British Industry and Services: Public Procurement

Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Spellar

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Spellar]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their policy on prioritising British industry and services when carrying out public procurement.

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

My Lords, on 26 March, the Government announced procurement reforms to protect our national security, boost growth and build a fairer economy. We have now moved from policy direction to delivery. As of last month, government departments can make use of the national security exemption in the Procurement Act 2023, where relevant. We also introduced a public interest test for departments to formally assess whether their services can be delivered more effectively in-house and have requested all government departments to develop insourcing plans.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply, but that memo is not getting through to government departments. Time and again, they are giving preference to firms and workforces from overseas rather than British industry and services. We talk a lot in this House about government as regulator, government as legislator and government as policymaker. Is it not time for the role of government as customer to come forward so that we can re-industrialise Britain, as has been made very clear by the incoming Prime Minister? Can she get through to her department and the Treasury that there is a new sheriff in town, and we want to see a rapid change of direction?

Civil Service Pension Scheme

Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Spellar

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

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

I thank my noble friend. We have already withheld nearly £10 million in transition contract payments for undelivered milestones from Capita. This represents our continuous position that public funds will only ever pay for what is successfully delivered to the required standard, and this figure is not the sum total of withheld payments across the wider contract lifecycle. This is obviously only stage 1. I look forward to being able to further update your Lordships’ House next week.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the systemic failure here that the Civil Service refused to take past performance into account? That is completely contrary to normal life. If someone did a job on your house or on your car and failed, or if you took a holiday with a company that failed, not only would you not use them again but you would advise everybody else not to. If we want only one example, it was the Capita failure on the Army recruitment programme, which was an utter disaster for service recruitment. Is it not time that we changed that so that past performance counted? That would focus the attention of management on fulfilling the contracts they have got rather than on the contracts they hope to get.

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

I thank my noble friend—I think. He is absolutely right. He and I were members of the Defence Select Committee in the other place and discussed the terms of the recruitment contract for the Armed Forces in great detail. There have clearly been challenges in the past, but I remind noble Lords that Capita is meeting 87% of its KPIs on other contracts. However, the issue that the noble Lord has raised is incredibly important. Given that, only last week, the Cabinet Office issued a Written Ministerial Statement making clear our insourcing drive and the public interest test, I hope all these factors are brought into account.

Public Inquiries: Costs

Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Spellar

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Spellar]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what was the cost of public inquiries in 2025, and what were the Government’s legal costs for representation in public inquiries.

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

My Lords, individual inquiries report their own costs. The Covid inquiry, for example, spent approximately £31 million in the first two quarters of the 2025-26 financial year, whereas the Post Office/Horizon inquiry reported spending of approximately £26 million in the 2024-25 financial year. The Cabinet Office also published Covid-19 inquiry legal response costs of £25 million for the 2024-25 financial year. Public inquiries remain vital for investigating serious concerns, shedding light on injustices and spurring change, as well as getting answers for victims and their loved ones.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the response, but the public will be slightly concerned that the Government do not seem to have an aggregate figure for the cost of inquiries, let alone the costs of their own legal expenses and of Civil Service time. At a time when cash is immensely tight, it would be a very good idea to tighten this up. Would it not be much better for future inquiries to set a fixed limit on how long they will take and a fixed budget that they cannot go beyond?

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

My noble friend raises some interesting points. It may help him to be aware of two developments that this Government have done in recent months. First, changes to the Ministerial Code have made it clear that, since October last year, any government department that wishes to bring forward a public inquiry has to bring forward a business case to a Cabinet Office Minister before the request goes to the Prime Minister. This is so that we can ensure that best practice is achieved. We have also updated the practitioners’ handbook with guidance for sponsor teams and inquiry staff on the set-up and operation of inquiries, the results of which will be published shortly.

Ministerial Code

Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Spellar

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I thank the noble Lord for bringing my attention to the report; I look forward to reading it. He will not be surprised that, on Budget Day, I have yet to reflect on the report, but I will do so. We are 18 months into a Labour Government that have delivered on strengthening the Ministerial Code by setting out new financial penalties and new terms of reference for the independent adviser, establishing a new monthly register of Ministers’ interests, and establishing a new Ethics and Integrity Commission, which was in our manifesto. Having sat through every moment of our debates, I know that we have been in your Lordships’ House for over 50 hours discussing the future of the House as well as other areas of modernisation. We are acting. This is a hugely ambitious Government with a great deal to do, and we will continue to move forward.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister or the department received any representations from the Opposition—including from their spokesman who just spoke—that Mr David Kogan, with all his experience in sports management, is not an excellent choice? If he is, in fact, eminently well qualified and probably the best person for the position, is it not absurd that, in a parliamentary democracy where political parties contest, someone could be disqualified because they support a political party?

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

I thank my noble friend for his question. I seem to remember that, when the previous Government were in government and since, they have accepted donations from supporters. It seems to be normal that people would want to support a political party; it is a normal part of our politics. My noble friend is absolutely right: to my knowledge, there has been no such representations from the Conservative Front Bench criticising Mr Kogan’s appointment based on his ability to do the role.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I have known the Speaker of another place since I was born. While I always appreciate the words of Mr Speaker, in this instance I remind noble Lords, from across all political parties, that there is always noise and speculation ahead of the Budget. Mr Speaker has asked the Public Accounts Committee to undertake a review of the Ministerial Code in terms of when business should and should not be addressed first in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord is absolutely right about paragraph 9.1, and the Prime Minister too has been clear that significant announcements should always be made in Parliament.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, did the Minister note that, in his second intervention, the Opposition spokesman in no way made any criticism of David Kogan in relation to whether he was a fit and proper person to undertake the post? Does that not speak volumes?

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend. He is right; I sat through many hours of discussion on the appointment of the football regulator and the legislation which passed through your Lordships’ House, which has been in both the Labour Party manifesto and the Conservative Party manifesto as a commitment. Not only did we sit through many hours of that, but now we have an effort to not support Mr Kogan going forward. He is a positive force for good; he was originally approached by the Opposition Benches when they were in government to hold this role, and nobody in the sector has any complaints about his appointment.

Ethics and Integrity Commission

Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Spellar

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

The noble Lord raises an excellent question. That is one of the reasons we have not rushed into it—to make sure that we are not replicating the organisations and entities that govern standards, integrity and ethics in public life, and that we can come forward with a proper, genuine response to what is needed. I assure the noble Lord that we are factoring in his question.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, is there not also a deeper issue as to who is entitled to decide who sits—particularly in the elected House—to represent people? Fundamentally, should it not be for the criminal courts of this country and the electorate to decide both on the individual they are being asked to vote for and, indeed, collectively the Government?

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

My Lords, as we are the unelected House, I completely agree that it is for the electorate—I have faced them several times; they liked and then did not like me—to decide who they seek to represent them and to have an understanding of the values of those people. I thank my noble friend, but we have very clear processes in place to protect standards. It is important the general public has faith in them too.