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.

Civil Service: Interns

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they will assess whether young people are from a lower socio-economic background when recruiting to the Civil Service fast stream summer internship programme.

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

The refocused Civil Service summer internship scheme will give talented undergraduates from lower socioeconomic backgrounds the opportunity to see what a career in the Civil Service is like. We will assess eligibility for the summer internship scheme based on parental occupation at the age of 14. The Social Mobility Commission identifies this as the most accurate measure of socioeconomic background.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, both the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and the Civil Service Commission’s recruitment principles make it clear that a person’s selection for work in the Civil Service must be on merit, on the basis of fair and open competition. These rules ensure that the Civil Service can recruit a substantial range of talent from all backgrounds. The changes proposed by the Government to the summer internship programme would allow the child of a mechanic, an electrician or even possibly a toolmaker to apply but discriminate against the child of a roofer, a taxi driver or a nurse, who would be deemed ineligible. Quite apart from this dramatically reducing the range of talent, does the noble Baroness really believe that this is still a fair, open and, indeed, sensible process?

--- Later in debate ---

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

The noble Baroness will not be at all surprised that I believe this to be appropriate, fair and open. She raises a crucial point at the heart of this issue: it is not about permanent positions in the Civil Service. All the statutes that she referred to continue to apply. This is about how we ensure that those people from all classes who have talent and ability have access. We are talking about 200 people a year getting access to an internship programme, one of several that are run by the Civil Service —never mind others that are run by the wider public service—to make sure that we do have a meritocracy. The noble Baroness will be aware that the previous Government operated a similar scheme, which increased the number of disabled people and those from minority ethnic backgrounds but failed those people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. In fact, the numbers fell, which is why we are trying to increase them now.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the First Civil Service Commissioner. It is the Civil Service Commission’s statutory duty to ensure that entry is based on merit and is open and fair. However, as the Minister has outlined, this is an internship that leads to a process of being able to proceed to the Fast Stream Assessment Centre. I therefore ask the Minister what plans she has to assess the percentage of those who are successful and how that compares with other measures to ensure that this exercise serves the purpose that it is intended to.

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her question and for her work in this area. She will be aware that the fast-track internship programme started in 2000 and has had many different iterations, and therefore there are well-established assessment processes in place to make sure that changes work effectively. With regard to how we are doing it, we are adopting this scheme through our test-and-learn approach within the Cabinet Office to make sure that if we do not believe it is working then we will change it. We will be using the criteria that have previously been used, which is why we are using the definition I cited. That is how I can tell your Lordships that in 2022 the internship scheme had people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds at a level of 33% of applications, but that fell to 19.7% and now has fallen even further at this point. We have the data to demonstrate why we need to do this.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister reminding us that the original scheme had a diversity element, which was abolished by the Conservative Government in 2023 in a rather Trumpian attack on the whole idea of diversity. Does the Minister recall that when Oxford and Cambridge introduced similar diversity schemes for children from deprived backgrounds in poorer state schools there was an enormous amount of criticism? I was on the staff of Oxford University at the time and remember being almost physically assaulted. After 30 years, these are widely accepted to have brought a number of extremely bright children from poor backgrounds up into very successful academic, administrative and other careers, and I think this scheme is likely to have the same sort of effect.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The noble Lord raises a very good point. That is exactly what we are trying to do. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have had extraordinary opportunities. I am the first one in my family to have gone to university and yet I find myself in your Lordships’ House. Some of us have benefited hugely from similar schemes; this is making sure that there is as wide an opportunity as possible. The noble Lord is right, but he should also be aware that still a majority of people who end up on the fast track have been to Oxbridge.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, on this side of the House, we will welcome any initiative that helps kick the door open for young people from working-class backgrounds who, by the way, have plenty of merit but have been denied opportunities and face real barriers. We also know that at the top of the Civil Service the class make-up at senior levels has barely changed over decades. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what the Government will do to ensure that those interns who are successful end up climbing that ladder and reaching the top, achieving their dreams?

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

The noble Baroness gets to the nub of why we have decided to change it. This is about making sure that the people who serve our country reflect our country, based on merit, talent and ability and not where they came from. We want that to be reflected throughout the Civil Service. We also need to make sure that people want to join the Civil Service. Noble Lords will be delighted, as I am, to know that the number of people applying for these internship schemes and for the fast track has increased by 65% in the last 12 months. I think that reflects a slightly different approach from our Civil Service.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the biggest contribution to social diversity in the Civil Service would be to create genuine parity of esteem between the so-called policy profession and the professions in the Civil Service to do with implementation—procurement, finance, and so on? Policy officials are more than twice as likely to hold senior Civil Service status and overwhelmingly likely to achieve the top jobs in the Civil Service, and until that white collar/blue collar distinction is removed, all her efforts are likely to be in vain.

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

The noble Lord makes a very interesting point and one that I will reflect on and go back to officials to discuss. As someone who used to represent the electricians and engineering union, I agree that parity between white and blue collar is always for the best.

[Baroness Gray of Tottenham (Lab)]

My Lords, as a former civil servant from the most working-class of backgrounds, while I am sure there are very good intentions here, I would have found it really difficult when I joined the Civil Service to not have been exposed to a wider group; I learned so much from that. I would like to know what the evidence base is for reaching this conclusion as I think there are good intentions but there are other ways that the Civil Service can be opened up as well.

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

I rarely wish to disagree with my noble friend, but in this instance I do. Obviously, she has huge experience, but this is one of a series of measures the Government are taking to make sure that access to the Civil Service and our wider public service as an employer is based on talent and ability, as I have said. This is not about stopping the Civil Service being a meritocracy; it is about ensuring that the meritocracy is available to everyone regardless of where they were born.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, previous Government Ministers made a point of making sure that the diversity which has been referred to included moving Civil Service departments to different regions of the country. Does the Minister agree that in the intern programme we also ought to reflect the diversity of different parts of our nation as opposed to the other elements she has referred to?

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

The noble Lord is absolutely right; as someone who spends their time in Stoke-on-Trent, I think that everybody and every government department should be based in my city. Noble Lords are all more than welcome to visit. Regarding the specifics, while this internship scheme is based predominantly in London, Manchester and Birmingham, the policy internship scheme— I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Maude—within the Civil Service is based in our Sheffield campus to expand opportunity and to make sure that we have geographic reach.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, for the second time in a fortnight, your Lordships’ House is debating a report from a judge telling the Government, in no uncertain terms, that the compensation schemes are not working properly and are an affront to the suffering that the victims have faced. The first, of course, was the Post Office Horizon scheme a fortnight ago.

From the Liberal Democrat Benches, I echo the thanks of the Conservative Benches to Sir Brian Langstaff for continuing to speak truth to power and for holding the Government to account. Today, the Government are responding to Sir Brian’s additional report, following his urgent session, in which he took moving evidence from the infected and affected victims and organisations. His report is blunt. He also said that he reserves the right to reconvene the inquiry at a further date, to further assess whether this Government have not just taken on board but changed the delivery process to ensure that all victims are treated fairly, speedily and with humanity. I am not aware of another judge having done that recently.

Ministers seem not to understand that every challenge—having to prove things again and again during the compensation process—revictimises those who have suffered already over many years. That should not be necessary. As usual, Ministers say the right words, but, as I said in the debate on the Post Office Horizon Statement, that is like the old bank adage on a rejected cheque: words and figures do not agree. Can the Minister say when the victims and Parliament will hear the results of the consultations and the consequent decisions by the Government on Sir Brian’s recommendations that they are not accepting in full today?

Sir Wyn Williams made an important point in the new Horizon report, which I and others have said repeatedly in Parliament: when will we have a truly independent body to manage inquiries and compensation schemes? IBCA is not truly independent; it is staffed by people who have come from various government departments, many of whom were involved in the process on the other side of the table, when victims were told repeatedly that there was nothing to be done and nothing to be seen.

However, this applies not just to this scheme or the Post Office Horizon one. As we heard earlier, it also includes Hillsborough, Windrush, the Manchester bombings, the nuclear test veterans, the medical scandals that cannot even get to first base—such as those around vaginal mesh implants and sodium valproate, which means that babies are still being born with deformities—and many others. I ask this Minister: will she and all the other Ministers managing these compensation schemes, including the so-called arm’s-length ones, get together to consider Sir Wyn’s recommendations?

I have a series of questions about the Government’s response. However, I will start by thanking the Government for the recommendations that they have already accepted: the HIV start date; the effective treatment award for those with hepatitis B or C; and, especially, the 31 March cut-off date for bereaved partners receiving support until their affected claim can be started—they are all vital. The Government have also recognised that the estates of deceased affected victims should now be able to pass on their compensation as those of infected victims can.

In the comments to Sir Brian’s report, the Paymaster-General says very clearly that the timescales are not changing. Sir Brian made it plain that it was unacceptable that the affected victims would not even start to be approached until the end of this year. Can the Minister therefore explain why this timescale is clearly not being speeded up? It makes a mockery of “working at pace”. How long will it take for IBCA to design and introduce a process for registration, as opposed to victims waiting for a call, as they might do for the lottery?

Newspapers have reported that, this time last year, IBCA consisted of just a couple of staff and computers. What is the headcount now, and what plans are there to ramp up the number of staff to speed up the processes?

The review of IPCA is expected to begin in August. When will Ministers report back to Parliament on its results? I do mean Parliament and not just the Public Accounts Committee. The Government have agreed to look again at some of the recommendations, such as the calculations of past care and financial loss—where the current process downgrades the commitment of home carers, many of whom have had to give up work for decades to look after their loved one—and the compensation scheme for victims of unethical research. The experience of the latter is among the most horrific of any scandal that this country has seen in the past 50 years.

Forgive the cynicism, but “looking again” gives no assurance that the severe wrongs done to the affected and infected victims will be remedied. Can the Minister say how long “looking again” will take?

To conclude, the Liberal Democrats are pleased that there is progress in the Statement and the report. However, Sir Brian, the many infected and affected victims, and Parliament will be watching to see whether this Government deliver—and swiftly—on their moral obligations to the victims of the infected blood scandal.

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

My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, for the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady Brinton. Their responses were, as they have always been in previous debates in this House, measured, reasonable, productive and challenging where we need to be challenged. I truly believe that this debate and the debates that we have had thus far on this issue show your Lordships’ House at its best.

Sir Brian’s further report set out a constructive way forward for the Government and IBCA to take, with one key message coming through loud and clear: the Government must build back trust with the community by truly involving them in how we move forward. In his report, Sir Brian says that

“there may yet be a prospect that some trust can be restored, though it will require more than goodwill, more than warm words, and more than statements of intent to secure it”.

I know that those words resonate with this House; they should be the model of how the Government drive this work forward. I hope that the Statement shows that we are planning to do just that by taking the actions we can now and engaging the community on how we can best achieve other changes to make a scheme that works for all of them.

I turn to specific points and questions raised by the noble Baronesses. If I am unable to cover them all, I will obviously reflect on Hansard and respond to anything in writing over the summer. I have a series of bits of paper and messages coming through, because there is one specific point from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I do not know the answer to; I expect it imminently.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, discussed memorialisation. The Minister for the Cabinet Office has appointed Clive Smith as chair of the infected blood memorial committee. The Government are confident that he will progress the memorialisation work quickly, while bringing the community together. Given his history, we are very pleased that he has accepted this role. He has set out his intention to appoint a vice-chair to represent the whole blood transfusion community, and that post will be appointed in due course.

I turn to the mechanisms for concern about the scheme. In line with the inquiry’s recommendations, we seek to introduce a mechanism that individuals may use to raise concerns and to aid the continuous improvement of the scheme, working with IBCA to do so. We will respond shortly.

I will answer the questions as they were taken. It is the end of term, and I want to make sure that I get this right, so I ask the House to bear with me.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, said that we will continue to work tirelessly. I think that everybody across your Lordships’ House accepts that we need the Government to work at pace to deliver for members of the community. I hate the phrase “at pace”, but if it has ever been required, it is for these people at this point.

On the complexity of changes, I reassure all noble Lords that any changes will not stand in the way of timely payments. We seek to move as quickly as possible. IBCA will continue to make payments, as it does under the current scheme. No one will have to apply for additional enhancements on top of that, but IBCA will then give additional funds if they are found to be necessary. No one will have to reapply based on the schemes that we bring forward.

Both noble Baronesses asked me about timing. We will bring forward the new statutory instruments as quickly as possible. Those for phase 3 will be completed by the end of the year; I hope that they will pass through your Lordships’ House before Christmas, subject to the usual debates. Additional statutory instruments will then be brought forward next year, after appropriate consultations have been made with the community to make sure that we are getting this right for them.

I was asked for an assessment of how we have adopted this scheme that was established under the last Government. The last Government and this Government have had to consider a bespoke versus a tariff scheme. We have adopted a tariff-based scheme to make sure that people receive payments as quickly as possible. That was always going to have some associated challenges, as the victims of this horrendous scandal may not have felt that they were going to get fully recognised within each tariff. But it was the most effective way to get money and compensation as quickly as possible to those people who deserve it.

With the special category mechanism and the other additional changes we have announced this week, we are trying to make sure that the tariff scheme is as a broad as possible to provide support, but it is not a halfway house and there are initial tariffs to reflect changes.

I will have to write the noble Baronesses about the grievance mechanism, staffing and monitoring. I will come back to them.

When it comes to victims of unethical practices, everyone who has been touched by this horrendous, heartbreaking scandal will have their own stories of heartbreak and the things that touched their heart most. I think I speak for every Member of your Lordships’ House when I say that when we have talked about Treloar’s and the children and their heartbreak, you cannot help but cry knowing what has happened to them.

Victims of unethical practices have to be appropriately compensated—I say compensated, but you cannot compensate for what happened to anybody affected by this scandal. There is not enough money in the world to make up for what has happened, but we need to make sure that appropriate schemes are in place so that what has happened to them is truly recognised.

On consultation not leading to delays, we are very clear: we need to consult. The report was clear that people had

“been heard but had not been listened to”.

We need to make sure that people feel they have been heard and listened to, and therefore there is a balance here. While we move forward with the existing scheme, we need to make sure that for changes to the scheme there is genuine consultation and people feel listened to. It will not lead to delays, but we are going to make sure that the consultation is done properly.

There are two different levels of review being undertaken. The first is of IBCA, which will start in August. Without doubt, we will be discussing the findings of that review in your Lordships’ House. We have also asked the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place to analyse this to make sure that we are doing the appropriate work. That review starts in August. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is currently reflecting on the best way to initiate a true consultation exercise with members of the community. We hope to formally start that process in October, making sure we get it right so that people feel that we are moving forward appropriately.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked me about a statutory compensation body. I responded to this issue when we were discussing Horizon recently, but more broadly in terms of how we respond to public inquiries. We have brought forward the dashboard, and we are bringing forward additional changes so that we have a list of recommendations made by public inquiries to make sure that we are implementing them. The noble Baroness raises a really important point which is under active discussion at the moment, and I hope that at some point we will be able to discuss it in more detail.

In terms of timescales not changing, I want to reassure your Lordships’ House that this is about backstops, not targets. IBCA has started increasing the number of people in the infected community whom it is contacting. While there are deadlines, there are backstops we hope to bring forward as quickly as possible, while making sure that we get it right. The infected community is to be expedited on the terms that have been laid out. Obviously, the affected community has slightly different issues because it is a much wider group of people. We will move forward quickly.

I had hoped that I would get the noble Baroness an answer about how many people are actually at IBCA, but we do not have the headcount to hand, so I will write to her. That is what I was waiting for.

In terms of the long look ahead, we are clear that there is a huge job of work to do, and I want to do it with all Members of your Lordships’ House. I am determined that we continue to work collaboratively to progress this work and continue in the spirit that has characterised our debates on this issue. Now is not the time for this Government to be defensive. This is about all of us working together to ensure that the next steps we take work for everybody, to get us to a point where, as Sir Brian says,

“the detail of the scheme matches up to its intent”.

To be clear, these are not small changes we are proposing. The decisions we have announced are currently estimated to cost a further £1 billion of public money in further compensation payments. It will take time to achieve them, particularly with those that we wish to put to consultation in the community. However, the inquiry’s further report was clear that the actions we take next must show that we have

“not only heard, but listened”

to the community. Involving the community in the decisions that matter to them is the only way forward.

Before we move on to Back-Bench questions, I reiterate my thanks to the noble Baronesses on the Front Bench and to colleagues who are about to speak. Their tireless work has ensured that we have got to this place. While we are all sad that our friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, is unable to be with us today, she, the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone, Lady Finlay and Lady Brinton, my noble friend Lady Thornton and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have been tenacious and determined. It is their collective work on behalf of the people who had no voice and no platform that has allowed us to deliver for those touched by this appalling scandal. I for one am grateful for all their efforts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

That is all right; I just was insistent.

Many noble Lords already know, but I have to declare an interest, sadly, because one of my sister’s twin boys, who was a haemophiliac, contracted hepatitis C and died aged 35, leaving a 10 month-old daughter.

I welcome the changes made consequent on Sir Brian’s report, particularly that the estate of the affected will now receive compensation even if the affected person dies. But I am concerned that the Government have not changed the date that the affected can register, because so many people had children who were affected and 40 to 50 years on, those parents are in their 80s and many of them have died already. Being able to register now would not only give peace of mind to the affected individual but would give the Government a better idea of the size of that cohort. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: what will happen if an affected person dies between now and their ability to register? Will their estate still receive the compensation, or will they never receive justice because they could not register?

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

The impact on the noble Baroness’s family reminds us every time we hear of it that there is a real human cost. It is very easy for all of us to consider this just to be news and outside of your Lordships’ House. This scandal was in your Lordships’ House, it was in this building, and the noble Baroness’s family paid the price for it.

The noble Baroness makes a really interesting point about the affected being able to register sooner rather than later. Obviously, IBCA has its programme in place, but I will speak to IBCA to see what schemes could be put in place.

With regard to the impact on affected estates of people passing away, there was a change also announced this week. The Government acknowledge the inquiry statement that delays in delivering payments to the affected community have left some individuals at a disadvantage. Therefore, the estate will be eligible to claim compensation where the eligible affected person passes away from 21 May 2024 to 31 March 2031. We have extended the end date so that the estate will still be able to claim—we have gone further than the recommendation of the inquiry.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking a personal interest in this appalling, sad history, which has gone on for so long, and for recognising that there is a need to really speed things up. The slower it is, the worse the agony. Wrong has happened and recognising that is crucial.

I am also glad to see that several of the further inquiry recommendations have been adopted. I want to ask about one part of the Statement. It says that the recommendations will “remove the requirement for evidence of the date of diagnosis for hepatitis B or C”—and thank goodness that that has gone. But it then says that this will allow “claims for those mono-infected with hepatitis” to be rapidly processed. As the Minister knows, there is another virus, hepatitis D, which can coexist with hepatitis B; it was not known about for many years, but it causes a much worse prognosis in hepatitis than if there is only hepatitis B overall. Can she clarify that “mono-infected” does not mean that anyone infected will be excluded because somewhere someone has said, “Oh, they’ve only got one virus rather than two”, and clarify that this does not have any crossover with HIV?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

I thank the noble Baroness for the questions. She is absolutely right: how we speed this up is vitally important. We cannot slow it down. It has to be about speeding it up so the—I hate the term “compensation payments” because it is appalling—the payments are out of the door as quickly as possible and people can use the money to enhance their lives or however they want to spend it. With regards to the specifics, the noble Baroness and I have discussed hepatitis D. As she will be aware, this is something that is still developing in terms of our knowledge base, and that will have a long-term impact. We do not know what that is yet, but I look forward to discussing this in more detail with her in the future. As regards “mono-infected”, it is my understanding, but I will have to clarify, that people who consider themselves to be mono-infected now would qualify under this, and if subsequent illnesses are then brought forward, that should not have an impact. But I will confirm in writing to the noble Baroness and place it in the Library for all Members of your Lordships’ House, because it is too important for me to speculate about.

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest, I suppose, as a former Secretary of State for Health and a witness before Sir Brian’s inquiry. May I associate myself with what the noble Baroness on my Front Bench said, but also with what the Minister said? I also associate myself with the names of those whom she paid tribute to. I think those in this House will probably accept that she should add her own name to that list.

It is hard to imagine anything more important than this horror and this scandal. But can the noble Baroness make it clear to her colleagues in government, if ever there is talk of resource limitation or other priorities, that she and we in this Parliament hold in our hands a vital aspect of the restoration of the allegiance to the rule of law in this country? People in this country have been let down by institutions which they fundamentally trusted. Good and great men like Sir Brian have stepped up to repair some of that damage. There will be difficulties—there always are in carrying things through—but no matters are more important to this Government and this Parliament than that, in the responses to these great inquiries, justice is seen to be done and, therefore, some restoration of our institutional trust in this country is rebuilt. I know that the Minister understands this, but does she agree with my analysis?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

The noble Lord raises an incredibly important point. We live at a time when people do not want to trust our institutions and we have given people far too many reasons not to trust us. There is responsibility on every single one of us, both the Government and the Opposition, but also everyone who seeks to hold public office, to rebuild trust in every one of our institutions. I cannot imagine how it must be for the victims, especially for the families who had young children and who would immediately have trusted their doctors and their teachers, to have ended up in this place. Every touchstone of our society let them down, and it took us far too long as a country to accept what had happened to them. We have a duty to the people who were touched by this horrendous scandal to fix what was broken.

But the noble Lord is absolutely right that we also have a responsibility to wider society to demonstrate that the state is, can be and must be a force for good, that the state exists for a reason, that the establishment is not a bad word but a good word, and it can and should help communities up and down the country. So the noble Lord is absolutely right that the Government have committed to spend whatever it takes to fulfil our commitments in terms of compensation. We say many times in this building that we must learn from mistakes made, but we have to do more than learn; we have to act, and I hope that we will do so going forward.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, I do not doubt the sincerity of the Government in wanting to put right this situation as quickly as possible. In the Autumn Budget, £11.8 billion was set aside for that purpose, but as we have heard, the amounts that have so far been paid have been pitiful. Can the noble Baroness give the House any indication of how quickly the Government want to see that money go out? Unless there is real urgency, more and more people will continue to die without adequate compensation.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

I would like it all out of the door today but, candidly, it will take longer than that. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: we pledged £11.8 billion in the Autumn Budget, and this week we announced another further £1 billion of costings. At the next Autumn Budget, we will confirm, after consultation with the community, how much the wider changes will cost; we assume it will be £1 billion, but that number is subject to ongoing consultation. We will expedite this as quickly as possible. With those in the infected community who are already subject to payment schemes, that is more straightforward. There is a wider challenge about the affected community, because obviously we do not know how many of them there are, and we always have to make sure that we are balancing protecting public funds while supporting those people who have been touched by this.

The only challenge from the noble Baroness on which I would slightly push back is that, in fact, £1.2 billion has already been distributed in interim payments, which is a significant amount of money, and £411 million—a much smaller sum—has been paid out so far to those people who have come forward to IBCA, as part of £602 million that has currently gone forward in offers. So, although the final settlements are a smaller figure, £1.2 billion been allocated.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, quite rightly, the focus today is on the compensation scheme, but, as briefly discussed in his initial report, Sir Brian made a number of other recommendations. I will just say that I really welcome the dashboard. It is a brilliant thing, and I congratulate the Government on doing it. People will now be able to look at that, but can the Minister also assure us—and, more importantly, reassure the campaigners and those affected and infected—that all those other recommendations will be followed up and addressed in a timely manner? That is key to rebuilding trust, which has just been mentioned, but also because there is a slight worry that those other recommendations might get left behind and a little lost along the way.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. Although it is vitally important that we focus on the victims and doing as much as we can to support them, more fundamental learnings also came through, so we are working our way through those and will continue to do so. The dashboard is incredibly important. One of the suggestions is that we should have a dashboard that covers every public inquiry; obviously, every public inquiry has different recommendations and different options, so at the moment this is the option going forward for us. It will be updated again in October; we have committed to quarterly updates, so that the people touched by this know exactly where we are and where we stand. I hope that that alone, if nothing else, will drive an ongoing commitment to deliver the rest of the recommendations.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak and shamefully, I guess, I have not been involved in any of this area—we are all busy and get involved in many things. But listening to this debate, I think it shows the House in a rather good light. Listening to the Front Benches—our own Front Bench on the Conservative side, the Liberal Democrats and other colleagues—and to my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, I just wanted to say to the Minister, whom I know well, that I think that those victims, the families of victims, the others and the campaigners should feel a crumb of comfort—perhaps more than a crumb—from listening to a Minister who clearly has taken this to heart. I suppose all of us hope that she will be able to make fast progress to continue to give comfort to those who need it.

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

The noble Lord is very kind, but he does know me well and he knows quite how determined I can be. I will do everything I can to make sure that my Government deliver on these recommendations. I think that may be my last question and, if it is, I wish everybody a very happy Recess and some rest.

Casement Park: Spending Review

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what criteria they used in deciding to contribute £50 million to redevelop Casement Park in Belfast under the Spending Review.

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

My Lords, before I answer the substantive Question, noble Lords will have seen on the news this morning the heartbreaking reports of a shooting in Fermanagh. My thoughts and prayers and those of the Government are with everyone touched by this heartbreak.

This Government want to support the Northern Ireland Executive with their plans for building world-class infrastructure in Northern Ireland across all sporting codes. That is why we are providing up to £50 million of capital funding to the Executive to support the redevelopment of Casement Park. It is now a matter for the Executive to decide what level of funding they will provide, and to work with other partners to fulfil the long-standing commitment to redevelop Casement Park.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks about Enniskillen and for her Answer. She must realise that back in 2011 football, rugby and Gaelic got similar amounts from the Northern Ireland Executive to develop their stadiums. Football and rugby did theirs, but Gaelic did not. Casement sat empty for years. That was not football’s fault or anyone else in government’s fault either.

Given the importance of equal treatment for communities in Northern Ireland, will the Government, having given this £50 million to the GAA, now recognise that football, which is a cross-community sport—Gaelic is not—deserves the same Exchequer funding? Does the noble Baroness realise that people who opposed it in Northern Ireland—British citizens—remember that Casement Park is named after an anti-British gunrunner who was tried for treason in the same month that 3,000 Ulstermen gave their lives for the UK at the Battle of the Somme? Is it any wonder that British citizens were opposed? If the Government are giving this £50 million, will they ensure that equal funding is given to the IFA, which deserves it just as much?

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

The noble Baroness raises what is at the heart of this: in 2011 the last Government allocated £14.7 million of funding for the redevelopment of Ravenhill rugby stadium, £25.2 million for the redevelopment of Windsor Park, £61.5 million for Casement and £36 million for subregional stadia funds. All the projects have been delivered except Casement; the money was not spent. This is delivering on the promises that were made. We have been very clear that we have put forward £50 million. The current projected cost of the redevelopment is £170 million. It is now a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive to bring together partners to deliver the rest of the money.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I convey my sympathies to the people of Maguiresbridge in Fermanagh and to the families of the victims this morning. On behalf of the GAA, and on my own behalf, I thank the Government for the £50 million contribution towards the construction of Casement Park. It is long awaited and I hope it will be built. What discussions have taken place, or what ongoing discussions are taking place, with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Communities Minister, who I understand is preparing a paper on Casement Park to take to the Executive that, I hope, will be productive and positive and result in the full allocation of funding to enable the building of Casement Park for provincial Gaelic games in the province of Ulster?

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

I thank my noble friend. I am very aware of her personal support for the GAA and the sport. To reassure her, there is now an official-level working group between the NIO and the Northern Ireland Executive to try to deliver on Casement Park. The Northern Ireland Executive are responsible for the delivery of this project. We are working very closely with Minister Lyons to give him the support that he needs. It is now a matter of bringing together and delivering the project while it still can be delivered.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her acknowledgement of the absolutely horrific tragedy this morning in my neighbouring village of Maguiresbridge, which is in my former constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I send my deepest condolences to the family; I know this will have a huge impact right across the region.

Given that His Majesty’s Government are granting £50 million to the GAA for the redevelopment of Casement Park, will the Government seek to open a dialogue or discussion with the GAA in relation to its continued glorification of terrorism? In particular, the west Belfast festival is holding a children’s competition named after Joe Cahill, the self-declared leader of the IRA in Belfast. Where does that sit with the Government’s criteria for giving grants?

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

The noble Baroness will be aware that the Arts Council has pulled funding from the festival. The Government believe in the power of sport to bring people together and our focus is on supporting activities that unite communities across Northern Ireland, not those that divide it. On the glorification of terrorism, prosecutions are obviously an operational matter for the PSNI, but let us be very clear: community events should be about uniting the community, and we need to make sure that is the case.

Yesterday I had the genuine privilege of spending some time with footballers from a youth leadership programme called Beyond the Ball, which is supported by the Rio Ferdinand Foundation. These footballers are from the Republic and from Northern Ireland, yet they came over here to play football together against young people from Camberwell. I think they were surprised at the somewhat challenging community tensions that can exist between Arsenal and Spurs, both of which they visited yesterday, so this can happen across the piece. While I am talking about football, I just want to say good luck to the Lionesses on Sunday.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches I add our thoughts and condolences to the families and friends of those killed and injured in the shootings this morning in Fermanagh. As the Minister said, sport can play a very positive role in building community cohesion and bringing communities together. In this regard, does the Minister agree with me that the Belfast Giants ice hockey team have given a positive example of bringing people together from all communities in Northern Ireland?

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

My Lords, my officials told me to say, “Let’s go, Giants”, so for them, at the end of term, I say, “Let’s go, Giants”. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. My good friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when he met his hero Pat Jennings on Thursday, said:

“Sport has this extraordinary capacity to bring people together to give joy and to unite people and it can’t be something that divides us”.


Belfast Giants have gone out of their way to make sure that they are cross-community and work genuinely for sport, through sport. That is exactly what we should deliver, not just in Northern Ireland but across the country.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I commend the Minister on her remarks at the beginning. As a former representative of the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency in the Northern Ireland Assembly, I agree with her about the horrendous incident this morning. We extend our sympathy to all those involved and wish them a speedy recovery. It is a real tragedy.

I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on her Question, as it presents an opportunity to bring some clarity as to why the GAA finds itself in this position. The fact that this development has not happened is not due to any negligence or reluctance on the part of the Executive or Assembly at Stormont but rather due to strong opposition from the nationalist community who reside in close proximity to the proposed development. Does the Minister agree with me that funding for all sports must be distributed in a fair and equitable manner?

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

I absolutely do agree with the noble Lord. Sport is incredibly important to each and every one of us—in different ways with different sports—but we need to make sure that delivery of both funding and our commitment to sport is based on the sport and people’s engagement with it.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, having attended a GAA match at Celtic Park in the Bogside in Londonderry last April, I am fully aware of the importance of Gaelic games for large numbers in the community in Northern Ireland. I also understand the strong emotions generated by Casement Park for others, not least given what happened there in March 1988. Further to the question by my noble friend Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, on this side we share the dismay expressed about the naming of GAA stadiums, stands and even competitions after terrorists such as Joe Cahill, an IRA godfather of many decades who was convicted for murder and who undoubtedly oversaw the murder of many others. What assessment have the Government made of the impact that this has on community relations across Northern Ireland and on impressionable young children? Does the Minister agree that if Northern Ireland is to have a genuinely shared future in which all parts of the community have a stake, this kind of thing really has to stop?

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

The noble Lord makes a genuinely important point about how sport should be used as a vehicle for bringing people together. There is a responsibility for the UK Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, and all local politicians and local community activists to make sure that is true.

Pensions: Low-income and Self-employed Workers

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage greater pension saving, and to improve pension adequacy, particularly for low-income and self-employed workers.

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

My Lords, automatic enrolment has transformed workplace pension participation, with over 22 million employees participating in 2023. However, we know that many people are still not saving enough to enjoy a financially secure retirement. For some groups, particularly those not eligible for auto-enrolment, such as the self-employed, pension participation remains low. The newly announced Pensions Commission will explore wider steps to improve pension outcomes, especially for those at the greatest risk of undersaving, including low-income and self-employed workers.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome the setting up of the commission under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. Making the case for saving for retirement is crucial, given that the DWP has highlighted that 15 million people are saving too little for retirement, which is about half the workforce. Currently, helped by extended auto-enrolment, 8% is put into pension pots, with 5% by the employee and 3% by the employer. Pensions experts think that the total, however it is split, should be at least 12%, but lower-paid workers, including the self-employed, earning between £10,000 and £20,000, if they are saving, are in effect saving on average only 5.5%. I am surprised that the commission is not reporting until 2027. Why is that? What can the Government do right now in the meantime, beyond auto-enrolment, to encourage greater savings for retirement?

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

It is a delight to stand here and enjoy cross-party support for a new provision, and I thank the noble Viscount. On his point about the level of employer contribution, the Government have been clear that there will be no increase in the current rate in this Parliament, but the noble Viscount makes a genuine point about how we make sure that people have enough money in retirement. That is why we have established a new Pensions Commission to look at these issues in the round. The noble Viscount states that 18 months is a long time, but the last Pensions Commission took five years. We are talking about matters that will have an impact for decades to come, and so we need to make sure we have the right steps in the right place at the right time. Auto-enrolment was an incredibly important step that has nearly doubled the number of people saving. No pressure on my noble friend Lady Drake, but she now has a significant job to do to make sure we are fit for the future, so that future generations, including my own, have the right level of pension savings.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I too welcome the commission, chaired by my noble friend Lady Drake, and the timetable; a two-year period for something of this importance is right. It gives the possibility of legislation in the current Parliament, so perhaps I will be here to take part in it. Given the timetable and the wide terms of reference, can my noble friend give an assurance that the Government will not be making any short-term changes that might pre-empt the decisions of the commission? The triple lock is the most obvious example, but others include tax relief on member contributions.

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

I thank my noble friend for his support. I reassure all noble Lords that this Government and our party have zero plans to change anything about the triple lock in this Parliament, which cannot be said of all political parties, unfortunately. With the Pensions Commission, we have brought together national experts to make sure that we have a plan in place going forward, and of course we will not pre-empt the decisions it is going to make. We will have ongoing opportunities to discuss these issues when the Pension Schemes Bill is before noble Lords later in this Session.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, there are many self-employed workers in the creative industries, so is this something the new creative industries freelance champion will be looking at?

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

The noble Earl raises a very interesting point and I am genuinely not sure of the answer. If he will forgive me, I will write to him. With regard to the self-employed, the DWP is currently working with Nest Insight and other partners to test potential solutions to encourage contributions from the self-employed into pensions, including nudges and utilising digital systems that many self-employed people already use. I think that will have an impact on the creative sector, but I will write to the noble Earl on the detail of his question.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is quite right to talk about the success of automatic enrolment but, as she touched on, the pension contributions of the self-employed raise alarm. Could the Government think of ways of increasing this, perhaps using the tax return process as an opportunity to get self-employed people started in pension saving? The challenge is that, whereas employees tend to have fairly stable incomes, the self-employed can have quite lumpy incomes, so it is hard for them to commit to a regular level of pension saving. Could the Government look into ways of making pension saving easier for people running their own business and the self-employed, who may find that they can pay into a pension in sporadic chunks rather than on a regular basis?

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

The noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the challenges we have with the self-employed and those who have multiple jobs of a lower income is around how we can encourage them, and auto-enrolment is not the right vehicle for them. There are two things the Government are doing. First, it is part of the remit of the forthcoming Pensions Commission to see what additional support can be put in place for the self-employed. Secondly, in the interim, the DWP is working with Nest Insight on how we can actively encourage new schemes that make it easier for the self-employed to participate in pensions. We are talking about cultural issues, using AI and other tools that the self-employed might already use in their workplaces to encourage them to save. We have undertaken a scheme with Nest, and we are looking for partners to roll it out to make sure it is credible on a national scale.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, in addition to more pension saving, the Chancellor talked the other night at the Mansion House about encouraging more retail investment in the stock markets and wider share ownership generally. This is an excellent cause and one that all parties should support. Will we see more measures from the Government to reinforce that particular development?

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

My very good friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, as always, be considering these matters on an ongoing basis. Her Mansion House speech made clear our direction of travel. She will come forward with more activities in the future.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the Local Government Pension Scheme provides pensions for local authority workers, many of whom are on low pay. Could I have a commitment from my from noble friend that she will resist any attempt, as suggested by Reform-led councils, to abolish this scheme?

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

My noble friend is very aware that I am a former trade union official who represented local government workers. I can give a complete commitment to the Local Government Pension Scheme. To be very clear, the terms of reference for the Pensions Commission do not touch on public sector pensions schemes. Anyone who thinks it is appropriate to target the pensions of some of our most important but poorer paid workers should be ashamed of themselves.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that the latest OECD figures show that 52% of adults in England have numeracy levels below those expected of primary school leavers, which can leave them struggling to understand percentages and to convert between monthly and annual payments. Does she agree that, in these circumstances, such people may be deterred from engaging with an industry in which there are apparently complex calculations between investment and outcomes? What can be done, alongside improving numeracy, to encourage the pension industry to speak not just in plain English but in plain numbers?

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

The noble Baroness makes a genuinely important point about how we make sure that everybody has access to appropriate funding in their retirement. Even the language of pensions does not help us. This is deferred income and deferred salaries. We need to make sure that we are working with providers, employers and the general public, so that they understand the importance of our pension schemes and why they are so vital to their future.

Legislative Reform (Disclosure of Adult Social Care Data) Order 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 21 May be approved.

Relevant document: 26th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 July.

Motion agreed.

Legislative Reform (Disclosure of Adult Social Care Data) Order 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Legislative Reform (Disclosure of Adult Social Care Data) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 26th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee

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

My Lords, this Government are committed to rooting out public sector fraud wherever it persists. It is a pervasive crime that takes money away from vital public services and enriches those who steal from the taxpayer. This draft legislative reform order builds on initial work carried out by the last Government.

All of us accept that the scale of fraud in the adult social care sector is significant, taking vital public money away from the most vulnerable. In 2020, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy estimated that there was £240 million of adult social care fraud in 2019-20. Examples where fraudsters can target adult social care services include where individuals fraudulently claim a personal support budget from more than one local authority at the same time, and where individuals hide undeclared capital or property ownership in relation to helping fund adult social care, putting the burden on local taxpayers. Of course, there can also be errors in the system: for example, where deceased care home residents can still be in receipt of direct payments from a local authority. There can even be extreme cases of fraud linked to this, whereby individuals siphon money from the accounts of deceased individuals given in error. These are examples of the kinds of fraud that the legislative reform order will help tackle.

The draft order will help prevent fraud and error in the adult social care system by resuming the sharing of adult social care data across local authorities in England and Wales. This will allow the National Fraud Initiative, which I will refer to as the NFI, to use this data in its data-matching activities to identify and prevent fraud and error in the adult social care system. This will generate an estimated £2.3 million in prevented fraud loss across the UK every year. The NFI has been operating since 1996, with a long history of identifying and preventing fraud on behalf of public bodies. The NFI specialises in data matching, which involves comparing two or more sets of electronic data to detect potential fraud. Since the NFI began, it has detected, prevented and recovered a total of £2.9 billion in fraud and error.

The NFI’s most recent data matching exercise between 2022 and 2024, which took place over a two-year period, prevented, detected and—importantly—recovered £510 million across the UK, the NFI’s best ever result. It is vital to protect public funds that the NFI can appropriately access to the relevant data sources.

This draft order will amend paragraph 4 of Section 9 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014—the LAAA—to add a provision that exempts “matched adult local authority social care” data from a restriction on disclosure. The draft order will also amend an equivalent provision of Section 64D of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004—the PAWA—to ensure that the draft order has effect in Wales.

The data matching programme the draft order seeks to reintroduce is not new. Adult social care data matching was previously undertaken by the NFI on behalf of local authorities and generated annual fraud savings of £2 million across the UK since 2009. However, this ceased when an amendment to the National Health Service Act 2006 in 2016 meant that local authority social care data became included in the definition of “medical purposes” under the NHS Act in new subsection (12A) of Section 251, inserted by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.

Consequently, local authority social care data became included in the definition of “patient data” under the LAAA 2014 and the PAWA 2004, which refers to data held for “medical purposes” in Section 251 of the NHS Act. This means that the results of data matching using local authority social care data—now classed as patient data—could only be shared with “relevant NHS bodies”. Local government in England and Wales was not designated as relevant NHS bodies for the purpose of data sharing, even though local government is responsible for the provision of social care. This consequence was wholly unintended.

Local authorities are overwhelmingly supportive of this draft order. Some 90% of 137 local authority consultation respondents support this amendment and want this data match to be re-established and subject to approval by your Lordships’ House. Data matching will commence this autumn. The draft order will therefore restore the legislative status quo and again allow the NFI to share matched adult social care data with local authorities and tackle adult social care fraud. I beg to move.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its excellent report on this order, which was published on 13 June. I am also grateful to the Business and Trade Committee in the other place for its own report, which was published earlier this month.

As the Minister explained, the order seeks to take us back to the status quo before the passage of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, which included an amendment to the NHS Act 2006 that prevented the further sharing of this data with local authorities. We do not oppose this order but have a number of questions for the Government.

The order is being made under a power to amend primary legislation under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. We have concerns about the growing use of Henry VIII powers by successive Governments, and particularly this Government, who previously committed to use these powers more sparingly. When such powers are used, it means that lower levels of scrutiny are possible. This is one of the many reasons why we are so grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—the DPRRC—for its excellent work.

The 2006 Act is clear that the powers to amend or repeal primary legislation granted to Ministers by that Act are limited to specific circumstances. In this case, the DPRRC has agreed with the Government that the order meets the tests set out in Section 1 of the 2006 Act: namely, to remove or reduce burdens created by legislation. In its report, it noted that the previous Government began this work—I noticed that the noble Baroness mentioned that too—and that in response to the 2023 Cabinet Office consultation, which was targeted at local authorities, 90% of respondents were supportive of this legislative change.

We also share the Government’s objective to tackle fraud and error in bringing forward these changes. It is absolutely essential that the Government seek to tackle fraud and error across the public sector, and we have been working—I hope constructively—to improve the provisions of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill. This legislative order is predicted to deliver £4.6 million in recovered fraud and error every two years. The Government are absolutely right to seek to recover taxpayers’ money whenever it is lost to fraud and error provided it is practical and proportionate to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

While we welcome this order, we have a few questions that we would like to put to the Minister. The Government’s argument for introducing this change is that the benefits of recovering £4.6 million in fraud and error every two years will outweigh any additional burdens placed on other public bodies. Can the Minister confirm how the Government will monitor and report the amounts recovered by the data sharing enabled by this change? Can she confirm how the £4.6 million prediction will be monitored to ensure that it is ambitious enough? I also note that there will now be a £300 increase in the fee payable by local authorities to the NFI for its data-matching service. Can the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of the impact of these additional fees on council finances? What discussions have she or the Government had with local authority leaders on the additional administrative burdens that will arise from the new requirement on local authorities to extract adult social care data from their systems to provide to the NFI to use in its data-matching exercises. This was part of our consultation in 2023, but it would be helpful to understand what the ongoing engagement has been.

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

I would thank your Lordships, but actually I am going to thank just the noble Baroness, Lady Finn—and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his for his constructive, supportive presence, as well as my noble friend Lady Blake. I thank the noble Baroness for the points she has raised. She is absolutely right. We are seeking to work collaboratively and constructively on the fraud Bill to make sure that every penny of public money that can be reclaimed is indeed reclaimed, as is appropriate. This is public money, taxpayers’ money. It is only right and proper that we take full responsibility for how we spend it, making sure that fraudsters do not get money they are not entitled to. It is vital we take robust action to tackle adult social care fraud. This draft order provides a way in which we can do just that.

I shall respond directly to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. The reason why we opted for a legislative reform order is its primary function of amending primary legislation independently of a parliamentary Bill to reduce burdens on public bodies. This draft order will reduce financial and administrative burdens on local authorities by supporting them to prevent adult social care fraud and deliver financial savings. Legislative reform orders fulfil a specific purpose of repealing, replacing or amending legislation that imposes burdens on any person, including a business, voluntary organisation or charity. Legislative reform orders are also subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny than other SIs in the level of committee scrutiny and debate. We felt this was appropriate given that the draft order focuses on adult social care data, which is in a special category. However, we also wanted to make sure we were doing it in a timely and cost-effective way, which is why we did not want to wait for the primary legislation function.

With regard to the impact of the order, the noble Baroness made an incredibly important point. One way in which I justified why I was working on this last night on the way back from my “minimoon” in Paris, when my husband said to me, “Your minimoon is now over,” was by pointing out that the measure would get his local authority £25,000 extra per annum for local expenditure. The national fraud initiative involves regular public reporting and will set out the benefits all the way through. With regard to ongoing engagement, the Government actively participate in engagement with local authorities and will continue to do so on this measure.

The noble Baroness made an excellent point about the £300 uplift in the likely cost. In England especially, for every £300 that local authorities are going to spend, they will get an 83:1 return. I think that most fair-minded people will consider that to be a good use of public funds. We will continue to work with all local authorities. In England, £25,000 per local authority is expected to be reclaimed every year. For Wales, the figure is £7,000. On the savings being monitored annually, they are subject to audit.

On the third point raised by the noble Baroness, NFI fees are consulted on in advance of each biennial exercise and are regulated under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. I believe that answers all the questions raised by the noble Baroness and commend the order.

Motion agreed.