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.

Government Resilience Action Plan

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we very much welcome the publication of the Government’s resilience action plan. Of course, we recognise that we live in a period marked by heightened instability and insecurity. From the war in Ukraine to issues in the Middle East, climate-related issues and cyberattacks, the world is changing at an ever-greater speed. Obviously, these issues are not party political.

We acknowledge the steps outlined in the plan but call on the Government to go further in several critical areas to make the UK truly resilient. A national awareness campaign is essential to involve and empower our communities in helping to build our national resilience. The current approach of relying primarily on the GOV.UK Prepare website, while useful, may not reach all segments of society. We call for a broader public information campaign, drawing on the lessons from countries such as Sweden and Japan, where these issues are embedded in the education system and throughout the whole of society.

We also welcome the Government’s proposals to test a national alert system on Sunday 7 September, notifying 87 million people by text message. Text messages obviously have their limitations, so we call on the Government to look at a broader approach in this area. I know that everyone in the House will join me in sending our condolences to those in Texas and New Mexico for the terrible loss of life that they have suffered. In that instance, text messages were sent, but it was the middle of the night and people did not hear them. Can the Government consider installing sirens in areas where we know there are specific climate risks, such as floods and wildfires?

The Government have acknowledged the importance of dialogue on public resilience; in many other countries, that is a normal part of life. We welcome the commitment to expand the Prepare website and specific guidance for disproportionately affected individuals and sections of society. The plan must go further by comprehensively addressing the ever-growing impacts of climate change. We are seeing record-breaking wildfires and droughts, and I call on the Government to make better use of our weather-forecasting system to predict, and to inform us about, the risk of wildfires.

We welcome the commitment to flood defences, with £4.2 billion of funding, but we need to go further to make sure that we are climate resilient. We have not built a new reservoir in a long time, and last week Defra estimated that we will be 5 billion litres short of water by 2050. These are therefore urgent actions.

I turn to our critical national infrastructure. We have had recent, highlighted cyberattacks on many of our commercial businesses, but what if cyber attackers turn off the taps on our national water supply? Increased national threats require robust measures. We have discussed Heathrow this week, and we know that there were issues with identifying key CNI interrelationships and communications. The Government must commit to developing a cyber resilience index—we welcome that and the CNI Knowledge Base—to map these vulnerabilities. However, current CNI cyber resilience is not keeping pace with this rapidly evolving threat. We need to accelerate this work and to plug the gaps, to make sure that we are adequately prepared.

We welcome the legislation on countering ransomware and the Government’s proposed ban on the payment of that. That will help make sure that we are not a target.

Finally, the next pandemic obviously remains the number one threat and, again, is accelerated by the impacts of climate change. We welcome that the Government are preparing another exercise. We would like to see the full lessons learned from previous exercises and to make sure that more are learned from this one. We seek assurances that that exercise will test a full range of pandemic scenarios. We welcome the £1 billion investment in the new network of national biosecurity centres and the £15 million for the integrated security fund. Plugging these gaps in our biosecurity is obviously very welcome. We must also continue to support our universities, to make sure that we are preparing for the next pandemic.

The resilience action plan is a positive step. We need to be more proactive, more transparent and fully inclusive in our approach, to make sure that it is fully embedded in our society.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their comments and broad support for the Government’s actions.

Before I continue, I want to pay tribute to the work of many other noble Lords across the House. Specifically, I thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey for his engagement throughout the Government’s review of resilience, as a critical friend and my personal mentor—not that I intend to blame him for anything I get wrong today, but I might give that a go. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and my noble friends Lord Boateng and Lord Browne, who have acted as critical friends throughout this process.

The resilience action plan highlights the fact that we are living through a period of profound change, and our national resilience is being tested in ways that it has not before. In the last decade, we have had to manage the domestic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, the illegal invasion of Ukraine, the Grenfell Tower disaster, heatwaves, increasingly serious flooding and, this year alone, the impact of cybergangs targeting UK businesses. It is more important than ever that we have a clear plan to increase the resilience of the UK. The resilience action plan is this Government’s strategic approach to achieving this goal.

Our action plan has three objectives: to evaluate continuously the UK’s resilience, using data mapping to identify vulnerabilities and target interventions effectively; to enable society-wide action by embedding resilience in daily life in practical ways, such as those touched on by the noble Earl; and to strengthen public sector resilience, by ensuring that front-line workers and public services are well co-ordinated and empowered across all levels, from Government Ministers to first responders. The Government cannot stop every risk from materialising, but it is our first responsibility to keep the public safe. The resilience action plan takes an all-hazards approach, which seeks to improve the general resilience of the nation, similar to the approach adopted in the strategic defence review.

On how the action plan will bring together the range of policies that contribute to realising these objectives, £4.2 billion of funding has been earmarked for new flood defences to keep communities safe across the UK. We are investing £370 million to better secure the UK’s telecommunications networks, through research and investment in technology and infrastructure. We have launched a dedicated UK Resilience Academy, which will train up to 4,000 resilience experts every year across the whole of society. We are co-ordinating the largest ever national pandemic exercise later this year, which will test the UK’s readiness for future pandemics.

We learned from previous tragedies, including Grenfell and Covid, that, while emergencies have an impact on everyone, they all too often hit the most vulnerable in our society the most. Therefore, we have also launched a risk vulnerability tool, which maps the particular challenges that different crises may create for vulnerable people, to enhance the Government’s response both before and during a crisis. We are embracing the data.

I turn to some of the specific questions raised by the Front Benches opposite. We are going even further than just the action plan. Our update to the biological security strategy set out concrete measures, including, as noble Lords have referenced, the second nationwide test of the UK emergency alert system. It will take place on the honourable Alex Burghart’s birthday—it is his birthday present—on Sunday 7 September at 3 pm, with a notification going out to 87 million mobile phones at once. We will work with all stakeholders, including domestic violence charities, in the run-up to the national alert to ensure that the public have as much warning as possible.

It will also give us an opportunity to engage directly with the general public in communicating the importance of resilience. It is one of the tools that we will use to provide broader communications around resilience. Many of us have spent too many hours writing political campaign material, knowing that it typically goes from the front door to the bin in the kitchen, so we have to make sure that we have a variety of tools available when we communicate. While paper is always my back-up, especially where I live, we also need to have the right materials available online—as well as by using radio and television—to make sure that people have access to the right comms. The national alert gives us a wider opportunity to do that, and we will also be able to alert schools. As 87 million people will receive the alert, it is an opportunity to make sure that this approach is working.

Alongside this, we are pushing ahead with activity to promote the Government’s Prepare website to help individuals, households and communities understand how they can be ready for a range of different emergencies. All these actions are about making sure that the foundations are fixed.

Noble Lords have touched on a variety of issues, so I will respond directly to them. I am very aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked me a series of questions, so I may have to read Hansard, in case I did not quite catch them all. She raised an important point about how we are actively seeking to standardise data. The National Situation Centre is now a co-ordination point and ensures best practice for data use. I was there only this week; it is an extraordinary tool and is utilising data. We are about to sign an MoU with the devolved Governments, to make sure that data is used between the National Situation Centre and the devolved Governments in this area, which will help us to standardise data.

The noble Baroness did something that I should have started with, which is to praise the role of people in the delivery of our resilience. We all saw extraordinary actions during Covid, as people came together to look after communities. In my own area, it meant that hundreds of thousands of meals were delivered to children who qualified for free school meals. It is extraordinary what we can do when we come together.

I have already talked about proper communication and practical steps. With regard to flooding—I do have a piece of paper somewhere about flooding: there you go, it is like magic—the Government inherited flood defences in their worst state on record since June 2009-10. We are investing record levels in flood prevention and protection. Over the next 10 years, we are committed to £7.9 billion of capital investment for flood defences. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ floods resilience task force is a new approach, preparing for flooding by bringing together representations from national, regional and local government, devolved Governments, the emergency services, businesses and environmental interest groups. This should help the planning system.

The noble Baroness is definitely focused on agriculture today, and I give her points for it. Obviously, we have a multifaceted relationship with those in the agricultural community and will continue to work with them in this area, as we always have. She also touches on the issue of economic security; the noble Baroness is very aware that this Government’s driving mission is to increase economic growth in a way that the last Government simply failed to do. We will do so, so we have enough money to fulfil the commitments we are making.

I declare that I am a former trade union official. In my experience, I do not believe that the unions need empowering; they are doing all right by themselves. What we are doing is making sure that the general public and workers have appropriate rights in the workforce, and I look forward to discussing that with noble Lords next week, when we have the Employment Rights Bill before your Lordships’ House.

There are many other points, but I am aware of the time. I do want to touch on cyber, because it is so incredibly important. Obviously, we will be bringing forward the cyber resilience Bill in due course, when legislative time allows. We need to make sure we are ahead of the threats that are coming. Everything about the resilience action plan is to strengthen our foundations because, candidly, as noble Lords will be aware, the sheer range of threats we currently face means we do not know what will happen next. I wish we did, but it is about making sure we are prepared for whatever comes.

I will look at all the questions that have been raised and, if I have missed any, I will write.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the answers she has given. I join in the general welcome that has been given by the Benches opposite for this action plan. As chair of the National Preparedness Commission, I will say that that my noble friend will not be surprised that there are all sorts of extra things that, in an ideal world, I would like to have seen in this action plan or, indeed, I would like to have seen it as a strategy rather than simply a list of actions that will be taken over the next four years.

My specific point is that reference has been made repeatedly to the next test of the emergency alert system. I hope that, on this occasion, and I hope my noble friend can clarify this, the publicity around this will not be done in an apologetic way—“We are so sorry for disturbing your Sunday afternoon”—but much more as “This is a positive measure to try and protect the public in different ways”. This should be part of a much wider national conversation, which was promised by the Prime Minister as part of the strategic defence review and which will raise the awareness of the public in every single, possible way about the range of dangers and threats we face and the fact that these are getting worse. As a nation, we have to have a whole of society and indeed a whole of government response to deal with these issues.

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

I thank my noble friend for both the work he has done for decades in this area and his expertise, and also for raising an incredibly important point. Our general security environment has changed, and the national security strategy was clear. The resilience action plan and strategy we believe to be one and the same. The action plan is part of enabling a holistic all-society approach. The reality is that we need cultural change. I, like my noble friend, would expect to see that we use the 7 September alert system as an opportunity to facilitate that conversation, to make people very aware that they have responsibilities too, that they are not impotent in what might be coming, and they can make appropriate preparations. This is part of that conversation. I will seek to explore the comms programme and I will come back to the noble Lord if there are any concerns.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, the military aid to civil authorities is the established process by which the military is used at times of national crisis or, indeed, prolonged strikes. The challenge is that it is the same Private Jones who is the stand-in tanker driver, the stand-in passport control officer or the stand-in prison officer. It detracts from core military outputs. In theory, departments of state should default to using the private sector in their resilience plans, but it has become the norm simply to use the military. So I ask the Minister: as part of this resilience plan, will there be a comprehensive audit of the departments of state’s resilience plans to ensure that the military are used only as a last resort?

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

At this point I have to declare my status as honorary captain in the Royal Navy—I am very proud of it. The noble Lord is absolutely right that we have, all too often, looked to our military to fix holes in civilian—

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I should have declared an interest.

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

I am very aware of the noble Lord’s interest. He is absolutely right that we have, too often, relied on our military to fix holes. One of the things I should have said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, is about module 1 of the Covid recommendations—I think either recommendation 2 or 10—about the Cabinet Office versus a lead department dealing with resilience issues. This pertains system-wide and relates to the question raised by the noble Lord. The Cabinet Office is strengthening its core to make sure that we can have cross-government oversight, but we will retain the lead department model. As part of ensuring the strengthening of our core, we would obviously seek to undertake a clear audit, to make sure that everyone has appropriate provision in place for any crisis. In fact, one of the things the action plan seeks to do is to ensure a baseline of resilience, which will require such data-gathering exercises.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords have referred to intelligence sharing and co-operation between government departments, but many aspects of the resilience plan will rely on international co-operation. Certainly, for example, on cyber intelligence sharing. At the annual meeting of the OSCE last week, there was wide discussion on how to make democratic elections resilient to misinformation and foreign interference. This is becoming an increasing problem and I am not sure we are taking it seriously enough at the moment; we certainly need to turn our attention to it. Will my noble friend the Minister agree that deepening our ties with organisations such as the OSCE and the Council of Europe, and looking at that particular aspect of intelligence sharing, would strengthen our international resilience as well as our national resilience.

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

My noble friend makes a very important point. Sometimes it is easy to separate our online and our offline worlds. With the issue of misinformation and the cyber threats we currently face, there is a clear crossover between online and offline and the impact that can have. This is clearly a space where we need to operate internationally, and we do so. Only recently, my honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met with the Japanese cyber Minister, to make sure we were having cross-country communications. Deepening our intelligence ties through both existing networks, and also through our responsibilities under Article 3 of NATO, as well as ensuring we are one step ahead of both cyber and misinformation threats, will be key, given the current threats we face as a country.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has been very helpful in her answers so far, but, to go back to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, there seems to be a bit of a gap between the defence strategy, the conversations that we have here and the amount of money that is going into defence, and the message that we are getting out to the public. Certainly, the prepare strategy at the moment is quite squeamish in itemising the threats. Will the Government be clearer, as other countries are with their people, in telling them what we want them really to be prepared for as well as cyber and floods, which will not affect everybody.

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

The noble Baroness makes an important point. The only issue that I would challenge her on is that cyber could affect everybody; we just saw what happened with Marks & Spencer, for example. There is potentially an impact on everybody.

The noble Baroness makes an important point about itemising the threats. We are trying to make sure that the foundations are solid, and, candidly, there are gaps. On where we sit and how we seek to move forward, it is about making sure that people understand what responsibilities they have. Even if 10% of people put in extra support at home, that means 10% of people who, in an emergency, we will not have to look after in the immediate 24 hours, and so we can focus our efforts on the more vulnerable. It is about how we make sure that our resources are more effective, and that people understand what they should have at home.

After Covid, we had many conversations about toilet roll and flour. Making sure that people have what they need at home for a week’s worth of supplies is a conversation we should all be having anyway—although, like most people, I want to put a lot of those memories in a box and not have to think about them again.

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that there has to be a real conversation with the general public. I truly believe my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has started such a conversation with the country in discussing the scale of threat, how our world is changing very quickly around us, what responsibilities we must have and what impact that might have on our day-to-day lives. Some of it is about money and some of it is about actions and personal responsibility.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

I am sorry to take the Minister back to it, but before Covid was officially declared a pandemic in this country, there were several weeks of mixed messaging emanating from the World Health Organization. In preparing for another pandemic, what assessment have the Government made of the role of the WHO and the reliability of its global reach?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I think we can all appreciate that, especially in the early stages of the pandemic, it was very difficult to get genuine information about what was coming. It was unprecedented in living memory, and many eminent experts across the field were trying to establish what was happening next. We are members of the World Health Organization and we continue to actively participate and engage with it, and will seek to have an ongoing relationship with it. It is not our only source of information; we continue to work across the piece with all partners to assess threats as they emerge.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a pretty strong chance that any future terrorist attacks in Britain will be linked directly or indirectly to the regime in Tehran. I welcome recently introduced provisions which mean that British citizens who have undeclared links to Tehran can face criminal prosecution. Would it not be a good idea to look at extending the provisions to those who have links to the proxies of the Tehran regime—I am thinking of Hezbollah and Hamas, but also more home-grown proxies?

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

My noble friend, who I am very fond of, has not asked me an easy question. He will be very aware of current concerns; in fact, only this morning, the Joint Intelligence Committee published a report about the threats posed by Iran. The Government keep an ongoing review of what those threats are and will always act to protect people in the United Kingdom.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, can I bring the Minister back to the flood defence issue? She will be aware that, during the last Labour Government, Flood Re was created specifically to protect flood plains and to prevent developers building on functional flood plains—flood insurance was not deemed to be appropriate to prevent such building taking place. Will the noble Baroness use her good offices to ensure that her Government will not build on the most functional flood plains, identified by the Environment Agency as those areas most at risk of flooding, in particular zone 3b areas? Will she ensure that local authorities and the Environment Agency have the means and resources to identify zone 3b areas for this purpose?

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

The noble Baroness raises a very important point. I will make sure that the relevant departments have heard her and will communicate directly with her.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, special constables, who are part of the police force, are part of the resilience network in this country. They are volunteers, who turn up every day, every week, and take all the risks of a police officer, with no payment—the risk of getting stabbed and shot, and all the other things that happen to cops from time to time. Their numbers have deteriorated significantly over the last 10 years. There were around 6,000, but, at present, the number stands at 2,000. I have an amendment to the employment Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Katz, is sat next to the Minister—which is seeking to give them the right to have a reasonable request accepted for time off should they request it, as I believe reservists do. Working across government, does the Minister consider that an aspect of resilience, as well as, as I would say, of good employment practice?

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

The noble Lord makes an important point about the role of special constables and all volunteers in our community and the work that they do to keep us safe on a regular basis. Noble Lords will have heard me talk many times from this Dispatch Box about our security and police forces, who run towards danger to protect the rest of us. We owe them always a huge debt of gratitude. With regard to the specific point the noble Lord raises, I beg his indulgence. I will talk to the department about his suggestion and will revert to him.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, having been in the Education Department during the pandemic, I know that the measures we took there unfortunately engendered a lot of anxiety and additional fear among a young population. Can the Minister outline how we will embed this with young people without causing them fear? She mentions having provisions at home, but how do we make it a norm for young people to have something called a “go bag”, whether they are at university or at home? Will the Government monitor the effect on young people of the message that will go out in September, as I presume that the mobile phone coverage includes young people now?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She will be aware that we are currently undertaking a national curriculum review. Some of what we have discussed today, including the education point raised by the noble Earl, will be touched on as part of that review. We are very clear that teaching about emergencies in an age-appropriate way extends to not overstating risks and helping pupils contextualise what they learn without causing harm. We think that schools should decide how best to plan for emergencies and talk to their pupils appropriately. The Department for Education provides guidance to support schools in doing this.

Falkland Islands: Fisheries Exports Tariffs

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking, as part of the UK–EU relationship reset, to secure the removal of tariffs on fisheries exports from the Falkland Islands.

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

My Lords, we fully recognise the challenges that these tariffs pose for the Falkland Islands. These tariffs stem from the fact that the Brexit deal reached under the previous Government does not cover the overseas territories, and the EU has been clear that it is not willing to reopen the fundamental terms of that deal. The UK and Falkland Island Governments have been working together on seafood exports, including securing US Government agreement to consider reducing US tariffs on Falklands exports.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister because she recognises how important the income from the fishing industry is for the Falkland Islands, given that 63% of its income comes from fishing. Will she ensure that their next meeting under the UK -EU reset will include this item, demonstrating the UK’s credibility and consistency in promoting free and fair trade across the globe?

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

I thank the noble Lord for his question. He is right on the importance to the Falkland Islands economy; it is key. Over 90% of their fishing exports are sold to the European Union, and €15 million-worth of tariffs is having a genuine effect on their economy. One of the reasons we are in this place is because the previous deal on Brexit, negotiated by the Conservative Party, explicitly ignored the British Overseas Territories. That means that we are having to do this through soft power and ongoing relationships, which is why the EU-UK reset is so important and we are seeing some of the fruition of it with Macron’s visit here today. We are doing what we can. We will continue to work closely with the Falkland Islands Government to do what we can to help and protect their economy.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

The European Union Committee looked at this issue in 2020-21. What was interesting about it then—and I am sure that it is fairly similar now—is that the fishing grounds for the Falkland Islands were fished by ships that were largely 50% owned by Spanish interests and 50% owned by Falkland Islands interests. The catch was then landed in Spain, chiefly at the port of Vigo, and 6,000 Spanish jobs were then involved in the processing of the fish, which were sold throughout the European Union. It would seem that one of the steps towards looking at this would be to make common cause with the Spanish Government. Does the Minister agree?

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

The noble Earl raises an important point. Obviously, as part of the EU reset, our bilateral relationships with European Union members are key. The noble Earl is right about the ownership structures of the fishing companies, although for the record it is 51% that is owned by the Falklands and 49% that is owned by the Spanish. The Falklands always have a controlling share.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, regarding credibility and consistency, because the previous Government forgot about the Falklands at the start of the Brexit negotiations, I asked the then Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, with all of his great authority and prestige, if he would resolve the issue with regard to the,

“£15 million a year to be Spanish-flagged vessels as a result of the lack of access to the EU market”.

I asked him that

“British fishermen on British vessels fishing in British waters will not to have to do so under a Spanish flag”.

His reply to me:

“I will certainly take the noble Lord’s point away”.—[Official Report, 5/12/23; col. 1387.]


He did, and he kept it away; I never heard back. I commend this Government for seeking additions to the TCA—for example, the SPS negotiations now under way—but what is preventing our Government now commencing discussions for an additional agreement to the TCA with regards to resolving the issue that the party to the right created?

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

The noble Lord is right: we are trying to fix a problem that, yet again, we were left by the previous Government. The European Union is clear that the TCA cannot be reopened in terms of its geographical consequences. On additional agreements, we are working very hard to make sure that the EU reset has a positive impact on all aspects of British interests, and that includes on the Falkland Islands. I cannot promise to come back to him—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Do not take it away!

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

I will take it away, but I promise I will also come back.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

Obviously, the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies are an integral part of the British family; they are part of Britain. Surely the lesson here is that, when it comes to future UK free trade deals, they should always be included.

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

I wish the noble Lord had had that conversation with the previous Government, but he is right. I have been to the Falkland Islands—I went in 2018—and it is an incredibly important part of the British family in terms of its sovereignty. As regards what happens next, a key point in our conversations with the American Administration has been on the impact of tariffs, which is why I am so pleased that only today they have paused the tariff that would have had an impact on the Falkland Islands economy. We are working with the Falkland Islands Government at every opportunity, as we are with all of our overseas territories.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is this not another case of where it has been a disadvantage to Britain to leave Europe? We were promised lots of benefits. When are those benefits going to arrive?

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

My Lords, I live in Stoke-on-Trent, and I campaigned for remain in a 72% leave constituency. There are some elections I was definitely never destined to win. My noble friend will be aware that this Government are committed to making Brexit work. There is no point in looking back at this point; now we have to fix some of the problems that we have inherited.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, on the subject of tariffs, when the Prime Minister agreed his deal with the USA, he sold out the UK’s bioethanol sector, apparently without proper consideration of the impacts it will have on farmers across the country who sell their produce for bioethanol. Can the Minister reassure us that no future trade deals that disadvantage UK farmers will be accepted?

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

My Lords, it is a stretch to go from fishing to agriculture, but I am more than up for the challenge. A thriving agriculture sector underpins our food security and supports the prosperity of regional communities across the UK. We will continue to seek fair and balanced deals, which include new export opportunities to grow the UK’s world-class agri-food and drink sector, which is the world’s largest manufacturing sector. In no small part we have already seen some of those arrangements with regard to the SPS deal, which will make trade better, including for fishing, and will help contribute an additional £9 billion a year in exports and growth to the UK economy.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, one of the points raised consistently by the Minister is about Brexit and the legacy left. I am sure she would acknowledge, as she did in her original Answer, that all of the trade deals which are now being made are provided by the flexibility of the Brexit dividend. I, like her, campaigned for remain, but I recognise the flexibility we now have. My question is focused on the reset. I am sure the noble Baroness will acknowledge, as the President of France did, the importance of the Windsor Framework and, indeed, the Blenheim Palace summit. Let it not be forgotten that the principle of that summit was made by the previous Government, as was acknowledged by the President of France and the Minister can acknowledge today. My question is specifically on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. One of my last acts as a Minister was in Paraguay with the OAS, restating the unstinted sovereignty of Britain over the Falkland Islands, the Sandwich Islands and all the related maritime areas. Can the Minister restate the importance of that sovereignty and that it is not up for negotiation?

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

Yes, there is no room for questioning British sovereignty with regard to the Falkland Islands.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, the European Union appears to be interested in joining CPTPP, which is something the United Kingdom has already done. Will the Government ensure that we use any leverage in that negotiation to ensure that the kind of problem we are discussing today is resolved?

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

The noble Lord raises an interesting point, and I will make sure that the negotiators are aware of it.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, there has been lots of recent discussion about Diego Garcia and the change in ownership there. Who has the fishing rights around there? Is it us or Mauritius or the Americans? Or is it not a Crown dependency anymore, so maybe it does not matter?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thought that I had done so well with regards to agriculture, and now I have Chagos and fishing. I genuinely am not aware of the fishing rights around the Chagos Islands, but I will write to the noble Lord.

Fujitsu: Government Contracts

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests.

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

My Lords, the impact of the Horizon scandal on postmasters and their families has been horrendous. The Government are determined to hold those responsible to account and will continue to seek to make rapid progress on compensation and redress. Fujitsu’s role in Horizon is one of the issues currently being reviewed by Sir Wyn Williams’s statutory inquiry. In January 2024, Fujitsu committed to withdraw from bidding for contracts with new government customers until the Post Office Horizon inquiry concludes. It will bid for work with existing government customers only where it already has a contract with them or where there is an agreed need for Fujitsu’s skills and capabilities. The Government are carefully considering volume 1 of the report, published yesterday, which is limited in scope. Once the inquiry has established the full facts, we will review its final report and consider any further action, where appropriate.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. Given yesterday’s results from the official inquiry into the Post Office scandal, and the human tragedies which unfolded as a result of wrongful convictions of postmasters, what additional due diligence measures have the Government implemented or will the Government implement to ensure that contractors with a history of significant failures or legal issues can demonstrate that they have addressed these concerns before being awarded new contracts? In this, I am mindful of the bid by Fujitsu for the controversial trader support scheme in Northern Ireland.

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

My noble friend makes the most important of points, which is about the impact on people, and the victims of the Horizon scandal, a lot of which we heard yet again yesterday. It broke my heart and other people’s hearts.

On my noble friend’s specific question, the Procurement Act, which was passed by Your Lordships’ House in 2023, provides buyers with more scope to exclude suppliers who have performed poorly on previous relevant contracts. Previously, exclusion was possible only if poor performance had led to termination of a contract, damages or comparable sanctions. Due diligence on such failures is also more straightforward as the Act now provides for the sharing of information on poorly performing suppliers. This information is publicly available via notices published on the central digital platform.

With regards to the Trader Support Service contract, HMRC is currently undertaking a competitive procurement process for the renewal of that scheme, and it would therefore be inappropriate of me to comment further.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, Fujitsu has paid not one penny towards the victims of the havoc and misery that it helped to cause. Is the Government —is the country—over a barrel to Fujitsu? If not, why is Fujitsu still winning government work? If we are, what are the Government doing about it?

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

I want to put on record my personal thanks for the work that the noble Lord did in getting us to this point. Even with yesterday’s report, we would not have got as far as we have without his work and that of my noble friend Lord Beamish.

With regard to the role of Fujitsu and its contribution towards compensation and redress, it has accepted that it has a moral obligation to give funds, but the noble Lord will be even more aware than I am that we are yet to see a penny. The Secretary of State met the CEO of Fujitsu on 7 March. Fujitsu has agreed that it will have to make a financial contribution, but I am urged not to give a running commentary, although we will welcome any interim payment in due course.

With regards to ongoing contracts, the noble Lord will be aware that there have been 12 contracts in the last 12 months issued to Fujitsu. Some of that is to transition away from Fujitsu contracts, where we have to make sure there is a smooth transition process. I must remind and urge noble Lords that there are, as yet, no criminal proceedings against Fujitsu, and until then, we have to operate in a quasi-judicial way with regards to our approach to the contracts.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that I have asked quite a number of questions about the Fujitsu contracts, and she has repeated, word for word, quite a bit of what she said in her Written Answers. The Treasury was particularly shocking in its response. When asked why HMRC had retendered to Fujitsu and given Fujitsu contracts this year, it said:

“Contract opportunities are available to any economic operator that is able to meet the requirements of the procurement in compliance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 or the Procurement Regulations 2024, as applicable”.


That is a totally dead-bat answer to something quite shocking in my view. In the light of the Horizon report yesterday, which condemned Fujitsu’s conduct as a key contributor to the suffering of thousands of innocent people, is it not already clear that Fujitsu should be nowhere near any new contract?

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

The noble Lord makes an incredibly important point. Yesterday, we saw the first volume of Sir Wyn Williams’s 160-page report, based on 2 million pages of evidence, which included 19 recommendations, and we will come back to it in due course. The Government are committed to responding in full to the findings of the report by 10 October.

With regard to Fujitsu and the ongoing contracts, I believe that the Treasury contract is about the HMRC platform. Some of this is about continuity of service, to make sure that we are still able to have business supply secured. But I think everyone in your Lordships’ House would agree with the noble Lord’s sentiment that this is about how we operate in a way that is based on evidence going forward, so that we can ensure that those who need to be held accountable are held accountable and we do not make mistakes at the Dispatch Box, which I might by saying something that is unhelpful going forward as we progress after volume 2 is published.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, yesterday Sir Wyn produced the first volume of his report. It is worth all noble Lords reading section 2, because it gives a summary of individual cases of those who have been affected. I challenge anyone to read some of those without being moved: something that my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and I have got used to over the years.

He also raises in the report the issue around compensation and Fujitsu. To date, the Government and taxpayers have paid over £1 billion, quite rightly, to those victims. Fujitsu has not paid one penny piece. It may have a moral obligation, but moral obligations do not pay compensation. I have raised on numerous occasions an issue that has been raised about ongoing contracts. I dispute the fact that some of these are ongoing contracts; some are new contracts. I have called, along with my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for Fujitsu to at least pay some interim payments. When will the Government get on and force Fujitsu to act on its moral obligations, put its hands in its pockets and at least pay some interim payments?

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

I thank my noble friend for the work he has done and for his ongoing participation in the Horizon compensation schemes. I agree that all noble Lords should review the 17 cases Sir Wyn Williams has highlighted. Many of us will have listened again last night to the personal testimonies of Jo Hamilton and Seema Misra, which are totally and completely heartbreaking and give us an indication of the human cost of the Horizon scandal, including the 13 people who have committed suicide because of it.

We have urged Fujitsu to make interim payments. There are ongoing conversations with Fujitsu, including regular meetings with the Crown Representative, the Cabinet Office and DBT. We will continue to have such meetings.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the Post Office Horizon IT scandal has seriously damaged public trust in procurement processes and, yet again, Fujitsu is right at the heart of it. Can the Minister tell the House exactly what the Government are going to do to finally hold Fujitsu to account and confirm whether the Government will be taking advantage of the new procurement regime enshrined by the previous Government, which allows the exclusion of suppliers from future procurement processes based on the grounds of professional misconduct?

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

The noble Baroness is absolutely correct that the tools now exist because of the Procurement Act 2023. They came into effect on 25 February this year. But the process the noble Baroness describes is quasi-judicial and it is vitally important that we follow the evidence and make sure that we are acting appropriately with government money in the application of any investigation into Fujitsu. Obviously, there are also other accountability measures that are ongoing, including those currently being undertaken by the Metropolitan Police. There are many different levels of this investigation and the Government will respond in due course on our next steps after we have the full public inquiry findings.

Arrangement of Business

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in order to fix our current technological challenges, we require a temporary adjournment. The House will therefore adjourn during pleasure for five minutes. We will resume at 3.45 pm.

UK Constitution: Oversight and Responsibility (Report from the Constitution Committee)

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Friday 4th July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Drake for securing this excellent and informative debate, and for her time spent chairing the Constitution Committee, during which it produced the report we are debating. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for leading the debate and making sure that we were well structured before we started. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what I think has been a rich, interesting and, as always, challenging debate.

The Government’s commitment to upholding the UK’s constitutional arrangements is one we take very seriously. Since the election, the Government have worked to return to a politics of service. This extends from our commitment to maintain high standards in public life and the rule of law to the delivery of the reform agenda set out in the manifesto—including the reform of the House of Lords, which we debated extensively, again, this week—and resetting the UK Government’s relations with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

As noble Lords have referenced throughout the debate, the UK does not have a codified constitution. Instead, the UK’s wide-ranging and complex constitutional arrangements have evolved over time and continue to do so. They consist of various institutions, statutes, conventions, judicial decisions, principles and practices. As several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley and the noble Lord, Lord Harper, reminded us, there are significant benefits to having this level of flexibility. The Government believe that this characteristic is not merely a feature of our constitutional arrangements but a fundamental advantage that allows us to respond flexibly to meet the complex challenges that are a feature of the modern world.

The Government are of course committed to ensuring that Parliament is able to play its crucial role in scrutinising the work of government. Allowing Parliament the time it needs to properly scrutinise and debate legislation is at the core of maintaining a high quality of legislation. The Government greatly value the work of your Lordships’ House and the revising function it performs. The other place, as the democratically elected Chamber, has a vital role to play in representing the interests of its constituents and holding the Government to account.

The Government are also committed to ensuring that other constitutional safeguards are able to work effectively. This is why the Prime Minister has given the independent adviser on ministerial standards the power to initiate investigations without needing the Prime Minister’s approval. I will return to that role in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn.

Regarding the role of Ministers, which was an important theme of today’s debate, the report suggests that constitutional oversight be given to one senior member of the Cabinet. This has sparked an interesting debate, with varying views. The Government, unsurprisingly, agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and many others, when we suggest that this role is better fulfilled by all members of His Majesty’s Government in carrying out their duties. Noble Lords are aware that, as the sovereign’s principal adviser and the most senior member of the Government, the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for overseeing the UK’s constitutional arrangements. In addition, the Prime Minister has a specific constitutional role in advising the sovereign on the exercise of the royal prerogative in relation to the appointment, dismissal, and acceptance of resignations of other Ministers. He is supported in this role by the Cabinet Secretary.

At this point I want to reference the point made by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, regarding the role of the Cabinet Secretary. I appreciate the point raised in the report. In evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place, the Cabinet Secretary himself in February stated:

“The Cabinet Secretary’s job is to bring together all those sources of constitutional thought and give the Prime Minister some advice on which they can then properly and well-informedly make their decision”.


While it is not explicitly stated in the job description, as pointed out by noble Lords on the committee, I believe that both the current occupant and all previous Cabinet Secretaries believed upholding the constitution to be implied in the very definition of their role.

Going back to Ministers, certain Ministers will naturally have a portfolio that places constitutional matters at the centre of their decision-making. The Cabinet Office serves as the home of policy relating to the UK constitution and devolution, working closely with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has oversight for all Cabinet Office policy. He is supported by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is also the Minister for the Constitution, and by the Minister of State who supports on intergovernmental relations—otherwise known as the brother of my noble friend Lady Alexander.

The machinery of government change that took place following the election, moving union and devolution policy from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government back to the Cabinet Office, further strengthens the Cabinet Office’s role as the centre of expertise on the constitution within government. The Government believe that the current arrangement, in which constitutional consideration is incumbent on all Ministers, is preferable to one where responsibility sits with a single Minister.

I do not think any of us would want Government Ministers to think that matters of the constitution and the strength of the union are someone else’s responsibility and will be dealt with by them, particularly as what could be considered constitutional goes much further than the roles I have listed so far—something the Constitution Committee has recognised in its descriptions of the five key tenets of the constitution.

For instance, the Lord Chancellor, as we have discussed, has a specific responsibility to protect the independence of the judiciary. Likewise, the law officers, as chief legal advisers to the Crown, have an important constitutional role in advising Ministers on their legal obligations and promoting the rule of law at home and abroad. In fact, the importance that this Government place on Ministers performing their constitutional duties is demonstrated in the oath sworn by the Attorney-General on taking office, which commits them to respecting the rule of law and serving the King in its first line.

The Leader of your Lordships’ House and the Leader of the other place act as the Government’s representatives in the legislature and the representatives of either House in the Government. The Leaders are responsible for representing the interests of both Houses and ensuring that the customs and principles that make Parliament unique are properly represented. Considering the wide range of subjects that a single Minister responsible for constitutional matters would be expected to cover, the Government believe that it is appropriate to maintain the current approach.

Moving on temporarily to intergovernmental relations, the Government’s manifesto commitment to reset the relationship with devolved Governments and to ensure that the structures and institutions of intergovernmental working improve relationships and collaboration on policy is key. That is why, almost a year ago today, the Prime Minister spoke to the heads of the devolved Governments within hours of taking office. The Government have continued in that vein. We have spent the last year working across all levels of government to deliver for every part of the United Kingdom and are using, and will continue to use, the intergovernmental structures to collaborate with the devolved Governments.

We have recommitted to the IGR structures, as has been evidenced in recent weeks. At the end of May, we held the second Council of the Nations and Regions in London. This brought together the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the heads of the devolved Governments and the regional mayors from across England for the second meeting since we took office. Alongside the council, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met multilaterally with the heads of the devolved Governments. This was in addition to the bilateral meetings the Prime Minister held with them on the same day.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Beith, on a communiqué related to this meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions, the Government have published the current terms of reference for the council and value the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament of the worth of the governance of the council through inquiries, Parliamentary Questions and regular engagement with departments as part of the scrutiny of government activity—I have responded to much of this in my role. So, although a communiqué was not published on this occasion, Ministers will continue to update both Houses through the regular scrutiny mechanisms.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, raised how other organisations that are not part of the Council of the Nations and Regions get to engage. Minister Alexander has been appointed as Minister of State to support cross-government co-ordination and engagement with the devolved Governments. This appointment shows how serious the Prime Minister and this Government are about working with the devolved Governments to deliver for citizens across the UK.

The English Devolution White Paper sets out that the mayors of strategic and established mayoral authorities will be able to be members of the CNR, as we have referenced. The Government want to see all of England benefit from devolution, with full devolution coverage across the country, with an ambition for all areas to have a mayor. We are committed to working productively with local government, and the Government have established the Leaders’ Council to bring together other local leaders and Ministers to identify and tackle strategic challenges facing local government.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has travelled, alongside the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to Belfast, where they chaired the first east-west council under this Government. They then attended the 43rd summit of the British-Irish Council in Newcastle, County Down, where the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met bilaterally with the heads of the devolved Governments. A fortnight later, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and other UK Ministers met with the Ministers responsible for intergovernmental relations from the devolved Governments at the Interministerial Standing Committee.

We are genuinely seeking to engage using the current structures and the new Council of the Nations and Regions structures to make sure that engagement in formal intergovernmental forums and informal everyday contact at official level works better than it has historically done. Through this, we are ensuring that there is genuine respect and collaboration across the different Governments who make up the United Kingdom and are focusing on a future built on partnership and recognition.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, raised the representation of English regions and counties without a mayor. As is always the case with our diverse intergovernmental structures, there are other mechanisms for engagement and we will continue to ensure that we progress with them.

I turn to some of the specific points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, made an interesting suggestion about the right for the Cabinet Secretary and others to record public dissent. The very suggestion of that might also suggest that some changes would happen in government, but I look forward to reflecting on that in the department and will report back in due course.

Noble Lords will be aware that I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy, so I am ever so sorry to other participants but the analogy from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, was my favourite, not least because HMS “Astute” was in the bay at my wedding in Gibraltar in recent months. I would like to gently remind the noble and learned Lord of something. I appreciate his concerns, but I remind him that the Prime Minister and my noble friends the Attorney-General and the Scottish Advocate-General have had distinguished careers at the Bar. This may be one point where it is clear that those at the top of our Government have complete respect for the role of the judiciary and some respect for the legal profession, given that they are all from it.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

No doubt the noble Baroness will have noticed that I was not referring to any of those three people.

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

I absolutely did, but I think on this occasion we can suggest that this Government are very clear in their commitment to the rule of law and the people who are in post.

There was a great deal of discussion about good chaps—I like to think chaps and chapesses—at the heart of which, as touched on by my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley, was the culture of stewardship that we have a collective responsibility to deliver with regard to our constitution. We all have an extraordinarily privileged position in sitting in your Lordships’ House and being part of our constitution. Therefore, the onus is on us to make sure that we work as members of the Government and as Members of Parliament to deliver on it.

I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about Bristol City Council. I went to school in Bristol, so I have a particular interest there. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, gave us a masterclass; I loved his historical comparisons and imaginative use of ChatGPT. I speak in your Lordships’ House on many different issues, and AI always manages to get into the debate. I did not think it would do so today, but I appreciate the ingenuity.

My noble friend Lady Alexander made a fascinating and very important point on the devolution settlement and the role of the Lord Chancellor. It is a position we have discussed in great detail in recent days and which I will reflect on, given the responsibilities we place on it. I am proud of the work that our party has done to drive the devolution agenda to deliver for people. We will continue to do so through the English devolution settlement and by making sure that devolution continues to work.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, raised a very interesting point about ensuring deeper public understanding of our constitution. As I said, there is an onus on all of us to do that; it is incredibly important for all citizens and lots of parliamentarians do extraordinary work to support public understanding. I will take away his suggestion, but I am not sure that a single programme led by government on promoting the constitution would be effective.

Having said that, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, touched on active citizenship. Citizenship is on the national curriculum. We are currently undertaking a review of the national curriculum and I hope that when we get the outcome of the review, we will be able reflect on this and other issues related to citizenship.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, knows that I genuinely enjoy his oratory in your Lordships’ House, not least because it forces me to question my own opinions every time to make sure that my views are in line with my values as much as his align. It will not surprise him, therefore, that although his speech was fascinating as ever, I still believe in the role of the Human Rights Act in ensuring that there are safeguards for the operation of government and the other safeguards that were touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.

Returning to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, I thank him for his decades of work on constitutional protections. The Government have well-established parliamentary and devolution capability programmes for civil servants, but there is always more to be done. I will go back and look at exactly what we need to do and the suggestions we need to follow.

I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the current political environment. I remind noble Lords there are four years until the next general election, and we will see how many political parties we will be facing in four years’ time, but I do reflect upon the seven that are now in existence. Noble Lords who are aware of my own personal travails will be aware of what I think of the establishment of the most recent of those political parties. His suggestion regarding the 1868 oaths Act is an interesting one, and I will have a conversation about it in the department. I also thank him for reminding us of the important role the monarch plays within our constitution, but also the subtle way that conversations can be had that give a level of importance to the Prime Minister.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I say that the Cabinet Secretary’s filing system sounds all too familiar and similar to my own. All members of the Government should reflect on our own filing systems, in both our emails and on paper. She had interesting thoughts on the Propriety and Constitution Group, and I would welcome a further conversation with her outside your Lordships’ House to consider what next steps we might need to take and possible areas of reform. I reassure all noble Lords that members of the Propriety and Constitution Group are accountable to the relevant Ministers, as is normal for all civil servants. For a moment during the noble Baroness’s speech, I thought she was about to suggest that we need another arms-length body, and I was amazed, but absolutely not—she did clarify that that was not something she would welcome.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, also raised a point about the Propriety and Constitution Group. I reassure him that while the union and devolution teams have moved from and back to the Cabinet Office, the Propriety and Constitution Group has consistently been in the Cabinet Office. This gives us the opportunity to preserve institutional memory, as was touched upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger.

On the Cabinet Manual, the Government are focused on delivering the commitments outlined in our manifesto. We know the importance of the Cabinet Manual and while we do not currently have plans to update it, we are keeping it under review.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I ask for an assurance that when the Cabinet Manual is renewed, there will be consultation with the appropriate committees in both Houses before it is published.

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

I am going to say yes, and we will see how much trouble I have just got myself in.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

On that point, it is quite important that the Minister commits to consulting Parliament, but it was very clear that the Cabinet Manual remains an executive document and it should not be approved by either House of Parliament; it should remain owned by Ministers. I think that distinction is worth getting on the record.

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

The noble Lord is absolutely right and probably just saved me from myself—I would have got in trouble. This is very clearly an executive document, as he was party to, but this Government will want to consult as widely as possible, which is why I also want to meet the noble Baroness on other issues, because wider consultation is important. The noble Lord did nearly get me in trouble.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, touched on the UK internal market. We are going through the statutory review process. Although we are ahead of time, we have just finished the consultation, and we are currently reflecting on it. She made an important point.

There were many other points raised that I realise I am not going to get to, but that just shows quite how important and wide ranging the debate has been. I will come back to noble Lords on their point that I have not been able to touch on. I thank noble Lords for their participation in today’s debate, and for, as ever, ensuring that I learn something in your Lordships’ House.