Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 June be approved.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, we must never lose sight of why we are here to debate these regulations. The infected blood scandal was a catastrophic failure of the state. It is a tragedy measured not only by the pain and suffering of its victims but by the decades it took for the suffering to be recognised. The victims in the scandal have suffered unspeakably, and the former Prime Minister, when leader of the Opposition, acknowledged the suffering caused by continued systemic failure. Our new Prime Minister has long supported the infected blood community and its fight for justice. I want to reassure noble Lords that the Government will not deprioritise this important work.

Before I move on to the substance of the SI, I will take a moment to reflect on the people behind the statistics, specifically the families of the infected, who have had not just to watch as their loved ones suffered in front of them but to fight for justice, in some cases for decades, putting their lives on hold and changing them irreversibly. We must recognise the sacrifice of the families, carers and campaigners.

When I first spoke at the Dispatch Box on the infected blood scandal in March last year, it was to discuss the second set of compensation regulations. I updated your Lordships’ House on the progress IBCA had made, specifically that 255 people had been asked to start their compensation claim, and £44 million-worth of offers had been made. A substantial amount of progress has been made since then. Indeed, as of 14 July, 5,404 people have been asked to start their claim, with over £2.7 billion of offers made. That is not to say that our work is done, which is why we are here today.

The regulations at hand are a direct product of what we heard in the consultation. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that there is a diversity of views within the community, and the Government have done what they can to consolidate these views to ensure that the changes we are making reflect the thoughts and feelings of the majority. I will briefly summarise those changes.

Regulation 3 introduces a new level 2B award, as recommended by the inquiry, so that people who suffered from the side effects of interferon treatment receive an additional injury award, as well as further financial loss and care compensation, to reflect the impact it had on their lives. Following the consultation, the regulations also make sure that people who received more than one round of interferon will be properly compensated for each of those rounds of treatment. To be clear, the introduction of the level 2B banding is in line with the inquiry’s recommendations, which set out that the choice between creating this new banding or uplifting those who receive treatment with interferon to level 3 was for the Minister for the Cabinet Office to take.

Regulation 4 removes the 25% deduction applied to past care compensation for people who choose to receive support scheme payments for life. Following the consultation, the regulations make sure that people receive past financial loss compensation based on whichever of the two ways to calculate this award is most financially beneficial to them. The Government have chosen to do this to recognise that selecting only one way of calculating this award would mean that some people’s expected awards may reduce in size. By running both calculations and giving each person whichever is the highest amount in their personal circumstances, we ensure that everyone gets fair compensation for this award.

Regulation 5 makes provision for a 50% uplift to the core autonomy award for those infected under the age of 18, calculated based on the highest severity of infection they experienced during childhood.

Regulation 6 amends the eligibility criteria for the unethical research award so that everyone treated for a bleeding disorder before 1986 will receive an unethical research award. The regulations also introduce a new unethical research award for children. This means that people who were treated for a bleeding disorder in childhood will receive an uplifted award. The regulations also increase the amount of compensation that all eligible people receive for this award. It is one of the most shocking aspects of the scandal, and I am sure that noble Lords will agree that no amount of money could ever make up for the heinous experimentation that happened, particularly when that took place on children. We have listened to the feedback received through the consultation and, as a result, people who attended Treloar’s will receive £60,000, rather than the £25,000 proposed in the consultation. Other children will receive £45,000. Those treated in adulthood will receive £30,000, tripling the amount they currently receive.

Regulation 7 ensures that everyone who was eligible for the special category mechanism or an equivalent payment through the infected blood support schemes receives additional financial loss and care compensation. Following the consultation, these regulations ensure that everyone in this position has the award backdated to 2017, when the SCM award was first introduced, regardless of when they were assessed. Living people who were not assessed as eligible for SCM can now apply for it through IBCA, including those who were previously unsuccessful in their application to the IBSS.

Regulations 8 and 9 make changes to the exceptional loss award under the supplementary route. These regulations introduce a compensation uplift of £60,000 for people who had entered or had an offer to enter a career that generally would have paid 10% more than the gross national median average earnings as determined in 2024 at any point prior to retirement age but were unable to progress in this career due to their infection. This award will be made on top of their core route financial loss award.

We also heard in the consultation that some people are concerned that they will not be able to access the exceptional loss award if they do not have historic payslips. The Government will work with IBCA to ensure that all relevant evidence can be used to help someone show that they are eligible for the exceptional loss award so that that is not a barrier. The Government have been clear that we want the scheme to be as sympathetic and unburdensome to applicants as possible.

Regulation 10 introduces a 50% uplift to the core injury award for some affected people. This includes eligible bereaved partners, and children and siblings who themselves have been affected under 18 years of age. Eligible bereaved parents will also be able to receive this award in the tragic circumstances where their child passed away while under the age of 18. I assure noble Lords that, as with the rest of these regulations, the decisions we made on this award directly reflect what we heard through the consultation about the specific impacts of the scandal on children.

Regulations 11 and 12 are unrelated to the public consultation and relate to the transfer of responsibility for making support scheme payments from the infected blood support scheme to IBCA. To maintain consistency with the support schemes, the value of someone’s support scheme payments is uprated every year in April at the rate of CPI in the previous September. These regulations therefore account for the next CPI uplift taking place in April 2027, after IBCA takes responsibility for making support scheme payments for the infected blood support schemes.

The changes that I have set out are the result of this Government accounting for the variety of views that we heard in the consultation and balancing this with a tariff-based scheme that can be delivered as quickly as possible. Today’s debate, while focused on the regulations, is not about the Government’s work on this matter. It is about those people who have lived through some of the most tragic circumstances and doing what we can to bring them justice. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, before I start, I put on record that I am in awe of the noble Baroness, Lady Davies, and her speech. I can only imagine how difficult it was for her to stand up and do that. She demonstrates what we have all listened to on many occasions: the pain and heartbreak, and why we are actually here, because behind each statistic that is so easy for us to talk about there is a family still grieving for their loved one. We are so grateful that she and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone —I will call her my noble friend—are here to remind us every day of the realities. I also put on record my personal thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, who is not able to be with us today. She makes sure that, every day, she speaks truth to power on behalf of everybody who is suffering. I thank all of them for doing so.

Many points have been raised. I am really aware that this is the first time I have done a timed SI and that this is such an emotive issue, so I may not be able to answer every point. As ever, I will reflect on Hansard and write, but I want to put a couple of things on record. When we discuss the issues of infected blood, we know that people are listening to us to make sure of what the Government are saying and that we are sticking with what we have promised, so I want to make sure of that too. In answer to a very important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I want to make it clear that the £11.8 billion allocated by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer is neither a target nor a cap. I would also make every guarantee on behalf of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer that the money will be found if it needs to be found, but this is neither a target nor a cap.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Davies and Lady Featherstone, raised a range of specific recommendations. I would like to facilitate two meetings, if noble Lords wish to attend. One would be with the leadership of IBCA to go through some of the recommendations, some of which are about humanity and how we engage. I think it would be helpful for it to hear those stories. Another, again, would be with my officials. There is always an open door with my officials on the specifics that we face.

I think every Member of your Lordships’ House reflected that we are still dealing with a matter of national shame. This is a black mark that we still have to tackle. I very much echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay: this is taxpayers’ money in recognition of an appalling state failure, and we need to get this right. I personally have hope for the way we are doing this. We had an option, and the tariff-based scheme was recommended as the fastest way of getting the money out of the door, because all the people we are trying to support have varying lives that are complicated and challenging, but we can definitely help support the majority.

I turn to some of the specifics that have been raised. Forgive me, I will speak quickly because I want the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to have as much time as possible at the end of the debate. IBCA’s prioritisation was raised by many Members of your Lordships’ House. IBCA prioritises claims based on recommendations from the Infected Blood Inquiry. Prioritisation lists differ slightly depending on the cohort, but I want to reassure noble Lords that those sadly nearing the end of life, aged 75 or over, are prioritised across the board, whether infected or affected.

Noble Lords will be aware that every affected claim has to be based on the assessment of an infected claim —a foundational claim to tie the two claims together. As per IBCA’s community update of 9 July, earlier this month, it has asked everyone registered as living infected, never compensated and nearing the end of their life to start their claim and is now contacting people with advanced liver disease. IBCA has asked everyone who has registered to make a deceased infected claim with a beneficiary of an estate who is nearing the end of their life to start their claim and is now contacting beneficiaries who are aged 75 or over. We are currently asking living affected people who are nearing the end of their life to start their claim and expect soon to have contacted everyone currently registered in this group. It will then contact people aged 75 or over to start the claim.

On IBCA’s staff training, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, IBCA’s claim managers do indeed receive an initial three-week training, which includes the background on the infected blood scandal and the inquiry’s work and recommendations, so that everyone in the organisation understands the human stories behind their work. Staff receive specific trauma-informed training from a clinical psychologist to ensure that they can provide the best support possible to each person coming to IBCA. Claim managers meet members of the community during their training to ensure that they understand not just what happened but how it has impacted lives, and this continues throughout their employment.

The noble Baroness raised the long-term effects of interferon. These regulations will introduce a new higher level of award for infected people who were treated with interferon. The new level 2B core compensation award will provide more financial loss and care compensation for the full two years after treatment to anyone treated with interferon who would otherwise be receiving a level 2 award. For those on the level 3 or level 4 infection severity banding, the inquiry made no recommendations in relation to recognising the impact of interferon treatment for people who are already eligible for those awards. The technical expert group supported the view that level 3 compensation awards already account for the types of harms that people may have suffered as a result of treatment with interferon.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised the most heartbreaking thing, which is the historic evidence of suicide. The Government looked at how to make the severe health condition award for psychiatric disorders more accessible and have a less intrusive ask for evidence. We examined using types of evidence, such as suicide, to qualify for the award. Imposing such a retraumatising requirement would place an unconscionable and egregious burden on families who have already endured decades of profound mental suffering. When designing any compensation scheme, the Government must ensure that no mechanism or award criteria inadvertently creates a risk to potentially vulnerable people. That is why we are progressing in the way that we are, but I will put that in writing to all noble Lords.

On the recognition of carers, I have also met and heard from many of the people whom noble Lords have. The care award is provided to people making a claim as an infected person or as the representative of a deceased infected person’s estate. This award is intended to compensate specifically for financial loss caused by the hours and the nature of care needed, but I am aware of the impact that that has had on some people who would not necessarily have received that through the estate.

The unethical research award amount has been raised with me many times, both in your Lordships’ House and outside. The Government took a great deal of care in determining the award values and the qualifying criteria for the cohort of people who were or may have been subjected to unethical research. This included obtaining advice from legal experts and considering the responses to the consultation. The published response to the consultation provides an analysis of the responses received. This award is intended to compensate people for the specific distress caused by discovering that they may have been subject to unethical research practices. The core route awards, such as the injury and social impact award, already compensate for the long-term physical and mental impact caused by someone’s infections.

I am aware that if I speak for much longer, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will not have much time, so I will write on every other point raised—apologies. I put on record my thanks to every Member of your Lordships’ House who has ensured that this issue continues to get the hearing it deserves. I thank my incredible team, both my private office and my civil servants, for making sure that I am well informed and engaged on such an emotive issue, and that we are trying our very best to make sure we support the victims of one of the most egregious scandals in living memory.

Department for Science, Information and Technology: Abolition

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the abolition of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the merging of its functions with other departments and; the implications of this on the future operation of (1) the AI Safety Institute, (2) the Sovereign AI Fund, (3) the Government Digital Service and (4) UK Research and Innovation.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, science and AI are having an increasingly large impact on all areas of government policy and economic growth. We should not see science and technology as an isolated issue. That is why the Prime Minister has announced a bold restructuring, including the elevation of AI to the Office for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. That will provide a more coherent, agile and effective government framework to deliver on our national priorities. A WMS has been tabled today in the name of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal outlining these changes.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, many of us welcomed the creation of DSIT and the focus that it brought on science and technology, but with the very regrettable resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who will be greatly missed, and the understandable concerns expressed by Sir Paul Nurse, the president of the Royal Society, and many university and tech leaders, what assurance do we have that that focus will be retained, particularly in developing UK digital sovereignty? Which single department will own AI safety and regulation?

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

The noble Lord raises a series of very important issues. First, I put on record my absolute thanks for the work done by my noble friend Lord Vallance, who it has been a pleasure and privilege to work with. Noble Lords will appreciate—there have been many comments in your Lordships’ House today—that there are ongoing appointments in government, so I cannot possibly talk about any further roles and appointments that are being made, including my own. We will deal with those as they emerge.

On the substance of the Question, the noble Lord raises an important point but the Government have decided that having science and AI sit separate and away from the rest of government means that other departments have not treated them in the way they should be. Noble Lords will appreciate that a month has not passed when I have not been asked about the impact of AI on the Cabinet Office, and every member of the Front Bench has been asked how AI is affecting the Government’s work. It is right that we are putting both science and AI at the heart of government, which is why we have the new Office for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to make sure that it is at the centre, as well as having a new specialist Minister for AI attending Cabinet.

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a real danger here of exactly the wrong signal being sent to the science community? First, there is the departure of one of the most successful Science Ministers of recent years—I say that as one of his predecessors from long ago—the noble Lord, Lord Vallance. More importantly, structurally, there is the abolition and fragmentation of DSIT. The establishment of DSIT promoted the idea that science must permeate all departments of government but now the signal is the opposite to that, which is a regrettable development. That idea is seen by many in the science community as being destroyed.

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

The noble Lord makes an interesting point, but it is also incredibly important that we talk about AI, and more broadly its impact on science and what is changing, as something that should be at the heart of government and central to every department. There has not been a subject matter that I have discussed in your Lordships’ House from this Dispatch Box where I have not been asked about the impact of new tech, whether that is the Cabinet Office, the Civil Service Pension Scheme, how we do resilience or even the role of ethics and integrity in the development of AI. It affects every part of my portfolio and that of every one of my colleagues. This is about making sure that AI is at the centre and ensuring that both science and technology are part of our aims and efforts to ensure that there is growth in every postcode, as the Prime Minister has made clear.

[Lord Tarassenko (CB)]

My Lords, any reorganisation like this will take of the order of 12 months, which is an eternity in AI. It is equivalent to three generations of frontier AI models. Can the Minister reassure the House that both the AI Security Institute and the sovereign AI fund will be able to keep up the momentum that is so essential to their activities during this unnecessary transition period?

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

The noble Lord raises a very important point. We are seeing technology move faster than at any point over the last 100 years, never mind in my lifetime. It is incredibly important that we keep up, which is why we will now have a dedicated Minister attending Cabinet to make sure these issues are reflected. Some noble Lords will not have had the opportunity to read the WMS that has been placed in front of your Lordships’ House but, just to reassure them, the AI Security Institute will be part of the Office for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. The UK Research and Innovation fund is moving to DBIST, the new business department, and its £9.22 billion budget for R&D will continue. The Government Digital Service is moving to DCMS and the sovereign AI fund is also moving to DBIST.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, if the House will allow me, I pay my own tribute to my noble friend Lord Vallance of Balham, whose record of public service, both as Government Chief Scientific Adviser and as Minister for Science, has been exemplary. As the noble Lord said, he will be missed. Does my noble friend agree that this reorganisation shows that the new Prime Minister has some understanding of the transformative power of science, innovation and technology, and that this new department can, in turn, have a transformative effect? Although the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Waldegrave and Lord Tarassenko, have merit, and I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving some more detail, I hope that this will achieve the aim of making science apply across all of government for the benefit of this country.

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

My noble friend is absolutely right. The new Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade will focus on new and emerging sectors as part of our reindustrialisation agenda. This is about building on the foundations that we have already made so that we can move further and faster to deliver for the people of the United Kingdom, which is our responsibility.

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, there is much scratching of heads about the detachment of science and technology. We hear about an AI Minister who will now be in a new office at the Cabinet Office and, some are also saying, at DCMS reporting into it, but we were talking about movement in technology: quantum computing, cyber security and what is happening in terms of investment in all forms of technology. The challenge now is: where will technology sit as a focus for this Government?

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

The noble Lord raises a genuinely valid point, but this is about how we mainstream everything and put this at the heart. Everything we are talking about is AI-enhanced reindustrialisation. I appreciate that there are many times when we use “AI” as shorthand for tech or science, just because of how quickly the technology is moving on. I reassure the noble Lord that we will continue to make sure that AI and science and technology are at the heart of the eight industrial priority sectors.

[Lord Dixon of Jericho (LD)]

My Lords, there are five areas where a country or a company can lead in artificial intelligence: people, chips, models, infrastructure and deployment. The leading global companies are spending about £500 billion this year on it; our spending as a country will be roughly 0.3% of that. Given the scale of our investment compared with others, do the machinery of government changes reflect the Government choosing to focus on an area where we can have stronger comparative advantage as a country, or do they mean that we will still continue to try to lead on all those areas?

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

The noble Lord is right that we are talking about how technology and the advancements in it are going to fuel economic growth. That is a priority for the Government, as the Prime Minister has made clear. The prioritisation of that will come in the coming days, but our key here is about making sure that reindustrialisation, through these tools and using these levers, can work for every single corner of the United Kingdom, so that there is no longer a postcode lottery and that people have the opportunity to invest and make best use of these tools.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I am grateful. My Lords, for those of us in the scientific community there is concern about the erosion of funding for basic discovery science, which, of course, is the bedrock of all future applications of science. Can the Minister provide reassurance that, in this reorganisation, UKRI will not reduce further the support for basic discovery science?

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

I very much want to be able to reassure the noble Lord and can do so. The £9.22 billion that UKRI has for 2026-27 will continue to be distributed across three buckets: basic curiosity-driven research, foundational research, and research targeted to addressing strategic government and societal priorities, working to support the growth of innovative companies. That will remain the case.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted that Kanishka Narayan, who is a great Minister, has gone into the Cabinet but it is obvious that the abolition of DSIT is a phenomenal waste of time. It will take three months of civil servants’ time when they should be focused on policies. The Government Digital Service should obviously be in the Cabinet Office, by the way. Can the Minister tell us where Sovereign AI will sit? I also gather that only £100 million of the £500 million announced has been allocated, so can she guarantee that the other £400 million will be allocated over the next two years?

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

My Lords, the sovereign AI fund will sit in DBIST. As the noble Lord is very aware, we announced the £500 million fund on 16 April. I have nothing to suggest that we will not be spending every penny of it.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the point here that this country is brilliant at innovation, thanks to our wonderful science base, but that we are hopeless at adoption and taking advantage of it? So many British inventions are being developed with investment overseas. Surely putting science and technology within the business department is the way to ensure that when we have these future inventions, we actually get the resources to develop them and take advantage of them in this country.

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

My noble friend is absolutely right. These changes are to make sure that we can align the science and research base directly with commercial application and job creation. Noble Lords will be aware that the new Prime Minister has announced the No. 10 of the north; this is to co-ordinate a growth-based strategy for every corner of the United Kingdom, using the tools available to us so that we can use the levers of government to deliver for every postcode.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

I hear what the Minister has said about AI and I presume that it now sits within the department for business. Given that the Minister wears another hat, which I very much hope she continues to wear in Northern Ireland, will she meet me, because we do not have an AI growth zone? Despite the fact that all the rest of the UK has growth zones, we do not have one and I think she will want to ensure that we develop that.

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

The noble Baroness is absolutely right about my commitment to and passion about Northern Ireland. I will of course take every opportunity to have a cup of coffee with her. I plan on being in Northern Ireland over the Recess, subject to events, and we will do so then.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, this appointment of an AI Minister to Cabinet indeed gives a timely prominence to AI policy-making, but does the Minister accept that it also removes a good deal of clarity? Who owns AI policy between DBIST, the Cabinet Office and the Minister himself? What will the AI taskforce do that these ministries will not, and is the purpose to develop new AI policies or to execute existing ones?

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

The noble Viscount is more than aware that the role of the Cabinet Office is to co-ordinate policy across government, hence the establishment of an AI taskforce to make that sure and to support the work of the new Minister. The Office for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet is being overseen directly by both the Prime Minister and the new First Secretary in the Government, while operational matters will be overseen by the Cabinet Secretary. This is about making sure that the Minister, who will obviously have responsibility for the co-ordination and ownership of AI policy, has the support he needs at the top levels of government.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, spoke about messages sent, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, spoke about concerns within the research community. Whatever the Minister thinks, does she accept that the response of the research community to this has been bad, and that it is upset and worried about the implications? Does she also accept that the Government have a big job to do in raising morale and explaining to the research community how this is going to work for it?

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

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I cite the new Prime Minister, who said that we will choose hope to build a fairer society. “Hope” is definitely the word of the day so, on that basis, I absolutely agree. The new Business Secretary was very clear on this morning’s “Today” programme that he will reach out to all parts of the science community to reassure them and make sure they understand that they will now be at the heart of government. That is why we have made these changes.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister can answer this simple question: is she not embarrassed that the only way we have been able to discuss this important matter is through a Private Notice Question? Should these issues not be brought in front of Parliament to be discussed? It is a disgrace that these steps are being taken. The legislature is being overrun by those who are in charge.

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

My Lords, the last time I checked I was a Member of Parliament, in the broadest sense, and, as a Member of the Houses of Parliament, I am in front of Parliament. We have tabled a Written Ministerial Statement, as is normal, and taken a PNQ, which is normal. We have done exactly as we would at any other point to address and update your Lordships’ House. I want to be very clear to the noble Lord and your Lordships’ House: I am not embarrassed by my Government; I am very proud of them.

Civil Service Pensions

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, Capita’s failure to meet its end-of-June deadline following the previous end-of-April missed deadline is obviously extremely disappointing, but this is a story not just of corporate failure, missed KPIs or missed calendar dates but of so many individual cases of heartbreaking distress, especially for those whose loved ones died unexpectedly and who are now left in limbo, in uncertainty and, in many cases, facing financial hardship as well.

To be fair, the Government’s rhetoric on this has been fairly robust not only in reminding us of when the original contract was signed but also, for example, in the Minister saying in the Statement:

“I will continue to apply the most stringent commercial levers”.

I note that, in the discussions in the Select Committees’ joint meeting in the House of Commons last week, there was some discussion of the pros and cons, for example, of sacking Capita outright from this contract. But one of the other stringent commercial levers that could be applied, of course, would be to raise the question whether Capita should be placed on the debarment list, if its failures in this case so significantly undermine our confidence in its ability as a company to deliver on its promises that it would not be appropriate to award it any new future contracts. Such a step might help concentrate minds somewhat when it comes to resolving the current problem.

Of course, adding any company to the debarment list—and I think this would be the first company to be so added—is, I appreciate, not a step to be taken lightly, but the scale of repeated failure in this case is quite striking, as is the scale of repeated broken promises. Capita clearly made commitments on technology and then to meet remedial deadlines that it has not met. Those commitments were not just made off the cuff, casually, at a junior level; as the Cabinet Office’s Permanent Secretary set out in her evidence in the House of Commons last week, these were very serious commitments made at senior level that have not been delivered on. Given this record from Capita, can the Minister tell us: will the Government consider commencing the process to review adding Capita to the debarment list?

I turn to the existing contract and its problems. The Cabinet Office has said—and I think this is very welcome—that it is doubling its capacity to deal with pension complaints, which will increase following these many problems. Of course, the Pensions Ombudsman, a little bit further down the track, could expect a surge of complaints working its way through the system as well. Although there have been comments and commitments about how Capita is paying some of the costs of dealing with this mess, I do not think it has been made clear yet, and I hope the Minister can therefore clarify, whether Capita will pay for the extra costs that the Cabinet Office, and in due course the Pensions Ombudsman, will incur for dealing with the complaints arising from this mess.

Given the dependency on Capita for getting the McCloud remedy cases resolved, and indeed the extra pressure of legal deadlines in those cases, what extra steps are the Government now taking, given Capita’s failure to deliver on that end-of-June deadline and the obvious doubts that therefore arise about its ability to deliver what it has promised in other key areas? That question also applies to Capita’s recently won synergy contract.

Finally, to return to the main pensions fiasco, the Minister in the Commons said the Government are imminently expecting a new update and a new set of promises from Capita. Given that we will shortly go into recess, can the Minister also update us on what the Government’s intentions are to ensure that Parliament is fully updated on those new plans before recess commences?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and pay tribute to our fantastic public servants. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have worked extremely closely with members of our Civil Service. They deserve, at the very least, the security and dignity of a decent pension, which is their entitlement, and their deferred salary, rather than what they are currently experiencing. We are talking about people who have dedicated their careers to our public services. It should be non-negotiable that they deserve a pension service that is reliable, efficient and secure. We are, after all, discussing their deferred salary, and too many experiences have simply been appalling. When the standards they deserve are not upheld, the Government will not hesitate to act decisively to protect their interests.

The failure of Capita to meet its critical operational recovery milestones follows a complete non-delivery of promised automated technology and artificial intelligence infrastructure. Capita’s senior leadership team gave explicit personal assurances to Ministers and to very senior civil servants ahead of the handover that they were fully capable of managing the workload—yet they were clearly completely unprepared, allowing the system to become overwhelmed and the backlog to peak at a staggering 120,000 unresolved cases.

The operational reality since the transfer to Capita on 1 December has fallen far short of the required standard. As of the end of June, there were still more than 6,700 outstanding retirement quotations for past retirement dates and over 4,100 unresolved bereavement cases on which Capita could and should have taken action. The stories of members and grieving families falling into hardship are distressing and entirely unacceptable. This is why a specialist pensions recovery taskforce was established to take strategic oversight of operations and ensure no one faces financial anxiety alone.

The emergency transitional support loan scheme has been expanded, with over £15.6 million in interest-free funds already issued to more than 2,842 members who need financial support while we very quickly try to fix what is so horribly broken. Without the vital support of the Cabinet Office pensions recovery taskforce and the 140-strong government surge team, the progress that has been achieved would simply not have happened. This intervention was essential to inject immediate operational capability when the system was overwhelmed.

To reassure your Lordships’ House, as both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have asked, public money will not be used to fund corporate failings. We will claw back every single penny of these surge costs directly from Capita. There is no intention to remove a single member of the team until the service is permanently fixed and fully restored to contractually required standard levels.

The noble Lord, Lord Pack, asked about the Pensions Ombudsman. I believe we will be several months away from that, but we will have a meeting over the summer to look at all the costs concerned. I will ensure that those potential costs are considered as part of any arrangement.

Transitioning to Capita was assessed as the operationally lower risk path to safeguard scheme continuity, given that remaining with the previous provider, MyCSP, had become commercially and operationally unviable. The only alternative proposal demanded astronomical costs and the total removal of all standard service level agreements for the contract—all while the backlog of cases was increasing by 10,000 every month while MyCSP was in charge. Crucially, ahead of a handover, explicit personal assurances were secured directly from Capita’s chief executive that they possessed the necessary operational capacity to manage the transferred workload successfully.

This is remarkable, considering that ahead of the transition the chief executive of Capita even promised that technology improvements would create a flagship use case for the largest AI-enabled pension scheme in the country. It is now clear that the non-delivery of technology has been a fundamental part of Capita’s inability to deliver. Because those guarantees have been broken, milestone payments totalling £9.9 million have been withheld. We have instructed Capita to provide a full rectification plan by 14 July— tomorrow—and every right is reserved to take further formal action, including potential litigation or direct control step-in remedies.

As both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord highlighted, Capita has missed both its end of April and end of June milestones to return service to standard, contractually required levels. These were milestone deadlines that Capita agreed to; they were not imposed on Capita. It has failed to meet its own deadlines. Its current working assumption is to systematically clear the remaining past retirement quotes and actionable bereavement backlogs throughout July and August. To provide robust oversight on the ground, we are immediately deploying independent technical auditors to review data integrity, alongside a remedial adviser, appointed at Capita’s sole expense, to force daily rectification.

On Synergy, while individual public sector deals such as the DWP Synergy contract are governed under separate legal regulations, this crisis highlights the limitations of outsourcing. Under the new public interest test, introduced on 17 June, outsourcing by default will end, and this pension scheme remains a prime candidate to be brought permanently back in-house.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked me two specific questions on debarment and the Procurement Act 2023. Noble Lords will appreciate that we are in the middle of a contractual dispute, so we are following each element of our contract. I therefore cannot comment in detail on next steps regarding any contract, but all strategic suppliers remain under constant review. We will not hesitate to use our powers under the Procurement Act to investigate and, where appropriate and proportionate, exclude poorly performing suppliers from future procurements.

The noble Lord, Lord Pack, raised the implementation of the McCloud remedy. This is a complex programme requiring revised statements for approximately 74,000 pensioners and 21,000 deferred members. We are working hard with Capita to aim to keep to our target of issuing the majority of revised option statements during 2027, and we are applying rigorous commercial pressure to ensure that these public servants receive the correct pension adjustments they are owed.

I take this opportunity to confirm to Members of your Lordships’ House that current recipients of the pension scheme have not been affected by this appalling contractual failure; the problems lie with people who are seeking to access the scheme. Given how many people are members of this pension scheme, it is important that we do not scare current recipients with what is happening.

In conclusion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, rightly pointed out, every statistic is not a number but a family, a retired civil servant—a human being not receiving their core pension entitlement. This is simply unacceptable. We will continue to use every commercial lever at our disposal to ensure that members receive what they have earned. In October, your Lordships’ House will receive a comprehensive formal update on the definitive findings of the independent audit and the longer-term structural options for the scheme.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the Statement. As she knows, I have been asking questions on this issue for most of this year, so I welcome the attention it is now receiving from the ministerial team and the work they are doing. Of course, the issue of outsourcing and the role of Capita will have to be dealt with, but I am sure my noble friend agrees that the priority now is to get the payments to the people who need them.

I attended the Statement in the House of Commons and listened to MPs repeating stories of the problems faced by the recipients, and I went to the Joint Committee meeting for as long as I could bear it. We all know that there are real human problems here. Of course, it is good that interest is being paid on late payments and that loans are being made. The interest rate is Bank of England plus 1%, but that is the rate paid when the Government pay people money. When the Government claim money from people, they charge a higher rate of interest. My view is that, in these circumstances, the higher rate of interest should be payable by Capita. Perhaps my noble friend could look at that matter and reconsider it.

The more important thing is that, in the Commons, the Minister said in reply to a question that

“members will have the opportunity to ask for other losses to be covered as part of the complaints process”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/26; col. 66.]

We are beyond that stage now. These people deserve compensation for the mental stress and anguish that they have suffered, and we should expect Capita to give them cash compensation for the problems it created.

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

I thank my noble friend for all his work to raise this and to work so constructively with my colleagues here and at the other end. On the specifics, I heard what he said about the interest payment—that may be a little above my pay grade, but I will raise it with colleagues. I very much appreciate my noble friend’s questions about compensation, but he will appreciate that we are still in the middle of trying to stabilise the pension scheme. I genuinely did not think I would be here saying that; I had hoped that, by this point, we would be well beyond that and Capita would have met its milestone deadlines, but it has not. There are still 429 people waiting on ill health retirement cases, 131 of whom have been waiting for two months, and 618 outstanding death in service cases, with 237 waiting for more than four months, as well as the harrowing stories that we have heard. We need to fix that and then look at what comes next.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, this fiasco has made clear that Capita cannot deliver what its chief executive promises. Can the Minister tell the House how many contracts with government Capita still has, whether there is any overall evaluation of how those contracts are performing, and how confident the Government feel, despite her welcome assurance that contracts are regularly evaluated, that Capita is now up to the job of fulfilling those contracts?

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

The noble Baroness is right: the reality is that Capita provides contracts across government. In fact, we are its single biggest client, I believe. Capita holds a total of 85 contracts across the public sector: 39 in central government and 46 in the wider public sector. Some 87% of its KPIs—key performance indicators—are rated as good. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right, which is why we are now reviewing Capita’s performance across the government portfolio.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest: I am a member of this scheme. Let no one say that the British became bad Europeans lately: in 1978, in a last-minute endeavour to put off direct elections, Jim Callaghan persuaded the Council of Ministers that, instead of having a common European pension and salary, MEPs would be paid and pensioned by their member state. That lasted until—believe it or not—2009. Of course, he had not thought it out. When he came back, the then Civil Service Pension Scheme, based in Basingstoke, was told to organise a pension, which it did. After many years, the European Parliament Members’ pension scheme for British Members up to 2004 is run by Capita. It is run as an adjunct to the MPs’ scheme, except that it is contributory but not funded. In other words, the money is not invested. I have been either a manager or a chair of managers of that scheme ever since 1979. I then became chair of the European Parliament’s scheme.

I have found that there has been complete obfuscation between the Civil Service and Capita as to what we can be told. My plea to the Minister is to please ask for greater transparency. I find it completely unacceptable that I can read the obituary of a colleague in the paper and then be told by Capita that it is information protected by GDPR—it cannot tell me who has died, even though I can tell Capita. Will the Minister try to get some greater clarity, so that the present managers—there are only seven of them—can at least find out who their pensioners are, whether they are still alive and any other salient facts? It is just not acceptable.

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

I thank the noble Lord. One of the reasons I love being a Member of your Lordships’ House is that every day is a history lesson, including about history that happened before I was born—I say that just to make me feel better. The noble Lord raises an important point about transparency. He will be aware that I am the Minister with responsibility for standards, so how could I do anything other than make sure that my officials meet him to try to get him the answers he is looking for?

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, as a previous Pensions Minister, I am aware of how difficult it is to persuade young people in particular to make proper pensions provision. The danger of a scandal such as this, caused by Capita, is that confidence in the pensions system is undermined. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that government campaigns to make people aware of the importance of proper pensions provision will continue, and in fact be redoubled, perhaps in conjunction with the trade unions, who I am sure she meets on a regular basis?

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

I thank my noble friend. She is absolutely right. It is incredibly important that the failure that we are currently discussing and wider concerns about how our pensions operate are not seen as suggesting to younger people, especially, that they should not sign up to pension schemes. It is deferred salary and they are entitled to it; it is part of their overall package.

I was reflecting today with my private office—all of whom make me feel very old, hence my previous comment—on the fact that we are trying to fix their pension scheme. The first thing I did when I started working for my trade union, which is now Unite, was to write a guide for our members to the NHS pension scheme. The unions fulfil an exceptionally important role in making sure that people have access to their full terms and conditions. As for the problems that we are currently experiencing with this scheme, our officials are meeting every week with the FDA, PCS and Prospect to make sure that the workforce is fully engaged.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a Civil Service pensioner, though one with the reassurance that existing pensioners are not affected. I welcome that interest is being paid on late payments, and that is compensation for other damage. However, what assurance can the Minister give that the payments that are due will not be delayed by endless processes—legal processes and others—that will stop people getting what they now really deserve and need?

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

The noble Lord is absolutely right. There is zero excuse for not getting this money to people as quickly as possible. We have all read about this and had people directly approach us. I appreciate that many former members of the Civil Service will undoubtedly have had colleagues who have just retired approach them about the impact this is having on their lives. We need the money out the door as quickly as possible and the pension scheme stabilised at the earliest opportunity.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister, who has been incredibly helpful in relation to this, has said that £9.9 million so far has been withheld from Capita as a result of this absolutely dreadful scandal. Will the Minister give us an approximate amount of money that Capita has received, gross, from the Government since November 2023, when this contract was entered into? My fear is that £9.9 million withheld is absolutely nothing, and that is why little is happening.

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

My noble and learned friend is right. I do not have that information in front of me because this is a combination of government contracts and public service contracts, but while the £9.9 million is a first stepping stone for not meeting the milestones that it promised us, the noble and learned Lord may be interested to look at the profits warnings that Capita issued this week.

[Baroness Nichols of Selby (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most important thing is for those people who are waiting to get their pensions now? Everything else, such as the compensation, can be dealt with afterwards. It is about the people who are waiting now. As a public sector worker of almost 43 years, I am fortunately not in the Civil Service Pension Scheme, but am in the local government scheme, and I had my pension within four weeks. Maybe there are some lessons to be learned, which could help the Civil Service, by looking at what other pension schemes do.

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

I would never disagree with my noble friend—she scares me on a good day—because she is a fabulous trade union official who has fought her members’ corner for a long time. She is absolutely right. When I have been at the Dispatch Box discussing these issues, I have been asked many times about how we got here, what is happening next and what is going to happen to Capita. Those are all valid questions that need to be answered, but the priority must be to get the money out the door, especially to those who have faced bereavement and ill health retirement. It is the very least we owe them.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, this is plainly an extremely unhappy matter, above all for the civil servants affected, and I do not claim to be an expert on it. Is the fault all Capita’s? Was there not a very troubling two-year handover from the previous administrator and does the Cabinet Office not have to bear some responsibility for managing this transition? Does the Minister accept that, when this is over, there needs to be an independent eye to look at this and to learn the lessons?

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

The noble Lord is right. The contract was signed and we received assurances. In response to the NAO report, we met Capita and went through a clear plan. There was a much larger backlog than was anticipated that came over from MyCSP, and the technological failures at that point meant that what we thought was going to happen has not happened, and the promises that were made since then have not been kept. However, the noble Lord raises an important point. That is why the Cabinet Office is now conducting an evidence-led review into how this failure arose, to make sure that all future contracts learn these lessons.

British Industry and Services: Public Procurement

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Spellar]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their policy on prioritising British industry and services when carrying out public procurement.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, on 26 March, the Government announced procurement reforms to protect our national security, boost growth and build a fairer economy. We have now moved from policy direction to delivery. As of last month, government departments can make use of the national security exemption in the Procurement Act 2023, where relevant. We also introduced a public interest test for departments to formally assess whether their services can be delivered more effectively in-house and have requested all government departments to develop insourcing plans.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply, but that memo is not getting through to government departments. Time and again, they are giving preference to firms and workforces from overseas rather than British industry and services. We talk a lot in this House about government as regulator, government as legislator and government as policymaker. Is it not time for the role of government as customer to come forward so that we can re-industrialise Britain, as has been made very clear by the incoming Prime Minister? Can she get through to her department and the Treasury that there is a new sheriff in town, and we want to see a rapid change of direction?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am awfully fond of my noble friend, and he will remember that, over 25 years ago, I helped to run his “Buy British” campaign for our trade union. This is something that he has campaigned on for a very long time. As the Chancellor said in March,

“it matters where things are made and who makes them”,

which is why we have changed all these rules. To reassure my noble friend, in the last 12 months we have launched the national security procurement exemption and brought in new rules for local government on lower-threshold procurement to encourage use of a model similar to that in Preston. Government departments now have targets for SME use, ensuring that £7.4 billion of government expenditure will be used with SMEs by 2028, and we have redefined the definition of social value. However, my noble friend is absolutely right: the Government spend £400 billion a year, and we need to make sure we spend it well.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, speaks on behalf of the whole House. The plea he makes is really: can the Government lead by example? Can the Minister explain why the current Secretary of State for Defence recently decided to acquire the precision strike missile, which is an American ballistic missile programme—a course of action which was rejected by previous Defence Secretaries, including John Healey?

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

The noble Baroness has huge experience in this—and as soon as we talk about defence, I have to declare myself as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. With regard to individual procurement decisions, she knows as well as me that I would not have been involved in the direct procurement, but I can ensure that the Defence Minister writes to her on it. However, let me be clear about what the defence investment plan means for British jobs. There will be an additional 60,000 British jobs because of the investment that this Government chose to make that the previous Government did not.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, it is reported today that Lockheed Martin is buying Ultra Maritime, a company which makes important underwater capabilities and should be of personal interest to the Minister. That company was formed when two long-standing, brilliant British defence companies were taken over by Advent, an American private equity company, so it has now completed its journey from being an outstanding British defence company to being part of a very large American prime. Can the Minister say how this fits in with the policy of the Government that she has just described, and what work the Government are doing to look at the acquisition and procurement process over the entire piece to ensure that we have sufficient resilience within it?

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

The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right: we need not just sovereign capabilities but sovereign skill capabilities so that we can build what we need, especially in the defence sector—he will not be surprised that I agree with him there. Defence is an area that we are working closely on. It is one of the pathfinder areas for the new procurement strategy that we have announced as part of the exemption from the Procurement Act 2023. A lot of this will have to be about what happens next. I was not aware of that specific case until the noble and gallant Lord raised it, but I will speak to my colleagues.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, what progress are the Government making in ensuring that procurement processes for key public services do not result in them being dependent upon digital services which could simply be terminated at the decision or whim of a foreign billionaire or Head of State, who may of course not feel inhibited by detailed contractual obligations? They may decide to switch off the service and then let the lawyers just slug it out.

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

I wonder who the noble Lord is talking about. He will be very aware that we have to operate within a contractual framework; we follow the rules and always will, but he raises an incredibly important point. The way in which we procure all contracts has to be considered in the round. That is why we are changing the social value test to make sure that other factors beyond pure cost are considered as part of any negotiations. But also, as the world changes, we are making sure that appropriate AI tools and others are used not only as part of the contracts but to deliver on the contracts too—they are used by government as well as by our contractors.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain how it can possibly be right that Transport for London has bought 500 electric buses from China, when Wrightbus in County Antrim produces wonderful electric buses that go all over the world? How is this supporting British business?

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

The Department for Transport has recently published its 10-year pipeline for zero-emission buses, covering procurement through to 2035. That will give British manufacturers, including Wrightbus in Antrim, the long-term certainty they need to plan ahead and invest in their workforce, which is key for delivery. In addition, the UK bus manufacturing panel, which is cross-government, recently agreed on a number of mayoral commitments, including a minimum 10% social value rating in all future bus procurement tenders, bringing it in line with the social value policy applicable to central government departments. That should assist Wrightbus.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

If the Government’s policy is to prioritise British industry, can the Minister explain why one of the first projects being carried out by Great British Energy is to install, in 100 of our schools, solar panels that are either Chinese-made or include Chinese components, many of which are sourced from Xinjiang province and produced by Uyghur labour?

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

I welcome the noble Earl’s new commitment—maybe it is not new —to supply chains and to where components come from. Many of these contracts were signed by previous Governments. We have had many discussions, not least with the noble Earl, about the role of Uyghur labour, which is abhorrent and needs to be taken out of the supply chain. However, we need sovereign capability to replace it with. As I said, that includes sovereign skills capability and investment in manufacturing. People need certainty about contracts coming forward; that has to be delivered too.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, a central tenet of the UK’s national shipbuilding policy is that we have a drumbeat of orders through UK shipyards, recognising that 38p of every pound put in by the taxpayer comes back directly in tax and national insurance. Can my noble friend explain why the Department for Transport is considering offshoring the replacements for Trinity House vessels and the Home Office is considering placing orders in Holland for patrol vessels? Much of that work will not be done in Europe but will be subcontracted to the Far East. Have these departments somehow not got the memo from the Treasury?

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

My Lords, I am sure that every memo sent by my department will be actively read by every other department. On shipbuilding, the noble Lord is absolutely right—when we were Members of the other place, I sat with the noble Lord through many debates on exactly this issue. On the immediate action that we are taking, we have created the pathfinder sector through the national security exemption in the Procurement Act. The MoD is one of those departments, and we have put a commercial lead in place specifically to look at shipbuilding. I would expect that sector lead to work across government departments to deliver in the way that my noble friend discussed.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, why is it that, while our SMEs’ share of local government spending has increased to 33%, their share of central government contracts remains flat at just 16%—nowhere near the three-year target. I realise this question may be something of a gift for the Prime Minister in waiting, but perhaps the Minister could comment ahead of the coronation?

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

I think the noble Lord was here for previous coronations. On SMEs, he is absolutely right. There are many elements of our manifesto that can be delivered only through SME engagement, whether that is on food supply chains —where we have committed to 50% locally-grown produce in public sector food and catering contracts—or more broadly. We are working with SMEs to deliver access. The noble Lord will be aware that, when you have a difference between prime and local contractors, there have to be many ways of accessing government contracts. It may be helpful for the noble Lord to be aware that, of the £400 billion being spent, the Government have set a target for SME use by government of some £7.4 billion, which should be delivered by 2028.

Civil Service Pension Scheme

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton]

To ask his Majesty’s Government what further steps they are taking to resolve difficulties being experienced with the administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme, in particular the failure to pay new pensioners.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, midnight tonight marks the deadline by which Capita promised a complete return to normal contractual service levels. We will hold Capita’s performance against this important milestone. The Minister for the Cabinet Office intends to provide a comprehensive update in the coming days, once we have fully evaluated the data. We have been consistently clear that we will not hesitate to take firm action for continued underperformance. I will endeavour to repeat any Statement in your Lordships’ House, subject to agreement by the usual channels.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. The issue is getting a return to normal service standards, which was hoped to be achieved by June—by today—but clearly it simply has not happened. Many new pensioners are still losing their earnings income and not receiving their pension, leaving them in poverty. It is clearly an important and urgent matter. It is time to reconsider the contractual arrangements, but I hope my noble friend will agree that the important issue now is urgent action to help those facing poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My noble friend raises a very important issue. While there are contractual issues at play, the reality is that behind each and every one of the statistics that we will undoubtedly discuss today there is an individual and a family who are struggling. We have heard many harrowing and heartbreaking stories. We previously set out two recovery targets, including an end-of-June milestone by which we expected a return to standard, contractually required levels. The end of June deadline has now arrived, and Capita has completely failed to meet this milestone for all services, as well as missing its initial April target. Since its explicit personal assurances have not been met and core outputs are deficient, we are deploying a unified package of escalating measures, including independent technical audits and an on-the-ground remedial adviser to hold it ruthlessly to account. I look forward to discussing the detail of this after my right honourable friend the Paymaster-General has made a Statement to Members of the other place in the coming days.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, Capita’s failures are unacceptable, but this also raises serious questions about the Cabinet Office’s own contract management. Given the warnings before handover, what further interventions are Ministers prepared to make if service levels are not restored? What lessons have been learned to ensure that this saga is not repeated, and will the Minister commit to including the actions taken as a result of those lessons learned in the update in the coming days?

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

My Lords, I gently remind the noble Baroness that this contract and its details were signed by the previous Government. We are now trying to fix, and seek assurances for, a contract that has failed many people.

On the detail and the actions of the Cabinet Office, we have established a pension recovery task force led by Angela MacDonald, the Second Permanent Secretary at HMRC. There are 140 surge staff, the costs of which Capita confirmed in a letter to the Cabinet Office in April it will be funding. Capita has surged its number of support staff as well; 500 people are working on the contract, which is a 50% per cent increase on the previous contract. Clearly, however, too many individuals are waiting.

Regarding the details that the noble Baroness has requested, obviously a Statement is coming. If they are not included in that, I know she will make sure that I write to her with the details as and when we get to that point.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

When I previously asked the Minister in what circumstances a failure by a supplier could result in its being banned from future contracts, she said

“authorities can now also exclude suppliers who failed to rectify poor performance under a contract with a public authority despite an opportunity to do so, provided the issue is continuing”.

That sounds very much like the current situation with Capita, so I ask the Minister: how close are we now to Capita being excluded from future contracts, and what level of further failure on this contract would trigger its exclusion from any future contracts?

--- Later in debate ---

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

There are two separate parts to this, which include the current contract. On debarment and the Procurement Act, while I cannot go into the specific details of this case right now, I assure the House that the Government remain committed to taking necessary and proportionate actions in accordance with the law.

With regard to Capita as a supplier, we need to remember how many contracts it supplies to government. It has a total of 85 contracts across the public sector, 39 in central government and 46 with the wider public sector. While there have been significant, outrageous failures in this contract, the reality is that, in operating its other contracts, it is currently meeting 87% of its KPIs, so this has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. However, to reassure Members of your Lordships’ House, outside of the contract for the Civil Service and the Royal Mail pension schemes—I updated the House on the latter earlier this year—the Cabinet Office does not have any further contracts with Capita.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that a figure of 23,000 has been identified as the number of those who have been caught by this problem? Those who are newly retired may still have payments to make on mortgages on their houses and may be in danger of losing them. Is there no mechanism that can be brought forward immediately to make estimated payments to those who have a pension entitlement but no figure coming through so that they avoid the worst excesses that could come their way unless this is resolved?

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

The noble Lord is right that this is affecting people’s day-to-day existence—we have seen in the news coverage at the weekend quite how heartbreaking that has been. We are working on a case-by-case basis. Some of the most harrowing cases have been raised with colleagues at the other end of the building and we are working with MPs, including by having virtual surgeries every day since 29 May, to help them support their constituents in this space.

I want to raise two specifics that it is important for your Lordships to be aware of. First, we have doubled the amount available in transitional support loans—it was £10,000 last time I was at the Dispatch Box on this issue; it is now £20,000 that is available to everybody who is not yet accessing their pension. I urge noble Lords, if they know people in this space, to let members of the scheme know that they are to contact the department they worked for and they can access £20,000 in a loan. We have also introduced a process to pay interest in respect of pensions payable by Capita from 1 December 2025 where full benefits are paid more than one month after retirement. The interest rates applied will be based on Bank of England base rates plus 1% for the period of delay between retirement and payment. However, the noble Lord is right: we need to do this as quickly as possible and get people their money.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that my wife is a beneficiary of the Civil Service Pension Scheme. She was entitled to her first payment on 1 October last year and she received it on 3 June this year. We can afford to take that hit, but thousands of Civil Service pensioners cannot. What assurances are we going to get, first, that people are compensated for the loss of their pension over a period; secondly, that there will be a full inquiry into the way in which the scheme was operated by Capita; and, thirdly, that Capita is properly held to account in terms of bidding for contracts in future.

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

I thank my noble friend, and I am truly sorry for the experiences that his wife has had; I am pleased that she has now received her pension. My noble friend’s factual story is unfortunately all too familiar given recent events. He is absolutely right. The reality is that the Government are trying to fix what has clearly been broken while establishing the facts. We are trying to prioritise the most vulnerable and put in support processes. Then, it is fair to say, we will establish and determine exactly what went wrong and where, making sure this can never happen again.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, did the contract that was signed by the previous Government have penalties in it if the party failed to deliver what was required of them, and if so, are they being implemented?

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

I thank my noble friend. We have already withheld nearly £10 million in transition contract payments for undelivered milestones from Capita. This represents our continuous position that public funds will only ever pay for what is successfully delivered to the required standard, and this figure is not the sum total of withheld payments across the wider contract lifecycle. This is obviously only stage 1. I look forward to being able to further update your Lordships’ House next week.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the systemic failure here that the Civil Service refused to take past performance into account? That is completely contrary to normal life. If someone did a job on your house or on your car and failed, or if you took a holiday with a company that failed, not only would you not use them again but you would advise everybody else not to. If we want only one example, it was the Capita failure on the Army recruitment programme, which was an utter disaster for service recruitment. Is it not time that we changed that so that past performance counted? That would focus the attention of management on fulfilling the contracts they have got rather than on the contracts they hope to get.

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

I thank my noble friend—I think. He is absolutely right. He and I were members of the Defence Select Committee in the other place and discussed the terms of the recruitment contract for the Armed Forces in great detail. There have clearly been challenges in the past, but I remind noble Lords that Capita is meeting 87% of its KPIs on other contracts. However, the issue that the noble Lord has raised is incredibly important. Given that, only last week, the Cabinet Office issued a Written Ministerial Statement making clear our insourcing drive and the public interest test, I hope all these factors are brought into account.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, will the Government be asking the contractor for compensation for their costs and inconveniences, as well as the contribution it should be making to those who have lost on their pension?

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

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. We have already done so, and Capita confirmed in writing in April that it will meet the costs that we have laid out.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, is it not a fact that government has become vulnerable because so many services have been outsourced and there are very few companies that can win contracts? Therefore, there is not much option but to use Capita. Do we not have to rethink the whole question of government capacity and outsourcing?

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

My noble friend is absolutely right, which is why the Cabinet Office issued updated guidance about public procurement last week in line with our manifesto. The reality is that there were few businesses of the scale that could manage a complex pension scheme such as the Civil Service Pension Scheme. It remains clear government policy to advance insourcing, and this pension scheme is a prime candidate for future insourcing once immediate operational stability is secured. The contract remains under intensive taskforce oversight, but if performance fails to improve, absolutely all further commercial, legal and operational options remain on the table—for this or any other contract.

Social Media: Use of X by Government Departments

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pack]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of the Attorney General’s instructions to his Office to stop using social media platform X, what plans they have to review the use of that platform by other government departments.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government use a wide range of digital platforms to reach and engage citizens. We continuously evaluate channels for brand safety and suitability. In government, paid advertising on X has been suspended since April 2023, which means that no taxpayers’ money has been spent with the platform. Individual departments manage their own accounts, ensuring that activity is proportionate, appropriate and relevant to their audiences.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

Given the many issues with X, such as its frequent lethargy in reacting to extreme racial abuse or even violent threats, why do the Government continue to repeatedly single out X specifically for promotion above and beyond other social networks in so much of their activity, such as in the official signatures appended to many government emails, or in the Home Office’s own social media policy, which singles out X in encouraging people to use it? Is it not time to end this preferential treatment for Elon Musk?

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

The noble Lord has been campaigning on this issue for many years, including before he entered your Lordships’ House. A level of pragmatism needs to be adopted. We need to talk to the electorate and to our citizens where they are, and not necessarily on which platforms we wish they were on. When 19.2 million British citizens use X, it is an important place, which I guess is why the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey, is still on X.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Does anyone in government have the job of reading all the incoming messages, following the Government’s submission, and do they ever take any of them seriously?

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

My Lords, on a personal level I tend to look at X as little as possible, which is why I was a little out of the loop yesterday given all the news that was breaking on X. But, having said that, there is a genuine thing here about how we communicate with people. There is a reason why we use these tools. In fact, given the extreme heat that we are currently experiencing, both the Met Office and UKHSA are using X, among other platforms, for engagement. It is making sure that it is about engagement and not just one-way, although on a personal level, when I was an MP, I found Meta platforms much easier to engage with the electorate on.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister says that there is a reason why the Government use X. Why is it that the Attorney-General’s department can manage without using X but other government departments cannot?

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

The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point. We need to remember how we speak to people and where we speak to them. The Cabinet Office guidance in this space recommends that government departments on an individual basis consider the best platforms for them to engage with. For example, the Northern Ireland Office will use different tools from those used by the Home Office or the Department of Health because of the people that it is engaging with and on the platforms that it needs to engage on. The Attorney-General’s Office has made a decision that X is not an appropriate vehicle for it, subject to some of the legal issues that it may need to use it for, but that is a department-by-department consideration.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that many of the responses to messages that are put out on X come from bots, and they foment social and civil unrest. What are the Government doing to try to deal with these bots? They really are dangerous to our society.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My noble friend is absolutely right. We have seen the issues of dis- and misinformation, and in recent weeks we saw what happened in Belfast and in other parts of the country. Bad faith actors are using social media platforms to try to sow division, whether that is through bots or other sources, and we need to be very aware of that. That is why Ofcom has been given the tools through the Online Safety Act, which Members of your Lordships’ House discussed for eight years to try to get right. The tools need to be used and Ofcom needs to do its job.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, on Thursday, this House will be discussing threats to democracy. We are close to the point now where one has to see X— and Elon Musk—as something of a threat to British democracy, deliberately putting out misinformation, using algorithms to promote the most anti-democratic candidate in the Makerfield by-election, and so on. Do the Government not need to look at much tighter regulation on X and other social media which are actively attempting to bias the way in which people in Britain understand our democratic life?

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

The noble Lord is absolutely right. Everything that every Member of your Lordships’ House does every day is to promote British values and ensure that they are protected. That is why we have the Defending Democracy Taskforce and why we have just had the Rycroft review; it is also why, in the most recent by-election, the Joint Election Security Preparedness Unit was set up to try to tackle some of these issues. Although I am a huge advocate of freedom of expression—I ran Index on Censorship until the general election—it is about making sure that, within the prism of freedom of speech, we are protecting the values that we hold most dear. That is why we have given powers to Ofcom; obviously, we will continue to review those powers, and, if they do not work, we will need to do more.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, in October last year, the Government indicated their intention to relax the rules on civil servants speaking publicly, including to the media and stakeholders. Can the Minister confirm when the formal guidance will be published? Will it include guidance on social media use?

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

The noble Baroness makes an interesting point. I should have anticipated a question on that; I thought that she might ask about the Civil Service’s principles on social media, as opposed to anything more substantive. I will write to her with an update on the issue she raises, but I assure all Members of your Lordships’ House that the Civil Service has to operate with impartiality, regardless of which platform it is using.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, most of our media—whether the press or social media—is controlled by the right wing. Is it not important that we have legislation that stops these people putting out propaganda, which is what they do every day?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank my noble friend. I had a fascinating conversation with a very young member of my private office. When I suggested to him that the Daily Express had once been in a Labour-leaning newspaper, he was a little surprised; that shows either my age or his.

There is an issue here around making sure that people have access to genuine information sources that are real and accurate. Like me, my noble friend will remember that, in the general election in 1997, more than 80% of people got their information from BBC sources—at least, I believe so; I should say that before I get myself in trouble again over statistics in this space—but that is not the case now. Most people get their news online, which is why we need to make sure that free and fair journalism is protected.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the real threat to reliable information is not news publishers but weaponised disinformation published by our enemies using bots? The scale of that is far in excess of anything that Mr Musk might promote or anything that any individual news provider here might promote.

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

The noble Viscount is absolutely right. When Iran shut down its internet to try to stop proper, fair protests in that country, we saw how many cybernats and other accounts went down in the UK for people who were seeking to sow division and separation in the United Kingdom. We know that bad faith actors try every day to undermine the very values for which we stand. That is why we have the Government’s media literacy action plan and why we are working at every level of society to highlight these issues. It is also, from my perspective, one of the reasons why we need to work every day to make things clear and to ensure that platforms take their responsibilities seriously.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, disinformation and propaganda go back hundreds of years. There are some good things to be said about X, but the antidote is as follows. It is very much to be regretted that young people no longer read newspapers. I call on the Department for Education to fund a selection of newspapers in every single secondary school in the country; that is the only way to get young people interested in serious, proper news.

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

The noble Baroness makes a really interesting point. She is right that misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and counterpropaganda are not new. Last week, my husband wrote an article for his local paper in which he reminded everybody that there is one day of the year when we look at media with a level of cynicism: 1 April. We need to be doing that every single day of the year. The noble Baroness makes an important point, which I will look at. A DCMS consultation is currently out; I will ensure that her point is fed in.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was a little alarmed by the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. He does not like some things that are being said on X. He was not talking about incitement, harassment or the promotion of illegal activities. He specifically cited campaigning for a candidate whom he did not like—something that is legal but which he did not like. The Minister said, I think, that this might be a proper case for Ofsted toughening its regulatory powers. Would she like to clarify that, because I think we can all agree that we do not want to criminalise different political points of view?

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

I am sorry if I gave that impression. That is absolutely not what I meant; I meant that, in terms of its responsibilities, X has to follow the law. With regard to anyone standing for election, all of us who have done so know that there are ways and means for us to beat our opponents, and that is at the ballot box. We will continue to do so. Personally, I enjoyed campaigning against the candidate who was referenced; it is an incredibly important part of all this.

Last week, I had the final Question just before the football. I have the same Question today. I do not want to tempt fate, but come on, England!

Foreign Interference in UK Democratic Processes

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pack]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of the findings by the French agency Viginum that a foreign influence operation targeted the 2026 Scottish Parliament election, what steps they are taking to investigate and prevent foreign interference in UK democratic processes.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

We do not routinely comment on security matters. We are absolutely committed to safeguarding the UK’s elections and have well-established processes to protect democratic integrity across the country. The Government are implementing the counter political interference and espionage action plan through the Defending Democracy Taskforce to reduce foreign interference and espionage threats. The Government continue to work closely with our international partners to increase democratic resilience and counter the threat of foreign misinformation, manipulation and interference.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

Since my Question was submitted, we have had the disturbing news of the convictions of two people apparently with Russian links for arson attacks related to the Prime Minister. The very welcome recent Rycroft review’s remit, however, looked only at financial influence from overseas, so is now not the time for a broader review of foreign interference in all forms in our democracy?

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

The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point. The responsibility of every Government is to make sure that we keep all our citizens safe. We have seen significant state-based interference, both violent and online, in our democratic space. But rest assured that the Government keep these issues under review every day.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, I was an OSCE observer last week at the elections in Armenia. Initial reports show that, although there was significant Russian interference, particularly on social media, its effect was mitigated because there was a very effective public education campaign. Will my noble friend the Minister therefore look at what this Government can do to educate the public about the dangers of foreign interference and the difference between information and misinformation from foreign sources?

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

I thank my noble friend for her work in Armenia. What has come to light is extraordinary, although I have been reassured that, even with all those efforts, the Russian-supporting political party got only 17.5% of the vote. Obviously, we work closely with all our partners across all our allies to make sure that we learn best practice and share best practice where appropriate, and we will continue to do so. But each and every one of us also has a responsibility in this space to protect the democratic values we hold so dear.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, referred to the Rycroft report, and a series of amendments to the pending legislation on elections were placed very soon after that report was published. May I ask that the Government go somewhat more slowly in relation to the proposed amendments and look at them more carefully, along with the events that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, identified, so that we do not have to come back yet again and amend yet more elections legislation in 12 or 18 months’ time?

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

I know how excited the noble Lord will be about the legislation that will be in front of your Lordships’ House, which he will be able to scrutinise, and I am sure that my ministerial colleagues will enjoy the inevitable debate. The noble Lord is right: we obviously responded immediately to some of the biggest areas of immediate concern that we could legislate for, and our full response to the report will follow very soon. But several reports, including from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the other place, have looked at this space. We need to make sure that we respond to everything in the round and take some time, but also act quickly, given the potential impact that we see every day.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the report that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, referred to was by a French government agency about the apparent operations of an Israeli company in exerting influence over campaigns in France, Britain and a number of African countries. The report mentions co-operation between the French government agency and the Swedish, British and Dutch Governments, as well as others. But would it not have been appropriate to alert our own population to what was going on? Now that we know that we have this sort of foreign influence through social media, coming from a number of different countries—not just from state actors but from private actors, such as the Israeli company and private actors in the United States, which exert considerable influence—should the British Government not have reported to their own public to tell us what was going on?

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

The noble Lord raises an important point. Obviously, France is one of our key allies—we have seen images only today of the President with the Prime Minister at the G7. I reassure your Lordships’ House that our position is that it is dangerous to jump to any conclusions on the basis of a single report. The UK Government will draw on our own analysis and draw our own conclusions.

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

My Lords, it is increasingly clear that there was a major effort by the Russians in support of the SNP at the Scottish Parliament elections, because it is in their interest to break up Britain. In view of this and subsequent events, is there not a case now for those elections to be rerun?

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

I thank my noble friend for so many things, but I am not sure that our colleagues who are currently campaigning in by-elections up and down the country will necessarily join me in doing so. My noble friend raises an important point about ensuring that people have confidence in the election results. That is why we have the Joint Election Security and Preparedness Unit, which was operational during the recent elections and is operational again during the current by-elections to make sure that we can all have confidence in the democratic process.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the news of Russian state actors behind the arson attacks at sites linked to the Prime Minister is, as other noble Lords have pointed out, extremely concerning. Yesterday’s incident with the frigate “Admiral Grigorovich” shows that Russia has become increasingly reckless. Have similar trends been seen in Russian foreign interference operations online, including through the use of bots? What practical steps are Ministers taking to tackle this?

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

I think that we can all agree, not least after marking last week that the Ukraine war is longer than the First World War, that we are dealing with a bad-faith and outrageous actor with the Russian state, which has also been operating in the online space. Since October 2024, the Government have exposed and sanctioned 38 individuals and organisations responsible for delivering Russian information warfare. I appreciate, as will noble Lords, that there is still some way to go, but we are working every day to keep both our online and our offline spaces safe.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, in its 2020 report on Russia, the ISC highlighted the malign influence of Russia and, more recently, in our report on Iran, we highlighted the use of the online space to sow division within our politics. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that we should condemn those politicians who repeat and spread some of this false information?

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

I could not agree more with my noble friend. One of the most instructive things that we have seen in recent months was, when the Iranian regime turned off the internet in order to stop protests on its own streets, we saw how many online Twitter bots were no longer operational. We see that across the piece with state actors who are trying to sow division. There is therefore a responsibility on each and every one of us not to repeat their lies.

[Lord Dixon of Jericho (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chief executive of the Liberal Democrats. Earlier this week, the Liberal Democrat systems were, I am reliably informed, attacked by a hostile state in a sophisticated attack. Fortunately, the protections that we had in place were robust against this attack, and we had the full co-operation of the security services in helping us to withstand that attack. However, given the way that that foreign state is particularly targeting political parties, does the Minister think that the support given to all political parties across the spectrum is proportionate to the level of threat that we now face?

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

I am genuinely sorry that I did not know about the attack on the Liberal Democrat website. It brings home the fact that every democratic institution is under threat every day from those people who wish to sow division and to undermine our core values and, indeed, our United Kingdom. The National Security Secretariat co-ordinates the counter political interference and espionage action plan, but that is constantly under review on the basis of our doing what we need to do as and when we need to do it to make sure that the right protections are in place. If the noble Lord wants me to facilitate meetings with any of our officials on additional support, I am more than happy to do so.

I am not sure that there is time for me to be asked another question so, on that basis, I will just say, “Come on, England” for tonight.

North Belfast: Violent Attack

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, the barbaric attack in north Belfast on Monday evening was truly sickening and our thoughts are with the victim. Will the Minister join me in commending the bravery of the public who intervened and the swift response of the Police Service of Northern Ireland? Does she agree that nothing justifies the violence we saw overnight? We are all angry. The right response, however, is not uncontrolled rage but to allow the law to take its proper course. In early 2024, the Irish Government were quick to raise concerns over migrants entering their jurisdiction through Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell us what conversations are taking place to prevent migrants coming into Ireland from other safe EU countries that are in the Schengen area and then exploiting the common travel area to claim asylum here in the United Kingdom?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments with regard to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I think that anyone who has watched the news in the last 36 hours can only be in awe of and very grateful to the chief constable, Jon Boutcher, and the brave men and women who are serving in all our emergency services, but especially the PSNI. I put on record the thanks of the whole House to those extraordinarily brave bystanders who chose not to look the other way but intervened very bravely to save a member of their community.

With regard to the specific question that the noble Lord raises on common travel area, he will be as aware as I am that the common travel area has been in operation for a century and is regularly a matter of conversation for both the British and Irish Governments; that continues to be the case and has been so this week. I think it is helpful for Members of your Lordships’ House to know that, in the last 12 months, 1,500 enforcement operations took place in relation to illegal immigration in Northern Ireland, with more than 1,200 arrests. This is something that this Government take very seriously.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too deeply deplore Monday’s violent attack and condemn in the strongest possible terms those who seek to weaponise pain and suffering. In particular, I condemn those inciting violence from abroad, including Tommy Robinson from Moscow yesterday evening. Our thoughts are with the victim and his family, and we all owe a debt of gratitude to the bystanders and emergency services, whose bravery was truly outstanding. Does the Minister agree that the priority must be to help the community recover from this appalling violence, and will she say what the Government are doing to support the people of Belfast and bring communities back together through the difficult weeks ahead?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for the tone that she has taken. I agree with every word that she said, not least about the appalling comments of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon—someone who I, in a previous incarnation, campaigned against for decades. For all of us, Stephen Ogilvie should be in our prayers, and we hope and wish for him to have as speedy a recovery as possible. In terms of working with the community, after the disorder in Ballymena last year, I went there and met the community leaders, the extraordinary women who stood in between those violent perpetrators and the community, and I am very grateful for them. It will take months for the community to heal from what is happening. I reiterate what the leader of the DUP has said in recent hours: protests and politics are British values; that is the way we engage; violence is not.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, scenes of appalling violence that we have seen in Belfast and in north Belfast, which I used to have the honour to represent in the other place, have been rightly condemned by everybody. Such violence serves absolutely no purpose except to hurt communities and innocent people and should not be happening. Can the Minister, in relation to the horrific event on Monday night that sparked all this, give an assurance that there will be speedy justice for the victim, as we have seen in other cases, and that there will be no undue delay?

In terms of protecting and defending the people of Northern Ireland—and the open border has been mentioned—will she urgently review the operation of the common travel area and talk to the Irish authorities about what they are doing? Will she look at the draw factors which enable people to go through two, three or four safe countries before they claim asylum in the UK? Will she also look at a particular problem we have in Northern Ireland which has been subject to proposed legislation, so far unsuccessfully: outlawing the glorification of violence? This is happening at the very top of the Northern Ireland Government and is done by the First Minister, and it is encouraging young people to say, “Well, if it was okay for them; it is okay for us”. This culture of resorting to violence on the streets must end.

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

I thank the noble Lord for both his service in this House and his decades of service in Northern Ireland. What we have seen reminds all of us quite how challenging it has always been to be a representative in Northern Ireland, and we are so grateful for the work that he has done.

It is important that we call for calm in Northern Ireland and across the country in the coming hours and days. I am pleased to see that has been the case across the political spectrum. In terms of the glorification of terrorism, there is no excuse for glorifying a proscribed organisation. It is illegal, as it should be.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I totally condemn the brutal and barbaric attack on Stephen Ogilvie, and I wish him a full and speedy recovery. I commend the first responders, the PSNI, and members of the community who apprehended the assailant. We then witnessed in the aftermath the uncontrollable violence that spilled on to the streets of Belfast. Does my noble friend agree that such violence seemed to concentrate, like a pogrom, on people of colour, and that it is important to adhere to the principle of diversity, which is the very essence of humanity?

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

What we saw overnight is violence and disorder of the most shocking kind, using one of the most horrendous attempted murders, which we all unfortunately saw because it was spread across social media. We need to remember and contextualise what has happened in the past 24 hours, and what it led to. Some 27 people were made homeless last night because people went door to door to target foreign nationals and burn them out of their homes. I can only imagine their terror. The youngest victim to be moved from her home was two years old. I do not think any of us will ever be able to forget the image of a nine year-old child and their family being put in the back of a Land Rover as they were rescued from violent, racist thugs who sought to undermine their sense of belonging in a country that many have lived in for decades. It is simply unacceptable and will not be tolerated. As I should have said to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, these people, the original perpetrator and those who have acted with such dishonour over the last 24 hours, will face the full strength of the law.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, like everyone here, I offer my sincere sympathy to Mr Ogilvie and welcome the support for those who came to his aid, as well as the local people, the security services, police and ambulance service.

Like everyone, I totally condemn the violence of last night. Those who are living properly in that part of the United Kingdom have a right to live there. However, will the Minister give us some idea as to how she and the Government are going to stop the great number of illegal immigrants coming in their boatloads into the United Kingdom?

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

The noble Lord raises a very important point. Nearly 70,000 people were deported between the general election and March 2026—a 41% increase on the 21 months before that. It is important for us to remember that we are a welcoming, open country; I am here only because of previous immigration policies that allowed my family to come. However, this is about making sure that, if you are lucky enough to live in the UK, you abide by British values, and if you do not, you will leave.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, people are conflating those who come here illegally with those who are here legally. Among the people who were firebombed out of their homes last night was an African family who have been here for 20 years. We also saw pictures of a business, potentially started by an Indian family, that had been firebombed. There is no excuse for those people who are inciting hatred and racism. Just as South Yorkshire Police took action when the Holiday Inn in Rotherham was attacked, I really hope the Northern Ireland police service has the same vigour to take action against those who put life in danger over the last couple of days.

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

The noble Lord raises an incredibly important point. We have seen people who have been too scared to go to work in the last 24 hours—people who serve in our NHS and in lots of different public services, as well as those who have built lives here, and we are grateful to them for doing so.

I would like to finish my contributions today not with my words but with the words of the Ogilvie family, because they reflect where most of us would want to be.

“We want to make it absolutely clear that overnight unrest is not welcome, and peaceful protest is the only way forward. We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country, including in our healthcare system and hospitality sector, and we depend on them to make our country work. We do not want this terrible tragedy to be used to divide people or fuel hostility”.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pack]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what further steps they are taking to retrieve information in relation to the matters covered by the Humble Address dated 4 February relating to the appointment of Lord Mandelson as HM Ambassador to Washington; and what assessment they have made of the extent to which relevant records, communications, and other material remain available.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have published all available material, with the exception of a small number of documents that were withheld at the request of the Metropolitan Police, making this the largest ever government response to an humble Address. The Government now consider that they have duly discharged the duties set out in this humble Address.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

In recent days, we have seen various WhatsApp messages passed to the media that were not handed to the Government for publication as part of the humble Address. Obviously, we do not know who passed those messages to the media, but does it not highlight the importance of ensuring that current and former Ministers and ministerial appointees fully co-operate with such processes? So would the Minister commit to reviewing the terms of the taxpayer-funded settlement payments or pensions for such people to ensure that, if, in future, people do not fully comply with such processes, there will be financial consequences?

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

The noble Lord raises an important point about compliance with the will of both your Lordships’ House and the other place with regard to an humble Address. With regard to the specifics about any penalties, the Government currently have no plans to change the ministerial pension scheme, as I have put in writing several times to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. However, I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern and I am sure there will be ongoing reviews.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, can I just probe the Minister a little more on that question? The messages that were published between Lord Mandelson and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister were clearly within the terms of the humble Address. They were not published. That raises two questions. First, why did the Minister not make them available? Secondly, what confidence does that give us that all the rest of the information that was in scope of the humble Address has actually been published? How can the Minister give us that confidence?

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

My Lords, I shall start with the noble Lord’s second point. This was an official-led process. There were no politicians involved in the determination of what was and was not published. About 1,500 documents were published only a week ago. With regard to any correspondence relating to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister proactively disclosed to the other House twice last week that he had exchanged messages with Peter Mandelson, but they were no longer available to him to disclose as part of the humble Address. As he stated in the other place, if he continued to have access to those messages, he would have disclosed them as part of his return. He does not have access to the messages.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, given the miraculous emergence of the Darren Jones texts, can the Minister give assurances that there are no other withheld ministerial communications that will emerge? Also, given that confidence in this process has been shaken, as my noble friend Lord Harper said, can she now commit to publishing the schedule identifying exactly what material is being withheld at the request of the Metropolitan Police?

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

As I have said many times and very clearly from this Dispatch Box—I think this might be my fourth outing on the humble Address, which will make it also the noble Baroness’s fourth outing on the humble Address—we have published everything that is available to us and that this was an official-led process that has been done in kind. We are adamant, and the officials are adamant, that we have fully complied with the humble Address. With regard to a schedule of documents, as I have discussed with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I shall be very clear: there are three buckets of information, which I have said on record before, about categories of information that will not be published. This small number of documents relate to national security, vetting material, conflict of interest process material and internal correspondence with Peter Mandelson. As and when the Met Police believe it is appropriate to do so, they, too, will be published.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister and other Ministers have been using a WhatsApp system that permanently deletes official messages, and, if so, whether she thinks that is acceptable?

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

My Lords, the guidance on ministerial use of NCCCs— non-corporate communication channels—is clear for all Ministers and is part of the Ministerial Code, which states:

“‘Disappearing message’ functions have a role in limiting the build up of messages on devices. You must ensure that any such use does not impact on your recordkeeping or transparency responsibilities”.


There is a difference between storing material that relates to decision-making and the output of policy-making and keeping messages that may relate to gossip.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, how many other individuals in wider public service are effectively dismissed for gross misconduct yet receive a golden goodbye of taxpayers’ money to the tune of £77,000?

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

My Lords, I am not sure that anyone would expect me to have the details of anyone’s employment contract or their departure at hand, but noble Lords will be aware of Civil Service contracts, because they are available to Members of your Lordships’ House, and in fact this one was published as part of the first humble Address.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, following up on the question from my noble friend, the Minister said that deciding which messages to release was official led, if I completely understood that correctly. Is she able to tell the House what criteria or guidance were given to officials so that they could decide which messages to release?

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

My Lords, the methodology of what was published and why, and what was withheld and what was redacted, was published in every volume of the disclosure last week, which noble Lords will remember I had next to me when we did the Statement. That methodology was agreed by the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office. A KC was then brought in to quality assure that process. Materials were passed to the ISC that related to national security and international relations, which the committee then redacted. Additional material was then seen by the honourable Simon Hoare MP in his role as chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. He was then invited in on Monday last week to look at the third-party redactions to make sure that he was comfortable with them on behalf of Parliament, and he believed them to be sensible.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, this is beginning to sound more like something out of “Mission Impossible”, with telephone messages destructing themselves after 30 seconds and other telephones being stolen in strange circumstances. This is getting to be a bit of a saga of excuses. We have here a decision about Peter Mandelson and that hugely important appointment, which was catastrophic. I would be the last person to accuse the Government of a cover-up, but it does leave a sense that the Government simply do not want to deal with this issue properly. Does the Minister not realise that this leaves the whole Government with a sense of avoidance: of not willing to face the truth that this was an appalling mess of their own creation?

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

I shall take some of those points in turn. First, the Prime Minister have been very clear that the appointment of Peter Mandelson was a mistake, and he has apologised to Members of the other place and Members of your Lordships’ House but, most importantly, to the victims of Epstein. With regard to the publication, there has never been a larger amount of material released in relation to a humble Address. Last week, we released the second tranche of 1,500 pages, of which I read every one. Over three volumes, 337 documents were passed to the ISC. If there had been any idea of a cover-up, I think certain messages would never have seen the light of day. Instead, they have ensured that the tabloids have had something to write about, if nobody else.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

Have the rules now been changed where an official mobile phone is supposedly stolen? Does that have to be reported? What is the process now?

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

My Lords, it is exactly the same as it was then and the process was reported to the police, as the police have confirmed for both the stolen devices.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Does the Minister know how many Ministers were communicating with Peter Mandelson using disappearing messages on official government devices?

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

I have no way to access that information.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, when Morgan McSweeney appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, he said, “All of my messages concerning the Mandelson appointment will be published in the first round of publications”. Have they been?

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

The noble Lord will be aware, as are all Members of your Lordships’ House, that Morgan McSweeney is no longer in post, and, with the greatest respect, neither I nor he would have known what was being published at any point in any such tranche. I reassure the House that the Government have complied with the humble Address but, as was previously set out, it remains the case that a subset of documents is subject to an ongoing police investigation.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the previous Government also operated a system of disappearing messages?

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

I think it is fair to say that there are many Members of your Lordships’ House who use disappearing messages. There are also many Members of both this Administration and the previous one who use WhatsApp far too often, which is why are undertaking a review of how NCCCs will be used by this and future Governments.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My Lords, that completes Oral Questions for today. Those Members who wish to disappear from the Chamber should do so now.

Cabinet Manual: Guidelines for Government Formation

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to including in the Cabinet Manual guidelines for government formation in the event of the next election not providing a Commons majority for a single party.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Prime Minister announced yesterday, the Government have committed to updating the Cabinet Manual to ensure that it remains an authoritative guide to our constitutional arrangements. This update will restate and underline the rules and conventions that underpin our democracy, including those relating to elections and government formation. We will ensure that the second edition accurately articulates arrangements where there is no overall majority in the House of Commons. We will engage with parliamentary committees in both Houses on the draft text.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this announcement and thank the Minister for alerting me to the Statement yesterday. The coalition Government produced the Cabinet Manual as a guide for future Governments to the conventions of our unwritten constitution. It was intended that successive Governments should update it after each election, but the chaos of single-party government and rapid turnover of Prime Ministers means that this is the first one. As it is now highly likely that the outcome of the next election might be one in which no single party has a majority, can the Government pay particular attention to the area of government formation to allow sufficient time to negotiate and establish another stable coalition Government?

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

The noble Lord knows how fond I am, and I am delighted to have been able to announce that we are updating the Cabinet Manual. While I understand that everybody in this building is very excited about elections—we all campaign for them—it is not yet two years since the previous general election and there are another three to go, and I look forward to ensuring that there is another Labour Government. In terms of ensuring the premises of formation of government, as ever, the convention remains that it is those best able to command the confidence of the other place.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend reflect that when the noble Lord talks about chaos, we should go back to the coalition Government, when his party signed up to austerity, which caused such damage to our country? It also agreed to the disastrous NHS reform Bill brought in by Andrew Lansley—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—which cost £4 billion extra and was a total disaster. Will he remember that?

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

I am delighted to see my noble friend back in his place; we have missed him—I believe everyone has had their Weetabix this afternoon. Fundamentally, what is so important about the Cabinet Manual is making sure that the conventions and precedents are outlined so that, regardless of who is in power and what events are before us, there is a document to guide Ministers and civil servants about how we respond to them.

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept on behalf of this one member of the Constitution Committee, which has repeatedly asked for the manual to be updated, that it is singularly satisfying to have this Answer on the day when the once and future chair of the Constitution Committee, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, has just taken his seat on these Benches again? Does she agree that the manual contains very important parts of our conventional constitutional structure and its updating is much to be welcomed?

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

The noble Lord raises an important point, and I welcome all our colleagues back to their place. With regard to the Cabinet Manual, the reality is that it has not been updated since 2011. It considers us still to be a member of the European Union, and it reflects not just the Fixed-term Parliaments Act but a different set of relationships we had with the devolved assemblies. It needs updating to make sure that government and civil servants have the guidance before them.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister responsible for the production of the Cabinet Manual in 2011, I have to confess that I expected that it would have been updated before now, so I welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday. I can confirm that one section that does not need updating is the bit about the formation of Governments. It is quite comprehensive, since it was done after the 2010 election. However, can the Minister confirm that there is a very helpful section at paragraph 2.18, which may be useful in about 15 days’ time, referring to the resignation of a Prime Minister of a majority Government and the fact that the governing party would be responsible for electing his successor?

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

The Prime Minister remains in place, and he has our full and utter confidence.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pack (LD)]

The Rycroft review warned that our fragmented statute book—with redundant provisions left unrepealed, measures passed by Parliament never commenced and consolidation deferred again and again over many decades—poses a genuine practical risk to our democracy and our national security, yet the Cabinet Manual section on legislation omits those basic housekeeping tasks of commencement and consolidation. Will the Minister commit to consulting fully on ensuring that those key tasks are included in the next edition of the Cabinet Manual?

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

My Lords, given that the current manual is being redrafted as we speak, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the detail. However, to reassure Members of your Lordships’ House, we have asked both the Lords Constitution Committee and PACAC in the other place for their assistance on the consultation with parliamentarians across both Houses. How they choose to do so will be a matter for them.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the Cabinet Manual, or possibly more correctly, the Cabinet Office manual, is not a written constitution, nor is it binding on Ministers. The Government intend to update this source of guidance and information. Can the Minister confirm whether this update will be simply to reflect changes in legislation and practice since 2011, or will it be done in a more maximalist way to embody additional conventions and practices? Will it seek to amend any existing conventions where legislation has not changed since 2011? Will she also confirm that, since the manual is owned by the Cabinet, it will not be published without its explicit endorsement?

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

Let me take those questions in order—if I miss one, I will come back to the noble Baroness. First, yes, I expect the document to be endorsed by the Cabinet. Secondly, no, I do not expect it to cover any additional precedents that are not already there. We are not changing precedent. This is a living, breathing document about how we operate—about having one place with our established precedents and conventions. I forget the third question, so I will write to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this is a really interesting Question, because none of us knows when the next general election will be—it could be in three years or much sooner—so are the Labour Government thinking about which other political parties they might be prepared to work with? Obviously, now that we are in a five-party or even six-party election, they might be forced to work with all sorts of people, including the Greens.

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

My Lords, I wonder if that is a bid for power, for engagement or for negotiation, but I have to say that, given some of the candidates, platforms and personal views of the Green Party, that would be a struggle. Having said that, we are many years away from a future general election, and I think it is fair to say that those of us who campaign regularly will continue to campaign month in, month out regardless of when a general election is called. However, there is a great deal of work to get on with before the next general election.

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

My Lords, someone called William Wallace ought to know that the coalition in Scotland was far more successful than the one down here. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that the Cabinet Manual includes sections on transparency and openness, and that that will apply also to the First Minister of Scotland?

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

My Lords, is it this First Minister or previous First Ministers? The Cabinet Manual is a UK-owned document, and it is about the British Government. Obviously, we have ongoing relationships and discussions with the Governments in the devolved assemblies, but that is a matter for them.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, over the past 27 years, the Parliaments of Scotland and Wales have functioned well after elections in which no party has had a single majority, but in similar circumstances at Westminster, there could be absolute chaos in terms of deciding who is invited to Buckingham Palace and when. Should we not move to the system that they have in Scotland and Wales where their Parliaments elect the First Minister? Doing so for the House of Commons is perhaps the only way for a new Prime Minister to know that they have the confidence of the House.

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

My Lords, we have, especially in the other place, a series of conventions that determine who commands the confidence of the House, and they include the King’s Speech and Budget votes. There is no need for any additional convention.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Can my noble friend cheer us all up by reminding us, in the election following five years of coalition government, when the public were asked to give their judgment on it, how many Liberal MPs were left?

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

I am so pleased to see my noble friend also back in his place; he has been sorely missed. However, I do not think I need to repeat matters of recent history for people who so actively follow current affairs.