Government Communications: X
Baroness Finn Excerpts(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a very important point about our defence supply chain. As an honorary captain in the Royal Navy, this is of key importance to me. I will have to write to her with the details of any contract.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, there have been reports that the Government’s ongoing assessment of their use of social media platforms is relatively informal, conducted without direct ministerial oversight and triggered only on an ad hoc basis when officials consider that a material change has occurred. Given that the Civil Service Code makes it explicit that officials must ensure they have ministerial authorisation for contact with the media, can the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the process is subject to clear ministerial accountability, so that decisions about how the Government communicate with the public are properly overseen by Ministers?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness will be aware that there is a new Permanent Secretary of the Government Communication Service. All these issues, as ever, are under review, but she will not be surprised to learn that how we engage on social media platforms is constantly under review, given the changing nature of communications. However, to clarify, there is an annual review of the platforms we use which are not social media platforms, such as Mumsnet, as well as ad hoc reviews when something clearly changes, as was the case in the ownership of X.
Office for the Impact Economy
Baroness Finn Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
This is a genuinely important point from the noble Baroness. There are several parts to this: it is about empowering local communities but also ensuring that there is training undertaken, so that community groups can genuinely access some of the funds. I used to run a national charity and am very aware of how challenging it can be for local charities to access some philanthropic pots of money. There are two schemes where I think that we genuinely will be able to work with communities. The first is the Pride in Place scheme, where we are seeking to deliver over £5 billion-worth of funding in 244 areas. We are talking in this space about £2 million per year for 10 years in specific communities; I should declare that my husband is on the board of my local Pride in Place scheme in Bentilee. We will also hope to work with them to ensure match funding to expand that £2 million to up to £4 million a year, which can genuinely make a difference at the award-based community level. There is also the better futures fund, which is an outcomes-based fund. It is government saying not what needs to be done but what ultimately we need to achieve, and leaving it up to local people to determine how to get there.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, while the objectives of the Office for the Impact Economy are welcome, the creation of a new office is no guarantee of delivery. We have seen how other co-ordinating bodies, such as the Government’s newly reformed mission boards, have struggled to translate cross-government ambitions into outcomes. The Office for Value for Money has been closed down, at a cost of the taxpayer of £1.6 million. What assurances can the noble Baroness give that this office will be different, and what specific measures have the Government incorporated to ensure that it achieves tangible and measurable results?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
And there was me hoping for Christmas miracles and not for the Grinch.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Thank you for the “Merry Christmas”.
My Lords, let us be clear about why this is so extraordinary and exceptional. We are working to bring together social investors, social enterprises and philanthropists to deliver, using their expertise and ours to make sure that this works. Already, a significant number of assets are delivering. Why do I think this will be so successful? Only last month, Legal & General announced an additional £2 billion of investment in this space, which is going to lead to an additional 24,000 jobs and 10,000 social and affordable homes. When we talk about what this Government are trying to do for our national renewal, it is about 1.5 million homes and homes anchored in communities. This is about delivering for every corner of society; that is what we are doing with the Office for the Impact Economy.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Baroness Finn Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the progress that has been made by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—IBCA—and the Government in delivering payments. I pay tribute to the work of Sir Brian Langstaff and all those involved in the Infected Blood Inquiry and its additional report. This report made a number of recommendations to improve the compensation scheme. The Government have broadly accepted the recommendations, five of which are given effect by the regulations before us. After the catastrophic failures that led to the infected blood scandal, it is vital that justice is delivered swiftly and fairly to all who were affected.
I also take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness opposite for her letter of 27 November, which addressed some of the questions that were raised when we discussed this matter on 4 November. In particular, I am glad to see in response to my question about the steps the Government and IBCA are taking to ensure that those who should be prioritised for compensation are being identified that the noble Baroness has confirmed that IBCA will prioritise claims in the order recommended by the inquiry.
In line with my colleagues in the other place, I make it clear at the outset that His Majesty’s Opposition support these regulations. There are no substantive differences between the position of the Government and that of the Opposition, or even of the previous Government. However, we cannot forget that we are discussing one of the most egregious and profound injustices: the infliction, collectively, of grievous harm upon thousands of people by the state. It is paramount that we have a scheme which delivers justice and redress compassionately, quickly and fairly. We support the five recommendations that the Government are accepting and legislating for today. I welcome that they go some way to making this ambition a reality.
The changes include: provision to remove the 1982 start date for eligible HIV infections; removing the need for applicants with hepatitis C or B to evidence their date of diagnosis, which does not have a bearing on the calculation of an individual’s compensation; and removing the earnings floor on the exceptional loss award for the financial loss supplementary route, thereby creating a route for infected people to present evidence on their actual earning loss.
We welcome the Minister’s confirmation that lifting the HIV start date means that it will not matter when a victim was infected with HIV, provided that the infection arose from treatment with contaminated blood or blood products administered before 1 November 1985. However, can the Minister confirm that this also applies to those who only discovered or were only informed much later that they were infected, but where the likely cause was treatment before the relevant date? Similarly, can she assure the House that no one who should be eligible will fall through the cracks because of earlier failures in record keeping, particularly those infected as children whose medical records may have been incomplete at the time? We must ensure that no one is denied the compensation they both need and deserve, and I am sure that this is something the Government will wish to avoid.
The Minister will also be aware of the representations from those deliberately infected with haemophilia as part of clinical studies and of their deep concern at the proposed level of compensation for deliberate infection. Will the Minister commit to working with Sir Brian to review whether that component is appropriate?
When we debated this matter on 4 November, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I raised concerns about IHT and the risk that the Government could be giving out compensation with one hand and clawing it back with the other. The Minister said in response to our concerns that she was listening and would seek to arrange a meeting with Treasury officials to discuss this issue further. Can she update us on this meeting, and what recommendations or changes have come out of it? Can she confirm that all infected blood compensation payments, whether made directly to victims or through estates, are entirely exempt from inheritance tax, regardless of the circumstances or timing of payment?
The noble Baroness also raised the review by Sir Tyrone Urch when we last discussed this matter. Can she give us an update on what assessment the Government have made of the recommendations he made and whether any of them are going to be given effect? Can she please assure the House that the changes we are debating today will not impact on the timeliness and swiftness of repayment to victims, given that they will likely impact on the scale of the operation? As the Minister in the other place confirmed, we have moved from the test-and-learn approach to the exponential phase of delivery. Rather than having yet more reviews and recommendations, the Government must now focus on the delivery of IBCA at scale. The scaling up process must be commensurate with the urgency of the situation.
Finally, as we have repeatedly highlighted over the past year, many victims and families still feel that they are in the dark—an issue identified again in Sir Brian Langstaff’s most recent report. The Minister in the other place has given an undertaking that transparency will be at the heart of any expert group going forward. Will the Minister commit to publishing a clear communications plan and to working with IBCA to ensure regular updates and accessible guidance in plain English so that those who may be eligible understand their rights and can access the compensation they need?
I reiterate that we support these regulations but would welcome clarity from the Minister on the points that I have raised. I thank her again for the steps that she and the Government are taking to provide some redress after this terrible saga. We appreciate the need to proceed with care and consideration, but we must not lose sight of the need to scale up delivery so that the process can be as quick and effective as possible. That is the only way to ensure that those victims and their families who have already been failed so profoundly by the state face no further injustice.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I would usually say I thank noble Lords, but I thank the noble Baronesses—as is our wont when we talk about issues of infected blood—for their points and their continued representation of the infected blood community with unwavering dedication. Many in your Lordships’ House have consistently ensured that the voices of the infected and affected community are given a voice in this Chamber. I particularly pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell—I was delighted to see her in your Lordships’ House last week, and she is definitely on the road to recovery—and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, who has ensured that we always have a human voice, as well, of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Their resolve in seeking justice for the victims of this scandal cannot be overstated, and their generosity of time to make sure that I am fully abreast of such issues has been incredibly personally beneficial.
I also thank my opposite number, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for how constructively we have worked together on these issues to deliver for a community that rightly has limited faith and trust in government after its experiences. The onus is on all of us in your Lordships’ House to make sure that community knows we are listening. I will look in detail at the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whose questions were very specific, as she highlighted. It may be useful for us to have a meeting with officials. I will invite all those who have participated today to attend , but I will also reflect on the points and write in advance of it.
We are here first and foremost to debate the regulations, and I will prioritise the issues raised on them in my response. I am aware of the other points that have been raised and will do my best to address those too, but obviously I will reflect on Hansard if I miss any of them. On the specific points raised, I will start with those from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. These are incredibly important points, and she worried me, when she gave me the detail in advance, that there was a gap that we had missed. So, to clarify for the record—I think that would be useful—someone infected as a child would receive injury, social impact, autonomy, care and basic financial loss awards in the same way as an adult. They would not receive an additional financial loss award for the years when they were aged under 16. However, they would still receive an additional financial loss award for the years when they were or will be aged 16 or over. I hope that gives a level of reassurance.
In the heartbreaking situation when an infected child has passed away, a bereaved parent would receive injury, social impact and autonomy awards based on the child’s infection and infection severity. This will not change based on how old their child was when they passed away. The awards to parents are higher where their child’s infection has caused or is expected to cause an early death in the future. This includes those infected with HIV or levels 3, 4 and 5 hepatitis infections. They would also be the likely beneficiary of their child’s estate under the law of intestacy. All such would likely be the recipient of whatever injury, social impact, autonomy, care and financial loss awards are due to the child’s estate. So there is still a level of compensation, but I will make sure that I also write to the noble Baroness so that she has a copy in writing as well as from Hansard.
I will touch on IBCA’s prioritisation, because that is helpful in this context. IBCA is prioritising those nearing the end of their lives because community members and representatives have highlighted how important it is for these people to start their compensation claims. “Nearing the end of life” means that a person has been told by a doctor or medical professional that they might have fewer than 12 months to live. This could be due to any medical illness or condition; it does not need to be caused directly by an infection from contaminated blood.
Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Baroness Finn Excerpts(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of this statutory instrument is to implement the procurement chapter commitments of the UK-Iraq partnership and co-operation agreement and the UK-Kazakhstan strategic partnership and co-operation agreement. Both agreements are part of the UK’s ongoing continuity trade programme following our exit from the EU.
The UK’s trade continuity programme aimed to replicate existing EU trade agreements with partner countries after the UK left the EU. The goal was to ensure that businesses, consumers and investors maintained stability and access to benefits such as preferential tariffs. These are two of the last remaining trade agreements to be updated, and the SI before the Committee today implements the procurement chapters of those agreements.
The UK-Iraq PCA and UK-Kazakhstan SPCA establish frameworks to govern our trade and economic relationship with Iraq and Kazakhstan. The UK-Iraq PCA was signed during Prime Minister Sudani’s historic visit to the UK in January 2025 while the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA was signed in April 2024 by the previous Government. The procurement chapters of these agreements broadly replicate the standards and market access commitments of the original EU agreements. Some of the language has been tweaked, however, better to reflect the specific bilateral context between the UK and these two countries.
The key distinction between the Iraqi and Kazak agreements is that the procurement market access commitments in the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA can be considered to be broadly equivalent to that of the WTO government procurement agreement, to which Kazakhstan is currently in the process of acceding. However, the market access levels in the UK-Iraq PCA are lower than this as they include only access to central government entities.
As part of the process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, to enable parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, both agreements were laid in Parliament on 9 July 2025. The agreements cleared the CRaG scrutiny process on 16 October, and this statutory instrument was subsequently laid on 21 October. The procurement chapters of these agreements can take effect only once the agreements have been implemented in domestic legislation. This statutory instrument will achieve this by updating Schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 to implement in domestic law the UK’s procurement obligations under both agreements. By our adding these agreements to Schedule 9, suppliers entitled to benefit from them will be considered “treaty state suppliers” under Section 89 of this Act. This will provide them with UK public procurement access and rights equal to those afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreements require Iraq and Kazakhstan to provide equivalent access to UK suppliers.
The Procurement Act 2023 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2024 are also being amended to ensure the UK’s obligations under both agreements apply in relation to contracts that can still be entered into under the previous procurement regime.
The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom. The territorial application of this instrument in relation to contracts under the Procurement Act 2023 extends to England and Northern Ireland. The same extends to Scotland, but not in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. The same extends to Wales, but not in respect of procurement regulated by Welsh Ministers. The Welsh Government are therefore making a separate statutory instrument to implement these agreements in respect of procurements regulated by Welsh Ministers. The Scottish Government will be implementing these agreements separately under their own legislation in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. Finally, the territorial application of this instrument in relation to contracts under the previous procurement regime extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
I hope noble Lords will join me in approving this SI today, which helps to update and strengthen our relationship with both Iraq and Kazakhstan. I beg to move.
Baroness Finn (Con)
It looks as though it is the “Baroness Anderson and Baroness Finn show” again. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the measures before us today. These regulations amend Schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 to implement the procurement chapters in the new partnership and co-operation agreements with Kazakhstan and Iraq. By adding both agreements to Schedule 9, the instrument ensures that suppliers from those countries are treated as treaty state suppliers and that the United Kingdom can meet the procurement obligations we have entered into.
This is a pragmatic measure that helps maintain stability and consistency in the UK’s post-Brexit trading relationships. The agreement with Kazakhstan, as the Minister pointed out, was concluded under the previous Conservative Government and it is right that its implementation be now brought to completion.
The Minister said that the procurement provisions in these agreements broadly replicate arrangements that existed under the previous EU agreements. That continuity provides reassurance for contracting authorities and businesses operating across borders. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the instrument attracted no comment from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and was not drawn to the attention of either House by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
While the regulations are narrow and technical, they reflect the wider importance of procurement arrangements for British businesses operating internationally and for the reciprocal access they secure overseas. On that principle, we are aligned with the Government. I would, however, be grateful if the Minister could provide three brief points of clarification. First, nothing in these regulations diminishes the need for contracting authorities to apply proper due diligence, national security checks or sanctions compliance. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that further guidance will be issued to ensure that contracting authorities understand the risk profile associated with new treaty state suppliers.
Official Secrets Act and Espionage
Baroness Finn Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the report from the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy describes the handling of the Cash and Berry case as “shambolic” and highlights serious systemic failures and deficiencies. The report raises serious concerns about the ability of the Government to pursue those who want to undermine our security. The chair of the committee, a Labour MP, has urged the Government to show the public that they are confident in standing up to adversaries when required. Will the Minister commit to responding to and implementing the key recommendations of the report? Can she now confirm that the Government accept the conclusion of this report that there was clear evidence that China poses a threat to the UK’s national security?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I join her in thanking the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy for its scrutiny and its work in shining some light—where there has been a great deal of heat—on what actually happened. On the key points that she has raised, we will reflect on the committee’s findings and I look forward to debating them with her across this Dispatch Box in due course when we come forward with our response to the report. I remind her of the Prime Minister’s comments at the Lady Mayor’s banquet last Monday about our position: China
“poses real national security threats to the United Kingdom … It’s time for a serious approach, to reject the simplistic binary choice. Neither golden age, nor ice age”.
He said:
“So our response will not be driven by fear, nor softened by illusion. It will be grounded in strength, clarity and sober realism”.
Office for National Statistics
Baroness Finn Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the Sullivan review has been published and has been shared with all relevant government departments to ensure that it informs their thinking.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, Sir Robert Devereux’s independent review of the ONS earlier this year highlighted a culture where there was
“a reluctance, at senior levels, to hear and act on difficult news”
and where unrealistic targets were pursued. What measures are being taken to change that organisational culture, and are the Government confident that they now have the correct leadership, in terms of technical expertise, to improve both the statistics and the culture, so that those in positions of senior management listen to internal warnings about data quality?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, we are very grateful to Emma Rourke, the acting National Statistician, for working with us as we seek to fix some of the current challenges. Since we came to government, we have had the Devereux review to restore public trust and confidence in ONS national statistics; we appointed a new Permanent Secretary to the ONS, which was the second recommendation of the Devereux review, to ensure that there was significant corporate leadership; and we are continuing to work with them and with the UKSA chair to make sure that the ONS is reformed and is fit for purpose.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Baroness Finn Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the report of the Infected Blood Inquiry described this tragedy as
“the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS”.
Noble Lords across the House and Members in the other place have spoken time and again of the unimaginable suffering endured by those affected. There can be no doubt that this scandal represents a profound and repeated failure by the state, medical professionals and national institutions.
We should never lose sight of the fact that what we call the scandal was, in truth, the infliction, collectively, of grievous harm upon thousands of people by the state. It is now our solemn duty to ensure that such mistakes are never repeated, and that justice is delivered swiftly, fairly and fully to all who were affected. In that spirit, I thank the Minister for her continued time and engagement across the House.
I pay tribute to the work of Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry. Earlier this year, that inquiry warned that there has been
“a repetition of the mistakes of the past”,
and that people have been “harmed yet further” since the establishment of the compensation scheme. Sir Brian concluded that the number of people compensated to date is “profoundly unsatisfactory” and has called for faster and fairer delivery of redress. The campaign group Tainted Blood estimates that at least 100 people have died while waiting for compensation since the inquiry’s final report last year, and Sir Brian has warned:
“Delay creates an injustice all of its own”.
We welcome the measures announced to implement some of Sir Brian’s recommendations, such as the HIV eligibility start dates and bereaved partner support scheme payments. The Minister confirmed that, as of 21 October, 2,476 people have received an offer of compensation and over £1.35 billion has been paid. However, as the BBC has reported, as many as 140,000 bereaved parents, children and siblings of victims may also be able to claim compensation, and the Government have set aside £11.8 billion to pay compensation to victims.
There is evidently still a great deal of work to be done to ensure that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—IBCA—can scale up quickly and make payments to affected people, who will clearly be far larger in number for IBCA to deal with.
In recent weeks, further concerns have emerged that delays in paying compensation risk undermining one of the core principles of the scheme: how it is, or rather is not, taxed. Under the present arrangements, compensation received by a victim can be passed to their children free from inheritance tax. But for the thousands who have died before receiving payment, those sums will now pass through their estates to bereaved relatives, many of whom are themselves elderly. If they, too, die before receiving the funds, their families could face handing back almost 40% of that compensation to the state in inheritance tax.
A statement from the Association of Lifetime Lawyers says
“it is an outrage that a technical flaw will allow the Government to claw back up to 40 per cent of the compensation that was specifically intended to provide some redress”.
The Government have said that they are committed to making the system as fair and compassionate as possible and will continue to engage with victims and their families. I therefore urge the Minister to assure the House that the Government are aware of this problem and that they are looking into possible solutions.
As was noted in the other place, £140 million has now been spent on this inquiry after six years, and that figure will be greater once the accounts for this year have been released. The Minister in the other place said that he thinks we are now in an “exponential phase” where the scale of payments being made through IBCA is increasing. However, the concern is that we are stuck in this test-and-learn phase of delivery.
The mechanism for scaling up payments has been too slow and the reliance on repeated rounds of inquiries and tranches of recommendations has prevented swift action and compensation being delivered. It is right that we proceed with care and consideration, but we must not lose sight of the pressing need to deliver this process swiftly. The Government must strike a balance between acting responsibly and acting quickly. My right honourable friend John Glen made the point that we now need to
“focus on the delivery of IBCA, rather than have more iterations of recommendations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/10/25; col. 520.]
He is absolutely right. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that the scaling-up process proceeds with the urgency that this situation so clearly demands.
Before I conclude my remarks, I have some further questions for the Minister. First, can the Minister confirm the Government’s current timetable for making full compensation payments to victims and families yet to receive them and whether that timetable remains consistent with Sir Brian Langstaff’s call for faster and fairer redress?
Secondly, what steps are IBCA and the Government taking to identify those individuals who are potentially recipients of compensation under the scheme and who may also be sick or elderly and are, as such, deserving of prioritisation in the processing of their claims?
Thirdly, will the Government commit to taking, as a matter of urgency, immediate steps to ensure that all infected blood compensation payments, whether made directly to victims or through estates, are entirely exempt from inheritance tax, regardless of the circumstances or timing of payment? In that vein, can the Minister confirm whether the Treasury has undertaken any assessment of the number of families likely to be affected by this tax anomaly and of the potential sums at stake if it is not corrected?
Fourthly, what action is the Minister taking with IBCA to ensure that the pace of payments, which has seen some welcome progress, continues to accelerate and is not jeopardised by changes to rules and processes? Can she confirm that IBCA has the right capability to scale up and that the staff are receiving the right training to deliver?
Fifthly and finally, can the Minister confirm when the recommendations from the proposed changes to the infected blood compensation scheme consultation will be implemented? I am aware that the consultation period ends in January, so when can we expect the practical implementation of these recommendations to be forthcoming?
The victims and their families have already been failed profoundly by the state. It is now our duty and our responsibility to make sure that there is no further injustice. Addressing the questions we have raised around delays, taxation, and the scalability of the system is imperative. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government are taking immediate steps to resolve these issues.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank all the infected and affected victims who have been in touch with me and other noble Lords in the last few weeks, not least since the consultation started and the independent review of the workings of IBCA was published. They are living the consequences of the scandal that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, outlined at the beginning of her contribution, and the problem is that any delays or problems in the scheme retraumatise and revictimise them. Although I am grateful that the Government have been tackling some of the issues, there are still many outstanding; and while the numbers of those registering claims and receiving offers have begun to improve since we last met, there remain real concerns about the slowness of the deceased claims.
The phrase used is “to start by December 2025”, but that is a somewhat woolly timescale; it should not just be about starting. When is it expected that the claims process will be up and running at pace—a favourite phase of the Cabinet Office? Also, understanding that one has to use, test and learn in each different part of the compensation process, can the Minister say when things will be speeded up? It may be too early to ask if there is an end date in sight, but even an end year in sight for deceased claims would be very welcome.
Victims and groups have referred IBCA and the processes to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the House of Commons, so will both IBCA and the Cabinet Office co-operate fully with any requests for evidence that that Committee might seek?
I want to thank the Government for increasing transparency. We have over many years in your Lordships’ House been concerned about some of the secrecy about arrangements. A lot of this goes back 50 years, to when doctors were not very clear about their own arrangements and there certainly was no paperwork. But it is good that the names of the expert group and the minutes of its meetings are now published, and I hope there will continue to be more transparency about the arrangements.
I have a specific query about the arrangements for the assessment of severe mental health continuous treatment. Apparently, the Government are insisting on six months of continuous treatment as the benchmark, to justify the supplementary routes for mental health, but the NHS offers continuous treatment for only 20-week periods because there just are not enough counsellors and psychiatrists available to go round. As a result, there are inevitably gaps in treatment in order that other people can also be treated. To the victims, this feels like a barrier that none of them can get past. I wonder if the Minister could look at that problem.
There are concerns about the processing of deceased claims. I see that there is a proposal to have the first claim started. The victims continue to be very concerned about the Treasury and HMRC’s stance on inheritance tax, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, outlined. The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners and the Association of Lifetime Lawyers have written a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, copied to the Paymaster-General, to point out that in their discussions with HMRC over the additional report on compensation, which Sir Brian Langstaff published earlier this year, they remain particularly concerned about this payment. The issue is that the Government have confirmed that compensation payments should be free from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax, but, unfortunately, because of the way IHT operates, this principle is not being upheld consistently.
Here, there are three points. Where the infected or affected persons are alive when compensation is paid, they get a tax credit to ensure the sums are not later taxed in their estate. But where the victims or their loved ones have sadly died before receiving compensation, the payments flow through their estates without the benefits of such a credit. Their beneficiaries can therefore face IHT charges—in some cases at 40%—on compensation specifically designed to provide redress for a heinous act by many Governments over many years.
This so-called secondary transfer problem is particularly acute where compensation first passes to a surviving spouse or civil partner and then on to children or other relatives. In such cases, significant proportions of compensation are lost to tax. Throughout the inquiry, the last Government, and indeed this Government, made it clear that past benefits would not be called back out of settlement money. Surely the same must be true for the Treasury and HMRC. It would be iniquitous for an infected person to die, their settlement passing to their widow, who dies, say, within a month, but then anything passed on to their children is severely taxed. What is different about infected blood to a general principle on IHT is that entire families are badly affected by the experience of their loved one. This is not just in medical terms; we have to remember that they were also shunned in their communities, particularly those who had AIDS, losing homes and jobs because of ill health. It would be awful to punish them through that taxation.
Will the Minister agree to a meeting with Treasury to discuss this issue? It is not a good look for Treasury to give billions with one hand and then claw back with the other. I thank the Minister for the Statement and hope she will continue to keep your Lordships’ House informed of the progress and issues in the weeks to come, including the regulations that we will look at very shortly.
Youth Mobility Scheme
Baroness Finn Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I was doing so well in reassuring noble Lords, but I am afraid that I will have to give a level of disappointment to the noble Baroness. We are not currently considering rejoining the creative arm. However, 40% of touring artists are under the age of 35, meaning that they would be able to access work for up to three years, subject to the negotiations, via the youth mobility scheme. So that is one way in which we can encourage creative engagement.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, at a time when youth engagement and creating opportunities at home are so vital, why have the Government chosen to end the National Citizen Service and withdraw funding from the cadet expansion programme? Have Ministers assessed the wider social and economic benefits that these schemes deliver? Will similar initiatives such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award be protected from further cuts? We should be building these opportunities for young people at home as our priority.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I very much appreciate the noble Baroness’s support for the cadet scheme; in fact, I was the honorary president of my local air cadets until I joined the Government. Let me be clear: as no one in this House will be surprised to hear, we had to make some appalling decisions because of the financial inheritance from the previous Government. On that basis, difficult decisions have been made, but noble Lords will also appreciate that announcements have been made about the cadet scheme, and they are available for all noble Lords, so they can see how much we celebrate the role of cadets as ambassadors.
Erasmus+
Baroness Finn Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, very few people would ever call me timid. I think it fair to say that it is for exactly the reasons my noble friend has outlined that we are seeking to move at pace to ensure that we can participate in Erasmus in 2027–28. It has notable benefits, and we look forward to making sure that we deliver a fair deal financially with our participation, but also that the people who may benefit from the scheme can do so as quickly as possible.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, while discussions continue with the European Union “at pace” on the prospect of rejoining or aligning with Erasmus+—and while I appreciate that the Minister did refer to the Turing scheme—can she confirm that the Government will remain fully committed to the Turing scheme, which was established by the previous Administration, and to continuing the excellent work it does in widening access for students to study not just in the EU but in the rest of the world?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The Turing scheme, the Taith scheme and the CEEPUS schemes have provided wonderful opportunities for many young people. The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I wanted to know how many people from the Potteries have participated: 200, in case noble Lords are interested. It is incredibly important that we make sure there is no gap and that we look at all these schemes in the round. Obviously, once negotiations—which are currently active—have been held, both on this and on the youth mobility scheme we will be discussing next week, there will be full disclosure to your Lordships’ House so we can discuss in the usual way what happens next.
Official Secret Act Case: Witness Statements
Baroness Finn Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister answer whether the 1 September meeting, as reported by the Sunday Times, between senior officials and intelligence chiefs in the Cabinet Office, and reportedly chaired by the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, discussed the China espionage case and what evidence should be provided to the CPS? Will the Minister confirm whether the National Security Adviser provided a written update or Box note to the Prime Minister? If she can establish whether one exists, will she publish it with the related correspondence between the Cabinet Office, the CPS and No. 10?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It is our third such outing on matters pertaining—well, our second, but the third in a week. To confirm, the meeting on 1 September was a discussion with the National Security Adviser about the management of the court case as it continued. There was no discussion of anything other than what would happen during the progression of the court case. Although I am sure all noble Lords have had various dealings with the person who suggested that a Box note was provided, I am not sure how he would know of such a Box note, seeing as no Box note existed. No briefing note whatever was provided from the National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister, nor was there any conversation about the case.