Civil Service Pensions

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

Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

The noble Baroness is right: the reality is that Capita provides contracts across government. In fact, we are its single biggest client, I believe. Capita holds a total of 85 contracts across the public sector: 39 in central government and 46 in the wider public sector. Some 87% of its KPIs—key performance indicators—are rated as good. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right, which is why we are now reviewing Capita’s performance across the government portfolio.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest: I am a member of this scheme. Let no one say that the British became bad Europeans lately: in 1978, in a last-minute endeavour to put off direct elections, Jim Callaghan persuaded the Council of Ministers that, instead of having a common European pension and salary, MEPs would be paid and pensioned by their member state. That lasted until—believe it or not—2009. Of course, he had not thought it out. When he came back, the then Civil Service Pension Scheme, based in Basingstoke, was told to organise a pension, which it did. After many years, the European Parliament Members’ pension scheme for British Members up to 2004 is run by Capita. It is run as an adjunct to the MPs’ scheme, except that it is contributory but not funded. In other words, the money is not invested. I have been either a manager or a chair of managers of that scheme ever since 1979. I then became chair of the European Parliament’s scheme.

I have found that there has been complete obfuscation between the Civil Service and Capita as to what we can be told. My plea to the Minister is to please ask for greater transparency. I find it completely unacceptable that I can read the obituary of a colleague in the paper and then be told by Capita that it is information protected by GDPR—it cannot tell me who has died, even though I can tell Capita. Will the Minister try to get some greater clarity, so that the present managers—there are only seven of them—can at least find out who their pensioners are, whether they are still alive and any other salient facts? It is just not acceptable.

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

I thank the noble Lord. One of the reasons I love being a Member of your Lordships’ House is that every day is a history lesson, including about history that happened before I was born—I say that just to make me feel better. The noble Lord raises an important point about transparency. He will be aware that I am the Minister with responsibility for standards, so how could I do anything other than make sure that my officials meet him to try to get him the answers he is looking for?

Chinese Espionage: Parliament

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

Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

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

The noble Lord makes a very important point. Obviously, the 18-month delay is unfortunate, which is why we are trying to fix the court services going forward. With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, there was the Roussev case, a piece of case law about the Official Secrets Act, which concerned the DPP, which is why additional information was taken and why the CPS has made its decision, from my understanding.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Minister of the old Foreign Office dictum that we have no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests. It is in our permanent interest not to fall out disastrously with the biggest country in the world. We have to live with the Chinese and talk to them. Both sides must realise that there are things that cannot be done but, for goodness’ sake, let us stop talking about enemies and start talking about co-operation.

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

I hope the noble Lord has appreciated that I have said “co-operate” twice in the last 13 minutes. He is right; however, the first duty of government is to provide for our safety and security. There is a balance here between making sure that the population of the United Kingdom is safe and secure and that your Lordships can go about their work unconcerned about the threat of espionage while, at the same time, appreciating the international reality, in a very uncertain world, that we need to make sure that we engage with our third-biggest trading partner.

European Union: Court of Justice

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

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether, in seeking a “reset” of relations with the European Union, they have considered accepting a role for the Court of Justice of the European Union.

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

My Lords, there has been no change in the jurisdiction of European Court of Justice rulings in relation to the United Kingdom. We are clear that we will not be rejoining the single market or the customs union or re-establishing freedom of movement.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

I am not sure whether I want to thank the Minister for her Answer or just note it. I am disappointed that the Attorney-General is not answering this Question, because it is fundamental: we say we will never leave the European Court of Human Rights but, if we are to have a reset of our relations with the European Union, surely we must have a dispute resolution procedure, and the dispute resolution procedure of the European communities is the Court of Justice of the European Union. So how can the Government reconcile their stated intention of resetting relations with the European Union with their other intention of not accepting any foreign judge being able to judge whether we are keeping our side of whatever bargains we strike?

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

I hate to disappoint the noble Lord that he had to have me and not the Attorney-General; if he would like to talk to the Attorney-General, he is more than welcome to join me in the Not-Content Lobby this afternoon.

With regard to the Question, we are quite clear: we are not giving a running commentary on this. We will always act in the national interest to secure what is best for Britain, including British businesses and citizens, while keeping to the red lines that were clearly outlined in our manifesto.