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

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

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

Considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.

Motion agreed.

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

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

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

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

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion agreed.

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

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion agreed.

Official Secrets Act and Espionage

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

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

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

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

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

He said:

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

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)]

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

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

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

Ministerial Code

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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


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

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

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

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

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

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

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

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

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

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

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

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

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

Does the Minister agree with the Speaker of another place?

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

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

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

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

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

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

Wales: Further Devolution

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to devolve further powers to Wales, and what is the timeline for these plans.

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

The Government remain committed to the promises in our manifesto and are working to deliver them. For example, we have so far provided £10 million for the Welsh Government to deliver an economic inactivity trailblazer in Wales, as part of our wider commitment to devolve employment support funding to the Welsh Government. Through our Railways Bill, we are giving the Welsh Government a statutory role in the management of the rail network, building on our record investment in Welsh rail.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. Pursuing the devolution of policing is in Welsh Labour’s programme for government. Just last week, we heard a Statement in this House on the abolition of police and crime commissioners. In England, those powers will be transferred directly to elected mayors, where they exist. However, where those powers go in Wales is not clear. Does the Minister agree that this presents the perfect opportunity to deliver Welsh Labour’s commitment and devolve policing to Wales? If not, what is it about Welsh democracy that the UK Labour Government distrust?

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

The noble Baroness will not be surprised at all to hear that I disagree with both her assessment and her request that we devolve policing to Wales. The announcement last week on PCCs was not about the devolution of policing. It related solely to the abolition of PCCs, a model that simply was not working. We will seek the views of all partners, including the Welsh Government, before deciding on the best form of local policing, governance and scrutiny in Wales.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

In opposition, the Labour Party was very clear about the unfairness of the way in which money was given to Wales under the Barnett formula. Why is it that it is still cheating Wales and giving it much less money than any other part of the United Kingdom?

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

My Lords, I used to represent Stoke-on-Trent. The noble Lord will find that the Barnett formula ensures that the people of Wales receive 20% per capita more than my former constituents. The Welsh Government received a record-breaking settlement of £21 billion this financial year, which, because of the Barnett formula, is £4 billion more than it would otherwise have been. The Government are delivering for the people of Wales, financially and by supporting them through devolution in action.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, one key area of potential devolution is youth justice, where the Welsh Government have already been implementing policies to tackle the root causes of crime and break inter- generational cycles of crime, through early intervention and a compassionate approach to justice. I welcome the announcement by the Welsh Government that officials would work together with UK counterparts to explore, among other items, options for governance arrangements and the funding of youth justice services. When will this work be completed and when will we see true devolution of these services to Wales?

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

As the noble Baroness outlined, the UK Government and the Welsh Government have agreed to work together to consider options for the governance and funding of youth justice services and for partnership arrangements on probation services. That work is currently under way, but I do not have a deadline for when they will come forward with their recommendations.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

There is a strong possibility that, following next May’s elections, Plaid Cymru will be the largest single party in Senedd Cymru. Will the UK Government ensure that Plaid Cymru has access to civil servants dealing with devolved or potentially devolved portfolios, as is the practice for incoming Governments at Westminster?

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

The noble Lord raises an interesting point. There are still six months until the elections, and I would expect to see another Labour Administration elected next year. We will be working hard to deliver, as we do every day for the people of Wales and for the people of the United Kingdom. With regard to the substance of his point, that is the first time that it has been raised with me. I will speak to officials, and I would ask him to come forward if there are any problems or challenges.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree that testimony to the working relationship between the UK Government and Wales is the decision about the SMR development at Wylfa, which is welcome and which I earnestly hope will add to the growth potential of the Welsh economy?

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

Many Members of your Lordships’ House were delighted to see the Prime Minister with the First Minister in Wylfa earlier this month announcing investment of £2.5 billion, which will create 3,000 jobs. It is a true recognition of our faith in, and the ability of, the Welsh economy, and it will drive growth for the Welsh economy.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, ambulance delays in Wales have increased fourfold over the past seven years, and PISA scores are lower than the OECD average in reading, science and maths. With all due respect to the Welsh Administration, does the Minister believe that further powers should be devolved to Wales if it is currently struggling to manage its own healthcare and education systems?

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

My Lords, for 14 years, the party opposite cut funding to the people of Wales. We have increased the funding settlement for Wales, to ensure that the Welsh Government can deliver public services. With respect to the NHS, which the noble Earl raised, that has meant that the waiting list fell in the last month that was counted, and continues to fall month on month. We are delivering for the people of Wales. NHS England and NHS Wales are sharing best practice, we are doing public sector reform and, most importantly, we are giving them money that the noble Lord’s party did not, to get on with the job.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Government accept that devolution is a process, what further steps do they envisage before the end of this Parliament?

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend. We are seeing devolution in action. It was this party that introduced the legislation to bring forward devolution, which has led to the Welsh Senedd. As for current conversations and discussions about further devolution, as I said earlier, we are working closely with the Wales Office, the DWP and the Welsh Government to deliver more on the devolution of employment support, with the £10 million trailblazer. We are working with youth justice and probation services, as I said earlier, to consider options for moving forward.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, may I remind the Minister that, of the four nations of the United Kingdom, child poverty in Wales is consistently the highest? Is the Minister ready to think about this and, in any future arrangements, to recognise the situation for children in Wales and make it fairer?

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

My Lords, I am a member of the Labour Party because of our ongoing commitment to try to tackle child poverty. The child poverty strategy will be coming forward in due course. We will continue to work with the Welsh Government to ensure that every child has the opportunities they deserve.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, as part of the devolution settlement, the Northern Ireland Executive already have revenue-raising powers. Will my noble friend the Minister tell us what position the Government would adopt if the Northern Ireland Executive were to seek new, additional fiscal powers in order to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland in the areas of health, education and infrastructure?

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

I thank my noble friend for her question. She is very aware that, under the recent spending review, Stormont was awarded £19.2 billion—its largest ever financial settlement. As for additional tax-raising mechanisms, they exist, if Stormont wishes to use them. That is a matter for Stormont. We would support it in whichever endeavours it wants to do to access the powers already available to it.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, it is unusual for me to get up and support Wales, but in a recent debate about the manufacture of radio isotopes, I agreed that Wales had made a fantastic business case to have a nuclear reactor to produce radio isotopes—a facility that the United Kingdom does not possess. Therefore, patients in the UK suffer because we have to import all the radio isotopes needed for diagnosis and treatment. Will the Government support Wales and establish the nuclear reactor for the production of nuclear isotopes?

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

This Government always support Wales—and I will be doing so this weekend when they are playing the Springboks. On the noble Lord’s specific point, last week I sat in on the debate that he mentioned, in which he raised some really interesting points that were answered by my noble friend. I will reflect on what he says and return to him on that.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that one of our late and long-awaited frigates is to be called HMS “Cardiff”. Are we going to put any of the new factories producing defence equipment, and ammunition in particular, in Wales?

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

My noble friend always manages to get a ship into his question. For that, as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy, I am very grateful. He is absolutely right about HMS “Cardiff”—I am still waiting for HMS “Stoke-on Trent”, but my lobbying has not yet been effective. We have seen, as we have wider conversations about the expanded defence industrial strategy, that some of that work will absolutely be going to Wales.

China Espionage: Government Security Response

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on Chinese espionage targeting UK democratic institutions, and the Government’s actions to counter the breadth of threats posed by China and wider state actors.

Before I begin, let me first pay tribute to the crew member of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ‘Tidesurge’ who is missing off the coast of the Republic of Ireland. I know that the whole House will join me in sending our very best wishes to the ship’s company, and to their families back at home. This tragic incident is a reminder of the sacrifice that members of the Armed Forces make in the service of our country.

Earlier today, MI5 issued an espionage alert to Members of this House, Members of the other place and parliamentary staff to warn them about ongoing targeting of our democratic institutions by Chinese actors. Before I set out the threat and what we are doing to meet it, let me thank you, Mr Speaker, for your support in issuing the alert, and for your tireless efforts to safeguard the security of this place and the people who serve within it. I encourage all parliamentary colleagues to read the alert, and to get in touch with the Parliamentary Security Department if they have any immediate concerns.

Our intelligence agencies have warned that China is attempting to recruit and cultivate individuals with access to sensitive information about Parliament and the UK Government. MI5 has stated that this activity is being carried out by a group of Chinese intelligence officers—often masked through the use of cover companies or external headhunters. It is not just parliamentarians who should be concerned by this; parliamentary staff, economists, think tank employees, geopolitical consultants and government officials have all been targeted for their networks and access to politicians. I urge all parliamentarians and their staff to be wary that China has a low threshold for what information is considered to be of value, and will gather individual pieces of information to build a wider picture.

Let me speak plainly: this activity involves a covert and calculated attempt by a foreign power to interfere with our sovereign affairs in favour of its own interests, and this Government will not tolerate it. It builds on a pattern of activity that we have seen from China, with cyber operations by Chinese state-affiliated actors targeting parliamentary emails in 2021, attempted foreign interference activity by Christine Lee in 2022, and other more recent cases. We will take all necessary measures to protect our national interests, our citizens and our democratic way of life, including by working with our allies and partners.

The world has changed a great deal since I first stepped forward to serve our country almost 30 years ago, and while some things have changed, some things remain the same. In the various roles I have held since then, I have always believed in the importance of being clear-eyed about the nature of the threats that we face and the need to ensure that the tools we use to respond to those threats are kept up to date. This Government’s first duty is to protect our national security, and we will not hesitate to hold all state actors to account.

On 6 November, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke with her Chinese counterpart, Director Wang Yi. She was clear with the Foreign Minister that any activity that threatens UK national security, particularly relating to the UK’s Parliament and democracy, will not be tolerated. Today, I am setting out a comprehensive package of measures that we are taking to disrupt and deter the threats posed by China, as well as by state actors more widely. Supported by Ministers from across government and co-ordinated by myself, we are launching a counter political interference and espionage action plan. I will set out in detail to the House what that plan will entail.

First, we will strengthen the legislative tools available to the Government to disrupt the threat. We will introduce the elections Bill, which will include proposed measures to safeguard against covert political funding. This will include tougher risk assessment rules for donor recipients and enhanced enforcement powers for the Electoral Commission. I can confirm that we are also working on new powers to counter foreign interference, including a proscription-type tool to disrupt proxy organisations undermining our security, and an extension to the maximum penalties for election interference offences.

Secondly, we are launching a series of protective security campaigns, co-ordinated through the defending democracy task force and working with the parliamentary security authorities. These will help all those who work in politics to recognise, resist and report suspicious state threat activity, building on the guidance that was launched by the National Protective Security Authority in October. This will include tailored security briefings for the devolved Governments and for political parties via the parliamentary parties panel by the end of this year, as well as new security guidance in January for all candidates taking part in devolved and local elections in May.

Thirdly, we are building a campaign that uses all levers at this Government’s disposal to degrade the ecosystem of proxy cover companies, organisations and individuals being used by foreign states to facilitate interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions. The National Protective Security Authority, building on its ‘Think Before You Link’ campaign, will strengthen its engagement with professional networking sites to make them a more hostile operating environment for foreign agents.

As Security Minister, I am privileged to see the diligence of the security services, law enforcement and civil servants who work tirelessly to keep the UK safe day and night. Noting China’s low threshold for information gathering, this Government are providing the resources needed to protect our national interests. I can announce that the Government have committed to investing £170 million to renew the sovereign encrypted technology that our officials use to do their vital work. This programme of work will help to ensure that sensitive diplomatic, economic, trade, security, law enforcement and policy development arrangements are safeguarded from espionage by any state threat actor.

I can also announce that this Government have completed the removal of surveillance equipment manufactured by companies subject to the national intelligence law of the People’s Republic of China from all sensitive sites we maintain in the UK and around the world. Moreover, we will invest £130 million next year through the integrated security fund to build the UK’s resilience against threats posed by states such as China. Among other projects, this investment will build Counter Terrorism Policing’s ability to enforce the National Security Act and fund the National Cyber Security Centre and the National Protective Security Authority’s work supporting our most critical businesses to protect their intellectual property. Indeed, the National Protective Security Authority’s work is an important reminder that China poses threats not just to our democratic institutions, but to other sectors. Let me talk briefly about two other sectors in particular.

The first sector is education, which is one of the UK’s most important global assets, in part due to the UK’s steadfast commitment to academic freedom and excellence. There is value for the UK in engagement with China on education. However, operating in today’s uncertain international context presents many challenges for our great universities. It is because of their excellence that states such as China are attempting to influence their independent research and interfere with activity on campus. Ministers have already raised our concerns about this activity with their counterparts in Beijing, and the Office for Students recently issued new guidance to help universities protect the freedoms that their staff and students enjoy. As part of our ongoing commitment to work collectively to address these risks, I can announce that Ministers will host a closed event with vice-chancellors to discuss the risks posed by foreign interference and signpost our plans to further increase the sector’s resilience.

Secondly, on advanced manufacturing, the Department for Business and Trade is working to strengthen and scale our new economic security advisory service to help businesses navigate economic security issues, such as espionage and intellectual property theft. The service is already engaging with businesses in the advanced manufacturing sector and, as it matures to support other sectors of the economy, it will provide a new digital offer and assist businesses with complex economic security cases in navigating His Majesty’s Government’s support.

In October, I told the House that this Government remain steadfast in our commitment to disrupting and holding state actors accountable for wide-scale cyberespionage operations. We stand ready to go further to disrupt, degrade and protect against the dangerous and unrestrained offensive cyber ecosystem that China has allowed to take hold. Earlier this year, the NCSC, with international allies, called out three technology companies based in China for their global malicious cybercampaign targeting critical networks. Just last week, we introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, which will help make critical sectors of the economy and the public sector a harder target for cyberattacks, including malicious cyberactivity emanating from China’s territory. The Government will continue to take further action against China-based actors involved in malicious cyberactivity against the UK and our allies. This will form part of a broader campaign that the UK is delivering to disrupt and degrade the dangerous cyber ecosystem that China has allowed to take hold within its territory. Let me assure honourable Members that we will not shy away from using all the tools at our disposal, including sanctions, as necessary.

Our country has a long and proud history as a seafaring nation, trading around the world with countries that share our way of life, and with those that do not. China is the world’s second-largest economy and, together with Hong Kong, is the UK’s third-largest trading partner. It is in our long-term strategic interests to continue to engage with China. We must co-operate on areas where our interests align—climate, global health, trade, scientific research, illegal migration, and serious and organised crime, to name just a few—but we will always challenge any country, including China, that attempts to interfere with, influence or undermine the integrity of our democratic institutions, and we will take all measures necessary to protect UK national security. That is why we have taken action today. I am clear that further steps can and absolutely will be taken: disrupting and deterring China’s espionage activity, wherever it takes place, updating our security powers to keep pace with the threat, helping those who work in politics to recognise, resist and report the threat, and working with partners across the economy to strengthen their security against the threat.

Our strategy is not just to co-operate. We will engage China where necessary, but we will always act to defend our interests, and challenge where our values are threatened. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I start by joining the Minister in paying tribute to the crew member of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidesurge lost off the coast of Ireland.

This is my first opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Alton, back to his place—he has been missed.

I thank the Minister for repeating this Statement, which we broadly welcome. It seems to represent a change of gear, certainly from the approach of the previous Government. The ISC report on China in 2023 concluded that China had been able to

“penetrate every sector of the UK’s economy”.

At last, this seems to be being taken seriously. However, clearly, with such a deep threat, there is an awful lot that needs to be done, and some of that is reflected in this Statement.

Any Statement like this begs questions that cannot be answered, so I am going to try to ask questions that can be publicly asked. I start with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, around the failed prosecution of the two spies. There are many questions on this. Will the Government launch an independent inquiry into the collapse of that case and ensure that there are lessons learned from this appalling failure of national security?

In the other place, the Minister fully recognised that the Government know that China

“poses a series of threats to UK national security”,

yet when it comes to putting China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, yet again the Minister said that “no decision” on China has been made. What more has to be done for China to qualify to be put on this register? Given the reluctance to enact FIRS, what guidance is now being given to MPs, Select Committees and researchers on contacts with representatives of the Chinese Government and other Governments?

The Statement also specifically calls for co-operation with China on scientific research. Such engagement is extremely fraught. A huge amount of guidance and focus needs to be brought to this so that universities can safely engage in any co-operation. Clearly, they have raised the flag on this and there is an awful lot of work to do.

The Statement talks about a “low threshold” of what information is considered valuable, so are there plans to discuss how or whether to tighten the vetting and ongoing monitoring of researchers and staff, and how they access and deliver sensitive information? The Statement also says that the Government will

“strengthen the legislative tools available … to disrupt the threat”.

Is this solely going to be the cybersecurity and resilience Bill, or is there another piece of legislation looming for this? It would be useful to know. When will the elections Bill be introduced? We really welcome it and remind your Lordships that this is not specifically a China problem. With Russia waging a hybrid war against us, the sooner we can get this Bill out and discussed the better.

The removal of technology from sensitive sites is good news, but does the Minister accept that, beyond the locations mentioned, there is much to be done to remove Chinese-manufactured electronic components that put our national infrastructure at risk? Who is accountable for spearheading a programme for technology that has been manufactured by friends and not by China, which we know from this Statement does not have our best interests at heart? We should start with the electricity grid and power generation as a focus.

The economic security advisory service for business is a welcome idea. To which department will it report, and how will it fit in with other processes, such as the National Security and Investment Act?

Chinese dissidents and Hong Kongers are having bounties levied on them, including here in the UK. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will sanction those officials responsible for levying these bounties and provide a much clearer legislative protection against transnational repression?

Predictably, I will raise China’s new super-embassy, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, did. Given everything in this Statement, it should be unthinkable that the application succeeds. Under no circumstance should a hub for the network of spies that the Government have set out in this Statement be built. When will the Government rule out this embassy?

Finally, can the Minister update your Lordships on planned visits by Cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister to the People’s Republic of China?

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

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their points and questions on this very serious matter, and the tone in which they participated. As noble Lords have rightly acknowledged, matters of espionage, particularly those that relate to Parliament, are of the utmost importance to us in both Houses and to the whole nation. They merit careful consideration by government, decisive action by Ministers and appropriate scrutiny by Parliament.

When it comes to China, we have been clear that we will co-operate where we can but always challenge when we must, which is why today’s message to all noble Lords from the Lord Speaker was so important. Our action today is about challenging behaviour by China that this Government will simply not tolerate. We know the high cost of inaction when it comes to national security measures. This comprehensive package will help us tackle economic, academic, cyber and espionage threats that China presents. Its impact will be immediate and we will not hesitate to further strengthen our protections as the threat evolves.

I will now seek to address a number of the specific questions raised. I will also reflect on Hansard should there be any points that I miss. Noble Lords will appreciate that a number of points I will talk about concern national security, so if I do not necessarily respond I will speak to both noble Lords outside the Chamber about some of those issues. Before that, I also add my genuine joy at seeing the noble Lord, Lord Alton, back in his place. When I discussed with him the issues that we are about to discuss, I did not really think we would be discussing them in your Lordships’ House so quickly, but I am delighted he is here—probably to give me a hard time.

I am going to answer the specifics that have been raised broadly in order, but I think it would be helpful to detail some more of our plans. Regarding the Chinese embassy, which both noble Lords raised, it will not surprise your Lordships’ House that I will repeat the same statement that was made in the other place today and that I have made before. A final decision on the Chinese application for a new embassy will be made in due course by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. This is a quasi-judicial decision so I cannot comment on it in more detail. To reassure noble Lords, though, national security is the first duty of government and it has been the core priority throughout this process.

On the threat posed by China, which was raised by both noble Lords but specifically by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, this Government fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyberattacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institution to transnational repression of Hong Kongers. Yet we are also alive to the fact that China presents the UK with opportunities, as the world’s second-largest economy and the UK’s third-largest trading partner. Not engaging is no choice at all. We will therefore continue to develop a consistent and pragmatic approach to economic engagement without compromising our national security.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the foreign influence registration scheme came into being in terms of its operational action only on 1 July. No decision has yet been made relating to specifying China on the enhanced tier. The Government have a range of capabilities to manage and mitigate threats emanating from foreign states. FIRS is one tool out of many, and we will keep decisions on when to use these tools under continuous review. Any decisions will be brought before Parliament in the usual way in due course. Adding countries to the enhanced tier requires the consideration of a broad range of interests, including but not limited to security considerations. It is important that we get this right.

On the points around critical national infrastructure, which both noble Lords raised, last week the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology introduced the cyber security and resilience Bill to Parliament in the latest step towards strengthening our cyber defences across society. The Bill will increase UK defences against cyberattacks, better protecting services that the public rely on to go about their normal lives—to switch on lights, to turn on the taps, to save water, and to know that the NHS is there to support them. It is clear that the definition of critical national infrastructure under the forthcoming legislation will be amended to make sure that many of these areas are captured.

I turn to some of the other points, including those about a national campaign of awareness. There has been a great deal in the national media about issues pertaining to China, not least the reports leading the news today because of this security alert. The noble and learned Lord makes an important point about ensuring that the people on the front line have the tools available to them. It is, in part, about making sure that everyone receives the information that is relevant to them, which is why Members of your Lordships’ House received specific information today.

We will continue to make sure that the people who need the information receive it. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, made a point about the tools available to universities. We are hosting a private and closed round table for vice-chancellors, and universities and other entities will receive ongoing information through the Office for Students going forward.

There were several other questions, just a few of which I will answer very quickly; I am aware that I am over time. On our plans to work with allies and partners, conversations with them are ongoing, especially with our Five Eyes partners, with which we undertook a significant chunk of the China audit.

On publishing a long-term approach to engaging with China, we need to look at all the issues in the round. Our national security strategy and our SDR both reference China. We will continue to update your Lordships’ House as and when events change and through the normal course of our actions.

There will be an elections Bill when parliamentary time allows. I expect that to be sooner rather than later.

On security vetting, we will continue to work with parliamentary authorities. It is very important at this point to make it clear that planned visits will continue and engagement with the Chinese state will continue. That is incredibly important. Even 12 days ago, the Foreign Secretary made clear to the Chinese state our views on the issues we have discussed today. Conversations need to continue. We need to ensure that where we can co-operate, we do so, and where we can challenge, we will.

The collapse of the Official Secrets Act case is currently under investigation by the JCNSS and the ISC, and we look forward to receiving their advice.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will try not to outlive the welcome that the Minister extended to me and the nice words expressed by so many colleagues from all sides of the House. I hope that she will forgive me if I press her further on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme and the point about academics that was raised earlier.

It comes as no surprise to those seven parliamentarians —of whom I am one—who have been sanctioned by the Chinese Communist Party to hear warnings about CCP operatives spying and laying the groundwork for subversive long-term relationships with parliamentarians. But those sanctions are nothing compared with the imprisonment of hundreds of pro-democracy advocates, such as Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong, or the atrocities committed against Uyghur Muslims. They are nothing compared with the evidence that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the privilege to chair, received during our inquiry into transnational repression and published in our report of 30 July. For instance, we cited the bounties of 1 million Hong Kong dollars on the heads of UK residents, including the courageous 20 year-old Chloe Cheung.

I have raised the intimidation of academics, such as Professor Michelle Shipworth, who was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, as well as the case of Professor Laura Murphy, which was in the newspapers recently. Laura Murphy works at Sheffield Hallam University, and she gave evidence to our Joint Committee on Human Rights in our inquiry on supply chain transparency and modern-day slavery. Both of those academics have experienced intimidation as a consequence. When the Minister has her meeting with university vice-chancellors, I hope she will emphasise the dangers of becoming far too dependent on money pouring into our universities, which then starts to call the tune.

During our hearings, we received a large amount of evidence recommending the designation of China under the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. We found:

“China conducts the most comprehensive TNR”—


transnational repression—

“campaign of any foreign state operating in the UK. Its omission from the enhanced tier risks undermining the credibility and coherence of FIRS”.

We recommend that

“the Government specify China under the enhanced tier of FIRS”.

In the light of these most recent revelations, I hope that the Minister will go back and talk to the honourable Dan Jarvis, who gave evidence to the Joint Committee, to try to speed up that consideration. It is high time that we did so, and it is high time that we reduced our dependency and enhanced our resilience.

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

To reassure the noble Lord, I am still delighted that he is back. He raised some very important points. I cannot go any further at this point on the enhanced tier of the FIRS, but the noble Lord will be very aware that, before I joined the Government, I ran Index on Censorship, so the issues related to Jimmy Lai—I have met Sebastien Lai—and the issues about Xinjiang and transnational repression are ones that I campaigned on for many years.

I will be clear on some of the specifics that have been raised. I have to be very careful when discussing Sheffield Hallam, because ongoing legal processes are happening there. I recognise the admirable and tireless work of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, whose name is on the centre at the heart of this. Her work to progress social justice and human rights, including as a patron of the Centre for International Justice at Sheffield Hallam University, is at the heart of the allegations. Any attempt by a foreign state to intimidate and coerce universities to limit free speech and academic freedoms in the UK will not be tolerated. The Government have made this clear to Beijing after learning of the case of Sheffield Hallam and other recent cases. The new Office for Students guidance makes it explicitly clear that universities should not tolerate attempts by foreign states to suppress academic freedom.

The noble Lord knows better than I about some of the actions we have taken in tackling transnational aggression in the UK and the ongoing support that we are giving to Jimmy Lai and the Lai family. We will continue to do so. The genuine anguish that that family is currently experiencing because of this case is simply unacceptable. I reassure the noble Lord that even while he was off, we continued to do our work, and my right honourable friend Foreign Secretary raised the case of Jimmy Lai with her counterpart on 6 November. I will write to him on the other points he raised.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, as chair of the ISC, I welcome the Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, most of it, if not more, was covered in our 2023 report on China. The reason China has got a foothold here has to be looked back on very clearly, including whether the golden era for UK-China relations during the coalition Government allowed it to get a foothold in a whole host of areas.

Obviously, my main concern is academia, where universities—because of the decisions on the funding of universities—have now become dependent on the drug that is Chinese student finance. I urge the Minister that, if we are going to tackle that—not just the reliance of individual university institutions on Chinese finance but the intimidation of individuals who attend them—we need to take a very robust approach to it.

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

I thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for all the work he has been doing on this, both through the ISC and beforehand. He has talked to me a great deal on this issue, and I am grateful for it. I completely agree with some of his assessments regarding the importance of academia and making sure that universities both understand their responsibilities to academic freedom and have the tools to combat some of the challenges that they currently face. It is one of the reasons we are arranging a closed meeting for all vice-chancellors, which will be led by the DfE but will have the relevant officials in the room to make sure that they know what is happening and what support they can get, as well as the expectations that we have of them as the caretakers of our academic freedom values.

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, like most speakers so far, I welcome the Minister’s tone in this matter. It is a change of tone, because in the past, so often, the Government have used word “co-operate” followed by the word “challenge”, and “co-operate” has been used as a way of degrading the level of challenge. I hope that this will be sorted out.

I very much support what has been said about universities. Having pursued Cambridge University—Jesus College, Cambridge, in particular—I found an absolute reluctance to publicly or even privately admit any error at all in this, after years of struggle about this, which goes on. I still do not hear any serious public statements on these matters by the governors, the vice- chancellors and so on. It is very cautious. I am glad that the closed meeting will take place, but it needs to be publicly discussed.

On the threat to individuals, Chloe Cheung has been mentioned, quite rightly, by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whom I too welcome back. I know Chloe Cheung, and I have spoken to her. She has shown me photographs of the goons who follow her in this country. I strongly ask—and she is just one example—how much protection is the British state able to afford to these people? They are in real danger in this country—physical danger and, of course, psychological threat.

In the Statement, the Government express their desire to

“degrade the ecosystem of proxy cover companies”.

I am not quite accusing the bank I am going to mention of being a proxy cover company, but I would point out the enormous level of vested interest in China in this way, which leads to weakness. Britain’s biggest bank, HSBC, is a major sinner in this respect. HSBC famously closed down three accounts of the League of Social Democrats in Hong Kong. Without wishing to be too personal, it is not wildly encouraging to hear that George Osborne, he of the golden era, is a candidate to be the new chairman of HSBC. If he was chairman, I do not imagine that we would get a very rigorous attempt to clamp down on Chinese illegitimate activity. I ask the Government whether even huge organisations, such as HSBC, should be more carefully monitored.

Finally, UK-China Transparency is working on some stuff which suggests, because serious organised crime is mentioned as an area of co-operation, that it might also be an area of challenge, because it seems that China is involved in co-operation with serious organised crime in this country. This needs to be properly investigated.

The overall point I would ask the Government to answer—and I will be very pleased if the Minister answers this—is that all these problems are identified, but what is the key to it all? Do the Government agree with the proposition that what we have from China is what is sometimes called a whole-system approach but is better described as totalitarianism? That is always operated by the power in all areas of Chinese life—business, academia and everything—of the Chinese Communist Party.

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

I thank the noble Lord. I am not sure I will be able to answer all his questions, but I will reflect on Hansard and come back to him. He may appreciate which ones I might not want to answer. With regard to the fundamental question, which is about totalitarianism—that is, authoritarian versus democratic systems—which is at the heart of this, the national security strategy sets out the intent of:

“Authoritarian states … to out-compete liberal democracies”,


including “competition from China” and its

“assertion of state power that encompasses economic, industrial, science and technology policy”.

We firmly recognise that the UK and China have significant differences, including on economic values and freedoms, Hong Kong, support for Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine and matters of national security. We engage confidently and pragmatically with China, including robustly raising these differences.

The noble Lord highlighted my language earlier. We are clear that we will co-operate with China where we can but will challenge where we must. That will continue to be the case, including on transnational repression. I want to be very clear. The UK Government will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the UK. We continually assess potential threats in the UK and take protection of individual rights, freedoms and safety very seriously. Counter- terrorism police will continue to offer training to all police forces where they believe that this will be happening. On the other points, I revert to the noble Lord.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, referring to the failed case of activity by China, my understanding is that the timing of the alleged offences came under the ambit, if that is the right term, of the 1911 Act. That Act has been broadly disapproved of by all parties. The Law Commission drafted a better Bill. All Governments were slow to find time to enact this Bill, but it was enacted under the last Government in, I think, 2022.

In the present threat situation, is the new Act considered to be satisfactory for this area of crime, which is not about stealing plans labelled “Top Secret” but about picking up attitudes, distancing, influencing and so on? Can the Minister assure us that this piece of legislation is satisfactorily in place? Can she expand a little on what new legislation is expected to be enacted in the light of today’s Statement?

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

I thank my noble friend for his question. He is absolutely right. The Official Secrets Act is considered to be somewhat out of date: 1911 suggests that maybe the world has moved on slightly. The National Security Act came into force in 2023. It strengthens our legal powers and makes the UK a harder target for those states which seek to conduct hostile acts. It also provides the security services and law enforcement agencies with the tools that they need to deter, detect and disrupt modern-day state threats. The Act passed with cross-party support in your Lordships’ House and it is important that on matters of national security we embrace cross-party. There is a responsibility on all of us to make sure that national security remains at the heart of what we do.

With regard to future legislation, there are two pieces of legislation coming before your Lordships’ House that will touch on these issues. The elections Bill is forthcoming and the new cyber resilience Bill was introduced in the other place last week and will be in front of your Lordships’ House in due course. Having said that, these are matters of national security. We will continue to monitor and to reflect on current legislation to make sure that our security services and everybody within this space has the legal framework in which they need to operate to ensure that we can do what we need to do when we need to do it.

Office for National Statistics

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bousted]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to support the improvement of the data produced by the Office for National Statistics.

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

My Lords, access to trustworthy, accurate and timely statistics lies at the heart of a thriving democracy. In June the Government published the Devereux review on the performance and culture of the Office for National Statistics. The Government accepted all the recommendations and are now working closely with the Office for National Statistics to implement them. This has included the ONS publishing plans to recover economic statistics and to improve and enhance its surveys, and the appointment of a new Permanent Secretary to run the ONS.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

Does my noble friend the Minister share my concern that the response rate to the Labour Force Survey dropped to just over 14.5% in 2023, down from nearly 48% a decade earlier, and that the gender pay gap has been underreported for the past 20 years? Does she agree that a democratic society cannot function well without reliable, timely and accurate statistical data?

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

My Lords, the drop in the response rate is of deep concern, and I thank my noble friend for asking. Concern about the Labour Force Survey and our economic statistics more widely was a key reason for the Devereux review, which was commissioned earlier this year. As I said, since then the ONS has published a survey improvement enhancement plan on economic statistics. I assure my noble friend that this is something that we are taking very seriously, not least because having clear data, especially in an age of misinformation, ensures that the Government can act. This is always the case with the gender pay gap—but, regardless of the data, what is clear is that the underlying message on the gender pay gap is the same. There is a persistent gender pay gap that is bad for women, businesses and growth, which is why this Government are taking the necessary steps to ensure that it narrows more quickly.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, when I was attached to the Cabinet Office well over a decade ago, I was told that the Government, locally and nationally, have a very large amount of administrative data which is not shared because of systemic barriers between different departments. I note that this was recommendation 6 in the Lievesley report last year, but nothing much has been done in that regard. I note also that the Devereux report suggests that we may need legislation to correct this. How do the Government plan to integrate administrative data much better than we have so far achieved?

--- Later in debate ---

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

The noble Lord raises a very important point about data sharing of statistics. The ONS, which we all talk about regularly, is only one of nearly 200 organisations that provide government data and are governed by the Office for Statistics Regulation. As for how we can move forward, there is a new framework in place. There is also the issue, by the way, of devolution and the impact that that is having on data. There is a framework moving forward for data sharing. It is very difficult. The noble Lord is absolutely right that it was in the Lievesley report. Given that progress was not as speedy as we had hoped, what we are looking to do now, through the recommendations and with the current interim National Statistician, is to implement better processes more quickly.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, the ONS’s attempt to improve the quality of its data has been challenged by staff members of the Civil Service union, the PCS. They have voted once again in favour of strike action and non-compliance over the ONS’s office attendance target, which is 40%—just two days a week. Does the Minister believe that this level of working from home is consistent with the ONS getting its act together?

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

My Lords, Ministers are clear that we expect people to be in the office 60% of the time, at least. The new ONS leadership is working with unions to resolve this dispute. One of the issues that was highlighted in both the Lievesley and Devereux reviews was culture. It is very hard to effect cultural change if people are not in the office.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, what progress have the Government made in implementing the report of the Sullivan review, which recommended collection of data by sex?

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

My Lords, the Sullivan review has been published and has been shared with all relevant government departments to ensure that it informs their thinking.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, Sir Robert Devereux’s independent review of the ONS earlier this year highlighted a culture where there was

“a reluctance, at senior levels, to hear and act on difficult news”

and where unrealistic targets were pursued. What measures are being taken to change that organisational culture, and are the Government confident that they now have the correct leadership, in terms of technical expertise, to improve both the statistics and the culture, so that those in positions of senior management listen to internal warnings about data quality?

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

My Lords, we are very grateful to Emma Rourke, the acting National Statistician, for working with us as we seek to fix some of the current challenges. Since we came to government, we have had the Devereux review to restore public trust and confidence in ONS national statistics; we appointed a new Permanent Secretary to the ONS, which was the second recommendation of the Devereux review, to ensure that there was significant corporate leadership; and we are continuing to work with them and with the UKSA chair to make sure that the ONS is reformed and is fit for purpose.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, the UK Statistics Authority’s new code of practice now covers the trustworthy communication of data and statistics. Are there plans to update the Ministerial Code to reflect this?

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

I believe that all my colleagues are very clear on their responsibilities under the Ministerial Code, and we have updated it since we came to office. We have no plans to update it now, but obviously it is always under review.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, in his independent review, Sir Robert also pointed to relatively low pay, leading to recruitment and retention difficulties, particularly for analysts. Does my noble friend the Minister agree?

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

Obviously, pay levels within the ONS are a matter for its leadership. I reassure noble Lords, however, that the budget for the ONS has increased. Rarely would I say so from this Dispatch Box, but the last Government and this Government have ensured that the budget for the ONS has increased by 6.5% year on year since 2015. It is the only government department to have had that uplift, and its budget is over £430 million. It has the resources it needs to make sure that they are deployed effectively.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the new Permanent Secretary has the technical expertise necessary in this particular area?

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

Absolutely.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I believe I am right in saying that some 40% to 50% of all ONS data is produced by survey. What steps are being taken to dramatically reduce that percentage? Surveys rely on the good will of people offering to fill them in, particularly in areas such as immigration; there must be a better way to collect data than surveys.

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

The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point about the quality and calibre of our data and how we collect it. As the world moves on, so has our need for data, and how we use and collect it. We expect the ONS to be using all available resources to it. We also need to make sure of the value—especially with regard to the census, for example—of survey-based data, because it is some of the most effective and efficient available to us.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware that when I was First Sea Lord, I used to encourage my sailors to all be on board the ships when they were working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

Why should the Civil Service work to a different pattern? Admittedly it has few ships, but I would be very interested to know.

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

My Lords, as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy, I would never want to disagree with a much more senior officer. The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point. While people who do not necessarily have to be deployed also have the 60% target for being in the office, there is an issue here about making sure that we have people in the right place at the right time, especially when we are trying to effect cultural change. That is what is clearly required at the ONS, according to both the reviews that have been undertaken.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

My Lords, I was pleased to hear from the Minister just now that the Sullivan review has been copied to all departments. Can she tell the House what they are doing about it?

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

My Lords, I answer for the Cabinet Office. I can inform the noble Lord that it has been shared and highlighted to the relevant government departments. If he has a specific query, I am more than happy for him to write to me, and I will respond to it.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will know how keen I am to set targets for departments and organisations. Given that we spend more every year on this service, do we not need to have some targets that we can judge its performance by?

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

The noble Lord raises a very important point, especially given the concern about some of the data. I reassure noble Lords that we have faith in the ONS and that the overwhelming majority of its data is sound. Having said that, we have established, with the ONS, the economic statistics steering group, which includes representatives from the Cabinet Office, the Treasury, the Bank of England and the OBR. It meets quarterly to track its progress on being more effective with its economic data.

“Soldier F” Trial Verdict

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, as part of the small team that helped my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton draft his apology for Bloody Sunday, I stand by every word in that Statement. But in the case of soldier F, 15 years after the 12-year Saville inquiry, the judge was clear that the evidence presented fell well short of the standard required for a conviction. Meanwhile, last month, a different judge in Belfast dismissed the challenge against another former soldier, after four years of investigation, as being “utterly divorced from reality”. Does this not reinforce what we have consistently said about the chances of successful prosecutions at this distance from the Troubles being vanishingly small? Given that, will the Government now think again about the provisions in their Troubles Bill that will leave the terrorists largely untouched but mean elderly veterans once again facing lengthy investigations and being dragged back before the courts?

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

I thank the noble Lord for his work with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in response to Bloody Sunday. We need to remember at this point, as at all points, that we are talking about people and their experiences. With regard to the substantive point that he raised, I remind your Lordships’ House that the current legacy Act did not halt the prosecution of soldier F. Unfortunate false promises, as it turns out, were made to the veterans community about immunity, but they would never have been able to be applied.

I remind noble Lords that we have drafted our forthcoming Troubles legislation, which we will have many opportunities to discuss in your Lordships’ House, with veterans at its heart, to make sure that the provisions that veterans community organisations have asked for are reflected in it, along with the protection of our veterans. During this week of remembrance, it is incredibly important that we put on record every day our thanks to those who are currently serving, those who have served and those who served in Operation Banner.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, in the other place, my colleague Al Pinkerton pointed out that prosecution should not be persecution. Clearly, there is a whole set of issues that we still need to resolve in the context of Northern Ireland, having gone through a long period agreeing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act. Obviously, we welcome the new legislation that the Government are bringing forward as another opportunity to look at this. But does the Minister not agree that this is a very difficult time for families of victims and that it will be essential that, with the new legislation, victims as well as veterans have trust in the process?

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

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We are not bringing forward legislation for the sake of bringing forward legislation—noble Lords discuss legislation to the nth degree. We are bringing it forward so that victims and their families can get the answers that they are still waiting for. The noble Lord was absolutely right to say that it has been 50 years; other people have waited even longer for answers. It is incredibly important that victims and their families are at the heart of our legislation, so that we can deliver on the promise of the Stormont House agreement and what we pledged in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, to make sure that legacy is dealt with too.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, now that the 2023 Act has been suspended, it is open season once more on veterans. Quite recently, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced six protections for veterans. Do His Majesty’s Government intend to put those six protections in the new legislation, and if not, why not?

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

My Lords, let me be clear that the legacy Act still stands; nothing has been put into abeyance. We are bringing forward two things: the remedial order to tackle the issue of civil cases and immunity—this was in our manifesto—and new legislation. I can go through the protections for veterans and am happy to write to the noble Lord to specify exactly where they will be, but the overwhelming majority of them are in the Bill.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State in the other place told us that the Irish Government have moved to a place where they would give their “fullest co-operation”. When will we see the Irish Government move to that place? Where is the evidence for that? Some of us would like to have seen any co-operation over the past 50 years.

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

The noble Baroness raises an incredibly important point. That is why it was so important that we announced a joint framework with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Tánaiste to make sure that they are committed. Obviously, I cannot speak for their actions —we will all be judged on how we deliver—but this Government are moving forward with our legacy plans.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, when even the judge in this case has said that the evidence fell well short of the standard required, can the Minister understand why most people regard these prosecutions, particularly this one, as vexatious? Can she understand the feeling among many people in Northern Ireland, from all communities, that a blind eye is turned to the ringleaders of terrorism, who continue today to boast of their involvement in crimes and who eulogise and glorify terrorism? There is legislation on the books, but nothing is done. They may be elected politicians in Sinn Féin—some of them are MPs and some are even in the Executive. Why is it that certain people are immune from prosecution while our veterans are hounded?

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

My Lords, no one is immune from prosecution and nor should they be. As the veterans’ commissioners of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales said collectively in July, this is a call not for immunity from the law but for fairness under it. That applies not just to people who wear uniforms; it should apply to everybody. With regard to the prosecutions, over the last month noble Lords have heard me, in different guises, talk about the independence of our Public Prosecution Service and our judiciary. Those are incredibly important parts—the core basis—of our British values. That is why people put on uniforms to protect them, and it is incredibly important that that is what is delivered.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, given what the Minister has just said, can she explain how many prosecutions of former public servants—Army and police —might be happening? We know of some that are pending. How many prosecutions are pending for former terrorists—enemies of the state—who were shooting British people, both Northern Irish and English? What about Mr Gerry Adams, known for being on the Army Council in Belfast?

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

My Lords, the vast majority of live cases are actually against paramilitaries. We need to remember that terrorists killed over 3,000 people during the Troubles. Over 25,000 of them were imprisoned during the Troubles. Very difficult decisions had to be made to deliver peace in Northern Ireland. Some of those were around the early releases. To be clear, the overwhelming majority of current live cases are against paramilitaries.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, could my noble friend confirm that the decisions in the case of Soldier F and the other cases that have been highlighted where judges have taken a particular view demonstrate the impartiality and appropriateness of the way in which judges act? Could she further confirm that the Crown Prosecution Service will apply the same tests to all these cases as they do to other cases and that those should be based on the probability of successful prosecution and whether the prosecution is in the public interest?

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

I thank my noble friend and can confirm both aspects. The Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland is independent and has clear structures to determine what cases it does and does not take up.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, language matters. In taking forward the new legislation, will the Minister and Government reflect on the fact that, although this is often presented as an issue of veterans versus victims, in a great many instances the veterans and their families were victims too? Will the Government ensure that, in taking forward this new legislation, they do not create yet more victims among our veterans community?

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

I thank the noble and gallant Lord and I absolutely agree with him. One of the most important parts of this is recognising that there are many members of the military community who still do not have answers themselves and whose families are awaiting justice. That is why we need to make sure that they have trust and faith in the legacy commission. That is why they will have a role in the governance structures, as outlined in the legacy Bill.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a serving member of the Armed Forces. It is impossible not to conclude that successive Governments have failed in their duty of care to our veterans. The process itself has been a punishment. This has not gone unnoticed by serving members of the Armed Forces today, who want to know that, when it comes to making split-second decisions of life or death, they will have the backing of the Government who they serve. Can the Minister put in simple language to those veterans and members of the Armed Forces that they have the backing of this Government, and why the Government continue to rule out a statute of limitation or time bar on civil cases?

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

Noble Lords are aware of my personal commitment to the military family and of my entry on the register of interests. Let me be very clear from the Dispatch Box: we have the back of our Armed Forces. We celebrate the fact that they put on a uniform to protect us and that, in Operation Banner, as in many different environments, they run towards danger. With regards to the statute of limitations, it would apply also to paramilitaries. As we have heard from numerous veterans’ groups, they do not want that to happen either.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all the infected and affected victims who have been in touch with me and other noble Lords in the last few weeks, not least since the consultation started and the independent review of the workings of IBCA was published. They are living the consequences of the scandal that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, outlined at the beginning of her contribution, and the problem is that any delays or problems in the scheme retraumatise and revictimise them. Although I am grateful that the Government have been tackling some of the issues, there are still many outstanding; and while the numbers of those registering claims and receiving offers have begun to improve since we last met, there remain real concerns about the slowness of the deceased claims.

The phrase used is “to start by December 2025”, but that is a somewhat woolly timescale; it should not just be about starting. When is it expected that the claims process will be up and running at pace—a favourite phase of the Cabinet Office? Also, understanding that one has to use, test and learn in each different part of the compensation process, can the Minister say when things will be speeded up? It may be too early to ask if there is an end date in sight, but even an end year in sight for deceased claims would be very welcome.

Victims and groups have referred IBCA and the processes to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the House of Commons, so will both IBCA and the Cabinet Office co-operate fully with any requests for evidence that that Committee might seek?

I want to thank the Government for increasing transparency. We have over many years in your Lordships’ House been concerned about some of the secrecy about arrangements. A lot of this goes back 50 years, to when doctors were not very clear about their own arrangements and there certainly was no paperwork. But it is good that the names of the expert group and the minutes of its meetings are now published, and I hope there will continue to be more transparency about the arrangements.

I have a specific query about the arrangements for the assessment of severe mental health continuous treatment. Apparently, the Government are insisting on six months of continuous treatment as the benchmark, to justify the supplementary routes for mental health, but the NHS offers continuous treatment for only 20-week periods because there just are not enough counsellors and psychiatrists available to go round. As a result, there are inevitably gaps in treatment in order that other people can also be treated. To the victims, this feels like a barrier that none of them can get past. I wonder if the Minister could look at that problem.

There are concerns about the processing of deceased claims. I see that there is a proposal to have the first claim started. The victims continue to be very concerned about the Treasury and HMRC’s stance on inheritance tax, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, outlined. The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners and the Association of Lifetime Lawyers have written a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, copied to the Paymaster-General, to point out that in their discussions with HMRC over the additional report on compensation, which Sir Brian Langstaff published earlier this year, they remain particularly concerned about this payment. The issue is that the Government have confirmed that compensation payments should be free from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax, but, unfortunately, because of the way IHT operates, this principle is not being upheld consistently.

Here, there are three points. Where the infected or affected persons are alive when compensation is paid, they get a tax credit to ensure the sums are not later taxed in their estate. But where the victims or their loved ones have sadly died before receiving compensation, the payments flow through their estates without the benefits of such a credit. Their beneficiaries can therefore face IHT charges—in some cases at 40%—on compensation specifically designed to provide redress for a heinous act by many Governments over many years.

This so-called secondary transfer problem is particularly acute where compensation first passes to a surviving spouse or civil partner and then on to children or other relatives. In such cases, significant proportions of compensation are lost to tax. Throughout the inquiry, the last Government, and indeed this Government, made it clear that past benefits would not be called back out of settlement money. Surely the same must be true for the Treasury and HMRC. It would be iniquitous for an infected person to die, their settlement passing to their widow, who dies, say, within a month, but then anything passed on to their children is severely taxed. What is different about infected blood to a general principle on IHT is that entire families are badly affected by the experience of their loved one. This is not just in medical terms; we have to remember that they were also shunned in their communities, particularly those who had AIDS, losing homes and jobs because of ill health. It would be awful to punish them through that taxation.

Will the Minister agree to a meeting with Treasury to discuss this issue? It is not a good look for Treasury to give billions with one hand and then claw back with the other. I thank the Minister for the Statement and hope she will continue to keep your Lordships’ House informed of the progress and issues in the weeks to come, including the regulations that we will look at very shortly.

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

My Lords, I am, as ever, very grateful to the noble Baronesses for the thoughtful and productive points raised on this issue. It is very easy for Members of your Lordships’ House to get caught up in the politics of many issues, but on the issue of infected blood this has genuinely been a cross-party and cross-House approach, and I hope we will continue to adopt that theme. At the heart of everything that we are trying to do is to support the victims of one of the most heinous experiences the state has ever undertaken. We need to fix it, not only for them but also, as a Member of your Lordships’ House reminded us last time, to ensure that wider society can have faith that the state can be a force for good. I truly believe that it can.

I truly believe that, since I last updated the House in July, significant progress has been made. This demonstrates that we are committed to moving forward swiftly, and with the community at the front and centre of what we are doing. In other contexts, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and I have interesting discussions about the concept of test and learn. But truly, if we think about what we are trying to do, it is to compensate many thousands of people with up to £11.8 billion—although that is not a target or a goal, but the amount allocated currently. We are trying to get money out the door as quickly as possible to the people who need it. Test and learn has been an appropriate way to do that, to make sure that taxpayers’ money gets out to the people who need it as quickly as possible and at the appropriate speed.

I would like to respond to the points raised by the noble Baronesses. As ever, if I have missed something—and I and pretty sure I will have—I will write. First, both noble Baronesses raised the issue of inheritance tax, which was obviously a theme of discussions in the other place. It may be helpful to clarify exactly where we are. Anyone in direct receipt of compensation from IBCA or who is a beneficiary of an estate of a deceased infected person does not need to pay inheritance tax. Inheritance tax relief is applied, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, to the estate of the person who received the compensation, whether they received it as an infected person or an affected person. Under HMRC regulations, the inheritance tax on that person’s estate is reduced so that the amount of compensation received is effectively free of any inheritance tax when it passes to the estate beneficiaries.

However, once the compensation has passed to the beneficiaries, it is treated the same for inheritance tax purposes as any other money or property they own; the relief does not apply again—for example, when the beneficiaries themselves die. Where compensation is paid to a person who has been affected or infected and that person then dies, the inheritance tax which would otherwise be payable in respect of their estate is relieved. It does not matter who the beneficiary of that estate is, the inheritance tax relief applies. However, once the money is received by that beneficiary, inheritance tax applies as normal. To put it as simply as possible, the relief will apply to the estate of the person who is being directly compensated, whether that person is infected, affected, living or, sadly, passed away.

Having said that, I appreciate the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House, and having reflected on Hansard, we are listening. I will seek to arrange the meeting with Treasury officials—I am about to make myself very popular with the Treasury—to discuss this issue. We will see if my noble friend Lord Livermore is still speaking to me by the end of the day. There is also the Budget coming, so we may have to wait a little bit, but I will endeavour to answer noble Lords.

On the consultation and timing, the consultation will run for 12 weeks, to 26 January. We will publish a response to the consultation on GOV.UK within 12 weeks of its closing. Regulations to make changes to the scheme as a result of the consultation will be brought forward next year.

This is a genuine consultation, not a tick-box exercise. Many recommendations have been made by our technical experts that offer us a range of options within the tariff-based system that we will seek to apply. We should always listen to those people who are affected, but we especially need to make sure that we get this right for the infected blood community. This is truly about making sure that we get the answers needed.

Both noble Baronesses raised points about the effectiveness of IBCA. Noble Lords may be aware that on Thursday last week we published a review by Sir Tyrone Urch that we had commissioned in August, reviewing the effectiveness of IBCA to make sure that it was able to take us forward to the next stages as quickly as possible. He has made a series of recommendations, which we published only last week, and now we are looking, with IBCA, to see who is appropriate to take them forward—noble Lords will be aware that they focus on three issues: stability, resources and digital systems—to make sure that we have the opportunity to move forward.

A matter of weeks ago, I visited IBCA to make sure that I was confident in its ability to take steps forward. That option is available to all Members of your Lordships’ House, and for those who are interested I highly recommend taking a trip to Newcastle to meet IBCA. It was an extraordinary experience, on which I am sure I will reflect more during these questions.

I would like to reassure noble Lords about the ability of the staff at IBCA to move forward. IBCA now employs 329 dedicated claim managers who support people with their claims from start to finish. All claim managers are fully trained and complete a three-week training programme, which includes working with a clinical psychologist to undertake trauma-informed training to ensure that claim managers work compassionately with the community. They are extraordinary people; when I met one of them, he said: “Other than the National Lottery, I get to make someone a millionaire every day by working at IBCA”. By the time he has ensured that the payment is in their bank account, he knows the family well. If any part of this can be joyful, that part is.

On delivery, all registered infected have been contacted to claim by October; for the unregistered infected, the first claims begin in November; and affected and infected estates will begin by the end of the year. I appreciate that the noble Baroness is concerned about when we will pay, and for the overwhelming majority the answer is by the end of 2027.

I have an answer, although time is short, about the issue of severe psychological harm and the six months of support. I will write to noble Baroness, but I assure her that this is about not counselling but psychiatric treatment. A day as an in-patient qualifies you, not six months, but there is a severity, and currently part of the consultation is about how we will pay that. I will reflect on everything else that has been said.

Not only was I overwhelmed by the expertise and professionalism of the people I met when I visited IBCA earlier this year but I want to give special mention to IBCA’s three user consultants, as they are called, who are members of the infected blood community themselves. Jason Evans, Clair Walton and Susan Harris advise IBCA on how its processes and plans can be focused on the needs of those who will be applying for compensation. Given their personal experiences and how easy it would have been for them to walk away, the fact that they are helping us to fix it is extraordinary, and I put on record my huge admiration for them. I will reflect on any points that I have missed and write to the noble Baronesses.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for having met me, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, with whom I discussed the Statement yesterday.

The Minister has spoken about claim managers now being trained and directly employed. I wonder if she has evidence that trust has increased and of how the claim managers are managing when there is difficulty accessing medical records, particularly if the microfiched records cannot be found easily or if there are gaps in the whole medical history.

A separate question, but equally important, is how claim managers and others are able to provide advice to recipients who may wish to be protected from it being known that they have compensation because they need advice on how to manage the payments they receive. Sadly, they may be fearful of pressures put on them, either within their own families or within the community, when it is known that they have received a large sum of money in compensation, because there is sometimes inadequate understanding of what the compensation has actually been for.

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

I put on record my thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and—I think I can call her a noble friend, even though she is not on my Benches—Lady Campbell, who is much missed; I am pleased that she will be returning to us in the new year. As ever, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raises very important points. I think trust has increased, but that is difficult to tell in an environment where misinformation is rife; making sure that people have access to genuine information is truly one of the most challenging parts of this. We have discussed in your Lordships’ House many times the ability of IBCA to communicate and the need to make sure that it is providing relevant information.

That said, the claim managers have played an incredibly important role. We are seeing that when claims are finished—obviously this is a small community, relatively speaking—people are asking the claim managers who have just finished with them if they will be the claim manager for their friends, or for other members of the community, by name. This suggests that trust in the claim managers, at least, is clear, which is an important part of this.

The noble Baroness makes two incredibly important points. One is about access to medical records. Our claim managers are not investigators but, where there is clearly paperwork missing, they are working with the recipients to help them find the paperwork; so the onus is not just on the members of the infected blood community—there is someone helping them get the paperwork. We still have challenges in making sure that we can access some of the medical records. Noble Lords will appreciate that, as we move forward away from registered infected cases and towards estates and other areas, that may well be challenging, but we are working on what new technologies we can use to harness some of that material.

As regards advice to recipients who want to be protected, we are offering paid financial advice to make sure that it is easily accessed. We have to appreciate that these are very vulnerable people who have had horrendous experiences and could be targeted again, so making sure that we can work to protect them will be an incredibly important part of what we do going forward.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel that I am a veteran of this issue, like many other Members of your Lordships’ House. Indeed, I was a Health Minister in 2009 and 2010, and I think that might have been the first time I had a huge row with civil servants because they would not let me say sorry. That is something that featured through many Administrations, with great shame. I was on the Opposition Benches when we came to agreeing the amendments, and thus finally agreed the scheme that we see before us today. I congratulate my Government on finding the funding to be as generous as possible in this compensation scheme.

I want to ask my noble friend the Minister about transparency, how that has been built into what happens next and, indeed, the wider lessons that need to be learned from the way in which the scheme has been constructed, as well as other issues that might arise in the future and that will need this kind of attention.

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

I thank my noble friend for her work in getting us to this point. We put on record our thanks to her, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as the leading negotiators making sure we got to this point. My noble friend was not allowed to say sorry, but I can say sorry to those people who have been affected by this. I get to do that because of the fights that she had. For that, I am grateful; I do not have to have so many fights with my civil servants.

With regard to transparency, noble Lords will appreciate that we are talking about a cohort of people who have been affected by infected blood and who have no trust. Rightly, there is no reservoir of good will. We have to be as transparent and open as we possibly can to make sure that they know what is happening, why it is happening, at what speed and in what process. While the speed may be a challenge, we have to make sure that it is in place.

One thing that I have not said yet but wanted to put on record is that, as of 1 October, staff at IBCA are now directly employed and are no longer seconded civil servants. They are now public servants who work for IBCA. I think that helps lead to transparency of and trust in IBCA. In addition to the fact that we publish everything—the reviews are making sure that we are able to do that, including transparent publication in relation to the technical meeting group—everything we are doing is trying to rebuild trust with that community.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I listened to the Minister carefully with regard to inheritance tax. I am sure that she will agree that for those who are affected by this scandal, it will be generational rather than just stop at the end of the life of the person who was infected. Let me give an example of the generational issues: a child of somebody who was infected has been affected, and that may pass down to their children in terms of them not having a full education or not being able to work fully in light of the issue they were dealing with in respect of their parents. What would the Minister say to citizens and individuals who have been affected, where it goes to their children’s children, and they may have to pay inheritance tax? What can the Government do in terms of speaking to the Treasury to ensure generational fairness as well as fairness for those who have been infected when it comes to inheritance tax?

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

I truly appreciate the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House about this issue. I have said as much as I can without getting myself into even more trouble, but what I will say is that it is a fair point. Noble Lords will be aware that I also talk about issues pertaining to Northern Ireland and legacy, intergenerational trauma and making sure that we have the right support structures in place and the right answers for people so that they can perhaps turn the page—I do not know if they can ever shut the book—on what happened to them and move forward. While I appreciate noble Lords and I have probably already got myself in trouble with my colleagues in the Treasury, I have heard and will continue to listen to noble Lords’ contributions on this issue.