Lord Mandelson Humble Address
Baroness Finn Excerpts(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I shall start with the noble Lord’s second point. This was an official-led process. There were no politicians involved in the determination of what was and was not published. About 1,500 documents were published only a week ago. With regard to any correspondence relating to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister proactively disclosed to the other House twice last week that he had exchanged messages with Peter Mandelson, but they were no longer available to him to disclose as part of the humble Address. As he stated in the other place, if he continued to have access to those messages, he would have disclosed them as part of his return. He does not have access to the messages.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, given the miraculous emergence of the Darren Jones texts, can the Minister give assurances that there are no other withheld ministerial communications that will emerge? Also, given that confidence in this process has been shaken, as my noble friend Lord Harper said, can she now commit to publishing the schedule identifying exactly what material is being withheld at the request of the Metropolitan Police?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
As I have said many times and very clearly from this Dispatch Box—I think this might be my fourth outing on the humble Address, which will make it also the noble Baroness’s fourth outing on the humble Address—we have published everything that is available to us and that this was an official-led process that has been done in kind. We are adamant, and the officials are adamant, that we have fully complied with the humble Address. With regard to a schedule of documents, as I have discussed with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I shall be very clear: there are three buckets of information, which I have said on record before, about categories of information that will not be published. This small number of documents relate to national security, vetting material, conflict of interest process material and internal correspondence with Peter Mandelson. As and when the Met Police believe it is appropriate to do so, they, too, will be published.
Cabinet Manual: Guidelines for Government Formation
Baroness Finn Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, given that the current manual is being redrafted as we speak, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the detail. However, to reassure Members of your Lordships’ House, we have asked both the Lords Constitution Committee and PACAC in the other place for their assistance on the consultation with parliamentarians across both Houses. How they choose to do so will be a matter for them.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the Cabinet Manual, or possibly more correctly, the Cabinet Office manual, is not a written constitution, nor is it binding on Ministers. The Government intend to update this source of guidance and information. Can the Minister confirm whether this update will be simply to reflect changes in legislation and practice since 2011, or will it be done in a more maximalist way to embody additional conventions and practices? Will it seek to amend any existing conventions where legislation has not changed since 2011? Will she also confirm that, since the manual is owned by the Cabinet, it will not be published without its explicit endorsement?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Let me take those questions in order—if I miss one, I will come back to the noble Baroness. First, yes, I expect the document to be endorsed by the Cabinet. Secondly, no, I do not expect it to cover any additional precedents that are not already there. We are not changing precedent. This is a living, breathing document about how we operate—about having one place with our established precedents and conventions. I forget the third question, so I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response
Baroness Finn Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this scandal began with the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington. Mandelson is a man whose relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was already known to be a profound reputational risk and whose later published record included cash payments and benefits from Epstein, including travel.
At the core of this story is not merely a failure of process; it is a failure of judgment. It is the Prime Minister’s failure, and it shows a callous disregard for the victims of one of the most notorious sex offenders of modern times.
In truth, we have learned little that is surprising from what is actually in these documents. It is no surprise that Lord Mandelson displayed contempt for the Prime Minister, for cabinet government and for officials and advisers alike, despite his public utterances. He described No. 10 as “beleaguered and bereft”, said it needed a “complete revamp” and claimed that senior people in Downing Street did not know what the Prime Minister wanted; indeed, that most of them did not think that the Prime Minister knew what he wanted.
Of equal concern is that, clearly, Ministers spent a lot of time discussing party politics with a supposedly politically impartial official. Can the Minister confirm that that failure to uphold the impartiality of the Civil Service is in contravention of the Ministerial Code?
What is most revealing is not what the documents contain; it is what they do not contain. Nowhere is there candid written submission, whether from officials or political advisers, saying, “Prime Minister, this appointment is unwise. This candidate carries unacceptable reputational risk. This office demands a higher standard”. We have not been shown a written decision from the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary authorising the appointment on the merits. Instead, we are given peripheral documents: process, risk, choreography, vetting, and announcement handling. One chain says simply that
“a political appointment has been agreed”.
The Cabinet Secretary later records that earlier advice explained the Prime Minister’s right to
“make such an appointment and the process for doing so but did not give specific advice on candidates”.
So, for all the Prime Minister’s talk of leadership, the record before us suggests that not one person serving him felt able or willing to advise him candidly in writing that this appointment was folly. That is a remarkable indictment of the culture at the centre of government.
It is also deeply ironic. This is a Prime Minister who has staked much of his moral authority on the Hillsborough law and a statutory duty of candour. He has said that such a duty is needed so that the truth is not optional and cover-ups are impossible and that the law would change the balance of power so that the state can never hide from the people it should serve. Those are admirable sentiments. They arise from hard and bitter experience: Hillsborough, infected blood, Covid—all where families were forced to fight the state, not only for justice but for records, evidence and truth.
Perhaps the one person in government who did, in private, take the duty of candour seriously was Pat McFadden, who told Lord Mandelson:
“Every meeting I have is: ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?’ They’re asking the wrong questions”.
What a shame that he felt that that duty did not extend to the electorate.
Does the Minister appreciate how surreal it is for a Government to preach candour in public office while, in relation to one of the gravest scandals in British diplomatic history, they appear assiduously to have avoided creating clear records of advice and decision? Candour is not merely what Ministers say at a Dispatch Box after the event. Candour is what advisers write down when the powerful are about to make a grave mistake.
There is a further problem. The Government acknowledge that material has been withheld so as not to prejudice an ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation, and say that further publication may follow. But where is the schedule? How many relevant documents have been withheld? What categories do they fall into? Who authored them? What dates do they cover? What broad subjects do they concern? I ask the noble Baroness to undertake that the Government will provide the House with a clear account of what has been withheld and why.
Finally, responsibility cannot be outsourced to officials, advisers or process. The responsibility lies with the Prime Minister. If further confirmation were needed of Lord Mandelson’s total unsuitability, it is found in the extraordinary discovery that after his appointment had been publicly announced, he still planned to participate in UBS’s Greater China Conference in Shanghai in his Global Counsel capacity, and that he would be paid for it. Officials further recorded that he asked to start on the FCDO payroll in order to facilitate that private engagement. This was a man with no proper regard for propriety, ethics or the dignity of public office, and he has been driven from office and from public life. The remaining question is how long the Prime Minister who appointed him can credibly remain.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, when discussing such matters we should always start with remembering and honouring the bravery of the women and girls who came forward to tell the truth, revealing the grim reality of the behaviour they and others had been subject to. Their commitment to truth stands in stark contrast, sadly, with Peter Mandelson’s decision to withhold key information from the papers we are discussing today.
However, turning to what we do have, and starting on a positive note, the Government’s new guidance on direct ministerial appointments published alongside the humble Address now says—and it is very welcome:
“Where security vetting procedures are necessary, these should be undertaken and completed before an appointment is confirmed and announced”.
I have raised before the rather bizarre, back-to-front nature of appointing somebody first and only then checking whether they are suitable, so that is a very welcome change and should be acknowledged as such.
On a possibly less positive note, I see that the terms of reference for the vetting review have also been published alongside this tranche of documents. I have previously expressed concerns about how the results of Peter Mandelson’s vetting were reported to others through a daisy chain of verbal briefings, such that in the end the Prime Minister was hearing the outcome of the vetting process third hand, without sight of the relevant outcome documents. Whatever we think about the judgments made in that process, that is clearly a very brittle process, prone to error and lack of accountability. Can the Minister therefore confirm that the vetting review will include not just how vetting is done, which is clearly within scope, but how its results are reported to others, including looking at the merits of replacing that culture of verbal briefings with a clear, documented paper trail?
Moving on to what is definitely not, I am afraid, a positive note, the messages that we now can see from inside government show a clear and widespread embedding of the culture of government by WhatsApp. I have previously asked about the promised review of the Cabinet Office’s guidance on the use of WhatsApp, which still, at the bottom of the page on GOV.UK, states:
“This guidance will be reviewed on or before 31 December 2025”.
Last month, when I queried when the review will be completed, the Minister told me:
“I expect it to be before your Lordships’ House imminently for us to discuss the detail”.—[Official Report, 19/5/26; cols. 280-81.]
However, yesterday, in the House of Commons, the Minister, Darren Jones, told the House simply that the terms of reference for the review will be published “very shortly”. So we have gone from a promised review before 31 December 2025, to an expectation last month that details were imminent, to a hope yesterday that the terms of the review will be published very shortly. It seems that each time, as time passes, we are getting further away from the completion of the review. What assurances can the Minister give us about the Government’s commitment to sorting this issue out and ensuring that this review is fully completed —and promptly?
Turning to the papers themselves, I have four questions. Running through much of the correspondence is the idea from officials that membership of the House of Lords exempts you from vetting requirements in many circumstances. It is a repeatedly expressed belief. Given the limited nature of the checks made on those of us who have the privilege of joining this House, and given that those checks have in many cases been carried out several decades previously, can the Minister confirm the Government’s position? On what occasions, and for which posts, would someone who otherwise has to be vetted be exempted from vetting by virtue of being a Member of this House?
Secondly, there is the email from a civil servant to Peter Mandelson on 21 January last year—volume 1, page 77—regarding the vetting team’s request for the names of his foreign contacts. The email said:
“I suggest you send over the handful of names you mentioned, even though you don’t consider them ‘close contacts’. That will reassure the vetting team that you’ve been comprehensive, even if it’s all quite artificial”.
That apparent coaching on how to mislead the vetting team with extraneous information is clearly concerning. Can the Minister tell us when the Government became aware of such exchanges, and what action has been taken to ensure that similar such coaching or advice is not proffered in future?
Thirdly, there is the curious email from Ailsa Terry to Peter Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney on 13 February last year—volume 1, page 386. It says:
“Olly has been clear about the need to delete all traffic on this”.
Why would a senior civil servant be telling those two people to delete all the records of something?
Finally, I turn to a matter of detail—it would be a useful one to clear up—regarding volume 3, page 128. It appears to show the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, arranging a meeting with a paid lobbyist, yet the Treasury’s list of declared such meetings does not have any matching entry. Did that meeting take place? If so, who attended it, and what is the reason for that meeting not appearing in the register?
I appreciate that, obviously, the Minister may not be able to give detailed answers to all those points now, but I hope she will be able to commit at least to writing to me, because clarity and transparency are crucial as part of not just the Government’s but the whole political system’s reaction to the scandal we have been facing.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
Baroness Finn Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, what the ISC has said today is profoundly troubling. Materials must not be redacted and withheld from Parliament in contravention of the humble Address. The ISC has a specific role in this process and the humble Address does not allow for redaction of documents sent to the ISC. Indeed, there is no exemption for personal data and, to the extent that the Government are withholding on that basis, they are in clear breach of the humble Address.
If there are legitimate reasons for the redaction of documents, the Government must come to Parliament to amend the humble Address. This is not just a matter of process; it is a matter of parliamentary sovereignty, which must be respected. We have consistently called for a list or overview of all the documents and whether they have been published. Can the Minister confirm that any documents that are currently being withheld but which are not relevant to the police investigation will be released in the next tranche? And will the Government commit to briefing opposition Members, on Privy Council terms, about the documents that are being withheld?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness knows I have huge respect for her, but I find it extraordinary, given her previous roles working at No. 10 when previous humble Addresses were released that followed exactly the same precedent as we are doing now and redacted the personal information of junior officials. The noble Baroness was part of that process, so I find it extraordinary that she would challenge us for following the precedent that her Administration set. In terms of next steps, we are complying with both the letter and spirit, following the precedent of protecting the issues of the humble Address we need to protect. The full tranche of materials will be published after the Whitsun Recess.
King’s Speech
Baroness Finn Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made her first speech in that office on 8 July 2024, she said that, by growing the economy, the Government could
“rebuild Britain and make every part of the country better off”.
That was not a modest claim; it was the central economic wager of this Government. Ministers told the country that the hard arithmetic of our public finances could be overcome by sustained growth across the Parliament, and that higher productivity, higher investment, stronger real wages and the highest sustained growth in the G7 would produce abundance and avoid difficult choices. That ambition is not wrong: Britain needs growth, and we want the country to be more prosperous, more productive and more secure.
However, growth is not summoned by slogans; it is not delivered by a press release, a reset, a mission board, a pillar or another ministerial speech. Growth is earned by those who embrace risk and sustained effort to produce value. Government can, at best, help enable growth by making this country the best place in the developed world to invest, to hire, to build, to innovate and to make things. Two years on, the question before this House is not whether the Government’s ambition was the right one, but whether their policies have matched that ambition. The answer, I am afraid, is clear: the Government have borrowed too much, grown too little and regulated to excess.
The Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that successive plans to reduce borrowing and stabilise debt have “not yet materialised”. Public sector net borrowing was £152 billion in 2024-25 and is forecast at £132 billion this year. Underlying debt has continued to rise. Debt interest spending is forecast to rise from £110 billion in 2025-26 to £137 billion by 2030-31. While government debt is rising and borrowing costs are at a 30-year high, the Government are spending £333 billion annually on welfare. That is more than the Government receive in income tax. That is very the definition of unsustainable.
When the Government sought to cut the rate of the increase in that spending, they U-turned. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister showed us how determined he can be in the face of unsustainable and soaring pressure, but when it came to the essential battle on welfare—the real test of his ability to get those tough and big calls right—he capitulated. The Government’s plans would have merely slowed the rate of growth, not reduced the bill. If we are to deliver the brighter future that young people deserve, we need to be much more radical.
Can the Minister say what measures in the King’s Speech will bring our unsustainable welfare bill under control? Why was welfare, which is so great a challenge, not the subject of one of our debates this week? Those are not abstract numbers. Every pound spent servicing debt is a pound that cannot be spent on defence, roads, hospitals, skills or tax reductions. High debt interest is not a symbol of compassion but the price of policy failure.
At the same time, growth has disappointed. The IMF has cut its forecast for UK growth this year from 1.3% to 0.8%. The economy grew by just 0.1% in the final quarter of 2025. Youth unemployment is up. There are now more than 700,000 unemployed young people aged 16 to 24 and the youth unemployment rate has risen over the year. This is the reality behind the rhetoric. Ministers promised through their words a growth Government, but they have produced through their actions a high-borrowing, high-tax, high-regulation Government. As the outgoing Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls said on Tuesday, it is deeds, not words, that count.
In the first Session of this Parliament, the Government’s preferences were clear. When in doubt, tax. When in doubt, regulate. When in doubt, create a new body, a new duty, a new levy or a new compliance burden. The rise in employer national insurance contributions was a direct tax on jobs. It was accompanied by a lower threshold at which employers became liable. At the same time, the Government pressed ahead with higher wage costs and an Employment Rights Act which, even after the important concession on day one unfair dismissal rights secured in this House, still makes it riskier and more expensive to take on staff. Employment rights matter but so, too, do employment opportunities. If the Government make it more expensive to hire, more uncertain to manage a probation period and more complex to comply with the law, they should not be surprised when firms hesitate before creating the next job. The people hit first are often the young, the inexperienced, the marginal applicant and the small business that cannot absorb another legal risk.
The same anti-growth instinct is visible in energy. The Government have set out plans not to issue new licences to explore new oil and gas fields in the North Sea. At a time of geopolitical instability and high energy prices, it is extraordinary to choose greater dependence on imports over the responsible use of our own resources. It means less domestic investment, fewer high-skilled jobs and more exposure to shocks beyond our control.
Therefore, when we turn to the Bills announced in the gracious Speech, the Official Opposition will apply a simple growth test to each of them. Does it make it cheaper to hire? Does it make energy cheaper? Does it make it faster to build? Does it increase productivity? Does it make investment more attractive? Does it reduce the burden of regulation rather than merely relabel it? Where the answer is yes, we will be constructive and support the Government. Where the answer is no, where a Bill creates another regulator, another levy, another licensing regime, another statutory duty, another offence, another code, another reporting requirement or another cost on business, we will challenge it firmly. On productivity, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide more detail on the proposals to strengthen the productivity of the Civil Service.
The country cannot afford another Session in which every problem is met with a new rule and every industry is treated as a revenue stream. An alternative King’s Speech would start with what the economy actually needs: lower business taxes, cheaper energy, faster planning, lighter regulation and a serious commitment to competitiveness. It would slash business rates for the high street and hospitality. It would remove the most damaging part of the Employment Rights Act. It would bring forward a serious deregulatory programme, not another request for regulators to write letters about growth. It would make energy policies serve industry and households, not ideology. It would use our freedoms outside the European Union to strike a more agile, more pro-innovation path where that is in the national interest. So I ask the Minister: which measure in the King’s Speech will make it cheaper for a small firm to employ its next worker? Which will bring down the energy bill of a manufacturer? Which will cut the number of forms, approvals and licences faced by a growing business? Which will tell investors that Britain is open, not merely in rhetoric but in law, tax and regulation?
Let us turn to Europe. Like many noble Lords, I listened to the Prime Minister’s speech on Monday, hoping that the Government might have learned from the public’s verdict in the local elections and changed course. I was disappointed. What we heard was not a reset but a retreat into the familiar instincts of the left: more state direction, more nationalisation, more guarantees announced from the centre, and closer alignment with the European Union. There is a place for government action but the Government cannot substitute themselves for enterprise. They cannot nationalise their way to productivity. They cannot guarantee their way to opportunity if the private sector is being taxed, regulated and second-guessed at every turn. They cannot align their way to competitiveness by binding Britain more closely to a European model whose own leaders now acknowledge is failing to deliver the growth Europe needs.
This is not an argument for hostility to Europe. Britain should trade with Europe, co-operate and stand with it on security and work constructively with our neighbours, wherever our interests coincide. But co-operation is not submission. Friendship is not rule-taking and a reset does not become re-entry by stealth. The British people voted in 2016 to leave the European Union. At the last election, the Prime Minister promised not to rejoin the single market, the customs union or free movement. Yet with every speech, summit and reset, the Government appear to edge closer to the EU’s regulatory orbit—closer to payments, mobility schemes and alignment for its own sake.
The irony is that Europe itself is now warning against the very model to which this Prime Minister seems so drawn. At Davos this year, the German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said that
“Germany and Europe have wasted incredible potential for growth”.
He said Europe had become
“the world champion of overregulation”.
A few weeks later, at the European Industry Summit, he went further, saying:
“Overregulation … hampers our economic growth”.
He called for a “regulatory clean slate” and said that Europe must “deregulate every sector”.
Those are not the words of a British Eurosceptic caricaturing Brussels. They are the words of the Chancellor of Germany, speaking from the heart of the European project, warning that regulation has damaged growth, investment and innovation. The Draghi report made the same diagnosis. It said that Europe
“largely missed out on the digital revolution”.
It observed that only four of the world’s top 50 technology companies are European. It warned that innovative companies are held back by “inconsistent and restrictive regulations”.
If the leaders of the European Union now know that their penchant for overregulation is a central cause of their economic weakness, why is Britain being drawn closer to that system? Why would we import the very burdens that Europe itself is trying to cut? Why would we trade the freedom to be faster, lighter and more agile for the comfort of alignment with a model that has underperformed? The Prime Minister owes the country a clear answer, not a slogan or another platitude about being at the heart of Europe. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no dynamic alignment with EU rules without explicit parliamentary approval? By explicit approval we do not mean a broadly drafted Henry VIII power. Will he confirm that Britain will not become an EU rule-taker? Will he confirm that there will be no new annual payments to EU programmes without a vote in Parliament? Will he confirm that any youth experience scheme will be capped, time-limited and not recreate free movement by another name? Brexit was a vote to govern ourselves. The Government should use that freedom to make Britain more competitive, not bargain it away in pursuit of applause in Brussels.
The Government’s problem is not that their ambition is too high, it is that their instincts are wrong. They want growth but tax jobs. They want investment but raise uncertainty. They want enterprise but regulate success. They want fiscal space but allow debt interest to crowd out the future. They want to be pro-business but treat business as something to be managed, charged and corrected. Britain does not need another reset. It needs a change of course. It needs lower burdens, cheaper energy, faster building, a tax system that rewards work and investment, and a regulatory culture that asks first whether intervention is necessary at all.
The Official Opposition will support measures that genuinely promote growth. But we will not be silent when the Government repeat the mistakes of the previous Session. The British people were promised growth. They have been given borrowing, tax rises and regulation. It is time for Ministers to stop talking about growth and start removing the obstacles to it.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update
Baroness Finn Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for agreeing to take questions on yesterday’s Statement.
The Falklands War was won in less than 12 weeks. This Government, however, cannot piece together a paper audit in that time. We have today simply been given a holding statement that more documents will be forthcoming. We remain no more enlightened than we were a month ago. No information has been forthcoming on the quantity of documents within scope of the humble Address passed in the other place, how many documents have been reviewed and by whom, whether the Cabinet Office has sought redactions and whether the Intelligence and Security Committee has agreed to those redactions. Can the Minister give the House a hard deadline by which the second tranche of documents will be published?
In light of press coverage in the Guardian suggesting that the Cabinet Office considered withholding certain documents from the Intelligence and Security Committee, can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that no documents within scope of the humble Address will be withheld from that committee?
In the other place, my honourable friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister a number of specific questions that went unanswered. The Chief Secretary’s silence on questions relating to Peter Mandelson’s declaration of interests form was deafening. Can the Minister confirm that that document exists and that it will not be withheld or redacted without the consent of the Intelligence and Security Committee? Serious questions are being asked about Peter Mandelson’s links through business interests, and how his activities as ambassador may have been linked to those interests.
We are also told that the security mitigations that were put in place for Peter Mandelson were not in response to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Can the Minister give the House more clarity on that? Can she say whether the detail of those concerns will be made public if the ISC judges that they may be published? On a day when the Labour Party is whipping its MPs to prevent the Privileges Committee making an independent assessment of the Prime Minister’s conduct, can we be reassured that His Majesty’s Government will not stand in the way of other committees doing their work?
The Government’s excuses for delay are wearing a little thin. We have heard all about the urgency that the Government are bringing to the matter: I hesitate to use the famous words “working at pace”. Yesterday, we heard from the Minister in the other place that documents should be published “in a chronological order”. He went on to say:
“Otherwise, I suspect there would be questions about what documents were missing, subject to the conclusion of the Committee’s work”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/26; col. 589.]
If it is the Government’s intention to avoid questions about what documents are missing, why are they still refusing to publish a list or overview of all the documents and whether they have been published? That overall document would help us greatly, and surely the titles or descriptions of the documents cannot be seen to prejudice any matter that is currently sub judice. Can the Minister say what progress is being made towards the publication of such a document? We have asked about this many times before and we still await a clear response.
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.
Pension Schemes
Baroness Finn Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former special adviser and future recipient— I hope in the long-distant future—of a civil service pension. At the heart of this issue are former public servants who are entitled to expect that the Civil Service Pension Scheme would be administered with competence, care and basic humanity. Instead, many have faced delay, uncertainty and financial anxiety. The Government have acknowledged that Capita’s performance was unacceptable, and we acknowledge that this contract was awarded under the previous Government. However, the appalling performance has been sustained under this Government. Warning signs were not acted on sooner and contingency arrangements were not in place before the handover on 1 December.
Last month, officials from the Minister’s department confirmed that the Cabinet Office had access to data showing that the backlog of CSPS cases was increasing exponentially during the final months of MyCSP’s tenure. This was known before the transfer, yet Ministers failed to put in place robust contingency plans. They did not require additional resources from Capita ahead of the handover and proceeded regardless, despite being aware that the incoming provider faced a far greater operational challenge than originally anticipated.
The National Audit Office had already found that Capita had failed to meet key transition milestones. The Public Accounts Committee had warned of a clear risk that Capita would not be ready to take over the administration of the scheme and specifically called on the Cabinet Office to fully develop contingency plans before making a final decision. Why, then, did the Government not anticipate this situation as they should have done?
The NAO report highlights a serious issue with the handling of TUPE, the process by which staff transfer to the new contractor. This is meant to ensure continuity by moving experienced staff across with the work, but the NAO notes that the formal TUPE process began only in May 2025, very late in the transition. The consequence is obvious: staff faced prolonged uncertainty about their future, increasing the risk that they would leave before the handover. In a service that depends heavily on experienced personnel, that loss of expertise directly undermines performance. Why was this process started so late and what assessment was made of the risk this posed to service delivery?
The NAO also found that financial penalties were rarely applied under the previous contract and could be waived on the basis of so-called extenuating circumstances. The new contract is supposed to strengthen those provisions, so can the Minister tell the House how many penalties have actually been applied to Capita since go-live, whether any penalties have been waived, on what grounds they were waived and who authorised the decisions?
The Minister in the other place was also asked about standardised mitigation letters for lenders. Members affected by pension delays need clear documentation that they can provide to banks, mortgage providers, landlords and creditors, explaining that their financial difficulty has been caused by administrative failure in the Civil Service Pension Scheme. Can the Minister now confirm whether those standardised letters have been issued? If they have not been, why not? When exactly will affected members receive them?
I ask the Minister about contingency planning. The Statement refers to commercial levers, withheld milestone payments and possible legal remedies. It also refers to explicit personal assurances from Capita’s chief executive, but those assurances were plainly not met. To whom were those assurances made and on what date? What due diligence underpinned them? Who accepted them? Were they set out in writing?
Finally, I am concerned that the department apparently plans to begin a review only in late summer. Why is that timetable considered acceptable? The failures are happening now. There needs to be a credible contingency plan and realistic consideration of future options.
Capita’s failings are unacceptable, but ministerial accountability does not end with condemning the contractor. The contracting authority needs to be relentlessly on the case. This is an issue that I have raised many times previously. Can the Minister tell the House what concrete steps the Civil Service has taken to improve the quality of its contract management? No well-run business would tolerate a contractor performing in such a way, so why should the Government tolerate it?
I appreciate that I have asked a number of detailed questions and that the Minister might want to reply in writing to some of them, but I hope she can shed some light on the concerns raised.
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?
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Baroness Finn Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I begin, as I have previously, by welcoming the progress made by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority and the Government in delivering payments. I commend the diligent work of Sir Brian Langstaff and his team, and all those who contributed to the inquiry and its additional report, which continues to shape the compensation scheme that is trying to bring some measure of justice to the victims of this terrible scandal and their families. I also pay tribute to those who have campaigned so tirelessly and bravely for so long in the face of such appalling harms inflicted by the state.
I note the Statement made in the other place and particularly the scale of the delivery now under way, with over £2 billion paid and thousands of individuals having received offers. That is an important milestone in what remains a profoundly long and painful process. Much in what has been set out will be welcomed across this House and, most importantly, by those who have lived with the consequences of this injustice. I also recognise that many of the changes now being brought forward are the result of consultation with the infected and affected community, reflecting the issues they have consistently raised throughout the process. That includes improved recognition of harms arising from infection in childhood, better provision for mental health impacts and loss of earnings where careers were curtailed, and specific new awards around unethical research, including for those who were children at Treloar’s school. These are significant and necessary developments, and I recognise the seriousness with which they are now being addressed.
This House has returned to these issues repeatedly, rightly so given the scale of the injustice and the length of time victims have waited. The question now is not whether the scheme has been improved but whether it can deliver what it promises in practice—fair, timely and trusted compensation at scale. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could address three areas in her reply.
On delivery, we have already noted that £2 billion has been paid out to 3,161 people, but given that 18,053 have registered their intent to make a compensation claim, can the Minister provide an update on the pace at which the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is expanding the number of claims it can process? Given the scale of what remains ahead, is she confident that IPCA has sufficient staffing and professionalism to address the numbers involved so that victims can receive compensation swiftly?
Secondly, on consistency and implementation, while the tariff-based approach is designed to reduce complexity, several of the new elements, particularly those relating to psychological harm, loss of earnings and exceptional loss, inevitably require judgment in application. Can the Minister set out what safeguards will be in place to ensure consistent decision-making across caseworkers, particularly where evidence is limited or assessments of opportunity or mental health harm are required?
Thirdly, on timing and certainty, the Statement indicates that further legislation will be required to implement these changes. Given the length of time since the inquiry’s additional report and the proximity of the coming parliamentary Session, can the Minister be more specific about the legislative timetable and confirm whether the necessary legislation will be included in the forthcoming King’s Speech?
This scandal represents a catastrophic failure of the state and the response to it must meet that scale. Compensation alone can never fully account for what has been lost, but it must be delivered in a way that is fair, accessible and efficient for both infected and affected individuals. Today’s Statement represents progress, but for many what matters now is not only what has been announced but what will be delivered and whether the system has the capacity, clarity and consistency to deliver it.
As we consider what must happen next, we must recognise an unavoidable truth: for many victims, compensation has come too late. Too many have passed away without receiving a penny, and their families continue to carry the weight of that injustice. Their absence should remain at the forefront of our minds as this scheme moves into its next phase.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, and I now invite her to speak.
Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026
Baroness Finn Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. As she has set out, it is a sensible and largely technical measure that would bring the law on ministerial and officeholder salaries in line with the current practice of excluding Permanent Secretary salaries from the calculation of annual salary increases. It brings the statutory framework in line with the approach that has in practice been followed by successive Governments since 1997. It does not change the underlying policy; rather, it corrects a discrepancy in the legislation relating to the treatment of Permanent Secretary salaries within the relevant calculation. It also addresses the criticism, as the Minister pointed out, from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that this issue has not been previously addressed despite the discrepancy being noted by the Cabinet Office in the 2023-24 financial year. On that basis, I do not take issue with the intent of the order.
The principal point on which I would welcome further clarity relates to ministerial pensions. The Government have been clear that ministerial salaries will remain frozen in practice and that take-home pay will therefore be unaffected by this order. However, the order alters the maximum salary that they may receive under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. It would be helpful, therefore, to understand whether future pension entitlements will be calculated on the basis of that legal maximum salary or on the salary actually received. If it is the former, this measure may have the effect of increasing pension accrual despite the continuation of the pay freeze. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could set out how pension calculations will operate, and whether any additional cost to the public purse is expected as a result.
More broadly, this measure raises a question regarding the scope of the ministerial pension scheme itself. Unlike with other public service pension schemes, there does not appear to be any provision for forfeiture in cases of serious misconduct. In contrast, we have long accepted in principle across the public sector that pensions may, in defined and exceptional circumstances, be subject to forfeiture where there has been criminal conduct connected to office. Given that disparity, it would be helpful to understand whether the Government have considered bringing forward legislative changes to place ministerial pensions on a more consistent footing with other public service pension schemes in this respect.
I note that similar issues are already being examined elsewhere in relation to standards in public life, and it would seem desirable for the legislative framework here to be equally coherent. In that context, I would be grateful if the Minister would inform the House whether the Government intend to bring forward an amendment to the current Pension Schemes Bill to address this issue, or whether they have concluded that no legislative change is required. If the latter is the case, I ask the Minister to outline the reason for maintaining the present position, given the clear precedent for forfeiture provisions in other public service pension schemes. It would also be helpful to know whether this matter is under active consideration within government, or whether it has been ruled out entirely.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
Baroness Finn Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, in discussing this matter we must, as always, keep Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and their families at the forefront of our minds. I pay tribute to the brave women and girls who were abused by him who have spoken out and called for justice.
The Prime Minister told the House of Commons on 4 February that Peter Mandelson, when questioned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, “lied repeatedly”. To date, we are yet to see evidence of those lies, but we do now have proof that the Prime Minister was directly informed that Mandelson had maintained his relationship with Epstein after the latter had been convicted for child sex offences.
Upon receipt of this information, the Prime Minister, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, did not undertake a searching inquiry for the truth but instead left it to two personal friends of Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and Matthew Doyle—now the noble Lord, Lord Doyle—to engage in a farcical form of due diligence consisting of questions we are yet to see and answers that continue to be withheld. As if that were not concerning enough, it has been reported in the Times that no written record of the appointment of Mandelson exists. I find this extraordinary. As others who, like me, have worked in Downing Street know, there simply has to be an audit trail to transmit the Prime Minister’s decision. The decision, we are asked to believe, was made in an informal meeting with senior advisers.
The House should pause at this stage to recollect that a previous Prime Minister was heavily criticised by the House of Commons Committee of Privileges report of 15 June 2023, when, in making statements to the Commons, he relied on assurances that
“did not emanate from senior permanent civil servants or government lawyers”.
Can the Minister say whether the Prime Minister misled the House of Commons when he gave the assurance that full due diligence was followed? Does she accept that the sole basis on which the Prime Minister gave that statement was the undocumented assurances of two personal friends of Peter Mandelson?
I turn to other matters. Why was Peter Mandelson paid £70,000? The Government’s argument is that not paying him would have resulted in a claim in the employment tribunal, with associated costs to the taxpayer. Can the Minister explain why the Government did not have the courage to stand up to Mandelson to ensure that he would not receive a penny of taxpayers’ money following his dismissal? The Prime Minister has said on the record that Mandelson acted dishonestly to gain the post of ambassador. If that was true, surely Mandelson’s case would not have been successful at the tribunal. Does the Minister understand why the public are so angry about this? He should not have received a penny.
When we last repeated a Statement on the Government’s response to this humble Address, I asked whether the Government would publish a schedule that would show which documents are being withheld and which are being published. I did not get an answer then, but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said in the other place
“I would need to take advice from lawyers in the Metropolitan Police before I could say whether these documents are being held for their criminal investigation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/26; col. 364.].
Yesterday, the Official Opposition reiterated the need for this, given that at least 56 documents are thought to be missing. Has that advice been sought? When will the Government give a formal answer to this important question, which has already been put to Ministers a number of times? For the sake of public confidence in the process that Ministers and officials are following in response to the humble Address, we must be able to see the amount of information that is being withheld and for what reason.
Evidence that we have already seen shows that the Prime Minister knew as a fact that Mandelson maintained his relationship with Epstein after the latter’s conviction. The Prime Minister knew that Mandelson was unfit to be our ambassador but appointed him anyway and allowed two of Mandelson’s personal friends to synthesise an entirely farcical, illusory form of due diligence. At the end of this, the Prime Minister placed into our most prestigious and pivotal diplomatic post a man who is, as a matter of public record, already known to be a serial liar. Surely the truth is that the misplaced trust is not that of the Prime Minister in Peter Mandelson but the trust that the British people placed in the Prime Minister at the last election—a trust that all too many now feel to have been entirely misplaced.