Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, at the heart of this issue is the bravery of the women and girls who spoke up to reveal the truth about Jeffrey Epstein. Following his evil and criminal behaviour, there have been multiple failures of our political systems—failures that are now rightly seeing the end of various political careers. The events also raise questions about how we fix our broken systems so that we can deal much better with whatever future crises or scandals occur.

So I very much welcome the positive noises now being made about new legislation—for example, to allow peerages to be revoked in the case of scandal. However, it is fair to say that the track record of reform in this place is somewhat slow, so I hope that the Minister can confirm both that such legislation is imminent and that it will be given priority in the legislative queue, so that there is an opportunity for Parliament to debate and, if it so decides, pass such legislation promptly in the new Session.

It is also very welcome to have heard of the plans for the review into the vetting processes by Adrian Fulford, particularly because the more we hear details of what happened with the vetting, the more questions are thrown up. I will give just two examples. One is the sequence: make an appointment, announce the appointment, then carry out vetting after the announcement. Leaving aside questions of how well established that process and sequencing is and who knew about it, it is clearly a sequence of events that invites disaster. Vetting should surely come before an announcement, not after, because that is the way to minimise any pressure to come up with a politically convenient answer and to be fair to everyone involved, including somebody who fails the vetting process.

Also inviting disaster is the daisy chain of oral briefings that we now know took place without key decision-makers seeing the relevant summary of the vetting verdict paperwork. As we now know, the official who saw the paperwork orally briefed the FCDO official, Ian Collard, who did not see the paperwork himself. He, in turn, orally briefed Olly Robbins, who also did not see the paperwork. He, in turn, had oral discussions with the Prime Minister, who again did not see the paperwork so was, in fact, having matters described to him third hand. In other words, the more senior the person and the more crucial their personal decision-making in the process, the more removed they were from seeing the core paperwork involved.

There is obviously a political question in this about why the Prime Minister proceeded with such a process, but there is also a crucial issue for the future. Such a daisy chain of decision-making—with one person speaking to another person, who then speaks to another person, who then speaks to another person, without the authoritative written verdict of the vetting system being in front of everyone—is a process that invites disaster.

I hope the Minister can, as well as addressing my question about legislation to remove peerages, also confirm that these issues relating to vetting processes are within the scope of the Fulford review, that the review will be published soon—maybe even at pace—and that this House will have an opportunity to discuss that review promptly.

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

My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their contributions. As I have said before, and will say again, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable individual and his victims must be our first priority. We should never forget that, every time we discuss Epstein’s horrendous behaviour, his victims relive awful experiences. Those survivors must be front and centre when we debate all issues relating to Jeffrey Epstein, his network and their impact. I am aware every day of what they must be experiencing as this is living and breathing in the media.

In updating the House, it would be helpful to clarify some of the points made in the other place yesterday. As noble Lords will be aware, we published the first tranche of material in response to the humble Address Motion on 11 March, just over a month following that Motion. That first tranche of material relates primarily to the aspects of the Motion regarding Peter Mandelson’s appointment and his subsequent dismissal as ambassador, in addition to details of the severance payment provided to him by the Foreign Office.

Following the publication of the first tranche of material, Cabinet Office officials have been working tirelessly—I removed “at pace” from my briefing note—to prepare a second publication. Noble Lords will recognise that, given the breadth of the Motion, a significant number of documents are in scope and are taking time to process accordingly. We prioritised the material relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment in the first tranche so that Parliament could see those key documents first.

Where the Government deem material to be prejudicial to our national security or international relations, it is being referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee for consideration. As noble Lords will appreciate, this process requires detailed consideration. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its constructive engagement in this process, which we recognise has constituted additional requests on top of its already important work. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Beamish for his work as chair of the committee.

I can confirm that, as of yesterday evening, the Cabinet Office has passed to the ISC all material that it has processed as part of the humble Address and judged to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. This amounts to over 300 documents. This includes a number that were relevant to the process of Peter Mandelson’s security vetting. As the Government have set out, no redactions will be made on the basis of national security or international relations without referral to the ISC. As we have made clear in the first publication, there are several other public interest principles—in respect, for example, of the names of junior officials, email addresses, personal data and legally privileged information—which the Government have applied following a clear precedent set by previous Administrations. To confirm, as set out in the first publication, no redactions were applied to the Prime Minister’s box note.

I can also confirm that the next publication will include electronic communications, including those sent on non-corporate communication channels, between Peter Mandelson and Ministers, senior officials and special advisers. As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has said on multiple occasions, the Government are fully committed to complying with the scope of this Motion. The material that has been commissioned has been provided and, subject to the processes that I have explained, will be published.

The Government have also been clear throughout that they will not prejudice the ongoing police investigation. Noble Lords will understand that this means that I cannot confirm what documents are being withheld in response to the Metropolitan Police’s request but, to reassure your Lordships’ House, as agreed in the other place, the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee kindly agreed to look at documents given to the Metropolitan Police in relation to the police investigation so that we had a way, albeit a closed way, of showing due process and transparency to the House in relation to the humble Address. Those processes have continued. Noble Lords who know Simon Hoare MP will I am sure agree that if he thought that we were not being compliant, we would have heard by now.

On some of the specific points raised, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked when these documents will be published. I reassure noble Lords that we will publish them as soon as possible following State Opening of Parliament. I will provide further updates to your Lordships in due course. We will be discussing, I am sure, the detail of those papers in your Lordships’ House at that point. The noble Baroness also touched on other committees’ investigations. Obviously, there is a live debate in the other Chamber as we discuss this issue. There is also, as we have seen this morning, a live investigation by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. We are fully co-operating and I think noble Lords would expect no less.

I welcome to his place the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and congratulate him on what I think is his first outing on the Front Bench during a Statement—I look forward to many such conversations. He asked very specific questions. In terms of the legislation on removal of peerages, obviously, it is not for me to pre-empt the King’s Speech, but noble Lords will be aware that we have discussed this many times from this Dispatch Box and I expect to see such legislation forthcoming. I look forward, as the policy Minister, to discussing it in great detail with the noble Lord when we get to that point.

The noble Lord raised a very important point about vetting before an appointment. That process has now been explicitly changed, both for political appointees and for political appointees in the diplomatic space: vetting would need to be done before an announcement.

On the security vetting process, I think there are many Members of your Lordships’ House who have actively participated in the deep vetting process, either as Ministers or as civil servants. Noble Lords will be aware that there is a line here: we need people to actively participate in this process to make sure that we are getting the full information; we need to make sure that the detail of that information is then protected; and who sees what, when has to be managed by UK Security Vetting, which I thank for its work. I know that it is very nervous about some of the conversations we are having, not because of the process it undertakes but because it does not want people to be less forthcoming than they need to be in the process. However, I appreciate what the noble Lord said about a daisy chain of conversations. He will be aware that Ministers were not aware of that daisy chain at various points, but we have asked Sir Adrian Fulford to undertake a review, and I am very grateful to him. We have confirmed that this should be part of those conversations, and I will come back if I need to issue any clarification.

The noble Lord also kindly highlighted the fact that the Government have undertaken several steps in this space—my appointment is one of them. We are seeking to strengthen the foundations in the standards space and I look forward to discussing those issues with noble Lords, both through the prism of the release of the Humble Address but also because it is in all our interests, regardless of our political party or our personal politics, to ensure that people can have faith in politicians and faith in the integrity of this Building, both this Chamber and next door.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to bring news from the front to your Lordships’ House. After another five-hour meeting today, the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I chair, has now completed reviewing all the documents that have been referred to it. I stress to the House that this has been a long process. I understand the frustration of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, but the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee have had to read all these documents individually, in our secure premises, and then have a full meeting to consider the redactions, which has taken time. It has not been helped by the refusal by the Foreign Office in the early stages to release certain documents.

We asked at the beginning of this process that the documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment be prioritised. That was not possible for the vetting document because the Foreign Office at the time, under Mr Olly Robbins, refused to give it to the Cabinet Office. We have now seen all the documents we need to look at, apart from those that are part of the criminal investigation, and the vetting interview file. We have seen the vetting documents but not the vetting interview file, which the Government have not shared with us. I understand that they will have to go to Parliament if they wish to refuse to give us that document, but I can assure the House that we are now a position to return our considerations of those vetting documents back to the Government. Will my noble friend give me a commitment, now that those documents have been returned, or will have been later today? We have now set two deadlines for the Government to come back to the committee to say which of the redactions we have not agreed to that they wish to contest. It is important that we get the contested redactions hearing done speedily after the King’s Speech, so that these documents can be released, because the committee will then have to meet again to decide our response. I remind the House that the final decision on what is and is not redacted is not the Government’s but the ISC’s.

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

Again, I put on record my thanks to my noble friend for the many hours he has spent looking at documents, for changing the way his committee is working in terms of the number of meetings, and for all the work that has been done in this space. On setting a deadline for the challenge meeting, I will speak to officials as soon as I have finished the next Statement and make sure that that date is in the diary before the House prorogues.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, today, we learned of an un-minuted meeting at which senior advisers to the Prime Minister bypassed Civil Service oversight to green-light a known high-risk appointment. Can the Minister tell the House how this meeting was within the normal due process and who gave the order to exclude the propriety and ethics team from such critical discussions?

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

I am going to thank the noble Lord for the question; maybe I should not. He will have to bear with me, because he, like I, will have watched some of the hearings as they were happening. I will write to him with the detail about who, what, when and where.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reassuring the House that the next tranche of documents will be provided to Parliament as soon as practicable after State Opening. In addition to the 300 documents which have already been released to the Intelligence and Security Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Beamish, may I ask her whether there has been any divergence of view between the Government and the Metropolitan Police as to which documents should not be released because they would prejudice the ongoing investigation?

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

I thank my noble friend. Obviously, these are all live matters, and some of those conversations I simply cannot discuss in your Lordships’ House. We have a very constructive relationship with the Metropolitan Police and want to make sure that it has everything it needs as part of its investigations if it is seeking to make any future prosecutions.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, in addition to the redactions the Minister referred to in her Statement for reasons of national security, international relations, names of junior officials, email addresses and legal privilege, are there any other reasons for redaction? There was a report in the press about some redactions for reasons of commercial confidentiality. Can she confirm that that is not the case? When, in the Statement, the Minister said that the second tranche of documents would be released after the State Opening, does that mean the final tranche, or is there a third?

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

I would not want to mislead the House; I am going to write to the noble Lord about the commercial redactions. I had not been told that there would be any commercial redactions, but I will write to him to make sure that I am on the record, and I will place the answer in the Library. With the exception of those materials being withheld by the Met Police, which will be published at a point deemed to be appropriate, I expect the next tranche to be—I cannot say the final tranche, because we know there is a third—the substantive tranche, which will be all the material available to us. That is what I expect in the next tranche.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, one of the difficulties in discussing the vetting of Lord Mandelson seriously is that nobody outside the Government has the first idea what the grounds were for the recommendation that his vetting should be refused. I accept and completely agree with the process the Minister described whereby the answers and the conduct of the vetting are totally confidential and are never revealed in any circumstances. However, I cannot see the threat to national security in answering this question: can the Minister say whether the grounds upon which the recommendation was made were not anything to do with his friendship with Epstein? Can I ask for a yes or no? Were the grounds nothing to do with it and something quite different, or is it the friendship that lay behind it?

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

My Lords, I wish I could give the noble Lord the answer he seeks, but I cannot, because I have not seen the material we are discussing, for very good reason. On the reasons why it was a borderline case—I believe that is the phrase now—and what mitigations were put in place, I do not know the detail.

Pension Schemes

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pack (LD)]

The Minister may be glad to know that I have a slightly smaller number of questions to ask. Running basic services reliably is at the heart of the Government’s responsibility to us all. Grand promises, fancy manifestos, clever policies or visionary plans about AI mean very little if the basic plumbing of the state is falling apart all around us. Here we have, unfortunately, another failure of that basic plumbing, one with very serious direct consequences for people’s well-being. It is certainly welcome that, faced with another pension scheme going horribly wrong at the hands of Capita, the Government have bitten the bullet and terminated its contract, but that coming after the Civil Service pension contract problems raises two key questions about the Government’s decision-making.

There is certainly a lot of blame to allocate to Capita and MyCSP, but there are also two questions that are fully within the Government’s area of responsibility. One, as I pointed out when we discussed this issue in Questions on 5 February, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, has just touched on, is that the Cabinet Office told the Public Accounts Committee that it was aware of very significant problems with Capita’s preparations to take over the contract on 1 December and that it had a contingency plan ready to use if necessary. Why, therefore, did the Cabinet Office decide to go ahead with the 1 December transfer to Capita rather than invoke its contingency plan? I think it is fair to say that the fact that another Capita pension scheme, the Royal Mail one, has now gone so badly wrong as well redoubles the doubts about why that 1 December transfer was greenlit by the Government.

In addition, in the light of Capita’s failing on these two pension contracts, there is also the problem that the Government have just signed another contract with Capita—a £370 million contract that involves, to quote Capita’s press release from just a few weeks ago,

“tech-enabled back-office services for public servants across four major UK government departments: the Department for Work and Pensions, Ministry of Justice, Home Office, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Capita will deliver a suite of services including HR, payroll, recruitment, finance, procurement, and service desk support”.

That sounds remarkably similar to the very things that Capita has just got so badly wrong twice.

Warned last year that Capita was getting it wrong, the Cabinet Office pressed ahead with Capita on that 1 December deadline. With Royal Mail, Capita has been getting exactly the same sort of work badly wrong. I hope the Minister will explain why those two failures were not enough for the Government to say for this new contract, “Hang on. We’ve seen your track record, we’ve learned from our mistakes, and no, we’re not going to hand over more money and give you more responsibility for financial IT systems”. Will the Minister tell us what consideration was given to those two other failures by Capita when deciding to award it this new contract? Why were those two failures not considered serious enough for the Government to spend their £370 million—or, I should, say the public’s £370 million—elsewhere?

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

My Lords, I listened with care to the points raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, and I will have to revert in writing on some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn.

First, I put on record my thanks to the fantastic public servants who have been failed and who we are seeking to support. The security and dignity of those who have dedicated their careers to our public services are not negotiable. They deserve a pension scheme that is reliable, efficient and secure. When the standards they deserve are not upheld, the Government will not hesitate to act decisively to protect their interests.

The termination of the new Royal Mail Statutory Pension Scheme contract with Capita followed a failure to meet critical transition milestones and a total lack of confidence in its ability to implement the new operating model in a timely fashion. Capita had an 18-month planning window yet failed to deliver numerous milestones, including required IT automation. Of the 10 transitional milestones due to date, only four have been delivered and all those were late, which is why we have terminated the contract.

Regarding the Civil Service Pension Scheme, the delivery of the service since the transfer on 1 December has fallen far short of the required standard. The transition from the previous provider, MyCSP, was not satisfactory, and investigations are ongoing into the respective liabilities for those failures to protect taxpayer interests.

The stories of members falling into hardship are distressing and entirely unacceptable, which is why a specialist pensions recovery taskforce was established to take strategic oversight of the scheme’s management. To ensure no one faces financial anxiety alone, over £8.2 million in interest-free transitional support loans has already been issued to over 1,500 members most affected by these delays.

There is confidence in the surge of about 140 officials into Capita and this intervention has made a significant difference. The government surge team was essential to bolster operational capacity, successfully clearing 15,000 inherited unread emails and initially bringing telephony wait times down to an average of under two minutes. While wait times have recently spiked to an average of 44 minutes, this was a direct result of a 120% surge in volumes driven by the end of the tax year and the annual benefits statement portal suspension following the data breach on 30 March. There is no intention to withdraw the team if that would result in a deterioration of service. That judgment will be made carefully against the June 2026 deadline for the restoration of proper service.

On the NAO and Public Accounts Committee reports, the noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight these reports regarding missed transition milestones, as was the noble Lord, Lord Pack. Significant milestone payments are currently being withheld where transition deliverables have not been met to drive performance, and every right is reserved to take further formal action. The Government have accepted the NAO’s recommendations, and after its report, we implemented a number of additional controls as part of this contract. Despite these challenges, transitioning to Capita to avoid a total collapse of the service was assessed as the lower-risk path, as MyCSP had become operationally and commercially unviable.

Capita has been placed now under a firm mandate to clear all inherited arrears by the end of April and restore service levels to standard, contractually required levels by the end of June. Standardised mitigation letters are available on request via the pensions helpline to ensure that members can communicate effectively with mortgage providers and other creditors regarding service delays. Regarding the wider commercial position, there has been an offer from Capita to cover the costs of the surge team from 10 April, which will be considered in the broad accounting of all commercial issues in respect of this contract.

There were several questions asked that relate to this. As I said previously, there was an independent assurance review undertaken last year. I am going to write to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, with the dates of all the meetings that were had, the promises that were made by Capita and to whom they were made and when—there was a range of promises made. We had the independent assurance review, and we were therefore as confident as we could be in moving forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, raised the issue of MyCSP’s historical performance and the liability. The transition process from the previous provider, MyCSP, was not satisfactory and we are investigating respective liabilities for those failures between both parties. We have withheld all money due to MyCSP until transition failures are rectified and will pursue a parent company guarantee with Equiniti if necessary. Transitioning was necessary as MyCSP had become commercially unviable with backlogs increasing from 47,000 cases to over 60,000 cases by October.

I have answered the question about mitigation measures. In terms of the commercial accountability and withheld payments, we have taken direct action on all commercial levers, including withholding significant milestone payments where deliverables have not been met. Capita is under a firm mandate to clear all inherited arrears by the end of April and restore full service standards by the end of June. We will consider Capita’s offer, as I have said.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, raised an important point about why the review is in late summer. Our focus and priority have to be getting the system working, to make sure that people can access both their historic statements and their future statements, and that people can access the information they need as well as access finances that are theirs. I remind noble Lords that pensions are deferred salaries. These are entitlements: they have earned them, and we need to make sure that they can get the money. This is not about pushing review into the long grass—that is not where we are. We want to fix what is broken to make sure that the people who need access can get access, and then we will undertake a review, including a commercial review, with Capita to move forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Pack, raised a really important point about Capita receiving an additional contract. The Synergy award by DWP in February followed a rigorous and transparent public procurement process conducted under existing public contract regulations. Each contract is managed on its own merits, and the Secretary of State for DWP sought and received specific personal assurances from Capita regarding delivery.

However, I remind noble Lords that, while we are talking about two specific contracts in this Statement, both are the only Capita contracts with the Cabinet Office. Across the wider government and public sector portfolio, Capita has over 80 contracts, and performance remains high, with approximately 87% of KPIs currently rated as good. We have seen a clear failure of the Civil Service Pension Scheme and access to it. We desperately need to fix it and then look at what went wrong before moving forward with our commercial levers. But each contract needs to be assessed on its individual merits to make sure that it works and that the Government are compliant, as well as the people we work with.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank my noble friend for that series of questions. Let me start with the factual question, because I have that data to hand. There are currently 2,696 retirement cases where a quotation has been issued but the pension is not yet in payment. These cases are the remaining subset of the 6,482 retirement cases that have already received a quote and therefore no longer have an open case type related to quotations. All remaining open retirement cases where a quote has been issued are on track to be processed, with full payment by the end of May—next month.

My noble friend asked a series of questions, some of which are slightly more straightforward to answer than others. On insourcing, an assessment will be conducted to identify the optimal delivery model for these pension services, specifically evaluating both insourcing and outsourcing options. This process will involve a thorough analysis of costs, risks and benefits in line with the sourcing playbook, ensuring that we learn from the delivery failures identified in the current contracts. Although previous assessments in 2021 favoured outsourcing to realise benefits with the least risk, we remain committed to whichever model is proven to provide the best value for money for the taxpayer.

On Capita and why that contract has not been removed, as I have said, we engage with Capita on this contract every day as part of the recovery model. As noble Lords will appreciate, I have talked not only about Capita and its responsibility as part of fixing what is clearly broken, but about the legacy of what was left by MyCSP. When we have undertaken the review after fixing what is broken—there have been failures across the piece, clearly, but we must be clear on who was responsible for which part—we will know better and we will take additional steps, as we have with the Royal Mail pension scheme, if required.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. She has pointed out some signal failures in this case; they are now pretty widely known. What puzzles people, including those who are very sympathetic to the Government, is why, when there is such a failure of one particular company—of course, it is not just Capita; there have been failures by others—the failure is consecutively followed by a grant to the same company of another contract that bears some relationship in description to the one on which they have so patently failed in another department? Can the Minister tell us whether there is any cross-departmental process for evaluating failures of this nature, in order to alert other departments to the very serious consequences of the course on which they might be embarking? I confess that this puzzled me when I was in government, as well as now.

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

I thank my noble friend. There was I, about to say that, given his time in government and his extensive ministerial service across many departments, my noble friend knows better than I do about the awarding of these contracts.

There is a serious point here: at the heart of these conversations is the fact that every contract is managed on its own merits and contains robust, specific protections to ensure delivery. The award of the contract we are talking about followed a rigorous and transparent process under the public contracts regulations. The Secretary of State sought and received specific assurances from Capita regarding delivery after it had become clear what had happened to the Civil Service Pension Scheme. The DWP was alerted; obviously, there are members of staff at the DWP who will also have been affected by this.

It is fair to say, I think, that I have never had so many discussions with my colleagues as I have had with civil servants across the piece who wanted me to make sure that we fix this and fix it well, given my exposure to them. I am very grateful that my noble friend Lady Sherlock has come to be supportive; there are always effective cross-government communications when required, and I am pleased that my noble friend is sitting next to me for this one.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Reid, made a very valid point. Capita was the organisation in charge of Army recruitment. It did such a bad job that even the MoD decided to dispense with its services. The Ministry of Defence has long experience with Capita. Capita was the principal delivery organisation for the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, which was the most dysfunctional arm of that dysfunctional department.

It is not as though the Government have not been warned. As my noble friend Lady Finn pointed out, the Government have not learned what a truly dreadful organisation Capita has been. Yet now Capita is the preferred bidder for the Department for Work and Pensions’ Civil Service payroll contract. Indeed, only last month, Capita was selected for a 10-year contract, valued at £370 million, to run HR and finance systems for four UK government departments. When will Ministers and civil servants learn that Capita is no friend of efficiency or accountability?

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

The noble Lord is aware that I have been a fan for many years and would listen to him with interest on every position he takes. I do, however, find it a little rich, given the positions that he previously held, to be lectured by him about a contract that was signed by the previous Government, following many contracts, not least the ones he talked about in defence, that were signed by the previous Government. I have already talked about how we will seek to move forward with insourcing.

I should put on record the fact that I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy and was a member of the Defence Select Committee when some of these issues were being discussed about the Capita contract and the impact it had on recruitment into our Armed Forces. I believe and hope, however, that Serco is going to benefit from some of the changes that we as a Government undertook with Capita on the defence recruitment contract, which moved to Serco last month.

At the heart of this are—as I think we are all aware—our responsibilities towards taxpayers’ money and making sure that it is spent well, and that, whenever we choose to outsource, it is because we need to bring in different expertise that is not typically appropriate for us to hold centrally. But we need to make sure that this works and works for us, and I hope we will see that going forwards. But Capita is a supplier in more than 80 government contracts.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I am agnostic about insourcing or outsourcing. What I want is good service for the pensioners. Just to give an example of how insourcing might not always go right—and I appreciate that the Minister will probably have to write to me on this, because I am going slightly tangentially—the NHS Business Services Authority is an insourcing organisation for NHS pensioners. Given the failure that we have at the moment in that scheme, I ask the Minister: what steps could the Government take to ensure that the significant delays that NHS Pensions, in applying the annual inflation increase to pensioners who have been flagged for manual reconciliation due to their lifetime allowance, can be dealt with and solved, so that those pensioners who are waiting for their annual increase this year and from previous years get that annual increase, which they are entitled to under the 1971 Act?

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

As I said, I am very clear that pensions are deferred income and pensioners are entitled to them. In a previous iteration, I was a trade union officer who negotiated part of the Agenda for Change agreement. In terms of access and impact, it is key. The noble Lord will not be surprised that I do not have the detail of that pension scheme in front of me, but I will write to him with an update.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Government for this Statement, and the technical expert group—TEG—at IBCA for its detailed report, which sits behind the proposed changes to the scheme outlined in the Statement. There are many victims who will be reassured by most, though perhaps not all, of the changes.

It is good news to hear that over 3,000 people have now received an offer of compensation, and I note that the Statement says payments have been made to all eligible groups. Can the Minister say how many of that number are from the affected group? While accepting that the Government’s priority has been to secure compensation for infected victims first, it is still true to say that a number of the affected victims are themselves frail and elderly, or, worse, very ill. Does IBCA have a date by which the scheme will be up and running for all affected victims, and will those I have outlined be prioritised as an urgent group?

It is very good news that the Government are removing the 25% deduction applied to past care compensation, which is exactly what Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry recommended, but why has it taken well over a year for this decision to be made? Since the spring of 2024, one of the issues that I and others have repeatedly raised with the last Government, as well as with this one, is that the state should not claw back any past benefits, including care costs, from these families who have had to turn to benefits and care support because of a fundamental failure of the state. In so doing, they—both infected and affected—lost jobs, their careers and sometimes their homes, and, much worse, had to live on the breadline for many years. To penalise them at the compensation stage was cruel, so it is good that the deduction is stopping.

However, the bigger point stands, and I know the Minister will recognise this, as she and I often talk about the bigger picture of other schemes as well. This governmental approach is seen in other schemes, and too often the change comes after extended delays. Further, trust with the victims has been lost. Will the Government please rethink this approach in future schemes before decisions are made?

A further point on the care award is that it is not clear whether affected victims who were carers are yet recognised in their own right, or whether the entirety of the care award, including the carer’s element, will remain solely with the estate of the infected person. I wonder if the Minister can update the House.

The changes outlined in the TEG report follow on from the complications of a number of different schemes over many years in the past, using different matrices, and indeed through devolution. Many, especially the ones relating to psychological damage, are welcome. Before Christmas, the TEG published details of how to handle historic suicide in the compensation scheme. The wording of that paragraph in the report has caused real consternation and distress among victims, both the infected and the affected, especially those who have already lost loved ones who were infected to suicide.

The commentary paragraph in the TEG report outlines the complexity of suicide and recognises that it is retraumatising for a family member to have to raise it with IBCA. However, it then goes on to say:

“Even with the best explanation, we believe that linking more compensation to evidence of suicide creates a risk that the Scheme is misinterpreted, and places vulnerable people at risk if they feel pressured to harm themselves to help their families get more compensation”.


Anyone who has lost a loved one to suicide for whatever reason knows that suicide is not a rational act; it is an act of desperation. To suggest that victims might resort to it solely for financial benefit as a small part of a grant of total compensation is just staggering. It has caused real distress and a further loss of trust, again. I hope that this issue can be reviewed.

Finally, it is very good news that compensation is to be given to victims treated unethically, especially the children at Lord Mayor Treloar’s School. I want to ask the Minister two questions in relation to the unethical behaviour by doctors who used infected blood in research projects without informing the victims or, if they were still children, their parents. First, are the police looking at what evidence remains? I know the NHS has said that many documents have been destroyed, but if IBCA has enough evidence to know that they were infected—and in many cases it knows when—then surely any surviving doctor should be questioned. Secondly, will IBCA ensure that there was no other unethical treatment given to people in later decades, not just those infected through the early research projects 50 years ago?

As ever, I am aware that I have asked a number of technical questions to the Minister; if the replies are not to hand, please will she write to me with them?

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

My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for their thoughtful and productive points. This is a collaborative effort and we all share one goal: to get this right. I hope your Lordships can appreciate that this announcement marks a significant step towards delivering a compensation scheme that not only works better for the infected blood community but explicitly reflects the feedback and views that the community provided to the Government.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who responded, particularly those from the infected blood community. I know many of these responses included testimony of people’s personal experiences, and I want to assure those who were brave enough to share their stories that we are grateful and that we appreciate the additional burden this places on them. I hope our changes to the scheme announced in the House of Commons last week reflect their experiences, their bravery and their loss.

The consultation was not unanimous on every point, nor would I expect it to be. The experiences of those infected and affected are unique and variable, and I am sure that there are issues where some may still feel that their personal experience is not adequately reflected by the compensation scheme. However, I firmly believe that the changes we are making bring us as close as possible to a scheme which truly reflects the range of impacts on a person’s life, while still being deliverable within the scheme’s tariff-based approach.

For infected people, the changes will increase the amount of core compensation available and increase the options available for supplementary compensation awards. For affected people, additional compensation will be available to those eligible. I encourage noble Lords to read the full response, but, in the interest of today’s debate, I want to set out for Members of your Lordships’ House who do not follow this in necessarily the same detail as the many of those who are living through it do some of the key changes we are making.

First, I know the special category mechanism is a key issue of interest across your Lordships’ House. We are introducing a new supplementary award to give additional compensation to people who have been assessed as eligible for SCM and who can now demonstrate to IBCA that they meet the criteria. After considering the community’s views, we will now ensure that every eligible person has this award backdated to 2017, which is when the SCM was first introduced. We will increase the core injury award for several groups of affected people, including bereaved parents whose child sadly died before they turned 18, bereaved partners, and siblings affected under the age of 18. These changes give more compensation to affected people whose experience of the scandal was egregious beyond my comprehension. These awards will require no additional evidence from applicants.

The matter of unethical research, which was rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is of particular concern. Anyone who has engaged with the inquiry’s findings will know that it is one of the most shocking aspects of this scandal. We heard that the existing approach may not have compensated everyone who suffered this wrongdoing. We have therefore changed the scope of the award so that anyone treated in the UK for a bleeding disorder in 1985 or earlier will receive further compensation. It is clear from the consultation responses that the award amount offered does not reflect the harm done. We are increasing the unethical research awards. These include increasing our proposed award of £25,000 to those who attended Treloar’s to £60,000, as well as introducing a new unethical research award for those treated elsewhere for a bleeding disorder during childhood at a rate of £45,000. We are also tripling the award for those treated for a bleeding disorder in adulthood to £30,000.

The consultation also invited respondents to raise any other concerns they have with the design of the scheme. One of the most compelling things we heard was that the scheme does not sufficiently recognise the profound impact of infection during childhood. We have heard the community clearly on this matter and we will make a further change to the compensation scheme to address the feedback. We will introduce a 50% increase to the core autonomy award for people who were infected at the age of 18 or under.

Although I have set out only a few of the changes we are making, they reflect the questions asked by the noble Baronesses, and I hope they go some way to show our commitment to listening to the community and to making decisions with those impacted at the very forefront of our minds. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, in order to make these substantial changes to the compensation scheme, we will bring forward further legislation in this calendar year—although whether it will be included in the King’s Speech is slightly above my pay grade.

I turn to some of the other points raised. With regard to IBCA and the extension of the cohorts, noble Lords will appreciate, because we have discussed this in your Lordships’ House on several occasions, that there is an issue of test and learn here. IBCA was a brand new organisation established to distribute £11.8 billion-worth of compensation. That is taxpayers’ money rightly going into compensation to those people who have been affected by this heartbreaking scandal, but it is vital that we get it right. So, to make sure that we do not have to keep going back to cohorts and so that we can make this right, each new cohort is taken through a test-and-learn experience. Given the experience of IBCA up until this point—we have seen that work with the infected community—I have therefore confidence in it to take the next steps. However, nothing is fast enough, and I hope to get as much out of the door as quickly as possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, was absolutely right also to raise consistent decision-making. Training is at the heart of everything that is happening at IBCA, including how the claims managers operate and making sure that there is consistent application.

On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I reassure her about our prioritisation in terms of all cohorts, where we are now prioritising the elderly and those who are nearing end of life; although everyone deserves their compensation, we are doing that so that we can get it to them as quickly as possible so that they personally have some benefit from it. I look forward to discussing future schemes with the noble Baroness in great detail, and I am sure many Members of your Lordships’ House will want to look at any future schemes to see what lessons have been learned from this scheme and from others.

The noble Baroness raised a very important point about suicide. I will write to her on that, but I have heard what she has said about the paperwork. I will say only that with regard to severe psychological harm, which is the closest space which I can move to in terms of suicide, infected people who can show that their circumstances require more financial loss and care compensation for psychological harm can apply to the new award for SCM. This applies to those whose circumstances require more compensation than the core route provides but who do not meet the eligibility criteria of the existing severe health condition for severe psychiatric disorders.

I was also asked about issues pertaining to carers. If someone who provided care to an infected person is not otherwise eligible for compensation in relation to that person—for example, as an effective sibling or parent—then they may be eligible for compensation as an affected carer and will be eligible to receive an injury award and a social impact award. Otherwise, infected people can continue to give all or some of their care compensation to affected people who provide that care. In the package of changes the Government have announced, we have increased the levels of compensation available to several groups of eligible affected people, but no specific changes are being made to the compensation available to carers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also asked me about police investigations. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has engaged senior investigators to conduct a review of all available evidence. That work is ongoing and has proven to be much greater in volume than originally anticipated, and I look forward to hearing their findings. One of the most heartbreaking things—if you can rank heartbreak when we are talking about these issues—or perhaps challenging issues here is the fact that there are still people who should be being held accountable for their actions.

We can all agree that getting this compensation scheme right is of the utmost importance. The Government are committed to ensuring that the scheme reflects the lived experiences of those infected and affected in a way that allows for the swift delivery of compensation by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. These things, hand in hand, go some way to delivering not only justice but, I hope, a sense of peace for the community, if that is even possible.

The reality is that no amount of money is going to fix what was so badly broken here, but, at the very least, the compensation can go some way to supporting the families affected. The community and their stories must always be put first. Sir Brian Langstaff and his team always took this approach. Following the inquiry’s closure in March, I personally thank them for the sensitivity and care with which they carried out their important work. It is with this dedication to the community’s cause over nine years that we have reached this point today, and I know noble Lords across the House echo my gratitude.

The decades of tireless campaigning and the continued determination of the community is a story of strength which will resonate for generations to come. The changes to the scheme we have discussed today will provide uplifted compensation to many infected and affected people in a way that better reflects the unique experiences of so many. Beyond the compensation scheme, I hope they also feel that this consultation has given them a voice and shown that the Government remain committed to doing everything they can to work together to truly get this right. That is, after all, the least we can do.

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, because she is sincere and has done a lot to convince us that real change is happening. As ever, sadly, I have to declare an interest, as one of my sister’s twin boys was a haemophiliac who was infected with hepatitis C. He died aged 35, leaving a 10 month-old baby girl. Sadly, his mother—my sister—who campaigned for justice on the contaminated blood scandal for over 40 years died a few weeks ago so, sadly, will never see justice done.

A lot of other elderly and frail people, whom I believe the Minister raised in her response, are dying off. I want to know whether the Minister is aware that there is a great deal of concern about affected people who are not estate beneficiaries, because the Government insist that all infected claims must be processed before their affected loved ones can be considered. People are, effectively, being left to die without justice. Although the Minister raised the issue, I would like to know exactly what steps the Government are taking to prioritise estate claims of the elderly and frail beneficiaries, such as parents, ex-wives and siblings, who are not estate beneficiaries but have suffered terribly and are left waiting in prolonged anguish for the estate claim to be processed.

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

May your sister’s memory always be a blessing. Your tireless activism will continue in her name—sorry, it was not meant to be me who got tearful. The noble Baroness has fought tirelessly with her sister. It is important that her name, Della Ryness-Hirsch, is on the record.

On the specifics that the noble Baroness raised, I will make sure that she receives a very detailed briefing and she can have whatever meeting she likes to discuss this in very great detail, as I have said to her. But let me be clear: the Government are prioritising those people who are reaching the end of life. All cohorts have now been opened by IBCA; that includes those affected. The noble Baroness may have specific concerns on behalf of her family, but I know that she also now carries a greater weight of fighting for the memories of all those people in this cohort and to make sure that justice is not just done but seen to be done and delivered. We will work together to make sure this happens.

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, there is much to welcome in this Statement and I do welcome it, although some of it is belated. But we should never forget that this scandal, tragedy, or whatever term you want to use, happened because many public servants, I am sad to say, behaved despicably.

Although I can welcome the Statement about how the inquiry and its findings are to be implemented and compensation is to be paid, I do not see much evidence across government of addressing the problems that we clearly have with standards of behaviour in public service, which I think many people do not want to acknowledge—let alone do anything about. I do not think the answer is more efficient inquiries or even duties of candour. It is quite clear that the current arrangements, codes and advice that we have are not working. The greatest testimony to the courage of the people who have been affected—I have met many of them—would be if we used this as a way of addressing failures of public service in this country.

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

I am sure the noble Lord will be delighted that I was appointed, seven weeks ago, to be the Minister responsible for standards in government. I am very much exploring all the issues that pertain to both the current standards regime and any changes that will need to be explored going forward. I look forward to discussing it all in detail with Members of your Lordships’ House.

The noble Lord is absolutely right that, on matters pertaining to the infected blood scandal and others, there was a failure of public servants. That is one of the reasons why the noble Lord may not think that the forthcoming duty of candour legislation will help to fix it. I truly believe it will. A great deal of this is about cultural change and about how, 31 years after their introduction, we embed the Nolan principles in all aspects of public life and make very clear the responsibilities that people have. I think people in some areas, both then and now, have forgotten their responsibilities. It is important that we ensure they are reminded of them.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome the unethical research awards, but I want to raise something that has been raised with some of us here by the infected and affected. I recognise the uplift, but there are concerns about how those final figures were arrived at. One of the concerns is that this sets a legal precedent; God forbid that there are any future victims of unethical testing. I know that people would welcome a little more detail, perhaps not today but in writing, about how those figures were arrived at. There is concern for others, not just for the people affected this time.

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

The noble Baroness raises a very important point. While I pray to God that there is not another example of quite the horror of this, the reality is that this is not the only compensation scheme running; there have been other moments in our history. I will write to the noble Baroness with the detail of how we got to this point with the calculations, and to make sure about any precedents that have been set. I appreciate the concern. However, it is incredibly important that we recognise what happened at Treloar’s as well as the ongoing memorialisation that will be happening for the victims of Treloar’s.

Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 5 March be approved.

Relevant documents: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and 53rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, this order is a necessary measure to address the historical misapplication of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which sets ministerial and other officeholders’ pay. The other officeholders are the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, the Speakers in both Houses, the Opposition Chief Whips in both Houses and two Opposition Assistant Whips in the House of Commons.

In 1997, a formula was introduced to link pay increases for Ministers and certain officeholders to senior Civil Service pay bands. The formula set out that ministerial salaries should be increased by the average annual change in the midpoint of the senior Civil Service pay bands. During the financial year 2023-24, the Cabinet Office identified that the formula had been misapplied. Since the introduction of the formula in 1997, the salaries of Permanent Secretaries had often been excluded from the calculation, despite the legislation not permitting such an exclusion. This technical misapplication of the law has happened under successive Administrations, over several decades. The formula was originally proposed by the Senior Salaries Review Body, which recommended that Permanent Secretary pay should not be included in the calculation for ministerial pay. The Government believe the policy that has been often applied since 1997, in line with the Senior Salaries Review Body recommendation, is the correct approach and are introducing this Order in Council to ensure the law aligns with long-standing policy.

The order performs two primary functions. First, it resets the statutory salary levels for all Ministers and specified officeholders. Given the misapplication has been applied for several decades, resetting the salaries in law provides legal clarity and a baseline for any future uplifts. These reset figures were calculated based on the average annual change in the midpoint of the senior Civil Service pay bands including the Permanent Secretary pay band for each financial year since the misapplication was identified, in line with the formula set out in the legislation.

Secondly, the order amends the formula to exclude the Permanent Secretary pay band from future calculations. This change simply formalises the policy approach that has been applied in practice, by all Administrations, for over two decades. For the initial year beginning 1 April 2026, the order sets out a transitional measure where the higher of the old or new formula will be applied to ensure that no individual is disadvantaged by the order’s retrospective effect. The impact of this order is minimal; it affects only ministerial office holders and a small number of other office holders in Westminster. Due to incomplete records, it has not been possible to determine the exact financial impact of this misapplication. Analysis shows that no individual has gained or lost a substantial amount.

I want to be clear that for Ministers, this order will result in no change to actual take-home pay. The Prime Minister has maintained the policy of freezing ministerial salaries, and Ministers will continue to waive their statutory entitlement. In fact, ministerial salaries for Members of the House of Commons have not increased since 2008. Ministerial salaries were actually cut in law, via an Order in Council, in 2011. Lords ministerial salaries have not risen since 2008 and were cut in 2011, but in 2019-20, they began to claim their full salary entitlement. They were again frozen in 2020-21 and remain so today. The other officeholders make a personal decision on whether to take the salary they are entitled to in law or to waive part of the salary in line with the ministerial salary freeze. The order therefore does affect the salaries paid to these individuals who choose to take their entitled salaries. The Government have been unable to calculate their annual pay increases while work on this order was ongoing, so we will provide back payments covering annual pay increases owed to current and former officeholders in these roles dating back to 1 April 2023.

The legislation is also linked to the salaries of the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means in the other place, whose salaries increase through the same formula but are paid by Parliament. They will also receive back payments dating back to 1 April 2023. The total cost of back payments to the Government is just over £15,000. This is for the roles paid by the Government: the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, the Speaker in the House of Commons, the Opposition Chief Whips in both Houses and two Opposition Assistant Whips in the House of Commons. The total cost of back payments to Parliament is between £7,000 and £19,000. This is for the roles paid by Parliament: the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means in the other place and the Lord Speaker.

It is important to note that the majority of the back payments represent money that would have been paid if the misapplication had not been identified. I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for their consideration of this Order in Council and for their respective reports. I shall briefly address the issues they have raised.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that it has taken three years for the Cabinet Office to resolve this issue. Although a small issue, it is a complex and technical one; it is right that the Government took the time to ensure that the misapplication was addressed correctly, and I am sure that noble Lords will support this order which addresses this long-standing misapplication of the law.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instrument has reported that this Order in Council appears to have retrospective effect without the express authority of the parent legislation. The Cabinet Office considers that the Act provides power for limited retrospection, and that the retrospective effect of this order is justified and fair. This is because backdating of salary increases is normal practice given that, for senior civil servants, salary increases are usually not known until the summer but pay increases take effect from the 1 April. In addition, as I have set out, the impact of this order is minimal, affecting Ministers and a small number of other officeholders.

In summary, the Government are bringing forward this Order in Council to address a historical misapplication of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which sets ministerial and certain officeholders’ pay. This is a necessary measure to address a technical misapplication of the law and will ensure that the law aligns with long-standing policy. I beg to move.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for the technical explanation of a complex matter, but could she also answer a couple of relevant questions? First, what is the progress on having more Lords Ministers in receipt of salaries, after our recent discussions and legislation on extending the number of paid posts? What progress is there on helping Ministers rather more by clearer definitions of their aims and their targets, with suitable mentoring and support and, if necessary, performance reporting, so that we can all see that these well-justified salaries are indeed well justified and are resulting in better government?

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, the order resets the underlying salary baseline from April 2026. It would be helpful to understand how that revised baseline is intended to operate in the years ahead, particularly in the context of any future decisions on pay restraint. Despite this being a technical measure, the issues it raises go to questions of consistency, fairness and public confidence, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. Like magic, I have just received the answer to one of the noble Baroness’s questions. I will address the questions as they came and start with the noble Lord, Lord Redwood.

The Bill we discussed last week is currently awaiting Royal Assent and is not yet an Act, but, on a personal level, I am awfully grateful to your Lordships’ House for passing that legislation. As the Minister for Standards in the Cabinet Office, I was here, as the noble Lord will be aware, when we discussed it. As the Minister for Standards and Conduct across government, the subject of mentoring and support in the area for which I have responsibility and more widely has been the subject of conversations I have had. I look forward to being able to bring forward recommendations when I have been in post slightly longer looking at this in the round. I reassure the noble Lord that this is under active consideration.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, pensions have been based on claimed salary, not entitled salary, since 2015. On the issue of forfeiture—a nice segue, if I may congratulate the noble Baroness— I will write to her with the detail but there are currently no active considerations in this space, so we will not be bringing forward an amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill, which I am sure noble Lords will be grateful of at this stage of ping-pong. Having said that, the noble Baroness raises a very important point about wider standards issues and how everything operates in the round. She and I are jointly committed to upholding the highest standards in public life, and I will write to her with all the details on her specific questions.

I thank noble Lords for their consideration of this order. Though technical in nature, the measure is essential for maintaining the integrity of our statutory framework and ensuring that the law accurately reflects decades of established policy. As I have outlined, this order is fundamentally about regularisation; we are addressing a historical discrepancy that has spanned multiple Administrations and several decades. By formalising the exclusion of Permanent Secretaries’ pay from the ministerial salary formula, we are not creating new policy. I thank all noble Lords for the points they raised in today’s debate and I commend the order to the House.

Motion agreed.

Northern Ireland After Brexit (Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee Report)

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, there are many parts of the Windsor Framework, and every time I have a conversation or a briefing about it, there is always something new, and a new part of that world. However, puffins was not where I believed today’s debate was going to go. I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Empey, but I have been in post for three weeks and the power part may still yet be lacking—but I will see what I can do for him, because I would never seek to disappoint.

We have had a truly substantive and insightful debate this afternoon. I begin by thanking my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for securing this debate and for his stewardship of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee. I also take this opportunity to wish my noble friend Lady Ritchie a very happy birthday.

The report we are considering today is very important, not just because of the detailed work clearly undertaken but because the engagement of businesses and civic society with Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements is important at both a constitutional and economic level. Similar themes were also developed by the very thoughtful review of the Windsor Framework conducted by my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and I am grateful to hear his further reflections today. There is something so special and addictive about Northern Ireland that means that those of us exposed to it become completely addicted and can never walk away from it. I think that is reflected by the fact that we have two former Secretaries of State participating today.

I have listened with great care to the contributions made from all sides of the House and I want to thank the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Caine, for reminding us of the stakes at play in Northern Ireland, both economic and cultural. Although noble Lords have different views across the diverse range of issues discussed today, a common thread has been our collective pledge to Northern Ireland’s prosperity, security and economic success, and a shared agreement that businesses, civic society, organisations and public authorities alike should have their voice heard in the very trading arrangements that necessarily underpin that success. Many specific points were raised today, and I will reflect on Hansard to see if I have missed any, but I shall endeavour to answer all the points raised.

I think it will be helpful if we place today’s discussion in context. I should first like to set out the Government’s ongoing commitment to the Windsor Framework and protecting the UK internal market—I assure the noble Lord, Lord Caine, that my speech has not been doctored—while appreciating that there can always be room for improvement. As we have heard today, not least from the noble Lord, those commitments were set out in our manifesto, and we consider them vitally important. They guide our reset with the EU, and they are our guiding approach to securing a vital new agreement with the EU that will smooth trade flows of agri-food goods. Those twin commitments are also important as they reflect the importance of trading arrangements that respect Northern Ireland’s place in the union, avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, and which work on an agreed basis with the EU.

It is only through this approach that we can give certainty to businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland on the rules that apply, as they trade uniquely across two markets. That is why it contains important mechanisms to enable participation and facilitate that voice; the ability of the Northern Ireland Assembly to scrutinise EU rules; structures for businesses and civic society to engage with the UK and EU on the framework’s implementation; arrangements for the Government and Northern Ireland Executive to work together and ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is heard; and a periodic vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly on continuing these arrangements. The first such vote, as we heard, triggered a review of the framework that was carefully and thoughtfully conducted by my noble friend Lord Murphy with a wide range of stakeholders. The Government are now taking action on all the recommendations set out in that review.

That brings me to the real topic of today’s debate: the one-stop shop. Noble Lords are very aware, it seems, of the announced £16.6 million for an enhanced one-stop shop regulatory support service, designed to navigate the knowledge gap facing small and medium-sized enterprises. This will be operational in the next financial year, which I gently remind noble Lords begins next week. We are working to make sure that this can work. I assure your Lordships’ Committee that the one-stop shop will support GB businesses as much as it will support businesses operating in Northern Ireland. I will come on to some of the other points that were raised in relation to that shortly.

Progress has also been made on veterinary medicine—something I will again touch on, in terms of the detail raised today. The UK Government worked extensively with industry in the run-up to the end of the grace period. I am pleased to say that the transition has been without significant disruption—I am not saying there has not been any—and there have been no significant supply issues or other impacts, although we continue to monitor this closely.

It would be remiss of me not to mention that the Government have also allocated £2.25 million in funding to InterTrade UK over the next three years, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster—funding that will allow it to continue its vital work in advising on and promoting trade within the UK. I am sure that the work of InterTrade will assist in continuing to boost the economy of Northern Ireland, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Goudie. I remind noble Lords that Northern Ireland is the fastest-growing part of the United Kingdom. I place on record my personal thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for her work at InterTrade UK.

My noble friend Lady Ritchie raised an important point about the role of InterTrade UK and the one-stop shop. I hope and would expect that the one-stop shop will work with InterTrade UK and other stakeholders to support trade and that this will be something that works together.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for addressing that issue, but what about InterTradeIreland, which already has a hub and could provide some beneficial information?

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

Given the nature of InterTradeIreland, that is a matter for InterTradeIreland and is not something I can comment on from the Dispatch Box.

With regard to the specifics of the report, in short, a lot has been done, but there remains more to do, as this report by the committee highlights. Indeed, the Government’s response to the committee’s report following the independent review shows as much. This leads me to our next steps. We are ensuring that the stakeholder engagement landscape captures a broad spectrum of businesses in a new Northern Ireland business stakeholder group—just to add to the wonderful flowchart that we saw earlier today. We are also looking at how the Government and devolved departments can conduct engagement and capture the views of industry, so that this is joined-up and gets the right outcomes earlier on.

The Northern Ireland Executive participate in all structures under the Windsor Framework, yet we acknowledge that there is more to be done between the Government and the Executive to ensure that public authorities link up and address issues with changes to regulatory proposals earlier in the process. We are therefore implementing new processes to address that and facilitate better engagement at all levels, beyond the Cabinet Office executive office working group.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Can the Minister say whether the United Kingdom will be tabling proposed improvements to the Windsor Framework as part of the reset negotiations?

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

The noble Lord, who has been a Member of the other place and only recently of your Lordships’ House, will be aware better than me that I am not in a position to give any detail of ongoing negotiations while they are currently ongoing. The noble Lord will be aware that the impact on Northern Ireland is key to some of the negotiations, which is why we are focusing so much effort on the SPS deal.

We will continue to welcome contributions from the Executive, including at the Joint Committee—the governing body for the Windsor Framework and the withdrawal agreement as a whole. More broadly, looking at the committee’s report, we are taking forward a new phase of the Trader Support Service, which provides vital support to businesses with goods movements. Those issues were covered in the committee’s report and, in December 2025, we set out more information on the consortium to deliver it. We are working to give greater discretion to the Democratic Scrutiny Committee; it will be allowed greater discretion over how it conducts its scrutiny and the timelines for it. We are backing this up in Brussels, increasing resourcing, as requested by the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels, so that it can provide vital perspective to the institutions there as proposals are developed and considered.

I move on to transparency and awareness. Our approach seeks to ensure that the broadest range of voices from across Northern Ireland is heard, including from business and civic society. It also ensures that there is the right space for technical engagement between government departments and their counterparts in Northern Ireland and the EU institutions. It seeks to ensure that devolved departments are equipped with the right information about regulatory proposals to consider their impacts and advise the Assembly further on Northern Ireland’s interests.

Where issues are identified, we have already shown our capacity to take action, whether domestically, where we have announced consultation activity on toy safety and chemicals labelling and ensured that the UK internal market is protected in response to concerns from industry; or bilaterally, such as on dental amalgam or the arrangements to protect the supply of pharmaceuticals. On all these issues, we have listened to stakeholders, whether they are business organisations, civic organisations or the vital work of the Democratic Scrutiny Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Just as we will continue to support the scrutiny of the Windsor Framework arrangements and the rules that apply in the Assembly, and by the Independent Monitoring Panel, so too will we support the work of InterTrade UK on promoting the economic bonds and strengths of all parts of the UK, and the east-west council in developing the ties across it.

I move on to some of the specific questions in the order that they were asked and not necessarily grouped by issue. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, touched on EUR-Lex. Although the EU’s EUR-Lex tool can be used to read and consider detailed legal terms, we recognise the need for businesses to have clear and accessible guidance. The enhanced one-stop shop we are delivering will do that, providing businesses with tailored advice to navigate those issues. We believe that this is the best way that we can support businesses with explaining the rules that apply.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister. Is she saying that something better than EUR-Lex will be part of the one-stop shop, and that legal problems will therefore be solvable through that structure?

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

I am. Noble Lords heard it here first. Perhaps I do have a little power, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said—or rather, the people behind me do.

My noble friend Lord Murphy touched on the SPS agreement and how important it is. We are currently negotiating with the EU on an SPS agreement to make agri-food trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier, cutting costs and removing barriers to trade for producers and retailers across the whole of the UK. The agreement will benefit Northern Ireland through the interplay with the Windsor Framework, by making a more consistent approach to agri-food and plants. We will smooth the flows of trade still further. On 9 March, the Government provided an update on the changes this would entail for businesses. This includes a call for information from businesses so that the Government can understand exactly what they need.

My noble friends Lord Murphy and Lord Hain asked about the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels and the investment provided. The Government have agreed to provide funding to this office to cover up to three additional posts to ensure that Northern Ireland’s interests are accounted for in Brussels and that EU policy-making is accounted for in Belfast.

Parity of esteem was raised by my noble friend Lord Murphy. This seems particularly apt given how close we are to the anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We are committed to the agreement in all respects, which of course includes parity of esteem for the identities and aspirations of both communities. The application of the Windsor Framework does not shake that commitment.

Gently, I want to touch on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. He raised many issues related to how we got to this point and the question of what is temporary. I was given a slight history lesson earlier today about how many pieces of legislation have the word “temporary” in them, and that has not exactly been an unusual part of our legislative framework historically. I gently suggest that the agreements we have been discussing today were signed by his party when in government, and my party is trying to make the Windsor Framework work for the people of Northern Ireland, which is why we are also currently in the process of resetting the relationship.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

They were, of course, signed by the past Government, but they were described by the EU as temporary. That was the sole justification the EU gave for including trade with Northern Ireland in the withdrawal agreement. She cannot make a party-political point about it. She is either going to ignore the EU or believe it.

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

I believe my party is quite clear on our position on the EU, not least because I believe in international law and complying with our agreements.

One of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, was on veterinary medicines and the prices going up. She raised a specific case. I should very much like to hear the detail of it because to date, we do not have any evidence of prices going up.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

I have written to the Secretary of State about the issue.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

I have not had sight of that question and, apparently, neither has the person who gave me the answer. But online retailers continue to operate in Northern Ireland. As in the rest of the UK, prices between online retailers may vary. We recommend pet owners and others do their research to see which retailer best meets their supply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, rightly raised the issue of haulage, logistics and the trusted haulier scheme. We have accepted the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Murphy, in this area and are looking at all possibilities to reduce frictions for logistics and haulage businesses on an ongoing basis. In parallel, we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the available facilitations. The Government have also established a new Northern Ireland business stakeholders’ group as a formal means of engagement between the Government and Northern Ireland business organisations. This group includes representations from key sectors, including the Road Haulage Association, and provides a direct channel for input into technical UK-EU fora.

The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, raised the issue of animal and livestock movement. He will also be aware that I have met the Ulster Farmers’ Union and some young farmers, and this issue has been raised. The noble Lord will be aware that the best way in which to manage this will be through an SPS agreement and that is why we are seeking to move quickly to deliver on this issue, but I have heard both him and the representations made by others.

The noble Lord, Lord Jay, who previously chaired the committee, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and noble Lord, Lord Rogan, touched, as did other Lords, on the record of regulatory divergence. The Government’s priority is to deliver the enhanced regulatory one-stop shop to advise and support businesses in trading across the whole UK market. We believe that this one-stop shop is far better placed to support small businesses that face challenges. We will seek for this one-stop shop to provide regulatory alerts to businesses on changes to the rules, which we would expect to be accessible to them. The Windsor Framework and a set of online tools provided by the EU can already be used to find regulations of relevance to Northern Ireland. It is for these reasons that our response to the independent review of the Windsor Framework set out that a one-stop shop would be our focus going forward.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister again. I am a bit like a dog with a bone on this question of a database, because I am still not entirely clear that a one-stop shop answering specific queries is the same thing as a comprehensive database of all applicable laws being kept up to date, which is not static but dynamic. They are two different things, and I am not reassured by the Minister. I am sure that she responds in good faith, but I tried to suggest in my remarks that the two were conflated. I am not sure that her earlier answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, fully removes my doubts on the subject.

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

The Government have made a decision that we will focus on helping people work with it, rather than keeping a list, so that we can make sure that people have the support they need as they try to navigate the impact on their businesses and on their trade.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I apologise for intervening again, but will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss a way in which EUR-Lex change can be incorporated in the one-stop shop, possibly including some very simple ways of using existing techniques to simplify complex legal issues?

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

How could I ever turn down an invitation from the noble Lord? Of course, I am more than happy to meet him to go over the debate. More importantly, officials can be there to make sure that what he wants is reflected so that we can actually make this work. We are taking a pragmatic approach to try to make this work and make it as easy as possible, while at the same time hoping to negotiate an SPS deal that takes away a great many of the issues we are talking about.

No one could doubt for a second the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Caine, to the people of Northern Ireland and to trying to make these issues work. He touched on the issues of Safeguarding the Union and his PQs—obviously, I sign off every one. I realise that I am now over time, but I am more than happy to have a meeting with the noble Lord to discuss Safeguarding the Union, if that is acceptable to him.

I want to reassure noble Lords on some points, starting with noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, whom I assure that the interface will be user-friendly—or else—and will be focused UK-wide. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, asked about hauliers, and I hope I have responded to her in full. If I have not, I will look at what she said and come back to her.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked me about parliamentary committees in the other place. She will be aware that how it chooses to engage is a matter for the other place, and for Parliament as a whole, but I am delighted that noble Lords had the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee doing this very important work. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness that we have accepted all the noble Lord’s recommendations and are seeking to implement them—one of the questions touched on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Caine, asked me about future legislation. I reassure him that we will talk about this—I would suggest in this Room, but possibly on the Floor of the House—in the next Session, subject to me now getting told off by the Chief Whip.

In conclusion, the message from this debate is clear: we must continue to listen to and act on the voices of businesses and civic society in delivering Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements. I give the Committee the continued commitment of the Government today that we will always take practical actions on concerns to protect the UK internal market and flow of goods, be that east-west or north-south. As we do so, our focus will remain on the prize of delivering real prosperity, where Northern Ireland remains one of the fastest-growing economies of the UK, in part thanks to its unique trading position and businesses having certainty about the facilitations available to move their goods under the Windsor Framework.

However, I am aware of the ongoing complexities of how this is operating on the ground and, on that basis, I will visit Northern Ireland very soon. Noble Lords, especially those in Northern Ireland, will be aware that I am not allowed to say exactly when, but I will be in Northern Ireland imminently to see how the Windsor Framework is operating on the ground. I will meet key stakeholders who are delivering this, as well as businesses, to see what next steps the Government should consider.

The Government will support only those trading arrangements for Northern Ireland that protect its place in the UK and its internal market, avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland and can be agreed. While there is more to be done to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is heard in London, Belfast and Brussels, the Windsor Framework really does provide the best basis for that, and we are committed to working alongside our partners in the Northern Ireland Executive and the EU institutions as we take it forward, alongside new agreements with the EU, so that we may build an even brighter and more prosperous future for people in Northern Ireland and across the whole United Kingdom.

I again thank the committee for its report and I look forward to continuing to work with it in the coming months—I really hope that I did not disappoint my noble friend Lord Carlile. On that final note, I wish all members of the committee a happy Easter and chag Pesach sameach.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I ask for clarification on one point, and if she does not have it right now, perhaps she could write and put it in the Library. There are two parallel processes here. There is the EU reset and there are the specific conditions in the trade and co-operation agreement, where it is specified that there will be a review in 2026. I have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and others a number of times whether the Government were preparing for those. We have two separate processes, one a treaty obligation and one a set of political negotiations. We need to know what we are doing, otherwise we are going to get confused. If the noble Baroness does not have the minutiae of it at hand, I would be more than happy if she would write to me.

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

I will write to the noble Lord.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches hesitate to criticise the due diligence process by the security services and the Civil Service; it seems to have been effectively and efficiently done but disregarded by the Prime Minister’s political advisers and overridden by the Prime Minister. Presumably he thought the task of establishing and maintaining a close relationship with President Trump demanded someone like Peter Mandelson in spite of, or even because of, his flaws.

Can the Minister tell us when further files will be released? I have just looked through the first package that has been released, which is actually very thin. There is clearly an awful lot more to come out—to repeat, there is a lot to come out not just from London but from Washington, which will overlap on to this.

I am sure the whole House will be happy that the Minister has been appointed by the Prime Minister to look further into this. We will all do our best to co-operate with her in making sure that standards and procedures are improved. Can she tell us more about her work programme in her new responsibilities on ethics and standards? Will that work be primarily within government or across the parties and both Houses to make sure that, as far as possible, it gets the maximum buy-in from everyone concerned and interested in politics, and will therefore have the best chance of succeeding? Will she, for example, consider strengthening the parliamentary oversight of major public appointments, which is, after all, a common occurrence in a number of other parliamentary democracies?

How do the Government propose to strengthen further the Ministerial Code? Will they commit to regular revisions with advice from committees in both Houses?

Does the Minister recognise that the case that many of us keep making for putting the Ethics and Integrity Commission, ACOBA and a number of other bodies on a statutory basis is a matter of future-proofing? We do not know what the outcome of the next election will be but it could be extremely messy and lead to some form of coalition Government. We need to make sure that we future-proof our standards and commitments to make sure that any new Government who come in will find it easier to accept them than to override them. We have plenty of lessons from Washington of how easily things can go wrong, and we need as far as we can to prevent them similarly going wrong over here.

Can the Minister say a little about implications for the House of Lords? I note that the Conduct Committee is being charged with the rather difficult task of looking at our standards. The Leader of the House reprimanded me the other week for referring to us as a part-time House and replied that we are now effectively a full-time House. Yes, we are, but the way in which we are managed and governed still assumes that we are part-time and earn other things outside the House, and that that requires us to have a different set of concerns about private, commercial and financial interests and activities outside from those in the Commons. If we are now to be judged on the same level as the Commons as a full-time House then that is quite a radical readjustment of the way one thinks about the second Chamber.

Can I also ask a little about what happens when Peers are disbarred from the House? Will the Government consider putting before the House the idea that they should no longer be able to hold their titles? Removing them from the peerage roll would be perhaps a more important way of signalling that they no longer have a position of honour within our political system.

Of course, behind all this there are some broader issues about the financial and political culture in London, Washington, New York and Westminster. Wealth and money in politics is something we are all going to face as the Representation of the People Bill arrives in this House in a few months. We will need to look at that very carefully. I hope we may be assured that the Government will work with us to make sure that money does not override other matters in our life.

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

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions. It is incredibly important that these matters are addressed, not least because they now drive a huge amount of my own personal work. I will come on to that.

First, I will provide an update following the Statement made in the other place last week by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister on the release of the first tranche of documents in response to the humble Address Motion of 4 February. As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister rightly stated:

“Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed … disgusting crimes that destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is … unforgivable”.


His victims must be

“our first priority. Peter Mandelson’s behaviour”—

including encouraging Jeffrey Epstein to fight his conviction for abusing a vulnerable young girl—

“was an insult to them and their suffering”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/26; col. 359.]

We should also never forget that every time we discuss Epstein’s horrendous behaviour, his victims relive awful experiences. These survivors must be front and centre when we debate all issues related to Jeffrey Epstein, his network and their impact.

That is why there is a cross-party consensus in both Houses for full transparency and accountability. The Government are committed to publishing all documents relevant to the humble Address and last week published the first tranche. These documents relate specifically to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. Further work is ongoing to compile the rest of the information in scope. The Government recognise the urgency with which this work must be completed and will keep your Lordships updated as it progresses.

The Prime Minister has taken personal responsibility for Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador. He has acknowledged that it was a mistake and apologised, not least for believing Peter Mandelson’s lies. While the documents point to public reports of an ongoing relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, the advice did not expose the depth and extent of their relationship, which became apparent only after the release of files by Bloomberg and then the US Department of Justice.

As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set out last week, there are specific documents that this Government would like to disclose but the Metropolitan Police has asked us not to do so yet to avoid prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. We have agreed to that request. We will publish these documents once the Metropolitan Police has confirmed that this will no longer prejudice its investigation.

The Government have already taken steps to address weaknesses in the system and I will update your Lordships on the further steps we will take. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have asked the Conduct Committee of your Lordships’ House to review the Code of Conduct to consider what changes are required to ensure that Members of your Lordships’ House can be removed when they have brought the peerage into disrepute. We are also exploring whether the committee can further strengthen the rules on lobbying and paid advocacy.

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister also announced that the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to conduct a review of the current arrangements relating to financial disclosures for Ministers and senior officials, transparency around lobbying, and the Business Appointment Rules, and I look forward to receiving its report before the Summer Recess. The Chief Secretary also confirmed that we will conduct a review of the national security vetting system to ensure that we learn the lessons from the policy and process weaknesses related to the Mandelson case.

With regard to some of the specifics that were asked, I think some of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will be slightly easier for me to answer, given that they are in my direct purview. On the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, we have been clear that many more documents will follow in coming tranches. The noble Baroness was concerned about who is seeing what and when. I want to be clear that, while we are withholding some documents at the request of the Metropolitan Police, we have agreed with Simon Hoare MP, the chair of PACAC in the other place, that he is seeing all documents being withheld, so a member of His Majesty’s Opposition is seeing everything as we go through it.

Given the scale of what we are doing and the fact that we are complying and will comply with both the spirit and the letter of the humble Address, it is appropriate that we are releasing the documents in such a way that is sensible given their nature, but also that the ISC is seeing them so that it can deal with them. I assure noble Lords that all the documents will be published and that noble Lords will have the opportunity to see them all—but, given the live police investigation, we have to take this step by step.

I just want to touch on the 56 documents. I have read the paperwork related to them but I do not recognise the 56 documents. The noble Baroness asked specifically whether legal advice had been taken on the schedule. I have not seen that, but I will revert to her if such advice exists. She also questioned whether the Prime Minister had misled the Commons. He absolutely has not; his comments all the way through are in line with the paperwork being released in each tranche.

On some of the specifics raised by the noble Baroness, obviously she is aware that I cannot comment on the Committee of Privileges of the other place—that was Parliament holding a former Member to account. She asked about some of the things that we have already done, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I will touch on severance payments, which were a core theme from the noble Baroness. As the documents show, Peter Mandelson initially requested a sum that was substantially larger than the final payment—more than six times the final amount—despite the fact that he was withdrawn from Washington because he had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister. As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister explained yesterday, the Government obviously found that to be inappropriate and unacceptable. The settlement that was agreed was to avoid even higher costs from a drawn-out legal claim at the employment tribunal, given Peter Mandelson’s employment as a civil servant rather than a Minister.

As noble Lords will know, Ministers can be dismissed without recourse to the employment tribunal—let us hope I am not experiencing that soon—but civil servants are treated differently. As can be seen from the documents, Peter Mandelson’s settlement was in line with his employment contract and standard Civil Service HR processes, avoiding the risk and high costs of drawn-out legal action and ensuring he was quickly removed from the payroll. As set out in the documents, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury approved this payment in line with standard HMT guidance on the use of severance payments.

I have already touched on the issue of vetting, but I want to spend a couple of moments responding to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. On the question about the release of further documentation, given that this request is supported by both Houses but is about the Commons and complying with the Commons, obviously we need to lay those documents when the House is sitting. Those documents will come forward in due course, either before or after the Recess.

I look forward to discussing many details of my own work programme with Members of your Lordships’ House, not least the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I truly believe that if we are to rebuild faith in politicians, and in what I consider to be one of the most important buildings in the country, it has to be a cross-party, cross-government and cross-Parliament project, so I will actively seek to work with all Members of your Lordships’ House on where we believe the gaps are, what we can realistically fix and how we can rebuild trust.

With regard to the Ministerial Code revisions, the noble Lord will not be surprised that, unlike his colleagues in the other place, who suggested that we may want to put it on a statutory footing, we will not be seeking to do that, but I am very aware of what he said about future-proofing standards. Many people who have been at this Dispatch Box and at Dispatch Boxes in the other place are aware that we rarely get to look at standards in the round. The last time that was done with a clear objective was in establishing the Nolan principles. I view this as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make sure that we get this right. We have a Minister dedicated to it—I do not know the last time that happened—so it is about how we can ensure we use this moment to fix the things that typically get pushed to one side.

However, I agree with my noble friend the Leader of our House, Lady Smith: we are a full-time House with part-time Members and we are different from the other place. Noble Lords will be aware that I used to be a Member of the other place and am married to a Member of the other place; what he is expected to do and what I did before I was on the Front Bench are two very different sets of responsibilities. We need to make sure that we do not lose what is so special about this building and our Chamber, and some of the expertise we have because of people’s outside interests compared to the other place.

The noble Lord raised the Representation of the People Bill and the impact of money. He did not touch on the Rycroft review, which will be coming forward and will very much tie into our discussions on these issues.

I conclude by reiterating that Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable individual, and Peter Mandelson’s decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable is reprehensible. As the Prime Minister said, the victims of Epstein have lived with trauma that most of us can barely comprehend. They have had to relive it again and again, and they have had to see accountability delayed and too often denied. Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed. The Government will comply with the humble Address and I will provide further updates to your Lordships’ House in due course.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, is participating remotely and I invite him to speak now.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing to the House this excellent Statement. I congratulate her on her very appropriate appointment, which shows the sincerity and determination of the Government to take this issue seriously. I recognise that the Liberal spokesperson asked some sensible questions, which the Minister has responded to. However, I was really disappointed that the Official Opposition took this as another opportunity to attack the Prime Minister and his integrity. That was an unfortunate lapse of judgment by their Front Bench.

Will the Minister confirm that this House needs to look at its own procedures and arrangements as well? The recent Chadlington case shows that we are not above reproach. Will she indicate that this will be a much wider look at the whole aspect of how the Government and Parliament operate? Will she indicate how much the whole long and complicated exercise might cost, because it is not without substantial cost?

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

It is a true joy to see my noble friend, if only on a screen. I am so pleased that he is well enough to participate, if remotely. I cannot wait to see him back in his place.

My noble friend asked me several questions. I want to focus on the fact that there is a responsibility on every Member of your Lordships’ House and everyone who serves in this building, whether in the other place or here, as well as those who support all of us, to help rebuild trust in politics. My noble friend spent a long career door-knocking and campaigning, and we know how important this is. With regard to the costs, I do not have a total cost to give my noble friend at this time and it will not be possible to give a running update. However, I can confirm that Civil Service resource has been redeployed, meaning that this will not create any net cost to the taxpayer. Any additional costs will be set out in due course.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Would the Minister agree that one of the ironies of this sorry saga is that His Majesty’s Government had a highly competent ambassador in Washington DC, Karen Pierce, who had the confidence of the Trump Administration and was widely respected in that city? Does the Minister agree that no Government should be appointing political cronies to this type of position but should be selecting from the wide category of highly competent professional diplomats?

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

The noble Lord, as ever, raises an interesting and non-straightforward point for me to answer. On the process, while this was unusual it is not unheard of. Three Members of your Lordships’ House were political appointees from both parties to hold ambassadorial roles, both by previous Labour Governments and by the Conservative Government. There is a clear process for such appointments. The process was followed; the process did not work; the process has now changed.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

The private lives of the decadent rich are always going to arouse interest in the media and with the general public. The Prime Minister has failed to answer some very embarrassing questions about what he knew when he made this appointment. In my opinion, this whole thing became overwhelmingly more serious when allegations were made that Lord Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten had been repaying the hospitality they received by giving classified government financial and economic information to a financier to help him with his investments. If that is true, it is one of the most serious allegations of corruption in public life in recent years. We normally assume that we do not have that in this country. Can the Minister assure me that the Metropolitan Police is being given full support in getting on with the task of investigating that, and that there will be no suggestion of political pressure at any stage to stop the full force of the law being brought forward? Others must be deterred in future from being tempted to go in for that kind of corrupt behaviour.

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

Before I answer the substance of the question, while I appreciate the issues that were raised, the private lives of the decadent rich are of no odds here. It is about abuse and violence against women and girls, and illegal behaviour; it is not about a decadent life. Regardless of whether they are rich or not, people should be held to account with the full force of the law. On classified government information, noble Lords will be aware there is a live police investigation so I cannot comment on the detail. However, I would expect the Met Police to receive absolute full support. If laws have been broken, people should be prosecuted.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made an extremely pertinent point about Lord Mandelson’s predecessor, Dame Karen Pierce. First, can the Minister confirm that, during the scope of this investigation, we will look at the representations the Prime Minister will have received arguing that Dame Karen should have been kept in place to handle a very unpredictable and volatile president? Can the Minister confirm what pressure the Prime Minister came under, and from whom, to replace her with Lord Mandelson? Secondly, if we are investigating Lord Mandelson’s suitability for public office of any sort historically, will the scope of that investigation be extended to his time as an EU commissioner in Brussels? There are some very serious questions and allegations surrounding his time there.

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

It may be helpful to inform your Lordships’ House that the previous ambassador to America had come to the end of her tenure. The question would have been whether the tenure would be extended or not, not whether she should have been removed. I do not believe that is within the scope of the paperwork; the paperwork being released directly pertains to the appointment and withdrawal of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord. On the scope of the humble Address and the EU processes, I believe other organisations are looking at other roles and some of the history. On the scope of what is currently in play, there is a live police investigation. The matter before us relating to the humble Address concerns the immediate period before and during his appointment.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, the humble Address referred on several occasions to electronic communications between officials in the Government and political appointees. Under the Freedom of Information Act, it has been long-standing practice that communications between Ministers and officials, on whatever device, and whether they are private or government emails, are within scope of freedom of information laws. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are working on the basis that all such communications, whether they are private or government emails, are within scope? Assuming they are, what steps are being taken to secure and recover such information from those officials who are no longer within the Government’s employ—specifically, the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney?

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

To confirm, all electronic communication is in scope and will be released in future tranches of materials. On the steps being taken to secure the materials, the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office has contacted all other Permanent Secretaries to make sure that materials are being secured and passed on. Those materials are currently being collated for further release. On the former chief of staff, as set out by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, there was correspondence between No. 10 and Lord Peter Mandelson, in which a number of follow-up questions were asked. I would assume that those materials are going to be released as well.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that the complexities of employment law mean that you have to pay someone some money when they work for you. Has anyone approached Mandelson, who has done disgraceful things, to ask whether he wants to give this money to a buy-a-warship fund, or some other charity, rather than take it for himself?

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

My Lords, I wondered how my noble friend was going to get a warship into this question—and, as ever, he succeeded. My noble friend is right; from my perspective, Peter Mandelson should donate his severance to any charity that campaigns for, or protects, women who have been targeted and have experienced horrendous violence. That is probably the least we are owed.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, is it the Government’s case that Lord Mandelson misled them to get the appointment? Can the Minister give us a couple of examples of what he said to fool the Prime Minister?

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

The noble Lord will be able to read any and all correspondence for himself as further tranches are published.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

Further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord West, I understand that the amount that Lord Mandelson is to receive is much less than he asked for. The Minister said that that was to save costs. In many cases, there is surely a commercial reason for settling, but, given that this case is of such constitutional importance, would it not be far better to see whether a court agrees that Lord Mandelson is entitled to any compensation at all?

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

The noble Lord raises an important and valid point. In this instance, it was considered a sensible move to remove Lord Mandelson from the payroll as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister quite rightly referred to Epstein as a despicable person, as did the Prime Minister and other members of the Government. However, was he not a despicable person the first time he was put in jail for the appalling abuse of young women? Peter Mandelson stayed in Epstein’s house in America after that, which the Prime Minister knew. A lot of the public will think that that must have been enough to make it clear that he could not be appointed as our ambassador.

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

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that Mr Epstein was a despicable and horrendous human being. The Prime Minister was genuinely not aware of the depth of their continuing relationship, which did not become clear until after the publication of the Bloomberg papers.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, this is not the first political appointment to an ambassadorship, including that in Washington, which has not been without controversy. But would the Minister confirm that there are some circumstances in which it is appropriate for there to be a political appointment, rather than one which is selected from Civil Service ranks, provided it is quite clear that that is the responsibility of the Ministers making the appointment?

Secondly, could she confirm that it is quite common for organisations that are facing what may seem quite unreasonable severance requests from individuals to make a judgment about what the cost is of fighting those arrangements and to reach a balanced decision?

In the circumstances where people are criticising the nature of some of the material being published and trying to read too much into it, is it not the case—as Bismarck said, if you ever like laws or sausages, never watch either being made—that this minute inspection, which quite properly the Opposition have demanded should be released, will reveal the imperfections of any process in government, or indeed anywhere else?

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

My noble friend is absolutely right. There have been several political appointments, as I have said, including of Members of your Lordships’ House, to ambassadorial and diplomatic roles. Also, there have been direct ministerial appointments made outside this. This is not an unusual process. However, I appreciate it is rare in the diplomatic field. What we have to do is make sure that, as and when political appointees are considered to be appropriate, the nature of our politics should not suggest that we are therefore excluded from other roles, but we should make sure that due process is followed. Given recent events, we have changed due process both on direct ministerial appointments and on any future political appointments in the diplomatic space.

The noble Lord also asked about negotiations around severance payments. I am a former trade union officer and spent a great deal of time negotiating other people’s packages. Negotiations in this space are not unusual, but the noble Lord’s most important point was about imperfections in the system. I am viewing this as an opportunity to reflect on what has gone wrong and what we now need to fix. But let us be clear that there have been significant weaknesses in processes. The onus now is on this Government to strengthen the processes.

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)]

My diplomatic friends tell me that, if they are up for a sensitive posting abroad, the due diligence that the FCO carries out is a brutal, intrusive and pretty degrading exercise, but a very effective one. Why is the system of due diligence for a political appointment different?

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

My Lords, it is not. It is exactly the same in terms of the security and vetting processes. I would like to reassure noble Lords that the vetting process that was undertaken on Peter Mandelson was expedited but followed every step.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, following the comment from my noble friend, and as I mentioned before, the vetting process is not really the issue here. We have Members of this House who are former diplomats and ambassadors, and it is very rare in my recollection that we have had any issues with those who have taken up posts abroad on our behalf. To widen this discussion into codes of conduct for Members in the future and how we must now move towards different vetting procedures is obfuscation.

The points raised by my noble friend Lady Finn on the Front Bench are the questions we need answered. The hub of this matter is that we have a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who knowingly appointed Peter Mandelson, who had remained friends with a convicted paedophile, to represent us in one of the most key posts as ambassador to the United States of America. So, my question to the noble Baroness on the Front Bench is: given the reality that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom clearly has no judgment and that to obfuscate and try to blame everyone else is really inappropriate, will he, on this issue, stand down, because clearly his judgment is lost?

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

My Lords, I have tried not to be party political on this, but I find it a little rich to be taking lectures from the Opposition Benches, given what we experienced with “partygate” for years and what Liz Truss’s Government did. I find this very difficult. Also, for the record, the idea that the appointment of a Minister—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

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

Noble Lords can listen to me or not, but the concept that our appointing a Minister to review the standards landscape in the whole is an obfuscation is disappointing to say the least. In terms of the Prime Minister’s responsibilities, he has apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson. He believed Peter Mandelson’s lies in response to the questions put to him. As soon as the Prime Minister became aware of this in September, Peter Mandelson was dismissed promptly.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords—

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

My Lords, we are, hopefully, discussing the concept of rebuilding trust in politics and how we talk to each other. I will answer questions from either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness, but it is for them to decide.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, is it the case that, in the course of the appointment of Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister never spoke to him?

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

Noble Lords will appreciate that there is ongoing material, which will be published. All of that will be a matter of public record in due course.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this feels a bit “Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil” in the casual way that the Prime Minister followed process in appointing the US ambassador, the then Lord Mandelson. There is a concern that, when the humble Address was passed, former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney still worked for the Government and did not resign until a few days later. Yet Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, has said that everything the Government have has been published. I am concerned that all the documents have not yet been released by the Government. What has happened to the communications between Morgan McSweeney and anybody else involved in this while he was still working for the Prime Minister?

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

My Lords, I believe I have said on numerous occasions that this is the first tranche of material that has been published, as did the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. More material will be published in due course. I have answered several questions on that. I look forward to discussing it again with noble Lords when that is done.

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.