Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

We must all learn this hard lesson and end a culture that dismisses women’s experiences far too often and too easily. Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed, and the Government will comply with the humble Address. I will update the House further in due course. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[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

Monday 16th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[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

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[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 (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Grand Committee

For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will support these important regulations. I beg to move.

[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.

UK-EU Customs Union

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, and the noble Lords, Lord Docherty of Milngavie, Lord Pitt-Watson and Lord Doyle, on their maiden speeches today. Their thoughtful, witty and heartfelt contributions demonstrate that they will be a huge asset to your Lordships’ House, and we look forward to hearing more from them in the years to come. We will miss the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, and we are sorry to see him leave in this way.

Many of the arguments in today’s debate will be very familiar to the House. I do not intend to relitigate the referendum or to reopen the entire Brexit debate. However, I will address directly the core proposition of the Motion before us today: the case for a United Kingdom and European Union customs union and the related question of closer connection to the EU single market.

It is important at the outset to be clear about terms, because this debate often proceeds as though the single market and the customs union were flexible or à la carte arrangements. They are not. Participation in the EU single market entails acceptance of the four freedoms, including the free movement of people, which is set out explicitly in the EU treaties and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the European Court of Justice. There is no precedent for participation in a single market without freedom of movement, and the European Commission has consistently ruled out such an arrangement. As my noble friend Lord Tugendhat correctly pointed out, we have to be realistic.

Equally, a customs union with the European Union requires the participating state to align its external tariffs with those of the EU and, crucially, to accept trade policy as set by the EU. This means allowing Brussels to negotiate and conclude trade agreements on our behalf. This is not compatible with an independent trade policy or consistent with the Labour Party’s manifesto commitments, which ruled out rejoining the customs union or the single market. The proposition before us today therefore sits uneasily not only with the outcome of the referendum but with the stated positions of parties across this House—and, ultimately, is against what the British people have voted for repeatedly over the past decade. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough rightly cautions against such an approach.

The EU customs union is open only to EU member states. Norway and Iceland, frequently cited in these debates, are not in a customs union with the EU. They participate in aspects of the single market through the European Economic Area but retain their own external trade policy and sit outside the customs union. The only large non-member state in a customs union with the European Union is Turkey, which entered into a customs union with the EU in 1995. It did so in the expectation that this would be a stepping stone to full EU membership; that expectation has not been fulfilled.

Under the terms of the customs union, Turkey is required to align its external tariffs with those of the EU and to grant market access to countries with which the EU concludes free trade agreements. However, those third countries are under no reciprocal obligation to grant equivalent access to Turkish exports; it is an asymmetrical trading relationship, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and my noble friend Lord Lilley have made clear. The EU has concluded trade agreements with countries such as South Korea, Mexico and South Africa; Turkey has been obliged to open its markets to those countries, while in some cases Turkish exporters have faced barriers in return. Under that arrangement, Turkey has, for instance, been forced into a non-reciprocal trading relationship with South Korea, which does not provide the country with open access to its own market. Turkey still experiences queues at the border. A customs union does not remove regulatory checks, rules of origin procedures or non-tariff barriers. In short, it does not deliver frictionless trade. Most importantly, Turkey has no seat at the table when EU trade policy is decided; it is bound by decisions that are taken elsewhere.

As a member of the EU, the UK had a vote in the Council, representation in the Commission and elected members of the European Parliament. Under a customs union without membership, we would have none of these things. We would be obliged to follow a common external tariff and trade policy over which we exercised no formal control. It is therefore difficult to see how such an arrangement could be described as a stable or acceptable long-term settlement. It would mean ending our independent trade policy while accepting a democratic deficit greater than one that existed before we left the European Union. It would mean leaving our existing trade agreements with India and the Pacific trade pact. As the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea have pointed out, this would not be beneficial.

Businesses across the country have spent several years adapting to the post-exit trading framework. They have invested heavily in new systems, technology and infrastructure to comply with the regime put in place by Parliament. Dynamic alignment, as currently envisaged by the Government, risks constraining the areas where the United Kingdom has already chosen to divert from EU rules to address domestic priorities. A clear example is bovine tuberculosis, which costs farmers around £150 million a year. The UK is trialling vaccination as a practical solution, yet EU law prohibits the use of bovine TB vaccines in cattle. Alignment risks preventing the UK from pursuing an effective domestic response. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has highlighted the problems of dynamic alignment in Northern Ireland.

As my noble friend Lord Elliott has rightly observed, membership of a customs union would also prevent the United Kingdom from pursuing an independent approach to technology and AI policy. In short, dynamic alignment risks closing off innovation, weakening resilience and undermining British agriculture. The Prime Minister has said that he is not prepared to rip up the benefits of Brexit. Does the Minister agree that the risks that I have outlined threaten exactly that?

Businesses do not want perpetual renegotiation of our relationship with the EU but clarity, consistency and confidence. Threatening to upend the regulatory and trading environment yet again, simply to pursue closer alignment for its own sake, undermines all three. Will the Government commit to publishing, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has suggested, a policy paper on the objectives of their negotiations?

There are only two coherent options: full membership of the European Union or an independent United Kingdom outside its customs union. A stand-alone customs union is not a stable resting place; it would bind us to obligations without influence and leave us with less control than we had before we left. The British people were asked what they wanted, and they chose an independent United Kingdom. This is a position that we on these Benches recognise and respect.

In their pursuit of a closer relationship with the European Union, the Government are potentially in danger of undermining the very freedoms this country regained by leaving the bloc. We must be clear that surrendering our ability to innovate, to respond flexibly to domestic challenges and to support our own economy would amount to abandoning the principles that underpinned the decision to leave in the first place. Seeking to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU and to remove genuinely unnecessary barriers to trade is a legitimate and worthwhile objective, but it can succeed only if the Prime Minister is firm and unambiguous about his red lines. Without that firmness, pragmatism slides into concessions that the British people have consistently voted against. It is vital that the Government negotiate in a way that consistently safeguards the interests of the British people, and I hope the Minister can assuage these concerns in her response.

The UK’s Demographic Future

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by putting on record my gratitude for the contributions in this House by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts over 25 years, ahead of his retirement. I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House for only 10 of those years, but it has been an honour and a pleasure to serve alongside him during this time. He has been an active and effective Member of your Lordships’ House and will be greatly missed. The heartfelt tributes from noble Lords across the House today are testimony to this undeniable truth.

I am delighted to take part in this debate to take note of the report Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow. The issues it raises speak to one of the most consequential policy challenges of our age—the demographic future of the United Kingdom. Its authors demand that we confront an unavoidable truth: demographics shape everything. They shape our economy, public services, environment, culture, infrastructure and welfare system. Demographic change is one of the least discussed, understood and planned-for forces in British public life. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, pointed out, we should not be afraid to discuss it. My noble friend Lady Verma made an eloquent case in her extraordinarily powerful speech that issues of demography and integration have been swerved for far too long.

My noble friend’s report is wide ranging and detailed. It is evidently the result of extensive research and proposes a number of recommendations which we should consider carefully. I congratulate him on it. One of its most impressive features is that it shines a light on so many of the areas impacted by rapid population growth—biodiversity, national security, water and food security, public services and our ageing population.

Increasing migration is undoubtedly a major challenge, as the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, among many others, has consistently warned. This report makes the point that, without firm population controls and forward planning, the pressures on public services, infrastructure and the environment will become unmanageable. We need to consider how to develop a mechanism to ensure that migration numbers are sustainable, predictable and aligned with the nation’s capacity to absorb them, delivering in effect the long-term planning framework that the report calls for.

The report emphasises that current demographic trends, in particular high net migration, are placing substantial burdens on housing, healthcare, education and welfare infrastructure, and warns that, if present patterns continue, the United Kingdom could become one of the most populous countries in Europe within a few decades. Yet, crucially, population growth does not guarantee an increase in living standards. Indeed, as the report notes, rising aggregate GDP often masks falling GDP per capita, stagnant productivity and declining real wages. Relying on ever-increasing population levels to boost headline GDP is a false economy. This point was well made by my noble friend Lord Horam. What matters is what working families feel and living standards per person, not size of the population as a whole.

Economic success must be built on higher productivity, better skills and strong domestic labour participation, not continually importing labour to compensate for structural weaknesses. Relying on low-skilled migration is not the answer, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, emphasised. We must prioritise our own skills programmes and address urgently and directly the challenge of upskilling our own workforce.

The report warns repeatedly that using immigration to prop up GDP growth or to compensate for an ageing population will lead to long-term fiscal strain. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe spoke persuasively on this point. Even if population growth does not reach that extreme, the medium-term projections still point to the UK adding around 10 million people in the next 20 years, driven overwhelmingly by immigration. For this reason, we need some kind of mechanism to manage migration, combined with reforms to the visa system to ensure that only genuinely high-skilled applicants earning at or above the required thresholds can come to the UK. This is about controlling a rate of change so that population levels remain manageable, aligned with public sentiment and consistent with the nation’s capacity to provide.

The report underscores the need to align population growth with housing and infrastructure. The Government have pledged 1.5 million new homes in the next Parliament. Although that is an important commitment, the report rightly notes that, without careful planning, new supply will struggle to keep pace with population increase. Again, this point was picked up by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. House prices have already been driven up significantly, in part because demand has far outstripped supply. If the population grows by over 6 million by 2035, as some projections suggest, then 1.5 million homes alone will not stabilise prices or alleviate overcrowding, unless accompanied by strategic planning and major infrastructure investment.

The report rightly highlights public services, with strain already evident across the NHS, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, pointed out. Waiting lists remain above pre-pandemic levels, and the report’s projections make it clear that, without careful planning, an additional 10 million would further exacerbate pressures. As the report notes, migration-driven growth increases demand for healthcare, while the fiscal contributions of migrants vary considerably depending on skill level and integration.

We need to shift our immigration system firmly toward high-skilled, high-contributing migrants, while simultaneously investing in domestic training. This is particularly the case when it comes to medicine, social care and essential public service roles. At present, over 20,000 British-trained doctors each year do not secure specialist training places, yet we continue to rely heavily on internationally trained staff to fill NHS vacancies. This is not sustainable. We need to expand domestic clinical training capacity and apprenticeships to ensure that young people in the UK can enter professions where they are desperately needed.

On welfare, the report emphasises the importance of fiscal sustainability, noting that population growth alone will not resolve pressures on the welfare state and pensions. Indeed, depending on the composition and productivity of the population, it can worsen them. That is why we must prioritise making work pay, tightening welfare eligibility and strengthening incentives for labour market participation.

This report paints a picture of a country at a demographic crossroads, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, demonstrated. There is no doubt that, if we continue with unmanaged population growth, relying on immigration as a short-term economic remedy, we will face mounting pressures on service housing, infrastructure and social cohesion—although my noble friend Lord Sarfraz did make an excellent case for robots to swerve these problems. We need to consider more carefully how we manage migration, with a focus on selective high-skill immigration, domestic skills investment, welfare reform and a coherent long-term housing and infrastructure strategy.

Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to develop a long-term demographic strategy that addresses these points? Will the Government ensure that population projections inform policy across departments, from housing and transport to healthcare and welfare? Will they finally accept that migration cannot remain the default solution to labour shortages and economic challenges? There can be no doubt that, as we consider the current challenges our country faces and the country our children stand to inherit, we cannot shy away from these issues. We must consider the issues that this report raises and have an answer to the central question of how we intend to reduce our reliance on immigration and focus much more on increasing our productivity and domestic skills and on building a sustainable economy.

These are just some of the key challenges and questions which the Government face. It is not possible to reflect the full range of challenges that are highlighted in the report in my remarks today, but I am pleased that noble Lords have been able to bring so many of these themes and core challenges to the fore in their contributions, such as the environmental factors that were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, the fertility issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and especially the strains on social cohesion, which a number of noble Lords, such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and my noble friend Lord Blencathra highlighted. Other issues and problems were eloquently demonstrated by my noble friend Lady Buscombe.

As my noble friend Lord Hodgson highlights in the foreword of his report, the British have been repeatedly promised a policy by political parties of all stripes that would focus on admitting a limited number of highly skilled or creative individuals: a policy with which few would disagree. Instead, they have seen virtually uncontrolled numbers of primarily lower-skilled individuals. The debate today has been a good opportunity to consider why we have seen those levels of immigration, with their consequential impact, in the past, and, most importantly, to ask ourselves what steps must be taken to put us on the right track for the future.

Looking to the recommendations, my noble friend proposes a twin-track approach, with a new responsibility placed on government alongside a new body to monitor the Government’s objectives and provide research on that policy. I entirely accept the premise that demographic policy currently lacks coherence. With responsibility fragmented across the Home Office, the Department for Education, the DWP and the Cabinet Office, each one pursuing its own objectives with little regard for the whole, we have a system that is nobody’s responsibility.

On data, the report recommends that the Government should be required to monitor and disclose the likely level of population change in the near and long term. This touches on a point of real concern to noble Lords on these Benches. It was a little over two weeks ago that my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough forced Ministers to review and publish the data that is held on the number of students who have had their visas revoked due to criminality during the progress of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. The Government initially resisted publication of that data. On issues as important as demography, the Government should be seeking to build greater trust with the British people. Refusing to publish data has the opposite effect. Can the Minister please reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government will take a more positive attitude towards requests for additional data in the future?

While we are on the issue of data, I briefly mention that my honourable friend Nick Timothy MP asked Ministers in the other place last month whether the Government planned to release data on the economic contributions by different profiles of migrants, in line with the Danish model. The Minister refused. As the report highlights, better data and greater transparency are essential. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that Ministers are seriously reviewing the current publications, with a view to improving transparency.

The report includes a recommendation for a new authority, to be called the Office for Demographic Change, ODC, or Office for Population Sustainability, OPS. My noble friend is right that Ministers should consider our existing structures for monitoring immigration and population over time—not to mention emigration, which is of such concern when those choosing to leave the country are our wealth creators and high-skilled young people starting out in their careers. We need the right mechanisms for monitoring and reporting, so that Parliament and, in turn, the British people have the information they need to make informed choices about the future of demographic policy. My noble friend Lord Horam brilliantly explained the importance of long-term monitoring. I am personally always sceptical of the creation of new NDPBs as, over time, public bodies often come to establish their own institutional views. I would be interested to hear from my noble friend how he would plan to mitigate that risk, but there is certainly a strong case for some such body.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson is absolutely right with his core thesis. Ministers must be held to account and we should continue to explore new and tougher processes by which we can hold the Government to account on the future demography of our country. Finally, it only remains to congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate on the day that he has chosen to make his valedictory speech. The debate, which has touched on so many of the core challenges we face as a nation, is a testament to his commitment to building a brighter future for our country as a devoted public servant. I know I speak for the whole House in wishing him all the very best in his next chapter outside your Lordships’ House.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing to the House this Statement on the government response to the Covid-19 inquiry module 1 report. I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, for her leadership and the work of her team. I pay tribute to those who lost their lives and to the families who continue to grieve. Their loss is not just a memory but a standing rebuke to complacency—a warning against the easy comfort of forgetting. If this inquiry is to mean anything, it must ensure that the failures of the past are never repeated.

The Government’s response recognises those failures, but recognition is not the same as resolution. The inquiry lays bare what went wrong. Lives were lost not because those in government or on the front line lacked effort or intention but because the system they relied on was too slow, too complex and too poorly maintained. The structures for emergency response were fatally flawed, with too many competing voices and unclear lines of authority. When the crisis hit, leaders lacked the information they needed to make informed decisions quickly. Vital data was unavailable, inconsistent or siloed. Worst of all, preparedness had been allowed to slip down the priority list. Without a recent crisis to focus the mind, plans had gathered dust. When they were finally needed, they were out of date or prepared for another type of pandemic.

We broadly welcome the steps that the Government have taken, especially to ensure that the Cabinet Office has a clearer and stronger role in crisis and resilience co-ordination. I appreciate that the Government have clearly signalled their intention to build on the work started by the last Government. The Resilience Directorate should provide clearer leadership. The resilience academy will help build expertise. A full-scale pandemic exercise is a necessary step in testing our ability to respond. These are real improvements, and we support them.

However, there is still much more to do. Preparedness must not be something that the Government remember only when disaster strikes. A culture of resilience should be embedded across the system, with clear accountability for ensuring that it does not fade from view. The Government’s response does not go far enough in simplifying the system. Complexity was a core failing in our pandemic response, yet we are in danger of replacing one tangle of bureaucracy with another. Data sharing remains a critical weakness, and without an efficient way to collect, share and use real-time information, we will make the same mistakes again.

That is why recommendation 10 is the wrong answer. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, calls for simplification, yet her recommendation to establish yet another arm’s-length body would add another layer of complexity. A new statutory body, given responsibility for strategic advice, assessment, local consultation and national capability planning, is simply too broad in scope. A body that is simultaneously an adviser, a regulator, a strategy setter and a watchdog will be a body that lacks focus. Instead of bringing clarity, it will muddy decision-making. Instead of streamlining the system, it will entangle it further. Instead of ensuring resilience, it will create yet another institution competing for influence within an already crowded space.

If independent oversight is needed, let it be exactly that—an assessment function that checks government preparedness against a clear framework set by Ministers, not a permanent fixture with an ever-growing remit. Otherwise, we risk creating a body that spends its time lobbying Ministers for its own recommendations, regardless of whether they are useful or practical. When disaster strikes, there must be no doubt about who is responsible, who is making the decisions and who is accountable to the public.

There are, of course, deeper questions that must be answered. How will we measure progress? Unless we have clear benchmarks, improvement is just an illusion. Without real accountability and framework clarity, the reviews, consultations and task forces risk being temporary solutions. Working out what to do is the easy part. The hard part is ensuring rigorous implementation backed up by data. Is there data to support the whole-system emergency strategy? In recommendation 7, the report asked for three-month publications to report back the findings of the nationwide investigations. Can the Minister speak to that?

Why is this inquiry taking so long? Lessons that could save lives should already be implemented. The Government speak of a duty of candour, but honesty is already required in the Civil Service Code. Yet as numerous inquiries such as Horizon, infected blood and Grenfell have demonstrated, it has not delivered transparency in the past, so how will this now be ensured? Above all, how do we ensure that this inquiry does not become just another exercise in bureaucratic introspection? We have seen too many reports whose conclusions are welcomed, debated, nodded at solemnly and quietly ignored. This cannot be one of them. The Government have not yet responded to last year’s House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee report on reforming the process by which public inquiries are conducted, and the committee has said it is unacceptable that so many recommendations have not been implemented. I call on the Government to consider last year’s report. Can the Minister provide an update on the timely implementation of the recommendations? So far, only one recommendation has been implemented.

Resilience is not built through process. It is not achieved by handing responsibly to another statutory body. It is built through strong leadership, clear accountability and a system that is ready to act when the moment demands. The Government’s response is a step in the right direction, but we must go further and move faster because the next crisis will not wait. When it comes, the true test will not be whether we have created another agency, or published another report, but whether we are finally and fully prepared to respond.

Civil Servants: Compulsory Office Attendance

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for securing this important debate on whether civil servants should be obliged to work from their offices or their own homes. It has been prompted by not only the recent strike action in the UK’s Land Registry but the broader shift in working practices in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. It is an issue that speaks to the heart of productivity and the future of public service delivery.

Amid the upheavals of the pandemic, our GDP remained surprisingly robust, in part thanks to the last Government’s furlough scheme. The resilience of the economy showed that remote work, for some parts of the workforce, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, observed, not only was feasible but could be effective. However, my noble friend Lord Frost is absolutely correct that, while the private sector continues to improve its output, public sector productivity continues to lag well behind. This disparity has contributed to the growing backlog in public services that in turn hinders wider economic growth. We face significant budget deficits, a high level of national indebtedness and backlogs in courts and hospitals and elsewhere. We simply cannot afford to ignore the need for drastically increased productivity within the public sector, particularly in our Civil Service.

Can the Minister provide statistics on the number of civil servants who, first, have contracts that expressly allow them to work from home, and what proportion of them exclusively so; secondly, have informal arrangements with their management that permit them to work from home but with no revised contracts; and, thirdly, have no formal arrangements but none the less continue to work remotely? Do the Government have plans to allow civil servants to make other revisions to their terms and conditions by stealth, or is the intention simply to let remote work arrangements proliferate unchecked? If so, what safeguards are in place to ensure that these changes do not undermine the effective delivery of public services? Who within the Government holds the authority to stop civil servants working from home? Does the Prime Minister or the Cabinet Secretary, or is such discretion left to individual departments with no overarching leadership on this issue?

There are also practical implications, such as how much unused government office space exists within Whitehall and beyond. Can the Minister provide us with statistics on these costs? As my noble friend Lord Farmer said, taxpayers deserve to know whether their money is being spent effectively, and users of public services—the public—deserve better services.

Senior civil servants should generally be required to return to the office full-time by default. Not only does this demonstrate that office working is important but it sends a strong message to junior colleagues. As my noble friends Lord Farmer and Lord Maude of Horsham observed, there is immense value in learning through observation, mentoring and collaboration with peers. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, argued, remote work has the advantage of flexibility, but it is no substitute for working alongside colleagues in an office environment.

A failure to grapple with an issue so fundamental raises serious concerns about the Government’s ability to tackle the more challenging issues of Civil Service reform. In lieu of ambitions to streamline the state to 2016 levels, we instead have the Cabinet Office’s voluntary redundancy scheme, which falls short of what is required. Recent inflation-busting pay rises for civil servants have not been linked to any measurable improvements in productivity.

The most successful organisations in the private sector have made office working most of the time compulsory. Working from home cannot be treated as a right. As my noble friend Lord Maude so rightly observed, business need must always be paramount. The Government must act decisively and embrace the necessary reforms to ensure that public services deliver what the public expect and need.

Renewable Energy: Costs

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, specifically my chairmanship of Project Tempo, a non-profit organisation which researches public attitudes towards the energy and climate transition. I thank my noble friend Lord Frost for this important and timely debate.

My right honourable friend the leader of His Majesty’s Opposition is right that we need to tell the truth. Over the last few years, successive Governments have set more and more ambitious emissions reduction targets, without a plan for how to meet them. We urgently need an honest debate about the different pathways to decarbonising our economy. The road is paved with trade-offs, and we must choose which ones to make.

I want to make two observations. The first is that British voters overwhelmingly support the ambition of getting to net zero. Project Tempo’s research shows that the public care about protecting the environment and want us, as a country, to do the right thing. However, it also shows that public support for green policies declines dramatically when individuals are asked to pay for them through higher energy bills, prices or taxes.

The second observation is that British energy prices are going in the wrong direction, and have been since well before the war in Ukraine. Data from the energy department shows that between 2010 and 2023, domestic electricity bills almost doubled in real terms, and data recently published in the Financial Times showed that the UK’s industrial electricity costs were among the highest in the world, more than four times those of the United States or China, and significantly higher than those of all other G7 economies. This is a profound challenge.

Our globally uncompetitive energy costs not only damage our productivity and economic growth, they risk undermining public support for the transition. If people come to associate green policies with higher bills, it will become much harder to maintain the public support that we need to reduce emissions and tackle climate change. That is why I was worried to read last week that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that Labour’s plans for clean power by 2030 will see green levies rise by an average of £120 per household by the end of the decade. The recent report from the National Energy System Operator also suggested that energy system costs could rise as a result of Labour’s plans.

We ought to pursue the mix of technologies that will reduce energy bills, protect national security and drive growth in our economy. Unfortunately, the Government’s policy will do exactly the opposite. Their ideological rush towards accelerated targets will send prices higher and exclude the development of other forms of clean energy such as nuclear, which would help us hedge the costs involved in decarbonising the grid. Can I press upon the Minister the importance of new nuclear and ask him to set out briefly the position on the Wylfa plant in Ynys Môn?

We must tell the truth about the challenges we face, not pretend that inconvenient facts do not exist. The reality is that many of the Energy Secretary’s current plans entail borrowing enormous amounts of money and spending it on subsidising technologies which are not otherwise viable on the open market, or on importing more products from China. Before the election, the then Opposition promised that their plans would cut consumer energy bills by £300. That claim—which they continue to stand by—is bogus. My fear is that false promises such as that, and their general rush to accelerate the transition, risk undermining the very environmental action which so many of us wish to see. I look forward to hearing how the Minister will address these legitimate concerns.