UK Public Servants: International Secondments

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what standards of behaviour apply to UK public servants on secondment to international organisations where UK civil service standards may be higher than those of the temporary secondment.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

Civil servants seconded outside the Civil Service, including internationally, do not cease to be civil servants and are expected to carry out their role with dedication and a commitment to the Civil Service and its core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. The provisions in the Civil Service Code and of their employing department continue to apply to them at all times.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

I thank the Minister. I should declare from the outset that my Question is not related to any individuals but, rather, is a question of policy. She will know about both the reputational damage to Civil Service morale and the fact that public confidence takes a hit when perceptions of lower standards take hold in public life. If, as the Minister explained, oversight by the home department continues and the Civil Service Code continues to apply, why is misconduct investigated not by the UK Civil Service but rather by the international organisation, which may represent lower standards than we would have? Are the Government minded to conduct a review to make sure that there is joined-up appraisal and performance assessment of people who may be away for several years?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Obviously, standards are an important part of the regime—not least because the Prime Minister has now given me responsibility for them. On the specifics that she asked for, whether the individual is on secondment nationally or internationally, as best practice, the department should continue to conduct the performance reviews of the secondee. The host will provide the department with appropriate input for these purposes, to agreed timescales. Alternatively, the department can agree that, for the duration of the secondment, the host conducts performance reviews. The host organisation is required to seek consent from the department to do so. The department must also consult the HR, pay and reward, and legal team where appropriate. This was reviewed last September, so we have no additional plans to review.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is right that we expect the highest standards of our civil servants, but what does my noble friend make of the statement that emanated from Reform UK that a Reform UK Government would expect to dismiss the top civil servants in every government department and replace them with people seen as more likely to implement the party’s priorities? Does she agree that if we go down that path, we will undermine the integrity of the Civil Service and do this country a great disservice?

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

My noble friend is absolutely right, and it suggests quite how unserious Reform UK is about governing. We have an independent Civil Service for a reason. It acts without fear or favour; it is subject to a stringent code of conduct, and it is there to make sure that our public services are delivered. Any suggestion otherwise is for the birds.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, the latest Civil Service staff survey, published last month, shows that, for example, more than one in 10 Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office staff and one in 10 Cabinet Office staff report having experienced bullying or harassment in the workplace in the last year. Can the Minister tell us what safeguards the Government have in place to ensure that such highly inappropriate behaviour is not exported inadvertently to international organisations?

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

The noble Lord raises an interesting point. Every member of the Civil Service is subject to the Civil Service Code, regardless of seniority, and we expect them to be held accountable and to treat all staff with appropriate levels of respect. Obviously, Ministers are subject to the Ministerial Code. There is extensive HR support within government departments, both within the FCDO and my own department, and I would expect everyone to undertake the appropriate training—and to be dismissed, where appropriate, if such behaviour was found.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, as the Infected Blood and Grenfell Tower inquiries made clear, having a Civil Service Code is one thing but ensuring that it is properly followed is quite another. Can the Minister therefore set out what specific consequences apply when the code is breached—whether by those in conventional employment or by those on secondment—and confirm whether serious instances of non-compliance are routinely escalated to senior Ministers and to No. 10, including in cases involving secondees or officials posted overseas? Furthermore, will she also explain how conduct is reflected in performance management and in decisions about future appointments, in particular how an individual’s conduct and performance while on secondment is assessed and taken into account?

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

The noble Baroness has asked four questions, so I will answer as many as I can. For all of them, the answer is the same, which is that chapter 4 of the Civil Service management code outlines what conduct we expect, the disciplinary process and how civil servants should apply it. I would expect every civil servant to stick to everything within the code and, if not, to be managed appropriately.

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

Having worked in an international organisation for five years and having seen some shocking conduct, it crosses my mind that the Government could do well to ask the British-appointed directors of those organisations to keep a very close eye on what goes on with respect to standards and to report back regularly, and for the Government to make public reports where they can on such information. Will the Government consider putting such an arrangement in place?

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

I am not sure how many secondments would work on that basis, but we already have in place keeping-in-touch conversations, where those who have been seconded must have regular conversations with their home department, as well as everything determined within the secondment agreement. Every secondment undertaken, both into and out of the Civil Service, is done on a case-by-case basis, so there is a bespoke secondment agreement which would allow some of those conversations to be formalised.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, clearly, as my noble friend has said, there are procedures and codes in place for our own civil servants, whom I hold in the highest regard. The noble Lord mentioned our own civil servants who are working in international organisations. I wonder what, if anything, we can do to ensure that bullying and harassment, for example, are properly dealt with in international organisations when it is not happening to our own civil servants who have been seconded to those organisations.

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

My noble friend raises an interesting point. This is about who we end up seconding staff to and what happens while they are there, and the things they may see. There is a clear process for any concerns that arise during a secondment process. The secondment can be terminated early and we can withdraw people, especially in the international space. It is also one of the reasons why we have those keeping-in-touch conversations, because, as our employees, we still have a duty of care towards them regardless of where they are working. We need to make sure that we know what environment they are operating in and that we can protect them wherever they are.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I do not believe the noble Baroness answered the last part of my question. Why are misconduct investigations undertaken by the international organisation, which may have lower standards, when the Civil Service Code applies, which may have higher standards? Should they not be undertaken by the home department from where the secondee goes abroad?

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

I apologise; I thought I had answered the question. If a member of our staff is on secondment elsewhere and there are disciplinary concerns, the secondment process is likely to end and the disciplinary process will be dealt with in their home department and not by where they are seconded.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that accountability of the Civil Service is crucial as well? It is important that Ministers can hold civil servants to account. Do we know how that is best managed? It seems to me as though we need to hold them to account, but there needs to be no bullying involved.

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend, but I suggest that it is always about your individual management style; for example, as a Minister, working with people and bringing them on a journey with you, making sure that you are able to deliver collectively and collaboratively in your policy area. But it is also about ensuring that culture change exists both within the Civil Service and elsewhere, so that anything considered as bullying and harassment is not acceptable in the 21st century.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister completely satisfied about the complexity and glacial progress which confronts civil servants who wish to make a complaint about another civil servant? In my experience, that seems to be a ponderous, unnecessarily arduous, distressing and very long-standing procedure.

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

The noble Baroness has had significant experience of ministerial office. I have not, but among the civil servants who I have worked with, if there are those who may have made complaints, I am not aware that they have faced that experience, but if she has specifics she would like to raise with me in terms of where there are challenges in the system, I would be more than happy to have that conversation with her outside the Chamber.

Iranian State-sponsored Cyber Attacks: Mitigation and Preparation

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

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

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, the National Cyber Security Centre is closely monitoring the situation in the Middle East and directly engaging with critical sectors, providing immediate and specific information and advice. It has issued an alert, urging all organisations, especially those with assets or supply chains in the region, to remain vigilant. While it is likely that the direct cyber threat from Iran to the UK has not changed, NCSC advises organisations to strengthen their cyber security posture due to the fast-evolving nature of the conflict. The National Protective Security Authority also issued updated guidance last year on countering the threat of sabotage, helping organisations to protect their sites from physical threats.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I am also grateful for what the National Cyber Security Centre has been doing in terms of targeted advice. However, last week four people were arrested by the Metropolitan Police under the National Security Act for what has been reported as spying against Jewish organisations— so there is an issue about that in terms of the risk of Iranian sabotage. There has also been a series of incidents across Europe and in this country of Russian-inspired or Russian paid-for attacks on various businesses. What is the general advice given to the public, to small businesses and to larger businesses in terms of the precautions they ought increasingly to take under the current international situation?

--- Later in debate ---

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

My noble friend raises an important point; all of this comes down to our national resilience and making sure that we are prepared for such threats. Before I highlight what we are doing on the specifics of cyber, and on cyber more generally, let me highlight that ministerial colleagues, the Faith Minister and the security services, which have done so much in recent days to keep us safe, have met and spoken to a large range of Jewish and Muslim organisations to provide reassurance. They have also met with my noble friend Lord Mann and 20 councils to provide reassurance to those who are so worried about the current conflict.

In terms of specific guidance, the reality is that in this space we need a whole-society approach. Businesses have to take the lead—they know where their threats are and where their vulnerabilities may lie—but at this point we need to make sure that we are collectively working together. The Government will bring forward the cyber action plan by spring, and the cyber security and resilience Bill is currently in the other place.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, as the defence production need for entirely new kinds of warfare steps up, as it is now doing, are the Government satisfied that the needs of our strategy, which are rapidly growing, are closely enough aligned with the plans of British industry?

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

The noble Lord is right that we need to make sure that we are protecting British industry and working with key allies. Last year, cyber attacks cost the economy £15 billion, and it is a growing threat. We need to work with business, but also to be led by it because it knows what infrastructure is there. As some noble Lords will be aware, some of this is low tech as much as high technology, and people are seeking every vulnerability. We all need to be cognisant of that and make sure there is a genuinely whole-society approach.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, if we are going to have a whole-society response, we had better make sure that the whole society is informed about the nature of the threat. Nearly a year ago, the strategic defence review talked about the need for

“a national conversation led by the Government”—

political leadership by the Government—to inform and educate the wider public about the nature of these new cyber and other hybrid threats from a number of different countries: Iran, Russia, China and others. When are the Government going to provide that political leadership through the national conversation which was proposed?

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

My Lords, I am disappointed that not everybody looks at the NCSC’s website in the same way that I do to ensure that they are updated. The noble Lord is right that we need to make sure that people are aware. It was one of the reasons why it was so important in the run-up to the national alerts we had on all our phones last year that materials were made available about what else could be done in terms of resilience and what other things needed to be done. I urge all noble Lords to make sure they are also protected. I hate to do this, but there is a cyber offer available to every Member of your Lordships’ House, and I believe only 10 of us have accessed it. It would be very good if all Members of your Lordships’ House took up the security offering provided to protect us while we talk about others too.

[Lord Peach (CB)]

My Lords, sticking with the theme, Iran is a sophisticated actor and works closely with Russia. We know the threats that Russia can generate, which are more than cyber. It is not just time for a national conversation; it is time to strengthen our national security narrative for the whole country.

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

I think it is fair to say that of course I agree with the noble and gallant Lord. It is also about making sure the foundations we have in place are right too. We go from national security to national defence within this space, as well as our wider resilience programme. It is one of the reasons why the Rycroft review into funding of political parties is so important and why the Representation of the People Bill, which is in the other place, is key. It is also why we are investing £170 million in Sovereign encrypted technology so that we can protect ourselves. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the challenges from Iran are not one-dimensional; they are multi-dimensional and we all need to be prepared.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, when Russia invaded Ukraine, we were very quick to sanction individuals and freeze assets. Can the noble Baroness tell me what assets we have frozen of the late ayatollah? His office, I believe, is still open in Kilburn. Apparently, there are flats and so on near Israel’s embassy in Kensington. What are we doing to sanction the assets?

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

My Lords, the Government have taken significant action so far. We have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, as well as 550 Iranian individuals and entities. We have also placed the whole of the Iranian state, including Iran’s intelligence services, on the enhanced tier of the new foreign influence registration scheme, to better reveal any Iranian influence on the UK. We are also training front-line police officers on what state threats are and are not. In terms of the specifics, I will have to write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, we have talked a lot about cyber defence, and of course that is extremely important, but you do not win a war purely through defence and, be in no doubt, we are at war in cyber space. I do not expect the Minister to give us any details, but could she reassure the House that we are taking all the action necessary to go on the offensive in this area as well as defend?

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

The noble and gallant Lord knows much more than I do about how to fight a war. He is absolutely right that we need to be prepared on all fronts, and I want to reassure him that we are making sure that we are.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the National Audit Office recently examined the cyber threat facing the UK Government and reached some deeply concerning conclusions. It found that 58 critical government IT systems have significant gaps in their cyber resilience and that the Government do not even know how vulnerable at least 228 legacy systems are to cyber attack. It also highlighted a number of underlying weaknesses, shortage of cyber security skills within government and insufficient co-ordination across departments. In the face of what the NAO has described as a “severe and advancing” threat, with tensions in the Middle East further heightening the risk environment, can the noble Baroness set out what steps the Government are taking to address these shortcomings and strengthen the resilience of critical government systems?

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

The noble Baroness will be aware that the cyber security and resilience Bill is in the other place, which is a starting point. I am aware of what she has highlighted and we are working across Government to fix it. There is also the cyber action plan, which will be published this spring.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, may I bring my noble friend back to the question of a national conversation and ask her a rather more prosaic question about what efforts the Government are making to counter the kind of information that gives rise to very unhelpful behaviours: for example, the hoarding of certain kinds of foodstuffs, petrol and other things? Is she aware, or are the Government aware, of any particular rise in that kind of behaviour at this moment?

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

I thank my noble friend for the question, which is interesting. I have not been made aware that any of those behaviours have yet happened. Anyone who watches the news is aware of quite how volatile and uncertain the world is. You can understand why that is. What I would say, both to members of your Lordships’ House and to the general public, is that there is a responsibility on those of us who can look after ourselves at a point of crisis to make sure that we have minimum levels of food and water at home so that the state can look after the most vulnerable and deal with the emergency at hand. All of that guidance is available on GOV.UK.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the source of much of this activity is the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Why have our Government not proscribed it to try and prevent this activity at source? Secondly, the growth of the rampant misinformation and disinformation, which is causing Islamophobia and antisemitism—some, indeed, from far-right evangelical groups in the United States—is now becoming pervasive. What work are the Government doing with Ofcom to prevent that at source?

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

The noble Lord will be aware of my own voting record on the IRGC’s proscription—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

In opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Yes, in opposition. But let me be clear: proscription powers are designed for non-state terror organisations, not state organisations. We have committed to taking forward plans recommended by Jonathan Hall KC for a proscription-like power for states and state-linked bodies to tackle hostile state activity. That will come forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

With regard to the other point, some of this action is happening in terms of media literacy training, changes to the curriculum and how all of us interrogate data and what we see online. The reality, I say as someone who has lived and breathed some of the misinformation that is put out about people in this space, is that we need to be aware that what happens online really does have an effect offline. That is increasingly the reality that we have to manage, which is why my final word is to say once again how thankful I am to the security services.

Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 and 26 January be approved.

Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.

Motions agreed.

Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations make targeted amendments to the Procurement Regulations 2024 so that key parts of the Procurement Act 2023 operate effectively in practice. They strengthen transparency in a proportionate and deliverable way, and they make a small number of practical improvements to support the smooth operation of the new regime.

Public procurement is how the state translates policy into delivery. It is also where public trust can be won or lost. Transparency is, therefore, not optional. It is a necessary discipline that helps ensure value for money, strengthens accountability, and supports confidence among suppliers and the wider public. After all, this is about public money—taxpayers’ money.

The principal purpose of this instrument is to implement Section 70 of the Act. This requires quarterly publication of information about individual payments over £30,000 made under public contracts. These regulations specify the information that must be published and how it is to be published on the central digital platform so that the payment can be linked to the relevant contract and supplier record. This is designed to allow Parliament, the public, suppliers and contracting authorities to “follow the money” in a meaningful way, seeing what was bought, from whom and what was paid under the contract.

The instrument also closes an important gap by ensuring that suppliers awarded notifiable below-threshold contracts are registered on the central digital platform and have a unique supplier identifier. This is light-touch in practice but important in its effect. It improves traceability across the market, strengthens confidence that procurement data reflects real supplier identity, and supports better understanding of SME and voluntary sector participation.

The instrument also completes the move away from Contracts Finder, a legacy publication route whose functions are being consolidated into the central digital platform. This reduces duplication and confusion for suppliers and authorities, and supports a single, coherent source of procurement information—an important part of making transparency meaningful.

Taken together, these regulations are practical and focused. They implement contract-linked payment transparency, as Parliament intended; close a key data gap on supplier identity for below-threshold awards; and simplify publication by consolidating on to a single platform. For these reasons, I hope that your Lordships will support these regulations, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, it is the “Baroness Anderson and Baroness Finn show” again, I am afraid.

We welcome these regulations. Section 70 of the Procurement Act 2023, introduced by the previous Conservative Government, created new reporting requirements for procurement payments over £30,000. The purposes were clear: to improve transparency; to strengthen accountability; and to make it easier for the public to see how taxpayers’ money is being spent. These regulations implement those commitments by specifying the information that must be published and ensuring that it is made available on a central digital platform. That is a sensible and important step.

Transparency is not an administrative afterthought. It is a safeguard. Publishing clear data on payments—including the contracting authority, the supplier, the value of the payment and the date—enables scrutiny, improves financial discipline and supports better value for money. We particularly welcome the move to align reporting requirements across central and local government. A consistent approach reduces confusion and ensures that transparency does not depend on postcode.

However, I would welcome brief clarification from the Minister on two points. First, on implementation, can the Minister confirm that the central digital platform is fully operational, and that contracting authorities have received clear guidance on data standards and reporting formats? Transparency is meaningful only if the data is accessible and consistent. Secondly, on proportionality, although these requirements are reasonable, what assessment has been made of the administrative burden on smaller contracting authorities? It is important that transparency does not inadvertently divert resource from front-line delivery.

Subject to those two questions, we support these regulations. They deliver on clear commitments to open procurement, to better scrutiny and to ensuring that public money is spent in a way that can be properly examined.

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

My Lords, the problem when there are only two of us, as we are getting used to, is that I do not necessarily have time to answer all the questions, but I will give it a go. As ever, I thank my opposite number, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for the points that she has raised. Unless something is about to appear in front of me like magic, I may have to clarify for her in writing, but I promise to do that swiftly. I believe that, yes, the platform is ready, willing and able—with slight modifications due to be put in place, it should be fully up to speed by the end of the year. As for the administrative burden on smaller authorities, we have made sure that everything that can be done to support them is being done. I will write to the noble Baroness with details of that.

These regulations are about making transparency under the 2023 Act operable and meaningful. The core point is that payment transparency works best when payments are linked to the contract and supply a record on the central platform, enabling scrutiny that is joined up rather than fragmented. The additional provisions are tightly connected. They close data gaps that would otherwise weaken transparency and they ensure that the system works in practice during outages and in urgent protect-life situations. The overall model remains proportionate and deliverable. It is quarterly, prospective from 1 April 2026, and early central government experience suggests that initial reporting volumes are manageable. On that basis, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and commend the regulations.

Motion agreed.

Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am going to speak slightly slowly so that my officials have time to swap out, because they are two different teams. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to implement the procurement chapter of the UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, via an amendment to the Procurement Act 2023. The UK-India CETA was signed on 24 July 2025 and is one of the most significant bilateral trade agreements that the UK has completed since leaving the European Union.

India is one of the economic heavyweights of the 21st century. It has the highest growth rate in the G20 and is likely to become the third-largest economy in the world by 2029, but India’s markets are also behind some of the highest barriers in the world. The deal that we have secured goes well beyond India’s offering to other countries, opening the door for UK businesses on an unprecedented basis, especially in respect of government procurement. Some noble Lords present may have attended the Lords debate on the UK-India trade agreement last week, when a variety of policy issues pertaining to the agreement were discussed. Today’s debate is focused solely on the procurement chapter of the agreement.

India spends an estimated 20% of its GDP, or £500 billion, on public procurement. Given that India’s nominal GDP was estimated to be £2.74 trillion in 2022 and is projected to reach £7.06 trillion by 2035, this is a phenomenal opportunity for UK suppliers. The procurement chapter unlocks unprecedented access to India’s federal procurement market, covering £38 billion-worth of contracts a year in such sectors as advanced manufacturing, healthcare, construction and infrastructure, and clean energy. For the first time, UK companies will be able to access India’s procurement portal. British businesses will have access to India’s covered entities in respect of procurements above £478,000 for goods and services and £5.3 million for construction services.

We have gained exclusive treatment under the “Make in India” policy. UK bidders will be treated as class 2 suppliers under “Make in India” if at least 20% of their product or service is from the UK or India, giving UK suppliers unprecedented access to India’s federal procurement market not available to other foreign suppliers. We have also reached commitments on fairness, openness and transparency, including the use and accessibility of e-procurement systems, requirements for the publishing of notices and awarding of contracts and domestic review procedures for businesses to bring a challenge if the chapter’s rules have not been followed correctly. The agreement that this Government have secured was a momentous achievement. Others have been trying to get a deal like this for years and failed, but this Prime Minister, along with the then Business Secretary and Trade Minister, delivered.

We are clearly leading the way, as the EU and India have now reached political agreement on their own trade agreement, where it seems that the UK deal was used as a baseline. However, we retain first-mover advantage, including unique access to India’s £38 billion federal procurement market, which the EU has not obtained. As part of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process to enable parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, the CETA was laid in Parliament on 21 January 2026 and cleared the CRaG scrutiny process on 5 March. This SI was laid on 19 January 2026 to bring the CETA into force as quickly as possible, while allowing for the necessary parliamentary scrutiny, to allow businesses to take advantage of the agreement and deliver growth across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and for clearly setting out their purpose. As she explained, these regulations amend the Procurement Act 2023 to add the UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement to the list of specified international agreements in the Act. In doing so, they give effect in domestic law to the procurement provisions contained in that agreement. Under the World Trade Organization’s agreement on government procurement, the United Kingdom is required to ensure that countries with which we have concluded relevant trade agreements are given non-discriminatory access to public procurement markets. These regulations are therefore a technical but necessary step to ensure that the United Kingdom meets those obligations.

While we support the regulations, it is worth briefly reflecting on the wider context in which they sit. The UK-India agreement was long anticipated and presents significant potential opportunities for trade between our two countries. However, we have concerns about some of the provisions in the agreement and about what was not included.

The inclusion of services in any agreement with India was widely regarded as a central objective of the United Kingdom’s negotiating position. It is therefore disappointing that a number of key services sectors, including the legal sector, appear not to have secured the level of market access that had been hoped for. Given the strength of the UK services economy, that omission represents a missed opportunity. Similar concerns were raised during the debate in the other place, where it was noted that securing stronger outcomes for services had been a central priority during earlier negotiations.

Concerns have also been raised regarding the operation of the double contributions convention within the agreement, which may mean that companies employing Indian workers in the United Kingdom are not required to pay employer national insurance contributions on their salaries. Although labour mobility provisions are a common feature of modern trade agreements, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify how the Government intend to ensure that these arrangements operate fairly and do not inadvertently disadvantage British workers.

I would also welcome the Minister’s comments on the point raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on the timing of this instrument. As the committee observed, the regulations were laid shortly before the treaty itself was formally laid before Parliament, meaning that the scrutiny periods for the treaty and its implementing legislation run in parallel. Can the Minister explain the Government’s reasoning for adopting that approach and reassure the Grand Committee that Parliament will have had sufficient opportunities to scrutinise both the agreement and the legislation required to implement it?

Finally, Ministers have suggested that the procurement provisions of this agreement will open up significant opportunities for UK businesses by providing access to India’s federal procurement market. That is clearly welcome, but it would be helpful to hear how the Government intend to support UK firms, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, in navigating and accessing those opportunities in practice.

With those brief remarks, I reiterate that these regulations are a necessary step to give effect to the procurement provisions of the agreement. Nevertheless, we will continue to take a close interest in how the wider deal operates in practice and whether it ultimately delivers the benefits that British businesses and workers were promised.

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

My Lords, this has been part 2 of the “Finn and Anderson show” today. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for the points she raised. I was a little disappointed that she did not manage to get in a reference to those celebrating this deal—not least the people of Scotland, who are delighted about access to the Indian whisky market; it has been life-changing for that sector.

I will respond to some of the specific questions the noble Baroness asked me. I will reflect on Hansard after the debate, and I am sure she will pick me up on anything I miss.

On the double contributions convention, the UK Government already have similar agreements in place covering Chile, Japan, South Korea, the 27 EU member states, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Barbados, Canada, Israel, Jamaica, Mauritius, the Philippines, Bosnia-Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Turkey and the USA. We know how to do these agreements and we are effective at them. The noble Baroness will be aware that the previous Government also operated within this space. There is little to be concerned about.

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that our focus should be on how we support businesses so that they can access the benefits of this procurement chapter. It is vital that we ensure that British businesses can utilise the benefits of this chapter if we are to reap the economic rewards of this unprecedented access to India’s market. The Department for Business and Trade has a significant presence in India, with one of the biggest in-country overseas teams in the world, behind only the US and China. This consists of sectoral experts who work directly with UK companies to help them enter, grow and expand into the Indian market. Alongside this, the team has staff focusing on trade policy, market access, investment promotion, and marketing and communications, under the leadership of HM trade commissioner for South Asia. The DBT works in partnership with Foreign Office teams in India, who also have objectives to support UK economic growth.

On the timing of the instrument, as part of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process to enable parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, the Government are required to lay a relevant treaty, alongside an Explanatory Memorandum, for 21 sitting days before it can be ratified—unless either House adopts a Motion that such a treaty should not be ratified—subject to any additional procedural steps required by the treaty also being concluded. Although it is not a legal requirement for treaties to have completed the process set out in the CRaG Act prior to implementation in domestic law, it has been an informal convention to lay before Parliament the implementing legislation after the treaty in question has undergone the initial 21 days.

Exceptionally, in this case, the CETA was laid in Parliament on 21 January 2026 and formally entered the CRaG process shortly after the draft instrument was laid before Parliament on 19 January 2026, in accordance with the affirmative procedure. The CRaG process concluded on 5 March. This approach has been necessary due to the Government’s desire to bring the CETA into force as quickly as possible, while allowing necessary parliamentary scrutiny, to allow businesses to take advantage of the agreement and to deliver growth across the country.

I hope I have answered all the noble Baroness’s questions. To conclude, this historic agreement marks a major milestone in the UK-India relationship and is one of the most significant bilateral trade agreements that the UK has concluded since leaving the EU. Implementation of the CETA is a key step in opening up new markets and opportunities for British businesses and exports, delivering economic growth across the country. This is especially true in respect of the procurement chapter that we have been discussing, which unlocks unprecedented access to India’s federal procurement market.

Motion agreed.

UK-EU Customs Union

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for securing this timely and important debate. It must conclude at 15.02 pm, so I will get through as much as I can. I will obviously look at Hansard. I think I will write a great deal to noble Lords—I apologise.

Before I respond to the substance of the debate, I want to recognise some of the extraordinary contributions we have heard today. Four maiden speeches and one valedictory is quite something in one debate. The thoughtful final contribution to your Lordships’ House from the noble Lord, Lord Offord, was as expected. I understand the business that he founded in 2013 was called Badenoch & Co; I wonder whether the noble Lord is planning on renaming it “Farage & Co”.

I turn to my noble friends who made their wonderful, brilliant maiden speeches today. I was so pleased to see my noble friend Lady Gill join our Benches. I campaigned with her in the West Midlands when she was first elected, which I have now realised was 27 years ago. I am delighted that she was able to use her mother’s Gutka to take her oath.

Turning to my noble friend Lord Docherty’s one-vote win: for many of us, a win is a win. What a wonderful example of how small our world is that Mr McFall—who is now the noble Lord, Lord McFall—has been part of his journey and remains, at least for a time, the man standing at the front.

I have known my noble friend Lord Doyle for more than two decades. I know his family is proud of him because his friends are too. I know that his sister is looking down on him today as she does every day. We are lucky to have him.

My noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson is a child of the manse. He gave us such a thoughtful and considered speech. We are lucky to have him, and I look forward to his contributions.

Moving to the subject at hand, this Government were elected with a clear manifesto commitment to reset relations with our European partners, to tear down unnecessary barriers to trade, and to increase national security through strong borders and greater international co-operation, all without returning to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement, the red lines in the Labour Party manifesto. That is exactly what we are doing.

In May last year, the Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU, which the Government announced at the historic UK-EU summit, the first since Brexit. The deal we secured with the EU is good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs, and, most importantly, it delivers on what the British people voted for. We now move on with the detailed negotiations. We are making good progress on talks with the EU since the summit to implement the joint commitments made, and I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that we aim to reach detailed agreements by the next summit.

As we discussed in your Lordships’ House last month, the UK and the European Commission have agreed a new deal for the UK’s association to Erasmus from 2027, opening up opportunities for students and professionals that will be good not just for young people at university but for those at colleges and in workplaces across the country, who will now have the opportunity to study abroad, broaden horizons, experience other cultures and have a better understanding of the people who are some of our closest allies.

Noble Lords will be aware that we have also concluded exploratory talks on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market and are proceeding swiftly with negotiations on a UK-EU electricity agreement. These are important steps in delivering tangible benefits for the people of the United Kingdom, making it clear that rebuilding our relationship with the EU is engagement with a purpose. This closer co-operation will bring real benefits that will be felt by businesses and consumers in the UK and across Europe—the same businesses and consumers who will also feel the benefits of the food and drink agreement which we are negotiating with the EU, boosting our exports and cutting costs for importers.

In part in response to the genuine concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I say that an SPS agreement will be highly beneficial to Northern Ireland. It will remove a broad and wide-ranging set of requirements for goods and plants moving from Great Britain to NI because the same regulations will be followed across the UK. Agreement will smooth flows of trade, protect the UK’s internal market, reduce costs for businesses and improve consumer choice in Northern Ireland. The same businesses and consumers who will benefit from that will also feel the benefit of linking our carbon markets—cutting costs, making it cheaper for UK companies to move to green energy and, once agreed, saving the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism charge being paid on £7 billion-worth of UK goods exported to the EU.

By the time of the next UK-EU summit, we aim to have concluded the negotiations not only on a food and drink deal but on linking our carbon markets, and to have agreed a youth experience scheme. The food and drink and ETS linking measures alone are set to add up to £9 billion a year in the UK economy by 2040 in a significant boost for growth, bringing down bills for British people and opening up new opportunities.

I have 30 seconds left. I have a great deal more to say, but I will undoubtedly discuss these matters repeatedly in your Lordships’ House in the coming months and years. The one thing I will say is that this Government, within the red lines we have outlined in our manifesto, are committed to delivering for the people of the UK and resetting our relationship with the European Union.

The UK’s Demographic Future

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for securing this debate. The report Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow is a timely contribution to our national discussion on population, prosperity and the future of our United Kingdom. Many noble Lords have already highlighted the noble Lord’s distinguished career. I add my thanks for his public service, and for his notable contributions to my county of Staffordshire in his business dealings.

The report highlights the demographic shifts our nation is currently experiencing, but, before I touch on his report, I feel I should also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that I will respond to its key points. I will reflect on some of the questions in Hansard, answer some specific ones that have been raised and will, as ever, write. However, noble Lords will appreciate that this has been a wide-ranging discussion and debate. I should also highlight to the noble Lord that, before the general election, my boss was Sir Trevor Phillips, whom he cited; so I could end up getting myself in a great deal of trouble by the end of this response.

This Government recognise the points articulated in the document: the pressure on housing supply, the strain on our NHS, the impact on wages in certain sectors and the importance of maintaining social cohesion amid rapid change. We are not alone in facing these challenges. As the report notes through its international case studies, many countries across the world are also grappling with similar issues. Before I move on to the substance of the debate, I would like to make a couple of points.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, who raised the issue of Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, and where this debate can lead, I am well versed, having helped to lead the campaign against the BNP in my great city. Only this week, the now former leader of my county council of Staffordshire had to resign over his support of white supremacist social media sites. I am aware of what is at stake, and so are my Government. As the Prime Minister has stated, this is a battle for the values which govern our country and it is incredibly important that we are part of the fight.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, who made a very powerful speech, I say that, like her mother, my mother is also a force. I would suggest that is why both the noble Baroness and I are in your Lordships’ House. My mother ensured that I understood my responsibilities to fight back against racism, and those who hated me because of who I was and not what I did. However, I think my mother beat the noble Baroness’s, because I went on my first demo when I was a toddler.

I will now address some of the specific issues in the report before us, and the points noble Lords raised in the debate. On migration, this Government have been clear that we want a system that works in the national interest, attracting the brightest and best while being fair and firm. The modern challenges that migration can present do not overwrite the millions of individual stories of people who have come to this country over the centuries, built our nation in partnership with those already here, and today are our colleagues, our neighbours, our families and our friends.

I am here because my family fled persecution and found sanctuary in our great country. It was a brave decision to flee the country from which they came, to flee the Pale of Settlement, but the scale of pogroms gave them little choice, and I am very grateful that our country let them in.

Since taking office, this Government have taken fair action to reduce the number of people coming to the UK, particularly in some of the areas identified by the report. Our recent tightening of the rules around dependants for students and the review of the graduate visa route are evidence of the Government’s commitment to responsible migration management. However, fair management of migration is only one side of the coin. We must also address the consequences of population change already in the system, as outlined by the report’s expert contributors.

Given the request for better data, however—which I will come to later in my speech—it would be helpful to remind your Lordships’ House that the latest ONS figures estimate net migration of 204,000 in the year to June, a fall from 649,000 the year before. If we are going to talk about data, we should be absolutely clear on the accuracies of that data.

Turning to some of the points raised about migration, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who raised the issue of asylum seekers, the Government have published a new asylum policy statement setting out significant reforms to the UK’s asylum and illegal migration system. The statement outlines the current challenges, the Government’s objectives and a comprehensive package of measures to restore order, control, fairness and public confidence in the system. Elements of this include that refugee status will be temporary, granted for 30 months and renewable as necessary. Settlement will no longer be automatic; instead, there will be a 20-year route to permanent residency, ensuring long-term commitment and integration. Refugees will be able to switch into a new bespoke work and study route to access family reunion and resettlement rights, with new fees and conditions in accordance with the rules of that route. This will enable them to earn down their length of time before they can settle in the UK to 20 years.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham—from slightly different positions, I suggest—touched on the ECHR and our current plans. Noble Lords will be aware that only yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister, accompanied by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, addressed the Council of Europe’s informal Conference of Ministers of Justice in Strasbourg to talk about reform of the system, in order to make sure that the ECHR can be fairly applied with regard to illegal migration, and to secure the convention’s future.

With regard to immigration and the effect on GDP, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, the UK’s immigration system is geared towards supporting businesses and accessing highly skilled overseas workers, who boost the supply of skills and talent in the UK labour market. These individuals are the most likely to contribute to growth. That is why the Government have recently announced plans to improve access to our highly talented visa routes and tilt the immigration system back towards attracting higher skilled workers to the UK. The Government are clear that overall net migration must fall from the very high levels over recent years. We plan to achieve this by reducing lower skilled migration and groups with lower participation in the labour market, who contribute less to growth.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, also raised the issues of skills and productivity. Increasing skills is responsible for a third of productivity growth and provides the opportunity for people to boost their incomes and improve their quality of life. Through short courses, funded by the growth and skills levy, and partnership with colleges and universities, Skills England will work in partnership with employers to support clearer navigation of the skills landscape and training products for the outcomes they need. The Department for Work and Pensions will work with employers to fill their vacancies—to get the right people with the right skills, or set them on the right path to grow their necessary skills.

The introduction of work visas was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. Since the introduction of the skilled worker route, the salary requirements dictate that a migrant must be paid whatever is higher out of the general threshold for the route or the going rate for that occupation, with an absolute minimum salary requirement that an overseas worker has to be paid. This is designed to place a premium on recruiting overseas and maintaining access to international talent for firms, while also ensuring that UK resident workers are not undercut—something the noble Lord would expect from the Labour Party.

The Government are clear that international recruitment cannot be a cheap alternative to fair pay, and this must be reflected in future changes to the immigration system. On that point, I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, who raised a series of interesting points about new technologies. I will reflect on his comments, especially that robots are nice. Given the subject of the report, he really is thinking about tomorrow. I have all the lyrics of “Don’t Stop” in front of me, and I am very disappointed that other noble Lords have not used them in their speeches.

I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, about international students converting from study visas to work visas. The Government’s approach is to link migration policy and visa controls to skills and labour market policies, so that immigration is not used as an alternative to training or tackling workforce problems in the UK. This approach will be important to enabling delivery of the Government’s broader agenda.

Moving from migration to social cohesion: the UK has experienced a sustained period of rapid demographic, economic and technological change, which, alongside 14 years of Tory austerity, has put increased pressure on public services and local communities. We have seen tension, frustration and, in some cases, division manifested in the places most affected. At this point, I put on record my former roles at HOPE not hate and the CST, where my core responsibilities involved work on social cohesion and counterextremism.

I reassure your Lordships’ House that these issues are being taken extremely seriously, and I especially reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester that this is key to what we seek to do. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is co-ordinating cross-government efforts to consider a longer-term, more strategic approach to social cohesion, working in partnership with local government, communities and stakeholders comprehensively to address complex, deep-seated issues in our places. As the right reverend Prelate asked for, this is a whole-society approach.

As part of our pride in place strategy, we are providing up to £5 billion over 10 years to support more than 330 of our most deprived communities across the country, helping to build strong, resilient and integrated communities. My great city of Stoke-on-Trent is a participant in that, including in my husband’s constituency—I set that out for the record. Bentilee, Ubberley and Meir North are areas that will each receive up to £20 million over the next 10 years.

Our long-term investment is designed not only to address deprivation but to rebuild social capital and strengthen community ties in areas, with a portion of funding expected to support cohesion-related projects. Importantly, we are empowering communities to make decisions that shape their places. We will continue to seek ways to bolster social cohesion, working in partnership with local government and civil society.

I turn to one of today’s consistent themes: the pressure on public services and housing. The 10-year health plan, published in July 2025, set out a vision for how the Government will make an NHS fit for the future. The plan set a clear direction for the service, its stakeholders and the public on the future shape of care through three radical shifts: hospital to community, analogue to digital, and sickness to prevention. I turn to a specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart—I want to call her “my noble friend” even though she is a Cross-Bencher. An engaged workforce is central to delivering the Government’s objectives for the NHS. The 10-year health plan set out the vision for how the Government will make the NHS fit for the future.

A new workforce plan will be published next year to detail how the workforce will be equipped to deliver the 10-year health plan, the roles it should carry out, where they should be deployed and the skills it should have. That includes staff being better treated and having better training and more exciting roles. The new workforce plan will be based on multi-professional teams, with the skills needed to enable the delivery of the three shifts.

Building on that point—and in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn—NHS England will shortly commence the second phase of the medical education and training review, working with partners to design a package of reforms that will provide doctors with the skills they need to meet the evolving needs of our patients in a modern NHS. That includes work focused on procedure-heavy specialities, to ensure a rapid acquisition of skills and to develop a curriculum that delivers the skills needed for a community-based, digitally enabled healthcare system.

On housing, we are committed—as noble Lords have recognised—to delivering 1.5 million safe and decent homes this Parliament, as set out in our plan for change. We have already taken urgent action through bold planning reforms and a record £39 billion investment to kick-start social and affordable housebuilding at scale across the country.

Houses are homes which anchor communities. It is vital that the homes delivered are high-quality, well designed and in places where people can work and thrive. We will ensure that what we build is supported by the necessary infrastructure and well-designed place-making, working in partnership with councils, housing associations and the wider sector.

Employment support was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. Professor Harper’s analysis in the report of an ageing UK workforce is particularly pertinent. People in the UK are living longer, and the proportion of workers over 50 in the workforce is growing. Noble Lords need only look at your Lordships’ House.

Good work and careers have a positive impact on health, well-being and financial resilience. Work gives people purpose, a focus for learning and the important means to engage with society. This is particularly important for people who experience loneliness in later life, as the right reverend Prelate highlighted. Our focus is on lifelong learning, upskilling and incentivising longer, healthier working lives to maximise the potential of our domestic workforce.

The DWP currently offers employment support for all ages through its network of jobcentres across the UK and through contracted employment programmes. In addition, work coaches and employers are supported by 50PLUS Champions working across all 37 jobcentre districts. Champions provide a critical layer of support through jobcentres to ensure that the needs of workers over 50 are met.

I have many points on the environment, but there were not many points made on it. So I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, who was the main person to raise it.

I move on to security, on which there were several points. Professor Clarke, who I worked with when he acted as an adviser to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee and is a great analyst, addresses two areas of national security: protecting the state from external threats, and internal stability. He focuses in particular on military recruitment and on threats to national cohesion from state-directed sub-threshold warfare.

At this point, I refer the House to my register of interests. Like my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. While we are talking about matters relating to the senior service, I will just quickly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I reassure him that both the Type 26 and the Type 31 frigates are currently being built in the UK as we speak. When I questioned myself, I did go and check with the former First Sea Lord, who usually sits in front of him.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, emphasised, the issues of security are key, and some of the issues we are addressing are outside our immediate scope. These are both important aspects of the challenges we face. Our national security strategy, published in June, sets out the Government’s intent to harden their approach. Its objectives include strengthening our borders and making the UK a harder target for adversaries and for gangs engaged in people trafficking.

Beyond our borders, we must consider the effects of the very significant demographic changes which will take place in other countries over the next 50 years. The strategy is clear that we are entering a period of significant global instability. Demographic change will contribute to a number of issues, with challenging implications for the UK.

As set out in the strategy, our statecraft will need to adapt to this environment, ensuring that we can defend our territory and overseas supply chains from increased competition, improving our resilience to transnational risks and strengthening our key alliances so that we are better placed to tackle together the challenges that we all face. The noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, is aware of exactly what is in the national security strategy, so I will not read out the details.

I am trying to make sure that I come in under 20 minutes.

In terms of how we legislate, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and Henry VIII and delegated powers, following on from previous reports laid by the noble Lord, I reassure your Lordships’ House that the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee will review every single Henry VIII power that comes forward. There are circumstances where it is appropriate for Bills to contain substantial delegated powers, but departments with Bills containing any delegated powers must produce a delegated powers memorandum detailing each power and the justification for it, which is published on introduction. Noble Lords are aware that we are seeking to move away from the sheer volume of SIs that there has been previously.

The lack of data to understand trade-offs and what is happening on migration was raised specifically by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Finn. Forecasting net migration is an uncertain business. The impact of external events as well as uncertain behavioural responses to policy measures on migration trends make future migration hard to predict. Not all impacts of migration are quantifiable, as set out by the Migration Advisory Committee in its report, EEA Migration in the UK.

Although there is a significant body of evidence to suggest that highly skilled immigrants make a positive contribution, there remains a lack of evidence and significant uncertainty about wider impacts on productivity, investment and social cohesion. The ONS is making more use of administrative data in its estimates for net migration. It keeps published estimates under review and revises accordingly, with estimates in the last 12 months marked as provisional. The revisions published recently by the ONS are primarily due to changes in the data sources, which have led to improvements in the ONS’s methodology. Although the numbers have changed, the overall trend for net migration has remained the same.

The Home Office continues to develop its data linking. In May 2025 the Home Office published a research report linking sponsored work and family visa data with HMRC PAYE data, providing crucial data on the earnings and tax contributions of visa holders, but I appreciate that not all points raised by noble Lords are covered there so I will come back—I am going to go slightly over time, so apologies.

The key recommendations of the report are

“the creation of a new body that would provide a commentary on the government’s stated policy objectives, to undertake research into demographic issues, and to provide an open transparent forum to reassure the public that these challenges were not being overlooked”.

The Government have a manifesto commitment to strengthen the Migration Advisory Committee to deliver several key reviews and to fill a new remit with a new Labour Market Evidence Group to support a more joined-up approach to skills, migration and labour market policy. The Labour Market Evidence Group consists of the Migration Advisory Committee, the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, the Department for Work and Pensions, Skills England and equivalent skills and training experts from the devolved Governments.

As set out in the immigration White Paper, the Labour Market Evidence Group has an ongoing standard function to work together to gather and share evidence about the state of the workforce, training levels and participation by the domestic labour force, including at devolved and regional levels. It will focus on sectors and occupations that are central to industrial strategy, currently have high levels of reliance on migration for their workforce or are anticipated to in future, and it will make recommendations about sectors or occupations where workforce strategies are needed or where the labour market is currently failing.

This report is a timely challenge to all of us in this House, and across all parties, to think beyond the immediate term. The people of this country have a right to expect a Government who plan for tomorrow. We are committed to taking action now to tackle these pressing issues, providing the clear leadership and long-term strategic planning that the British people deserve. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his report and for the opportunity to debate it in your Lordships’ House. In the words of Fleetwood Mac, who I assume he is very fond of: “Don’t you look back”. I wish him well in his retirement.

Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for raising the important issue of how we legislate and how we should legislate. It is the constitutional duty of this House to ensure that legislation that the Government bring forward is of the highest standard. I know that this duty is taken seriously by all Members of your Lordships’ House. The Government consider Parliament’s role in the legislative process to be of the utmost importance and hold the contribution of this House in the highest regard, taking seriously the comments and concerns raised by noble Lords, especially today. Your Lordships’ House’s ability to scrutinise is second to none, even if that does make it slightly terrifying for a new Minister.

I acknowledge the work over recent years of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Constitution Committee. Their tireless work to support and scrutinise the creation and use of delegated powers, and the legislative process more broadly, helps to shape policy and uphold the high standards that Parliament and the public expect. Their diligent scrutiny and focus are an example of your Lordships’ House at its best.

I turn to the substance of the Bill. The issue of statutory instruments and, more broadly, the nature and scope of powers conferred to the Executive is not new. There has always been a need to strike a balance between providing the Government with the flexibility they need to deliver for the country and ensuring that the legislature can retain proper control over changes to the law. This debate is as old as Parliament and has been a running sore—perhaps most notably with the powers conferred by the Proclamation by the Crown Act 1539, which granted King Henry VIII sweeping powers to legislate by decree, without any semblance of parliamentary oversight as we would recognise it today. We can be thankful that the Act was repealed shortly after his death. That being said, the interesting debate today is evidence of the persistent and lively nature of the subject of delegated powers and the importance that Parliament gives to the legislative process.

Procedures for delegated powers have come a long way since Henry VIII—although it does not always feel like it—but that is not to say that the situation is perfect. This Government are clear that, too often, Parliament has been asked to approve overly broad and insufficiently constrained powers, and not been given the information it needs to fully scrutinise legislation. That is why this Government have pledged to do better—to respect Parliament’s role and to enable proper legislative scrutiny. To that end, I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposals before us. However, I do not believe that they are the right way to address the problems we see.

It is important to remember that Parliament already has the opportunity to scrutinise the nature and scope of powers during the passage of enabling primary legislation, as well as the content of statutory instruments when they are laid before Parliament. Parliament routinely requires that statutory instruments are subject to parliamentary scrutiny through either the negative or affirmative procedures. Under either procedure, once an instrument is laid before Parliament, Members of both Houses may scrutinise and debate its purpose and form, and even move to prevent it becoming or remaining law. Scrutiny of statutory instruments and delegated powers begins before a Bill even reaches Parliament. A high bar has been set to ensure that any delegated powers are justified. The Government have been clear that any delegated powers must possess a robust rationale, must be legally sound, and should not be taken in lieu of underdeveloped policy.

Indeed, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General spoke passionately about the rule of law in his maiden speech, when he promised to guard against the abuse of the proper role of secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, quoted the Attorney-General’s 2024 Bingham Lecture, titled “The Rule of Law in an Age of Populism”—I think he will be delighted at how many noble Lords have followed his speech on Monday. My noble and learned friend spoke about the proper balance between Parliament and the Executive, saying that:

“Secondary legislation has an indispensable role to play in a modern, regulated society”,


but that there is a need for a

“sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards”.

I strongly believe that this is the right approach. This emphasis on adherence to good legislative practice ensures that primary legislation is specific and measured in the powers it grants, and that Parliament has ample opportunity to scrutinise any provisions for statutory instruments.

However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, highlighted, the Government have specific concerns with the procedural processes set out in the Bill. They would require that a greater proportion of parliamentary time is spent on secondary legislation. Most draft SIs would be subject to the affirmative procedure, under which both Houses must debate and approve instruments before they become law. Subjecting these instruments to the possibility of further debate would, in effect, create yet another forum for relitigating debates that took place during the passage of the primary legislation.

Furthermore, the proposed procedure is asymmetric between the Houses. It would allow the other place to require the Government to withdraw and reconsider an instrument only on the initiative of this House. This would sit in tension with the fundamental principle of the primacy of the elected Chamber, and it is not for this House to tell the other how to operate. I think we can acknowledge that we would not welcome such an approach either from the other place, if they tried it. As such, the Bill in question would represent a significant step and fundamentally alter the way that government business is arranged, particularly in the Commons.

It is often statutory instruments on which the Government rely to respond to dynamic and emerging national and international issues; this is not something we would wish to restrict. I am sure we can all understand the negative effect that the Bill would have on this process, introducing the possibility of multiple, potentially drawn-out debates and votes on statutory instruments that would truly hinder the Government’s ability to respond to ever-changing national and international opportunities and challenges and take up precious parliamentary time. It is the opinion of the Government that our efforts should instead be directed at ensuring that we get the regulations right in the first place—that is to say, that they are drafted to the highest standard and Parliament is provided with the necessary information to hold the Government to account.

We are working hard to achieve this. The Explanatory Memorandum template has been revised to ensure that they are clear and meet the needs of Parliament and the public. We will review the template and guidance, which was published for the first time earlier this year, in the new year to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. We are also developing and delivering a range of training initiatives, including e-learning focusing on the project management aspect of secondary legislation, which will be available to all civil servants. This is complemented by a biannual programme of high-level seminars covering the delivery of secondary legislation, alongside an ongoing programme of workshops on the fundamentals of secondary legislation and how to draft effective Explanatory Memoranda. The team that develops these resources works closely with the SLSC secretariat. Ministerial training is now being delivered on a regular basis to ensure that Ministers have a clear understanding of the key issues, and understand the process around statutory instruments and broader delegated powers.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, asked about impact assessments. We agree that legislation should arrive in Parliament with all the necessary supporting documents to ensure that we in this place and those in the other place are best positioned to conduct appropriate scrutiny. We will do everything that we can to ensure that all impacts assessments are delivered when required.

Before I conclude, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his contribution. I know that he has spoken in this debate in a personal capacity. However, I am grateful for all his work as chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and that of his committee—especially when I was in opposition and used much of it in debates on SIs in the Moses Room, and especially recommendations that it has made about the importance of seeing improvements to the Government’s approach to secondary legislation. I hope that he will be reassured by my response to the debate. I assure him that the Government have heard his arguments today, and as chair of his committee, and we look forward to continuing to work with him.

As the now shadow Leader so succinctly put it, in a previous debate before the House:

“It is the Government’s constitutional role, and indeed their right, to put before your Lordships … legislation they judge to be expedient to deliver on their manifesto commitments and to address the issues of the day. It is Parliament’s role to ensure that this legislation is effective, necessary and balanced”.—[Official Report, 6/1/2022; col. 793.]


Statutory instruments are often the appropriate device for such events. The Government have confidence that the existing processes are robust and fit for purpose. They necessarily provide the Government with the means to respond effectively to developing circumstances while upholding the constitutional duty of Parliament to scrutinise the laws that this Government bring forward. However, it is important to recognise that there will be times when the Government will not get this right. This process is not static.

This debate has been welcomed and heard by the Government, but I remind your Lordships that we are 106 days in. It may take us some time to get this right. If this debate has shown one thing, it is the noble intent of Members of this House to uphold the highest standards of scrutiny and legislative procedure. I commend everyone for that.