Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 July be approved.

Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this instrument introduces the mechanisms to enforce the EU mercury regulation in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework, which maintains Northern Ireland’s dual market access to the EU single market and the UK internal market. I know that questions of democratic legitimacy and the effectiveness of the Windsor Framework’s democratic scrutiny mechanisms are a frequent area of consideration and discussion, and I am sure we will discuss them again today. This affirmative statutory instrument clearly demonstrates the purpose and benefit of the Windsor Framework, but before I set out its scope and objectives, I want to provide some further background on the arrangements applying in Northern Ireland that make this measure necessary.

Dental amalgam is a dental filling material made up of a mixture of mercury and metal alloys including silver, tin and copper. It is a stable, safe filling material that is widely used across the UK to fill cavities caused by tooth decay. Compared to alternative fillings such as composite resins, dental amalgam fillings are typically cheaper and take less time to apply. Last year, the EU introduced amendments to the EU mercury regulation that applies under the Windsor Framework. These amendments introduced a ban on the use and export of dental amalgam from 1 January 2025 and a ban on the manufacture and import of dental amalgam from 1 July 2026.

Here, we saw an issue that would pose particular difficulties for Northern Ireland. We saw Members of the Legislative Assembly scrutinise the issue and voice their concerns because an immediate ban on dental amalgam would have led to longer dental treatment times in Northern Ireland, meaning fewer patients being treated. This could ultimately worsen oral health outcomes in Northern Ireland. The Government acted on these concerns and made representations to the EU. The EU Commission recognised Northern Ireland’s specific circumstances last year, leading to the bespoke arrangements for Northern Ireland that we are discussing today.

Northern Ireland will have a much longer transition period: until 2034, or until an earlier phase-out date is agreed by the Minamata Convention on Mercury, an international treaty to which the UK and the EU are parties. It will mean that the continued use of dental amalgam in Northern Ireland is aligned with the rest of the UK.

The absence of these exemptions would have meant an immediate ban on dental amalgam use and import, which would have negative health and socio-economic impacts in Northern Ireland. For instance, mercury-free alternatives, such as composite fillings, generally require longer treatment times that could strain dental service capacity and may not be suitable for all patients. This could have resulted in longer treatment times and patient waiting lists, potentially harming oral health in Northern Ireland.

A gradual transition to mercury-free alternatives will ensure a managed phase-out, therefore minimising disruptions to Northern Ireland’s dental service provision. During this time, businesses and dentists in Northern Ireland may continue to import and use dental amalgam. Such treatment may be given to UK residents only, and imports need to be proportionate with use. This gradual phase-out of dental amalgam will allow a longer period to transition to alternative fillings. This will give dentists time to improve practice efficiency, gain experience with more complex fillings and adapt to emerging alternatives, and will support the training of dental professionals.

The dental amalgam exemptions on use and import have applied in Northern Ireland since 1 January 2025, and the authorities in Northern Ireland have taken the steps required to implement them, including issuing further guidance and engaging with dentists. The purpose of this instrument is further to strengthen the enforcement measures Northern Ireland authorities can take on the ground to support the arrangements in Northern Ireland. These include powers to enforce the prohibitions on dental amalgam export and manufacture, additional reporting requirements for dental amalgam importers, and restrictions on dental amalgam use for patients as set out in the European Commission notice. The instrument also implements the allowed exemptions to the import and use of dental amalgam while Northern Ireland gradually phases out its use.

On the issue of mercury more broadly, I recognise the concerns about its environmental impact. It is a highly toxic substance that can harm human health and the environment if improperly managed. When dental amalgam is exposed to high temperatures, such as during cremation, the mercury it contains can enter the environment as a toxic gas if there are no mercury-emission controls in place. I am happy to confirm that crematoria in Northern Ireland are fitted with control technologies to reduce mercury emissions. Under our environmental improvement plan, we are taking steps and further developing plans to reduce mercury emissions, including from crematoria. As part of this, the Government will soon publish an updated process guidance note for crematoria and the accompanying government consultation response, which will include further guidance on emission abatement technologies in crematoria.

In conclusion, this measure is clear in its purpose, ensuring that Northern Ireland authorities have the powers to enforce the EU export and manufacturing prohibitions, reporting requirements and exemptions on dental amalgam use and import, as set out in the European Commission notice. This instrument will also mean that Northern Ireland continues to benefit from exemptions on dental amalgam use and import, allowing for a longer transition period and equity of dental provision with the rest of the UK. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, because it allows us to debate a very important subject. It is important on two counts, as we heard in the debate: first, on the constitutional issue, and, secondly, on the merits or demerits of amalgam—and some powerful speeches were made pointing out how dangerous it can be. It has allowed us to hear an excellent opening address from the Minister.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on two counts, the first being her assurance, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Weir, that we will finish by 7 pm. Of course, this being Northern Ireland business, I was betting on 6.55 pm. The second count is that Peers from Northern Ireland have raised the important constitutional question. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that I do not find this tedious at all. I am afraid I share his view that, sooner or later, this is going to come to a crunch. We have yet another regulation before us here which will slowly drive a wedge between our United Kingdom and our Northern Ireland.

I had no idea about the poppies issue. I Google searched it after the noble Baroness mentioned it, and I was appalled to find that she is absolutely right—EU interference with selling poppies in Northern Ireland.

We on these Benches recognise the importance of reducing mercury use in line with the Minamata convention. We do not oppose the principle of this instrument. However, it is right that we probe the Government on how it has been implemented, particularly regarding dental amalgam and its replacement, as my noble friends have discussed.

Northern Ireland, as we know, has been granted a longer-term transition period, allowing the continued import and use of amalgam until 2034 to avoid disruption to dental services. Apart from my noble friend Lord Reay, most Members in the House seem to agree that the extension is sensible while we look for workable alternatives. What engagement has taken place with dental practitioners in Northern Ireland? How will the Government monitor the practical impacts of divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? How will any future decision under the Minamata convention affect this timeline?

We note the British Dental Association’s concerns about cost and capacity. Amalgam, it says, is a widely used and affordable material, and replacing it too quickly, without proper support, could worsen access issues. My noble friend Lord Bourne also wanted reassurance on that point. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Reay, in a very powerful speech, pointed out the severe dangers of mercury amalgam and that alternatives were available already—almost as cheap and better.

I simply do not know. I will not say that finding the answer is like pulling teeth—there is no time for silliness—but the Government ought to know. If the Government do not know now, hopefully in the next few years they will. Will we be able, before 2034, to find for the whole United Kingdom—not just Northern Ireland but the whole United Kingdom—a reasonably cheap alternative to dental amalgam?

We do not oppose this instrument, but we urge the Government to remain alert to its impact on front-line services to ensure that both patients and practitioners in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom are properly supported. I urge the Government, as soon as possible, to work with those developing alternatives to make sure that a replacement is available to Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as soon as practicable.

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

My Lords, I was tempted to make a joke about filling the gap in the noble Lord’s information, given what we are talking about. Noble Lords are aware that I am passionate about Northern Ireland, and there are many issues that I thoroughly enjoy talking about with Members of your Lordships’ House. I did not realise that dental amalgam was going to be one of them, so noble Lords will have to bear with me.

I am very aware of people’s travel arrangements for this evening, so I will be short and sweet, but I will reflect on Hansard in case I have missed anyone’s comments. I also hope that my noble friend Lady Hayman is getting better, but I am not sure that watching your Lordships’ House is going to assist in that, so I hope she is having chicken soup and lying in bed.

Many points have been raised, and I will try to cover them all. There are some on which I would like to reassure noble Lords. On others, I think it might be helpful to Members of your Lordships’ House if I offered a meeting to discuss the constitutional aspects of this with regard to the Windsor Framework, because as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, highlighted, we have a constitutional issue here and we also have the SI at hand.

I will try to touch on many issues for reassurance, but noble Lords are aware that this is not the first, nor will it be the last, time that we talk about the effectiveness of the Windsor Framework and where some of the challenges are. I would very much welcome the opportunity to have further conversations on it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, touched on the fact that pressure was placed through discussions in Parliament and elsewhere to make sure that this issue was raised. In fact, the noble Baroness had the benefit of being the first person to table a Question of this Government on any issue, and it was on this issue on our first day out. I thought I was going to have my first outing as Northern Ireland spokesperson talking about this issue; it turns out I was not first, but I was not going to escape.

Turning to the specific concerns that were raised, I want to put noble Lords’ minds at rest about poppies. They are available to be bought, with additional materials, and are freely available in Northern Ireland. As noble Lords are aware, I would be horrified if people could not purchase them.

The EU Commission notice was touched on. The Government have considered all our obligations in developing this SI, including the nature of the notice. The arrangements are already in effect and have been since January this year. The SI strengthens the enforcement measures, and we are comfortable with where we are; the SI gives it further practicalities.

On enforcement, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency—an executive agency of DAERA—will keep accurate records of all regulatory and enforcement action undertaken, along with information provided by Northern Ireland’s Department of Health. This will enable assessment, over time, of the impact of the prohibitions and exemptions on Northern Ireland.

I also assure both the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the other Members of your Lordships’ House who raised this issue that there will be no guards on the border checking people’s teeth. I know that that was a concern, but I assure noble Lords that it will not be how enforcement of this is done.

Dental tourism and members of the republic using these services was raised by several noble Lords. Republic of Ireland patients will not be entitled to NHS dentistry, and residency needs to be proven. People will still be able to access their dentist in Northern Ireland in the same way as they did before non-amalgam fillings, as they can in the Republic of Ireland, but not via the NHS.

The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and several noble Lords asked about dental amalgam and what the Government are doing to improve dental services. State-funded healthcare is a devolved matter and responsibility of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments. I was pleased to see the Northern Ireland Government announce an extra £7 million for dentistry services this year, but we are working together on both the issues that dentists currently face and these issues.

On the proposed updates to mercury regulations in Great Britain and what action is being taken in the UK to reduce mercury use, the UK will be laying legislation this year to prohibit the import, export and manufacture in Great Britain of a number of products containing intentionally added mercury. These products will also be phased out in Northern Ireland by the EU mercury regulations. The legislation will prohibit several mercury-containing products.

I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as I realise that some of her issues interlay with others. The health impacts of the continued use of dental amalgam were touched upon. Dental amalgam is a well-established, safe and effective dental filling material. There is no evidence that amalgam fillings cause any harm to the health of dental patients. However, mercury, when released into the environment in large volumes, can cause harm and this is carefully managed by the UK to reduce any environmental impact.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I have not finished addressing the points the noble Baroness raised, if she will bear with me.

The noble Lord, Lord Reay, asked what we are doing on our long-term use of mercury, and about the Minamata convention. Noble Lords are aware that discussions will again be occurring at COP next week on what happens next with Minamata. The actions we are taking align with our international commitments under the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which is an international treaty. The convention is aimed at protecting health and the environment from the harmful effects of mercury, and the UK is a fully committed party to this convention. Our current measures were based on decisions made at the fourth and fifth Minamata convention of the parties.

In addressing what will happen next with our dental amalgam being in line with the Minamata Convention on Mercury, UK-wide restrictions on dental amalgam use have been in place for certain populations since 1 July 2018. These include children under the age of 15, and pregnant and breastfeeding women. Since 1 January 2019, there has been a requirement in UK law to use dental amalgam only in pre-dosed encapsulated form, and for dental facilities to be equipped with amalgam separators to minimise dental professionals’ and the environment’s exposure to mercury. There will be further discussions on dental amalgam at the upcoming Minamata conference of the parties, which starts next week. Discussions and conversations on these issues are ongoing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. This is not a specific Northern Ireland point, but we heard a fairly powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who said that Germany has introduced an alternative that it is only marginally more expensive than mercury amalgam. My noble friend, Lord Reay, made the point that mercury should be banned immediately because of this alternative. Will the Minister raise with the Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care that we want a statement on these alternatives? Is the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, right? Is my noble friend right? Do we have to wait 10 years before we have a replacement? We really could do with a statement from the Department of Health on the work that is currently happening on alternatives, such as that in Germany.

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

I thank the noble Lord. I will raise that with my colleagues in the Department of Health. Some of these discussions are genuinely active as part of the negotiations at COP next week. We cannot withdraw dental amalgam without having cost-effective alternatives, as I would hope these alternatives are.

As ever, it is a privilege to spend time talking about the impact of legislation on Northern Ireland. I am grateful that everyone has stayed on a Thursday evening to discuss it with us, and I wish everyone safe travels.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for the offer of a letter about the gold mining issues. All these are related, because it is the amount of mercury in the environment, globally, that matters. I mentioned a study about British seafood—fish and mussels—which was produced literally a couple of hours ago. I am aware that it is not the Minister’s department, but I hope that, when she is recovered soon, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, or the relevant person could write to me on the fish study as well.

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

As I said, I will reflect on everything that the noble Baroness said, and I will make sure that she receives the letter.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, having listened to the debate, I feel I should have declared an interest at the beginning, in that I have amalgam fillings. I am very pleased that the Minister reiterated that, whatever the issue is in the longer term, amalgam fillings are safe. We would not want to be worrying the millions of people out there who have amalgam fillings.

I know that the Minister is not the Minister for dentistry—and I am sure she does not want to add that to her title. It was a very interesting debate, much wider than I had intended, in the sense that it was a constitutional issue that I wanted to raise. It has been very helpful—and I now know where the dentists among us are sitting for when my amalgam fillings go.

I thank everyone for speaking, particularly the Minister for her response. I hope she knows how well she is thought of in Northern Ireland. I thought her response was, in the circumstances, given the Government’s policy positions, very helpful indeed. It might be helpful if she could write to me outlining exactly what the legal position of the Commission’s notice is.

Finally, this is not about dentistry—although, if we are to ban amalgam fillings, we need to start now, to make sure our dentists are able to cope, because they will certainly have extra costs, which will be an issue in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, in his usual way, expressed how frustrating it is now for people in Northern Ireland. At the beginning, when all this happened, a lot of people in the public thought that it was all about business—big business, small business—and nothing to do with us. Now they are seeing so many things happening—the chickens are coming home to roost, as they would say. I really hope that noble Lords listening to these Sis—which we will continue to challenge, because we need to get the information out there—will understand that Northern Ireland is being treated as a second-class part of the United Kingdom. That is not acceptable. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Youth Mobility Scheme

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in the agreement of a youth mobility scheme between the United Kingdom and the EU.

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

My Lords, we are working with the EU towards the establishment of a balanced youth experience scheme. We have agreed that any scheme will be subject to an allotted number of places and to a visa requirement, and time limited. We have also been clear that it should be in line with the UK’s existing schemes. The exact parameters will be subject to discussion and negotiations, which are under way. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot comment in detail on ongoing negotiations.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, this Question is a companion piece to the Question last week from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on Erasmus, to which she got an encouraging reply. The only proviso, of course, is that were we in the single market, which most voters now back, a youth mobility scheme would be entirely unnecessary. I ask the Minister to consider young British people, particularly from less privileged backgrounds, who have been for almost five years effectively blocked from living and working in Europe. What urgency are the Government giving to putting a scheme in place that ensures that no more young people are excluded from these important life experiences?

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

I very much appreciate the noble Earl’s question and from where it comes. I assure your Lordships’ House that discussions are actively under way, and we hope to bring forward responses with details of the scheme in the coming months.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, it is very encouraging to hear that the Government are moving forward with what is so important: bringing young people together, particularly around Europe. An event took place in this Parliament this week to support further development of the teaching of languages. Will the Minister therefore confirm to me that, in the context of bringing young people together, it is also important to encourage our young people to learn more languages, at a time when most schools and colleges are cutting back on such an enormous resource?

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

The noble Lord is absolutely right: 60% of schools are struggling to recruit modern foreign language teachers. Given that the European Union is our largest trading partner, the reality is that it would probably be sensible if we could talk to them in their language, as well as ours. By joining the Erasmus scheme, by making sure there are educational opportunities for both staff and young people, and through a future youth mobility scheme, we are ensuring that we have shared cultural opportunities and the opportunity for shared language schemes too.

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

I am very grateful to the Minister for her Answer. For understandable reasons, His Majesty’s Government are very concerned at the moment to prevent people crossing the channel in one direction. However, it seems to me that we should be positively encouraging our young people to cross the channel in the other direction to take advantage of the very real opportunities a youth mobility scheme would offer, not simply for their own sake—although that is really important, as we have heard—but because, in an increasingly fractious and dangerous world, we sorely need young people with a broad, informed international perspective. Can the Minister confirm that—as well as, I hope, allowing such mobility—the Government will actually encourage such participation?

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

The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. One of the reasons why we have these schemes is the shared cultural and social norms with our nearest allies that develop from them. There are 13 of these schemes already in existence, ranging from New Zealand and Canada to Uruguay, ensuring that people have access. So far this year, 12,000 visas have been issued. This is active participation to make sure that young people view the world in the broadest possible way.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to “a balance”. We are very conscious that when we were in the EU, more students and young people from the EU and elsewhere came to Britain. What are the Government doing to encourage young British people to spend time on the continent taking apprenticeships, a year in universities or whatever? On the question of balance and improving languages, are we considering a teaching assistant exchange whereby people with native languages might be able to teach in British schools, with people here teaching English there?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I would like to reassure the noble Lord that a teaching assistant exchange already exists, and I am more than happy to write to him with the details of that scheme. The Turing scheme has provided over 35,000 opportunities for young people, and in Wales and Scotland there are the Taith and SEEP schemes. As and when we rejoin Erasmus, that will provide easier pathways for educational opportunities across Europe.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, I follow my noble friends Lady Coussins and Lord Clancarty to create a hat trick by mentioning the less well-known Creative Europe. The Minister will know that it includes a Culture Moves Europe programme with a budget of €21 million over the current period to provide mobility grants for cultural professionals. Does she agree that alongside a youth exchange programme, this would be a valuable platform to enable the intercultural international exchange that enables personal development and career growth?

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

I was doing so well in reassuring noble Lords, but I am afraid that I will have to give a level of disappointment to the noble Baroness. We are not currently considering rejoining the creative arm. However, 40% of touring artists are under the age of 35, meaning that they would be able to access work for up to three years, subject to the negotiations, via the youth mobility scheme. So that is one way in which we can encourage creative engagement.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, at a time when youth engagement and creating opportunities at home are so vital, why have the Government chosen to end the National Citizen Service and withdraw funding from the cadet expansion programme? Have Ministers assessed the wider social and economic benefits that these schemes deliver? Will similar initiatives such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award be protected from further cuts? We should be building these opportunities for young people at home as our priority.

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

I very much appreciate the noble Baroness’s support for the cadet scheme; in fact, I was the honorary president of my local air cadets until I joined the Government. Let me be clear: as no one in this House will be surprised to hear, we had to make some appalling decisions because of the financial inheritance from the previous Government. On that basis, difficult decisions have been made, but noble Lords will also appreciate that announcements have been made about the cadet scheme, and they are available for all noble Lords, so they can see how much we celebrate the role of cadets as ambassadors.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, the Minister noted that it would be a balanced scheme with an allotted number of places. How will the Government ensure that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and rural communities are part of that and not left out of such a scheme?

--- Later in debate ---

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

As someone who lives in Stoke-on-Trent, I completely appreciate where the noble Baroness is coming from. Some 61% of participants in the Turing scheme in England come from underprivileged backgrounds and disadvantaged communities. Erasmus’s current focus is also about ensuring that people who would not otherwise have those opportunities can be afforded them. This is an incredibly important part of making sure that aspiration and attainment is available to everyone—a core part of our mission for growth, and of the value system of the Labour Party.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, given the importance of scientific research and innovation to the future prosperity of this country, have the Government assessed the impact of the current restrictions on youth mobility in Europe on the progress of scientific research in this country?

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

That is a genuinely interesting question, and that is one of the reasons why our rejoining Erasmus could be so beneficial to our country. One of the issues—which is part of our conversations about the youth mobility scheme, as well as rejoining Erasmus—is the economic impact it will have, while ensuring that we have opportunities to share scientific endeavours and discoveries. It will also provide us with opportunities to ensure that our social and creative work is shared with our closest allies.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is this not yet another example of how badly the previous Government negotiated the Brexit deal, leaving our young people with worse options than they had before?

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

My noble friend raises a very important point. I campaigned for remain, though I lived in a leave area. I appreciate and fully respect the result of the referendum, and we need to make it work. That is not to say, however, that it came without a cost—paid by individuals, including our young people. The Turing scheme has been great, with 35,000 opportunities afforded by it, but 16 million young people had opportunities via the Erasmus scheme. This is a different scale, which is why we want to participate.

Erasmus+

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare interests as co-chair of the APPG on Modern Languages and president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.

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

The UK has agreed to work towards association to the Erasmus+ programme, on financial terms to be mutually agreed, which should ensure a fair balance as regards the contributions of and benefits to the UK. Negotiations are under way, and noble Lords will understand that I cannot comment in detail on ongoing negotiations.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that encouraging reply and appreciate that she cannot go into negotiating detail. Can she at least clarify that the overall objective is to achieve associate membership by the start of the next funding round, in 2027-28, and that the UK aims to include eligibility for schools, as well as for students in higher education? The international experience provided by Erasmus significantly enhances future employability as well as language skills.

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

My Lords, we are considering possible timelines for the UK’s association as part of ongoing discussions, including whether association for 2027-28 is feasible, although timelines are extremely tight. To use Civil Service language, we are moving at pace. We will bring forward the final agreement of any negotiations to your Lordships’ House in the usual way, and that will include details about schools and students.

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a visiting professor at King’s and chairman of FutureLearn. I strongly welcome the Government’s efforts to associate with Erasmus. EU student numbers in the UK have roughly halved over recent years and now face further challenging policy headwinds under this Government. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on EU students in the UK of the Government’s plans to impose a further 6% tax on international student tuition fees?

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

The noble Lord raises an interesting point which is slightly out of scope of the Question, so he will have to bear with me. I will write to him on the detail of any assessment, as I do not have the information in front of me. The opportunities afforded to us by the current Turing, Taith and CEEPUS schemes, and potentially with Erasmus, allow us to ensure that our relationship with the EU, as our largest trading partner, and the cultural ties that are afforded, can be continued. That is incredibly important.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, that the Government are working at pace to associate with Erasmus+. I semi-declare an interest, in that I have worked with several students on Erasmus Mundus programmes. Does the Minister understand the importance of getting in at the start of the multi-annual financial framework? Year-by-year arrangements do not necessarily work. To fully plug into the Erasmus programmes, it would be ideal to be there at the start of the next EU multi-annual financial framework.

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

The noble Baroness raises a very important point about our ongoing relationship with the European Union as part of these negotiations. Having committed to undertake negotiations to join Erasmus+ in 2027-28, we therefore hope to be part of the full MFF going forward.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister says that she cannot go into details, but will she be asking for UK citizens to be afforded the fullest breadth of opportunities—meaning opportunities not just for students but for teachers in terms of their professional development abroad? That was extremely valuable when we were previously a member of Erasmus+.

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

The noble Earl raises the most important point. Currently, 60% of our schools are struggling to recruit modern foreign language teachers. There is a genuine issue about how we ensure that not just students but their teachers and supporting staff have opportunities in this space. That is one of the benefits of us rejoining the Erasmus scheme, and as part of our negotiations, we will seek to ensure the fullest opportunities, including in respect of staffing.

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the Government’s attitude towards Erasmus and similar excellent schemes an example of the timidity shown by all Governments for many years in response to proposal that students be brought into the Europeanising process? All vice-chancellors across the land would say that Erasmus has brought in extraordinary intellectual and cultural stimulation. Furthermore, the economies of towns where Erasmus schemes are in operation have benefited. Will the Government throw off the shackles of timidity and show enthusiasm for a wonderful scheme that has enriched the world?

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

My Lords, very few people would ever call me timid. I think it fair to say that it is for exactly the reasons my noble friend has outlined that we are seeking to move at pace to ensure that we can participate in Erasmus in 2027–28. It has notable benefits, and we look forward to making sure that we deliver a fair deal financially with our participation, but also that the people who may benefit from the scheme can do so as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, while discussions continue with the European Union “at pace” on the prospect of rejoining or aligning with Erasmus+—and while I appreciate that the Minister did refer to the Turing scheme—can she confirm that the Government will remain fully committed to the Turing scheme, which was established by the previous Administration, and to continuing the excellent work it does in widening access for students to study not just in the EU but in the rest of the world?

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

The Turing scheme, the Taith scheme and the CEEPUS schemes have provided wonderful opportunities for many young people. The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I wanted to know how many people from the Potteries have participated: 200, in case noble Lords are interested. It is incredibly important that we make sure there is no gap and that we look at all these schemes in the round. Obviously, once negotiations—which are currently active—have been held, both on this and on the youth mobility scheme we will be discussing next week, there will be full disclosure to your Lordships’ House so we can discuss in the usual way what happens next.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, “at pace”, as we know, does not seem to have a timeline. We must note that many cohorts of young people have already missed out on these schemes. Do the Government not recognise that those in their mid-20s to late 20s do not have those opportunities to look forward to? What will this Government give to them?

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

The noble Baroness raises an interesting point. I know that she personally benefited from the Erasmus scheme. The scheme could be open to those who are still accessing education and those teaching in educational establishments. She suggests that it is closed to those in their mid-20s to late 20s, but they might be able to access the scheme in other ways. We will be discussing the youth mobility scheme proposals next week. My definition of “young” might have changed slightly, but I look forward to discussing the proposals with her, and how people in their 20s and 30s may be able to access schemes in this way.

[Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)]

Stretching the Minister’s patience further, under transitional arrangements, UK citizens who go to school and live in the EU continue to pay domestic fees at university. That ends in 2028. Will His Majesty’s Government continue ending that penalty against UK citizens? I declare my interest as master of Christ’s College, Cambridge.

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

The noble Lord will forgive me if I write to him.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does this not demonstrate yet again how badly Brexit was negotiated by the last Government and how much we have been disadvantaged by the poor negotiations that took place?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

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

I was doing so well before we got to Brexit. My noble friend raises a genuinely important issue. This Government have been committed, through our Brexit reset, to re-establishing our relationship with the European Union, recognising that it is our largest trading partner, with £813 billion of trade last year alone. It is extraordinary that it took until we came to office for there to be the first EU–UK summit, which happened in May and has genuinely delivered. The world is a very unsettled place right now, and we need to make sure we have the best possible relationships with our closest neighbours and allies. Erasmus is part of that deal, but so is the EU reset, which we will discuss again in your Lordships’ House.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I shall now repeat the Statement made by my colleague the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the other place. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the legacy of the Troubles, which still hangs heavily over the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.

The Good Friday agreement—that extraordinary act of political courage—brought peace. Although its architects knew that legacy would have to be dealt with, they were not able to do so. This is therefore the unfinished business of that agreement, and it is why so many—too many—victims and survivors are still waiting for answers about what exactly happened to those whom they loved so much.

The previous Government’s legacy Act failed to win support in Northern Ireland, failed to comply with our international human rights obligations and was undeliverable. Whatever its intentions, it was no basis for trying to move forward. That is why the Government are today introducing new primary legislation and laying a draft remedial order under the Human Rights Act as we seek to fulfil our King’s Speech commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. This legislation will give effect to the framework that I announced with the Irish Government on 19 September, which reflects the principles of the Stormont House agreement and contains sovereign commitments by both the UK and Irish Governments.

The new Troubles Bill will reform the independent commission, to be renamed the Legacy Commission, giving it statutory oversight to provide accountability and confidence, and—learning from Operation Kenova—a statutory victims and survivors advisory group. It will significantly strengthen the governance of the commission, with two co-directors of investigations, statutory conflict of interest duties, and appointments made only following independent advice. It will enhance the investigative powers of the commission and put in place a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the commission has the powers that it needs to find answers for families and can make public the maximum possible information, consistent with the state’s responsibility to protect life and national security.

The Bill will fulfil the commitment that we have made to restore the small number of Troubles-related inquests that were stopped in their tracks by the legacy Act, and refer the other inquests that had not yet commenced to the Solicitor-General to independently consider whether, in each case, they are dealt with most appropriately by the reformed Legacy Commission or via the coronial system. It will enable the reformed commission to hold new proceedings in cases that are transferred to it from the coronial system. Consistent with the provisions in the Inquiries Act, that will provide for public hearings, the consideration of sensitive information in closed hearings, and effective next-of-kin participation, including through legal representation.

We will also address in the Bill, rather than in the remedial order, the UK Supreme Court ruling in the Adams interim custody order case regarding the application of the Carltona principle. We must put beyond doubt Parliament’s intention by clarifying the fact that the relevant legislation allowed such orders to be made by junior Ministers as well as by the Secretary of State.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the 250,000 Northern Ireland veterans who served with honour and distinction to keep people safe and who worked with the police and other emergency services in the most difficult circumstances imaginable. Their service and their sacrifice will never be forgotten. That is why, having worked closely with the Defence Secretary and the Armed Forces Minister, the Government are introducing strong safeguards for veterans that respond directly to the concerns that have been expressed to us. Those safeguards will also apply to other people, such as former police officers. They will mean that no witnesses will need to travel to Northern Ireland to engage with legacy mechanisms. They will have a right to do so remotely, because coroners and judges in the commission will be legally required to allow it, and support for veterans will be available to assist them in that regard. The commission will be under a duty not to duplicate the work of any previous investigations, unless there are compelling reasons that make it essential to do so. The welfare of veterans will be given proper consideration as part of any assessment as to whether they are required to give evidence, and that will include the right of veterans to seek anonymity when doing so.

Our protections will not be limited to legislation. Any contact with veterans will be facilitated through the Ministry of Defence, protecting veterans from cold-calling, and veterans will not be required to rehearse the historical context surrounding incidents when such information can be obtained from other sources, including the Ministry of Defence. These measures will provide what the three UK veterans commissioners have called for: not immunity from the law, but fairness under it.

The remedial order, which I am also laying today, will remove the previous Government’s much-criticised immunity scheme, which offered false promises, was never introduced and would have enabled those who had committed the most appalling terrorist crimes to be granted immunity from prosecution—the principal reason why the Act was so strongly opposed in Northern Ireland—and it will lift the current prohibition on Troubles-related civil proceedings.

I am grateful to the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, and his team for their open and constructive approach in reaching the framework agreement, which recognises that helping families affected by the Troubles is a shared responsibility. That is why the joint framework contains specific and unprecedented commitments by the Irish Government to facilitate the fullest possible co-operation of the Irish authorities with a reformed legacy commission; to establish a dedicated unit within the Garda to deal with Troubles-related cases, including all outstanding cases in Ireland; and to make a financial contribution of €25 million to help legacy mechanisms. That is, of course, in addition to the £250 million already committed by the UK Government. Where required, legislation will be introduced by the Irish Government to implement those commitments. We are also establishing with the Irish Government an independent commission on information retrieval—initially on a pilot basis—to give families an additional means of obtaining information.

Since my appointment last year, I have had many discussions with political parties, victims and survivors organisations, human rights groups, veterans and others affected by the Troubles. Given the views held by so many people—often diametrically opposed—it was always going to be impossible to set out a plan that gives everyone everything that they want. There will be elements of our approach that some people will welcome and others will not. I also recognise that, because of what has gone before, there is a great lack of trust in all of us in the House on the part of victims and survivors. That is, unfortunately, the reality—but it is not, and it never has been, an argument for not trying to find a way forward. I hope that those who want to see a fair and effective approach to legacy that can command greater support in Northern Ireland will recognise that these measures represent fundamental reform, and that they will therefore be given a chance to succeed.

Time waits for no one, least of all for the many families who lost loved ones, and they, ultimately, will be the judge of whether these new arrangements can give them the answers that they have sought for so long. I hope that we will together be able to grasp this opportunity, and so help the people of Northern Ireland to look to a future freer of the burden of the past. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made in the House of Commons last week. Dealing with the past is a highly complex subject that inevitably provokes strong emotions. It is not surprising but is, I believe, highly regrettable that when the Good Friday/Belfast agreement was signed 27 years ago, legacy issues were left for the most part unresolved. Time may have passed but the pain and anger felt by so many victims, survivors and their families remain very real and deeply painful.

From the nearly 10 years that I have been covering Northern Ireland from these Benches, I observe that it is relatively easy to criticise the Government of the day in their response to dealing with legacy issues, but it is rather harder to come up with concrete proposals once in government. It is extremely difficult to have proposals, as the Statement says, that are acceptable to all, but it has to be a question of fairness, balance and proportionality. Most of all, we need an approach that helps to rebuild trust in the process through transparent institutions capable of delivering reconciliation based on truth, justice and closure.

I do not doubt the sincerity with which the noble Lord, Lord Caine, with all his experience, is criticising many of the Government’s revised legacy proposals and has asked so many questions, but we should, none the less, recall that the legacy Act from the previous Conservative Government was almost unique in recent times in its achievement of uniting all Northern Ireland political parties, as well as the victims’ groups, against it. It was also challenged in the courts, proved not to be compliant with our international human rights obligations and was unworkable in practice, so the current Government were duty-bound to reverse many of the elements in that Act, notably the section on immunity.

I welcome that the Government are once again attempting to square the circle and move us forward on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. In particular, I welcome the commitment to ensuring that the legislation is ECHR-compliant. In that regard, can the Minister confirm that she now expects the interstate case against the UK by the Republic of Ireland to be dropped once this legislation has been passed—and, I sincerely hope, even sooner?

We will have lots of time to examine this Bill in great detail during its passage through your Lordships’ House and to press the Government on how many of its proposals will work in practice, but since the Bill’s publication last week it is clear that the greatest area of concern has been that regarding the rights of veterans. As my colleague Al Pinkerton MP has so rightly put it, veterans

“need to feel that the process of prosecution does not become persecution”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/25; col. 257.]

I know that the Minister is an honorary captain in the Royal Navy and cares very deeply about these issues, but can she confirm that she personally has been consulting with veteran groups? Will she say a little more about how veterans will be protected from vexatious cases following this legislation? I understand from the discussions in the House of Commons last week that it is proposed that the Ministry of Defence will act as a point of initial contact, but can she say a little more about how she sees this operating in practice?

In conclusion, from these Benches we look forward to engaging constructively with the Government on this Bill and to finding ways to ensure that it keeps victims right at the heart of this process, while ensuring fairness and proportionality for veterans.

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

My Lords, I have lots of bits of paper in front of me, so please bear with me. I need to start by putting on record my genuine thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for everything he did, and the previous Government for everything they attempted to do—some of which I agree with, and some I do not. But we are using all their work as a basis to try to fix the things that simply are not working, to make sure that cross-community faith is heard in the legacy commission, and to fix the things that, candidly, were false promises, as it turned out, for members of the veterans community. But there is no one in your Lordships’ House who would question noble Lord’s commitment to peace in Northern Ireland, nor that of his Front Bench, and the same goes for the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I am beyond grateful for the time they give me, both inside and outside this Chamber, to try to make sure that we can actually deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, and the people who were touched by the Troubles and still do not have answers.

There is a reason why we are bringing forward this legislation. It is not because there is nothing for your Lordships to discuss or do at the moment—noble Lords will be aware that we will be sitting until quite late again this evening—but because we genuinely believe that this is the final opportunity to deliver on the promise of the Stormont House agreement and the promise of the Good Friday agreement, and to make sure that the next generation does not carry the burden of the past, but can move forward.

There are victims waiting for answers. They include the families of veterans who lost their lives and paid the ultimate sacrifice during Op Banner, when they ran to put themselves between terrorists and the general public. They are also the people who suffered horror at the hands of terrorists, and it is only right that people receive answers. That is why we are all here, and I hope that as the legislation progresses through your Lordships’ House, it is what we all seek to do.

There are many questions that were asked, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Caine. If I miss any, which is inevitable, I will write to the noble Lord. But it is fair to say that we will be discussing these issues for many hours in your Lordships’ House, so inevitably I will cover them all. Whether it is today or not, I commit to write to all Members present if there is anything I have missed.

Before I touch on the issue of veterans, on which, unsurprisingly, I have a significant amount to say, I put on record my personal role as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. While it is an honorary role, I do have a uniform, and I consider myself part of the military family and therefore I take these issues—the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, is absolutely right—very seriously. I have engaged personally with veterans both at home and in Northern Ireland on my visits, including when I visited Omagh in August to mark the anniversary of the bombing, and met with an extraordinary group of men. I subsequently met some of the women who also were present on that day, who must deal with the consequences of what they saw every day. They are dealing with one of the worst examples of what happens when you are told the wrong location of a bomb and you push people towards it, as opposed to away from it. People are still suffering every day because of their experiences in Northern Ireland.

I want to be really clear to noble Lords, as I will be throughout this process, on the protections available to veterans. We have listened to the veterans community. The reality is that immunity was a false promise and did not deliver for them. It has never been enacted, and we must make sure that veterans have actual protections in place, not false promises—they deserve so much better. There will be, without doubt, a huge amount of contention about this. It is very important to reference the fact that this is the reality of where we currently stand. Noble Lords are absolutely right that some of the protections we are announcing apply to more than just veterans, because they have to. They must also apply to other people, other groups that served, including the RUC and others. There is not a word that helps us get to just to one point of people, but I want to reassure noble Lords that this legislation was drafted with veterans at its heart.

The protections, while they may apply to others, were designed specifically to help veterans. Those protections include protection from repeated investigations; the legacy commission will not needlessly duplicate previous investigative work veterans may have already participated in, unless it is necessary. Veterans will not need to explain historical context that is already known. It is ludicrous to me that junior officers, or non-commissioned officers, were asked to give evidence about strategic environments; they may well have been under 20, and they were having to give an overview. It is unnecessary, and the MoD has experts on hand who can provide that context. They will have the right to stay at home: veterans will not be forced to travel to or around Northern Ireland to give evidence as a witness to the commission or to an inquest. They will have the right to seek anonymity: veterans will be able to request anonymity when giving evidence. They will also have protections in old age. At the weekend I listened once again to a podcast on 50 years on from Bloody Sunday. In fact, now it is 53 years on. We are talking about people who need protection in old age. Veterans’ health and wellbeing will be taken into account by the commission and coroners if they are required to give evidence, and they may not need to give evidence at all based on those considerations.

On protections from cold calling or unexpected letters, veterans will be contacted only through official channels, with Ministry of Defence support. This is an incredibly important thing, because it will also ensure that no veterans slip through the net and end up getting contacted by accident. On the specifics raised by the noble Baroness, the MoD will also make an independent expert adviser available to remove the need for veterans to give testimony or historical context in the operations. In addition, every time they are contacted, we can make sure that the MoD can provide the bespoke support needed for that veteran. My noble friend the Minister at the MoD has been clear in making sure that this is in place, and I thank him for it.

Turning to another incredibly important thing, one of the additional parts of the legislation is the right to be heard. There will be a statutory advisory group for the legacy commission, which will provide an opportunity for the voices of all victims and survivors of the Troubles to be heard, including ones from a service background. It is very important that those voices are heard, including throughout the operation of the legacy commission.

I will move on to some of the other issues that were raised. Nine inquests will immediately restart; the others will be assessed by the Solicitor-General, as one of the law officers. There will be up to 24. She will be analysing each case based on the relevant sensitive issue, and there will always be a presumption in favour of referring that case to the commission. She will also be assessing the capacity to undertake the reinstatement of the inquest. Within 18 months of the Act gaining Royal Assent, she will provide for what will happen to the additional outstanding cases. On funding for the PSNI—a very topical question today—we have committed to £250 million. I will revert in due course to additional funding if required. Obviously, there will always be ongoing conversations. On the capacity of the MoJ, I will be in contact. I will write to the noble Lord on the question about the court service and what additional support we are putting in place, although I do not recognise the number referred to.

Gerry Adams is obviously at the heart of this conversation. There are several outstanding cases around the ICOs, but in the legislation we are bringing forward a reinstatement of the Carltona principle in the context of the interim custody orders. The previous Government’s attempt to address this following the 2020 Supreme Court judgment in R v Adams has been found by the Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our international obligations. We need to find a better way of reaffirming this principle. The Government’s belated attempt to do so via an amendment to the legacy Act has been found by the Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our international obligations. That is why we are including it in primary legislation. I look forward to debating that in due course with all noble Lords.

I realise that I am over time but I have two more points, if noble Lords will indulge me slightly. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble Baroness for raising the interstate case. I would expect that as soon as this legislation gains Royal Assent, there will be absolutely zero grounds for the continuation of the interstate case and I look forward to it disappearing at that point, if not before. Secondly, on Omagh, I have been there twice this year. I have met the people giving evidence to the public inquiry and others. We are quite clear on the issue of Omagh. I welcome the MoU to the inquiry, which has been signed by the Irish Government, to bring forward more evidence. I hope that we will see genuine efforts. I want to be clear that a public inquiry is currently under way; anything that would undermine that while it is still trying to get to the facts of the case will not help us. I welcome its work and thank Lord Turnbull for the work he is doing. The Irish Government have committed through the MoU to working forward; I am really pleased with that step and look forward to seeing the outcomes.

I realise that I may not have touched on all the points, but I will write to noble Lords about the issues I have missed.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I too pay tribute to all the victims, the survivors and their families, who have suffered so much over many decades of the Troubles. She will be aware that there was great annoyance that this Statement was originally made when the other place was in recess and on the very final sitting day of this House, contrary to promises and pledges made to all the parties. The Government should apologise to parliamentarians in both Houses for that.

It is also important that, as we take this legislation through, there is no conflation of innocent victims with the perpetrators of violence, no conflation of the security forces of Northern Ireland—including the Army, the UDR and the police—with terrorists of whatever hue, and no conflation between those of us who advocate on behalf of the victims of terrorism and violence and those such as Sinn Féin which advocate on behalf of terrorists against the security forces. These basic principles must be re-emphasised if we are to give confidence to those who have suffered so much at the hands of criminals and gangsters. Will the Minister commit the Government, here and in the other place, to talking to the victims and veterans throughout this process and hear what they think of this legislation? So far, it appears that the only consultation that has taken place has been with the Dublin Government.

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

I thank the noble Lord not just for his comments but for all the work he has done as a genuine leader in his community. There are still times when I call him and cannot believe that his name is in my phone. I am grateful for everything that he has given me. He is absolutely right that I need to apologise that we could not do this because of the timings of the international agreement, which is what the framework was. The noble Lord is very aware that the timing was not of my choice. I apologise to him and your Lordships’ House that it has taken us this amount of time to get here. I also make it clear that we are here today because Northern Ireland business should never happen on a Thursday, so that noble Lords can actively participate.

The noble Lord touches on a very important point about the victims of terrorism. Many people have made that clear, including Ben Wallace. I debated using this quote but, when Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace said that:

“No-one is above the law. The British Army uphold British values, which is the rule of law, and that’s what we stand for. That’s why we are better than the terrorists”.


I am clear about our responsibility to make sure that the people affected by the most heinous terrorism of my lifetime on our shores get the answers that they are working for. There is not a day in the calendar on which someone was not murdered in the Troubles. As we stand here today, people will be grieving and remembering what happened to their loved ones. We all talk to victims’ groups regularly, as well as the NIO.

I will make one offer to noble Lords. I will be in Northern Ireland on a number of occasions before this legislation comes forward, and definitely between now and Christmas. If there are people whom the noble Lord would like me to sit down with—that offer goes to all Members of your Lordships’ House who live in Northern Ireland—and talk to about their experiences and what they need from this legislation, then my time is theirs.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the statement that my noble friend has just made, as well as the Statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the primary legislation that the Government are introducing. The previous legacy Act was never going to be sustainable. I never thought that the noble Lord, Lord Caine, who was very open to discussion on that Act, for which I thank him, was a 300% advocate for it. Its immunity provisions were opposed by every victims’ group and political party, so it is good that it is being repealed.

I have two specific points. On the legacy commission, I would like some clarification on the welcome reference in the Statement to “learning from Operation Kenova”. That operated to criminal justice standards, which meant that you could in principle refer cases for prosecution, although it was very difficult given their longevity over many decades and the difficulty of finding sustainable evidence. Is that what “learning from Operation Kenova” means? Secondly, the commission has not enjoyed support on a cross-community basis from the different victims’ groups or the parties. What does the appointment of codirectors for investigation mean? Is it designed to give it some kind of independent authority and oversight? I would welcome it if that were the case, because that would enhance its credibility.

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

I thank my noble friend for his questions, his work as Northern Ireland Secretary and his role in working with victims’ groups, including WAVE, with which he has a long-standing relationship. He is absolutely right about immunity, which was opposed by everyone. That is one of the reasons why it was in our manifesto; we are delivering on our manifesto commitment. Criminal investigation standards are what we are expect from the legacy commission. The other learning we take from Operation Kenova is that voices will be heard within the commission that are currently not. There will be victims’ voices, as well as those of veterans, whom I have spoken about, and other people affected, which we hope will guide the work of the legacy commission going forward.

On the codirectors for investigation, we are also bringing forward a new governance structure to make sure that there are clear reporting lines and accountability for the legacy commission. There will be two roles for the codirectors: one for someone who has expertise and a history of investigations in Northern Ireland, and another for someone who has experience of investigations, but not in Northern Ireland. That means that we can make sure that, if there is a perceived conflict of interest, it is answered. I hope that will go some way to reassuring people who should be accessing the legacy commission for help.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I have one specific question in relation to the proposal in paragraph 6 of the joint framework to replace the existing Commissioner for Investigations with two co-directors for investigations, one of whom must have experience outside Northern Ireland. Is it envisaged that this appointment will go to someone from the Irish Republic? This would place in their hands the authority enjoyed by a commissioner to confer the powers of a constable on an individual within the legacy commission, along with access to highly sensitive national security and intelligence-related material.

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

I thank the noble Lord. There will be an open process, and the person appointed will be appointed by the Secretary of State. There is no commitment or expectation that the person will be from the Republic of Ireland, and I would be surprised if they were.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement this evening. I also thank her for the engagement we have had over the last few weeks and for the letter I received today in response to the representations I had made. I totally condemn all that violence and terrorism, and the murder of innocent people over all those long years. For those of us who lived in Northern Ireland and grew up during that period of violence, it was very difficult. I have two questions, one of which has already been referred to.

First, will the new legacy body be independent of the Secretary of State? That was one of the issues that was raised with the previous legacy legislation. Secondly, will the Government ensure that a victim-centred process is pivotal to all of the legislation? I welcome the fact that there is a joint British and Irish Government approach because the problem with the previous legislation was that there had been no consultation with the Irish Government. Therefore, what further consultation will take place on a formal and informal basis with political parties and all the victims’ groups in Northern Ireland?

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

One of the most important things about the additional powers we are giving to the legacy commission is the new governance structures, which I hope will give a level of confidence about its independence. That is not to say the Secretary of State will be completely isolated; we are talking about some issues relating to national security and there will be some responsibilities for the Secretary of State, all of which are outlined in the legislation. However, we are putting in an independent governance structure where we can make it very clear about who is responsible for what when, and so that people can have confidence that this is independent of the British state where necessary.

On a victims-centred process, let us remember why we are doing this: it is about victims, their families and people. Candidly, it is not about most of us in your Lordships’ House—though there are notable exceptions to that. This is about making sure that everyone has the answers they need. Every family I have talked to needs a different set of answers and is looking for different things from the commission; we need to ensure that what they want and need is at the heart of it.

Of course we will continue engagement. Legislation has now started in the other place and will come to us. All political parties will be engaged, both inside and outside the Chamber. We will continue to actively engage with all victims’ groups.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I speak as a victim of IRA terrorism. As I stand yet again to speak on legacy matters, I feel that trauma rising in me; I feel my heart beating and the distress, and for those who have suffered both outside and inside this House, it is always traumatic when we get to these things. However, I welcome the Government’s proposed legislation, though I have not had time to consider it in detail. I want to make two points.

Having had members of my family serve in the military in Northern Ireland, I understand the position with regard to veterans. However, it will be profoundly important—and I hope the Minister can assure me—that veterans, former members of the PSNI and any serving members of the PSNI from that era and ordinary people in Northern Ireland will all receive the same treatment under the rule of law and that there will be no special treatment for veterans.

For example, many people who suffered in the trauma of the Troubles left Northern Ireland. They presumably will be afforded the same right to give evidence and be interviewed at a distance as those veterans who are in Northern Ireland. It is profoundly important that happens because there was no trust in the Northern Ireland Troubles legacy Act and it is vital we get this right to allow people to have trust in it.

Secondly, despite £250 million being allocated, it is going to be vital that there is not just support for the PSNI in this. Our public prosecution and court services are broken; cases take far too long to get to court and there does not seem to be the lawyers to operate and move things along smoothly. There needs to be real thought about how we underpin the processes we are going to set under way. I therefore ask the Minister for assurances that there will be wider consideration there.

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. She reminds all of us of the personal cost that many people in your Lordships’ House and across Parliament have paid. She also reminds me of why I am so passionate about what we are trying to achieve: making sure that she and others get answers, but also making sure that this is the final generation that has to carry this burden. When I was in Northern Ireland earlier this year, I met with a group of people who called themselves the “peace babies”. It is incredibly important that we hold on to the peace babies and that they do not have to carry the burden of this trauma.

With regard to the specifics, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. The Veterans Commissioners of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales said in July that this is not a call for immunity from the law but for fairness under it. That should apply to everybody; everyone should receive the same treatment under the law. Protections will apply to all victims. I want to be very clear to noble Lords that this legislation was drafted with a view to what was specifically impacting veterans; while other people will benefit from it, we did start with that process.

On the court system, the noble Baroness makes a very valid point, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Caine. My hope and expectation is that most people will seek to use the legacy commission. That is why we are strengthening the commission, its governance and hopefully giving more people confidence in it, so that it will not overburden the courts. I will revert on the other points that she made.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I compliment the Minister on her deep feeling about what was said. I will comment on veterans. This Parliament, people sitting on these Benches and down there, sent young men, such as myself, to Northern Ireland into the face of danger. Many of them were killed. Not all of them behaved perfectly—I know that perfectly well—and some went to prison, but mostly people were doing their duty. We need to remember that the whole time.

On the other hand, we have IRA terrorists, such as Gerry Adams, who almost certainly was responsible for the murder of Jean McConville. I cannot mention any other cases. The Minister would expect me to remember people such as Andrew French, a friend of mine, and Simon Ware, a friend of mine, who were murdered by terrorists. I do not think that anybody has ever been caught for their murder, so I say to the noble Baroness: please remember that soldiers went there to do their duty. They may not always have got it right, but that is why they were there, sent by people sitting on these Benches.

Secondly, please make sure that no murdering terrorists, such as Gerry Adams, get money from the state, having murdered many members of the state and indeed the people of Northern Ireland.

Thirdly, if there is a problem with the law, change the law.

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

I will start with the final point: we are changing the law, and that is what we are spending a lot of time on. This includes the re-establishment of the Carltona principle, to ensure that the principle that several Members of your Lordships’ House used when they were Northern Ireland Ministers and believed that they were acting in good faith exists in law and is retrospectively applied.

I thank the noble Lord, and everyone who served, for his service. We sent many young men to Northern Ireland. Many did extraordinary things to keep us safe and I thank them for doing their duty. I make it clear that veterans’ families, including the families of the veterans he named, need answers too. I hope they will seek to go to the legacy commission to make sure that they get answers. It is why we want to make sure that veterans’ voices and those of the victims’ families are heard and are at the centre of the commission.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, the Belfast agreement has been held up in high esteem here. But why are the Irish Government involved in this part of the scheme? The Irish Government were not involved in strand one of the Belfast agreement, so why do we need agreement from them now to take this forward? It is nonsensical. They have done nothing down the years to support the people of Northern Ireland against terrorism—in fact, on some occasions they have facilitated terrorism in Northern Ireland, which is an absolute shame. I quote the Minister’s own words: “We are better than the terrorists”. It does not appear that way, if there are to be new inquests into the eight terrorists of Loughgall who tried to murder and maim everybody in the station there. It is absolutely terrible and ridiculous. We are not starting off from the same basis at all. There is not fair treatment, simply because security forces hold all the information, terrorists do not. Is this a departure from the Belfast agreement? Has she set the Belfast agreement aside, in the interests of trying to get some deal with the Irish Government?

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

My Lords, the noble Lord served with distinction for many years. I am grateful for the time he gives me and for the work that he has done in Northern Ireland to deliver peace.

As someone who was born in 1979, for me, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was something I celebrated and welcomed and consider one of the most successful achievements of the last Labour Government. The reality is that the Republic of Ireland is a co-guarantor of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is one of the reasons why it is so incredibly important that we are working with it. This is an unprecedented level of commitment from the Irish Government about the Troubles and I am truly grateful that they have moved forward. They have been clear that they will facilitate the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant authorities with the commission. They are establishing a dedicated unit to deal with Troubles-related cases, acting as a single point of contact for families within the Irish system. They will make a financial contribution of €25 million over three years to resource legacy mechanisms. Consistent with the Stormont House agreement—which I know the noble Lord’s party was not supportive of but which shows that the Irish Government have been party to this for many years—the two Governments will establish the independent commission on information retrieval to make sure that people get the evidence when they need it.

I know that there are concerns, and that the proof will be in the pudding, but working with the Irish to deliver answers for the people of Northern Ireland is incredibly important. As I have said consistently throughout, this is about answers for the people who are still waiting for information about what happened to their families. It is they who are front and centre in all of our efforts.

Official Secret Act Case: Witness Statements

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister answer whether the 1 September meeting, as reported by the Sunday Times, between senior officials and intelligence chiefs in the Cabinet Office, and reportedly chaired by the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, discussed the China espionage case and what evidence should be provided to the CPS? Will the Minister confirm whether the National Security Adviser provided a written update or Box note to the Prime Minister? If she can establish whether one exists, will she publish it with the related correspondence between the Cabinet Office, the CPS and No. 10?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It is our third such outing on matters pertaining—well, our second, but the third in a week. To confirm, the meeting on 1 September was a discussion with the National Security Adviser about the management of the court case as it continued. There was no discussion of anything other than what would happen during the progression of the court case. Although I am sure all noble Lords have had various dealings with the person who suggested that a Box note was provided, I am not sure how he would know of such a Box note, seeing as no Box note existed. No briefing note whatever was provided from the National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister, nor was there any conversation about the case.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this case seems to boil down to the binary political question: conspiracy or cock-up? The Government vehemently deny conspiracy, so they must believe it is a cock-up. But where and how did this happen, and how will the Government find out this fact? A Joint Select Committee plans to investigate, and I am sure that the ISC will too. Will the Government co-operate fully and quickly with these inquiries and undertake to publish everything possible that arises from them?

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

The noble Lord raises a very important point. Our Parliament is at its best when it scrutinises the Government, and I am very pleased that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy is now undertaking its inquiry. The Intelligence and Security Committee, led by my noble friend Lord Beamish, will also undertake its investigation. How quickly those progress is obviously now a matter for Parliament. I promise noble Lords that both investigations will have our full co-operation and support. We expect this to be done quickly. All information will be given very quickly. I have met with officials today to make it very clear that Government Ministers expect full co-operation.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the DPP simply got the law wrong in deciding to drop the case? In particular, does she agree that he failed to appreciate that whether China represents a current threat to our national security is a question of fact for the jury, and that he failed to charge as an alternative attempted espionage, available on ample evidence, having regard to the leading case of Shivpuri? Will she tell the House what steps are being taken in the light of those failures?

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

I thank the noble Lord for his question and his continued interest in these matters. Although the Government share the disappointment that the prosecution could not continue, the DPP’s decision is independent of the Government. Any decision to draw on the Shivpuri case as part of legal proceedings in this espionage case, if relevant, rested solely with the Crown Prosecution Service. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are dedicated to ensuring that the UK has the most robust legal framework possible to tackle foreign interference in espionage, which is why we supported, on a cross-party basis, the introduction of the National Security Act 2023. The Government will continue to keep such legislation under review to ensure that the UK’s law enforcement agencies are equipped to respond to the evolving threat landscape. Indeed, Jonathan Hall KC was appointed in February last year to act as the Independent Reviewer of State Threat Legislation under the National Security Act. I reiterate that there is now parliamentary oversight, with a parliamentary investigation. I hope all noble Lords with the relevant expertise actively seek to participate in the review, as the noble Lord has already.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

Can the Minister clarify for the record that anyone invited to appear before any of these committees, including the DPP, the National Security Adviser and, if necessary, the Prime Minister himself, will attend?

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

The noble Lord is aware that I cannot speak on behalf of the DPP, and while I wish I was in charge of the Prime Minister’s diary, no one has given me that responsibility. However, to be very clear, we expect full co-operation and that everybody invited to attend will give appropriate evidence as requested by the committee.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

Can the Minister explain why no fewer than three witness statements were required from the Government? Are we to conclude that the Government did not make their position sufficiently clear in the first two statements?

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

I think it would be helpful if we went through the timescale of what happened with this case. The alleged incidents occurred. The Government—who at that point were the previous Government—met, and they instructed the Deputy National Security Adviser to provide a witness statement. At that point, and as soon as charges were made, the Deputy National Security Adviser was constrained in his wider engagement. Politicians were informed, but not involved, from that moment onwards because he was an active witness. Noble Lords have now had the opportunity over the weekend to read all the evidence statements available and will be aware, as I believe them to be, that they are a very robust statement of our position on China—the position at the time and, from my perspective, the position that needs to continue going forward.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee. Given that detailed personal information about parliamentarians and others, including human rights activists, has, according to media reports over the weekend, been handed over to a top Chinese official described as very close indeed to President Xi Jinping, what assurances and support have the Government offered to these people regarding their personal safety, and what have they been told about the specific information that allegedly has been handed over?

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

The noble Baroness makes the most important of points. One of the things that has been missing from conversations, including our own debate over the past week, is that people who some of us know extremely well have been targeted by a foreign state. Their lives, political careers and families have all been affected by these alleged incidents and by what has followed in the public space. There is now a duty and responsibility on us to make sure that those people are protected. With regard to the human rights activists, I know that direct conversations have happened and will continue to happen. We have been proactive in the guidance issued by MI5 and GCHQ, but we will work with everybody where they feel there is an additional security threat.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the charges were brought under the Official Secrets Act, which dates from the beginning of the 20th century, which is one of the reasons it was changed? Unfortunately, the charges were brought when it was still running and in existence. Certainly in the beginning, that Act seemed to require that someone was an enemy of the United Kingdom, whereas it has evolved that, quite clearly, a nation can be a threat to national security without having to be publicly deemed an enemy. Therefore, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that the repeated requests were being made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, not someone well versed in jury trials from his experience, because he wanted someone to say that China was an enemy. This Government and the previous Government were unwilling to say that in the current climate, where, for all kinds of reasons, we are seeking to have some sort of partnership with China on certain issues. Is that the position of the Government?

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

The noble Baroness invites me to question the independence of the CPS, and I am unlikely to do so.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

Not the independence of the CPS.

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

I apologise if I misinterpreted what she said. The legal position is a matter for the CPS, and I am not a lawyer—much to my mother’s disappointment. As to why we updated the Official Secrets Act, the noble Baroness is right that it required the definition of “enemy”. There was a reason why Members of your Lordships’ House spent many hours debating the National Security Act and why we have new legislation.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that China is a malign actor? It does not have our interests at heart and that the sooner we bring the Chinese embassy plans to a swift end, the better.

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

My Lords, the Government are unequivocal that China poses threats to UK security, including to our democratic system, and we will continue to hold China to account for this. That is the central message we should be trying to get back to: how the Government can work on a cross-party basis and how, with the CPS and others, we can work to ensure that this kind of thing can never happen again. With regard to the embassy, that is now a quasi-judicial decision, and the decision will be announced before 10 December.

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords—

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

My Lords, it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords, I am so sorry—my mistake.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, so we begin Report. I thank all noble Lords for their genuinely constructive engagement on this important Bill, as we seriously engage in efforts to protect taxpayers’ money—something I know every Member of your Lordships’ House cares vehemently about. I especially thank the Opposition Front Benches, who have given much of their time to make sure this works. I hope that they will see, through the responses from the Government today, that we have tried to listen and make as many amendments as possible to make sure this Bill is effective and will work in practice.

Once again, I warmly welcome the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on the important issue of whistleblowing, as I did in Committee. The noble Baroness is committed and diligent in this area. As ever, she has proved to be tenacious and determined, but with due cause, ensuring that we can prevent some of the appalling scandals she named.

It is clear that protections for whistleblowing are a key aspect of counterfraud investigations. A 2023 National Audit Office report into whistleblowing showed that a total of 41 organisations employing civil servants recorded and reported 939 concerns over a three-year period. Fraud was consistently the most common category, representing 39.9% of all concerns across the three years. It is only right that the PSFA closely considers its role in this landscape. As such, I am pleased to have an opportunity to place on record our efforts since your Lordships last debated the issue. We are listening to your Lordships’ House. We are doing everything we can to ensure that both this legislation and the work of the PSFA are as effective and impactful as they can be.

Officials across government have come together to understand what can be done in the public sector fraud whistleblowing space. In particular, the PSFA Bill team has worked with the other Bill teams, where this important issue has also been raised recently in your Lordships’ House, to ensure that departments work in partnership to deliver a coherent response.

As a result, I am pleased to give the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, a series of commitments this Government can make. First, to ensure that this important issue continues to be taken forward effectively, officials will continue co-ordinating across the whistleblowing landscape to identify areas where the PSFA can add value, such as joint guidance documents on public sector fraud. The PSFA will also seek to work closely with officials in the SFO and HMRC. HMRC has deployed a whistleblower incentivisation scheme and the SFO has developed proposals for a similar scheme. The PSFA and the SFO have already agreed to identify areas where they can support each other’s work on whistle- blowing. Once Jonathan Fisher’s review is published, the PSFA will work with other government departments to consider, and where possible adopt, his whistleblower recommendations.

I am also pleased to announce that as soon as is practicable—likely to be within 12 months of the powers being first used—the Government will ask the independent reviewer, who will be appointed under Clause 65 of this Bill, to conduct a review of the PSFA’s use of whistleblowing in cases of public sector fraud.

The PSFA will also endeavour to publish updates on whistleblowing in public sector fraud in its annual reports, where appropriate. Those reports will be used as an opportunity to communicate routes available for whistleblowers on public sector fraud. Also, once this Bill becomes law, PSFA will seek a place on the DBT prescribed persons list under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

I look forward to future engagement on this issue. Given the commitments I have outlined and the necessity of maintaining the focus of this legislation, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, will not press her amendments.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has described some real momentum. As I say, we would always want more; when we put down amendments, we have an ideal target in mind, but this is an area where progress matters. I thank the Minister and I will indeed withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, our principle generally is that the lowest level of government should make those decisions. To put it up to central government would be overloading central government. It would be like “Yes Minister” with a row of civil servants—bless them—dealing with something that has been sent up from the local authority or public body which did not need to be sent up. Although I have sympathy with what the amendments are trying to do, the idea of loading central government with issues that can be dealt with responsibly at a lower level seems to be against what we are trying to do in this House. So, respectfully, we will not be supporting these two amendments.

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

My Lords, fraud against the public sector takes money away from vital public services, enriches those who seek to attack the Government and damages the integrity of the state. This Bill is part of the Government’s response to this urgent and challenging problem. The Bill gives functions and powers to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, which will be exercised by authorised officers and investigators based in the Public Sector Fraud Authority.

I hope it will assist your Lordships’ House if I remind noble Lords of the PSFA’s mission. The PSFA is the UK Government’s centre of expertise for the management of fraud and associated error against the public sector. It leads the Government’s counterfraud function, which brings together the approximately 16,000 people who work in government departments and public bodies to fight fraud. The standards and guidance that the function creates, led by the PSFA, must be used in central government and can be used more widely in the public sector and beyond to improve the robustness of how we understand, prevent and respond to fraud.

These two amendments would make significant changes to the Government’s intention in bringing forward this Bill on how the PSFA works. They would change the impact of the Bill and are unnecessary to be put into law, so we cannot accept them.

On Amendment 2, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, offered a version of this amendment in Grand Committee that simply deleted line 10, which I resisted because removing that line without putting something else in its place would have created uncertainty and potentially conflicted with the preservation of public authorities’ own fraud functions in Clause 2(5). It is clear this draft has been influenced by the debate on the original, and I thank the noble Baroness for it; however, the new version goes further and dramatically changes the impact of the Bill.

Amendment 2 would create an extensive new power for the Minister for the Cabinet Office and change the relationship between the PSFA and the public authorities it works with. The Government’s intention is that the PSFA offers a public sector fraud service, collaborating with public authorities which have been attacked by fraudsters to take action to investigate, enforce and recover the funds. Collaboration is vital in the Government’s fight against fraud. Noble Lords will be aware that last month the Government announced that, in the previous 12 months since April 2024, over £480 million was prevented from going into fraudsters’ pockets. Driving this kind of cross-government collaboration is what the PSFA is for. We can do more, which is why we need the Bill, but the PSFA is already working.

I firmly believe that the normal mechanisms of government can ensure that counterfraud co-operation happens, as it is already happening in the work of the current pilot unit in PSFA. In issues of national importance, there will also be some moral and public pressure for something to be done, so I believe it is not necessary for the Minister to have a directive power in law to investigate on their own initiative. We truly believe that the collaborative approach outlined in the Bill combined with the normal operations of government will ensure the PSFA has the access it needs.

The definition of public authority in Clause 71 is broad and this amendment would affect different public authorities differently. For central government departments, it would mean that a Minister below Secretary of State level could direct and override Secretaries of State. For local authorities, the amendment would mean a new power for central government to take over a responsibility without their consent. The Local Government Act 1999 already has powers to this effect, and we do not want to create a new one specifically for fraud.

Amendment 19 would require departments to conduct an internal review if, following a PSFA investigation, it is confirmed that they have lost more than £50,000 to overpayment or fraud. All losses on this scale should already be investigated and reported on. There are established audit, assurance and reporting processes for this. In addition, the facts of this case would already have been established by the PSFA, and learning taken from it would be shared across government to aid the prevention of fraud. This amendment would create an extra burden on the department and replicate the work of the PSFA. It is unnecessary, as its core aim will be addressed through other activities. Therefore, after my very persuasive arguments, I encourage the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, to withdraw her amendments.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her incredibly persuasive arguments. We are clear that this is an unacceptable settlement if the PSFA can act only if invited by the very body that may have failed. That is not a system of scrutiny; it is an invitation to inertia. It cannot be right that officials in a department where fraud is suspected should have the power to decide whether to be investigated. The DWP does not wait to be invited before it goes after benefits cheats, and there is no reason why public officials should be held to a different standard.

The Government are proposing to create an authority with wide powers on paper but no real agency in practice—a watchdog told to bark only when asked. In short, it should be called out for what it is: a farce. Fraud against the taxpayer is not a matter for polite phone calls between Permanent Secretaries; it demands action that is statutory, swift and unambiguous. When credible evidence of fraud arises, that must be the starting gun for any investigation, not the moment the system looks away.

Our amendment gives the PSFA the ability to act proactively, with proper safeguards, wherever fraud occurs. If we are serious about protecting public money, we cannot design a system that waits to be asked before doing its job. I am not satisfied that the response from the Government meets the conditions set out, and therefore I want to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, we are in a world of information-sharing and information-gathering, and this is where that starts and stops. Amendment 3 would ensure that

“information notices issued to banks and financial institutions include a clear statement that the person to whom the information relates is not necessarily guilty of suspected fraud”.

Amendment 4

“would limit the persons to whom information may be disclosed by requiring the Secretary of State to specify eligible persons in regulations”.

In our view, these are sensible safeguards and regulations. On that basis, we on these Benches broadly support the amendments.

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

My Lords, I appreciate the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, bringing forward these amendments again. I find myself agreeing with the concerns outlined by the noble Baroness and other Members of your Lordships’ House. I reassure all noble Lords that we are already undertaking this work, and that the safeguards are in place.

On Amendment 3 and the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, we will be including specific information in guidance for authorised officers to ensure that information notices advise the information-holder that the investigation is ongoing, and no inference should be drawn that the individual specified on the notice is guilty. This amendment is therefore not required as it is already our intention to do this, and it will be achieved in guidance.

Turning to Amendment 4, I again assure the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and other Members of your Lordships’ House that I agree with the intention of the amendment, which is why there are already safeguards in the Bill that restrict the disclosure of information. Clause 5 details that:

“Information can only be disclosed for the purpose of exercising the core functions”.


This restricts to whom and for what purpose the information can be disclosed. However, also including a prescriptive list of persons who can have information disclosed to them would further restrict the intent of the clause and the effectiveness of its scope in exercising the core functions detailed in Clause 1 of the Bill.

I hope to further reassure noble Lords that the PSFA’s enforcement unit would also have memoranda of understanding for each person it would be sharing information with, as well as maintaining a data protection impact assessment to ensure that this information is shared and held in adherence to data protection legislation. We have taken every step to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards in the disclosure of information, while balancing this with making the powers relevant and effective for an investigation. I hope that this reassures noble Lords and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response, to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for his support, and to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for their support for Amendment 3.

These are, on the face of it, small and technical matters, but they go to the heart of how the Bill will operate in practice. The smallest drafting choices, the subtlest omissions, can have real consequences for individuals caught up in these processes. We cannot allow the system to treat people as wrongdoers when nothing has been proven or concluded. The language of the Bill must make that absolutely clear. What may seem a flippant technicality in this Chamber can, in the real world, determine whether someone is wrongly stigmatised, denied banking services or placed under suspicion without cause. That is why these details matter, because fairness, clarity and restraint are not afterthoughts; they are the foundation of public confidence in the powers that this Bill creates. I thank the Minister for her engagement and hope that, as the Bill progresses, these small but important safeguards might be reflected in the final drafting. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, clearly, it would be best if something such as who these investigators are was in the Bill so that we have more detail. What we are being offered by these amendments is to require the Minister to outline in statutory guidance the process for appointing authorised investigators. This is by no means as good as having it in the Bill, but I believe that statutory guidance has to be carefully considered, because who is appointed to investigate should be decided not just with a flick of a pen but with more careful consideration. We on these Benches are broadly supportive of this amendment, because we believe it would add additional transparency to the appointment process.

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

My Lords, it is essential that any individual authorised to use the powers enshrined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is competent to discharge their duties under the law. We are committed to ensuring that this is the case for the authorised investigators created by the Bill. However, for legislation to require the publication of guidance on an internal appointment process is not only unnecessary but inconsistent with established practice in this area across other government departments. Government departments with similar investigative powers—for example, HMRC, the Home Office, Defra and even the Food Standards Agency—are not required to and do not publish statutory guidance on this point.

Let me reassure your Lordships’ House that Ministers take their responsibilities seriously. It is for this reason, as we have consistently affirmed, that no investigator will be authorised to exercise these powers until the Minister is entirely satisfied that they possess the requisite training and expertise. This training will cover: proficiency in relevant aspects of PACE, particularly the legal framework and applications of Section 8 and Section 9, and PACE codes of practice as far as they apply to the PSFA’s powers; proper procedures for applying for and lawfully executing warrants, including entry, search, seizure and handling digital information; and proper handling and retention of and access to evidence. Crucially, they will be trained in safeguards for individual rights during investigations and warrant execution, and in the proper handling and retention of and access to evidence.

Training will be provided by the College of Policing by means of a series of bespoke training courses, the first of which has commenced this week. Individuals will be required to demonstrate proficiency in all relevant facets of PACE before the Minister will authorise them as authorised investigators, with particular emphasis on the legal framework alongside its accompanying codes of practice. These authorised investigators will be members of the government counterfraud profession, and they will be required to meet the appropriate professional standards.

Therefore, I urge noble Lords to consider that the existing framework, bolstered by our commitment to rigorous training, already provides necessary assurances and that an amendment to codify this is unnecessary. I reassure and remind noble Lords that these powers cannot be exercised in any specific case unless a court has granted a warrant—the ultimate safeguard. I hope that this explanation reassures noble Lords and that the noble Baroness will therefore withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, we will not seek to divide the House on this amendment. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for whose support I am very grateful, but we will look in later groupings today at safeguards on the PACE powers granted to civil servants.

The amendment speaks to an important point, one that we have raised repeatedly throughout the passage of this Bill. We are granting serious powers to officials under this legislation—so-called authorised investigators, who will be able to exercise these powers, some of which are drawn from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. We can never forget that these are not minor administrative tools; they are police-level powers to search, seize and compel. If we are to trust such authority to civil servants then Parliament and the public deserve full oversight of how those powers are used and, quite simply, by whom. That is the question this amendment asks and it is one that must be answered clearly before this framework is implemented.

The process for authorising investigators, the standards they must meet and the accountability mechanisms that apply are not small matters of drafting detail; they go to the heart of public confidence in this regime. We appreciate that the Minister can tell us now how this process will work, but some sort of formal, documented statement setting this out would be immensely helpful as a way of us having this beyond the Minister’s word. While I trust the noble Baroness completely, we do not know if we can always trust her successor or her successor after that. Setting this out would allow everyone to know the standards and process and would ensure that these are being met, not only now but in the future.

In short, I am grateful to the Minister for her response, but I hope the Government will reflect seriously on this issue and possibly come back with something at Third Reading. The powers in Clause 7 are significant and so too must be the safeguards that accompany them. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

6: Clause 9, page 7, leave out lines 32 to 34
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and my amendment to clause 9, page 7, lines 38 and 39, would remove provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and came into force on 20 August 2025.

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

My Lords, I was on my honeymoon last week, which is why our amendments were tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. This time last week I was in Santorini—I told the noble Baroness I would get that in—and I think I have done awfully well to get to group 5.

The provisions of a Bill that recently passed in your Lordships’ House have a direct impact on how we draft and interpret legislation across government, including this Bill. As a result, we no longer need to state in the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill that provisions authorising the processing of information do not override existing legislation. This is now a routine requirement across all government Bills. We are therefore making a series of amendments across Part 1 and Part 2 of the Bill to ensure that the rules and safeguards set out in the new Act are properly implemented throughout the Bill. The amendments to the PAFER Bill are a necessary step to align with this new legislation, bringing legal clarity and consistency across all legislation. These are technical but required amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, we understand that these amendments are technical in nature, designed to ensure that the Bill is properly aligned with the changes made by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. We therefore appreciate that these are tidying amendments that do not alter the policy substance of the clause but simply ensure legal coherence. I thank the Minister for bringing them forward—and I hope she enjoyed her honeymoon.

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

My Lords, my honeymoon was fabulous.

I am grateful for the support of the House on these consequential amendments, following the Data (Use and Access) Act coming into force. I hope that noble Lords will provide their support to these amendments.

Amendment 6 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for raising the important issues around annual reporting and the PSFA—both the use of powers conferred on it by the Bill and the extent of fraud against public authorities—as well as her point on the implementation of direct deduction orders, particularly concerning the regulations, the publication of consultation outcomes and the impact these powers may have on the banking industry. While I agree with the intent behind these amendments, unfortunately they are duplicative or would otherwise create an unnecessary burden for the PSFA. I will address each in turn.

Amendment 16 would require that the outcome of any consultation required by regulation-making powers for direct deduction orders in Clause 38(6) is laid before Parliament prior to the implementation of regulations. This amendment is duplicative: where a consultation is required, the Explanatory Memorandum of the relevant statutory instrument must detail and consider the outcome of that consultation exercise. Furthermore, the Cabinet Office consultation principles also set out that where a consultation concerns a statutory instrument, His Majesty’s Government should publish responses before or at the same time as the instrument is laid. We completely agree with the noble Baroness, which is why the provisions are there.

Amendment 17 seeks to hold the PSFA to commit to

“an impact assessment covering projected costs and effects on the operational capacity of banks”,

should any changes be made to the means by which deduction orders are processed by way of regulation, as set out in Clause 38. This amendment is also duplicative, as statutory instruments require that the impact on the relevant sector is considered and set out in the Explanatory Memoranda—even if that is to say no impact is expected—with reasons given as to why. Where the impact is expected to exceed £10 million, a full and separate impact assessment must be prepared and published alongside the SI.

The Government are extremely mindful of the burdens this Bill places on businesses, including the banking sector. We too want to ensure that they are not subjected to disproportionate burden or costs in complying with these measures, and we want to assure noble Lords that the PSFA is working on how to effectively operationalise the recovery powers in partnership with representatives of the banking sector. Throughout the development of the Bill, we have tried to strike the right balance between requiring actions from banks in a fair and proportionate way and achieving our policy intent of recouping vital public funds lost to fraud and error. That is why there has been sustained engagement with key representatives of the sector including UK Finance, individual banks, building societies, His Majesty’s Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority. We know that the sector is supportive of the Bill’s objectives from the evidence provided by UK Finance in Committee in the other place. We have benefited from the sector’s operational insights and, as discussed on the previous group, we have tabled a number of amendments as a direct result, to ease the implementation and delivery of the recovery powers.

Amendment 22 would require the PSFA to undertake a review after 12 months on the cost to banks of complying with provisions under Part 1 of the Bill. The Bill’s published impact assessment—which sets out all expected costs to business, including banks, from the PSFA’s measures—has been green-rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee and sets out, where it has been possible to do so, the minimal expected costs to businesses, including banks, of the measures in Part 1 of the Bill. Provisions already exist under Clause 24 for banks to be able to deduct administrative costs that would offset what the review would report on. This amendment would create disproportionate administrative burden on the PSFA when, candidly, it should be using its resource to pursue those who defraud the public purse.

Amendment 26 would require a report on the use of powers by the PSFA to be published and laid in Parliament. I know the noble Baroness genuinely cares about ministerial oversight and accountability of officers using these new powers. I assure her that in addition to the reports that will be commissioned from inspectorates —such as His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services—the independent person appointed in line with Clause 65 will proactively review the PSFA’s investigative use of the powers, including their efficiency and effectiveness. We have previously stated that these would be annual reports, and they will be laid before Parliament.

Lastly, I turn to Amendment 112, on annual reporting. This would require the PSFA to publish and lay in Parliament an annual report on the extent of fraud against public authorities based on the Government’s internal estimates. The PSFA already oversees the counterfraud performance of ministerial departments and public bodies and already publishes a report on the extent of fraud against public authorities through its fraud landscape reports. These set out levels of detected, prevented and recovered fraud and error as reported by departments and public bodies to the Government’s Counter Fraud Function’s centre of expertise. For transparency, these are now published online. We expect the next one to be published before the end of the financial year and can commit to sharing this with Members who have spoken in this debate.

I think I have touched on all the points raised, although there was a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on other safeguards. It may be helpful to reassure your Lordships’ House that we have the following additional safeguards in place. Authorised officers and investigators will be trained extensively and will be permitted to use the powers only once the training has been completed. They will follow detailed procedures and have strong guidance; for instance, on how to assess and handle potentially vulnerable suspects. There will be rights to make representations, request an internal review and appeal decisions through First-tier and Upper Tribunals across the civil penalty, debt recovery and information gathering powers. In addition, we will consult on and publish a code of practice detailing the calculation and application of penalties issued where fraud is found and where there is non-compliance with the information sharing and gathering requirements and debt recovery powers within the Bill.

I hope that reassures your Lordships’ House and the noble Baroness that we are already taking steps to achieve the same aim, and she can therefore withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Vaux, for their support for some of the amendments. I thank the Minister for the consideration she has given as well.

At the heart of this debate is a simple but important point: if we are to make the system work, we have to work with the banks, not simply through them. They are, in effect, being recruited as operational arms of the state, helping to investigate, enforce and recover public money. That partnership brings responsibilities on both sides. These amendments were never about creating obstacles; they were about ensuring that transparency, consultation and accountability are built into the process. The banks are being asked to play a vital role, and we must show them that their experience, concerns and costs will be reflected in how the Government engage with and implement the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, is entirely right that public authorities responsible for spending taxpayers’ money must manage their fraud risks carefully. While we expect the enforcement powers in this Bill to be a powerful force against public sector fraud, prevention of fraud by designing spending programmes and fraud controls in the first place is the most important tool that we have.

I shall set out the work that the PSFA already does to hold public authorities to account for their fraud risk management performance and set out some ways in which we can go further. I hope that, in doing so, I shall convince the noble Baroness that her amendment is unnecessary. It is already a requirement for major new areas of public spending to have a fraud risk assessment; that is set out in both Managing Public Money, which tells accounting officers their duties, and the Treasury’s Green Book, which details how to appraise a project. The PSFA scrutinises those fraud risk assessments, holding departments to account both for the absence of risk assessment and for fraud risk assessments that do not meet the standard. Some 31 organisations have so far been through the PSFA’s rigorous assurance regime.

The highest-risk government schemes receive additional scrutiny of their fraud risk management practices on a regular ongoing basis. The highest risk here is not justified only with reference to the size of spending, although that is important, but with the scale of fraud risks that a programme faces. That is in addition to the PSFA’s broader scrutiny of departmental performance and capability. The PSFA assesses and holds public bodies to account for: their compliance with the counterfraud functional standard; the make-up of their counterfraud workforce and level of investment; the ambition and performance against their impact targets; and their ability to collect and report to the PSFA on all frauds against them.

The PSFA publishes the fraud landscape reports. These outline the main risks and issues across government, including the levels of detected fraud and corruption, and associated areas in departments and public bodies, excluding tax and welfare, as these are published elsewhere.

However, publishing fraud risk assessments, as this amendment calls for, would provide a how-to guide for fraudsters. The PSFA works closely with the National Audit Office, which can, as it chooses, offer independent scrutiny and has done so in reports, such as Using Data and Analytics to Tackle Fraud and Error, in July, and An Overview of the Impact of Fraud and Error on Public Funds for the New Parliament 2023-24, in November last year. In short, much of what the noble Baroness calls for in this amendment is already happening, but she is quite right—as this is fundamentally a question of protecting taxpayers’ money—that we can go further, so we are.

First, fraud measurement is most sophisticated in HMRC and DWP, where detailed audits and sampling are possible and proportionate. In other areas of government, effective fraud measurement is typically prohibitively expensive. Fraud is a hidden crime, but the noble Baroness is right that we need to do more here. The PSFA is pressing for a fraud measurement plan to be put in place for the highest-risk schemes across government, and we will make those highest-risk schemes report to the PSFA on their levels of fraud and error. This will include what has been estimated, detected, recovered and prevented. We are now also asking the highest-risk schemes to report on levels of counterfraud resourcing so we can assure that resourcing matches the threat.

Secondly, accountability is critical. The PSFA will redouble its efforts to hold departments to account for substandard fraud risk management. Where fraud risk assessments are of poor quality, where departments are falling behind on the counterfraud standards or where counterfraud workforces are insufficient or made up of the wrong skills, Cabinet Office Ministers and their departmental counterparts will ensure accountability and drive improvement. The action that the noble Baroness calls for is therefore already under way or is something that we recognise as a gap and are taking action on.

The noble Baroness is right to call for action, but the appropriate place to pursue that action is not in this legislation but through the PSFA’s published mandate, which we will look at again in light of the noble Baroness’s points to check that it is fit for purpose. I would welcome a discussion with her and my officials on what changes to our published mandate would achieve her goals—the invitation will obviously also be open to all noble Lords who have an interest.

We are trying to make sure that the counterfraud landscape is fit for purpose across departments. We are both listening to the comments of your Lordships’ House as well as progressing with the Bill. I therefore hope that that provides reassurance to your Lordships’ House and specifically to the noble Baroness, and I hope that she can withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I listened with the close interest to the Minister’s response, which it seems to me can be crystallised in a few words: that my noble friend Lady Finn is absolutely correct; her amendment is on the button, but officials in the Cabinet Office regard it as simply too much work to implement and do not want to have this actually in the Bill, but to have some sort of arrangement, some side deal or side letter to address it. When we are dealing with sums of public money as significant as those acknowledged in the legislation, surely it would be better to accept the amendment because the Minister has acknowledged that it is spot on and there is not a single element in the logic put forward by the Opposition Front Bench with which she takes issue.

The only possible objection that the Minister raised is that a public assessment of fraud risk would be a how-to guide for fraudsters. Surely the fraudsters do not need support; it is other departments that need support in dealing with this issue. If she cannot accept the logic and power of the amendment, will she commit to coming back to the House within six or 12 months and reporting, if it is the case that the proposal that she puts forward is inadequate, that she will accept the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lady Finn? As is clear from the paucity of the arguments provided for her by her officials, there is no gainsaying the force with which my noble friend Lady Finn made her case.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I have a huge amount of time and respect for the noble Lord, which is why I am smiling. He knows better than to suggest that I can bring forward and accept an amendment in 12 months’ time, after the legislation has already passed. However, he is right, and I agree with the principle and intention of everything the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, proposes. My argument is that this is wrong vehicle. It is the published mandate and the role of the PSFA as it exists—which was established by the previous Government—that we should open up, to ensure that it is fit for purpose as a cross-government vehicle and outlines its clear objective. That is the offer that I made to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks and the careful consideration she has given this issue. I am really disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has decided that he can no longer support the amendment. He warmly welcomed a similar amendment in Committee, describing it as

“a comprehensive and rigorous approach to fraud risk management for public authorities overseeing significant spending schemes”.—[Official Report, 11/6/25; col. GC 243.]

At its core, this amendment is about building a culture of responsibility and transparency across government—one in which fraud prevention is owned by every department and every accounting officer, not simply outsourced to the PSFA. We cannot afford a system in which the authority becomes a convenient safety net, while departments step back from the task of managing their own risk. As we said in Committee, let us return to first principles: public money must be protected, not just recovered after it is lost. This must be a whole-of-government effort, driven by evidence, accountability and openness. Departments need to know how they are performing and Parliament needs to be able to see this. That means regular, comparable data that is published, verified and available for scrutiny by both Houses.

We appreciate the Minister’s response and the spirit in which it was given, but I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Gove: we do not believe that the reporting requirements set out in her answer are adequate. We need to see real movement on how these efforts are assessed—which departments are performing well, which are falling behind and how that performance is being improved. This information must be made public and open for review, and we know that this can be done without compromising ongoing investigations.

Transparency and accountability are not threats to enforcement; they are its foundation. This amendment goes to the very heart of what this Bill should be about: creating a genuine culture of responsibility across the public sector when it comes to tackling fraud. For too long, fraud management has been treated as a technical or procedural exercise, buried within internal reporting chains and obscured by bureaucratic complexity. The effect has been that too many departments and agencies see fraud as someone else’s problem, something to be passed up to the centre or delegated down to a third-party body such as the PSFA. However, the fight against fraud cannot be subcontracted. It has to begin and end with the public authorities themselves, which are entrusted with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

Our amendment seeks to ensure that accountability is clear, transparent and public. It would require departments not merely to report internally but to publish their own risk assessments, have their fraud rates independently verified and be held publicly to account for their performance. In the long run, the success of the PSFA should not be measured by how much it does but by how little it needs to do because public authorities have developed the systems, culture and leadership to manage fraud effectively themselves. Yet as the Bill stands, that is not the direction of travel. This amendment is therefore essential to shift the incentives away from centralised dependency and towards departmental ownership, transparency and responsibility.

I am extremely grateful for the offer of further discussions from the Minister, but this is a matter of principle and effectiveness. We cannot have great power, as the Government are proposing, without great responsibility. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

23: Clause 66, page 35, line 29, leave out “may” and insert “must”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 66, page 35, line 30, would mean that the Minister must provide information where the information is reasonably required for the purposes of independent reviews carried out under clause 65.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I now turn to government Amendments 23, 24, 68 and 69, regarding the disclosure of information to the independent reviewers. These amendments rightly respond to the challenge put forward in Committee by noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady Kramer, to provide all relevant information to independent reviewers. I am pleased to make these amendments today to demonstrate this Government’s commitment to supporting the independent reviewers in the PSFA and the DWP to carry out robust and transparent reviews.

On the PSFA side, government Amendments 23 and 24 will oblige the Minister to disclose all reasonable information to independent reviewers appointed under Clause 65 for the purposes of carrying out the review. The independent reviewer will determine what information is reasonably required. With regard to the DWP, in Committee my noble friend Lady Sherlock made it clear that the DWP Secretary of State will provide the independent reviewer of eligibility verification measures with all relevant material so that they can carry out their review. Recognising the underlying concern and to clarify our intent, we are today bringing forward government Amendments 68 and 69, which oblige the Secretary of State to disclose necessary information to the independent reviewer of EVM for the purposes of carrying out the review.

To be clear, for both sets of amendments substituting the word “must” for the word “may” does not signal a change in our approach. The Government have always been committed to providing all relevant information that is reasonably required to the respective independent reviewers to support the open and transparent use of powers and to promote accountability. These amendments today reinforce that commitment and make it crystal clear.

I hope that these amendments reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government will provide all relevant information to the independent reviewers, and I encourage noble Lords to back them. I beg to move.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, we have a lot of discussions in this House about the difference between “may” and “must”. I think in this case it is very important. It is essential that the independent reviewers, who are such an important safeguard throughout this Bill, are provided with all the information that they require, so I am delighted and thank the Minister for putting forward those amendments. My joy, however, is not unbridled, because she has caveated the “must” with

“where the information is reasonably required”.

Nowhere in this does it tell us who decides what is reasonable in this case. That opens the possibility of disagreement between the independent reviewer and the department, or the Minister, as to what is reasonable. That is regrettable. It would be better if the independent reviewer decided what they wanted, was given everything they required and it was up to them to decide what was reasonable. This provides the opportunity for doubt and disagreement, and we will come on to that in a later amendment next week. However, overall, I welcome these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

We look forward to hearing from the Minister that this will be corrected in due course and that the Government will bring forward a further amendment to ensure consistency and fairness across the Bill. For now, however, we thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for tabling these important amendments and the Government for having listened and acted upon the concerns that were raised in Committee.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions of noble Lords to this group. I will respond specifically and reassure the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, about who will decide and how it will be decided what constitutes relevant material for the independent reviewer under Clause 65 and what happens if they disagree.

The independent reviewer under Clause 65 will determine what information is reasonably required from the PSFA. They must be able to demonstrate to the Minister that the information requested will allow them to carry out the review and how. What is and is not relevant for the independent EVM reviewer is a matter of fact. Information must be given to the reviewer only if it will allow them to carry out their functions as prescribed by Section 6 of new Section 121DC of the legislation. If required, the independent EVM reviewer must be able to demonstrate to the Secretary of State that any information they request will allow them to carry out their review.

There may be rare examples of information that the Minister or Secretary of State may not share, such as information relating to national security, should they deem that it would be unreasonable to do so. Should there be a disagreement between the Minister and the independent reviewer, a resolution mechanism will be agreed between the reviewer and government. Ultimately, the Minister may not disclose the information, and in extreme cases, any ministerial decision to withhold information could be subject to judicial review. The independent reviewer will also be able to comment on any information withheld from them in the report which will be laid before Parliament.

In response to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, as to why “must” is not across the Bill and why the DWP has not echoed this requirement in Clause 89, this is, as the noble Baroness has mentioned, going to be debated in a forthcoming group. However, I note that this divergence arises from the construction of Part 1 of the Bill. Unlike the DWP, the PSFA has one clause, Clause 65, relating to all independent reviewers. We have noted that we intend to meet the duty of Clause 65 by appointing a new independent reviewer to review PSFA use of powers and by commissioning HMICFRS—I am not sure what is easier to say, the full name or the acronym—to conduct inspections of our new investigative powers and end-to-end case processes.

We are keen to let the independent reviewer whom the Government will appoint have access to all reasonable and relevant information, which may include live cases. We would not want HMICFRS to consider live cases given the significant disclosure burden. However, in the PSFA’s case, given the small volume of cases, we believe that we can handle that challenge should an issue arise. With DWP, it really is in terms of scale and access to live cases. With the PSFA, we think that we can manage the difference.

I hope that those points have reassured noble Lords. Obviously, we will continue to debate some of these issues next week. I am grateful for this short debate and any support for the government amendments. I hope others will support these important amendments, which will help to improve transparency and promote accountability.

Amendment 23 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the main focus of my remarks in this group will be on Amendment 35. This amendment, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, would insert a new clause after Clause 70 to require the appointment of an independent reviewer to assess how the Public Sector Fraud Authority uses the PACE powers—the investigatory powers derived from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which the Bill proposes to confer upon it.

Under the amendment, the independent reviewer would be tasked with examining how these powers are used in practice, including their effect on police time, their operational impact, whether they have improved the efficiency of investigations and whether any complaints or disciplinary issues have arisen in relation to their use. The reviewer would report to the Minister within five years of the powers coming into force and annually thereafter, with those reports laid before both Houses of Parliament.

We have brought this amendment forward as a genuine compromise. We on these Benches want to work with the Government to ensure that the Bill succeeds in its purpose, which is to strengthen our national effort to combat fraud and to deliver a substantial and lasting reduction in losses to the public purse. We are not opposed to giving investigators the tools they need to do that job, but if the Government are still intent, as we understand they are, on extending PACE powers to civil servants within the PSFA, then those powers must be accompanied by robust and transparent oversight.

This amendment is designed to provide precisely that. It is a balanced and proportionate measure that ensures accountability without hampering operational effectiveness. The Government have been clear in their reasoning for granting these powers. They have said that it will save police time and resources, that it will allow investigators to act more efficiently, and that powers will be used responsibly and, where necessary, in conjunction with the police. Our amendment would simply hold the Government to those assurances. It asks them to demonstrate through an independent review mechanism that that these powers are indeed delivering on the objectives they have set out.

If the Government are confident that the PSFA will use these powers effectively and responsibly, and I have no reason to doubt their confidence, then they should have no hesitation in supporting this amendment. It would help them prove their case. The amendment gives the Government five years before the first review—ample time for the new arrangements to bed in, for the PSFA to become established, and for the data to show whether the powers are working as intended. Thereafter, annual reporting would ensure continued transparency and accountability.

It is clear that this amendment is not an attempt to frustrate the Bill—quite the opposite. It is an attempt to make it stronger, fairer and more credible. Oversight and review are not obstacles to effective governance; they are its foundation. If these powers are to be trusted, they must also be tested. We are therefore offering the Government a constructive path forward to accept a mechanism that ensures evidence-based assessment of how these powers are used, whether they are proportionate, and whether they are delivering measurable benefits.

If the Government’s case is correct that these powers will save police time, strengthen enforcement and be exercised with care, then this amendment would simply enshrine a process that will confirm that success. It is a sensible, good faith proposal that supports the Government’s stated objectives and ensures that Parliament and, indeed, the public can have confidence that this expansion of powers is justified, proportionate and effective.

If the Government are confident in their case, they will support this amendment. It is drafted to aid them, not to hinder. It is to help them demonstrate transparently and independently that these powers are being used well and wisely. If they are not minded to support us, I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to set out to the House what alternative proposals the Government are considering to address these concerns. If the Government have no alternative, then I ask the Minister whether we on these Benches might come back at a later stage with a new amendment designed to address them. We cannot forget that we are talking about substantial powers which will be wielded against people in this country outside these walls. If we do not legislate responsibly now, we risk the well-being of those people to whom we all owe a duty. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, it could almost be that we are back in Committee. It is the “Baroness Finn, Baroness Anderson show”. I do not think many people would pay, but still.

I welcome the continued and unwavering commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, to independent oversight. I once again reassure her that the Bill as it stands delivers rigorous and robust safeguards and oversight, addressing the intent behind these amendments efficiently without the need for duplicative amendments.

On Amendment 25, internal reviews are important as they provide a straightforward and affordable way to present a challenge to decision-making. They are an impartial element of many review processes. Under the current drafting, internal reviews can be requested to challenge, for instance, whether a direct deduction order is the most appropriate form of repayment or whether the deduction amount is fair and affordable, as well as the use of other powers in the Bill. The reviewing officer will be a highly trained authorised officer of a higher grade than the original decision-maker. They may decide to uphold, vary or revoke the direct deduction order. This decision will be based on an assessment of the materials held and any relevant new information provided. Crucially, should a review not provide satisfaction, there are further independent appeal rights through the First-tier Tribunal.

On Amendment 35, the independent oversight of the use of the powers under Part 1, including PACE powers, is so central to the passage of this Bill that we already have clauses in place to mandate it. As we have said, Clauses 65 and 66 require that an independent person appointed by the Minister undertakes reviews of the use of powers contained in this legislation. The independent person will conduct reviews to consider whether the exercise of the powers is in keeping with the legislation, codes of practice and relevant guidance. They will produce a report of their findings for the Minister, including any recommendations they deem appropriate. The Minister is then required to publish the report and lay it before Parliament.

As we have stated, the Government intend to meet the duty imposed by this clause in two ways. First, the Government will commission His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services—HMICFRS—to inspect the PSFA’s use of the new investigative powers, including end-to-end investigative processing. Secondly, the Government are creating a new position for an independent person to whom the PSFA oversight team will report. The independent person will carry out reviews and report on whether the PSFA’s use of the powers in this Bill is in keeping with the legislation, codes of practice and relevant guidance, and consider areas where HMICFRS or other oversight bodies have not already reported. The employment of an independent person will also fully comply with the Cabinet Office Governance Code on Public Appointments, which is overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Clause 66 provides for the arrangements of timing of reviews between the Minister and the independent person.

In summary, the amendments are duplicative at heart. The right to independent assessment is already built into the legislation, via appeal and in the form of the independent reviewer to be appointed to review the use of the Bill’s powers under Clause 65. These would not require the addition of extra costs, people or processes that Amendments 25 and 35 would entail.

However, the Government note that Amendment 35 specifies particular areas of focus for a reviewer beyond what is in the Bill. Your Lordships’ House has also raised other areas that it would like an independent reviewer to consider. We have been clear that the independent reviewer appointed under Clauses 65 and 66 will have discretion to decide how and where they focus their reviews. Even so, to ensure that the House’s concerns are heard, I am committing to compiling a list of all the concerns raised here and in the other place to put before the independent reviewer for consideration once appointed. I will also request that the independent reviewer meet with all parliamentarians who have raised areas where they think his or her work should be focused. That way, the independent reviewer and the report they will lay before Parliament will be certain to meet Parliament’s priorities for scrutiny of the use of these powers. Given these assurances and this additional option, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments, as the purpose is already met by the Bill as it stands and the commitments that I have just made.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I do not think that I have followed the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, in the past and it is a great pleasure to do so. I am happy to say that there are still one or two things left to say.

This Statement is clearly an attempt to put to rest the issue of these botched prosecutions, or non-prosecutions. So far, however, it has not only failed in that ambition; at the same time, it has resurfaced other issues regarding China and our relationship that generate increasing concern. Regarding the prosecutions, and given the Minister’s Statement and the Government’s adamant view that they have not concealed evidence or suppressed anything, it would be easy for the Government to publish all the relevant documentation. They have nothing to hide; we know that—they have told us, and we trust them. Will the Government publish all the relevant documents, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the correspondence between all officials, politicians and advisers involved with the CPS?

It is time for the Government to properly protect the interests of our citizens so, working with the CPS, will the Government look at all legislative options to make sure that these two individuals have their time in the court, face a jury and are able to plead their case? These are the ways that the Government can push this issue to rest: by openness and actually seeking to prosecute.

More widely, this case has exposed appalling gaps in the Government’s willingness to challenge China’s considerable espionage efforts, but I am pleased that they recognise that we have a problem. The Statement is clear:

“We fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security”,


it says, but their actions fly in the face of that reality.

A former director-general of the Security Service has warned that Chinese espionage is being carried out on an industrial scale, including by seeking influence over Parliament, as well as in industry and education. This has been clear for some time. That was why we warned that exempting China from the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme under the National Security Act was a terrible mistake by this Government.

Will the Government now undertake to include all Chinese officials, Hong Kong special administrative region officials and Chinese Communist Party-linked organisations in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? More than that, the Government, supported by the Conservatives, exempted government administration and public bodies in their entirety from the FIRS scheme. Will the Minister now undertake to listen to the intelligence community and include people performing in these activities in the enhanced layer of FIRS?

Finally, as we have heard, it is now time for the Government to come to their senses and block the planning application for the Chinese mega-embassy. We know that, through its embassy in the UK, China has been co-ordinating the transnational repression of people who are carrying out normal and legal activities in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister confirm that the intelligence agencies were not consulted before the Government approved China’s new super-embassy in London, and will the Government now take heed and halt that project until a full national security review is completed?

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

My Lords, that is a significant number of questions, which I have written down and now lost—thank you—and I will endeavour to answer all of them. I will also review Hansard and make sure that I correspond on anything that I am unsuccessful in responding to. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their participation and genuine interest in this. Let us be very clear that matters of espionage, especially those that have seemingly been conducted within your Lordships’ House, but also within Parliament, are of the utmost seriousness.

I want to begin by reinforcing that this Government remain extremely disappointed by the collapse of the Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry trial. During yesterday’s PNQ, I committed to update your Lordships’ House on the facts surrounding the collapse of this trial, as well as government actions to counter state threats—as my honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Security Minister, also made clear yesterday. The decision not to prosecute was made independently by the CPS. It is a bedrock principle of our democracy that decisions of the CPS are independent of Ministers and the Government.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has written to the chairs of the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee, setting out that the CPS decision not to take this case to trial was because the evidential test was not met. As the Prime Minister—who, if we are citing former DPPs, I remind noble Lords is also a former DPP—has stated, the policy position of the current Government was “immaterial” to the CPS’s assessment.

The legal test required consideration of the Government’s policy at the time the alleged offences were committed—between December 2021 and February 2023—when Members opposite were in Government. At that time, the previous Conservative Government described China as a “systematic challenge” in the Integrated Review 2021 and an “epoch-defining challenge” in the Integrated Review Refresh 2023. They did not designate China as a threat or an enemy; that is at the crux of the issue.

I want to be clear, and I am genuinely horrified by the suggestion, that accusations that the Government concealed evidence, withdrew witnesses or in any way restricted the ability of witnesses to provide evidence are entirely untrue. The Director of Public Prosecutions has given his assurance that the CPS was not influenced by any external party, any member of this Government or any senior civil servant or special adviser. As the Security Minister set out in detail yesterday, evidence was provided to the CPS by the Deputy National Security Adviser, who is highly respected and has the full support of this Government. All the evidence provided by the Deputy National Security Adviser was based on the law at the time of the offences and the policy position of the Conservative Government at that time. The DNSA did not materially change his evidence and was under no pressure from anybody to do so.

On the question raised by both the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox—which was also raised yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Gove—it is not for me to make decisions about the publication of evidence that may be used in further ongoing legal processes. To do so, or not, would likely affect witnesses in coming forward and hamper the interests of justice.

I understand that many noble Lords are also rightly interested in the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the facts around the collapse of this case. The Government’s approach will always be to make as much information available as possible through the appropriate processes, given the national security considerations. I welcome that the National Security Adviser will be giving a private briefing to the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy next month.

On our approach to China, this Government are unequivocal. China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyberattacks and foreign interference to the transnational repression of Hong Kongers. This Government fully recognise the gravity of these threats. However, we must also recognise that China presents opportunities. It is the world’s second-largest economy. To act in the UK’s best interests, we must adopt a long-term strategic approach, as the last Government did. This means a consistent and pragmatic approach to economic engagement without compromising our national security.

On some of the other specifics that have been raised, I want to respond to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the Chinese embassy. No such decision has been made. The noble Lord knows that, throughout the process, we have been clear that we have considered the breadth of national security considerations and have publicly outlined necessary security mitigations that we would need to see to support an application. National security has been our core priority throughout the process. A final decision will be made in due course by Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in their quasi-judicial role, and we expect a decision imminently. We do not underestimate the impact of national security as part of that decision.

As I also said yesterday in response to the PNQ, no decision has been made on China regarding the FIRS scheme. We are talking about a scheme that has been undertaken for only three and a half months. No decision has yet been made to exempt or include China, but a decision will be brought forward to your Lordships’ House.

On the specific question of the 1911 Act, the legislation the CPS uses for arrests and prosecutions is a matter for that agency. I do not have access to that data; that would be for the CPS. To clarify for noble Lords, there is a reason why many hours were spent in your Lordships’ House debating the National Security Bill in 2023—which was supported by my colleagues too on a cross-party basis—to update the Official Secrets Act. It is unfortunate that the 1911 Act was the basis of this prosecution, but there is a reason why we had to update it, and that is because of the very definition of “espionage” and “enemy”. This is a piece of legislation that was written prior to World War I. The world has changed, the threat level has changed and how people undertake threats has significantly changed.

I think I have touched on all the evidence. The Deputy National Security Adviser operated within the confines and constraints of the policy direction of the previous Government. We are fully committed to his work. He can operate only within the confines of the situation of the moment and, on that basis, there is nothing more for him to answer.

I reiterate this Government’s unwavering commitment to our national security. Yesterday, MI5’s National Protective Security Authority launched new guidance, building on previous guidance—it was not brand new—to protect our democratic institutions from foreign interference. I urge all noble Lords to read this vital guidance. Furthermore, the Government continue to hold China state-linked actors accountable for cyber espionage. The National Cyber Security Centre recently co-sealed a US-led technical advisory calling out Chinese state-sponsored actors for targeting global networks, including in the UK. We will continue to take all necessary action to tackle state threats, including those from China. That is the primary responsibility of government.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”

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

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


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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

May I ask the noble Baroness to clarify the answer she gave to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the important subject of transparency? He asked whether the Government will publish correspondence between officials, politicians and advisers involved with the CPS. The noble Baroness’s answer was exactly the same as that given yesterday by Mr Jarvis, the Minister in the Commons:

“it is not for me to make decisions about the publication of evidence that may be used in any further ongoing legal processes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/25; col. 70.]

My question is: what ongoing legal processes? This criminal prosecution has ended and it cannot be resurrected, and there is therefore no reason not to inform the public of all the details of this so that any concerns can be removed.

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

I thank the noble Lord for his question. Obviously, his level of expertise in our legal processes is much more significant than mine, but neither he nor I know what plans the CPS has for any future prosecution.

Chinese Espionage: Parliament

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of their ability to protect Parliament from Chinese espionage in light of the collapse of recent legal proceedings.

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

My Lords, the UK Government remain steadfast in their commitment to reducing the threat from foreign espionage targeting UK domestic institutions and continue to drive cross-government work to respond to the threat through the Defending Democracy Taskforce. The National Cyber Security Centre and the Centre for the Protection of Critical National Infrastructure produce advice and guidance for Members of both Houses of Parliament. MI5’s National Protective Security Authority has today—22 minutes ago—launched new guidance to protect the UK’s democratic institutions from foreign interference.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome and will look at the action she has recommended and mentioned. I am sorry that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is not in her place to answer this Question.

Will the noble Baroness agree that no step must be left unturned to safeguard the integrity of our Parliament from espionage by foreign state actors, and notably the malign and relentless activity of China? Any suggestion of executive action—or inaction—that may have led to the collapse of these proceedings must be investigated thoroughly and unequivocally condemned.

Will the noble Baroness give the House a categorical assurance that, if any evidence occurs of Chinese targeting of Members of your Lordships’ House—past, present or future—she will press colleagues in government at the highest level to ensure that those involved will be brought to court and made to answer for their actions: no ifs, no buts and certainly no secret quid pro quos?

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

I thank the noble Lord for his question. He is absolutely right that of course we would expect full prosecution of anybody who undertakes espionage against Members of your Lordships’ House or anyone else working in Parliament. I want to make it very clear that we are very disappointed by the CPS’s decision; it was made by the CPS as an independent body. Noble Lords will be aware that a Statement will be made by the Security Minister this afternoon, which we will have the opportunity to discuss later this week, about the actions that this Government are taking.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the former director-general of the Security Service has warned the country that Chinese espionage has been carried out on an industrial scale, including by seeking influence over Parliament, as well as on industry and education. That is why I and these Benches warned that exempting China from the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme under the National Security Act was a strategic mistake by the Government. The Government made another strategic error by deciding, with the Conservative Party’s support, to exempt government, administration and public bodies in their entirety from the FIRS scheme—I warned them about that on 5 June. Does the Minister not agree that new guidance is fine, but it is hamstrung if the Government and the Official Opposition continue their support for the exemption from the FIRS scheme of the very areas we know China seeks to influence?

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

The noble Lord has consistently made these arguments. I confirm what has previously been said in your Lordships’ House: no decision has yet been made on specifying China on the enhanced tier of the scheme. As noble Lords would expect, my officials continue to consider whether and how the enhanced tier can be used to provide greater protection for areas where China and other countries pose significant threats. Adding countries to the enhanced tier requires the consideration of a broad range of interests and any decisions will be brought before Parliament in the usual way.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, the Government stated that the decision not to proceed with a prosecution was entirely that of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Will the Minister acknowledge, in the light of the director’s subsequent statement, that the Government were being economical with the truth?

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

While I have huge respect for the noble Lord, I absolutely will not. This was an independent decision made by the CPS: there was no ministerial or special adviser involvement. The Deputy National Security Adviser, without interference, gave three different witness statements to the CPS for its use. This is not a matter of us not assisting the case: this is an independent matter for the CPS.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while all embassies have spies in them, the larger the embassy, the more spies can fit in? Is it appropriate to have an embassy the size of the one that has been proposed for China?

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

My Lords, I never thought I would be discussing real estate and espionage, but we find ourselves in a strange set of circumstances. I thank my noble friend. As he is very well aware, the decision about the future location of the Chinese embassy is a matter for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and a decision will be brought forward in due course.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, do the Government accept that China is a security threat to our country?

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

The noble Lord is famous for asking such straightforward and easy questions. The Government are clear that our relationship with China is complex: we are to compete, to challenge and to co-operate. Choosing not to engage with China is no choice at all. Let us be clear: state agents of the Chinese Government have acted in ways that pose a potential threat to the United Kingdom. We continue to have conversations and to engage in a collaborative way with our Five Eyes partners to counter that challenge.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that spying by the Chinese is not a new phenomenon but has been conducted under previous Governments as well?

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

The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point, including in relation to this case, which allegedly occurred under the previous Government. China and other nations seeking to get information and access to Members of your Lordships’ House is nothing new.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister said in answer to my noble friend Lord Butler that the decision not to continue the prosecution was entirely a matter for the DPP, with no involvement whatever from any special adviser. Surely it is the role of the National Security Adviser to advise in relation to such a matter, and for that to be taken strongly into account by the DPP.

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

As I have previously said, the Deputy National Security Adviser, on behalf of the Government, gave three different witness statements, as requested by the CPS and the DPP. We gave, and will continue to give, for all prosecutions, full evidence as available. It was a matter for the DPP to determine whether there was enough evidence to proceed and in this matter it chose not to.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Does my noble friend recall that we once had a Chancellor of the Exchequer called George Osborne? Among the many things he said—this was 10 years ago, in the dying days of the Osborne-Cameron Government—was that we should “stick together” with China and

“make it a golden decade for both our countries”

and that the aim was to make China the second-largest trading partner for Britain. All parties are entitled to change their policies, but does my noble friend have any information on when the Conservative Party made this 180-degree shift?

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

I very much thank my noble friend for his question. Let me be clear about some of the interesting comments in terms of where the Opposition have been. When he was Foreign Secretary, the right honourable James Cleverly, MP, who I have a huge amount of time for, called the decision to sum up China in one word as a “threat” as

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”.

Most importantly for your Lordships’ House, the Leader of the Opposition, when Business Secretary, said that we

“should not be describing China as a foe”.

When in government, the Opposition had some interesting views on China; so did some of their Ministers. On that basis, I think we need to be very clear about what we are talking about.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her answers. Is it the case that the witness statements of the Deputy National Security Adviser will be published? Is it the case that any communications between the National Security Adviser and the Deputy National Security Adviser relating to this case will be published? Is it the case that the National Security Adviser and the Deputy National Security Adviser will make themselves available to a committee of this House, or to a Joint Committee, in order to explain their decisions? Is it the case that the Attorney-General, who has ministerial responsibility for the Crown Prosecution Service, will share information with this House about how that decision was reached? If not, why not?

--- Later in debate ---

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

The noble Lord asks a series of questions—at Question Time there is typically just one—which I suggest that we discuss when we have the Statement repeat from the other end, because my honourable friend the Security Minister will be on his feet on this very issue within the next two hours.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, if China is considered to be a security threat, will the Government end ownership of UK infrastructure by entities connected with the Chinese Government? That kind of infiltration formed part of the previous Government’s privatisation policies.

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

My noble friend raises an interesting point, which has been discussed many times in your Lordships’ House, about the role of Chinese investment in our country. The reality is that we consider both that there is an element of security threat but also that we have the potential to compete, challenge and co-operate with China. China is the second-largest economy and our third-largest trading partner; we have to have a level of engagement.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, to the average lay person, such as myself, it seems strange that the prosecution services can bring serious charges against two people and, for 18 months, these charges remain and the court is convened to prosecute these charges, and then at the 11th hour it is said that they do not have sufficient evidence? To the lay person, that seems extremely strange.

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

The noble Lord makes a very important point. Obviously, the 18-month delay is unfortunate, which is why we are trying to fix the court services going forward. With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, there was the Roussev case, a piece of case law about the Official Secrets Act, which concerned the DPP, which is why additional information was taken and why the CPS has made its decision, from my understanding.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Minister of the old Foreign Office dictum that we have no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests. It is in our permanent interest not to fall out disastrously with the biggest country in the world. We have to live with the Chinese and talk to them. Both sides must realise that there are things that cannot be done but, for goodness’ sake, let us stop talking about enemies and start talking about co-operation.

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

I hope the noble Lord has appreciated that I have said “co-operate” twice in the last 13 minutes. He is right; however, the first duty of government is to provide for our safety and security. There is a balance here between making sure that the population of the United Kingdom is safe and secure and that your Lordships can go about their work unconcerned about the threat of espionage while, at the same time, appreciating the international reality, in a very uncertain world, that we need to make sure that we engage with our third-biggest trading partner.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister have another go at answering my question: do the Government regard China as a threat to our national security or not?

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

Just for the noble Lord, I will read from my pack: “The Government knows that China poses a series of threats to UK national security. We have seen Chinese espionage and cyberattacks on our soil and transnational repression of Hong Kongers”. Based on that, I think I can say yes.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, have His Majesty’s Government had any discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service about the wording of the Official Secrets Acts, in light of the collapse of this case? Is it the Government’s understanding that the wording of the Acts was a factor in the collapse of that case?

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

The noble Lord raises an important point, which I hope will be discussed this afternoon in the other place, so we can have a conversation about it later this week.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, when you see the background of the build-up of what China is building to create war in every conceivable way—and the number of ships and drones they are building—I have no doubt and totally support the view that China is probably the most dangerous enemy that we will have to deal with in the future.

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

I would not necessarily use the word “enemy”, as we have discussed in response to earlier questions. It is clear that there are areas in which we need to both compete and challenge, as well as co-operate, with China, and we will continue to do so.

Arrangement of Business

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Mott, commences proceedings on his QSD, I want to highlight the two-minute Back-Bench advisory time to colleagues participating. I appreciate that this is short, but I ask Members contributing to keep remarks within that limit so that we can ensure time for the Minister’s response.