UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement and the achievement. We regret only that the Government are moving so slowly. I note that this means we differ considerably from the Conservative Front Bench, although I was relieved that the noble Earl’s words were a little less hysterical than the front pages of the Telegraph and the Mail today. If we are going to pursue the reset further, as my party strongly supports, and move towards dynamic alignment across the board—and, therefore, closer association with the customs union, which will have to come next—the Government will need to change their language and spend more time discussing the benefits as against the costs, which my Conservative colleague, the Telegraph and the Mail have stressed so heavily this morning.

I declare an interest. I taught many students from other European Union countries in my last two jobs in universities, one of whom is the President of his country and extremely active on European security; a number of others are now in leading positions in public life in their countries and good friends of the United Kingdom. That is one of the benefits we get from exchanges. On the imbalance we had last time, an active scheme to encourage British students to spend time in other countries would be of enormous benefit to this country. It would lead to people who understand other countries, can do business with them, understand their politics and then enter public service here or elsewhere, to our mutual benefit.

I regret the language of the Statement. It is defensive and therefore wrong. It talks about only “the national interest” and “sovereignty”. I am sure the Minister will agree that the only country in the world that is fully sovereign is North Korea. In other countries, sovereignty has to be compromised by international co-operation. As the leader of Reform in effect makes clear, the alternative to membership of the European Union is not full sovereignty but dependence on the United States, which is not an easy alternative at the present time.

I suggest that the Government should be talking about shared interests, common security, the benefits as against the costs and the fact that our contributions helped save this country money in many ways. When the Conservative Government took us out of the European Union, we had to set up separate agencies and recruit additional public servants. We lost the European Medicines Agency in London, which was a great boon to our pharmaceutical industry, and a number of other things. The benefits absolutely need to be stressed and I encourage the Minister to say to her colleagues, in particular Nick Thomas-Symonds, that the sort of language they are using will not persuade the bulk of the British public that we need to be closer to the European Union.

We now know, on very strong evidence, that we have lost a lot of economic growth since we have left, which means we have also lost tax revenue. On goods and services, we know that we need to go back to closer relations. I encourage the Minister to go further.

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

My Lords, maybe this was not the Statement to bring some Christmas good will, cheer and unanimity across your Lordships’ House. It is a good thing that my language, I hope, will be both positive for the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and slightly more circumspect for the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. I thank both noble Lords. We will continue to rehearse these arguments, as we have done for many years since the referendum, as we seek to undertake our reset. A number of important issues have been raised, which I will address in some detail. I will also reflect on Hansard to see which questions I have missed, either intentionally or by accident—never intentionally, as I am being reminded—and will write in due course.

I would like to engage with this in a spirit of good will. This is a positive thing we are doing: £500 million of additional investment in our young people in one year. It is something to be celebrated. I will engage in the promise of positivity at this time of year and I view it as my own Hanukkah miracle. I will touch on some of the issues raised.

On the UK-EU summit, our manifesto promised to reset our relationships with our European partners to improve our diplomatic, economic and security co-operation following Brexit. Earlier this year we hosted the first annual UK-EU summit, where the Prime Minister and the European Commission President welcomed our new strategic partnership and a landmark deal that is good for bills, borders and jobs. That is what we are seeking to deliver—a partnership that enables us to tackle the shared challenges we face, to boost the prosperity, safety and security of both our peoples, and to help strengthen European-wide defences.

I turn to the core of the announcement. We have made good progress on talks with the EU since the summit, working to implement the joint commitments we made in May. I am therefore pleased to inform the House that, yesterday, the UK and the European Commission concluded negotiations for the UK’s association to Erasmus+ from 2027 for one year—with, as I said, £500 million of investment in our young people. Our association to the programme will open up opportunities for learners, educators, youth workers, sports sector professionals and communities of all ages in our education, training, youth and sport sectors, for both the professionals who work in these sectors and, crucially, our young people. Participants can travel to any European Union member state and to several countries outside it, opening doors to tens of thousands of people across the UK, renewing our people ties with Europe and beyond.

At the summit, we also agreed to work towards participation in Erasmus+ on the basis that there will be a fair balance between our financial contribution and the number of UK participants receiving funding. We are pleased that the EU has agreed financial terms—a 30% discount in 2027 compared with the default terms in the trade and co-operation agreement. This is a fair balance between our contribution and the benefits of the programme. It has also been agreed that the UK’s participation in the programme will be reviewed 10 months after our association, which will include data on the demand for funding in the UK. Any continued participation will be informed by our experience of association in 2027. The Government will now work quickly to ensure that there is maximum take-up across all sectors and groups and that the benefits of our association to Erasmus+ can be felt.

The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, raised an important issue about people’s awareness of the scheme. I live in Stoke-on-Trent, and we must make sure that people from up and down the country are able to access these schemes, so that it is not, as historically it could have been considered, a boost for middle-class children, but is accessible to everyone. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have associations with further education facilities and schools up and down the country; there is a responsibility on each of us to make sure that people are aware of this scheme. I urge all noble Lords to reach out to their communities. The funding streams open in October 2026 and we have time to make sure that people can access this. One of the things I was most delighted to see yesterday was a quotation from the Association of School and College Leaders, which was delighted about this scheme.

The Turing scheme has wider international reach since we left Erasmus, though it was not the scheme that we left. I reassure noble Lords that the Turing scheme will be operating as normal next year and that we will continue to learn lessons from it. Any future decisions on Turing will be brought forward to your Lordships’ House in due course. On international fees to the EU, I am not sure that is something that I recognise, but I will reflect on the noble Earl’s exact question and come back to him.

On today’s coverage in the Mail and Telegraph, it will not surprise noble Lords that I anticipated such a question. The reality is that the European Union has not yet determined any costings for the next scheme, so nobody recognises the numbers that were in the papers today because no such scheme has been rolled out with any such budget. We have been clear to commit to 2027. We will make sure that it works and proves to be good value for money for the United Kingdom and is of huge value to our young people. We will continue to negotiate with the European Union on next steps.

The noble Earl raised the youth experience scheme. As I have made clear in other debates in your Lordships’ House, the Government recognise the value of such schemes. One of the things I find exceptionally difficult when we discuss youth mobility schemes is that the previous Government signed a youth mobility scheme with Uruguay. I do not understand why a youth mobility scheme with the European Union is so contrary to our values that we would not want one. If we can have one with 13 other countries, we can have one with the European Union.

On the Labour Party’s red lines in our manifesto, I hate to disappoint the noble Lord but we have been very clear that we are not rejoining the customs union. Our manifesto set out exactly what we were prepared to do in our negotiations. All our negotiations are through the prism of our red lines. We will not be returning to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement.

On whether the UK is becoming a rule-taker, we have made a choice to align in some areas where it makes sense for our national interest. The EU has accepted that there will need to be a number of areas in which we need to retain our own rules as we make alignment going forward. The details of these are all subject to negotiation. We will be involved in forming the regulations that apply to the UK at every stage, and Members of your Lordships’ House will have appropriate scrutiny arrangements in place.

I will finish on a positive. The expected financial benefits for our economy from having a closer relationship with the European Union are hugely significant. The SPS and carbon-pricing agreements which we are currently negotiating will add nearly £9 billion a year to the UK economy by 2040. The carbon-pricing deal avoids the risk of UK businesses paying tax to the EU on £7 billion-worth of trade. We are seeking to reset our relationship based on what is best in our national interest as a sovereign country. The European Union is our biggest trade partner and the biggest source of economic growth for this country. We continue to work closely with it, in a spirit of good will at this time of year.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that rejoining Erasmus+ will include schools for the purposes of trips and exchanges? If so, will His Majesty’s Government back this up by reintroducing group passports, so that we can put an end to the inordinate delays at the border when coach-loads of children have to get out of the bus to be individually checked?

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

The noble Baroness raises an important point about how important travel is for our young people. We are negotiating bilateral agreements with countries. We have done the first of these for youth travel with France and I believe ongoing conversations are happening with Germany. I will reflect on her comments, but we are seeing positive moves in this direction.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

Of course we have to give scrutiny to any international agreement, but I am sure that, throughout this House, there is wide agreement that this is good news for the young people of this country—there is no question about that. In that context, will my noble friend the Minister reconfirm, in case of any confusion, that this is not confined only to universities but applies to access for further education, schools, sports, sports trainers, staff and so on? Therefore, it is, in my view, an unalloyed good move for young people. Can she confirm the next steps on this over the coming 12 months? Does she have an understanding of the timeline and the next elements in the process?

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

I thank my noble friend. He is right that this is for young people in the round. That is why I was delighted that the chief executive of the National Youth Agency welcomed yesterday’s announcement as

“a significant moment for young people across the UK. With Erasmus+ officially back, we are reopening doors to global learning, cultural exchange, and opportunities that shape futures”.

At a time of global instability, it is incredibly important that we have close relationships with our friends and allies and that we understand that the world is more than our borders. This is for as many young people as possible, and we expect and hope to see 100,000 young people participate in this scheme in 2027. On next steps, the funding call opens in November 2026—I must correct myself, as I think I said October 2026 previously—and will be open until February 2027. There are two pots of money, the first of which will be over £400 million that will come directly to the participating organisations, and there is a £1 billion pot that individuals and institutions can bid into. This is very exciting, and I hope noble Lords will share my enthusiasm in their local communities.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I will focus on the comments in the Statement on electricity co-operation trading with the European Union. Obviously, there are millions of families in this country who are wondering still how on earth to pay to keep their house warm and feed their children during the Christmas period, and indeed in any period. That is not as it should be. We should be much more concerned than we are about this totally unacceptable situation.

The Statement claims that the new co-operation plan that is being discussed will

“drive down energy costs and protect consumers”

and

“drive up investment in the North Sea and strengthen energy security”.

Can the Minister and her colleagues assure us that that really is going to happen, and that it will drive down the price from what it is now and not from the much higher price it is likely to be? This is a trick of statistics being used by the Government, which I do not like at all, and they should be much more straightforward. Is it going to make cheaper electricity for families and industry than we have now? I very much doubt it. Obviously, we want more investment in the North Sea. At the moment, we are paying the owners of wind farms literally billions of pounds not to produce electricity. The system is wrong and must be changed. I hope it will be, with the co-operation of the European market.

Those are the things on which we want some reassurance because, at present, they are not desirable. It is incredible that we are not producing competitively produced energy, in this country of all countries. We have the North Sea as a huge asset that we are not using properly—indeed, the Government are trying to slow it down. It is time we faced in another direction in this whole area, and I would like to hear more about it.

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

Given that we have not touched on this point so far, it would be helpful to update your Lordships’ House. The UK and the European Commission have concluded exploratory talks on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market. This closer co-operation will drive down energy costs and protect consumers against volatile fossil fuel markets. The UK and the EU will work at pace on these negotiations as we head into next year. While these are ongoing, we cannot comment on the specifics any further.

To reassure the noble Lord on how this is going to impact energy bills, joining the EU’s electricity trading platforms will lower bills by reducing trade friction. More efficient electricity trading allows us to make more efficient use of our shared infrastructure. This deal will also support investment in North Sea electricity infrastructure, allowing us to reduce exposure to volatile wholesale gas costs. This is one component of household bills among many others, but we genuinely believe it will have a direct impact. The noble Lord is right: there is nothing more important to communities, especially where I live, than the cost of living crisis, and we need to do everything we can to support families.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, on Erasmus, I remind my noble friend that, as I am sure she knows, we are talking about very large sums of money. It was £570 million in the first year alone, and that is with a terrific 30% discount. When large sums of money are involved, I am interested in who the beneficiaries are going to be. I am encouraged by the part of the Statement in which the Commons Minister said,

“there will be a review of the UK’s participation in the programme 10 months after our association”.

My guess is—and it will of course be tested over time—that there will be rather more students coming from Russell group universities than from FE colleges in the Midlands and the north. To a degree, that is how it must be tested, because the evidence is pretty strong that such schemes can easily become a case of “to them that have shall more be given”, and communities such as my noble friend’s former constituency and mine do not get their fair share.

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

My noble friend is absolutely right that one of the tests of this success will be making sure that my former constituents and his have access to this scheme and genuinely participate. As I said, the Association of Colleges’ chief executive said yesterday that this was “brilliant news” for staff and students of all ages in further education colleges:

“For students, it widens their perspective on the world, opening their eyes to different cultures and different ways of life, and for staff, the opportunity to learn from other countries on how they deliver technical education and skills is invaluable”.


We need to make sure that this is embedded going forward, and one of the tests will be to make sure that working-class kids, too, have access to this scheme.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, the £570 million is a gross number; the net number would take account of grants to our own people benefiting from the scheme. I hope that the Minister will not be too distracted by the ghosts of Christmas past rattling their chains and coming up with absurd estimates of the cost of this scheme. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said, an unalloyed benefit that we are going back to Erasmus.

It is the other bits of the Statement that I would like to press the Minister on. She rightly pointed out that this is of considerable economic benefit, potentially. The Statement and what was said in the other place makes it clear that the negotiations on electricity are intended to move swiftly. If it is possible to achieve more efficient use of the interconnectors, that will be an immense benefit to the United Kingdom and to our continental friends. Obviously, it is crucial that we get the SPS agreement, and it would be good to have a firm link between the emissions trading schemes.

My understanding is that the intention is to do all that before the next summit. But the one thing that did not appear in the Statement was any indication of the date for the next summit. Can the Minister confirm that it will be, at the latest, no later than one year after the first summit—that is, by May?

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

I was doing so well. What I have been told I can say is that it will be happening in 2026, so there will definitely be a summit next year.

We genuinely are moving at pace, and there is the reality that some of the things we are hoping to bring forward, not least SPS, require a number of contributions from Members of your Lordships’ House to get this over the line. On that basis, we will be discussing these issues in some depth. I expect to be doing so with Members of your Lordships’ House, at this Dispatch Box, next year, which suggests that we are moving—in civil service language—at pace.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, as a long-standing opponent of Brexit, I welcome the Statement. I hope it is the first of a number of steps which will improve our relations with the European Union, especially in the trading aspects of that relationship. Without this, the prospects of sustained significant growth are going to be very difficult to achieve.

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

The noble Viscount is absolutely correct. Our trade with the European Union was worth £813 billion in 2024, and it is our most significant trading partner. It is incredibly important that we have a positive relationship with it, and we have sought to do that. The fact that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister held the first EU-UK summit since Brexit earlier this year suggests that our relationship really did need to be rebuilt. We are rebuilding our relationship based on the three pillars of security, tackling migration, and SPS and ETS. I expect to be in front of your Lordships’ House on many occasions to discuss what I hope will be positive announcements.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and others in roundly celebrating this announcement, although we should take a second to reflect on the tragedy of those who missed out in the desert years. Those affected were not only those who might have travelled, but students staying here who did not benefit from having exchange students in their classes and being trained here.

I have two specific questions. David Clarke, professor of languages at Cardiff University, noted that since we were last in the scheme, the bureaucratic hurdles such as visas have become much greater for students travelling. Are the Government working with the European nations to try to minimise those road humps? Secondly, both Scotland and Wales have introduced their own schemes. Are the Government working with the devolved Administrations and the nations to ensure that any interchange is as seamless as possible when Erasmus comes back?

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

The noble Baroness makes a very important point about visas. I will have to write to her about the detail of any changes we will need to bring forward. I remind and reassure noble Lords that these are temporary arrangements for Erasmus; people will be here for less than 12 months and will be travelling for less than 12 months.

On existing schemes in Scotland and Wales, obviously, there are ongoing conversations, but the Taith scheme in Wales is hugely respected and regarded. In terms of accessing and working with disadvantaged communities and those from working-class backgrounds, we all have a huge amount to learn from their successes. Given the nature of these schemes and that education is devolved, these decisions will be a matter for the Scottish and Welsh Governments, but, obviously, we will have ongoing conversations with them.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this great initiative, which is a matter for celebration. I am especially pleased that, as my noble friend Lord Reid said, it is open to all kids. As my noble friend the Minister said, we all have a responsibility to ensure that kids in all our areas, including the Forest of Dean, which is a greatly disadvantaged area, know about this so that they can take advantage of it. At a time when we have war on our continent and people are peddling fear of the other, the way in which this can nurture understanding between young people is vital.

There is one thing that worries me slightly. Of course, we have to have robust finances, and to know that we are getting value for money and that all kids are included. Ten months is a very short amount of time. I urge my noble friend the Minister to ensure that, whatever happens in the future, there must not be a cliff edge; we must do whatever we can to ensure that such schemes are a success.

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

I thank my noble friend for her question and, more importantly, for the work she has done over many years in this area. She raises an important point, but one of the things we need to be aware of is that we are joining the last year of the current scheme, and that the details on the priorities of the next scheme and the countries that will participate have yet to be published. Therefore, there is nothing else that we can join at the moment. I hope that our joining Erasmus+ at this point sends a message to our friends and allies in the European Union and to young people up and down the country that we are investing in their futures, that we are clear in our relationships and partnerships about how important it is that we have cross-country travel, and that we appreciate the potential for cultural exchange.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on getting us back into Erasmus+, something for which many of us have been asking for a long time. I add that it is a complete myth that working-class students did not make use of Erasmus when we were previously a member of Erasmus+.

I have just one question. When the new youth mobility scheme is agreed, will it be properly templated on to Erasmus so that costs, red tape and conditions are kept as low and as simple as possible to further encourage less privileged students whose career plan may want to make use of both schemes? In that sense, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, a year is surely too short a period to assess the overall interest.

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

My Lords, we have agreed with the European Union to work towards the establishment of a youth experience scheme with the EU, creating new opportunities for cultural exchange with the UK and the EU. It is in both our interests to conclude the negotiations quickly and to stand up the scheme so that young UK and EU nationals can take up the opportunities as soon as possible. I cannot give those assurances that it will align with the Erasmus+ scheme as we are still negotiating one of those schemes, but I look forward to discussions with the noble Earl as soon as we have the detail of both.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the introduction of this scheme. What assessment have the Government made of the extent to which the enhanced EU-UK mobility will strengthen and contribute to better collaboration in defence-related research and development? Will the Government pursue further measures to deepen such mobility, particularly alongside wider defence co-operation?

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

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise our security and defence relationships with the European Union. We see even today why that is so important in the ongoing discussions about Ukraine. On how we ensure this is part of our wider collaboration, it is incredibly important that our young people have a shared understanding of the world with young people from across the European Union, and that they understand the threats we face, which is why there is so much to be gained from us rejoining Erasmus+. I will have to write to the noble Baroness with an update on what the specifics will look like with regard to research, but I will follow up in the new year, if she will forgive me.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, this is really good news and I welcome it on all counts, in particular the food and drink deal we are moving towards, because so many small businesses have simply stopped exporting to the EU. Can the Minister say how those small firms will now be encouraged to get back to work and back into selling to the EU?

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

My Lords, a huge amount of effort is going into negotiating the SPS agreement, which will be incredibly important for our trade but also in reducing friction, including between Northern Ireland and GB. There are many positives to this. Those negotiations are ongoing but I look forward to discussing them with Members of your Lordships’ House once they are complete so that we can look at them in detail to make sure that everyone, including SMEs, can access them.

With that, I wish everyone a merry Christmas, chag sameach and happy new year. I look forward to seeing all noble Lords in 2026.

Office for the Impact Economy

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rook]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they monitor and measure the progress and impact of the new Office for the Impact Economy.

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the work he has done to get us to this place. The office’s impact and progress will be measured against its remit, including an increase in the Government’s capacity and capability to partner with the impact economy, an increase in the number of partnerships across the country and an increase in the amount of impact capital committed to places and areas of government priority. The progress of the office against these areas will be monitored through a cross-government ministerial board chaired by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Lord Rook (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. I am sure noble Lords will join me in welcoming the creation of the Office for the Impact Economy in the Cabinet Office. Given the tendency of Governments sometimes in the past to work independently of social investment and philanthropy, I am interested in which areas and departments of His Majesty’s Government will use the new Office for the Impact Economy to foster greater investment and increase collaboration and innovation around important areas of public policy.

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

My Lords, the office is already building partnerships to benefit people in exactly the way my noble friend has outlined. We are working with MHCLG to secure match funding for the £5 billion Pride in Place programme, and with DHSC on the neighbourhood health implementation programme. In the early years space, we are supporting the DfE’s Blended Finance Facility and working with it on the Best Start Family Hubs match fund and of course the better futures fund, the biggest outcomes fund in the world, which will change the life chances of over 200,000 children over the next decade. This is only the beginning. The Office for the Impact Economy really will help us deliver on our promise of national renewal.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of a larger third sector—mutuals, non-profits and charities—rather than outsourcing, for example, special needs or care homes to the private equity sector instead. The Social Impact Investment Advisory Group’s report, which foresaw the setting up of this new office, said priority one was to establish

“visible leadership at both ministerial and senior civil service levels”.

Does the Minister agree that visibility has been rather blurred so far and that, if one wants to attract the wealthy philanthropists into partnership with the government to strengthen the third sector, a great deal more visibility is needed?

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

My Lords, I thought it was the season of goodwill and I genuinely thought there was going to be a positive question. In terms of visibility, let us be clear that the Office for the Impact Economy was announced by the Prime Minister—I am not sure how much more visible or committed we can be. Also, the main Minister leading this is the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, who will be overseeing its implementation, along with my right honourable friend Lisa Nandy, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. This is being led at the highest level, with huge commitment. This is an excellent report, led by Dame Elizabeth Corley. We thank her for her work. We are now seeking to work with her and the wider team to co-design what happens next, to make sure that we can deliver on the promises that can come from the impact economy.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I did not quite understand the Answer the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Rook. I have gone to the website and I understand that the Office for the Impact Economy is going to act

“as a ‘front door’ for … impact economy relationships and general strategic relationships and … delivery relationships”,

all through a “huband spoke model”. Can the Minister explain in plain English what it is going to do?

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

My Lords, I praise the civil servants that are genuinely communicating well in this space. With regard to the hub-and-spoke model, the Office for the Impact Economy is based in the Cabinet Office, working with civil servants across the departments that will be able to help deliver it. We are trying to create a one-stop shop for philanthropists, social enterprises and social purpose-driven businesses so they know one place to come, and then it is up to government to be able to facilitate what they need. We are talking about potential investment— as was established by the report published last month— of £106 billion of assets; £42 billion is already being spent on government priorities. This is to make sure everyone is swimming in the right direction by providing a one-stop shop. I hope that provides a level of basic English for the noble Lord.

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, I am pleased to endorse the Government’s intentional investment in social impact, but may I ask the Minister how the new Office for the Impact Economy plans specifically to engage with faith-based organisations and faith-motivated individuals, including—but not exclusively—from the Christian community, to optimise the reach for common good of such faith-driven philanthropy?

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

I thank the right reverend Prelate. She raises a very important point, especially at this time of year when many people are considering their charitable donations. The UK has a proud tradition of charitable giving and philanthropy and I take this opportunity to thank our country’s faith communities for their generosity towards charitable causes. The Government are determined to create a more supportive environment for philanthropy and we will work to make giving as easy, compelling and impactful as possible. The new Office for the Impact Economy will work with philanthropic foundations and institutions, many of which are faith based, to explore how we can make this happen. For example, where I believe both the church and other faith communities can clearly assist is with DCMS’s efforts on place-based philanthropy. Noble Lords will appreciate that faith communities tend to have a footprint in every community and, when we are seeking to ensure impactful reach in disadvantaged communities, working with faith-based communities will be the most important way of achieving that.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, in launching this new office, Darren Jones noted:

“Change comes as much from the ground up as from the top down”.


He highlighted the crucial role of people who know their local area and communities, and know

“the problems and the opportunities inside and out”.

The issue is that these community groups may not recognise themselves in the term “impact economy”. Can the noble Baroness say how the office will tailor its approach to ensure it reaches not just people who have this kind of language available but are truly on the ground doing the work?

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

This is a genuinely important point from the noble Baroness. There are several parts to this: it is about empowering local communities but also ensuring that there is training undertaken, so that community groups can genuinely access some of the funds. I used to run a national charity and am very aware of how challenging it can be for local charities to access some philanthropic pots of money. There are two schemes where I think that we genuinely will be able to work with communities. The first is the Pride in Place scheme, where we are seeking to deliver over £5 billion-worth of funding in 244 areas. We are talking in this space about £2 million per year for 10 years in specific communities; I should declare that my husband is on the board of my local Pride in Place scheme in Bentilee. We will also hope to work with them to ensure match funding to expand that £2 million to up to £4 million a year, which can genuinely make a difference at the award-based community level. There is also the better futures fund, which is an outcomes-based fund. It is government saying not what needs to be done but what ultimately we need to achieve, and leaving it up to local people to determine how to get there.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, while the objectives of the Office for the Impact Economy are welcome, the creation of a new office is no guarantee of delivery. We have seen how other co-ordinating bodies, such as the Government’s newly reformed mission boards, have struggled to translate cross-government ambitions into outcomes. The Office for Value for Money has been closed down, at a cost of the taxpayer of £1.6 million. What assurances can the noble Baroness give that this office will be different, and what specific measures have the Government incorporated to ensure that it achieves tangible and measurable results?

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

And there was me hoping for Christmas miracles and not for the Grinch.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

Merry Christmas.

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

Thank you for the “Merry Christmas”.

My Lords, let us be clear about why this is so extraordinary and exceptional. We are working to bring together social investors, social enterprises and philanthropists to deliver, using their expertise and ours to make sure that this works. Already, a significant number of assets are delivering. Why do I think this will be so successful? Only last month, Legal & General announced an additional £2 billion of investment in this space, which is going to lead to an additional 24,000 jobs and 10,000 social and affordable homes. When we talk about what this Government are trying to do for our national renewal, it is about 1.5 million homes and homes anchored in communities. This is about delivering for every corner of society; that is what we are doing with the Office for the Impact Economy.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 October be approved.

Relevant document: 41st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, since the publication of the Infected Blood Inquiry’s detailed report in May 2024, the Government have worked to establish a compensation scheme and set up the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, IBCA, to deliver it. Since the compensation service opened last year, IBCA has contacted all infected people registered with a support scheme to start their claim, and made offers of over £2 billion. The service has now been opened to the first claims from living infected people who have never been compensated. I am pleased with this progress and it is a significant step in the right direction toward delivering justice to those impacted. IBCA is now moving toward opening the service for those affected, and for the estates of deceased infected people.

In July, the Infected Blood Inquiry published its additional report, which made 15 recommendations for the Government on the design of the scheme. We immediately accepted seven of those recommendations. The regulations we are considering today will implement the five of those seven that require legislation to achieve. The remaining eight recommendations are subject to an ongoing public consultation, and the Government expect to bring in further legislation next year to implement the further changes following the consultation. The regulations at hand today show that the Government have reflected on and listened to the inquiry’s words on involving those impacted by this dreadful scandal. It is right that we accepted these recommendations and I am pleased that we have been able to bring them forward swiftly.

Hearing the voices of the community is essential. That is why the Chancellor announced changes in the Budget that ensured that infected blood compensation payments are relieved from inheritance tax in cases where the original infected or affected person eligible for compensation has sadly died before the compensation is paid. I am pleased that we have been able to make this change, and that justice is not only delivered but reflected in the way compensation is treated.

I will set out the changes that we are proposing to the scheme in the regulations. These are a result of the Government’s immediate acceptance of some of the inquiry’s recommendations. Regulation 3 responds to the inquiry’s recommendation 3(a) and removes the 1982 start date for eligible HIV infections. This means that anyone who was infected with HIV via infected blood or infected blood products before 1 November 1985 will be eligible for the scheme. Regulation 4 makes changes in line with the inquiry’s recommendation 8(b) on affected estates. Its additional report set out that the time being taken to deliver compensation is disadvantageous to affected people who are older or in ill health. The recommendation is that, where an affected person has sadly passed away during a specified date range, their compensation should become part of their estate. The Government have accepted this recommendation and is going beyond the inquiry’s recommendation, extending the recommended date range by two years to be between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031.

Regulation 6 actions the inquiry’s recommendation 4(e), recommending that the Government remove the need for applicants with hepatitis C or B to “evidence” their date of diagnosis. The date of diagnosis has no bearing on the calculation of an individual’s compensation, and therefore making this change removes an unnecessary burden that will facilitate swifter processing of claims by IBCA. Regulation 7 implements the inquiry’s recommendation 4(d), relating to how the scheme deems the level of severity of someone’s hepatitis infection. Where someone shows a level 4 diagnosis of hepatitis, but no level 3 diagnosis, we are amending the scheme so that they are deemed as having spent six years at level 3 prior to their level 4 diagnosis. This will uplift their overall compensation package and recognises that the burden of evidence should not fall on the claimant in light of the inquiry’s finding on lost medical records.

We have heard from the community and the inquiry that the use of effective treatment dates under the scheme does not reflect the lived experience of many victims. Not all infected people were able to resume work after treatment for various reasons, including continued illness or stigma. Some people received effective treatment much later than when it was introduced. In line with the inquiry’s recommendation 4(c), Regulation 9 rectifies this by removing the earnings floor on the supplementary route exceptional loss award for financial loss. This ensures that a route is available for infected people to present evidence on their actual earnings loss.

The Government recognise that there have been concerns raised about bereaved partners’ access to support scheme payments following the tragic loss of their spouse. In response to these concerns and to the inquiry’s recommendation 9(a), the Government reopened bereaved partner applications to the infected blood support schemes, IBSS, on 22 October. I am grateful to devolved Administration colleagues for their work in helping us make sure we could achieve this so quickly.

One of the key themes of the inquiry’s additional report was the need for IBCA to increase the speed with which it delivers compensation. In order to achieve that, Regulation 10 delays by one calendar year the transfer of responsibility to make support scheme payments from IBSS to IBCA. This will allow IBCA to focus its resources on continuing to build an effective compensation service. I am again grateful to devolved Administration colleagues for their collaborative work on this. Outside the inquiry’s report, Regulation 14 makes a number of technical changes to ensure that the compensation scheme functions correctly, and that its administration is improved. These are minor corrections that do not impact the policy.

This compensation scheme is for people who have had their lives changed by unimaginable pain and suffering. The regulations we are debating today are a direct response to these people’s calls for change, meeting their expectations of Government and carrying forward a sense of justice. As Members of your Lordships’ House, we all share the sentiment that the victims of this scandal should be at the heart of this work. These regulations are a significant step in ensuring that this compensation scheme delivers for the people impacted, as we all intend it to do. I beg to move.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this to the House and going through things so comprehensively. I also thank her for being open to having conversations about the whole scheme at other times, without necessarily requiring us to book an appointment with her.

I have a couple of questions on areas that require clarification. First, is it correct that the compensation scheme does not pay specific damages to people infected as children up to the age of 16, other than a £10,000 unethical research award if the family of the deceased can prove that they were a victim—which is the same for adults? Is it correct that, if the infected child dies, there is no compensation for a lost life? As parents are not classed as dependants, can the Minister clarify what they are eligible for, having lost their child, and how that changes if their child died after the age of 16 or 18?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the progress that has been made by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—IBCA—and the Government in delivering payments. I pay tribute to the work of Sir Brian Langstaff and all those involved in the Infected Blood Inquiry and its additional report. This report made a number of recommendations to improve the compensation scheme. The Government have broadly accepted the recommendations, five of which are given effect by the regulations before us. After the catastrophic failures that led to the infected blood scandal, it is vital that justice is delivered swiftly and fairly to all who were affected.

I also take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness opposite for her letter of 27 November, which addressed some of the questions that were raised when we discussed this matter on 4 November. In particular, I am glad to see in response to my question about the steps the Government and IBCA are taking to ensure that those who should be prioritised for compensation are being identified that the noble Baroness has confirmed that IBCA will prioritise claims in the order recommended by the inquiry.

In line with my colleagues in the other place, I make it clear at the outset that His Majesty’s Opposition support these regulations. There are no substantive differences between the position of the Government and that of the Opposition, or even of the previous Government. However, we cannot forget that we are discussing one of the most egregious and profound injustices: the infliction, collectively, of grievous harm upon thousands of people by the state. It is paramount that we have a scheme which delivers justice and redress compassionately, quickly and fairly. We support the five recommendations that the Government are accepting and legislating for today. I welcome that they go some way to making this ambition a reality.

The changes include: provision to remove the 1982 start date for eligible HIV infections; removing the need for applicants with hepatitis C or B to evidence their date of diagnosis, which does not have a bearing on the calculation of an individual’s compensation; and removing the earnings floor on the exceptional loss award for the financial loss supplementary route, thereby creating a route for infected people to present evidence on their actual earning loss.

We welcome the Minister’s confirmation that lifting the HIV start date means that it will not matter when a victim was infected with HIV, provided that the infection arose from treatment with contaminated blood or blood products administered before 1 November 1985. However, can the Minister confirm that this also applies to those who only discovered or were only informed much later that they were infected, but where the likely cause was treatment before the relevant date? Similarly, can she assure the House that no one who should be eligible will fall through the cracks because of earlier failures in record keeping, particularly those infected as children whose medical records may have been incomplete at the time? We must ensure that no one is denied the compensation they both need and deserve, and I am sure that this is something the Government will wish to avoid.

The Minister will also be aware of the representations from those deliberately infected with haemophilia as part of clinical studies and of their deep concern at the proposed level of compensation for deliberate infection. Will the Minister commit to working with Sir Brian to review whether that component is appropriate?

When we debated this matter on 4 November, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I raised concerns about IHT and the risk that the Government could be giving out compensation with one hand and clawing it back with the other. The Minister said in response to our concerns that she was listening and would seek to arrange a meeting with Treasury officials to discuss this issue further. Can she update us on this meeting, and what recommendations or changes have come out of it? Can she confirm that all infected blood compensation payments, whether made directly to victims or through estates, are entirely exempt from inheritance tax, regardless of the circumstances or timing of payment?

The noble Baroness also raised the review by Sir Tyrone Urch when we last discussed this matter. Can she give us an update on what assessment the Government have made of the recommendations he made and whether any of them are going to be given effect? Can she please assure the House that the changes we are debating today will not impact on the timeliness and swiftness of repayment to victims, given that they will likely impact on the scale of the operation? As the Minister in the other place confirmed, we have moved from the test-and-learn approach to the exponential phase of delivery. Rather than having yet more reviews and recommendations, the Government must now focus on the delivery of IBCA at scale. The scaling up process must be commensurate with the urgency of the situation.

Finally, as we have repeatedly highlighted over the past year, many victims and families still feel that they are in the dark—an issue identified again in Sir Brian Langstaff’s most recent report. The Minister in the other place has given an undertaking that transparency will be at the heart of any expert group going forward. Will the Minister commit to publishing a clear communications plan and to working with IBCA to ensure regular updates and accessible guidance in plain English so that those who may be eligible understand their rights and can access the compensation they need?

I reiterate that we support these regulations but would welcome clarity from the Minister on the points that I have raised. I thank her again for the steps that she and the Government are taking to provide some redress after this terrible saga. We appreciate the need to proceed with care and consideration, but we must not lose sight of the need to scale up delivery so that the process can be as quick and effective as possible. That is the only way to ensure that those victims and their families who have already been failed so profoundly by the state face no further injustice.

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

My Lords, I would usually say I thank noble Lords, but I thank the noble Baronesses—as is our wont when we talk about issues of infected blood—for their points and their continued representation of the infected blood community with unwavering dedication. Many in your Lordships’ House have consistently ensured that the voices of the infected and affected community are given a voice in this Chamber. I particularly pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell—I was delighted to see her in your Lordships’ House last week, and she is definitely on the road to recovery—and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, who has ensured that we always have a human voice, as well, of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Their resolve in seeking justice for the victims of this scandal cannot be overstated, and their generosity of time to make sure that I am fully abreast of such issues has been incredibly personally beneficial.

I also thank my opposite number, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for how constructively we have worked together on these issues to deliver for a community that rightly has limited faith and trust in government after its experiences. The onus is on all of us in your Lordships’ House to make sure that community knows we are listening. I will look in detail at the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whose questions were very specific, as she highlighted. It may be useful for us to have a meeting with officials. I will invite all those who have participated today to attend , but I will also reflect on the points and write in advance of it.

We are here first and foremost to debate the regulations, and I will prioritise the issues raised on them in my response. I am aware of the other points that have been raised and will do my best to address those too, but obviously I will reflect on Hansard if I miss any of them. On the specific points raised, I will start with those from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. These are incredibly important points, and she worried me, when she gave me the detail in advance, that there was a gap that we had missed. So, to clarify for the record—I think that would be useful—someone infected as a child would receive injury, social impact, autonomy, care and basic financial loss awards in the same way as an adult. They would not receive an additional financial loss award for the years when they were aged under 16. However, they would still receive an additional financial loss award for the years when they were or will be aged 16 or over. I hope that gives a level of reassurance.

In the heartbreaking situation when an infected child has passed away, a bereaved parent would receive injury, social impact and autonomy awards based on the child’s infection and infection severity. This will not change based on how old their child was when they passed away. The awards to parents are higher where their child’s infection has caused or is expected to cause an early death in the future. This includes those infected with HIV or levels 3, 4 and 5 hepatitis infections. They would also be the likely beneficiary of their child’s estate under the law of intestacy. All such would likely be the recipient of whatever injury, social impact, autonomy, care and financial loss awards are due to the child’s estate. So there is still a level of compensation, but I will make sure that I also write to the noble Baroness so that she has a copy in writing as well as from Hansard.

I will touch on IBCA’s prioritisation, because that is helpful in this context. IBCA is prioritising those nearing the end of their lives because community members and representatives have highlighted how important it is for these people to start their compensation claims. “Nearing the end of life” means that a person has been told by a doctor or medical professional that they might have fewer than 12 months to live. This could be due to any medical illness or condition; it does not need to be caused directly by an infection from contaminated blood.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

The noble Baroness has said that this is the case for infected victims, but will the same rules apply to affected victims who are nearing the end of their lives? Many of them are: many are dying now.

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

I believe that to be the case. I will confirm to the noble Baroness in writing, given the issues that we are talking about. I would not want to mislead anybody, but I believe that is IBCA’s approach for affected estates as well.

Previous payments are all, pre 31 March, ex gratia. Only payments from 31 March count towards compensation calculations, and no payments from an AHO are compensation. But, again, after our conversations and reflecting on Hansard, I will write to the noble Baroness.

The noble Baroness raised specific points about the special category mechanism, or SCM. I recognise the level of community concern about how the scheme considers and recognises the impacts captured by the special category mechanism, and I confirm that the matter of how the scheme recognises and compensates people for the impacts that make someone eligible for the SCM is part of the public consultation and further regulations. The consultation proposes that anyone currently receiving special category mechanism or equivalent payments through the infected blood support schemes would now be automatically eligible for a severe health condition award. Everyone who receives SCM payments should have been contacted by IBCA already as part of the cohort of infected people registered with a support scheme. I hope that gives a level of reassurance, but I am aware the noble Baroness asked more specific questions about that, and I will revert.

On inheritance tax, the noble Baroness will appreciate that, such was the statement from the Chancellor, no such meeting was required. Private conversations happened about this, reflecting on the issues raised in your Lordships’ House and the other place about how important this was. Representations were made and the Chancellor reflected that in the Budget, and I am very pleased that she did so. So there was no such meeting; I hope noble Lords will appreciate that I had offered one, but it proved to be unnecessary.

On the inheritance tax point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I think it would be helpful if I outlined what we have agreed to. Inheritance tax policy has been widely raised by many Members of your Lordships’ House and many in the community. It was of huge concern. Compensation payments made under the scheme will be exempt from income, capital gains and inheritance tax. This is in line with tax exemptions for the first and second interim payments. At the Budget, the Government announced that further updates to the inheritance tax disregard will be made to ensure that infected blood compensation payments are relieved from inheritance tax in cases where the original infected or affected person eligible for compensation has, sadly, died before the compensation is paid. I know this was an important issue for many members of the community, and I am pleased that the Government have been able to listen and make this change.

The changes mean that inheritance tax credit will be automatically applied to the estate of the first living beneficiary of the infected or affected person’s estate. For example, this would mean that the children of a bereaved partner who inherits their infected partner’s estate and then dies would not face an inheritance tax charge on the compensation they inherit. This will apply to compensation made before or after 26 November 2025. The Government have also made changes to the rules on gifting compensation payments. The change means that the first living recipients of compensation payments will have two years in which to gift some or all of their compensation payment without an inheritance tax charge. This applies to gifts of compensation made on or after 4 December 2025.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, also said that no one should fall through the cracks, and she is absolutely right. IBCA is working with those affected and infected to build an evidence base where people are struggling. Noble Lords will appreciate that as we move from the infected who are claiming to the affected who have claims, some of the evidence base is going to become more challenging and it is right that the case handlers will work with people to help support their evidence efforts.

On the Tyrone Urch review, we are still reflecting on its recommendations and talking to colleagues at IBCA about what support it can provide, because many of the recommendations were for IBCA. I will report back in due course. I can confirm that the changes to these regulations will not slow us down: where enhancements have been made, those will be retrospectively applied to those people who have already received compensation without them having to come forward again, and we do not believe that anything we are proposing at this point will slow anything down.

On the clear comms plan, noble Lords are aware that earlier this year I visited IBCA and met its comms team. I think we can all agree that there have been significant communication challenges from IBCA during this process. I personally think, having seen some of the new materials it is using and the fact that it is using a different level of basic English standard now, as opposed to a level of science, that that has made this much more accessible. We are talking about people who have different experiences and different personal circumstances. Comms is always going to be a challenge, but I put on record my thanks to the women—and it is overwhelmingly women who are answering the calls in the first instance—who are providing huge support, and to the handlers who are based at IBCA, who are doing a very good job, having built an organisation from scratch since May last year to deliver over £2 billion of compensation. There is a long way to go, but I believe that they are on track.

These regulations will action several of the inquiry’s recommendations and bring them into force as quickly as we are able to, but I am very clear that this is not the end of the process. These regulations are only one part of the Government’s response to the inquiry’s additional report. The consultation that is currently under way does not close until 22 January and I encourage all those impacted by the scandal to respond to ensure that their voice is one of those helping to guide us forward. If there are problems with people being able to access the consultation, please let us know. We are making other mitigations, but if there are specific challenges, I want to hear them.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

Let me be clear that my comment was not about the consultation, which is a written one, but the fact that nobody with lived experience was invited to attend the round table meetings looking at the detail.

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

But that has now been resolved.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

With one such person.

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

Okay; I will speak to officials and see what has actually happened.

Many of the points raised today are subject to the consultation. I look forward to discussing these in more detail with noble Lords once the Government have considered the consultation and published our response. In the meantime, I hope the changes we are making today with these regulations demonstrate that we are fully committed to ensuring that justice is finally brought to a group of people who have waited far too long. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 October be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.

Motion agreed.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, a 164-page report really should have been accompanied by an Oral Statement by the Government in Parliament. The report contains much uncomfortable reading, and our sympathies are with those who lost loved ones. We also recognise again the immense role of the RUC, the Armed Forces and the intelligence services in securing peace. Can the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the “neither confirm nor deny” doctrine as essential for the protection of national security? On legacy, the Irish Government have now promised the fullest possible co-operation with the renamed Legacy Commission. What undertakings have they given that this will mean exactly the same levels of disclosure by them and their agencies as is required of the UK Government and their agencies?

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

My Lords, I first put on record my sincere thanks to both Jon Boutcher and Sir Iain Livingstone for an extraordinary piece of work. They have set the standard both for gaining the trust of victims and ensuring that we have an Article 2-compliant investigation, which has given us very sobering reading. The noble Lord is aware that, yesterday, we published a Written Ministerial Statement, and he is aware of the ongoing litigation concerning many of the issues in the report. We will be discussing them in more detail once some of that litigation is completed.

On the noble Lord’s points about our security services, I completely agree with him. As he knows, because I have said it from this Dispatch Box, I agree that our security services and all those who wore uniforms during the Troubles ran towards danger to keep us all safe. They continue to do so every single day, both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of GB.

On “neither confirm nor deny”, the noble Lord is right: the first duty of any Government is to protect national security, and we must therefore ensure that sensitive information that is injurious to the public interest, including information that could damage national security or present a real risk of harm to life, is not released. NCND is an important protection, particularly where disclosure of information might otherwise compromise the recruitment and retention of CHIS, but it also covers a broad range of other sensitive national security activities. There will be no change.

On the role of the Irish state, noble Lords are aware that in September we published a joint framework on how we will work together on legacy. We hope and expect to see that delivered in full.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important and detailed report that is a welcome further step in trying to get to the truth of what happened. Like the Minister, I commend its authors. Families have had to wait such a long time for truth and justice. Do the Government accept the finding of serious organisational failure by MI5, as outlined in the report, and can the Minister say whether she is confident that the current legislative framework and oversight provisions will prevent similar lapses in future?

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

There is ongoing litigation regarding the first point, so I cannot comment. However, I remind noble Lords that since the Troubles, there has been a new legislative framework that includes both the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 and RIPA 2000, which means that many of the practices outlined in the report could never be repeated.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge the debt of gratitude that we owe to the intelligence services, our Armed Forces and the courageous members of the RUC? It was by their action, infiltrating the IRA right to the very top of the republican movement, that many lives were saved—including my own. However, when will His Majesty’s Government put the spotlight on previous Governments of the Irish Republic and their role in arming and supporting the IRA in their terrorist activity?

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

I am very grateful to our security services for keeping many Members of your Lordships’ House safe and saving their lives, including the noble Lord. Let us be very clear what we are talking about here: the Provisional IRA were responsible for over 1,700 murders, and we need to make sure that that is reflected in these conversations.

On the noble Lord’s comments on the Irish Government, I have been clear that there is a new framework and agreement. This is historic, and the first time we have been able to achieve such. I look forward to working with the Irish Government to make sure that they, as we will, bring forward new legislation.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I served on the steering group for Operation Kenova.

The Secretary of State said yesterday of the NCND policy that

“in a small number of cases it has been set aside for particular reasons”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/25; col. 172.]

MI5 knew about Stakeknife’s recruitment from the outset. It knew his identity, his role within the IRA and about his involvement in abduction, interrogation and murder. It knew that murders could have been prevented had his activities been terminated earlier and action taken by the state. Families know that their loved ones were murdered by a man who was allowed to carry on murdering by agents of the state. He is now dead. His identity is known worldwide; it is running in newspapers across the world today. Does the Minister agree that this situation constitutes “particular reasons” and that regardless of any judgments yet to come, Stakeknife should be named now?

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

First, I thank the noble Baroness for the work she has done with Kenova; it is a truly sobering piece of work and an incredibly important addition.

When any agent—active, living or otherwise—is publicly identified by the state, it calls into question the whole premise of the Government’s “neither confirm nor deny” policy, which is vital for national security. On Operation Kenova’s request to the Government to name Stakeknife, the Northern Ireland Secretary has set out in a letter to Sir Iain Livingstone, which is available in the Library, that the Government will issue a substantive and final response to that request after the Supreme Court has issued its judgment in the Thompson case, which is relevant to NCND policy.

I want to make it clear that the alleged behaviour revealed in this report is deeply disturbing, and such activities would simply not be tolerated today.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to thank Jon Boutcher and Sir Iain Livingstone for the report they have brought forward. The Kenova report contains very disturbing findings. In view of this, can my noble friend the Minister highlight the Government’s intentions to address those very serious findings, including the fact that MI5 tried to restrict the investigation and conceal the truth of IRA crimes it knew all about?

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

My noble friend is right that this report contains a range of recommendations; some are outside its original terms of reference, which were in the interim report published last March. Noble Lords will appreciate that many of the issues touched upon are subject to ongoing litigation, so there is only so far I can go in terms of their actions.

I say to my noble friend that the director-general of MI5 again apologised to Kenova for the late discovery of the material in 2024. The House will also note that MI5 itself has initiated an internal review of what happened, and there are the findings of the Helen Ball review, in which she raised a number of points. There is always more to learn, but as I said before, the legislative framework in which these alleged activities happened is not the same as the one that operates today.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, £47 million was spent on the Kenova report, which was made with the benefit of hindsight and makes no mention of the thousands of people who were actually saved from being murdered by the IRA terrorists precisely because of the actions of the intelligence services and brave service men and women. Will His Majesty’s Government rule out immediately the ridiculous call made this morning on the BBC by the former PSNI chief constable Sir George Hamilton for a judicial inquiry into MI5 and its behaviour? Does the Minister agree that despite the endless inquiries, our security forces acted always with the intention to save lives and not, as was the IRA’s intent, to murder innocent men and women?

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

The Government have no intention to commission a public inquiry. The Kenova investigation was conducted over nine years and was Article 2-compliant. We are satisfied that Kenova has completed a thorough investigation. We do not believe there is any further requirement.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caine and others have referred to the uncomfortable reading in this report. Can the Minister confirm unequivocally that the regime for handling agents is today utterly different from that which obtained when most of the events covered by the report took place?

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

The noble Lord is right: the use of covert human intelligence sources is now subject to strict regulation under RIPA 2000 and the CHIS Act 2021. Compliance with this legislation and the related code of conduct is subject to rigorous IPCO scrutiny. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal provides a forum for individuals to challenge the state if they believe CHIS have acted inappropriately or illegally. It is a completely different world that we live in, but we should never forget the context of what we are talking about.

Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 27 October be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.

Motion agreed.

Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

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

My Lords, the purpose of this statutory instrument is to implement the procurement chapter commitments of the UK-Iraq partnership and co-operation agreement and the UK-Kazakhstan strategic partnership and co-operation agreement. Both agreements are part of the UK’s ongoing continuity trade programme following our exit from the EU.

The UK’s trade continuity programme aimed to replicate existing EU trade agreements with partner countries after the UK left the EU. The goal was to ensure that businesses, consumers and investors maintained stability and access to benefits such as preferential tariffs. These are two of the last remaining trade agreements to be updated, and the SI before the Committee today implements the procurement chapters of those agreements.

The UK-Iraq PCA and UK-Kazakhstan SPCA establish frameworks to govern our trade and economic relationship with Iraq and Kazakhstan. The UK-Iraq PCA was signed during Prime Minister Sudani’s historic visit to the UK in January 2025 while the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA was signed in April 2024 by the previous Government. The procurement chapters of these agreements broadly replicate the standards and market access commitments of the original EU agreements. Some of the language has been tweaked, however, better to reflect the specific bilateral context between the UK and these two countries.

The key distinction between the Iraqi and Kazak agreements is that the procurement market access commitments in the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA can be considered to be broadly equivalent to that of the WTO government procurement agreement, to which Kazakhstan is currently in the process of acceding. However, the market access levels in the UK-Iraq PCA are lower than this as they include only access to central government entities.

As part of the process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, to enable parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, both agreements were laid in Parliament on 9 July 2025. The agreements cleared the CRaG scrutiny process on 16 October, and this statutory instrument was subsequently laid on 21 October. The procurement chapters of these agreements can take effect only once the agreements have been implemented in domestic legislation. This statutory instrument will achieve this by updating Schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 to implement in domestic law the UK’s procurement obligations under both agreements. By our adding these agreements to Schedule 9, suppliers entitled to benefit from them will be considered “treaty state suppliers” under Section 89 of this Act. This will provide them with UK public procurement access and rights equal to those afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreements require Iraq and Kazakhstan to provide equivalent access to UK suppliers.

The Procurement Act 2023 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2024 are also being amended to ensure the UK’s obligations under both agreements apply in relation to contracts that can still be entered into under the previous procurement regime.

The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom. The territorial application of this instrument in relation to contracts under the Procurement Act 2023 extends to England and Northern Ireland. The same extends to Scotland, but not in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. The same extends to Wales, but not in respect of procurement regulated by Welsh Ministers. The Welsh Government are therefore making a separate statutory instrument to implement these agreements in respect of procurements regulated by Welsh Ministers. The Scottish Government will be implementing these agreements separately under their own legislation in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. Finally, the territorial application of this instrument in relation to contracts under the previous procurement regime extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

I hope noble Lords will join me in approving this SI today, which helps to update and strengthen our relationship with both Iraq and Kazakhstan. I beg to move.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

It looks as though it is the “Baroness Anderson and Baroness Finn show” again. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the measures before us today. These regulations amend Schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 to implement the procurement chapters in the new partnership and co-operation agreements with Kazakhstan and Iraq. By adding both agreements to Schedule 9, the instrument ensures that suppliers from those countries are treated as treaty state suppliers and that the United Kingdom can meet the procurement obligations we have entered into.

This is a pragmatic measure that helps maintain stability and consistency in the UK’s post-Brexit trading relationships. The agreement with Kazakhstan, as the Minister pointed out, was concluded under the previous Conservative Government and it is right that its implementation be now brought to completion.

The Minister said that the procurement provisions in these agreements broadly replicate arrangements that existed under the previous EU agreements. That continuity provides reassurance for contracting authorities and businesses operating across borders. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the instrument attracted no comment from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and was not drawn to the attention of either House by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

While the regulations are narrow and technical, they reflect the wider importance of procurement arrangements for British businesses operating internationally and for the reciprocal access they secure overseas. On that principle, we are aligned with the Government. I would, however, be grateful if the Minister could provide three brief points of clarification. First, nothing in these regulations diminishes the need for contracting authorities to apply proper due diligence, national security checks or sanctions compliance. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that further guidance will be issued to ensure that contracting authorities understand the risk profile associated with new treaty state suppliers.

--- Later in debate ---

Subject to these assurances, we are content to support the regulations before the House today.

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

My Lords, I welcome you all to the “Baroness Finn and Baroness Anderson show”. I am delighted that you are here with me.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for the very pertinent points raised. I am waiting for a magic piece of paper, and if it does not arrive in the next 30 seconds, I will have to write to the noble Baroness. The one point I can respond to is on the divergence of and impact on the devolved Governments. As I made clear in my opening remarks, there are complicated elements that Wales and Scotland need to legislate for directly, but there should be no divergence from this legislation. On the timescale of those legislative actions, I will have to write to the noble Baroness—but there is at least one magic piece of paper coming my way. Scotland has already implemented the Kazakhstan agreement and will be doing the Iraq agreement early next year. Wales’s will be implemented directly after the UK; that will come into force the day after the SI gets Royal Assent.

I have been given another, absolutely magic piece of paper—anyone would think it was Christmas—and I can now answer on whether the Government intend any changes regarding evidence in regulations to be communicated to suppliers and potential suppliers based in the UK, and when the updated guidance will follow. The FCDO will issue public communications once both agreements are ratified, alongside any guidance for suppliers. Once the agreements are enforced, they will be available to view online in the treaty series of command papers available on GOV.UK. Interested persons can also apply for monthly updates on treaties by signing up to the FCDO’s UK treaty action bulletins, which I am sure, after listening to this speech, many colleagues will wish to do. On the other points, I will write to the noble Baroness.

The Government are committed to enhancing our bilateral relationships with Iraq and Kazakhstan so that they go beyond security to include strength and co-operation on trade and the economy. As I said earlier, the purpose of this SI is to implement the procurement chapter commitment of the UK/Iraq: Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation and the UK/Kazakhstan: Strategic Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. This will provide Iraqi and Kazakh businesses with access and rights to UK public procurement equal to that afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreements require that Iraq and Kazakhstan provide equivalent access to UK suppliers. I am grateful for the support of the Opposition, and I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Official Secrets Act and Espionage

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the report from the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy describes the handling of the Cash and Berry case as “shambolic” and highlights serious systemic failures and deficiencies. The report raises serious concerns about the ability of the Government to pursue those who want to undermine our security. The chair of the committee, a Labour MP, has urged the Government to show the public that they are confident in standing up to adversaries when required. Will the Minister commit to responding to and implementing the key recommendations of the report? Can she now confirm that the Government accept the conclusion of this report that there was clear evidence that China poses a threat to the UK’s national security?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I join her in thanking the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy for its scrutiny and its work in shining some light—where there has been a great deal of heat—on what actually happened. On the key points that she has raised, we will reflect on the committee’s findings and I look forward to debating them with her across this Dispatch Box in due course when we come forward with our response to the report. I remind her of the Prime Minister’s comments at the Lady Mayor’s banquet last Monday about our position: China

“poses real national security threats to the United Kingdom … It’s time for a serious approach, to reject the simplistic binary choice. Neither golden age, nor ice age”.

He said:

“So our response will not be driven by fear, nor softened by illusion. It will be grounded in strength, clarity and sober realism”.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, rather than simply blaming outdated espionage laws, does the Minister agree with me, as a member of the Joint Committee, that, given the parallels in the new legislation, they will need to be carefully handled to prevent a similar outcome happening again? What assurances can she give that these lessons will be learned and acted upon? Is she able to cast any light on the fact that it took eight months for the second witness statement from the Deputy National Security Adviser to emerge—the reasons for which, the report of the committee said, were very obscure?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her work as a member of the committee. I make it clear that we keep all legislation and its effectiveness under review, and we will continue to do so under the new National Security Act 2023. I would like to reassure your Lordships’ House that one of the things we have already done was a change in the mechanism of government: the Security Minister now has joint responsibilities to the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, ensuring a level of co-ordination on some matters.

On her second point about timings, my understanding is that it did not take eight months on the government side. I will talk noble Lords briefly through the timeline: counterterrorism police first approached the Cabinet Office for discussions on the second witness statement on 25 November 2024, and the Cabinet Office then submitted the second witness statement on 21 February 2025. In the months between, the Deputy National Security Adviser was clarifying the request and working with a small number of officials from the National Security Secretariat, but our appreciation is that it was not eight months.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, labelling something an official secret is all too convenient a way for the Government to keep people in the dark. One example is BCCI, a bank that was forcibly closed in July 1991 but there has never been a full independent investigation. After five and a half years of legal battle, I obtained one document called the Sandstorm report. It shows that the Government were funding al-Qaeda and protecting arms smugglers, murderers and others. Will the Minister now ensure that the document is made publicly available and at least put in the Library of this House so that we can hold the Government to account? What is so secret about it? I have put it on the internet and everybody can see it. Why can the Government not release it?

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

My Lords, I usually practise for left-field questions but I was not ready for that one. I thank my noble friend for his question and I will reflect on what he says, but let us be clear: the clear responsibility of this Government, as for any Government, is national security, and we will never undermine that.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the statements of the Deputy National Security Adviser in the recent Chinese espionage case provided ample and sufficient grounds for the prosecution of that case?

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

I put on record my thanks to the Deputy National Security Adviser. He is an exemplary professional and has provided evidence in line with government policy of the time and government policy today. We continue to work closely with him and we are very grateful for his work. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am not noble and learned, just noble. On that basis, given that I am not a lawyer, this is not something that I can comment on, but we were very disappointed to see the case not taken forward.

Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2025.

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

My Lords, this order was laid before your Lordships’ House on 27 October 2025. The draft order is needed following the passage of the Senedd’s Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024. The 2024 Act streamlines and unifies the decision-making processes for devolved infrastructure projects in Wales, including significant energy, waste, water and transport projects. It does this by creating a new consenting regime for these devolved projects, with a number of existing consents, authorisations and licences integrated into the new process. Previously, these devolved projects in Wales have been consented under various pieces of legislation, including the Electricity Act 1989 and the Transport and Works Act 1992. They will now require infrastructure consent under the Welsh Government’s 2024 Act.

The Welsh Government will commence the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 and bring the new consenting process into force next week, on 15 December 2025. This draft order makes consequential amendments to UK legislation that falls outside the legislative competence of the Senedd. The amendments are necessary to ensure that the Act can take effect as intended and are therefore needed in advance of the new process coming into force. As the 2024 Act establishes a new consenting arrangement in Wales, it is not reflected in UK legislation in the same way that existing processes are. This order updates the relevant UK Acts to take account of the establishment of infrastructure consent in Wales by ensuring that it is treated in a way that is consistent with those existing consenting arrangements.

First, this order amends the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. Under the 1965 Act, applicants for a nuclear site licence may be directed to notify relevant public authorities about their application. This power of direction, however, does not apply to applications for nuclear generating stations, which require consent under the Electricity Act 1989. This is because the 1989 Act sets out its own requirements for consultation with public authorities. In line with this, Article 2 of this order ensures that the power of direction in the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 does not apply to projects which require infrastructure consent under the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024. This is because the 2024 Act similarly places its own requirements on applicants to consult with public authorities.

Secondly, this order amends the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. When granting infrastructure consent under the 2024 Act in circumstances where hazardous substances consent would also be required, the Welsh Ministers can deem hazardous substances consent to be granted. This enables hazardous substances consent to be granted without a separate application being needed. Article 3 of this order amends the 1990 Act to create a requirement for the Health and Safety Executive to be consulted before hazardous substances consent can be deemed to be granted by the Welsh Ministers as part of an application for infrastructure consent. This ensures that the HSE can consider the risks that the hazardous substance may present to people nearby and provide science-based advice to the Welsh Ministers. This replicates the process for other consenting regimes, including under the Electricity Act 1989, which require consultation with the Health and Safety Executive in these circumstances.

This order amends Section 130 of the Finance Act 2013, which relates to the annual tax on enveloped dwellings. This tax is payable on properties that are within the UK, classed as a dwelling and owned fully or partly by a company or a collective investment scheme. Where a building is being converted for non-residential use and the conversion requires infrastructure consent under the new Welsh processes, Article 4 of this order ensures that the building will be classed as a dwelling for the purposes of the tax until consent required for the modifications is granted. This is in line with the process for conversions to buildings which require planning permission or development consent under the Planning Act 2008.

I welcome the Welsh Government’s infrastructure Act and the new streamlined consenting arrangements for devolved infrastructure in Wales. This draft order makes the necessary consequential amendments to reserved legislation, helping to ensure that the Welsh Government’s Act can take effect as intended. I beg to move.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this statutory instrument, which provides the necessary consequential amendments following the enactment of the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024. It represents a sensible and measured step to ensure that the new Welsh infrastructure consent system is aligned with existing legislation across the United Kingdom. While this order is by its nature technical, it none the less reflects an important moment in the ongoing evolution of Wales’s governance arrangements. I therefore ask the Minister whether she views this legislation as an expression of confidence in Wales’s ability to manage and deliver major infrastructure projects and, more broadly, whether she considers it indicative of a direction of travel towards further devolution.

The Minister will know, as many of us do, that there is growing concern in Wales that the party which proudly introduced devolution in 1999 now appears resistant even to discussions about extending those powers or devolving additional services. In the last year alone, Members of both Houses have made the case for the devolution of policing, justice, youth justice and the Crown Estate, all to no avail. However, this order shows that effective co-operation between the Welsh and UK Governments is possible and productive. Can the Minister clarify whether she sees this as part of a broader commitment to strengthen that partnership and recognise Wales’s capacity to take greater responsibility for its own affairs?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order to the Committee. The order makes minor and technical changes to UK legislation, recognising the provisions in the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024. That Act, passed by the Senedd in June 2024, simplified the consenting process for infrastructure projects in Wales. As the Minister outlined, energy, electricity, transport, water and waste projects can now proceed through a single approvals process monitored and applied by the Welsh Government. The effect of this order is to ensure that existing UK legislation aligns with the Act. This includes amendments to the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 and the Finance Act 2013. These changes are largely consequential, but they are necessary to make the provisions of the 2024 Act fully operational.

While we accept the technical purpose of this instrument, a number of questions arise. I am very happy to receive any answers in writing if necessary. First, are the agencies in Wales sufficiently resourced to handle the additional applications and responsibilities arising from these powers? Secondly, while the processes are broadly similar to current UK procedures, how will the Government ensure that assessments in Wales meet the same standards and rigour as those elsewhere in the UK? Thirdly, what types of projects are most likely to be affected by this new consenting regime over the next five years? I note the impact on the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, as the Minister would expect me to. Finally, do the Government anticipate this instrument acting as a gateway to further devolution of infrastructure powers to Wales? If so, how will safeguards be maintained to protect the public interest and ensure safety in vital sectors?

Third-party commentators have welcomed the aim of simplifying infrastructure approvals. It is hoped that this will encourage sustainable investment and support Wales in reaching its net-zero targets. That said, clarity and consistency in guidance will be essential if investors, the public and decision-makers are to have confidence in the new regime. Subject to the Minister’s assurances on the questions I have raised, we recognise the technical and consequential purpose of this order and support it.

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

My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their valuable, if a little cheeky, contributions to the debate this afternoon. This order provides for a number of consequential changes to UK law and is necessary ahead of the Infrastructure (Wales) Act coming into force this month. I will touch on some of the points made; I may have to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, but I will make sure that both noble Baronesses receive the correspondence.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, I believe that this order demonstrates that we have genuine confidence in the Welsh Government’s ability to undertake infrastructure projects.

Touching on a related point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, concerning the resourcing of agencies, obviously, that will be a matter for the Welsh Government, but they have received a record-breaking budget response in the SR and have promises in the SR going forward, so they should be fully resourced. As this area is devolved, it will be a matter for them.

On more devolution, the Labour Party’s manifesto at the last general election was clear about the areas in which we were working with our partners in Wales to explore and discuss options for further devolution. What we are seeing today with this SI is genuine devolution in action, with two Governments—one in Westminster and one in Cardiff—working hand in hand to deliver for the people of Wales. I hope and expect that still to be the case after May next year when the good people of Wales continue to vote Labour.

On the point about standards being maintained, we will expect standards to be maintained, of course. I am so pleased to be opposite the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, when we can talk about Wylfa; I was delighted by all her questions in the run-up because she will probably be as excited as many of our colleagues to see the development announced with £2.5 billion of investment and a genuine supply chain that will lead to a generation of jobs in north Wales and beyond.

I will reflect on the other comments made by the noble Baronesses. I close by offering my thanks for the productive manner in which the UK and Welsh Governments have worked together in preparing this order.

Motion agreed.

Ministerial Code

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in the foreword to the latest version of the Ministerial Code, the Prime Minister says:

“Restoring trust in politics is the great test of our era”,


but despite agreeing with his Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards that he would play no role in football matters, he was sent, and responded to, a submission appointing as chairman of the new football regulator David Kogan, a man who had made political donations not just to his Labour leadership campaign but to his general election campaign last summer. In the interests of restoring trust in politics, can the Minister tell us: how much did these donations amount to?

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. Given the fact that this was discussed previously both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, he will be very aware that all donations were declared in line with the threshold, and the thresholds are publicly available. Let us be very clear that Mr Kogan was approached by the previous Government about this position, because they recognised the skills that he had—and we recognised the skills that he had. He has cross-party support and industry support, and we wish him well in his work.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, while I do not wish in any way to criticise proper criticisms of breaches of the code, may I suggest that the intemperate language used on occasion, and references to what are trivial breaches of the code, are often very damaging to the reputation of Parliament itself? Politicians and the media need to be very careful about how they express themselves in this context.

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

I could not agree more with the noble Viscount. Everybody in your Lordships’ House, whether they hold ministerial office or not, has a responsibility to help us rebuild trust in politics. It is incredibly important in a world of misinformation, in a world where we have seen the Horizon scandal and the infected blood scandal, and where we are trying to fix some things that were genuinely broken, that the general public have faith and trust in us, both as the Government and as the establishment, and that we collectively work together to make sure that people can trust their Government.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches see a very large pot attacking a rather smaller kettle. The Conservatives, as a responsible Opposition, must own and admit their own past record on this; on public appointments, including to the BBC board, the Conservatives have a number of answers to give. I am constantly amazed at the Conservatives’ denial that they were in office for the last 10 years.

The Minister will not have seen this morning’s publication by UCL’s Constitution Unit—one of the best sources of comment on constitutional matters—which has the headline, “Starmer’s constitutional timidity”. I encourage her to look back at what the Labour manifesto said on this, because much of what that manifesto promised on public appointments, a stronger role for Parliament and modernisation simply has not been pushed through yet. On public appointments, it seems clear, particularly after the current BBC arguments, that Parliament should be given a fuller role in checking public appointments—Select Committees, for example, which have been strongly supported to vet public appointments as they are made. Do the Government not intend to push through some of the commitments they made in their manifesto, such as proper modernisation of the Commons and thorough reform of the Lords?

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

I thank the noble Lord for bringing my attention to the report; I look forward to reading it. He will not be surprised that, on Budget Day, I have yet to reflect on the report, but I will do so. We are 18 months into a Labour Government that have delivered on strengthening the Ministerial Code by setting out new financial penalties and new terms of reference for the independent adviser, establishing a new monthly register of Ministers’ interests, and establishing a new Ethics and Integrity Commission, which was in our manifesto. Having sat through every moment of our debates, I know that we have been in your Lordships’ House for over 50 hours discussing the future of the House as well as other areas of modernisation. We are acting. This is a hugely ambitious Government with a great deal to do, and we will continue to move forward.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister or the department received any representations from the Opposition—including from their spokesman who just spoke—that Mr David Kogan, with all his experience in sports management, is not an excellent choice? If he is, in fact, eminently well qualified and probably the best person for the position, is it not absurd that, in a parliamentary democracy where political parties contest, someone could be disqualified because they support a political party?

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

I thank my noble friend for his question. I seem to remember that, when the previous Government were in government and since, they have accepted donations from supporters. It seems to be normal that people would want to support a political party; it is a normal part of our politics. My noble friend is absolutely right: to my knowledge, there has been no such representations from the Conservative Front Bench criticising Mr Kogan’s appointment based on his ability to do the role.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, is there not in place an automatic system within government that, when a public appointment is being made by a Minister, checks whether a donation has been made to that Minister or to their political party in general?

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

My Lords, there is a system in place. The Commissioner for Public Appointments undertook a report to find out what has happened in this case and found that the Secretary of State acted in good faith. However, the processes have since been strengthened.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred to the establishment of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, which was indeed a manifesto commitment. Can she tell the House when she expects it, having been set up, to operate fully?

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

I thank my noble friend for his question. Obviously, we are in the process of ensuring that it is fully staffed and set up. I will write to him with the timescale.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that detailed codes of conduct can never ensure good behaviour, and constant allegations across the Dispatch Box of breaches of the code undermine public confidence in the integrity of public life rather than enhance it?

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

I completely agree with the noble Lord. That is why we have given more power and authority to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, who can now undertake their own investigations without being instructed to by the Prime Minister. It is also why we have asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to adopt a risk-based approach, so that it can focus on those cases that present a genuine risk to the integrity of government. There is collective responsibility to make sure that people trust us—politicians and the Government. We have a huge amount to deliver collectively, and people need to know that we are on their side, regardless of which party we represent.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, criticism of the Government’s breaches of the Ministerial Code do not just come from His Majesty’s Opposition. Paragraph 9.1 of the Ministerial Code sets out that

“the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament”.

This morning, the Speaker of the House of Commons criticised the Government for their increasing habit of making these announcements outside Parliament. He said to his local BBC radio station that, in the past,

“if you leaked a Budget you would be asked to resign”.

Does the Minister agree with the Speaker of another place?

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

My Lords, I have known the Speaker of another place since I was born. While I always appreciate the words of Mr Speaker, in this instance I remind noble Lords, from across all political parties, that there is always noise and speculation ahead of the Budget. Mr Speaker has asked the Public Accounts Committee to undertake a review of the Ministerial Code in terms of when business should and should not be addressed first in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord is absolutely right about paragraph 9.1, and the Prime Minister too has been clear that significant announcements should always be made in Parliament.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, did the Minister note that, in his second intervention, the Opposition spokesman in no way made any criticism of David Kogan in relation to whether he was a fit and proper person to undertake the post? Does that not speak volumes?

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend. He is right; I sat through many hours of discussion on the appointment of the football regulator and the legislation which passed through your Lordships’ House, which has been in both the Labour Party manifesto and the Conservative Party manifesto as a commitment. Not only did we sit through many hours of that, but now we have an effort to not support Mr Kogan going forward. He is a positive force for good; he was originally approached by the Opposition Benches when they were in government to hold this role, and nobody in the sector has any complaints about his appointment.