Social Media: Use of X by Government Departments
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Pannick(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Pannick(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Pannick(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
It is a true joy to see my noble friend, if only on a screen. I am so pleased that he is well enough to participate, if remotely. I cannot wait to see him back in his place.
My noble friend asked me several questions. I want to focus on the fact that there is a responsibility on every Member of your Lordships’ House and everyone who serves in this building, whether in the other place or here, as well as those who support all of us, to help rebuild trust in politics. My noble friend spent a long career door-knocking and campaigning, and we know how important this is. With regard to the costs, I do not have a total cost to give my noble friend at this time and it will not be possible to give a running update. However, I can confirm that Civil Service resource has been redeployed, meaning that this will not create any net cost to the taxpayer. Any additional costs will be set out in due course.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Would the Minister agree that one of the ironies of this sorry saga is that His Majesty’s Government had a highly competent ambassador in Washington DC, Karen Pierce, who had the confidence of the Trump Administration and was widely respected in that city? Does the Minister agree that no Government should be appointing political cronies to this type of position but should be selecting from the wide category of highly competent professional diplomats?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord, as ever, raises an interesting and non-straightforward point for me to answer. On the process, while this was unusual it is not unheard of. Three Members of your Lordships’ House were political appointees from both parties to hold ambassadorial roles, both by previous Labour Governments and by the Conservative Government. There is a clear process for such appointments. The process was followed; the process did not work; the process has now changed.
Government Communications: X
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Pannick(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I was dared to see whether we could get in “Ruth social” as opposed to Truth Social for any new platforms, and my noble friend has given me that opportunity. There are numerous existing platforms with huge reach, and it is about how we use them in the UK and how we make sure they are effective for the British people. WeAre8 is a social interest company that is trying to change the face of the internet; there are many other providers, and we must look at them in the round to make sure that we are using the right ones in the right place.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister’s argument in relation to X appears to be that it may be obnoxious, but other people use it so the Government must too. Is it not sometimes appropriate for the Government to take a position, adopt a principle and do what they think is right?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this Government do what they think is right every single day. Some Members of your Lordships’ House will be aware of my own experiences on X and what that did to me. I stand here, even with those experiences, and say that I still believe that X is an appropriate platform to use because I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression. While I do not agree with a great deal of what is written on platforms where there is too much hate and misinformation and, at times, conspiracy theories, it is incredibly important that there is a counter-narrative when people are talking about whether vaccinations are appropriate and whether they should be going to hospital. It is incredibly important that the facts are available not where we wish people would use them, but where they are actually using them.
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Pannick(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his work as part of the ISC and his work in these areas for several decades. I would expect full co-operation with the committee in terms of what happens next. We want to be as open to scrutiny as possible but, given the issues, talking within the appropriate processes—the ISC is one of them—will be a matter for his committee and future conversations.
We need to remember that this was an independent decision made by the CPS. We genuinely believed that this case was going to proceed until we were informed by the CPS just before the embargo. We provided full co-operation with the CPS, I am reassured, within the constraints available to the Deputy National Security Adviser at that time, based on what had been said.
We need to remember—the noble Lord is absolutely right—that it was not until 2019 that the integrated review first mentioned China at all. Until that point, the previous Government did not consider China worthy even of mentioning in the security review. Importantly, at the point that we are discussing, the then Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, when asked whether China was a threat, said it was
“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”
to sum up our relationship with China in one word. As I said yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition, when she was Trade Secretary, said:
“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe but we can describe it as a challenge”.
That is the constraint within which the Deputy NSA gave his evidence. We need to be very clear about what government policy was two years ago.
Lord Pannick (CB)
May I ask the noble Baroness to clarify the answer she gave to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the important subject of transparency? He asked whether the Government will publish correspondence between officials, politicians and advisers involved with the CPS. The noble Baroness’s answer was exactly the same as that given yesterday by Mr Jarvis, the Minister in the Commons:
“it is not for me to make decisions about the publication of evidence that may be used in any further ongoing legal processes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/25; col. 70.]
My question is: what ongoing legal processes? This criminal prosecution has ended and it cannot be resurrected, and there is therefore no reason not to inform the public of all the details of this so that any concerns can be removed.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Obviously, his level of expertise in our legal processes is much more significant than mine, but neither he nor I know what plans the CPS has for any future prosecution.
Chinese Espionage: Parliament
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Pannick(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Minister said in answer to my noble friend Lord Butler that the decision not to continue the prosecution was entirely a matter for the DPP, with no involvement whatever from any special adviser. Surely it is the role of the National Security Adviser to advise in relation to such a matter, and for that to be taken strongly into account by the DPP.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
As I have previously said, the Deputy National Security Adviser, on behalf of the Government, gave three different witness statements, as requested by the CPS and the DPP. We gave, and will continue to give, for all prosecutions, full evidence as available. It was a matter for the DPP to determine whether there was enough evidence to proceed and in this matter it chose not to.