British Industry and Services: Public Procurement

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

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

I welcome the noble Earl’s new commitment—maybe it is not new —to supply chains and to where components come from. Many of these contracts were signed by previous Governments. We have had many discussions, not least with the noble Earl, about the role of Uyghur labour, which is abhorrent and needs to be taken out of the supply chain. However, we need sovereign capability to replace it with. As I said, that includes sovereign skills capability and investment in manufacturing. People need certainty about contracts coming forward; that has to be delivered too.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, a central tenet of the UK’s national shipbuilding policy is that we have a drumbeat of orders through UK shipyards, recognising that 38p of every pound put in by the taxpayer comes back directly in tax and national insurance. Can my noble friend explain why the Department for Transport is considering offshoring the replacements for Trinity House vessels and the Home Office is considering placing orders in Holland for patrol vessels? Much of that work will not be done in Europe but will be subcontracted to the Far East. Have these departments somehow not got the memo from the Treasury?

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

My Lords, I am sure that every memo sent by my department will be actively read by every other department. On shipbuilding, the noble Lord is absolutely right—when we were Members of the other place, I sat with the noble Lord through many debates on exactly this issue. On the immediate action that we are taking, we have created the pathfinder sector through the national security exemption in the Procurement Act. The MoD is one of those departments, and we have put a commercial lead in place specifically to look at shipbuilding. I would expect that sector lead to work across government departments to deliver in the way that my noble friend discussed.

Foreign Interference in UK Democratic Processes

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

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

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

I think that we can all agree, not least after marking last week that the Ukraine war is longer than the First World War, that we are dealing with a bad-faith and outrageous actor with the Russian state, which has also been operating in the online space. Since October 2024, the Government have exposed and sanctioned 38 individuals and organisations responsible for delivering Russian information warfare. I appreciate, as will noble Lords, that there is still some way to go, but we are working every day to keep both our online and our offline spaces safe.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, in its 2020 report on Russia, the ISC highlighted the malign influence of Russia and, more recently, in our report on Iran, we highlighted the use of the online space to sow division within our politics. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that we should condemn those politicians who repeat and spread some of this false information?

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

I could not agree more with my noble friend. One of the most instructive things that we have seen in recent months was, when the Iranian regime turned off the internet in order to stop protests on its own streets, we saw how many online Twitter bots were no longer operational. We see that across the piece with state actors who are trying to sow division. There is therefore a responsibility on each and every one of us not to repeat their lies.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

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

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, Olly Robbins was dismissed because the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary lost confidence in him, as has been set out publicly before. As has always been the case, we do not comment on individual employment cases.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the ISC has spent many hours and days doing the task which Parliament set it. I put on record my thanks, on behalf of the committee, to the staff who have worked behind the scenes on this. I also thank the committee members, including two Members of our own House, my noble friend Admiral Lord West, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, who have worked very hard on this long task.

I wrote last week to the Prime Minister raising four points: the use of WhatsApp in government; the use of low-side systems for transmitting confidential and secretive information; the lack of record-keeping, particularly within the Foreign Office, of audit trails; and the way in which security advice was handled by officials and Ministers. They are nothing new. The committee raised them with the last Government, including the Foreign Office, which had a very bad reputation for keeping records or WhatsApp messages. I understand that the Government have now committed to a review of this, but I say to my noble friend that there is an urgency in this. This needs to be done very quickly, because this is not something new. It was raised with the last Government, it was ignored by the last Government, and it now needs to be put right as a matter of urgency.

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

I thank my noble friend for the work he has done, as well as my other noble friend and other colleagues in your Lordships’ House and the other place. This has been an extraordinary volume of work for many people, not least members of the committee and their officials, and we are very grateful to them for it.

I will take the four points he raised in turn. He is absolutely right; there has to be a positive in everything that happens, and one of the positives is that we will now review each of these areas to fix what is not working, the first of which is the use of WhatsApp. There will be a review on the use of non-corporate communication channels—we really need a better phrase for them than NCCCs, but I am sure we will come up with one. On record-keeping, I assure your Lordships’ House that the Cabinet Secretary has this week written to all the heads of departments—in other words, to every other Permanent Secretary—to remind them of their responsibilities, and we are reviewing the guidance that is issued to private offices going forward. My noble friend is absolutely right about low-level platforms and security information, and those two will be taken in train. I realise, as I reference that, that one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, was about why some material should be deleted. I am not sure of the detail, because I have not seen some of the security elements behind it, but I would suggest that it may be because that information should not have been on that level of platform.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

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

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Lords Chamber

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

The noble Lord raises genuinely important points about how we make decisions and how we talk to each other, and I share some of his concerns. The Government plan to review the way that non-corporate communication channels are used in government and to update the accompanying guidance to reflect the changes in how we use the technology. I expect it to be before your Lordships’ House imminently for us to discuss the detail.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the ISC was given a clear task to look at documents that were going to be released on the humble Address for national security and international relations harm. We have done that. We spent many hours doing it. I pay credit to the committee members for their hard work and thank in particular my noble friends Lord West and Lady Brown of Cambridge for their diligence in that task. The point of our statement is very clear: the Government need to justify why they are going to redact things other than on the grounds which we have decided.

The other situation is the fact that there is documentation—including the full background files of the vetting of Lord Mandelson—which we have not seen as it has been withheld. We understand why, because to release that would lead to difficulties for the future vetting system. But it does fall within the humble Address, and the Government need to come to Parliament to argue that point—one that the ISC would agree with in that situation.

Can I finally just raise WhatsApp? We are concerned about the use of WhatsApp, the use of low-side systems for information, the lack of audit trail, particularly in the Foreign Office, of decision-making, and the overriding of security concerns raised by the agencies whose job it is to do it. These are all issues that the last committee raised with both the Johnson and Sunak Governments. That culture is continuing; it cannot be allowed to continue. I urge my noble friend, as a matter of urgency, to ensure that proper systems are put in place and that this can is not just kicked down the road.

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

First, I thank my noble friend for the work that he and his committee are undertaking that is not normally in the scope of the ISC. We as a Parliament have asked it to undertake a huge amount of work and we are grateful for the work it is doing. As I have set out, the Government will return to Parliament when they publish the second tranche of material. We will set out the methodology that has been followed and the reasons for it. More generally, there are obvious reasons why the Government treat vetting material with exceptional sensitivity. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have held roles where they have been exposed to the importance of vetting and know how the process works and that the number of people who have access to this material remains tightly controlled for a reason. We will be publishing a full methodology alongside the materials.

With regard to the other points raised by the noble Lord and his committee in their correspondence of recent days, I have already answered the point on the inappropriate use of NCCCs. On their other points, including the lack of proper records and inappropriate use of lower-level IT systems, I have more than some sympathy with the comments made by the noble Lord and his committee. We will be taking every measure to make sure both that the culture changes and that appropriate record-keeping is done.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

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

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Chinese Embassy

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

Monday 26th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

I think I am agreeing to write to him. I genuinely do not recognise, nor have I been aware of, that report regarding the journalists. I cannot comment on specific mitigations or on some of the issues. The noble Lord will have heard, both during my comments and those of the Security Minister, that we have discussed the cables. So I would find that concerning, but I will write to the noble Lord.

With regard to getting things into the hands of the Prime Minister, I will give it a go, but I assure the noble Lord that I will get the reports into the hands of someone in No. 10, in the hope that they will get to him before he leaves.

On the potential judicial review, the noble Lord will be aware that the Government are completely adamant that our actions are lawful and, on that basis, we will continue to proceed with the appropriate processes.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend, in her answer, referred to the ISC. The ISC has looked at this very closely. We were given access to all the confidential and sensitive documentation, and we took evidence from our security services and Ministers; I thank them for that. We came to the conclusion that Ministers, in making their security assessment, had been given all the information available, and also that the mitigations that could have been put in place on some of the issues that did concern the embassy were satisfactory and could be put in place.

In saying that, in 2023, we published our China report, in which we were very clear about the threat that China poses to the UK in terms of security. It also, as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, laid out the golden era that opened up many aspects of our society, business and academia to the Chinese state under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Does my noble friend agree that this Government will take a very strong and robust approach to our national security when it comes to China, while recognising, as she said, that China is one of our main economic trading partners, but what they will not do is put that in the place of our security, which the last Government did?

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

I thank my noble friend for the work that he and his committee have done, both in terms of ensuring appropriate scrutiny of the Government and more broadly. He raises a really important point, which I should have done earlier on. As ever, we need to thank the intelligence services, which work every day to keep us safe. One of the things that is so important in this space is that MI5 has 100 years of experience in keeping us safe and managing risk. It is at the forefront of our national security, especially in this space, and we are grateful for it.

My noble friend is absolutely right that there is a clear threat posed by China. We fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber security attacks and foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions to transnational repression of dissidents in the UK. That is why, since we came into government, we have done the following: we have launched the new cross-government state threats unit; we have done the training models, as I spoke about earlier; we have invested £600 million in our intelligence services; we have strengthened support for political parties in the Elections Bill; we have provided £170 million for a new sovereign encrypted technology and £130 million for integrated security funds, and we have removed surveillance equipment that would be subject to the National Security Law companies. We are acting because there is nothing more important than national security. That is the first responsibility of this Government and that is what we are acting upon.

China Espionage: Government Security Response

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

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

To reassure the noble Lord, I am still delighted that he is back. He raised some very important points. I cannot go any further at this point on the enhanced tier of the FIRS, but the noble Lord will be very aware that, before I joined the Government, I ran Index on Censorship, so the issues related to Jimmy Lai—I have met Sebastien Lai—and the issues about Xinjiang and transnational repression are ones that I campaigned on for many years.

I will be clear on some of the specifics that have been raised. I have to be very careful when discussing Sheffield Hallam, because ongoing legal processes are happening there. I recognise the admirable and tireless work of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, whose name is on the centre at the heart of this. Her work to progress social justice and human rights, including as a patron of the Centre for International Justice at Sheffield Hallam University, is at the heart of the allegations. Any attempt by a foreign state to intimidate and coerce universities to limit free speech and academic freedoms in the UK will not be tolerated. The Government have made this clear to Beijing after learning of the case of Sheffield Hallam and other recent cases. The new Office for Students guidance makes it explicitly clear that universities should not tolerate attempts by foreign states to suppress academic freedom.

The noble Lord knows better than I about some of the actions we have taken in tackling transnational aggression in the UK and the ongoing support that we are giving to Jimmy Lai and the Lai family. We will continue to do so. The genuine anguish that that family is currently experiencing because of this case is simply unacceptable. I reassure the noble Lord that even while he was off, we continued to do our work, and my right honourable friend Foreign Secretary raised the case of Jimmy Lai with her counterpart on 6 November. I will write to him on the other points he raised.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, as chair of the ISC, I welcome the Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, most of it, if not more, was covered in our 2023 report on China. The reason China has got a foothold here has to be looked back on very clearly, including whether the golden era for UK-China relations during the coalition Government allowed it to get a foothold in a whole host of areas.

Obviously, my main concern is academia, where universities—because of the decisions on the funding of universities—have now become dependent on the drug that is Chinese student finance. I urge the Minister that, if we are going to tackle that—not just the reliance of individual university institutions on Chinese finance but the intimidation of individuals who attend them—we need to take a very robust approach to it.

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

I thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for all the work he has been doing on this, both through the ISC and beforehand. He has talked to me a great deal on this issue, and I am grateful for it. I completely agree with some of his assessments regarding the importance of academia and making sure that universities both understand their responsibilities to academic freedom and have the tools to combat some of the challenges that they currently face. It is one of the reasons we are arranging a closed meeting for all vice-chancellors, which will be led by the DfE but will have the relevant officials in the room to make sure that they know what is happening and what support they can get, as well as the expectations that we have of them as the caretakers of our academic freedom values.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

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

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that, as chair of the ISC, I do not recognise some of her comments about our security services concerning China.

This confuses me because, as I understand the situation, the prosecutor has taken the 1911 Act. It was the ISC that, in 2020, called for reform of the Official Secrets Act, and there is still undone business on the 1989 Act, for example. But the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Roussev did not raise but lowered the bar in terms of the definition of “enemy”, if I am reading it correctly. So, on the idea that the CPS should just rely on the Government’s input into this, I cannot understand why it could not, for example, have used the ISC’s 2023 China report, which outlined our concerns about the threats. It would be interesting to know why the CPS did not look at that judgment. If they were not satisfied with what the Government gave it, there was plenty of other evidence out there that it could have used.

I say to my noble friend that the ISC meets on Thursday, and we will discuss this, as she can imagine. If—as is likely—we ask for the intelligence on this, I ask that we are not hindered in receiving it.

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

I thank my noble friend for his work as part of the ISC and his work in these areas for several decades. I would expect full co-operation with the committee in terms of what happens next. We want to be as open to scrutiny as possible but, given the issues, talking within the appropriate processes—the ISC is one of them—will be a matter for his committee and future conversations.

We need to remember that this was an independent decision made by the CPS. We genuinely believed that this case was going to proceed until we were informed by the CPS just before the embargo. We provided full co-operation with the CPS, I am reassured, within the constraints available to the Deputy National Security Adviser at that time, based on what had been said.

We need to remember—the noble Lord is absolutely right—that it was not until 2019 that the integrated review first mentioned China at all. Until that point, the previous Government did not consider China worthy even of mentioning in the security review. Importantly, at the point that we are discussing, the then Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, when asked whether China was a threat, said it was

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”

to sum up our relationship with China in one word. As I said yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition, when she was Trade Secretary, said:

“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe but we can describe it as a challenge”.


That is the constraint within which the Deputy NSA gave his evidence. We need to be very clear about what government policy was two years ago.

Pensions: Low-income and Self-employed Workers

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

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

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

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

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

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

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

Fujitsu: Government Contracts

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

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

UK Nuclear Deterrent

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

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords—

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

We will hear from the noble and gallant Lord.