UK Constitution: Oversight and Responsibility (Report from the Constitution Committee)

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Friday 4th July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Drake for securing this excellent and informative debate, and for her time spent chairing the Constitution Committee, during which it produced the report we are debating. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for leading the debate and making sure that we were well structured before we started. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what I think has been a rich, interesting and, as always, challenging debate.

The Government’s commitment to upholding the UK’s constitutional arrangements is one we take very seriously. Since the election, the Government have worked to return to a politics of service. This extends from our commitment to maintain high standards in public life and the rule of law to the delivery of the reform agenda set out in the manifesto—including the reform of the House of Lords, which we debated extensively, again, this week—and resetting the UK Government’s relations with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

As noble Lords have referenced throughout the debate, the UK does not have a codified constitution. Instead, the UK’s wide-ranging and complex constitutional arrangements have evolved over time and continue to do so. They consist of various institutions, statutes, conventions, judicial decisions, principles and practices. As several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley and the noble Lord, Lord Harper, reminded us, there are significant benefits to having this level of flexibility. The Government believe that this characteristic is not merely a feature of our constitutional arrangements but a fundamental advantage that allows us to respond flexibly to meet the complex challenges that are a feature of the modern world.

The Government are of course committed to ensuring that Parliament is able to play its crucial role in scrutinising the work of government. Allowing Parliament the time it needs to properly scrutinise and debate legislation is at the core of maintaining a high quality of legislation. The Government greatly value the work of your Lordships’ House and the revising function it performs. The other place, as the democratically elected Chamber, has a vital role to play in representing the interests of its constituents and holding the Government to account.

The Government are also committed to ensuring that other constitutional safeguards are able to work effectively. This is why the Prime Minister has given the independent adviser on ministerial standards the power to initiate investigations without needing the Prime Minister’s approval. I will return to that role in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn.

Regarding the role of Ministers, which was an important theme of today’s debate, the report suggests that constitutional oversight be given to one senior member of the Cabinet. This has sparked an interesting debate, with varying views. The Government, unsurprisingly, agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and many others, when we suggest that this role is better fulfilled by all members of His Majesty’s Government in carrying out their duties. Noble Lords are aware that, as the sovereign’s principal adviser and the most senior member of the Government, the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for overseeing the UK’s constitutional arrangements. In addition, the Prime Minister has a specific constitutional role in advising the sovereign on the exercise of the royal prerogative in relation to the appointment, dismissal, and acceptance of resignations of other Ministers. He is supported in this role by the Cabinet Secretary.

At this point I want to reference the point made by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, regarding the role of the Cabinet Secretary. I appreciate the point raised in the report. In evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place, the Cabinet Secretary himself in February stated:

“The Cabinet Secretary’s job is to bring together all those sources of constitutional thought and give the Prime Minister some advice on which they can then properly and well-informedly make their decision”.


While it is not explicitly stated in the job description, as pointed out by noble Lords on the committee, I believe that both the current occupant and all previous Cabinet Secretaries believed upholding the constitution to be implied in the very definition of their role.

Going back to Ministers, certain Ministers will naturally have a portfolio that places constitutional matters at the centre of their decision-making. The Cabinet Office serves as the home of policy relating to the UK constitution and devolution, working closely with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has oversight for all Cabinet Office policy. He is supported by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is also the Minister for the Constitution, and by the Minister of State who supports on intergovernmental relations—otherwise known as the brother of my noble friend Lady Alexander.

The machinery of government change that took place following the election, moving union and devolution policy from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government back to the Cabinet Office, further strengthens the Cabinet Office’s role as the centre of expertise on the constitution within government. The Government believe that the current arrangement, in which constitutional consideration is incumbent on all Ministers, is preferable to one where responsibility sits with a single Minister.

I do not think any of us would want Government Ministers to think that matters of the constitution and the strength of the union are someone else’s responsibility and will be dealt with by them, particularly as what could be considered constitutional goes much further than the roles I have listed so far—something the Constitution Committee has recognised in its descriptions of the five key tenets of the constitution.

For instance, the Lord Chancellor, as we have discussed, has a specific responsibility to protect the independence of the judiciary. Likewise, the law officers, as chief legal advisers to the Crown, have an important constitutional role in advising Ministers on their legal obligations and promoting the rule of law at home and abroad. In fact, the importance that this Government place on Ministers performing their constitutional duties is demonstrated in the oath sworn by the Attorney-General on taking office, which commits them to respecting the rule of law and serving the King in its first line.

The Leader of your Lordships’ House and the Leader of the other place act as the Government’s representatives in the legislature and the representatives of either House in the Government. The Leaders are responsible for representing the interests of both Houses and ensuring that the customs and principles that make Parliament unique are properly represented. Considering the wide range of subjects that a single Minister responsible for constitutional matters would be expected to cover, the Government believe that it is appropriate to maintain the current approach.

Moving on temporarily to intergovernmental relations, the Government’s manifesto commitment to reset the relationship with devolved Governments and to ensure that the structures and institutions of intergovernmental working improve relationships and collaboration on policy is key. That is why, almost a year ago today, the Prime Minister spoke to the heads of the devolved Governments within hours of taking office. The Government have continued in that vein. We have spent the last year working across all levels of government to deliver for every part of the United Kingdom and are using, and will continue to use, the intergovernmental structures to collaborate with the devolved Governments.

We have recommitted to the IGR structures, as has been evidenced in recent weeks. At the end of May, we held the second Council of the Nations and Regions in London. This brought together the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the heads of the devolved Governments and the regional mayors from across England for the second meeting since we took office. Alongside the council, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met multilaterally with the heads of the devolved Governments. This was in addition to the bilateral meetings the Prime Minister held with them on the same day.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Beith, on a communiqué related to this meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions, the Government have published the current terms of reference for the council and value the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament of the worth of the governance of the council through inquiries, Parliamentary Questions and regular engagement with departments as part of the scrutiny of government activity—I have responded to much of this in my role. So, although a communiqué was not published on this occasion, Ministers will continue to update both Houses through the regular scrutiny mechanisms.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, raised how other organisations that are not part of the Council of the Nations and Regions get to engage. Minister Alexander has been appointed as Minister of State to support cross-government co-ordination and engagement with the devolved Governments. This appointment shows how serious the Prime Minister and this Government are about working with the devolved Governments to deliver for citizens across the UK.

The English Devolution White Paper sets out that the mayors of strategic and established mayoral authorities will be able to be members of the CNR, as we have referenced. The Government want to see all of England benefit from devolution, with full devolution coverage across the country, with an ambition for all areas to have a mayor. We are committed to working productively with local government, and the Government have established the Leaders’ Council to bring together other local leaders and Ministers to identify and tackle strategic challenges facing local government.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has travelled, alongside the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to Belfast, where they chaired the first east-west council under this Government. They then attended the 43rd summit of the British-Irish Council in Newcastle, County Down, where the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met bilaterally with the heads of the devolved Governments. A fortnight later, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and other UK Ministers met with the Ministers responsible for intergovernmental relations from the devolved Governments at the Interministerial Standing Committee.

We are genuinely seeking to engage using the current structures and the new Council of the Nations and Regions structures to make sure that engagement in formal intergovernmental forums and informal everyday contact at official level works better than it has historically done. Through this, we are ensuring that there is genuine respect and collaboration across the different Governments who make up the United Kingdom and are focusing on a future built on partnership and recognition.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, raised the representation of English regions and counties without a mayor. As is always the case with our diverse intergovernmental structures, there are other mechanisms for engagement and we will continue to ensure that we progress with them.

I turn to some of the specific points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, made an interesting suggestion about the right for the Cabinet Secretary and others to record public dissent. The very suggestion of that might also suggest that some changes would happen in government, but I look forward to reflecting on that in the department and will report back in due course.

Noble Lords will be aware that I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy, so I am ever so sorry to other participants but the analogy from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, was my favourite, not least because HMS “Astute” was in the bay at my wedding in Gibraltar in recent months. I would like to gently remind the noble and learned Lord of something. I appreciate his concerns, but I remind him that the Prime Minister and my noble friends the Attorney-General and the Scottish Advocate-General have had distinguished careers at the Bar. This may be one point where it is clear that those at the top of our Government have complete respect for the role of the judiciary and some respect for the legal profession, given that they are all from it.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

No doubt the noble Baroness will have noticed that I was not referring to any of those three people.

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

I absolutely did, but I think on this occasion we can suggest that this Government are very clear in their commitment to the rule of law and the people who are in post.

There was a great deal of discussion about good chaps—I like to think chaps and chapesses—at the heart of which, as touched on by my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley, was the culture of stewardship that we have a collective responsibility to deliver with regard to our constitution. We all have an extraordinarily privileged position in sitting in your Lordships’ House and being part of our constitution. Therefore, the onus is on us to make sure that we work as members of the Government and as Members of Parliament to deliver on it.

I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about Bristol City Council. I went to school in Bristol, so I have a particular interest there. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, gave us a masterclass; I loved his historical comparisons and imaginative use of ChatGPT. I speak in your Lordships’ House on many different issues, and AI always manages to get into the debate. I did not think it would do so today, but I appreciate the ingenuity.

My noble friend Lady Alexander made a fascinating and very important point on the devolution settlement and the role of the Lord Chancellor. It is a position we have discussed in great detail in recent days and which I will reflect on, given the responsibilities we place on it. I am proud of the work that our party has done to drive the devolution agenda to deliver for people. We will continue to do so through the English devolution settlement and by making sure that devolution continues to work.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, raised a very interesting point about ensuring deeper public understanding of our constitution. As I said, there is an onus on all of us to do that; it is incredibly important for all citizens and lots of parliamentarians do extraordinary work to support public understanding. I will take away his suggestion, but I am not sure that a single programme led by government on promoting the constitution would be effective.

Having said that, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, touched on active citizenship. Citizenship is on the national curriculum. We are currently undertaking a review of the national curriculum and I hope that when we get the outcome of the review, we will be able reflect on this and other issues related to citizenship.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, knows that I genuinely enjoy his oratory in your Lordships’ House, not least because it forces me to question my own opinions every time to make sure that my views are in line with my values as much as his align. It will not surprise him, therefore, that although his speech was fascinating as ever, I still believe in the role of the Human Rights Act in ensuring that there are safeguards for the operation of government and the other safeguards that were touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.

Returning to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, I thank him for his decades of work on constitutional protections. The Government have well-established parliamentary and devolution capability programmes for civil servants, but there is always more to be done. I will go back and look at exactly what we need to do and the suggestions we need to follow.

I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the current political environment. I remind noble Lords there are four years until the next general election, and we will see how many political parties we will be facing in four years’ time, but I do reflect upon the seven that are now in existence. Noble Lords who are aware of my own personal travails will be aware of what I think of the establishment of the most recent of those political parties. His suggestion regarding the 1868 oaths Act is an interesting one, and I will have a conversation about it in the department. I also thank him for reminding us of the important role the monarch plays within our constitution, but also the subtle way that conversations can be had that give a level of importance to the Prime Minister.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I say that the Cabinet Secretary’s filing system sounds all too familiar and similar to my own. All members of the Government should reflect on our own filing systems, in both our emails and on paper. She had interesting thoughts on the Propriety and Constitution Group, and I would welcome a further conversation with her outside your Lordships’ House to consider what next steps we might need to take and possible areas of reform. I reassure all noble Lords that members of the Propriety and Constitution Group are accountable to the relevant Ministers, as is normal for all civil servants. For a moment during the noble Baroness’s speech, I thought she was about to suggest that we need another arms-length body, and I was amazed, but absolutely not—she did clarify that that was not something she would welcome.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, also raised a point about the Propriety and Constitution Group. I reassure him that while the union and devolution teams have moved from and back to the Cabinet Office, the Propriety and Constitution Group has consistently been in the Cabinet Office. This gives us the opportunity to preserve institutional memory, as was touched upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger.

On the Cabinet Manual, the Government are focused on delivering the commitments outlined in our manifesto. We know the importance of the Cabinet Manual and while we do not currently have plans to update it, we are keeping it under review.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I ask for an assurance that when the Cabinet Manual is renewed, there will be consultation with the appropriate committees in both Houses before it is published.

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

I am going to say yes, and we will see how much trouble I have just got myself in.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

On that point, it is quite important that the Minister commits to consulting Parliament, but it was very clear that the Cabinet Manual remains an executive document and it should not be approved by either House of Parliament; it should remain owned by Ministers. I think that distinction is worth getting on the record.

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

The noble Lord is absolutely right and probably just saved me from myself—I would have got in trouble. This is very clearly an executive document, as he was party to, but this Government will want to consult as widely as possible, which is why I also want to meet the noble Baroness on other issues, because wider consultation is important. The noble Lord did nearly get me in trouble.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, touched on the UK internal market. We are going through the statutory review process. Although we are ahead of time, we have just finished the consultation, and we are currently reflecting on it. She made an important point.

There were many other points raised that I realise I am not going to get to, but that just shows quite how important and wide ranging the debate has been. I will come back to noble Lords on their point that I have not been able to touch on. I thank noble Lords for their participation in today’s debate, and for, as ever, ensuring that I learn something in your Lordships’ House.

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

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 May be approved.

Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 1 July.

Motion agreed.

NHS, Armed Forces and Civil Service Staff: Public Meetings

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what instructions they have given to the staff of the National Health Service, the Armed Forces and the Civil Service about speaking at public meetings of their professions.

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

My Lords, a core principle of government in this country is that Ministers are ultimately accountable for decision-making. Therefore, it is right that we are the principal representatives of the Government in the public sphere. As the Civil Service management code, released in 2016, makes clear, civil servants must clear in advance material for publication, broadcast or other public discussion which draws on official information or experience. As they have done for several years, the Government continue to approve public activity by civil servants on a case-by-case basis, and civil servants, such as Permanent Secretaries, continue to be accountable to parliamentary Select Committees in the usual way.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, if senior public servants cannot address their staff or answer their questions without first having cleared with Ministers everything they are going to say, they risk losing their public personal authority and becoming not leaders but puppets.

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

I think I need to reassure your Lordships’ House, but especially the noble Lord, that there is no guidance that would prohibit leaders within the Civil Service engaging with or talking to their staff in any fora. The only guidance that exists about what would need to be gridded at No. 10—the noble Lord will be very aware of the gridding process, given that he introduced it while he was Cabinet Secretary—covers anything that pertains to the media, nothing that pertains to engaging with your staff.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that, while senior military officers, for example, are Crown servants, and it is not appropriate for them to dissent from or challenge government policy in public, nevertheless, if they are constrained to being little more than oral press releases, they will lose all credibility? Surely, it is in any Government’s interest that they be allowed to address publicly the professional challenges they face in an honest and open manner.

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

At that point, I should declare my status as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy, before I get myself in trouble. Obviously, I would always want to hear from the senior service and the First Sea Lord. I think it is really clear that there is no such restriction. This is about how we do the gridding process. As the noble and gallant Lord will be aware, the Chief of the General Staff made an on-the-record speech to the RUSI conference, which was broadcast live by Sky on 17 June, with an open Q&A. This is about making sure that there is a clear process for government communications, as opposed to restricting government speech.

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

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is very important not to believe everything we read in the newspapers, particularly at the moment? Will she confirm that what the Government are doing is giving guidance to members of the Armed Forces, the Civil Service and the NHS about when and how they can speak in public and make clear on whose behalf they are speaking? Is that not sensible?

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

My noble friend makes a very important point. We are living in an age of disinformation and there is a responsibility on all of us to make sure that there are clear communication channels, especially when we talk about issues pertaining to policy that has been made by politicians. I also think it is incredibly important when we are trying to return to a politics of service and re-establish the use of the Nolan principles, which is why they have been added to the Ministerial Code, that it is politicians who are held accountable for policy decisions and challenged by the media.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I was present at the recent conference to which the Minister refers. The Chief of the General Staff did indeed give a welcome and full address and took questions, but another representative of the MoD made it explicitly clear that he was unable to speak publicly and we were all asked to honour that undertaking and not repeat his remarks publicly. Going back to the Minister’s observation about the need for a grid, there is a marked difference between a grid and censorship. There is a concern that the Government are slightly straying over the line and, frankly, treating some of our senior public officials like Pavlov’s poodles.

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

My Lords, before I joined your Lordships’ House, I ran an organisation called Index on Censorship. We should be very careful about the use of that word and how it applies here, versus the political dissidents I used to represent. The noble Baroness talks about something that everybody in this Chamber has participated in—a Chatham House rules discussion. On the point she raised about the RUSI Land Warfare Conference, it was completely appropriate that the head of the British Army led the discussion. She will also be aware that this is a cyclical news story that appears regularly. After all, in 2020 the former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was accused of gagging his head of the Navy.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, politics and government are necessarily an informed dialogue between Ministers and civil servants and between senior civil servants and outside experts. We need to maintain the ability of expert policymakers to have that dialogue. If it is felt that senior civil servants cannot honestly discuss with outsiders—I declare an interest as someone who used to work at Chatham House and do such things—decent policy-making will deteriorate. Can the Government make it absolutely clear that senior civil servants have to engage with outside professions with which their policy-making responsibilities interact?

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

My Lords, ongoing engagement with stakeholders, whoever they may be, is key. Noble Lords will be aware that one of my responsibilities in your Lordships’ House is to discuss the Infected Blood Inquiry. There is a responsibility on our civil servants to engage every day both with those in the infected community and with the charities that represent them. That is true of every part of government business and it is vital that civil servants are available to do so, which is why this Government have not changed any such policy.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that, under changes to the Civil Service Code brought in when the late Lord Heywood of Whitehall was head of the Civil Service, officials are forbidden to speak with journalists without the express agreement of Ministers. It is also the case, quite rightly, that policy officials should speak in public only with the express agreement of Ministers. However, does the Minister agree that, for officials with implementation functions, such as project management and digital procurement, the gagging order is unnecessary? They are already wrongly seen as second-class citizens in the Whitehall pecking order: blue collar compared with white-collar policy officials. Their work has little or no political content and we will not recruit the best if we infantilise them.

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

My Lords, there is no such gagging order. This is about the grid system and making sure that, if someone wishes to participate in an event where media will be present, a request goes through the head of comms in that government department. That is available to all officials, regardless of their status. This is about making sure that we have a clear communications channel, which every Government since 1997 have used in the operation of No. 10.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, I was the general secretary of the Civil Service trade union, which was affiliated to the TUC, at the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was head of the Civil Service. In my experience, there are times when it is difficult to speak about what is going on among civil servants, but the great thing at the time was to have a dialogue going on with the noble Lord about how these issues could be addressed publicly and within the trade union. It is a question of common sense, dialogue and knowing where the red lines are. I believe that is still the case.

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

There is very little I can add to my noble friend, except to say that I believe her statement is absolutely true about where we currently stand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I had a long and much reshuffled career in a variety of Governments, going right back to the early 1970s. In my last post, under the Cameron Government, I was introduced to the Grid, which had been developed in the 21st century. I found it utterly ridiculous and quite inimical to the proper governing of the country. Nowadays, there is an army of young men and women in No.10 who are led to believe that they have complete control over Ministers and civil servants as they endeavour, in their various ways, to defend their policies and explain to the general public what they are about. At the moment, the staff count at No.10 has reached about 300, of whom quite a number believe themselves to be experts in PR, although, as we have seen at the moment, they are doing a fairly dreadful job. Are the Government prepared to re-examine this way of doing things in a modern democracy and contemplate going back to more genuine Cabinet government, with more responsibility for Ministers and senior civil servants in how they explain the Government’s actions to the wider world?

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

My Lords, I start by wishing the noble Lord a happy birthday. Also, I cannot believe that any civil servant or special adviser would ever have any success in controlling the noble Lord. There is nothing unusual about efforts to make sure that government communications have a clear line. Noble Lords will remember Joe Haines and Bernard Ingham; we have always made efforts to have clear communications and we have always had PR professionals. The Grid has been around for a long time; it was introduced before I even got the vote.

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.