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.

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

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.

Exercise Pegasus 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission and I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, Exercise Pegasus tested our ability to respond to a pandemic, involving all nations of the UK and thousands of participants. Evaluation and lesson identification is under way for the first three phases, with interim findings incorporated into the draft pandemic preparedness strategy due to be published in early 2026. The final exercise phase, focusing on recovery, is planned for this summer. The Government have committed to communicating the findings through the post-exercise report this winter.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that response. It is important that Exercise Pegasus is seen as being about not simply pandemics but the much wider issues of how every level of government and the nation as a whole are prepared to deal with crises and emergencies. In that context, can she tell us more about how the voluntary, community and faith sectors, and the business community, were engaged in this exercise at national and local resilience forum level?

--- Later in debate ---

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

My noble friend, who is a world-leading expert in this area, is absolutely right. All exercises should be about ensuring that we can adopt a whole-of-society approach to resilience. That includes making sure that all key stakeholders are involved. Conversations and engagement are ongoing, but, to reassure your Lordships’ House, not only were 6,000 professionals mobilised in each phase of this exercise but we had 16 focus groups and four population surveys, and 2,000 members of the public were involved. That included specific focus groups with the voluntary sector and key businesses to make sure that we could and can deliver. Fundamentally, these exercises are about making sure that the right relationships, as well as the right structures, are in place.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, Exercise Pegasus 2025 was clearly extremely useful. However, the Chief of the Defence Staff was recently reported as saying that we do not have a holistic plan for the mobilisation of the NHS in the event of a large-scale conflict. What action is being taken to assess the requirements of such a mobilisation and to take any necessary remedial action?

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

The noble and gallant Lord makes an incredibly important point about making sure that every part of our society is involved and prepared for whatever crisis may come before us. There is no more important role for this Government than keeping our people safe, by ensuring that we have a strong Armed Forces and that our public services can cope with these moments. The Chief of the Defence Staff was clear in his evidence to the HCDC that the UK national defence plan will be developed across 2026, in line with our NATO commitments at home and abroad.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Covid epidemic was made much worse by obesity? As two-thirds of British people are obese or overweight and half our children are obese, what are the Government doing to reduce that incidence and reduce the mortality in any future epidemics?

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

I was hoping I looked a bit skinny today, but maybe not.

The noble Lord raises an important point about how we ensure that the general public are as well as they can be, given that we do not know what the next threat may be and how it will touch society. That is why this Government launched their 10-year health plan, which includes how we engage with those who have health inequalities and wider inequalities, to ensure that every member of the general public is best placed to deal with the threat.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Feedback from local resilience forums suggests that they are now clearer about their roles thanks to this exercise but lack the surge funding to maintain the staff trained during Pegasus. Will the Government be looking to commit to a multiyear resilience funding settlement for local resilience forums, to ensure that the lessons of Pegasus are not lost to pressures on local budgets?

--- Later in debate ---

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

The noble Lord raises an important point. Additional funding has been allocated for health, to make sure we have the long-term investment of £460 million in place. The noble Lord will be aware that we currently have the LRF trailblazer scheme in place and are in the process of developing the protocol, which is due for testing in March. I hope that any further issues around funding will follow at that point.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harris mentioned the community and voluntary sectors in his question. It was clear during the pandemic how very reliant we are on the community and voluntary sectors to step up to the plate quickly in times of emergency. They do, however, often feel that they are consulted and involved a bit late. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that this will not happen in future epidemics?

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

My noble friend is right. Many of us volunteered during that period, through our faith communities and the community groups with which we are associated. As we saw during the pandemic, voluntary and community groups are at the heart of our communities and faith groups. The reality is that during Exercise Pegasus we ensured that their voices were heard. Phase 4 of Pegasus is about how we recover from a pandemic. Those voices, and stakeholder engagement with that sector specifically, are key elements of these conversations.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, the next threat that faces the country is unlikely to be the same as the last one. What lessons have the Government learned about making sure that Ministers can assess the threat, whatever it is, make the appropriate trade-offs and respond quickly, but also engage both Houses of Parliament to ensure there is proper democratic oversight and scrutiny of the important trade-offs and choices that are made?

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

The noble Lord is right. However, it is about not just this House and the other place but the four devolved Assemblies, making sure that all nations and regions have proper democratic oversight and engagement in any process. That is why Pegasus included not only ministerial leads, which it did, and the relevant government departments and arm’s-length bodies, but regional and national Governments, and the LRFs, to make sure that we knew who was responsible for what and at what time, and, candidly, where there are holes that we need to fill. We need to learn from previous experiences, whether that is the pandemic or the recent storms, and we need to make sure that we are prepared for what may face us. That is why I urge all noble Lords to read the National Risk Register matrix to see where the threats may come from.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Can the Minister say what relationship, if any, there is with the inquiry chaired by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett?

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

We are very grateful to the noble and learned Baroness and her inquiry into Covid-19. Exercise Pegasus came out of one of the recommendations in module 1 of the inquiry, so we are reflecting on its recommendations as they are made. We have guaranteed that there will be one major tier 1 exercise per year and to publish their findings every year, which is an important part of it and one of the key recommendations that has already come from the noble and learned Baroness’s review. We look forward to her recommendations going forward.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I do not want to put my noble friend the Minister on the spot, but will she take cognisance of what has happened with the noble and learned Baroness’s interim report in relation to the use of statistics and the suggestion that a week-earlier lockdown would have saved 23,000 lives? The reliance at the time on certain academics, particularly at Imperial College, and the reliance of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, on statistics from Imperial College, are extremely worrying because they have been debunked. Can my noble friend ensure that people are asked to really check the robustness of the analysis and the statistical methodology when they are going forward with Pegasus or other reports in the future?

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

My noble friend is right that my statistics may not be someone else’s statistics. We should always interrogate the data that is being put in front of us.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome the scale and ambition of Exercise Pegasus. Simulating crisis events in this way is clearly vital if we are to strengthen national resilience and avoid the shortcomings exposed during the Covid pandemic. However, the exercise was conducted on discrete days over several months, with breaks in between. A real pandemic is relentless, cumulative and exhausting for systems and decision-makers alike. Can the Minister explain how the Government ensured that this sense of sustained pressure, operational fatigue and compounding risk was adequately captured within the exercise design, despite the staged nature of the simulation?

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

The noble Baroness raises an important point about how realistic we can make exercises. Some of this is about making sure that the processes and people are all in place and that they know each other; that was one of the fundamental factors that that did not necessarily work during the pandemic. We sought to use focus groups and other mechanisms to ensure that the environments were as realistic as possible and to try to stress-test what was going on. We will continue to do that as the exercise continues into this year, and I look forward to seeing the initial findings report imminently.

Government Communications: X

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pack]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce their reliance on the social media platform X for government communications.

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

My Lords, happy new year. The Government use an audience-first approach, assessing all communication channels against the GCS SAFE framework. Paid advertising on X has been suspended since April 2023; the platform is used only for organic content. We continuously evaluate all channels’ value for money and brand safety and use a wide range of digital platforms to reach all UK audiences.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister has seen the recent reports of X generating on-request sexualised images of people without their consent, including of children, yet the Government repeatedly prioritise the use of X. To give just one example, the Home Office’s public social media policy encourages the use of X by promising to read all messages sent to it via that platform, a promise that is not made about any other social media network. Is it not the time for the Government to stop prioritising and promoting the use of X ahead of other social media network platforms?

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

My Lords, I genuinely do not agree that we prioritise the use of X, but 19.2 million British citizens use X. It is incredibly important, in an age of misinformation and disinformation, that facts are available on the platforms people are using, as opposed to the platforms we wish people were using, which is why the Government will continue to post organic content on X.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I take the opportunity to wish my former constituent a happy new year. Following up the observation the Minister has just made on reviewing all forms of communication, would it not have been a good idea to send out one day earlier the suggestion that local authorities postpone their elections, and to refer it to both this Chamber and the other Chamber, rather than on the day after both Houses had gone into recess?

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

And there I was, going to wish the noble Lord a happy new year and thank him for taking me on my first tour of this building. This Government prioritise Statements in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord will be aware that that is not a government department I actively engage with, but I shall ensure that my colleagues respond directly to him. I am sure that this will not be the last time we discuss this issue in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

As someone who was formerly responsible for the standby agency—one of our major advertising agencies—and other advertising, I ask whether the Minister realises, as I am sure she does, that while social media is fundamental to anybody who wants to communicate, a significant number of government communications must nevertheless think about coverage in other forms of media. That is fundamental for basic communication.

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

The noble Lord raises a very important issue. The reality is that, when we undertook the emergency alert last year, 92% of people were reached via social media, meaning that 8% of the population were not touched by social media. So, physical paper—I am a very big fan of the traditional political leaflet—which means newspapers as well as other traditional media, remains a key part of our communication strategy, as it should.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, in the Government’s welcome recently published strategy to reduce violence against women and children, they promise a whole-of-government approach. Yet, as my noble friend has pointed out, they are prioritising X as a platform in their communications. Is not this the perfect opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that they mean what they say? As my noble friend also says, X is publishing sexualised images without consent on its platform, so why are the Government not responding by reducing their dependence on X?

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, we do not spend a penny of government money on advertising on the platform. However, what is always useful when these questions come forward is that it makes you look in more detail at the subject matter. Not only are 19.2 million British citizens registered with X, but 10.8 million families use X as their main news source; that is more than any other social platform, which I find genuinely extraordinary. We would be doing a disservice by removing government communications from X when that is where people are actually accessing them; we are making sure that facts are available.

However, the noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to look at these issues in the round. One thing that is incredibly important on some of these issues is prebuttal, as opposed to rebuttal—a word I had not heard before today. It is about making sure that people have the skills to challenge the data in front of them, which is why it is so important that DSIT is about to launch a campaign to make sure that families have access to the right skills to challenge and interrogate the data. Better and enhanced skills are part of the new media literacy and will be part of the new national curriculum.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, if the Government are not going to review their links with X, I ask that they tread carefully in their links with other companies connected to Elon Musk, particularly Anduril and Palantir, the two defence companies. It will be very interesting if the Government let us know how closely they are involved with those two businesses.

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

The noble Baroness raises a very important point about our defence supply chain. As an honorary captain in the Royal Navy, this is of key importance to me. I will have to write to her with the details of any contract.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, there have been reports that the Government’s ongoing assessment of their use of social media platforms is relatively informal, conducted without direct ministerial oversight and triggered only on an ad hoc basis when officials consider that a material change has occurred. Given that the Civil Service Code makes it explicit that officials must ensure they have ministerial authorisation for contact with the media, can the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the process is subject to clear ministerial accountability, so that decisions about how the Government communicate with the public are properly overseen by Ministers?

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

The noble Baroness will be aware that there is a new Permanent Secretary of the Government Communication Service. All these issues, as ever, are under review, but she will not be surprised to learn that how we engage on social media platforms is constantly under review, given the changing nature of communications. However, to clarify, there is an annual review of the platforms we use which are not social media platforms, such as Mumsnet, as well as ad hoc reviews when something clearly changes, as was the case in the ownership of X.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not time the Government considered developing a UK-based alternative to X? We have an excellent engineering talent pool, an AI research start-up ecosystem and high demand for an alternative to X. This would generate jobs and economic growth. What steps have the Government taken to make an alternative to X a reality?

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

My Lords, I was dared to see whether we could get in “Ruth social” as opposed to Truth Social for any new platforms, and my noble friend has given me that opportunity. There are numerous existing platforms with huge reach, and it is about how we use them in the UK and how we make sure they are effective for the British people. WeAre8 is a social interest company that is trying to change the face of the internet; there are many other providers, and we must look at them in the round to make sure that we are using the right ones in the right place.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister’s argument in relation to X appears to be that it may be obnoxious, but other people use it so the Government must too. Is it not sometimes appropriate for the Government to take a position, adopt a principle and do what they think is right?

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

My Lords, this Government do what they think is right every single day. Some Members of your Lordships’ House will be aware of my own experiences on X and what that did to me. I stand here, even with those experiences, and say that I still believe that X is an appropriate platform to use because I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression. While I do not agree with a great deal of what is written on platforms where there is too much hate and misinformation and, at times, conspiracy theories, it is incredibly important that there is a counter-narrative when people are talking about whether vaccinations are appropriate and whether they should be going to hospital. It is incredibly important that the facts are available not where we wish people would use them, but where they are actually using them.

UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement and the achievement. We regret only that the Government are moving so slowly. I note that this means we differ considerably from the Conservative Front Bench, although I was relieved that the noble Earl’s words were a little less hysterical than the front pages of the Telegraph and the Mail today. If we are going to pursue the reset further, as my party strongly supports, and move towards dynamic alignment across the board—and, therefore, closer association with the customs union, which will have to come next—the Government will need to change their language and spend more time discussing the benefits as against the costs, which my Conservative colleague, the Telegraph and the Mail have stressed so heavily this morning.

I declare an interest. I taught many students from other European Union countries in my last two jobs in universities, one of whom is the President of his country and extremely active on European security; a number of others are now in leading positions in public life in their countries and good friends of the United Kingdom. That is one of the benefits we get from exchanges. On the imbalance we had last time, an active scheme to encourage British students to spend time in other countries would be of enormous benefit to this country. It would lead to people who understand other countries, can do business with them, understand their politics and then enter public service here or elsewhere, to our mutual benefit.

I regret the language of the Statement. It is defensive and therefore wrong. It talks about only “the national interest” and “sovereignty”. I am sure the Minister will agree that the only country in the world that is fully sovereign is North Korea. In other countries, sovereignty has to be compromised by international co-operation. As the leader of Reform in effect makes clear, the alternative to membership of the European Union is not full sovereignty but dependence on the United States, which is not an easy alternative at the present time.

I suggest that the Government should be talking about shared interests, common security, the benefits as against the costs and the fact that our contributions helped save this country money in many ways. When the Conservative Government took us out of the European Union, we had to set up separate agencies and recruit additional public servants. We lost the European Medicines Agency in London, which was a great boon to our pharmaceutical industry, and a number of other things. The benefits absolutely need to be stressed and I encourage the Minister to say to her colleagues, in particular Nick Thomas-Symonds, that the sort of language they are using will not persuade the bulk of the British public that we need to be closer to the European Union.

We now know, on very strong evidence, that we have lost a lot of economic growth since we have left, which means we have also lost tax revenue. On goods and services, we know that we need to go back to closer relations. I encourage the Minister to go further.

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

My Lords, maybe this was not the Statement to bring some Christmas good will, cheer and unanimity across your Lordships’ House. It is a good thing that my language, I hope, will be both positive for the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and slightly more circumspect for the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. I thank both noble Lords. We will continue to rehearse these arguments, as we have done for many years since the referendum, as we seek to undertake our reset. A number of important issues have been raised, which I will address in some detail. I will also reflect on Hansard to see which questions I have missed, either intentionally or by accident—never intentionally, as I am being reminded—and will write in due course.

I would like to engage with this in a spirit of good will. This is a positive thing we are doing: £500 million of additional investment in our young people in one year. It is something to be celebrated. I will engage in the promise of positivity at this time of year and I view it as my own Hanukkah miracle. I will touch on some of the issues raised.

On the UK-EU summit, our manifesto promised to reset our relationships with our European partners to improve our diplomatic, economic and security co-operation following Brexit. Earlier this year we hosted the first annual UK-EU summit, where the Prime Minister and the European Commission President welcomed our new strategic partnership and a landmark deal that is good for bills, borders and jobs. That is what we are seeking to deliver—a partnership that enables us to tackle the shared challenges we face, to boost the prosperity, safety and security of both our peoples, and to help strengthen European-wide defences.

I turn to the core of the announcement. We have made good progress on talks with the EU since the summit, working to implement the joint commitments we made in May. I am therefore pleased to inform the House that, yesterday, the UK and the European Commission concluded negotiations for the UK’s association to Erasmus+ from 2027 for one year—with, as I said, £500 million of investment in our young people. Our association to the programme will open up opportunities for learners, educators, youth workers, sports sector professionals and communities of all ages in our education, training, youth and sport sectors, for both the professionals who work in these sectors and, crucially, our young people. Participants can travel to any European Union member state and to several countries outside it, opening doors to tens of thousands of people across the UK, renewing our people ties with Europe and beyond.

At the summit, we also agreed to work towards participation in Erasmus+ on the basis that there will be a fair balance between our financial contribution and the number of UK participants receiving funding. We are pleased that the EU has agreed financial terms—a 30% discount in 2027 compared with the default terms in the trade and co-operation agreement. This is a fair balance between our contribution and the benefits of the programme. It has also been agreed that the UK’s participation in the programme will be reviewed 10 months after our association, which will include data on the demand for funding in the UK. Any continued participation will be informed by our experience of association in 2027. The Government will now work quickly to ensure that there is maximum take-up across all sectors and groups and that the benefits of our association to Erasmus+ can be felt.

The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, raised an important issue about people’s awareness of the scheme. I live in Stoke-on-Trent, and we must make sure that people from up and down the country are able to access these schemes, so that it is not, as historically it could have been considered, a boost for middle-class children, but is accessible to everyone. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have associations with further education facilities and schools up and down the country; there is a responsibility on each of us to make sure that people are aware of this scheme. I urge all noble Lords to reach out to their communities. The funding streams open in October 2026 and we have time to make sure that people can access this. One of the things I was most delighted to see yesterday was a quotation from the Association of School and College Leaders, which was delighted about this scheme.

The Turing scheme has wider international reach since we left Erasmus, though it was not the scheme that we left. I reassure noble Lords that the Turing scheme will be operating as normal next year and that we will continue to learn lessons from it. Any future decisions on Turing will be brought forward to your Lordships’ House in due course. On international fees to the EU, I am not sure that is something that I recognise, but I will reflect on the noble Earl’s exact question and come back to him.

On today’s coverage in the Mail and Telegraph, it will not surprise noble Lords that I anticipated such a question. The reality is that the European Union has not yet determined any costings for the next scheme, so nobody recognises the numbers that were in the papers today because no such scheme has been rolled out with any such budget. We have been clear to commit to 2027. We will make sure that it works and proves to be good value for money for the United Kingdom and is of huge value to our young people. We will continue to negotiate with the European Union on next steps.

The noble Earl raised the youth experience scheme. As I have made clear in other debates in your Lordships’ House, the Government recognise the value of such schemes. One of the things I find exceptionally difficult when we discuss youth mobility schemes is that the previous Government signed a youth mobility scheme with Uruguay. I do not understand why a youth mobility scheme with the European Union is so contrary to our values that we would not want one. If we can have one with 13 other countries, we can have one with the European Union.

On the Labour Party’s red lines in our manifesto, I hate to disappoint the noble Lord but we have been very clear that we are not rejoining the customs union. Our manifesto set out exactly what we were prepared to do in our negotiations. All our negotiations are through the prism of our red lines. We will not be returning to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement.

On whether the UK is becoming a rule-taker, we have made a choice to align in some areas where it makes sense for our national interest. The EU has accepted that there will need to be a number of areas in which we need to retain our own rules as we make alignment going forward. The details of these are all subject to negotiation. We will be involved in forming the regulations that apply to the UK at every stage, and Members of your Lordships’ House will have appropriate scrutiny arrangements in place.

I will finish on a positive. The expected financial benefits for our economy from having a closer relationship with the European Union are hugely significant. The SPS and carbon-pricing agreements which we are currently negotiating will add nearly £9 billion a year to the UK economy by 2040. The carbon-pricing deal avoids the risk of UK businesses paying tax to the EU on £7 billion-worth of trade. We are seeking to reset our relationship based on what is best in our national interest as a sovereign country. The European Union is our biggest trade partner and the biggest source of economic growth for this country. We continue to work closely with it, in a spirit of good will at this time of year.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that rejoining Erasmus+ will include schools for the purposes of trips and exchanges? If so, will His Majesty’s Government back this up by reintroducing group passports, so that we can put an end to the inordinate delays at the border when coach-loads of children have to get out of the bus to be individually checked?

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

The noble Baroness raises an important point about how important travel is for our young people. We are negotiating bilateral agreements with countries. We have done the first of these for youth travel with France and I believe ongoing conversations are happening with Germany. I will reflect on her comments, but we are seeing positive moves in this direction.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

Of course we have to give scrutiny to any international agreement, but I am sure that, throughout this House, there is wide agreement that this is good news for the young people of this country—there is no question about that. In that context, will my noble friend the Minister reconfirm, in case of any confusion, that this is not confined only to universities but applies to access for further education, schools, sports, sports trainers, staff and so on? Therefore, it is, in my view, an unalloyed good move for young people. Can she confirm the next steps on this over the coming 12 months? Does she have an understanding of the timeline and the next elements in the process?

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

I thank my noble friend. He is right that this is for young people in the round. That is why I was delighted that the chief executive of the National Youth Agency welcomed yesterday’s announcement as

“a significant moment for young people across the UK. With Erasmus+ officially back, we are reopening doors to global learning, cultural exchange, and opportunities that shape futures”.

At a time of global instability, it is incredibly important that we have close relationships with our friends and allies and that we understand that the world is more than our borders. This is for as many young people as possible, and we expect and hope to see 100,000 young people participate in this scheme in 2027. On next steps, the funding call opens in November 2026—I must correct myself, as I think I said October 2026 previously—and will be open until February 2027. There are two pots of money, the first of which will be over £400 million that will come directly to the participating organisations, and there is a £1 billion pot that individuals and institutions can bid into. This is very exciting, and I hope noble Lords will share my enthusiasm in their local communities.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I will focus on the comments in the Statement on electricity co-operation trading with the European Union. Obviously, there are millions of families in this country who are wondering still how on earth to pay to keep their house warm and feed their children during the Christmas period, and indeed in any period. That is not as it should be. We should be much more concerned than we are about this totally unacceptable situation.

The Statement claims that the new co-operation plan that is being discussed will

“drive down energy costs and protect consumers”

and

“drive up investment in the North Sea and strengthen energy security”.

Can the Minister and her colleagues assure us that that really is going to happen, and that it will drive down the price from what it is now and not from the much higher price it is likely to be? This is a trick of statistics being used by the Government, which I do not like at all, and they should be much more straightforward. Is it going to make cheaper electricity for families and industry than we have now? I very much doubt it. Obviously, we want more investment in the North Sea. At the moment, we are paying the owners of wind farms literally billions of pounds not to produce electricity. The system is wrong and must be changed. I hope it will be, with the co-operation of the European market.

Those are the things on which we want some reassurance because, at present, they are not desirable. It is incredible that we are not producing competitively produced energy, in this country of all countries. We have the North Sea as a huge asset that we are not using properly—indeed, the Government are trying to slow it down. It is time we faced in another direction in this whole area, and I would like to hear more about it.

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

Given that we have not touched on this point so far, it would be helpful to update your Lordships’ House. The UK and the European Commission have concluded exploratory talks on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market. This closer co-operation will drive down energy costs and protect consumers against volatile fossil fuel markets. The UK and the EU will work at pace on these negotiations as we head into next year. While these are ongoing, we cannot comment on the specifics any further.

To reassure the noble Lord on how this is going to impact energy bills, joining the EU’s electricity trading platforms will lower bills by reducing trade friction. More efficient electricity trading allows us to make more efficient use of our shared infrastructure. This deal will also support investment in North Sea electricity infrastructure, allowing us to reduce exposure to volatile wholesale gas costs. This is one component of household bills among many others, but we genuinely believe it will have a direct impact. The noble Lord is right: there is nothing more important to communities, especially where I live, than the cost of living crisis, and we need to do everything we can to support families.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, on Erasmus, I remind my noble friend that, as I am sure she knows, we are talking about very large sums of money. It was £570 million in the first year alone, and that is with a terrific 30% discount. When large sums of money are involved, I am interested in who the beneficiaries are going to be. I am encouraged by the part of the Statement in which the Commons Minister said,

“there will be a review of the UK’s participation in the programme 10 months after our association”.

My guess is—and it will of course be tested over time—that there will be rather more students coming from Russell group universities than from FE colleges in the Midlands and the north. To a degree, that is how it must be tested, because the evidence is pretty strong that such schemes can easily become a case of “to them that have shall more be given”, and communities such as my noble friend’s former constituency and mine do not get their fair share.

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

My noble friend is absolutely right that one of the tests of this success will be making sure that my former constituents and his have access to this scheme and genuinely participate. As I said, the Association of Colleges’ chief executive said yesterday that this was “brilliant news” for staff and students of all ages in further education colleges:

“For students, it widens their perspective on the world, opening their eyes to different cultures and different ways of life, and for staff, the opportunity to learn from other countries on how they deliver technical education and skills is invaluable”.


We need to make sure that this is embedded going forward, and one of the tests will be to make sure that working-class kids, too, have access to this scheme.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, the £570 million is a gross number; the net number would take account of grants to our own people benefiting from the scheme. I hope that the Minister will not be too distracted by the ghosts of Christmas past rattling their chains and coming up with absurd estimates of the cost of this scheme. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said, an unalloyed benefit that we are going back to Erasmus.

It is the other bits of the Statement that I would like to press the Minister on. She rightly pointed out that this is of considerable economic benefit, potentially. The Statement and what was said in the other place makes it clear that the negotiations on electricity are intended to move swiftly. If it is possible to achieve more efficient use of the interconnectors, that will be an immense benefit to the United Kingdom and to our continental friends. Obviously, it is crucial that we get the SPS agreement, and it would be good to have a firm link between the emissions trading schemes.

My understanding is that the intention is to do all that before the next summit. But the one thing that did not appear in the Statement was any indication of the date for the next summit. Can the Minister confirm that it will be, at the latest, no later than one year after the first summit—that is, by May?

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

I was doing so well. What I have been told I can say is that it will be happening in 2026, so there will definitely be a summit next year.

We genuinely are moving at pace, and there is the reality that some of the things we are hoping to bring forward, not least SPS, require a number of contributions from Members of your Lordships’ House to get this over the line. On that basis, we will be discussing these issues in some depth. I expect to be doing so with Members of your Lordships’ House, at this Dispatch Box, next year, which suggests that we are moving—in civil service language—at pace.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, as a long-standing opponent of Brexit, I welcome the Statement. I hope it is the first of a number of steps which will improve our relations with the European Union, especially in the trading aspects of that relationship. Without this, the prospects of sustained significant growth are going to be very difficult to achieve.

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

The noble Viscount is absolutely correct. Our trade with the European Union was worth £813 billion in 2024, and it is our most significant trading partner. It is incredibly important that we have a positive relationship with it, and we have sought to do that. The fact that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister held the first EU-UK summit since Brexit earlier this year suggests that our relationship really did need to be rebuilt. We are rebuilding our relationship based on the three pillars of security, tackling migration, and SPS and ETS. I expect to be in front of your Lordships’ House on many occasions to discuss what I hope will be positive announcements.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and others in roundly celebrating this announcement, although we should take a second to reflect on the tragedy of those who missed out in the desert years. Those affected were not only those who might have travelled, but students staying here who did not benefit from having exchange students in their classes and being trained here.

I have two specific questions. David Clarke, professor of languages at Cardiff University, noted that since we were last in the scheme, the bureaucratic hurdles such as visas have become much greater for students travelling. Are the Government working with the European nations to try to minimise those road humps? Secondly, both Scotland and Wales have introduced their own schemes. Are the Government working with the devolved Administrations and the nations to ensure that any interchange is as seamless as possible when Erasmus comes back?

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

The noble Baroness makes a very important point about visas. I will have to write to her about the detail of any changes we will need to bring forward. I remind and reassure noble Lords that these are temporary arrangements for Erasmus; people will be here for less than 12 months and will be travelling for less than 12 months.

On existing schemes in Scotland and Wales, obviously, there are ongoing conversations, but the Taith scheme in Wales is hugely respected and regarded. In terms of accessing and working with disadvantaged communities and those from working-class backgrounds, we all have a huge amount to learn from their successes. Given the nature of these schemes and that education is devolved, these decisions will be a matter for the Scottish and Welsh Governments, but, obviously, we will have ongoing conversations with them.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this great initiative, which is a matter for celebration. I am especially pleased that, as my noble friend Lord Reid said, it is open to all kids. As my noble friend the Minister said, we all have a responsibility to ensure that kids in all our areas, including the Forest of Dean, which is a greatly disadvantaged area, know about this so that they can take advantage of it. At a time when we have war on our continent and people are peddling fear of the other, the way in which this can nurture understanding between young people is vital.

There is one thing that worries me slightly. Of course, we have to have robust finances, and to know that we are getting value for money and that all kids are included. Ten months is a very short amount of time. I urge my noble friend the Minister to ensure that, whatever happens in the future, there must not be a cliff edge; we must do whatever we can to ensure that such schemes are a success.

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

I thank my noble friend for her question and, more importantly, for the work she has done over many years in this area. She raises an important point, but one of the things we need to be aware of is that we are joining the last year of the current scheme, and that the details on the priorities of the next scheme and the countries that will participate have yet to be published. Therefore, there is nothing else that we can join at the moment. I hope that our joining Erasmus+ at this point sends a message to our friends and allies in the European Union and to young people up and down the country that we are investing in their futures, that we are clear in our relationships and partnerships about how important it is that we have cross-country travel, and that we appreciate the potential for cultural exchange.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on getting us back into Erasmus+, something for which many of us have been asking for a long time. I add that it is a complete myth that working-class students did not make use of Erasmus when we were previously a member of Erasmus+.

I have just one question. When the new youth mobility scheme is agreed, will it be properly templated on to Erasmus so that costs, red tape and conditions are kept as low and as simple as possible to further encourage less privileged students whose career plan may want to make use of both schemes? In that sense, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, a year is surely too short a period to assess the overall interest.

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

My Lords, we have agreed with the European Union to work towards the establishment of a youth experience scheme with the EU, creating new opportunities for cultural exchange with the UK and the EU. It is in both our interests to conclude the negotiations quickly and to stand up the scheme so that young UK and EU nationals can take up the opportunities as soon as possible. I cannot give those assurances that it will align with the Erasmus+ scheme as we are still negotiating one of those schemes, but I look forward to discussions with the noble Earl as soon as we have the detail of both.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the introduction of this scheme. What assessment have the Government made of the extent to which the enhanced EU-UK mobility will strengthen and contribute to better collaboration in defence-related research and development? Will the Government pursue further measures to deepen such mobility, particularly alongside wider defence co-operation?

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

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise our security and defence relationships with the European Union. We see even today why that is so important in the ongoing discussions about Ukraine. On how we ensure this is part of our wider collaboration, it is incredibly important that our young people have a shared understanding of the world with young people from across the European Union, and that they understand the threats we face, which is why there is so much to be gained from us rejoining Erasmus+. I will have to write to the noble Baroness with an update on what the specifics will look like with regard to research, but I will follow up in the new year, if she will forgive me.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, this is really good news and I welcome it on all counts, in particular the food and drink deal we are moving towards, because so many small businesses have simply stopped exporting to the EU. Can the Minister say how those small firms will now be encouraged to get back to work and back into selling to the EU?

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

My Lords, a huge amount of effort is going into negotiating the SPS agreement, which will be incredibly important for our trade but also in reducing friction, including between Northern Ireland and GB. There are many positives to this. Those negotiations are ongoing but I look forward to discussing them with Members of your Lordships’ House once they are complete so that we can look at them in detail to make sure that everyone, including SMEs, can access them.

With that, I wish everyone a merry Christmas, chag sameach and happy new year. I look forward to seeing all noble Lords in 2026.

Office for the Impact Economy

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rook]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they monitor and measure the progress and impact of the new Office for the Impact Economy.

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the work he has done to get us to this place. The office’s impact and progress will be measured against its remit, including an increase in the Government’s capacity and capability to partner with the impact economy, an increase in the number of partnerships across the country and an increase in the amount of impact capital committed to places and areas of government priority. The progress of the office against these areas will be monitored through a cross-government ministerial board chaired by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Lord Rook (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. I am sure noble Lords will join me in welcoming the creation of the Office for the Impact Economy in the Cabinet Office. Given the tendency of Governments sometimes in the past to work independently of social investment and philanthropy, I am interested in which areas and departments of His Majesty’s Government will use the new Office for the Impact Economy to foster greater investment and increase collaboration and innovation around important areas of public policy.

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

My Lords, the office is already building partnerships to benefit people in exactly the way my noble friend has outlined. We are working with MHCLG to secure match funding for the £5 billion Pride in Place programme, and with DHSC on the neighbourhood health implementation programme. In the early years space, we are supporting the DfE’s Blended Finance Facility and working with it on the Best Start Family Hubs match fund and of course the better futures fund, the biggest outcomes fund in the world, which will change the life chances of over 200,000 children over the next decade. This is only the beginning. The Office for the Impact Economy really will help us deliver on our promise of national renewal.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of a larger third sector—mutuals, non-profits and charities—rather than outsourcing, for example, special needs or care homes to the private equity sector instead. The Social Impact Investment Advisory Group’s report, which foresaw the setting up of this new office, said priority one was to establish

“visible leadership at both ministerial and senior civil service levels”.

Does the Minister agree that visibility has been rather blurred so far and that, if one wants to attract the wealthy philanthropists into partnership with the government to strengthen the third sector, a great deal more visibility is needed?

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

My Lords, I thought it was the season of goodwill and I genuinely thought there was going to be a positive question. In terms of visibility, let us be clear that the Office for the Impact Economy was announced by the Prime Minister—I am not sure how much more visible or committed we can be. Also, the main Minister leading this is the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, who will be overseeing its implementation, along with my right honourable friend Lisa Nandy, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. This is being led at the highest level, with huge commitment. This is an excellent report, led by Dame Elizabeth Corley. We thank her for her work. We are now seeking to work with her and the wider team to co-design what happens next, to make sure that we can deliver on the promises that can come from the impact economy.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I did not quite understand the Answer the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Rook. I have gone to the website and I understand that the Office for the Impact Economy is going to act

“as a ‘front door’ for … impact economy relationships and general strategic relationships and … delivery relationships”,

all through a “huband spoke model”. Can the Minister explain in plain English what it is going to do?

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

My Lords, I praise the civil servants that are genuinely communicating well in this space. With regard to the hub-and-spoke model, the Office for the Impact Economy is based in the Cabinet Office, working with civil servants across the departments that will be able to help deliver it. We are trying to create a one-stop shop for philanthropists, social enterprises and social purpose-driven businesses so they know one place to come, and then it is up to government to be able to facilitate what they need. We are talking about potential investment— as was established by the report published last month— of £106 billion of assets; £42 billion is already being spent on government priorities. This is to make sure everyone is swimming in the right direction by providing a one-stop shop. I hope that provides a level of basic English for the noble Lord.

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, I am pleased to endorse the Government’s intentional investment in social impact, but may I ask the Minister how the new Office for the Impact Economy plans specifically to engage with faith-based organisations and faith-motivated individuals, including—but not exclusively—from the Christian community, to optimise the reach for common good of such faith-driven philanthropy?

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

I thank the right reverend Prelate. She raises a very important point, especially at this time of year when many people are considering their charitable donations. The UK has a proud tradition of charitable giving and philanthropy and I take this opportunity to thank our country’s faith communities for their generosity towards charitable causes. The Government are determined to create a more supportive environment for philanthropy and we will work to make giving as easy, compelling and impactful as possible. The new Office for the Impact Economy will work with philanthropic foundations and institutions, many of which are faith based, to explore how we can make this happen. For example, where I believe both the church and other faith communities can clearly assist is with DCMS’s efforts on place-based philanthropy. Noble Lords will appreciate that faith communities tend to have a footprint in every community and, when we are seeking to ensure impactful reach in disadvantaged communities, working with faith-based communities will be the most important way of achieving that.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, in launching this new office, Darren Jones noted:

“Change comes as much from the ground up as from the top down”.


He highlighted the crucial role of people who know their local area and communities, and know

“the problems and the opportunities inside and out”.

The issue is that these community groups may not recognise themselves in the term “impact economy”. Can the noble Baroness say how the office will tailor its approach to ensure it reaches not just people who have this kind of language available but are truly on the ground doing the work?

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

This is a genuinely important point from the noble Baroness. There are several parts to this: it is about empowering local communities but also ensuring that there is training undertaken, so that community groups can genuinely access some of the funds. I used to run a national charity and am very aware of how challenging it can be for local charities to access some philanthropic pots of money. There are two schemes where I think that we genuinely will be able to work with communities. The first is the Pride in Place scheme, where we are seeking to deliver over £5 billion-worth of funding in 244 areas. We are talking in this space about £2 million per year for 10 years in specific communities; I should declare that my husband is on the board of my local Pride in Place scheme in Bentilee. We will also hope to work with them to ensure match funding to expand that £2 million to up to £4 million a year, which can genuinely make a difference at the award-based community level. There is also the better futures fund, which is an outcomes-based fund. It is government saying not what needs to be done but what ultimately we need to achieve, and leaving it up to local people to determine how to get there.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, while the objectives of the Office for the Impact Economy are welcome, the creation of a new office is no guarantee of delivery. We have seen how other co-ordinating bodies, such as the Government’s newly reformed mission boards, have struggled to translate cross-government ambitions into outcomes. The Office for Value for Money has been closed down, at a cost of the taxpayer of £1.6 million. What assurances can the noble Baroness give that this office will be different, and what specific measures have the Government incorporated to ensure that it achieves tangible and measurable results?

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

And there was me hoping for Christmas miracles and not for the Grinch.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

Merry Christmas.

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

Thank you for the “Merry Christmas”.

My Lords, let us be clear about why this is so extraordinary and exceptional. We are working to bring together social investors, social enterprises and philanthropists to deliver, using their expertise and ours to make sure that this works. Already, a significant number of assets are delivering. Why do I think this will be so successful? Only last month, Legal & General announced an additional £2 billion of investment in this space, which is going to lead to an additional 24,000 jobs and 10,000 social and affordable homes. When we talk about what this Government are trying to do for our national renewal, it is about 1.5 million homes and homes anchored in communities. This is about delivering for every corner of society; that is what we are doing with the Office for the Impact Economy.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 October be approved.

Relevant document: 41st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, since the publication of the Infected Blood Inquiry’s detailed report in May 2024, the Government have worked to establish a compensation scheme and set up the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, IBCA, to deliver it. Since the compensation service opened last year, IBCA has contacted all infected people registered with a support scheme to start their claim, and made offers of over £2 billion. The service has now been opened to the first claims from living infected people who have never been compensated. I am pleased with this progress and it is a significant step in the right direction toward delivering justice to those impacted. IBCA is now moving toward opening the service for those affected, and for the estates of deceased infected people.

In July, the Infected Blood Inquiry published its additional report, which made 15 recommendations for the Government on the design of the scheme. We immediately accepted seven of those recommendations. The regulations we are considering today will implement the five of those seven that require legislation to achieve. The remaining eight recommendations are subject to an ongoing public consultation, and the Government expect to bring in further legislation next year to implement the further changes following the consultation. The regulations at hand today show that the Government have reflected on and listened to the inquiry’s words on involving those impacted by this dreadful scandal. It is right that we accepted these recommendations and I am pleased that we have been able to bring them forward swiftly.

Hearing the voices of the community is essential. That is why the Chancellor announced changes in the Budget that ensured that infected blood compensation payments are relieved from inheritance tax in cases where the original infected or affected person eligible for compensation has sadly died before the compensation is paid. I am pleased that we have been able to make this change, and that justice is not only delivered but reflected in the way compensation is treated.

I will set out the changes that we are proposing to the scheme in the regulations. These are a result of the Government’s immediate acceptance of some of the inquiry’s recommendations. Regulation 3 responds to the inquiry’s recommendation 3(a) and removes the 1982 start date for eligible HIV infections. This means that anyone who was infected with HIV via infected blood or infected blood products before 1 November 1985 will be eligible for the scheme. Regulation 4 makes changes in line with the inquiry’s recommendation 8(b) on affected estates. Its additional report set out that the time being taken to deliver compensation is disadvantageous to affected people who are older or in ill health. The recommendation is that, where an affected person has sadly passed away during a specified date range, their compensation should become part of their estate. The Government have accepted this recommendation and is going beyond the inquiry’s recommendation, extending the recommended date range by two years to be between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031.

Regulation 6 actions the inquiry’s recommendation 4(e), recommending that the Government remove the need for applicants with hepatitis C or B to “evidence” their date of diagnosis. The date of diagnosis has no bearing on the calculation of an individual’s compensation, and therefore making this change removes an unnecessary burden that will facilitate swifter processing of claims by IBCA. Regulation 7 implements the inquiry’s recommendation 4(d), relating to how the scheme deems the level of severity of someone’s hepatitis infection. Where someone shows a level 4 diagnosis of hepatitis, but no level 3 diagnosis, we are amending the scheme so that they are deemed as having spent six years at level 3 prior to their level 4 diagnosis. This will uplift their overall compensation package and recognises that the burden of evidence should not fall on the claimant in light of the inquiry’s finding on lost medical records.

We have heard from the community and the inquiry that the use of effective treatment dates under the scheme does not reflect the lived experience of many victims. Not all infected people were able to resume work after treatment for various reasons, including continued illness or stigma. Some people received effective treatment much later than when it was introduced. In line with the inquiry’s recommendation 4(c), Regulation 9 rectifies this by removing the earnings floor on the supplementary route exceptional loss award for financial loss. This ensures that a route is available for infected people to present evidence on their actual earnings loss.

The Government recognise that there have been concerns raised about bereaved partners’ access to support scheme payments following the tragic loss of their spouse. In response to these concerns and to the inquiry’s recommendation 9(a), the Government reopened bereaved partner applications to the infected blood support schemes, IBSS, on 22 October. I am grateful to devolved Administration colleagues for their work in helping us make sure we could achieve this so quickly.

One of the key themes of the inquiry’s additional report was the need for IBCA to increase the speed with which it delivers compensation. In order to achieve that, Regulation 10 delays by one calendar year the transfer of responsibility to make support scheme payments from IBSS to IBCA. This will allow IBCA to focus its resources on continuing to build an effective compensation service. I am again grateful to devolved Administration colleagues for their collaborative work on this. Outside the inquiry’s report, Regulation 14 makes a number of technical changes to ensure that the compensation scheme functions correctly, and that its administration is improved. These are minor corrections that do not impact the policy.

This compensation scheme is for people who have had their lives changed by unimaginable pain and suffering. The regulations we are debating today are a direct response to these people’s calls for change, meeting their expectations of Government and carrying forward a sense of justice. As Members of your Lordships’ House, we all share the sentiment that the victims of this scandal should be at the heart of this work. These regulations are a significant step in ensuring that this compensation scheme delivers for the people impacted, as we all intend it to do. I beg to move.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this to the House and going through things so comprehensively. I also thank her for being open to having conversations about the whole scheme at other times, without necessarily requiring us to book an appointment with her.

I have a couple of questions on areas that require clarification. First, is it correct that the compensation scheme does not pay specific damages to people infected as children up to the age of 16, other than a £10,000 unethical research award if the family of the deceased can prove that they were a victim—which is the same for adults? Is it correct that, if the infected child dies, there is no compensation for a lost life? As parents are not classed as dependants, can the Minister clarify what they are eligible for, having lost their child, and how that changes if their child died after the age of 16 or 18?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the progress that has been made by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—IBCA—and the Government in delivering payments. I pay tribute to the work of Sir Brian Langstaff and all those involved in the Infected Blood Inquiry and its additional report. This report made a number of recommendations to improve the compensation scheme. The Government have broadly accepted the recommendations, five of which are given effect by the regulations before us. After the catastrophic failures that led to the infected blood scandal, it is vital that justice is delivered swiftly and fairly to all who were affected.

I also take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness opposite for her letter of 27 November, which addressed some of the questions that were raised when we discussed this matter on 4 November. In particular, I am glad to see in response to my question about the steps the Government and IBCA are taking to ensure that those who should be prioritised for compensation are being identified that the noble Baroness has confirmed that IBCA will prioritise claims in the order recommended by the inquiry.

In line with my colleagues in the other place, I make it clear at the outset that His Majesty’s Opposition support these regulations. There are no substantive differences between the position of the Government and that of the Opposition, or even of the previous Government. However, we cannot forget that we are discussing one of the most egregious and profound injustices: the infliction, collectively, of grievous harm upon thousands of people by the state. It is paramount that we have a scheme which delivers justice and redress compassionately, quickly and fairly. We support the five recommendations that the Government are accepting and legislating for today. I welcome that they go some way to making this ambition a reality.

The changes include: provision to remove the 1982 start date for eligible HIV infections; removing the need for applicants with hepatitis C or B to evidence their date of diagnosis, which does not have a bearing on the calculation of an individual’s compensation; and removing the earnings floor on the exceptional loss award for the financial loss supplementary route, thereby creating a route for infected people to present evidence on their actual earning loss.

We welcome the Minister’s confirmation that lifting the HIV start date means that it will not matter when a victim was infected with HIV, provided that the infection arose from treatment with contaminated blood or blood products administered before 1 November 1985. However, can the Minister confirm that this also applies to those who only discovered or were only informed much later that they were infected, but where the likely cause was treatment before the relevant date? Similarly, can she assure the House that no one who should be eligible will fall through the cracks because of earlier failures in record keeping, particularly those infected as children whose medical records may have been incomplete at the time? We must ensure that no one is denied the compensation they both need and deserve, and I am sure that this is something the Government will wish to avoid.

The Minister will also be aware of the representations from those deliberately infected with haemophilia as part of clinical studies and of their deep concern at the proposed level of compensation for deliberate infection. Will the Minister commit to working with Sir Brian to review whether that component is appropriate?

When we debated this matter on 4 November, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I raised concerns about IHT and the risk that the Government could be giving out compensation with one hand and clawing it back with the other. The Minister said in response to our concerns that she was listening and would seek to arrange a meeting with Treasury officials to discuss this issue further. Can she update us on this meeting, and what recommendations or changes have come out of it? Can she confirm that all infected blood compensation payments, whether made directly to victims or through estates, are entirely exempt from inheritance tax, regardless of the circumstances or timing of payment?

The noble Baroness also raised the review by Sir Tyrone Urch when we last discussed this matter. Can she give us an update on what assessment the Government have made of the recommendations he made and whether any of them are going to be given effect? Can she please assure the House that the changes we are debating today will not impact on the timeliness and swiftness of repayment to victims, given that they will likely impact on the scale of the operation? As the Minister in the other place confirmed, we have moved from the test-and-learn approach to the exponential phase of delivery. Rather than having yet more reviews and recommendations, the Government must now focus on the delivery of IBCA at scale. The scaling up process must be commensurate with the urgency of the situation.

Finally, as we have repeatedly highlighted over the past year, many victims and families still feel that they are in the dark—an issue identified again in Sir Brian Langstaff’s most recent report. The Minister in the other place has given an undertaking that transparency will be at the heart of any expert group going forward. Will the Minister commit to publishing a clear communications plan and to working with IBCA to ensure regular updates and accessible guidance in plain English so that those who may be eligible understand their rights and can access the compensation they need?

I reiterate that we support these regulations but would welcome clarity from the Minister on the points that I have raised. I thank her again for the steps that she and the Government are taking to provide some redress after this terrible saga. We appreciate the need to proceed with care and consideration, but we must not lose sight of the need to scale up delivery so that the process can be as quick and effective as possible. That is the only way to ensure that those victims and their families who have already been failed so profoundly by the state face no further injustice.

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

My Lords, I would usually say I thank noble Lords, but I thank the noble Baronesses—as is our wont when we talk about issues of infected blood—for their points and their continued representation of the infected blood community with unwavering dedication. Many in your Lordships’ House have consistently ensured that the voices of the infected and affected community are given a voice in this Chamber. I particularly pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell—I was delighted to see her in your Lordships’ House last week, and she is definitely on the road to recovery—and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, who has ensured that we always have a human voice, as well, of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Their resolve in seeking justice for the victims of this scandal cannot be overstated, and their generosity of time to make sure that I am fully abreast of such issues has been incredibly personally beneficial.

I also thank my opposite number, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for how constructively we have worked together on these issues to deliver for a community that rightly has limited faith and trust in government after its experiences. The onus is on all of us in your Lordships’ House to make sure that community knows we are listening. I will look in detail at the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whose questions were very specific, as she highlighted. It may be useful for us to have a meeting with officials. I will invite all those who have participated today to attend , but I will also reflect on the points and write in advance of it.

We are here first and foremost to debate the regulations, and I will prioritise the issues raised on them in my response. I am aware of the other points that have been raised and will do my best to address those too, but obviously I will reflect on Hansard if I miss any of them. On the specific points raised, I will start with those from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. These are incredibly important points, and she worried me, when she gave me the detail in advance, that there was a gap that we had missed. So, to clarify for the record—I think that would be useful—someone infected as a child would receive injury, social impact, autonomy, care and basic financial loss awards in the same way as an adult. They would not receive an additional financial loss award for the years when they were aged under 16. However, they would still receive an additional financial loss award for the years when they were or will be aged 16 or over. I hope that gives a level of reassurance.

In the heartbreaking situation when an infected child has passed away, a bereaved parent would receive injury, social impact and autonomy awards based on the child’s infection and infection severity. This will not change based on how old their child was when they passed away. The awards to parents are higher where their child’s infection has caused or is expected to cause an early death in the future. This includes those infected with HIV or levels 3, 4 and 5 hepatitis infections. They would also be the likely beneficiary of their child’s estate under the law of intestacy. All such would likely be the recipient of whatever injury, social impact, autonomy, care and financial loss awards are due to the child’s estate. So there is still a level of compensation, but I will make sure that I also write to the noble Baroness so that she has a copy in writing as well as from Hansard.

I will touch on IBCA’s prioritisation, because that is helpful in this context. IBCA is prioritising those nearing the end of their lives because community members and representatives have highlighted how important it is for these people to start their compensation claims. “Nearing the end of life” means that a person has been told by a doctor or medical professional that they might have fewer than 12 months to live. This could be due to any medical illness or condition; it does not need to be caused directly by an infection from contaminated blood.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

The noble Baroness has said that this is the case for infected victims, but will the same rules apply to affected victims who are nearing the end of their lives? Many of them are: many are dying now.

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

I believe that to be the case. I will confirm to the noble Baroness in writing, given the issues that we are talking about. I would not want to mislead anybody, but I believe that is IBCA’s approach for affected estates as well.

Previous payments are all, pre 31 March, ex gratia. Only payments from 31 March count towards compensation calculations, and no payments from an AHO are compensation. But, again, after our conversations and reflecting on Hansard, I will write to the noble Baroness.

The noble Baroness raised specific points about the special category mechanism, or SCM. I recognise the level of community concern about how the scheme considers and recognises the impacts captured by the special category mechanism, and I confirm that the matter of how the scheme recognises and compensates people for the impacts that make someone eligible for the SCM is part of the public consultation and further regulations. The consultation proposes that anyone currently receiving special category mechanism or equivalent payments through the infected blood support schemes would now be automatically eligible for a severe health condition award. Everyone who receives SCM payments should have been contacted by IBCA already as part of the cohort of infected people registered with a support scheme. I hope that gives a level of reassurance, but I am aware the noble Baroness asked more specific questions about that, and I will revert.

On inheritance tax, the noble Baroness will appreciate that, such was the statement from the Chancellor, no such meeting was required. Private conversations happened about this, reflecting on the issues raised in your Lordships’ House and the other place about how important this was. Representations were made and the Chancellor reflected that in the Budget, and I am very pleased that she did so. So there was no such meeting; I hope noble Lords will appreciate that I had offered one, but it proved to be unnecessary.

On the inheritance tax point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I think it would be helpful if I outlined what we have agreed to. Inheritance tax policy has been widely raised by many Members of your Lordships’ House and many in the community. It was of huge concern. Compensation payments made under the scheme will be exempt from income, capital gains and inheritance tax. This is in line with tax exemptions for the first and second interim payments. At the Budget, the Government announced that further updates to the inheritance tax disregard will be made to ensure that infected blood compensation payments are relieved from inheritance tax in cases where the original infected or affected person eligible for compensation has, sadly, died before the compensation is paid. I know this was an important issue for many members of the community, and I am pleased that the Government have been able to listen and make this change.

The changes mean that inheritance tax credit will be automatically applied to the estate of the first living beneficiary of the infected or affected person’s estate. For example, this would mean that the children of a bereaved partner who inherits their infected partner’s estate and then dies would not face an inheritance tax charge on the compensation they inherit. This will apply to compensation made before or after 26 November 2025. The Government have also made changes to the rules on gifting compensation payments. The change means that the first living recipients of compensation payments will have two years in which to gift some or all of their compensation payment without an inheritance tax charge. This applies to gifts of compensation made on or after 4 December 2025.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, also said that no one should fall through the cracks, and she is absolutely right. IBCA is working with those affected and infected to build an evidence base where people are struggling. Noble Lords will appreciate that as we move from the infected who are claiming to the affected who have claims, some of the evidence base is going to become more challenging and it is right that the case handlers will work with people to help support their evidence efforts.

On the Tyrone Urch review, we are still reflecting on its recommendations and talking to colleagues at IBCA about what support it can provide, because many of the recommendations were for IBCA. I will report back in due course. I can confirm that the changes to these regulations will not slow us down: where enhancements have been made, those will be retrospectively applied to those people who have already received compensation without them having to come forward again, and we do not believe that anything we are proposing at this point will slow anything down.

On the clear comms plan, noble Lords are aware that earlier this year I visited IBCA and met its comms team. I think we can all agree that there have been significant communication challenges from IBCA during this process. I personally think, having seen some of the new materials it is using and the fact that it is using a different level of basic English standard now, as opposed to a level of science, that that has made this much more accessible. We are talking about people who have different experiences and different personal circumstances. Comms is always going to be a challenge, but I put on record my thanks to the women—and it is overwhelmingly women who are answering the calls in the first instance—who are providing huge support, and to the handlers who are based at IBCA, who are doing a very good job, having built an organisation from scratch since May last year to deliver over £2 billion of compensation. There is a long way to go, but I believe that they are on track.

These regulations will action several of the inquiry’s recommendations and bring them into force as quickly as we are able to, but I am very clear that this is not the end of the process. These regulations are only one part of the Government’s response to the inquiry’s additional report. The consultation that is currently under way does not close until 22 January and I encourage all those impacted by the scandal to respond to ensure that their voice is one of those helping to guide us forward. If there are problems with people being able to access the consultation, please let us know. We are making other mitigations, but if there are specific challenges, I want to hear them.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

Let me be clear that my comment was not about the consultation, which is a written one, but the fact that nobody with lived experience was invited to attend the round table meetings looking at the detail.

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

But that has now been resolved.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

With one such person.

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

Okay; I will speak to officials and see what has actually happened.

Many of the points raised today are subject to the consultation. I look forward to discussing these in more detail with noble Lords once the Government have considered the consultation and published our response. In the meantime, I hope the changes we are making today with these regulations demonstrate that we are fully committed to ensuring that justice is finally brought to a group of people who have waited far too long. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.