best practice is achieved. We have also updated the practitioners’ handbook with guidance for sponsor teams and inquiry staff on the set-up and operation of inquiries, the results of which will be published shortly.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I hesitate to go too far back in the past, but the key to the inquiry following the Piper Alpha disaster and the Dunblane inquiry, which I commissioned, was appointing a judge with experience and having terms of reference that were clear and precise. In that way, one can get an inquiry that produces important results and which is conducted in time and well within reasonable expenditure.

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

The noble Lord makes a genuinely important point, in remembering that this is also about value for money. But I remind all noble Lords that this is truly about getting answers for people who have been victims of potentially horrendous and heartbreaking experiences, and about rebuilding trust in the state. He is absolutely right that it is key to make sure that we have learned best practice; however, I gently say to your Lordships’ House that it is also key to ensure that we implement the recommendations from each inquiry, to make sure that they are not books that sit on shelves, as has happened historically in some cases.

[Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)]

Could the Minister tell us how many public inquiries are on at the moment? Picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, the cost is not just to judges, but to the number of public servants who have to be removed from their current work to service the inquiries.

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

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The responsibilities on everybody to truly participate to provide evidence is key. To answer her specific question, there are currently 21 public inquiries on the statute book, of which 16 are active, 12 are statutory and eight have been initiated by this Government.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, there is a danger that public inquiries end up like the royal commissions of old: taking minutes, lasting years and losing public confidence. Is there not now a case for looking at the way that public inquiries are handled and at how one can make sure that at least some of them conclude more quickly, so that we do not have to wait several years, as well as looking at the questions of overall cost and time spent?

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

I absolutely agree. We have seen, whether in the infected blood scandal or the Horizon scandal, that people who genuinely wanted answers had to wait years before we even got to the point of a public inquiry. The Government have an opportunity to help rebuild trust in the institutions that should matter to people. At a time when there are significant threats to our democracy, it is incredibly important that people have trust in them. So, expediting this is key.

One of the things we have also done brought forward the dashboard where people can see what recommendations have been made by some of these public inquiries, to make sure that the recommendations are being implemented. There is a balance here. We must listen to people and ensure that they have their day and have their issues heard, and we must also act on the recommendations of the inquiries.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, some of the most serious matters considered by public inquiries inevitably touch on the actions or knowledge of the intelligence and security agencies. Can the Minister explain how the Government ensure that bodies such as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are able to participate fully and properly in public inquiries by providing relevant evidence and assistance while also preserving their essential national security duties and statutory obligations? In particular, how do the Government ensure that national security considerations do not unduly limit an inquiry’s ability to establish the facts and command public confidence in its conclusions?

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

The noble Baroness will be very aware of the pre-existing processes that are in place through the public interest immunity certificate and the fact that, in statute, chairs of committees can see intelligence reports that allow them to work to ensure that nothing is being hidden and that key findings are made. PII certificates are a mechanism for Ministers to withhold highly sensitive material from disclosure in court proceedings, and they can be used in relation to statutory inquiries. It is fundamental that we make sure we get the balance right between ensuring that everybody is duly held to account while at the same time protecting the people who strive every day to keep us safe.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, in relation to my noble friend the Minister’s earlier remarks about the implementation of the recommendations of public inquiries, many of us would have liked to have seen the Leveson 2 recommendations implemented. But I commend the Government for the work they have done on the Hillsborough law, which of course derives directly from the outcome of this sort of public inquiry. Can the Minister update the House on the latest position with regard to the security services and the Hillsborough law?

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

I think I thank my noble friend for that question. A Statement will be made in the other place this afternoon that will update us. I reassure your Lordships’ House that this Government are completely committed to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Obviously, there are ongoing discussions with key stakeholders, not least the families. My honourable friend in the other place will report this afternoon on next steps.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest, having been a member of the Statutory Inquiries Committee. No one doubts the value of these committees, but a common concern of all committees, which has been noted here, is the degree to which Governments are prepared to implement their recommendations. In our committee, one of the key recommendations was the setting up of a new, independent committee of Parliament to have oversight of public inquiries and to monitor the publication of government responses on implementation. Has progress been made on that?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for the work she has done in this space: it was an excellent report that is feeding into the Government’s thinking about next steps. She may be aware that the PACAC in the other place currently has a call for evidence. I urge all Members to contribute on how we should do this. But, obviously, how we scrutinise the Government is a matter for Parliament. Having said that, we do appreciate that more scrutiny is required.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, public inquiries have had a bad rap recently, partly because of the eye-watering sums of money spent by the Post Office on its legal fees and the Post Office inquiry. But the Post Office inquiry, so far as I can tell, has been doing a really good job. There is one problem the Minister might consider: public inquiries can be used as an excuse for organisations, such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority, not to take action until the public inquiry reports. I understand why that is, but what can we do about it?

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

The noble Lord has been an incredible campaigner for those people who have been the subjects of the appalling IT disasters within the Post Office. His specific point is genuinely important. We have seen this throughout several of the inquiries and their impact. People feel that some of the inquiries have been pushing the can down the road. This is a genuine thing we need to reflect on. I will speak to Ministers in the Cabinet Office and come back to the noble Lord.