Resetting the UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords on the European Affairs Committee for their wide-ranging and considered report. I take this opportunity on behalf of the Government, and, I believe, the whole House, to especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for securing the debate and for his skilled chairing of the committee. He has proved himself to be the eternal diplomat—something I am not known for. Since the general election, the collaborative approach he has taken to engaging with the Government has been very welcome. I welcome the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, as the new chair of the committee, and look forward to continuing our constructive engagement.

I am also extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate for their insightful contributions—whether I agreed with them or not—which are a tribute to the report and its authors. I will attempt to answer all the questions raised, but with 34 contributions, I will also reflect on Hansard and respond to any issues I miss; the scale and range of our debate means that I will struggle to respond within the time.

This report was an important opportunity to look at the positive progress the Government have made on our manifesto commitment. While welcoming the progress that has been made, it asks important questions on areas such as the security and defence partnership, the SPS agreement, linkage of our emissions trading scheme, a youth experience scheme and potential participation in the EU internal electricity market. It also highlights the important role of Parliament in scrutinising existing and future agreements with the EU.

On progress to date, when the Government were elected, it was with a clear manifesto commitment to reset relations with our European partners. That meant tearing down unnecessary barriers to trade and increasing national security through strong borders and greater international co-operation. I do not wish to bring forth the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, by using the phrase red lines; I want to be clear that there is no return within our red lines to the single market or customs union, and no return to freedom of movement. I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that our red lines were clear in our manifesto. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that we were clear on what that meant.

As your Lordships’ House knows, at the UK-EU summit in May last year, the Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU. This strategic partnership will unlock huge benefits for the UK, reducing barriers to trade, accelerating economic growth and keeping us secure in an uncertain world. It is good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs. We took this decision—exercising our sovereignty—to strike a deal in the national interest. We are making good progress on talks with the EU since the summit to implement the joint commitments made.

I wrote down the name of every noble Lord who mentioned the issue of security and defence, but as it is over 20 names, noble Lords will have to bear with me. I was listening, and I am very grateful for their contributions. At the recent summit, we secured a new security and defence partnership agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, reminded us, it is all the more salient this week as we mark four years since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. This agreement represents a joint commitment to European security built on the long-standing commitment of the UK to support Ukraine and our cross-continent work to protect our NATO allies. We continue to step up on European security, including through leading the coalition of the willing for Ukraine.

This sits alongside the defence co-operation agreements we have struck with our other European partners. Last year the Prime Minister refreshed the Lancaster House agreements with France, deepening our defence and security co-operation, including nuclear co-operation through the Northwood declaration. The Prime Minister also signed the Kensington treaty with Germany, a generational shift in our relationship which broadens our co-operation across defence and security issues, building on the Trinity House agreement.

We are working quickly with the EU to implement our security and defence partnership and have already stepped up our co-operation on supporting Ukraine, tackling hybrid threats and increasing stability in the Western Balkans. Our co-operation is already delivering results. We have worked together to maximise the impact of sanctions on Russia, including jointly lowering the crude oil price cap to curb Moscow’s energy revenues. We also worked with the EU to ensure a successful UK-hosted Berlin process on the Western Balkans in October to promote regional co-operation and deliver security and growth.

Since agreement of the partnership, we have also established senior, structured dialogues with EU counterparts. This is all to ensure that co-operation delivers tangible benefits to European security. We remain fully committed to our continued close co-operation with the EU and European partners to strengthen European security and maintain unwavering support for Ukraine.

As the Prime Minister said at the Munich Security Conference:

“We want to work together to lead a generational shift in defence industrial cooperation … We must come together to … build a joint European defence industry”


and

“go beyond the historic steps that we took at last year’s UK-EU summit to build the formidable productive power and innovative strength that we need”.

Obviously, this then takes us to the questions on SAFE, which were raised by many members of your Lordships’ House, but specifically by the noble Lords, Lord Ricketts and Lord Moynihan, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. The security and defence partnership unlocked the possibility for enhanced UK participation in the Security Action for Europe scheme, also known as SAFE. We entered those discussions with the EU in good faith. We were prepared to make a fair financial contribution that reflected the potential for a mutually beneficial relationship and value for the UK taxpayer. It is disappointing that we were unable to come to an agreement, but we have always said that we will not sign any deals unless they are in our national interest. The UK’s defence industry continues to have access to SAFE under standard third-country terms. UK companies will be able to participate in and benefit from SAFE contracts to provide up to 35% of their content.

Issues related to Erasmus and the youth experience scheme were raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Since this report’s publication, the Government have reached an agreement with the European Commission for the UK’s association to Erasmus+ in 2027, fulfilling a key commitment made at the summit. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, on the benefits of Erasmus, association will open up world-class opportunities for learners, educators and young people, as well as youth workers, sports sector professionals and communities of all ages across the UK. We expect that over 100,000 people could benefit from participation in 2027. We will work with the national agency to encourage people to sign up when applications open, and we welcome the focus of the Erasmus scheme on disfranchised communities.

We will further strengthen the people-to-people ties between the UK and the EU by creating opportunities for young people to travel, to take up short-term work or study, to broaden their horizons, and to get to know new people and places through the establishment of a balanced youth experience scheme with the EU. We are also currently negotiating the parameters of the scheme with the EU and aim to conclude these negotiations by the time of the next summit.

On the costings that were touched on, the UK will contribute around £570 million to the Erasmus+ programme in 2027. This is down from the approximately £810 million we would have paid under default terms. The UK will receive most of that money back to distribute among the UK beneficiaries, which will also have the opportunity to compete for grants from a £1 billion central pot directly managed by the European Commission. This is a good deal for the UK. We have negotiated financial terms which reflect a fair balance between the UK’s financial contribution and the number of UK participants receiving funding.

Noble Lords rightly challenged me on the issues relating to touring artists. This was a manifesto commitment. To reassure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, because this issue was in our manifesto we are consistent and clear on its importance. Just as we recognised at the UK-EU summit the importance of opportunities for young people, we also jointly recognise the value of travel and of cultural and artistic exchanges, including the activities of touring artists. We will continue our efforts to support travel and cultural exchange, and we are exploring how best to improve arrangements for touring across the European continent with the EU and member states. We are determined to make progress, including on the ambition to agree improvements as soon as possible.

I will answer specific questions on some of these issues, if noble Lords will bear with me. The issue of electricity and trade was raised by several noble Lords. Following last year’s summit, the UK and EU have also concluded exploratory talks on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market. Participating in the EU’s electricity market will have tangible benefits for the people of the UK, driving down energy costs and protecting consumers against volatile fossil fuel markets. We are now in the process of negotiating a UK-EU electricity agreement.

I move on to the SPS agreement, a key issue raised by many Members of your Lordships’ House. To reassure noble Lords, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, we are moving at pace on these negotiations. I love the phrase, “at pace”; it is good Civil Service language. The committee’s report also contained recommendations on next steps for the agreement. Let me be clear: the UK is the EU’s largest market for agri-food and vice versa. UK agri-food exports to the EU were worth £14.1 billion in 2024, while UK imports from the EU were worth £45.5 billion in the same year. Agri-food producers are among those most affected by increased paperwork and checks associated with exporting to the EU, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. A food and drink agreement will change that, boosting our exports and cutting costs for importers. We are working with Defra on negotiations and implementation of the agreement. The implementation of the SPS deal will be a matter for Defra.

Let me be clear: the Government believe that in some areas, such as SPS, it is in our national interest to align our rules with the EU. This is a sovereign choice that we make because it will cut paperwork, costs and barriers that have a negative impact on our businesses and consumers every day. We know that there are trade-offs with that approach, but we believe they are worth it. To reassure noble Lords, as agreed with the EU, we will have decision-shaping rights when new EU policies are made. Parliament will rightly have a say on those new rules. Any disputes will be overseen by an independent arbitration panel, not the European Court of Justice. Of course, many of the rules that we expect to be in scope of the agreement already exist in UK statute, with minor divergence between the UK and the EU since we left in 2020. This reflects the fact that we are like-minded trading partners with mutually high standards.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, that we may have to agree to disagree on the issue of growth, as deeper economic integration is in all our interests. We must look at where we can move closer to the single market in other sectors, as well as where that would work for both sides.

I move on to the ETS and CBAM. British businesses and consumers will also feel the benefit of linking our carbon markets, cutting costs, making it cheaper for UK companies to move to greener energy and once again saving the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism charge being paid on £7 billion-worth of UK goods exports to the EU. Where the UK needs access to EU agencies or databases to make the agreements set out in the common understanding a reality, it is reasonable that the UK pays for these services. For example, the UK should make a fair contribution towards the running costs of the EU agencies, systems and databases that administer the food, drink and carbon market linking deals. We will negotiate the details of any financial contributions with the EU. The food, drink and carbon market linking measures alone are set to add up to £9 billion a year to the UK economy by 2040 in a significant boost for growth. We aim to conclude negotiations on these areas by the time of the next summit.

The Government will introduce primary legislation later this year to ensure that we can deliver these agreements and that the benefits can be felt as soon as possible. It is important that Parliament has its say, so where we are making commitments to introduce new laws, Parliament will, as always, play its role in scrutinising the legislation that implements those commitments—I think we have many hours in your Lordships’ House ahead of us. The precise timing and details of legislative agreements are naturally subject to the course of more detailed negotiations that are taking place. We look forward to working with Parliament on the exact arrangements for scrutiny of the legislation as negotiations continue.

Noble Lords will appreciate that we cannot talk about the European Union and our relationships with it without touching on the Windsor Framework—something I feel somewhat informed about by many Members of your Lordships’ House. I enjoy being educated about this issue. I reiterate that we are committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Murphy for his comprehensive review of the Windsor Framework and thank him for reminding us of the impact on Northern Ireland. I reassure him that I hope we will act speedily on the SPS agreement and the other recommendations in his report.

The insights provided by my noble friend are the direct result of his personal investment in the process and his extensive outreach to groups and individuals across the board. While the issues around making this work are incredibly charged in Northern Ireland and here, all noble Lords, especially the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Empey, have constructively engaged to make sure that we can get a way through.

I move to some of the specifics raised. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, asked me about the UK cohesion payments to the EU. We accept the principle that, when the UK participates in an EU instrument, programme or other activity, we should make a fair financial contribution to its budget to cover the costs of our participation. In December, the European Commission set out a proposal to the European Council to open negotiations with the UK on the financial contribution of the UK towards reducing economic and social disparities between regions of the union. This does not represent a proposal by the Government and the details of any contribution would be subject to negotiation.

My noble friend Lady Ashton and others touched on law enforcement and judicial co-operation. The summit package aims to strengthen our law enforcement and judicial co-operation capabilities, making our streets safer and ensuring that criminals are brought to justice. It will support our police officers and help enhance our intelligence and investigative capabilities against murderers, rapists and drug smugglers, including via facial imagery. It will also help ensure that investigations are equipped with the full facts of a suspect’s criminal history and that those are fully utilised to protect UK citizens from harm.

The noble Lord, Lord Barrow, asked about the second-generation Schengen Information System, SIS II. At the May 2025 UK-EU summit, we were pleased to agree a package which enabled further work to be undertaken with the EU to strengthen our law enforcement through new data exchange capabilities. The Government committed in their manifesto to ensure access to real-time intelligence. While at the UK-EU summit it was not possible to secure references to real-time, reciprocal alert sharing for border security and law enforcement processes, the summit represented an opportunity to further strengthen our capabilities, co-operation and relationship.

Many Members of your Lordships’ House, but specifically the noble Lord, Lord Jay, touched on defence spending—a subject that I, as an honorary captain of the Royal Navy, am particularly exercised about too. As the PM said in his Munich speech:

“To meet the wider threat, it is clear that we are going to have to spend more faster”.


We have shown our collective intent in this regard with the historic agreement to increase spending to 5% on security and defence. Noble Lords have had and will continue to have the opportunity to discuss that with my noble friend Lord Coaker on many future occasions.

On the White Paper—a genuine issue raised by the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Taylor of Warwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn—the Government’s manifesto on which we were elected was clear on our approach to resetting relations with the EU, including negotiating an SPS agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks and to help reduce pressure on prices. At the UK-EU summit in May last year, the Prime Minister announced a new strategic partnership with the EU, underpinned by the common understanding. The common understanding sets out an agenda in writing for strength and co-operation with the EU across safety, security and economic prosperity.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, rightly asked about AI. We have had a number of good discussions with the EU on AI, including through the committees established under the trade and co-operation agreement, and are now in discussions with our EU partners about how we take forward further collaboration on AI and other digital issues. If the noble Baroness will indulge me, I will write to her on the specific questions at the end of her speech.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked about training for civil servants. The FCDO has a dedicated team leading work to build Europe capability across government. We are keeping our learning offer under regular review to ensure that we are partnering and influencing the EU and European allies in the most effective way.

I was surprised by one of the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about free movement by the back door and how the European youth experience scheme could be regarded as such. To reassure her, the youth mobility arrangements are clearly not freedom of movement. They are based on strict control; they are subject to a visa requirement, capped and time limited. We already have agreements with 13 other countries, and no one has suggested that we have freedom of movement with them. Any scheme will be subject to an allotted number of places, and we have made it clear that this will be in line with the UK’s existing schemes with countries such as Australia and New Zealand. They will have limits on numbers and length of stay and will be subject to a visa application so that we can decide—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I evidently did not make myself clear. I did not say that the Government want free movement inwards, but, as I understand it, are asking for British citizens who go under the youth experience scheme to the continent to be able to move freely between different EU member states. That is free movement inside the EU for Brits, but it is not reciprocal, because we are only one country.

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

The scheme will have a cap and quota both ways. On fisheries, I will write to the noble Baroness about her specific point because I am aware that I am out of time.

There are a couple of important final points, if your Lordships’ House will indulge me. The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, may enjoy the comments of the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, in yesterday’s Telegraph about how the European Union feels about next steps. I advise him to read her op-ed. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, asked me about European Union membership for Ukraine. That is a matter for EU members, and we are no longer one. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked about the date of the next summit. We are in discussions with the EU on timings, but it will be this year.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for his suggestions in the defence space and, most importantly, for referencing one of my personal political heroes, Denis Healey. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke about wider engagement across Europe with European politicians. I think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister has actively sought to engage in this space and to make sure that we have solid relationships. He has also been a strong advocate, at least throughout the time I have known him, for making sure that we all as parliamentarians engage with our sister parties across the European Union and beyond.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, asked me about Erasmus beyond 2027. The scheme does not yet exist, which is why we have joined year one. We will review after year one whether we will have further issues. I will write to him on group passports. On the youth experience scheme, I cannot comment on the details of ongoing negotiations, but I am sure we will be discussing it at great length in your Lordships’ House when I can.

The Government remain committed to strengthening our strategic partnership with the European Union and delivering real results for the people of the UK while sticking to the red lines set out in our manifesto. As the committee notes in its report, strengthening the UK-EU strategic partnership is an ongoing process. The summit in 2025 was the first in a series of annual summits and, as the Prime Minister set out in his speech at the Munich Security Conference recently, we must look at what more we can do with the EU. I reassure noble Lords that although I understand that we have many different views in your Lordships’ House, I think the one thing that we all agree on, especially in such a volatile world, is that having positive relationships with our neighbours is a very good idea.

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister promised to clean up politics, yet we have had the Cabinet Office investigating one of its own Ministers before belatedly referring the matter to the independent adviser. The process has been conflicted from the outset. The Cabinet Office investigation was conducted by the propriety and ethics team, PET—a team to which a former Labour Together staffer was appointed. Does the Minister agree that such an appointment to PET was plainly unwise, and is the person in question still in that position?

We are told that the Minister in question must remain in post while the independent investigation takes place. Can the Minister here cite where within the remit of the independent adviser it says that he cannot be investigated while suspended as a Minister? Will she set out to the House the precise terms of the referral to the independent adviser and whether the investigation extends beyond Mr Simons’s tenure as a Minister?

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

Good afternoon. I thank the noble Baroness for her questions, of which there were several. Let me see whether I can assist her with some of her concerns.

First, I place on record my thanks and the thanks of the Government to the civil servants who have so diligently undertaken their work. The noble Baroness will be aware that civil servants are bound by the Civil Service Code, and that therefore all their actions are impartial. Given some of the questions, it is important that we do not cast aspersions on their impartiality or their ability to do their roles without fear or favour.

On the appointment on a former member of staff from Labour Together to the team, I would like to clarify that the post in question sits within the wider propriety and constitution group, not in the propriety and ethics team. That member of staff had nothing to do with the fact-finding exercise that was undertaken by the Cabinet Office.

To confirm the process, what has happened is a fact-finding mission by the propriety and ethics team, the findings of which were discussed with the Prime Minister, with the recommendation that the independent adviser on ethics undertake a process. Sir Laurie Magnus is now undertaking that process, and I would expect him to report soon. Noble Lords will be aware that all his publications are placed in the public domain, so we will all be able to read his recommendations.

On the role of the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, I hate to say it but the clue may be in the name: it is on ministerial standards. Sir Laurie Magnus can investigate only Ministers, as has always been the case. There is no such thing as a suspended Minister; there is a Minister or not a Minister. Therefore, he is undertaking an investigation into the Member in the other place as a Minister.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the serious questions about the behaviour of Josh Simons, who is now a Minister, and the inappropriateness of his pursuit of particular journalists are now under investigation, and we support that investigation. I want to ask a wider question about the transparency of funding for third-party campaigns. Why on earth was Labour Together so protective about its funding and will we now be told where its funding was coming from? Will the Government take the opportunity of the elections Bill, now published, to ensure that third-party campaigns are caught by the requirement for transparency of funding? This is a question across the spectrum, as the Minister will remember. The Free Speech Union, for example, recently took out an emergency injunction to prevent its funding being leaked. In a democratic society, we should be told where these third-party campaigns are getting their money from.

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

The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point that we have discussed in recent weeks. He will be aware that the elections Bill has now been published. I should declare that I have, historically, been responsible for a third-party campaign, HOPE not hate, and that, until the general election, I used to run Index on Censorship. The noble Lord will appreciate some of my concern about recent events. To be clear, the questions pertaining to the actions of Labour Together are a matter for Labour Together, not a matter for the Government. It is an independent organisation, subject to its own governance structures, and noble Lords will be aware that it has its own reporting arrangements. On the wider point, it is something that Members of your Lordships’ House will be discussing in great detail when the elections Bill is in front of us.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot begin to express how appalled I am that attacks should have been made upon independent journalists investigating a matter which was a legitimate matter to be investigated by the media. I should declare immediately that I am on the high-level legal panel that advises the Media Freedom Coalition, a global coalition of 51 countries that are seeking to protect journalists. It is quite shocking that any person holding a leadership position should be attacking journalists, when we know that independent journalism is fundamental to democracy and our security, and absolutely something that this Government and any Government should be protecting. I really am concerned at how thin this investigation might have been—it did not go deep enough. The funding has been raised, and what the funding is about, but I am asking the representative on the Front Bench to explain to us how deep this investigation was. This goes to the heart of our democracy. Attacking journalists—good journalists—should never take place.

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

My noble friend and I worked together when I was the chief executive of Index on Censorship, and in fact I was a member of the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists under the previous Government, which, under the current Government, is co-chaired by Jess Phillips MP and Steph Peacock MP. My noble friend will be aware that we announced yesterday that the Media Freedom Coalition will be co-chaired by the UK for the next two years. I appreciate and share many of her concerns. The investigation that is currently under way is about the actions of Josh Simons as a Minister. My noble friend will be aware that there are other investigations ongoing, outside government, related to the actions of APCO, and Labour Together obviously has its own governance issues to deal with.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I point out that the Minister has just highlighted the flaw in this process. When the Prime Minister makes a decision about the continuation of Mr Simons as a Minister, will he have just the information provided by the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, or will he look at Mr Simon’s behaviour when he was at Labour Together? As the noble Baroness has just said, his actions in that organisation appear to have been an attempt to smear journalists. If it is found that he did that, that is what would make him not fit to be a Minister. Is the Prime Minister going to look at that when he makes his decision?

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

My Lords, I would hope that the Prime Minister will use both the recommendations from Sir Laurie Magnus as well as every other form of information available to him.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, this House does not question the Minister’s commitment to press freedom, but, clearly, we must judge the Government on actions rather than words. Although in this case the threat of legal action does not appear to have been deployed, she will know that the anti-SLAPP legislation is critical to the protection of press freedom. In opposition, her party were very much committed to this legislation, and they have said that they are committed to it, but there are reports that we will not see it in the next King’s Speech. Can she give us an update on that?

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

The noble Baroness is even more aware than I am that it is well above my pay grade to comment on the contents of the next King’s Speech. But she will be aware that I actively campaigned on the issue of anti-SLAPP legislation alongside many other Members of your Lordships’ House, and I know that my colleagues in the department share similar commitments.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. To answer the point made earlier, when our website was subject to a cyber attack and the names of our, for the most part, small donors—who had donated to campaigns such as defending Hamit Coskun, on trial for burning the Koran—were illegally published by an extreme criminal protest group, we felt we had no choice but to take out an injunction to stop their names being published. It would have been a breach of their privacy.

Two current Labour Peers are directors of Labour Together and were directors when Josh Simons took the decision to fund APCO. Has the Minister taken the opportunity to discuss Josh Simons’ behaviour with those Labour Members?

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

I thank the noble Lord for bringing that to my attention. I am not aware of the Members of your Lordships’ House to which he is referring, but if he would like to speak to me outside the Chamber, I look forward to that conversation.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office to an Urgent Question in another place on the Government’s response to the humble Address agreed by the House of Commons on 4 February 2025. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, last week, the House made a humble Address to His Majesty for the Government to disclose material surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. On Monday, my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister updated the House on further action that the Government are taking.

My right honourable friend confirmed that the Government will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced Peers, and that Peter Mandelson will be removed from the list of privy counsellors. He also explained how we have changed the process for relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles. He also set out other areas in which we recognise the need to go further, including tightening transparency and lobbying.

In that Statement, my right honourable friend also set out how the Government are responding to the humble Address Motion, and I am pleased to provide a further update to the House today. The Government will comply fully and publish documents as soon as possible. As I said in the House last week, we welcome both the principle and content of that Motion, and we will deliver on it as soon as we can.

As such, departments have been instructed to retain any material that may be relevant, and work is under way to identify documents that fall within the scope of the Motion. We will do so as soon as possible when the House returns from recess.

In line with the Motion passed by this House, where the Government consider that documents may be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations, the Cabinet Office will refer that material to the independent Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister has written to the ISC, and senior officials have met the committee to discuss what it requires in order to fulfil that role. As I said in the House last week, full resources will be made available to ensure that that process happens, and we will work with the committee to explain the Cabinet Office’s process for providing material relating to national security or international relations. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its work, and we commit to full engagement with it to ensure timely and effective release.

The House will also be aware of the statement from the Metropolitan Police regarding the ongoing police investigation. That statement made it clear that the

‘process to decide which documents should ultimately be published remains a matter for … parliament’.

That is absolutely right, and we agree, but as the House would expect, the Government rightly do not wish to release anything that may undermine an ongoing police investigation. As such, we are working with the police as they conduct their inquiries to manage this process. I think that is the right way forward, Mr Speaker, and I hope you and the House agree.

In conclusion, the Government continue to take this matter incredibly seriously and, given the nature of the issues at stake and the scope of material in play, we will comply fully and deliver this material as quickly and transparently as possible. The Government will keep the House updated as they do so, and my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will publish a Written Ministerial Statement later today”.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Events have moved on somewhat since the humble Address on 4 February. Then, it was Lord Mandelson; now, it is the noble Lord, Lord Doyle. Unless the vetting process has changed recently, this is a question not about process but about the Prime Minister’s judgment. I do not think the House wants to hear a repeat of what we have heard all week, about how the Prime Minister is such a decent man—that is not the point in question. The point in question is the Prime Minister’s judgment.

The Prime Minister now needs to appoint a new Cabinet Secretary. What specifically will be different this time, and has the updated request in the other place, asked for by today, been provided?

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

I thank the noble Baroness. She knows more than I do, outside of media speculation, about the appointment of a new Cabinet Secretary. I will not comment on any speculation regarding the position of the Cabinet Secretary or anyone who may or may not ever hold that role. However, the question from the noble Baroness was about the integrity and judgment of the Prime Minister. Noble Lords will be aware of why I am in your Lordships’ House: it is because of a horrible chapter in my party. From 2020, when I lost my seat, the Prime Minister asked me to work with him to root out antisemitism from my party. The Prime Minister underpromised and overdelivered. I trust the Prime Minister and I trust his political judgment. He is not just a nice and good man; he is a very good Prime Minister.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the degree of transparency that is happening over the Mandelson appointment. We stress as strongly as we can that the maximum amount of transparency is now needed to restore public confidence and trust. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned that events have moved on. Events will continue to move on for some time on the broader Epstein issue. We have already heard about flights in and out of Britain; we will no doubt hear more names of people—possibly in British politics, very likely in British financial and company circles—which will continue to come out. All of us share a responsibility in making sure that public confidence is not cut further. I make a plea to those in all parties not to be too partisan about the way we handle this, because trust in democracy as a whole is now at stake.

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

The noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the things I find so distressing about the events of recent weeks is that we keep forgetting that the victims have to live and breathe every part of this time and time again, ad infinitum, both because of the way in which this is coming out, with the release of the files, and because of some of the associated events that have occurred. It is right and proper that we remember there is a responsibility on every Member of both your Lordships’ House and the other place to rebuild trust in politics, which, let us be honest, is at an all-time low, as we have discussed in your Lordships’ House in recent days. This helps nobody except those people who seek to undermine our core democracy and our British values. We need to work together to fix what is so clearly now broken, but we also need to make sure the victims are at the heart of everything we do.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows, Sir Lindsay Hoyle said that the ISC is completely separate and independent, so there should be no barrier to releasing the information. At the same time, the Minister for the Cabinet Office is supposed to have released a Written Statement today giving more details. As of a minute ago there had been no publication, going completely against the protocols of Parliament and the guidance by the Cabinet Office. When will the information start to be released to the ISC and when will that Written Statement be published? Time is ticking.

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

Time is indeed ticking, but the noble Baroness will be aware we still have two more debates in front of your Lordships’ House before the House rises. The Written Ministerial Statement will be published today, as I said.

On the independence of the ISC, we are incredibly lucky to have Members of your Lordships’ House on the committee, led by my noble friend Lord Beamish. I would never question either his integrity or his ability to do the job. As we laid out, and its correspondence from yesterday makes clear, engagement has already happened. There were meetings between very senior members of the Cabinet Office and of government with members of the ISC on Tuesday, and the process has started. On the timing, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office made clear in the other place, we expect the process on the documentation to continue at pace—and I do not mean at Civil Service pace, I mean at pace—after the Recess.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, as a member of the ISC, I note that my noble friend the Minister did not say anything about my integrity, which is a bit worrying. I make it absolutely clear that deciding what is in scope to be released is totally for the Cabinet Office. The ISC will have nothing to do with that whatever; it will see only the material that the Cabinet Office says that it cannot release because it includes intelligence or foreign affairs. Those will be the only things we look at.

On independence, we have already said that we will not be working in conjunction with the Cabinet Office. We are completely independent. We can be quite bolshie about things, which is good. We will look at it totally separately and work through at pace, as soon as this comes from the Government, where there are difficulties about the Met Police and things such as that. As soon as it starts coming our way, we will work on it.

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

I thank my noble friend—the idea he could be bolshie would be completely beyond my appreciation of him. He should take it as a given that I consider him to be a man of great integrity. After all, he is a senior officer in our senior service. I will always appreciate and accept him in that way.

What my noble friend said about the role of the ISC is absolutely correct and aligns with my understanding. Obviously, the ISC met with the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, the FCDO Permanent Secretary, the Deputy National Security Adviser and the acting director-general of propriety and ethics this week to set out how this will work. That meeting was considered fruitful and constructive, and I hope that, in the coming weeks, the relationship will continue in that vein.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the National Security Adviser, who is not a civil servant and was very deliberately chosen by the Prime Minister to be a special adviser, will have no involvement in the scrutiny of what information is going to be released, and that it will be entirely in the hands of the Cabinet Secretary, subject to the process agreed by the ISC?

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

I have been very clear on who participated in the meeting on Tuesday. On the role of the National Security Adviser, who is a man of huge experience and great integrity, I am not aware of any specific role for him, but if that situation changes I will update your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to new legislation to remove peerages from disgraced Peers. When might we expect to see that legislation?

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

I thank the noble Baroness. She is absolutely right. The reality is that we need to make sure that any process of getting to the point of legislation on something that is so important to Members of your Lordships’ House is done through consultation and engagement with the appropriate bodies, and that conversations are had in the usual channels. We want to work at pace to make sure that future legislation is in front of your Lordships as quickly as possible, but we want to make sure we get it right, as the Lord Privy Seal said on Tuesday. We will definitely see it after the Recess; I just do not know when in terms of the specific dates. I look forward to working with the usual channels to make sure that the consultation is as broad as possible and that noble Lords see the legislation as soon as it is ready.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that legislation to do with bringing the House into disrepute will not cut across differences of opinion, differences of political views, and the absolute principles of freedom of speech and parliamentary privilege?

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

I absolutely will. The noble Lord and I may not always agree on certain issues; I do not believe we did when we were in the other place either. However, that is what this debating Chamber is for. That is the principle of Parliament. It is so that we can argue with each other to make sure that legislation is better. That is the role of your Lordships’ House. I do not think that anybody would ever suggest that we should limit our own freedom of speech or expression, nor would I expect any such suggestions ever to be in legislation that would pass your Lordships’ House.

Civil Service Pensions: Capita

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what actions they are taking in light of recent reports of problems arising from the transfer of Civil Service Pensions administration to Capita.

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

My Lords, the service being experienced by some members of the Civil Service Pension Scheme is totally unacceptable, and I apologise for the distress caused to members. We have established a recovery taskforce led by HMRC’s Second Permanent Secretary and have deployed a 150-person government surge team to help to support recovery of this service. Interest-free bridging loans of £5,000, and up to £10,000 exceptionally, are available for those in hardship. We are holding Capita to account through rigorous performance indicators and financial penalties.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer and I am pleased to hear that the Government are seized of the seriousness of the situation. I hope my noble friend has had the opportunity to read the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, when MP after MP, speaking on behalf of their constituents, described the extreme circumstances that they were facing, from the bereaved not receiving death benefits to new pensioners having to wait months for their benefits. Obviously, the priority must be to get benefits to members. However, does my noble friend agree with me that perhaps the answer lies in the Labour Party’s commitment to bring about

“the biggest wave of insourcing of public services for a generation”?

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

My Lords, it might be helpful if I lay out what the Government are doing. I know that many Members of your Lordships’ House may have been contacted for details, not least because they may be members of this scheme. If there are specific concerns or cases that people have raised with Members of your Lordships’ House, I have sought assurances that we will have the same access to the services being provided to MPs for casework in this instance and can share details with noble Lords. As regards the contract and the issue of insourcing, this contract was signed in November 2023 and came into place last year. While there may be questions about insourcing and other contracts, that simply is not going to be able to be done with this contract.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the transfer of British Army recruiting to Capita was a total shambles. What lessons were drawn from that experience and what precautions were put in place before handing Capita the responsibility for the administration of Civil Service pensions?

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

My Lords, I think many of us have had different experiences with Capita in different contracts over time. I fear that I may be on the record not calling it “Capita” in other parts of Parliament. Specifically, noble Lords may be aware that the Public Accounts Committee in the other place raised concerns about this contract last summer and therefore a whole series of assurance reviews were undertaken and put in place. There are ongoing issues about what has happened and how it has happened, but the priority at this point has to be how we prioritise those who are waiting for deferred salary, but also, at the most extreme end, people who have died in service and who have taken ill-health retirement. To reassure noble Lords, the recovery plan expects that those cases will have been caught up and dealt with by the end of this month, and the hardship loans have started to be paid this week.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, the Cabinet Office told the Public Accounts Committee last year that it was aware of very significant problems with Capita’s preparations to take over the contract on 1 December and that the Cabinet Office had a contingency plan ready to use if necessary. Why, therefore, did the Cabinet Office decide to go ahead with the 1 December transfer to Capita rather than invoke its contingency plan?

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

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that this was discussed by the Public Accounts Committee last year. Following that, and the assurances we got before it went live, the Paymaster-General met with Capita and it confirmed 194 full-time equivalent staff put in place to mitigate delays in automation testing, contingency plans and triaging arrangements, and then a series of independent assurance reviews were undertaken in advance. That is not to say that there are not now serious concerns about what has happened in the last month.

To be clear, our priority at this point is fixing what is broken and making sure that the system stands up. This is a very complicated pension system: it is the third-largest in government. However, I am sure that there will be numerous opportunities to discuss what went wrong and what we need to learn from this. But I want to assure noble Lords that we are taking this with the utmost seriousness, which is why Angela MacDonald, the Second Perm Sec at HMRC, is leading the recovery taskforce. There is a 150-person government surge team supporting the Capita contract, and we are working with Capita and meeting it every day to make sure that these KPIs are being met.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that one of the areas that will be prioritised—I do not know whether she is aware of this—is that former Civil Service employees who are living overseas now cannot access the online portal, so, in addition to not being able to get through on the telephone, they cannot use the online service at all. Can that be fixed as a matter of absolute urgency for those people?

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

I can reassure the noble Baroness that, as part of the recovery taskforce timetable, we expect that the online portal will be up and running in its completion at the end of next month. By the end of this month we are prioritising dealing with the people who cannot access money and those who desperately need it in terms of hardship. So, yes, I can give an assurance that by the end of next month the portal will be fully operational.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, in the wake of the Post Office scandal, we have seen the Government continuing to give contracts to the company that behaved so badly in relation to Post Office employees. Can the Minister assure the House that Capita will not get the same sort of treatment and that its behaviour in this particular contract will be used in evidence when weighing up similar contracts?

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

With regard to Fujitsu, I think the noble Baroness will be aware that there are ongoing issues that relate to the Horizon scandal. With regard to Capita, there are two companies at play here: the company and whether it fulfilled its responsibilities for the previous provider and what Capita actually inherited, which was double the backlog that it was expecting. So there are more complex issues at play here and I am sure that, in the coming months, we will be discussing this in great detail in your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, whatever the failings of the contractor, the agreement will contain options for the contractee, but those potential remedies are only effective if the contracting authority itself is on the case relentlessly. Can the Minister tell the House what concrete steps the Civil Service has taken over the years to improve the quality of its contract management? No well-run business would tolerate a contractor underperforming in this way, so why should the Government allow such behaviour?

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

I want to be very clear that this was a contract signed by the noble Baroness’s Government in 2023, and we are now managing the contract that they signed. As regards where we are in holding Capita to account, we have withheld £9.6 million in transition payments up until this point, from a contract value over seven years of £285 million. That is a significant withhold at this point. We are making sure that Capita is meeting its KPIs and we are meeting it every day as part of the recovery taskforce. However, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that a great number of public procurement challenges relate to the original contract and all this needs to be looked at in the round.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, the challenge of contacting many people affected by this is that some of them may not be digitally proficient and may be digitally excluded. What measures are the Government putting in place to make sure that those who are digitally excluded or not digitally proficient can be contacted and made fully aware of the issue?

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

The noble Lord is absolutely right and there are various mechanisms being put in place, not least the call centre, which people should be able to access. I want to touch on something explicitly because the noble Lord has raised an important point. Some of the most heartbreaking issues that have come to light relate to people who have experienced death in service and bereavement. Therefore, they are receiving calls but not necessarily with the data on service, never mind their digital proficiency. So we have asked government departments to engage directly with the families of their former staff, to arrange the hardship payments in that case, and individual government departments that were the original employers are managing that, which is how we are able to ensure that the money is getting into people’s bank accounts within days, not weeks or months.

Think Tanks: Funding

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the level of transparency required for the funding of think tanks, including in relation to funding from abroad.

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

My Lords, it is for each individual think tank to publicise and declare their sources of funding. Think tanks with charitable status must follow Charity Commission guidance, ensuring political activity remains subsidiary and exclusively furthers their charitable purposes. The Government are committed to responding to threats of foreign interference in our democracy. We eagerly await the findings of Philip Rycroft’s independent review into countering foreign financial influence, which will report by the end of March.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, for 25 years, political parties have had to declare their significant sources of income, but so-called think tanks that promote the causes of some political parties, and undertake research and produce reports helpful to them, do not have to declare any such funding. The right-wing think tanks based at Tufton Street refuse to declare their sources of funding but have been linked with the fossil fuel industry, property developers, tobacco companies and dark-money trusts in the US. Since 2012, anonymous foundations in the United States have poured over $14 million into these groups. Money to them is also filtered via charities. Will the Minister confirm that the elections Bill will tackle this anomaly and make such funding completely transparent?

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

I thank the noble Lord for his work in this space to make sure that we have faith and trust in the many democratic institutions that are part of the wider ecosystem. On the substance of his question, electoral law already covers think tanks that donate or spend during regulated election periods. Our reforms will ensure that those with a genuine UK connection can contribute to our democracy—for instance, by requiring recipients to undertake “know your donor” due diligence to guard against illegitimate foreign funding. The Government are committed to protecting our democracy from foreign actors. As I said, the Rycroft review will form a vital part of this work. I look forward to discussing this—over many hours, probably—in your Lordships House when the legislation is in front of us.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation—one of those institutions that occupies an address in Tufton Street. I can declare most absolutely that the foundation has never and will never take money from the fossil fuel industry. But if changes are afoot in this whole field—the Minister said clearly that if institutions are involved in the political field, they are already caught by regulations requiring reporting to the Electoral Commission—let us hope they apply as well to the left-wing charities that some would prefer, if they are to apply to right-wing charities that some do not like.

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

I am not sure there was a question in there, but I will take the opportunity to reassure your Lordships that, just as CC9 guidance for the Charity Commission applies to every charity, regardless of their charitable objectives, and just as the electoral law applies to every third-party campaigner, the issue is making sure that people who actively participate in our elections are duly registered as third-party campaigners.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, on transparency, is the Minister aware of the Fundraising Regulator’s concerns about the registration of very small community interest companies at Companies House? They prefer that route of registration in order to avoid Charity Commission oversight and evade all accountability in terms of fundraising. I understand that the Government are in talks with the Fundraising Regulator and others to improve that situation. Can she tell the House when those talks might come to an end?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am afraid I am not in a position to update her on the timescale or the development of those talks, but I will make sure that she gets an answer.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest: I used to work for the all-party think tank Chatham House, which always declares its donors, as all partisan or non-partisan think tanks should. The Minister may have noticed that, some days ago, the Free Speech Union took out an emergency injunction to prevent the publication of its donors. We are talking about a range of bodies which are partisan think tanks, lobbies trying to influence the political debate, and third parties, in effect, and we need to tighten the rules on those bodies. It is money coming in from the United States and the UAE, as well as from hostile states such as Russia and China in much smaller numbers. Some of the money coming in from the Gulf states to the Blair Foundation, I think, is very considerable. Should there not be tougher rules to make sure that transparency is insisted on in all cases?

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

The noble Lord will be aware that last year, we published our anti-corruption strategy, which outlined the risks posed by corrupt actors who are seeking to influence UK institutions or launder their reputations by engaging in some organisations. As I have said before from this Dispatch Box, we have also recently launched the Counter Political Interference and Espionage Action Plan, which addresses how some state actors use different elements of the state. But the one thing that is incredibly important within the context of all these issues is that fundamentally, our country is run by the Government, and it is Ministers who make final decisions, supported by an impartial Civil Service. Those aspects are key and, while engagement with wider stakeholders is incredibly important and is covered by the Ministerial Code, it is about the integrity of our Ministers and making sure that we have a consistent, impartial Civil Service.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the only way to address this to require all think tanks to publish annual reports on where their sources of funding are coming from? It is clear that many have a political agenda, and it is important for our democracy that they are transparent.

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

My Lords, if a think tank is a charity, it is subject to regulation by the Charity Commission. If it is engaging in election activity, it is subject to the Electoral Commission for any spend over £10,000 and donations over £700. But the noble Lord raises an important point, which is why we asked Philip Rycroft to undertake his review, and I look forward to reading it at the end of March.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, think tanks plays an important role in advancing democratic engagement by developing ideas and policy. There is currently no legal requirement for them to disclose their funders, and imposing such a requirement on charities and research institutes would risk a disproportionate intrusion into civil society. The ability of organisations across the political spectrum to contribute freely to public debate is an important part of our civic strength. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government recognise the value of the current arrangements in enabling think tanks to carry out this work and that they have no plans to change that existing regime?

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

I hate to disappoint the noble Baroness, but I cannot and will not. To be very clear, while I appreciate and have worked directly with think tanks—as I think most Members of your Lordships’ House have—and sat on panels and engaged with them, the reality is that if a regulatory framework is required to make sure that people know who they are engaging with and whether there are any ulterior motives, we have to be clear on what those are. I have written for organisations such as the Policy Exchange, and I used to run HOPE not hate, a third-party campaign organisation. There are different structures that everybody has to engage with, but it is only right and proper that we know who is funding what, when and why.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, do the reforms the Government have coming down the line cover the structure and scale of think tanks? One might call itself the “worldwide progressive institute” and you would think, “Oh, they must be good”, but it is actually just a chap and his dog in his mum’s spare bedroom. So, will the reforms cast some light into the spare bedroom?

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

I was hoping we would go for the dog rather than the spare bedroom.

As I have said, Philip Rycroft is looking at some of these issues of foreign interference in the round. There is a genuine issue, and my noble friend raises a genuinely important point about knowing who we are engaging with and why. We have seen in recent days, not least when I was in front of your Lordships’ House discussing it, why we need the espionage strategy, and to make sure people know who they are talking to and why. This is the case for lobbying as much as for think tanks, and we need to make sure the right regulatory environment is in place.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, one of the previous questions to the noble Baroness was about all political parties having to declare where their sources of income are from. Of course, that is not the case: Sinn Féin does not have to declare this because it is an all-Ireland party. Can she confirm whether Philip Rycroft will look at this issue as well? It is an important issue, because Sinn Féin is standing in elections to the other place.

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

I knew I was going to get that question. I would like to thank the noble Baroness for the question—I think. She is absolutely right, and I have had several meetings, including with the Election Commissioner for Northern Ireland, about some of the things operating in this space. I will talk to the noble Baroness outside your Lordships’ House, but I will also write to her with any specific details.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I fail to understand the logic of both the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Barker, in setting their face against collecting more data. The fact is, we are not certain. We are still not certain as to the veracity and accuracy of any of this data. To give an example, the Royal College of Gynaecologists has issued “Making Abortion Safe” guidelines to providers for the safe use of medical abortion after 20 to 22 weeks. These guidelines recommend the use of feticide to avoid the foetus being born with signs of life, which can cause distress for women and their care providers. In the same guidelines, the RCOG states that there will be a

“need for further intervention to complete the procedure”

in 13% of cases. That is more than twice the highest rate reported by the—

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

Order. My Lords, I am ever so sorry, but an intervention, according to the Companion, should be short, brief and specific to the point. So, if the noble Lord could actually make his point, I would be grateful.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Standing Order 29 does not apply, and I am entitled to speak more than once in—

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

Absolutely, but this is an intervention.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I have not finished yet. Standing Order 29 does not apply in respect of the ability for a Member individually—

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

My Lords, the hour is late, and I appreciate that this has been a very difficult debate. What I am saying is that the rules on an intervention are clear. The noble Lord is absolutely right that he can speak repeatedly, but he said

“Before the noble Baroness sits down”,


so we believed this to be an intervention.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The Government Chief Whip is very flexible when it comes to that side of the Chamber segueing between speeches and interventions, and she does not intervene. It is only on this side that she intervenes, to throw off this side. The points she has made are not in line with what the Standing Orders and the Companion say, which is that a mover of an amendment and others are entitled to speak more than once.

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

The noble Lord has just promoted me, and I thank him for that. However, we have a very good Government Chief Whip, who I am privileged to serve under. The noble Lord will appreciate that, through my whipping, I have been trying to manage this in such a way that everybody has been able to be heard. Regardless of position, I do not think anyone here knows my personal views. On the current topic, it is the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that is still on the annunciator, and the noble Lord indicated that he wanted clarification on a point before the noble Baroness sat down. That is what I was saying. We all believed it to be an intervention. If it is not, we can move on and revert back to the noble Lord for his second speech.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

462: Clause 192, page 223, line 24, leave out “subsections (3) and” and insert “subsection”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 192, page 223, line 27.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

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

If the noble Baroness will bear with me, we cannot have an intervention on an intervention. She must allow the response.

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel (CB)]

Can we just clarify what we are talking about? I am tempted to say that those putting forward these amendments are living in a world of fiction, but I am not so rude as to suggest that. I am not suggesting even that they are misguided. I think all these amendments and their proponents are doing this with a total conviction that wrong will be done if this provision gets through, so let us just address what wrong will be done.

The wrong that will be done is that a woman may try to abort or kill her baby at a late gestation or an early gestation. The criminality would be the same because she is doing so outside the 1967 Act. That will be the case, but that is not what the problem is. The problem is that hundreds of innocent women are wrongly accused of a criminal act and sent for police investigation. One person was sent to jail, and 10 of the other 100 that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned had further investigations carried out and were then taken to court.

The Whip is trying to accelerate me, but we cannot accelerate unless I can address the issues raised.

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

I apologise, but can I remind Members that interventions are short and sweet? But because this is Committee, people can participate in the debate at their chosen point.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, to conclude, I do not have long comments on this. The Attorney-General would be there in such cases to examine whether something illegal and wrong has occurred, and he could withhold his consent for a prosecution if he considered that that was not the case. He would look at the particular circumstances. He or she would act quasi-judicially and independently of government.

Amendment 456 strikes a perfect balance and should give reassurance to women who have good cause to have a late termination, while preserving the criminal offence for those cases where a late abortion cannot be justified. It therefore meets Clause 191 half way, and I urge fellow Peers to support it.

Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Carer’s Assistance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2026

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 8 December 2025 be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 28 January.

Motion agreed.

Public Trust in National Politics

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what proposals they are considering to reverse the decline in public trust of national politics in the UK.

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

The Government are committed to restoring public confidence in our politics. On entering office, the Prime Minister issued a new Ministerial Code strengthening the powers of his Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, increasing transparency on ministerial gifts and hospitality, as well as establishing the Ethics and Integrity Commission. The Public Office (Accountability) Bill will place a new legal duty on public servants to act truthfully and to fully assist inquiries and investigations. The Government have also announced an independent review into foreign financial influence and interference in the UK’s political and electoral system.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I and others are grateful for those small steps, but the size of the problem of public distrust of politics is enormous. Fewer than 60% of voters voted in the 2024 election. Multiple surveys show real public disillusionment with Westminster politics—not with democracy but with Westminster politics. Should the Government not start a national conversation on a cross-party basis on how we rebuild trust in our national political institutions, including both Houses of Parliament?

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

The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point about trust and politics. We spend a number of hours, in your Lordships’ House and the other place, discussing things that have an impact on people’s lives every day. There is a responsibility on us to make sure that they know what we are doing and that we are doing it in their name. Some of these things happen every day already, whether they are Select Committee reports or are about how we all come together, but there is a responsibility on the leaders of our country to make sure that people understand what we are doing. The politics of easy answers will get us nowhere. We need to be candid that life is difficult and to make sure we are delivering. I would say there is a battle for truth here, and the battle for democracy is the same thing, and we must work together to ensure those things happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, talking about truth and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, looking for proposals, can I propose through the Minister that the Liberal Democrats’ use of fake local newspapers and misinformation to slur political opponents is something she might want to consider?

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

My Lords, but where would we be without their bar charts?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

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

I say that with love. Noble Lords are aware that I am very fond of an election leaflet, but, especially given how many elections are in front of us, we need to make sure that they are accurate and true and reflect the fact that there is a responsibility on all of us to bring some of the heat out of politics and put the truth back.

[Baroness Shah (Lab)]

My Lords, trust in politics is also affected by the safety and well-being of elected representatives and candidates. In my role as the head of the Labour office at the Local Government Association, I have seen a worrying increase in abuse and threats towards representatives from all parties and physical attacks on them. Only a couple of weeks ago, a councillor’s car was set alight. Democracy is at its best when we can respectfully disagree. Can my noble friend assure this House on what the Government are doing to address these concerns?

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

My noble friend is absolutely right. Soon, we will mark 10 years since my friend Jo Cox was murdered, which brings all this very much to a point. There are many things that we are doing together, including the Joint Election Security Preparedness Unit, which is jointly run by the Cabinet Office and MHCLG. In the run-up to the elections, it will reinstate its election cell, and the National Protective Security Authority exists. Noble Lords, especially those who have stood for election in the last decade, will be aware that Operation Bridger exists for MPs. That is now extended to include Operation Ford to protect councillors and council candidates. Language is incredibly important, and there is responsibility on all of us to make sure we take the heat out of this, because it is our activists and candidates who are knocking on doors and speaking to people every day. We have a responsibility to take some of the heat out of politics to protect them, too.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, I frequently talk to young people, and they generally feel that we are overfocused on the problems and challenges of the 20th century such as friendships, rivalries and conflict. They feel that we live in a smaller, interdependent world, with common challenges, and that we should focus our attention on active co-operation to meet those challenges. Could they be right?

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

My Lords, I helped run HOPE not hate for many years, and I was on the board until the general election. There is a responsibility on everybody to make sure that we are celebrating the hope, and embracing hope rather than hate, in our society and looking at what unites us rather than what divides us. Especially since 7 October, that has proved to be very challenging for parts of our community, including my own, but we need to make sure that core British values remain at the heart of who we are and that we can celebrate those things that bring us together.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, trust is something a Government must earn. It is built on honesty, transparency and consistency, all of which are essential if we are to begin restoring public confidence in politics. Against that background, can the Minister tell the House what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the 14 policy U-turns we have endured during this Parliament? Does she accept that repeatedly promising one course of action and then pursuing the opposite risks further undermining that trust?

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

My Lords, I asked the Labour Party unit how many U-turns the previous Government had done in their 14 years, and they are still to come back to me because they are still counting.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

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

Regarding the substance of the noble Baroness’s question, this Government have made over 3,000 policy announcements in the last 18 months because of the mess that we inherited from the previous Government. We may have made 14 U-turns, but that is because we have listened where things needed to be tweaked. We have had to do so many things so quickly that it is not a surprise that, occasionally, we have to reflect on whether they were the right things to do.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that building trust in politics needs to start with young people? The measures in the national youth strategy on civic engagement are extremely important, but we need to stop the misinformation on politics that is directed specifically at young people. Can she assure me that the Government will engage with tech company bosses to prevent this poisonous spread of misinformation?

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

My noble friend is absolutely right that one of the biggest challenges we face—and I say this as my stepdaughter is 15 years old—is what young people are exposed to online, but there is a balance here with the fact that current 13 and 14 year-olds will be voting at the next general election. We need to balance protecting them with making sure that they have access to accurate information and that, through the national curriculum, they are taught how to interrogate information so they know what is right and wrong and can ask questions of the people who seek to represent them.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, is not a key element of trust in politics that elections are run fairly and independently? Therefore, I hope that the Minister might commit to restoring the full independence of the Electoral Commission and repealing the power for a Government of any political persuasion to set the policy and strategic direction for the commission. Is not an independent regulator a far more trustworthy regulator?

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

My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting point, and I will write to him about the details of it. Obviously, one of the basic tenets of the British values I have talked about is free and fair elections. Making sure that the Electoral Commission can facilitate those across the United Kingdom is very important.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, the greatest mistrust in politics at the moment is among young graduates, who have seen all three parties renege on promises in relation to student loans. Significantly high interest rates, with repayment at 9%, mean that the majority of young graduates are paying much more tax than the other generation. How will we restore the trust in politics among young graduates, who are central to our future?

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

The noble Baroness raises a genuinely important point about the next generation, which will be dealing with some of these issues for decades to come. With regards to the specifics of her question about our plans for student fees, I am afraid that I do not have that information available, but I will write to the noble Baroness.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, given the Nolan principles of public life, leadership is one that has been neglected, and given the close relationship between contractors and the Ministry of Defence, what progress has been made on ensuring that senior Ministers and senior officials have a clear understanding of what future they may have once they leave office and leave employment?

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

I am so sorry. I did not get all the noble Lord’s question. I would be grateful if he could repeat it.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

The substantive part of the question was: given the close relationship between contractors and the Ministry of Defence, what progress has been made on ensuring that there is a clear understanding about what would be appropriate for senior Ministers and senior officials to take in terms of employment after they hold office and when they step down from those senior posts?

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

I thank the noble Lord for repeating his question and apologise that he had to. Obviously, the noble Lord has significant experience in this space because of his previous roles at ACOBA, and I thank him for his work. He will know that, through the Ethics and Integrity Commission, we are reviewing how all this will work together. I will think about the issues that he raises and write to him if that is okay.

Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Carer’s Assistance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2026

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Carer’s Assistance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2026.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this order today. As with all of the Scotland Act orders that we have considered since the start of this Parliament, this is the result of collaborative working between the UK and Scottish Governments.

The order before us will be made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act, which, following an Act of the Scottish Parliament, provides the power for consequential provisions to be made in the law relating to reserved matters or the laws elsewhere in the UK. Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action. I am pleased to say that the Scotland Office has taken through 12 such orders since this Government came to power in July 2024.

The Scotland Act 2016 devolved responsibility for certain social security benefits and employment support to the Scottish Parliament. This included the carer’s allowance, which the Scottish Government replaced with the carer support payment in 2023. This order is being brought forward to make provisions in consequence of further changes that the Scottish Government have made to their carer support payment. The Scottish Government requested this order, and the UK Government have worked collaboratively with them on this draft order, showcasing devolution in action.

The draft order under consideration today makes amendments to relevant UK and Northern Ireland legislation as a consequence of the Carer’s Assistance (Miscellaneous and Consequential Amendments, Revocation, Transitional and Saving Provisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2025, which were made on 6 November 2025 and come into force for the provisions that are relevant to this order on 15 March 2026. The Scottish Government’s regulations introduce additional support for those receiving the carer support payment and caring for more than one person, in the form of the carer additional person payment; extend support for carers from eight to 12 weeks after the death of the person they care for; and introduce a new Scottish carer supplement, which will, for most carers, replace the carer’s allowance supplement that is currently paid under Section 81 of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. This order will ensure that the changes the Scottish Government are making to the carer support payment are reflected in reserved benefits.

In summary, this order makes consequential amendments to UK legislation to reflect the introduction of changes to the carer support payment in Scotland. As I said, it is an example of devolution in action. It is about the UK Government working with the Scottish Government to deliver for the people of Scotland, and it reflects the continued strong co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments. I beg to move.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. I have one or two questions about both the general process of transferring social security to Scotland and its implications, specific to this instrument.

As I understand it, at the moment, the carer’s allowance is £83.30 per week, and that is the same in England, Wales and Scotland. Can that be varied? I assume that it can be, under this devolved measure, but, as I understand it, that is not the intention. What is being implemented is a supplementary payment, every six months, of £293.50 to carers in Scotland. I assume that the £293.50 that we get in Scotland will not be paid to people in England, and that is the differential clarification for that. Can the Minister confirm this?

This is the third or fourth instrument the Committee has debated that relates to the transfer of social security from the DWP to the Scottish Parliament and Government. I have raised this issue before but, unfortunately, we do not have SNP Members in this House, which would be useful, as they could explain exactly what is behind this. However, I can legitimately ask a UK Minister a question about the way this is presented and whether she is satisfied that the UK Government’s role in Scotland is not being undermined by the way that this is being delivered, rather than by the fact of it being delivered.

In other words, I do not oppose the devolution of benefits. Members know that the leader of my party is very strong on improving support for carers, and we support that, but there is an important point here. What has happened with this and other benefits is that the UK Government have made an assessment of the cost of the claimants in Scotland and transferred that amount to the Scottish Government, who then pay it, through their own instruments, and, if they wish, add additional benefits. The problem is that the contribution of the UK Government is obscured, at least, even though it is substantially more than the top-up that the Scottish Government provides. There is nothing wrong with that in principle, but there is a lot wrong with the politics of the way it is presented.

First, we have an election coming up in three months, and we are going to get SNP candidates saying that, thanks to the SNP, people will get wonderful additional benefits across the piece in Scotland. Most of those benefits are paid for by Scotland, but they have just added something. That does mean that people in Scotland are getting more—it is not as if they are not making a legitimate claim—but they are not really acknowledging where the bulk of the money is coming from. Secondly, we are heading for a financial crunch in Scotland, because a lot of these additional benefits are not being properly costed and funded. The projection I got from the Library is that the deficit on social security could be £1.8 billion in three years, and there is no real indication the Scottish Government have any way of funding that, and so a crisis might loom, or they might have to take money from somewhere else.

I will make a brief, slightly out of order reference to the situation with student grants and student loans. The previous coalition Government in Scotland effectively abolished tuition fees, although the final role was delivered by the SNP Government. They will boast, quite rightly, that those who go to university in Scotland do not pay fees. However, there are two problems from that: first, Scottish universities are going bankrupt from underfunding; and, secondly, to cap the budget, the number of places offered to qualifying students in Scotland has been pushed down. An awful lot of students in Scotland are going to universities in England because they cannot get a place in Scotland, so they are actually paying fees. This is presentational stuff that the UK Government should get a grip of.

I strongly believe in devolution and supported the creation of the Scottish Parliament, but I also strongly believe in the partnership between the two Governments. It is important that the people of Scotland know exactly what contribution the UK Government are making and the separate contribution that is being made by the Scottish Government. That is my point.

My final point has been slightly triggered by events in the last week. The leader of Reform in Scotland— I think he is still a Member of this House, for a few more minutes—said that the party would cut taxes in Scotland at a cost of £4 billion. He has not really explained it, but clearly the implication, which the party has acknowledged, is that it would be funded by massive spending cuts across a range of things. What if, if such a Government came into being—I hope that does not happen—they then turn around and say that they are going to abolish these security benefits? Could we see a situation in which people in Scotland get no benefits, or far reduced benefits compared with people in England, as opposed to now when they get a bit more but most of their benefits are still being funded by the UK?

My plea to the Minister is to take this away and have a real think about how the UK Government present the way that Scotland is being funded—what party it is does not matter, but taxpayers do. As somebody who lives in Scotland, I know that people are easily taken in by the idea that all these wonders are paid for exclusively by the magnificent stewardship of the Scottish finances by the Scottish Government, whereas anybody who knows anything about what is going on says that their stewardship has been a lot less than magnificent. We are heading for a major deficit while they are offering these kinds of sweeties to the electorate without explaining where the money comes from or how they can be funded in the long term. While in no way wishing to oppose what is being proposed, I urge the Government to have a proper look at the way in which this is presented in future and—to be frank— not allow politicians north of the border to get away with it.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister has set out, this statutory instrument is technical in nature and its purpose is clear. It makes the necessary consequential amendments to ensure that the Scottish Government’s changes to carer support interact properly with a reserved benefit system. For that reason, we on these Benches will not stand in its way. It is right that new or additional devolved benefits do not lead to unintended knock-on effects elsewhere in the UK system, and this instrument sensibly preserves the agreed approach between the UK and Scottish Governments.

However, although we will not oppose this order, I wish to place on record our ongoing frustration with the Scottish Government’s approach to carer support. The creation of a parallel system, duplicating work already carried out more efficiently and at lower cost by the DWP, adds unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. This continual duplication adds complexity to what should be a simple and accessible system for carers, while also increasing administrative costs and wasting public money. This reflects a broader tendency towards unnecessary bureaucracy, with the bill ultimately falling on Scottish taxpayers.

We have always stood firmly behind carers and recognise the vital role that they plainly play. Our concern is not with supporting carers but with a system that prioritises administrative expansion over efficiency and value for money. For these reasons, although we will of course allow this technical instrument to pass, we remain critical of the wider approach that has made such extensive consequential legislation necessary in the first place.

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

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to the debate this afternoon; some very important points were made, even if our time was short. I reiterate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about the vital role that carers play. Although this makes technical amendments, and the approach of the Scottish Government is a decision for them, we should all put on record our genuine thanks for the work that carers do every day to look after some of the most vulnerable in our society.

I turn to the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Regarding a clarification on finances, I will write to him so that he has it in writing. My understanding is that he is absolutely right—the core remains the core; it is the additional element—but I will write to him.

He raised a very important point about the strength of the union while we have devolved Administrations. As Noble Lords will be aware—many of us will be on the doorsteps in the coming months—a very important election is coming in Scotland. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the contribution of the British Government can be obscured on such points, when political parties tend to be interesting with their definition of events to make sure that they do well. There is a responsibility on the political parties represented here today to make an argument both for the union and for truth in how the British Government interact with the Scottish Government in the forthcoming elections. We have a proud argument to make. This Government strongly believe in devolution, but we also believe in the strength of the union, as we made clear during the referendum.

I clarify for the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that the UK Government consider all changes to be in line with the fiscal framework that we have outlined. We may need to review that position if there is deemed to be a significant divergence in the future, such as in the costings associated with this policy.

Both noble Lords made points related to the increasing differences between the carer’s allowance and carer support payments, as well as how those now look across the country. The Scottish Government have designed their own carer benefit to be broadly similar to the carer’s allowance at the outset, with minor differences in the past presence test, enabling some carers to access the carer support payment while studying full-time. The UK Government consider all changes that the Scottish Government make to their social security benefits in line with the fiscal framework.

In this instance, the changes are not considered significant. This Scotland Act order ensures that the carer additional person payment, the Scottish carer supplement, the replacement for the carer’s allowance supplement and the extension to the carer’s support bereavement run-on, which come into force on 15 March 2026, are treated appropriately by reserved and Northern Ireland social security.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also asked an important question about Reform, including any changes that a Reform Administration in Scotland may make and their impact. Obviously, as noble Lords will appreciate, many of us will be campaigning to make sure that that does not happen; I look forward to seeing Anas Sarwar as First Minister. However, devolution means that the Scottish Government are able to design their own benefits. We have to win the elections and convince the electorate to make sure that our view of the world wins in the forthcoming elections, so that we do not necessarily have to worry about some of the things that the noble Lord, who is about to depart, may or may not be saying.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

May I seek some clarification? It occurs to me that this benefit is in two parts: the transfer of the benefit, which is the same across the UK; and the additional bit, which is funded by the Scottish Government. I appreciate that that part is entirely a matter for the Scottish Government but, if a Government in Scotland decided to reduce the basic allowance below the UK level, would there not be a reduction in the transfer of the cash? After all, the funding has been transferred on the basis of the assumption that the Scottish Government will continue to match the benefit. If the Minister cannot answer that now, she may write to me.

I seek clarification on this because, in effect, they do not have that money to fund tax cuts in Scotland if, in reality, the money will be withdrawn by the UK Government because it is no longer being put towards the purpose for which it was devolved. That seems perfectly legitimate to me, but clarification would be useful.

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

That is a very interesting point. I will write to the noble Lord so that he has answer in writing; that will come soon.

In closing, this instrument demonstrates the continued commitment of the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland.

Motion agreed.