Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this draft order extends provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 that enable criminal trials to continue to be conducted without a jury in Northern Ireland, where certain conditions are met, for a further two-year period until 31 July 2027. Otherwise, these provisions would expire on 31 July this year. The non- jury trial provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, which apply only in Northern Ireland, provide for a non-jury trial in exceptional cases where certain conditions are met that create a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired if the trial were to be conducted by a jury.

The decision to proceed with a non-jury trial is made by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, following a request from the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the Public Prosecution Service. In a non-jury trial, a single judge sits alone to hear the case and must give reasons for a conviction. Any person convicted before a non-jury trial has a right of appeal on either sentence or conviction without leave.

Following a 12-week public consultation and consideration of the indicators previously identified by the working group on non-jury trials, as well as wider information about the security situation in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State has determined that these non-jury trial provisions continue to be necessary to uphold the fair and effective administration of justice in Northern Ireland.

I reassure noble Lords that in Northern Ireland today there is a strong presumption of a jury trial in all criminal cases. In 2024, less than 1% of all Crown Court cases in Northern Ireland were conducted without a jury. However, in the small proportion of cases in which they are exercised, the non-jury trial provisions not only protect potential jurors from threat of intimidation but offer certain defendants protection from the possibility of a hostile or fearful jury.

To further reassure your Lordships’ Committee, the Government ran a 12-week public consultation from 9 December 2024 to 3 March 2025. Only 17 responses were received through the public consultation: nine were in favour of extending the NJT provisions for a further two years, three were opposed and five neither clearly supported nor objected. The responses in favour typically cited the continued presence of paramilitary control and coercion in Northern Ireland communities, meaning that victims and families fear participating in the criminal justice system and that there is continued risk of jury intimidation.

Some of the responses against extending the provision suggested that the alternative non-jury trial provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 could instead be relied upon in Northern Ireland. However, as pointed out by some responses in favour of the extension, the threshold for the use of these provisions is much higher than under the 2007 Act. This makes it unsuited to deal with the unique challenges associated with Northern Ireland, as it would expose jurors to an unacceptable risk of intimidation and potentially undermine the administration of justice. In addition, while the 2003 Act includes provisions for a non-jury trial where there is jury tampering, it does not mitigate against the risk of jury bias, which the consultation responses have demonstrated is an ongoing risk in Northern Ireland. The full details of these responses were published in the Government’s consultation response document, which can be found on the NIO pages on GOV.UK. This was published on 6 May, the day on which this draft order was laid before the House.

--- Later in debate ---

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

First, I thank all noble Lords—and the noble Baroness—for their support for the extension of the non-jury trial provisions.

Before I move on to the substance of what we have been talking about, I want to reference something that the noble Lord, Lord Caine, rightly raised: today is the anniversary of the Somme. Unfortunately, due to parliamentary time and business in both Houses, no Minister is able to go to Northern Ireland today, but the Secretary of State laid a wreath at the Cenotaph to recognise the service of and remember those who lost their lives and fought to give us everything that we are discussing today around our access to a fair justice system.

I also thank the noble Lord for making sure that every anniversary is always referenced in the House. He taught me well when I took over his former role on Northern Ireland. His first piece of advice was to make sure that I always know which anniversary it is; I am grateful for both that advice and his ongoing support.

We are using an exceptional system that is used only in very limited circumstances. There is rightly a presumption for a jury trial in all cases. As I have said, and as we have touched on, non-jury trials account for less than 1% of all Crown Court cases in Northern Ireland. The Government are committed to ending the non-jury trial system under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, but now is not the right time to do so; I am very pleased that noble Lords recognise this.

This Government are committed to tackling the threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism, as the previous Government were, and to supporting the Northern Ireland Executive’s programme to tackle paramilitarism. However, we believe that further progress on the security situation is required before we can be confident that these non-jury trials are no longer required. I want to touch on some of the points made by noble Lords; I hope to answer all their questions but, if I do not, I will reflect on them in Hansard and write to noble Lords.

It is incredibly important that we touch on the current situation with regard to paramilitarism in Northern Ireland. As has been said very eloquently in your Lordships’ House, not only was it was never justified; it is not justified today. It requires a concerted effort, from those of us who believe in democracy and peace, to keep fighting the good fight. Perhaps that is not the appropriate language to have used. Violence and criminality have no place in Northern Ireland. They serve only to hold us back from decades of progress as we move forwards towards a peaceful and prosperous future in Northern Ireland.

I turn to some of the specific points. My noble friend Lady Ritchie touched on the number of non-jury trial cases in 2023. As the noble Lord, Lord Caine, stated, it was 10 cases out of 1,501 last year, or 0.7%. There has been a clear trajectory downwards in those numbers.

On ending the temporary provisions, which I think all noble Lords agree is where we need to end up—as was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Caine, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie—none of us wants to see this system of non-jury trials in place for longer than needed, but much depends on the security situation. While I wish I could tell my noble friend when the security situation will be resolved, that is unfortunately beyond my gift. I wish I could resolve it tomorrow. The Government will keep the provisions under constant review and continue to ask the independent reviewer of the justice and security Act to review the operation of non-jury trials in their annual report. As I said in opening, without prejudging any future consultation, the Secretary of State has asked officials to examine, over the next two years, how Northern Ireland can move away from these provisions when the time is right.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords—

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

I do not know where I got 3,000 from—I meant to say 6,000. I apologise to the Committee and ask for correction.

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

I thank the noble Lord for his correction. He did worry me a little that something had happened within the PSNI that I had missed. I have my own slight correction to make, which is more of a technicality: the £200 million I announced for police recruitment has been approved by the Department of Finance but needs executive approval, which it is yet to receive. I wanted to clarify that before I got myself in trouble.

Regarding the very genuine question from my noble friend and many others on the ring-fencing of the PSNI grant, I understand why this is such an issue. We increased the budget during the SR to £19.3 billion, which is the highest amount on record. However, we must be clear on what devolution is and is not. The money has been sent to Northern Ireland; it is there, and it is now up to the politicians in Northern Ireland to prioritise funding. However, as noble Lords will be aware, we have ensured that there is ring-fencing for the additional security fund, and we continue to work daily with the Executive to secure additional funding.

On the delay in trials raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, while the Justice Minister for England is here and definitely heard that request, I will clarify for the record that the issue of delays in the projection of non-jury trials was raised by two respondents to the consultation on how long this was taking. One respondent who objected to the extension of the provisions in particular raised the concern that a judge sitting alone could adjourn the case for a longer period of time than would be possible if a jury had been sitting. However, this should be seen against the backdrop of the wider criminal justice system being subject to delay.

The justice system is devolved, and it is for the Department of Justice to lead. It has work under way to address some of the causes, including work to reform committal processes. PSNI is also progressing work to improve the timeliness of case file submissions to tackle delay. In March 2025, the devolved Minister of Justice welcomed the allocation of additional funding to progress reforms within the justice system, and £20.45 million has been allocated to help speed up and transform the criminal justice system.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I do not wish to detain the Committee for much longer. The noble Baroness rightly said that the criminal justice system is devolved in Northern Ireland, but these are cases that involve national security issues, which are, of course, a responsibility of His Majesty’s Government and the Secretary of State. In former times it was very common practice for the Secretary of State and the Justice Minister to have frequent meetings at which they would discuss these matters. Could she assure me that these are continuing and that the Secretary of State regularly engages with the Justice Minister to try to speed up these delays in the criminal justice system?

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

Like magic, a piece of paper has arrived that confirms that the Secretary of State—

[Lord Caine (Con)]

Your officials are brilliant.

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

My officials are absolutely brilliant. It confirms that the Secretary of State engages with the Justice Minister regularly on issues of shared interest and concern, and this obviously includes issues pertaining to national security and will continue to do so. I will endeavour to get an update on anything else that is going on and write to the noble Lord.

I think I have answered most of the substantive points, but there are a couple of others that I want to touch on. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his previous work on counterterrorism and the work that he is doing with the Northern Ireland committee. That is a step towards normalisation, which has been a theme as we talk about some of these issues. Making sure that normalisation happens, in terms of both counterterrorism and the operation of our communities, is key because we are democrats. Making sure that we are being held to account is key.

My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked when legacy legislation will come forward. She knows me well as a Whip, and I am adamant and clear that we will definitely bring forward such legislation when parliamentary time allows. All noble Lords will be aware that this was a manifesto commitment and was in the King’s Speech, and I expect to spend many hours in Committee debating it with all of you.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I appreciate that she cannot give a time commitment on the introduction of legislation, but can she confirm whether the Government intend to set out the next steps on legacy before the Summer Recess?

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

I can assure the noble Lord that he and I are likely to be in correspondence before Summer Recess.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

On the £200 million that has been allocated to policing, have the Executive received that amount? There is some confusion on the £200 million. We are getting information that, until now, they have received only £5 million. Clarity on the £200 million would be important, especially when it comes to policing. Has it been approved by the Executive?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

I believe it is still waiting to be approved by the Executive. But in terms of the block grant, one of the things that we have been able to reassure the Executive on is what their funding is going to be over the next three years, and that gives them a level of confidence to move forward.

I have received another clever bit of paper. Yesterday’s June monitoring round announcement confirmed that the Executive have agreed to give the Northern Ireland Department of Justice first call on up to £7 million in future monitoring rounds in the current financial year, towards the first year of the PSNI workforce recovery business case. That is the £7 million, not the £200 million. But I want to reassure noble Lords before I sit down or give way that this is a devolved matter, and how they are allocating their money is a matter for colleagues in Belfast.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

As a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, I say that the Minister will appreciate that that sort of commitment from the June monitoring process is not really a commitment because I know personally that these sorts of commitments were made to me as Housing Minister and they never necessarily materialised. I ask whether it is possible for her, as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, to impress upon the Northern Ireland Executive the importance of the definite allocation of funding for policing because the chief constable needs it in order to deal with current policing pressures in advance of dealing with those issues to do with legacy that are pre devolution.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore]

Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, there is confusion about this £200 million, where it has gone, who is allocating it and so on. We need clarification around the allocation of future funding for police.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

My Lords, what I can say is that this is a good first step to getting police on the streets. The very fact that we are having this discussion about how we are going to spend more money that the UK Government have allocated to the Northern Ireland Executive is a good step. I think all noble Lords would agree that John Boutcher is an extraordinary public servant and has made an effective argument as to why he needs additional resourcing. The onus is therefore on the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure that they are communicating clearly with him about next steps. On that note, I think I have answered all questions from noble Lords, and I hope that they will continue to support the adoption of the SI.

Motion agreed.

UK Extreme Heat

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prepare for, and mitigate, the increasing likelihood of prolonged periods of extreme heat in the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, this Government are taking action to strengthen the UK’s resilience, including against environmental threats such as the recent heatwave. The national risk register details the wide-ranging impacts of extreme heat to ensure that comprehensive contingency plans are in place. In response to the heatwave last week, the Cabinet Office convened the summer resilience network to ensure that departments were alert to the impending weather and were satisfied that the sectors they represent had effective plans in place. While I am here, I want to put on record our thanks to all the professionals working to keep us safe during extreme weather periods, from the LRFs to agencies including the Met Office, the Environment Agency and government departments.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Prolonged extreme heat is now 100 times more likely because of climate change, a new Met Office report has found. Inescapable heat is a silent mass human killer. Our systems and infrastructure are not prepared. The recent adaptation report found that many of our plans could not even be evaluated. Will the Minister initiate better communications with our climate scientists, put heat resilience at the heart of policy with a Cabinet position and offer better climate services and advice to society and industry?

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

My Lords, the Cabinet Office works very closely with experts in the Met Office and the UK Health Security Agency to plan for and respond to extreme heat events well in advance of the summer months. Their advice is central to communicating the risk of extreme heat to the public. We understand how extreme heat affects all of society. This is why our preparedness, as part of the national risk register, focuses on the potential impacts of heat across sectors such as health, transport, water supply and vulnerable groups. To reassure the noble Earl, COBRA speaks to our climate scientists daily. This morning’s 8 am call focused on our immediate challenges related to extreme heat at the end of this week and the beginning of next week. All this work is overseen at the Cabinet Office by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister has had a chance to read the report by the Physiological Society entitled Red Alert: Developing a Human-centred National Heat Resilience Strategy. As the House may appreciate, there is growing scientific interest in the effect of heat on human beings, which makes this Question so well timed. The report recommends that the Cabinet Office lead a task force, so my original question was going to be about whether that is happening. But, in the light of the earlier Answer, am I right in thinking that there is now a proper task force established in the Cabinet Office to tackle these issues government-wide?

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

I hate to disappoint my noble friend by saying that I have not read the report he references, but I will make sure I get a copy this afternoon—it is my birthday this weekend, so that will give me something to do. I referenced the summer resilience network, which is convened by COBRA as a cross-government network that brings together all relevant agencies and our devolved Governments to make sure that we are ready. With regard to this period of extreme heat, the first guidance was issued before Easter to make sure that local resilience forums were getting ready. The Cabinet Office takes this extraordinarily seriously and it will be part of our resilience strategy, which we will publish soon. As we are about to discuss the national security strategy, I reassure noble Lords that climate change and its impact as a security feature are referenced 12 times. This is something that the Government take seriously.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I wish the noble Baroness a very happy birthday at the weekend. We should not take climate change in any way lightly nor, indeed, the rise in heat, but I think we should also remember that, during those wicked days of Empire, we all went to India and Africa and people managed to survive—and they still survive in India and Africa and places—so I do not think we should take this overseriously. Does the Minister agree that we should just take sensible precautions?

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

I think that is the most House of Lords question I have had so far. I think we need to remember what happened in 2022 when we had extreme heat in the UK. That was the first time ever that 40 degrees heat was registered in the UK—registered at RAF Coningsby—and there were nearly 3,000 excess deaths, 20,000 hectares were burnt, 14 major incidents were declared and 4 million birds died in 48 hours. The impact of heat in the UK is something we are going to have to deal with. The noble Lord makes an important point about heat overseas. We also have to make sure that British nationals have support when they travel, which is why we have issued guidance only this week about excessive heat in Spain, Greece, Turkey and Cyprus. We need to make sure that people look after themselves when they travel, wherever they are.

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

My Lords, many other countries have the advantage of a maximum working temperature in statute. That has the advantage of being simple and easily understood by workers and employers, especially small employers. Will my noble friend the Minister consider asking colleagues to commission the Health and Safety Executive to conduct a fresh review of the evidence and assess whether it is time for a maximum working temperature in the UK?

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

I thank my noble friend. As a former trade union officer, this is something that I have discussed every summer in my adult life. My noble friend is aware of the current situation with regard to the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations, which require employers to provide a reasonable indoor temperature in the workplace. Obviously, what is reasonable depends on what work you are doing and where you work, which is why in the Moses Room yesterday we had to have the doors open and the fans on. I think it is appropriate that appropriate mitigations are made, but my noble friend will be aware that these conversations are ongoing, and the very nature of this Question ensures that I had yet another conversation about it yesterday.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. Should we not be aware, in discussing this Question, that extreme heat affects us in certain ways, but extreme heat overseas can have devastating effects on crops, with drought, famine and population changes and movements, so we should not treat this lightly? Alongside the need for mitigation, resilience measures and everything that the Minister has said, is not the proof of the increased likelihood of these sorts of episodes an absolute clarion call for this country not to withdraw or retreat from our commitment to domestic progress and international leadership on fighting further climate change?

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

The noble Baroness raises excellent points about why we are having to have these conversations in the first place. It is clear that the chance of 40-degree days in the UK is now 20 times higher than it was in the 1960s, and we have a 50:50 chance of a 40-degree day within the next 12 years. This is changing within the UK, and obviously that has a knock-on effect on climate elsewhere, which is why we need to take this extremely seriously in terms of our impact on the environment and why I was so pleased to see in our industrial strategy, which we published on Monday as part of our plan for change, that we made commitments to green jobs, investment in green energy, embedding net zero and challenges to climate change within our plans for government across every department.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, wish the Minister a very happy birthday for the weekend and hope she enjoys her cheerful reading time. During a recent debate in Grand Committee on wildfires, the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, recognised the problem the Government have with accurate data collection on wildfires and referred to

“the introduction of the new fire and rescue data platform—a new incident reporting tool used by fire and rescue services”.—[Official Report, 12/6/25; col. GC 321.]

Given the higher risk of wildfires during prolonged periods of hot weather, can the Minister commit that the Government will move quickly on this and confirm when this new platform will be up and running?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for the birthday wishes. It is wonderful to hear her cite my noble friend the Minister who is responsible for this. Obviously, MHCLG took responsibility for fire and rescue services only on 1 April, but we are very clear that we will be bringing forward the tool and the wildfire strategy imminently, and I look forward to discussing it with her, undoubtedly at the Dispatch Box, in due course.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, heatwaves can significantly disrupt transport such as by causing rails to buckle overhead, wires to fail and roads to crack, so what specific investment are the Government making to ensure that transport infrastructure is fit for extreme weather?

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

As many of us will be using trains this weekend, this is a key question, especially because I alert all noble Lords to the fact that an amber heat alert has now been issued for this weekend, so people should be careful. The April 2025 Climate Change Committee adaptation progress report rated the policies and plans of the rail and strategic road network as “Good”. DfT’s upcoming adaptation strategy will address the recommendations to empower the sector to take further action.

On the specifics of rail, Network Rail is mindful that extreme heat events such as those we saw in 2022 are difficult to predict but it needs to invest for them, so it is investing in hazard forecasting and in revising its engineering and maintenance standards to keep the railway ready for such events so far as is reasonably practicable. With regard to recognising that passengers will also experience extreme heat in stations and on trains, not just through line disruptions, DfT has tasked the 14 contracted train operating companies to each produce weather resilience and climate change adaptation strategies. Those are not due until January 2026, but that is a step to make sure that policies and procedures are in place. With that, everyone keep safe this weekend, my Lords.

Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL]

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Clause 1 agreed.

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

My Lords, it might be helpful if I inform your Lordships’ House that we will be finishing all the business on today’s Order Paper, so Members may want to consider the length of their contributions.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Perhaps I might clarify that that has not been agreed by the usual channels and the convention is that we finish at 3 pm. We have already had two very late sittings this week, if not three.

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

My Lords, I did just put it in the Teams chat. I did try to talk to the noble Lord about it this afternoon. I am happy to continue such conversations, but having this conversation is also eating into our time. It may be helpful, given that noble Lords are here waiting for their business to commence, that we commence with the business.

Clause 2: Duty on public bodies to take steps to achieve environmental targets

Amendment 2

Moved by

AI and Creative Technologies (Communications and Digital Committee Report)

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Friday 13th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Massey of Hampstead, on his maiden speech: it was very well researched. I am sure he will make a huge contribution to this House with his knowledge and detail.

I also welcome and congratulate my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, outed him in terms of his place of birth and where he has chosen, but, obviously, after his speech, I would say that London should have been a designation, if not Havering and Redbridge. I have known my noble friend Lord Evans for the best part of the last 20 years. As he mentioned, a number of us—maybe a golden generation of politicians and administrators across parties—have taken that well-worn path from City Hall to this place. He is very welcome to have taken that path.

I do remember my time there, because it was intense. I had a transport brief, an environmental brief and then the digital brief: there were plenty of briefs from my former boss. When it came to looking for good guidance, a bit of political compassion and camaraderie, you did look to assembly members on your side for support.

There were various kinds on the assembly. We would sit around the mayor’s table and say, “Who can we talk to? Who can we get some sage guidance from? Who will give us that calm, measured warmth, and a sense of direction?” We were quite inexperienced and new to the role. The name of my noble friend Lord Evans would invariably be at or near the top of that list. He provided me with much guidance, time and patience. I look forward to him being in this House and providing that to us and many more through his measured, emotional and intelligent approach, as he has done throughout his career. I welcome him.

I acknowledge yet again the excellent work of the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, which was chaired with great dedication by my noble friend Lady Stowell. My only regret is that I was not part of this committee through her tenure in producing this report on AI and creative technology scale-ups.

I acknowledge my registered interests, especially my roles in the technology sector, specifically with UK AI businesses. I have spent the best part of the last 25 years working in the technology industry and consider myself to be still in the industry. I am vice-chair of the APPG for AI, and an angel investor in tech businesses.

We cannot help but be aware of the pace of both development and investment in the world that is awakening to the endless possibilities of AI. I will speak today through the lens of not just the creative technology sector, because, as the report recognises, the challenge of evolving our numerous innovative and successful scale-ups to full-blown global businesses is consistent across many industries.

As most of us recognise, the report states that we in the UK have many of the essential ingredients for scale-up success. I am acutely aware of this because it was the emergence of the start-up scene in London in the late 2000s that led me to persuade the then mayor to establish the first digital office for London. Working with the then Government, we set out to support the emerging creativity and innovation in east London with policies and interventions to attract talent and investment by ensuring that risk takers—the entrepreneurs and investors—felt the city was on their side, wanting them to succeed and wanting them to stay in London and the UK to drive both opportunities and economic growth.

The result was Tech City, as the ecosystem became known, which significantly transformed London’s economy and global tech standing. By 2013, Tech City had grown from 85 start-ups in 2010 to approximately 200 firms. Around 5,000 companies were located in the wider area, contributing to economic growth and high-value jobs by four years after that.

Since 2010, London-based tech companies have raised $5.2 billion in VC funding. By 2021, London’s tech ecosystem was valued at $142.7 billion, with 76,660 digital technology firms employing 590,000 people, representing 14% of the UK’s total tech firms. Tech City helped position London as the digital capital of Europe, with more than a third of Europe’s tech giants based in the city, contributing over £56 billion to the economy.

Tech City also fostered a vibrant start-up scene, producing 23 unicorns—tech companies valued at over $1 billion or more—by 2019, and with a combined value of $132 billion. Community initiatives such as Digital Shoreditch, Independent Shoreditch and Silicon Roundabout meet-ups, along with events such as, as we have seen this week, the still-growing London Tech Week, created a collaborative ecosystem for networking and innovation. The UK Government’s £15.5 million funding package from the Technology Strategy Board and the UK digital services index, launched in 2013, supported innovative businesses and benchmarked digital sector performance.

But these policies were then, and this is now. The successful foundations from the last decade need to be built on as we enter the AI age, because now we are in a global economic race, not just to utilise AI technology in all its forms but to own the innovations and host the businesses and associated support ecosystems of businesses and jobs that will reshape the economy and the jobs environment. As the report states, the risk we take by being uncompetitive in this race is that the UK will become an incubator economy for other nations, as foreign companies and investors acquire and hoover up our emerging talents.

Where would this siphoning off of business talent leave us? Apart from being an incubator, we would become an AI-receiver economy. Yes, we would utilise more innovative services. We will still embed long-term solutions and costly platforms across our industries and public sector, which will enable transformative change and efficiencies. But we will be getting only a small fraction of the value from the AI economic cake, for it will be those owners and nations where the businesses reside that will take the lion’s share of the jobs, investment and vast revenues and tax receipts. In effect, we will receive the services; they will get the revenue. That is not all bad, noble Lords may say. We may be able to live with that. But it is like saying we would be happy for nearly all our future energy supplies to come from other nations. Let us just mull over the geopolitical risks we have seen materialise in recent years and the impact on our energy prices.

In the age of AI, the large-language models, the datasets that feed those models, and the AI services that are developed using the datasets will have huge influence and power over nations, their people and even our culture and traditions. If cultural artefacts—the UK’s museums, history and libraries—are not available online to non-UK companies and LLMs, will that history, literature and culture still exist in a future digital world where the answer to your prompt is provided by an American-based model that does not know, does not have access or just does not prioritise its response based on sovereign accuracy?

This debate is about how we can encourage more scale-ups to succeed, but it is also about the future of our economy and much more. It is about the future sovereignty of businesses, LLMs, datasets and the online world that will influence and fundamentally create our future society. This is an issue of our sovereignty.

In case noble Lords feel I may be somewhat overdramatising the scale of the issue, let me share some of the numbers that demonstrate the state of play in the global AI market. According to research by Silicon Valley Bank, the UK remains a dominant AI hub in Europe, securing nearly $6 billion in AI funding last year, more than France and Germany combined. However, France is rapidly catching up, with Mistral AI emerging as the region’s leading LLM provider, having raised over $1 billion within one year of its founding. Meanwhile, Germany’s AI sector remains deeply tied to its industrial roots, where advanced automation is transforming its automotive and manufacturing industries. Further good news for us is that, since September last year, the UK AI landscape has experienced robust expansion. There has been broader enterprise adoption, the daily influx of approximately £200 million in private investment and a rise of 17% in the number, 34% in the economic output and 29% in the jobs among AI firms. That might sound impressive, and I am supportive of the Government’s approach and initiatives taken to push and support the sector, but let us gaze across the pond.

In early 2025, the US unveiled the Stargate project, a $500 billion AI infrastructure initiative in partnership with Oracle, OpenAI, SoftBank, Microsoft and NVIDIA, to name a few, aiming to create thousands of jobs and reinforce the US’s determination to maintain its leadership in the AI race. To date, according to PitchBook, US-based AI companies have attracted nearly $100 billion in funding, more than the rest of the world combined. The US has first-mover advantage in AI, driven by a combination of world-beating private sector companies, chip makers, hyper-scalers, cloud providers and dataset providers. Combined, all these companies provide the infrastructure that enables AI training and deployment at scale.

The race to lead in AI has become a defining part of global business competition. So, are we really in this race? Are we doing enough with our action plan, investment in compute and our growth zones to really compete? Will we be able to keep the scale-ups that will give us a chance to have a real stake in the global AI field economy? We can, but we must be bolder and more ambitious in how we attract and lock in the critical element that drives growth—private sector investment. Yes, the Government must do their bit, as the report suggests, to remove barriers to necessary infrastructure and resources, and must maintain their proportionate approach to AI regulation. But none of this will work without the investors, the risk-takers, the VCs, the capital markets, and the time is now. I appreciate that the Government responded to the report by stating that for some technology and creative companies, accessing the

“capital required to scale a business can be a challenge”.

This is the challenge.

I welcome the report and what the Government have done so far. But I strongly suggest that it is now time for the Government to get creative with a laser-like focus and do all they can to unlock domestic growth capital and increase the incentives for investment in the UK. They need to make our investment landscape and policies more competitive so that strategies such as the Delaware flip, whereby UK businesses restructure and relocate to meet the requirements of an attractive investment proposition put forward by a funding partner in the US, are not the best options for British entrepreneurs.

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

My Lords, I would be ever so grateful if the noble Lord could bring his contribution to a conclusion.

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

We need to build a competitive, sovereign-based, British-made, British-owned AI economy for the future.

Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 13th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I will not detain your Lordships with a lengthy restatement of our concerns about the Bill, because we made them clear in Committee. I simply say that we have issues with the way it seeks to grant powers to the House of Lords that are arguably greater than the powers afforded to the elected House. Having put those concerns on the record, we did not seek to amend the Bill on Report and will not seek to delay its progress, but we cannot support it.

I close by thanking the Minister for her work on this Bill and, especially, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his engagement with me throughout its passage. He graciously and generously took time to meet to discuss the details before Committee, which was greatly appreciated.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for bringing forward this Bill. It has been an excellent opportunity to highlight the importance of secondary legislation. This Government place great importance on Parliament having the information it needs to scrutinise. From the introduction of the delegated powers toolkit to an enhanced training offer for civil servants at all levels, the Government are taking steps to demonstrate how seriously they take secondary legislation.

I also thank the clerks and advisers of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, as well as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, for their diligent work in scrutinising the secondary legislation the Government lay before Parliament. I remind the House that my husband is a member of the JCSI.

I take this opportunity to thank the National Archives for maintaining legislation.gov.uk, which is a valuable resource for all Members of your Lordships’ House, as well as the general public, and for its work in administering the correction slip process, which the Bill would place on a statutory footing. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the Government disagree that this is a necessary service for the correction of insubstantial errors. We remain of the view that there has always been a need to strike the balance between providing the Government with the flexibility they need to deliver for the country and ensuring that the information they provide is clear and explains why legislation is necessary.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness take this opportunity to reassert the principle that secondary legislation should never seek to move away from the intention of primary legislation?

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

The noble Lord makes an excellent point. As the Attorney-General has made clear in several speeches, that is absolutely the intention and objective of this Government’s legislative programme.

I do not wish to repeat the reasons why the Government cannot support the Bill. We will continue our efforts to improve the secondary legislation that is laid before Parliament, including the documents that accompany it, but we do not agree that further legislation is the way. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated at all stages of this Private Member’s Bill and for the opportunity to discuss the importance of secondary legislation. As ever, your Lordships’ House’s ability to scrutinise is second to none.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

I am most grateful to the Minister and those who have spoken for the kind words that have been said.

Ethics and Integrity Commission

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to establish an Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure probity in government.

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

My Lords, this Government are committed to establishing the right structures to uphold the highest standards of ethics and integrity. Steps we have taken already to improve probity and transparency include the new Ministerial Code, the strengthened terms of reference for the independent adviser and the new monthly Register of Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality. On an ethics and integrity commission, Ministers are assessing all the options and we will update Parliament on decisions in due course.

While we are discussing processes related to ethics, integrity and standards in public life, I should declare that my husband is a member of the Committee on Standards in the other place.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I congratulate the noble Baroness.

This was a clear pledge in the Labour Party’s manifesto, and Liberal Democrats agree that it is essential to re-establishing public trust after the many unethical actions, and even corruption, that we saw particularly under Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. On my shelves at home, I have a whole file of reports from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and from outside commissions, think tanks et cetera, setting out the options on this. There are some very clear and simple choices. If I were asked to write the consultation paper, I think it would take me a weekend. Why have the Government delayed so much in doing so?

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

My Lords, we should discuss bookshelves. As for what we are doing, we have taken immediate action, but we want to make sure that, given how important ethics and integrity are in public life, and especially as—and I think the noble Lord agrees—one of the main ways in which we can challenge and counter the politics of populism is to make sure that people can genuinely trust their politicians, we need to make sure that the structures we put in place work and are right and effective. We are working on it, and I will update the House in due course.

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, when this commission arrives, if it ever does, will His Majesty’s Government ensure there is no unprofitable overlap with the excellent work being done by the Committee on Standards in Public Life?

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

The noble Lord raises an excellent question. That is one of the reasons we have not rushed into it—to make sure that we are not replicating the organisations and entities that govern standards, integrity and ethics in public life, and that we can come forward with a proper, genuine response to what is needed. I assure the noble Lord that we are factoring in his question.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, is there not also a deeper issue as to who is entitled to decide who sits—particularly in the elected House—to represent people? Fundamentally, should it not be for the criminal courts of this country and the electorate to decide both on the individual they are being asked to vote for and, indeed, collectively the Government?

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

My Lords, as we are the unelected House, I completely agree that it is for the electorate—I have faced them several times; they liked and then did not like me—to decide who they seek to represent them and to have an understanding of the values of those people. I thank my noble friend, but we have very clear processes in place to protect standards. It is important the general public has faith in them too.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that there is a real danger that ethics and integrity considerations could seriously impede the working of the Government by forcing them to reclassify minor misdemeanours, such as the killing and dismemberment of a journalist in a friendly country, as gross abuse of human rights, as seen in other countries?

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

The noble Lord has an interesting take on the questions of ethics and integrity in public life. Obviously, the Government have to look at all issues in the round when considering issues of diplomacy and engagement with all our allies. The specific point raised is a matter for the FCDO.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, on 25 July last year, when asked about progress on establishing an ethics and integrity commission, the Government Minister in the other place said:

“this is always going to be about ‘show, not tell’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/24; col. 797.]

We have since had a year of the Government telling us there would be progress. Could the Minister tell the House what the timescale is for when the Government will be able to show us progress?

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

Well, I query the interpretation of what my honourable friend in the other place said. He said “show, and tell”. We have told: we have updated the Ministerial Code; we moved the Nolan principles into the Ministerial Code for the first time; we have added the concept of service, which is incredibly important to this Prime Minister; we have updated the terms of reference for the independent adviser, who can now act without the Prime Minister’s instigation; and we have introduced a new monthly register of guests and hospitality. We have both shown and told. In terms of establishing the commission, noble Lords will have to wait a little longer and I will update your Lordships’ House in the normal way.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, in July last year, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirmed in the other place that work had begun on the Government’s planned ethics and integrity commission. Obviously, the role of the chair of this commission will be very important. Can the Minister confirm that there will be proper oversight of the appointment of any future chair of the commission, that Parliament will have a role in the process and that the chair will remain democratically accountable to Parliament through Ministers in the usual way?

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

The noble Baroness tempts me to give details about what the commission will or will not look like. I am sure we will discuss this in your Lordships’ House when parliamentary time allows. With regards to the independence of the chair, the appointments to bodies and offices listed in the public appointments Order in Council are made in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments and so would the chair of any future commission.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, the Minister and most Members of this House will be aware that there have been a large number of examples of scandals and misdemeanours in Scotland by Scottish Ministers as well as Members of the Scottish Parliament. Will this commission cover the devolved authorities? I hope it will.

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

The noble Lord tempts me into areas that are not appropriate, but he is right that there has to be a trusted and valued ethics and standards process in each part of our nations and regions. With regard to the devolved Assemblies, that is wholly a matter for the devolved Governments, but I would hope that any changes that the UK Government made are also considered—because I am sure they will be best practice—by our devolved Governments.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, we have just had a round of local elections in England and many new councillors have taken up their responsibilities. Will this body be considering the local government dimension as far as ethics is concerned?

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

The noble Lord raises an excellent point, which I am just assured by my noble friend sitting to my right that we are working on in the English devolution Bill and that conversations are ongoing.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this clearly involves considering a large number of bodies which are concerned with standards in government, Parliament and local government. Does the Minister consider that the process of establishing an ethics and integrity commission will require legislation, or can it be done through executive decisions?

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

My Lords, work is currently ongoing about what we will bring forward and how we will bring it forward. I will update the House as soon as I can.

Immunity for Soldiers

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Damien Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is the right thing for us to do. As I look around the room, I see many hon. Members who will answer that clarion call to amend the legislation so that Operation Banner in Northern Ireland is included. That should not have had to be done in an amendment, however; it should be in the Bill already. It is the Government’s duty to care for and look after our precious veterans, who stood on the frontlines to protect us from some of the bloodiest enemies our nation has ever encountered.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. We all have veterans in our constituencies who are in their 70s and have received paperwork from the Ministry of Defence that they are too scared to open, because they are worried about what it means, and they do not know what will happen afterwards. This is about people who put their life on the line, as he said, but who now do not feel that they have support from their Government or community. The Government need to act.

[Damien Moore]

The hon. Lady makes an important point; we must foster a true caring environment for our veterans. They should not be hounded in old age, and sometimes illness, by the thought that there could be a letter or a knock at the door that will mean them having to answer for something that happened many years ago.

I say to the Government: enough with the hesitation, and enough with the special provisions that, in the name of supposed human rights violations, have caused our country’s dereliction of its sacred duty of care. We cannot let brave former personnel spend the rest of their life in fear of yet more investigations, more trials and more prosecutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) rightly proposed that a statute of limitations be introduced to shield soldiers and police officers from further scrutiny once their names had finally been cleared by our justice system; I am pleased that the Government are looking at that. That is what a motion that he brought to the House would have achieved, and that is what the hundreds of thousands of people who signed the petition want us to do.

Servants of the Crown involved in Operation Banner have had to endure far too much because of the hesitation shown by Governments from 1998, whether in the name of political correctness or out of fear of opening old wounds. It is our duty to put an end to any wavering, and to be decisively proactive on behalf of those who bravely put their life on the line out of a sense of duty and love of country. Indeed, it falls to us Members of Parliament, and to the Government, to protect those who gave their life to protect us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Given his service to the country and experience in Northern Ireland, the hon. Gentleman knows this issue better than many others in this place. Veterans have raised the question with me about how decisions are made because sometimes there is a sense that not everyone who was involved in the operation is being pursued. However, I entirely agree with and understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

The sense that I have been asked to communicate, and I do so for the final time now, is that many veterans who served in Northern Ireland, and many who did not, feel betrayed and let down by the Government. They hope that whatever comes out of the situation and the debates—

[Ruth Smeeth]

It all comes down to a sense of fairness, for the victims, their families, everyone who lived through the troubles in Northern Ireland and all those who continue to live with the consequences, but also for the veterans and their families: so that they know exactly where they stand and why. It comes back to whether more effort needs to be put into peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, into talking, while ensuring that there is no prosecution at the same time. It is down to fairness for the families—for everybody.

[Luke Pollard]

I agree. Fairness is an important part of the solution to dealing with a sense of betrayal. Justice needs not only to be done but to be seen to be done and, at the moment, there is pain in many different communities.

Everyone in this House welcomes and values the progress made in Northern Ireland through the Good Friday agreement. I would like more Members to read that agreement; I sense that an awful lot of debate takes place without its words having been read. However, there is an opportunity here for Ministers—be they from the Northern Ireland Office or, especially, the Minister of Defence—to really understand the concerns of those who served in Northern Ireland and, equally, those who did not but just feel that something is not right here. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the concerns raised, especially about the definition of new evidence.

Draft Northern Ireland (Elections) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2015

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 General Committees

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, for my debut delegated legislation Committee. I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), the shadow Minister for Northern Ireland. This Committee was originally scheduled for yesterday, and my hon. Friend had made arrangements to be present but is unfortunately out of the country today. He asked me to apologise on his behalf and to assure the Committee that no disrespect is intended.

Turning to today’s business, I would like formally to put on the record the Opposition’s support for last week’s agreement and pay credit to the UK and Irish Governments and all the parties for the considerable amount of work undertaken over 10 long weeks to resolve the crisis that was threatening to destabilise the functioning of the Stormont Assembly. I would also like to place on record my party’s thanks to the outgoing First Minister, Peter Robinson, for his considerable service to the people of Northern Ireland.

The order will amend the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001 and the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 in order to make necessary changes to rules relating to elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. We consider that the statutory instrument is not contentious and, as such, we will support its implementation. However, I have two questions for the Minister.

First, in view of the changes made last year to anonymous voter registration in Northern Ireland, can the Minister assure the Committee that changes to the timeframe for updating the register, where certain details have not been confirmed, will in no way impact individuals who are registered anonymously? Secondly, will he say what additional funds are being made available by the Treasury and the Cabinet Office for the digital changeover?

In conclusion, I confirm that the Opposition will not object to the order. We pay tribute to all in Westminster, Stormont and Dublin who are working to bring normalcy to Northern Ireland. Their efforts will always be supported by the Opposition, and we wish them every success.