King’s Speech
Baroness Finn Excerpts(1 day, 13 hours 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.
Pension Schemes
Baroness Finn Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days 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?
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update
Baroness Finn Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days 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.
Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026
Baroness Finn Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days 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.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Baroness Finn Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days 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.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
Baroness Finn Excerpts(1 month, 4 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.
UK Public Servants: International Secondments
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)
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. Every member of the Civil Service is subject to the Civil Service Code, regardless of seniority, and we expect them to be held accountable and to treat all staff with appropriate levels of respect. Obviously, Ministers are subject to the Ministerial Code. There is extensive HR support within government departments, both within the FCDO and my own department, and I would expect everyone to undertake the appropriate training—and to be dismissed, where appropriate, if such behaviour was found.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, as the Infected Blood and Grenfell Tower inquiries made clear, having a Civil Service Code is one thing but ensuring that it is properly followed is quite another. Can the Minister therefore set out what specific consequences apply when the code is breached—whether by those in conventional employment or by those on secondment—and confirm whether serious instances of non-compliance are routinely escalated to senior Ministers and to No. 10, including in cases involving secondees or officials posted overseas? Furthermore, will she also explain how conduct is reflected in performance management and in decisions about future appointments, in particular how an individual’s conduct and performance while on secondment is assessed and taken into account?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness has asked four questions, so I will answer as many as I can. For all of them, the answer is the same, which is that chapter 4 of the Civil Service management code outlines what conduct we expect, the disciplinary process and how civil servants should apply it. I would expect every civil servant to stick to everything within the code and, if not, to be managed appropriately.
Iranian State-sponsored Cyber Attacks: Mitigation and Preparation
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 National Audit Office recently examined the cyber threat facing the UK Government and reached some deeply concerning conclusions. It found that 58 critical government IT systems have significant gaps in their cyber resilience and that the Government do not even know how vulnerable at least 228 legacy systems are to cyber attack. It also highlighted a number of underlying weaknesses, shortage of cyber security skills within government and insufficient co-ordination across departments. In the face of what the NAO has described as a “severe and advancing” threat, with tensions in the Middle East further heightening the risk environment, can the noble Baroness set out what steps the Government are taking to address these shortcomings and strengthen the resilience of critical government systems?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness will be aware that the cyber security and resilience Bill is in the other place, which is a starting point. I am aware of what she has highlighted and we are working across Government to fix it. There is also the cyber action plan, which will be published this spring.
Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Finn Excerpts(2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and for clearly setting out their purpose. As she explained, these regulations amend the Procurement Act 2023 to add the UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement to the list of specified international agreements in the Act. In doing so, they give effect in domestic law to the procurement provisions contained in that agreement. Under the World Trade Organization’s agreement on government procurement, the United Kingdom is required to ensure that countries with which we have concluded relevant trade agreements are given non-discriminatory access to public procurement markets. These regulations are therefore a technical but necessary step to ensure that the United Kingdom meets those obligations.
While we support the regulations, it is worth briefly reflecting on the wider context in which they sit. The UK-India agreement was long anticipated and presents significant potential opportunities for trade between our two countries. However, we have concerns about some of the provisions in the agreement and about what was not included.
The inclusion of services in any agreement with India was widely regarded as a central objective of the United Kingdom’s negotiating position. It is therefore disappointing that a number of key services sectors, including the legal sector, appear not to have secured the level of market access that had been hoped for. Given the strength of the UK services economy, that omission represents a missed opportunity. Similar concerns were raised during the debate in the other place, where it was noted that securing stronger outcomes for services had been a central priority during earlier negotiations.
Concerns have also been raised regarding the operation of the double contributions convention within the agreement, which may mean that companies employing Indian workers in the United Kingdom are not required to pay employer national insurance contributions on their salaries. Although labour mobility provisions are a common feature of modern trade agreements, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify how the Government intend to ensure that these arrangements operate fairly and do not inadvertently disadvantage British workers.
I would also welcome the Minister’s comments on the point raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on the timing of this instrument. As the committee observed, the regulations were laid shortly before the treaty itself was formally laid before Parliament, meaning that the scrutiny periods for the treaty and its implementing legislation run in parallel. Can the Minister explain the Government’s reasoning for adopting that approach and reassure the Grand Committee that Parliament will have had sufficient opportunities to scrutinise both the agreement and the legislation required to implement it?
Finally, Ministers have suggested that the procurement provisions of this agreement will open up significant opportunities for UK businesses by providing access to India’s federal procurement market. That is clearly welcome, but it would be helpful to hear how the Government intend to support UK firms, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, in navigating and accessing those opportunities in practice.
With those brief remarks, I reiterate that these regulations are a necessary step to give effect to the procurement provisions of the agreement. Nevertheless, we will continue to take a close interest in how the wider deal operates in practice and whether it ultimately delivers the benefits that British businesses and workers were promised.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this has been part 2 of the “Finn and Anderson show” today. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for the points she raised. I was a little disappointed that she did not manage to get in a reference to those celebrating this deal—not least the people of Scotland, who are delighted about access to the Indian whisky market; it has been life-changing for that sector.
I will respond to some of the specific questions the noble Baroness asked me. I will reflect on Hansard after the debate, and I am sure she will pick me up on anything I miss.
On the double contributions convention, the UK Government already have similar agreements in place covering Chile, Japan, South Korea, the 27 EU member states, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Barbados, Canada, Israel, Jamaica, Mauritius, the Philippines, Bosnia-Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Turkey and the USA. We know how to do these agreements and we are effective at them. The noble Baroness will be aware that the previous Government also operated within this space. There is little to be concerned about.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that our focus should be on how we support businesses so that they can access the benefits of this procurement chapter. It is vital that we ensure that British businesses can utilise the benefits of this chapter if we are to reap the economic rewards of this unprecedented access to India’s market. The Department for Business and Trade has a significant presence in India, with one of the biggest in-country overseas teams in the world, behind only the US and China. This consists of sectoral experts who work directly with UK companies to help them enter, grow and expand into the Indian market. Alongside this, the team has staff focusing on trade policy, market access, investment promotion, and marketing and communications, under the leadership of HM trade commissioner for South Asia. The DBT works in partnership with Foreign Office teams in India, who also have objectives to support UK economic growth.
On the timing of the instrument, as part of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process to enable parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, the Government are required to lay a relevant treaty, alongside an Explanatory Memorandum, for 21 sitting days before it can be ratified—unless either House adopts a Motion that such a treaty should not be ratified—subject to any additional procedural steps required by the treaty also being concluded. Although it is not a legal requirement for treaties to have completed the process set out in the CRaG Act prior to implementation in domestic law, it has been an informal convention to lay before Parliament the implementing legislation after the treaty in question has undergone the initial 21 days.
Exceptionally, in this case, the CETA was laid in Parliament on 21 January 2026 and formally entered the CRaG process shortly after the draft instrument was laid before Parliament on 19 January 2026, in accordance with the affirmative procedure. The CRaG process concluded on 5 March. This approach has been necessary due to the Government’s desire to bring the CETA into force as quickly as possible, while allowing necessary parliamentary scrutiny, to allow businesses to take advantage of the agreement and to deliver growth across the country.
I hope I have answered all the noble Baroness’s questions. To conclude, this historic agreement marks a major milestone in the UK-India relationship and is one of the most significant bilateral trade agreements that the UK has concluded since leaving the EU. Implementation of the CETA is a key step in opening up new markets and opportunities for British businesses and exports, delivering economic growth across the country. This is especially true in respect of the procurement chapter that we have been discussing, which unlocks unprecedented access to India’s federal procurement market.
Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Finn Excerpts(2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations make targeted amendments to the Procurement Regulations 2024 so that key parts of the Procurement Act 2023 operate effectively in practice. They strengthen transparency in a proportionate and deliverable way, and they make a small number of practical improvements to support the smooth operation of the new regime.
Public procurement is how the state translates policy into delivery. It is also where public trust can be won or lost. Transparency is, therefore, not optional. It is a necessary discipline that helps ensure value for money, strengthens accountability, and supports confidence among suppliers and the wider public. After all, this is about public money—taxpayers’ money.
The principal purpose of this instrument is to implement Section 70 of the Act. This requires quarterly publication of information about individual payments over £30,000 made under public contracts. These regulations specify the information that must be published and how it is to be published on the central digital platform so that the payment can be linked to the relevant contract and supplier record. This is designed to allow Parliament, the public, suppliers and contracting authorities to “follow the money” in a meaningful way, seeing what was bought, from whom and what was paid under the contract.
The instrument also closes an important gap by ensuring that suppliers awarded notifiable below-threshold contracts are registered on the central digital platform and have a unique supplier identifier. This is light-touch in practice but important in its effect. It improves traceability across the market, strengthens confidence that procurement data reflects real supplier identity, and supports better understanding of SME and voluntary sector participation.
The instrument also completes the move away from Contracts Finder, a legacy publication route whose functions are being consolidated into the central digital platform. This reduces duplication and confusion for suppliers and authorities, and supports a single, coherent source of procurement information—an important part of making transparency meaningful.
Taken together, these regulations are practical and focused. They implement contract-linked payment transparency, as Parliament intended; close a key data gap on supplier identity for below-threshold awards; and simplify publication by consolidating on to a single platform. For these reasons, I hope that your Lordships will support these regulations, and I beg to move.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, it is the “Baroness Anderson and Baroness Finn show” again, I am afraid.
We welcome these regulations. Section 70 of the Procurement Act 2023, introduced by the previous Conservative Government, created new reporting requirements for procurement payments over £30,000. The purposes were clear: to improve transparency; to strengthen accountability; and to make it easier for the public to see how taxpayers’ money is being spent. These regulations implement those commitments by specifying the information that must be published and ensuring that it is made available on a central digital platform. That is a sensible and important step.
Transparency is not an administrative afterthought. It is a safeguard. Publishing clear data on payments—including the contracting authority, the supplier, the value of the payment and the date—enables scrutiny, improves financial discipline and supports better value for money. We particularly welcome the move to align reporting requirements across central and local government. A consistent approach reduces confusion and ensures that transparency does not depend on postcode.
However, I would welcome brief clarification from the Minister on two points. First, on implementation, can the Minister confirm that the central digital platform is fully operational, and that contracting authorities have received clear guidance on data standards and reporting formats? Transparency is meaningful only if the data is accessible and consistent. Secondly, on proportionality, although these requirements are reasonable, what assessment has been made of the administrative burden on smaller contracting authorities? It is important that transparency does not inadvertently divert resource from front-line delivery.
Subject to those two questions, we support these regulations. They deliver on clear commitments to open procurement, to better scrutiny and to ensuring that public money is spent in a way that can be properly examined.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the problem when there are only two of us, as we are getting used to, is that I do not necessarily have time to answer all the questions, but I will give it a go. As ever, I thank my opposite number, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for the points that she has raised. Unless something is about to appear in front of me like magic, I may have to clarify for her in writing, but I promise to do that swiftly. I believe that, yes, the platform is ready, willing and able—with slight modifications due to be put in place, it should be fully up to speed by the end of the year. As for the administrative burden on smaller authorities, we have made sure that everything that can be done to support them is being done. I will write to the noble Baroness with details of that.
These regulations are about making transparency under the 2023 Act operable and meaningful. The core point is that payment transparency works best when payments are linked to the contract and supply a record on the central platform, enabling scrutiny that is joined up rather than fragmented. The additional provisions are tightly connected. They close data gaps that would otherwise weaken transparency and they ensure that the system works in practice during outages and in urgent protect-life situations. The overall model remains proportionate and deliverable. It is quarterly, prospective from 1 April 2026, and early central government experience suggests that initial reporting volumes are manageable. On that basis, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and commend the regulations.