Supreme Court Dillon Judgment
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Swire(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness demonstrates, as she has previously, the heartbreak and the personal cost that too many Members of your Lordships’ House have faced, and that there is a face behind every one of the statistics and the stories that we read out. There is nothing I can do to fix some of that hurt; I wish there was, but this is our final attempt to do what we can, so that people can access the information and the answers they have waited for, in some cases for over 50 years.
On the specifics that the noble Baroness asked for, she raises an important point. Noble Lords will be aware that I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. I consider myself part of the military family—although on the periphery, unlike some of my noble friends, who are at the heart of it—and I also have the privilege of being allowed to wear a uniform, so the veterans’ provisions are incredibly important to me personally. But there is an issue here about the victims; we need to make sure that we are moving forward for them and that they are able to access what we put in as protections—as many protections as we can reasonably do for veterans.
The noble Baroness raised a very interesting point about the number of prosecutions and the number of people previously charged. As regards the current prosecutions that are under way, there are currently 10 live proceedings, six of which are about republican and paramilitary activity, two about loyalist paramilitary activity, one RUC and one military. When you look at those numbers, it is still quite clear that, although some of the narrative is elsewhere, the focus is still on the actions of the paramilitaries, as it should be. That does not mean we should not put the protections in place.
In terms of the specifics, I am not a business manager of this place or the other place, but noble Lords will have heard that the gracious Speech, which we are still discussing, referenced the Troubles Bill, and we will be discussing that in your Lordships’ House in due course.
Lord Swire (Con)
For clarification, can the Minister tell the House what the current status is of the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains: whether it remains funded, whether it is dormant and needs to be provoked into action if there is new information, whether it is properly staffed, and whether it still enjoys the support of the Government in Dublin?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an incredibly important point. I myself visited one of the sites earlier this year, where they were looking for one of the disappeared. I have never had that kind of experience before, while I stood on the side of a bog while people were looking for a body. We will continue to fund the commission and we will do everything we can to make sure that the structures exist for the families of the disappeared, including the family of Robert Nairac but also others, until we get answers for all of them.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Swire(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Before I answer the substance of the question, while I appreciate the issues that were raised, the private lives of the decadent rich are of no odds here. It is about abuse and violence against women and girls, and illegal behaviour; it is not about a decadent life. Regardless of whether they are rich or not, people should be held to account with the full force of the law. On classified government information, noble Lords will be aware there is a live police investigation so I cannot comment on the detail. However, I would expect the Met Police to receive absolute full support. If laws have been broken, people should be prosecuted.
Lord Swire (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made an extremely pertinent point about Lord Mandelson’s predecessor, Dame Karen Pierce. First, can the Minister confirm that, during the scope of this investigation, we will look at the representations the Prime Minister will have received arguing that Dame Karen should have been kept in place to handle a very unpredictable and volatile president? Can the Minister confirm what pressure the Prime Minister came under, and from whom, to replace her with Lord Mandelson? Secondly, if we are investigating Lord Mandelson’s suitability for public office of any sort historically, will the scope of that investigation be extended to his time as an EU commissioner in Brussels? There are some very serious questions and allegations surrounding his time there.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
It may be helpful to inform your Lordships’ House that the previous ambassador to America had come to the end of her tenure. The question would have been whether the tenure would be extended or not, not whether she should have been removed. I do not believe that is within the scope of the paperwork; the paperwork being released directly pertains to the appointment and withdrawal of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord. On the scope of the humble Address and the EU processes, I believe other organisations are looking at other roles and some of the history. On the scope of what is currently in play, there is a live police investigation. The matter before us relating to the humble Address concerns the immediate period before and during his appointment.
Official Secret Act Case: Witness Statements
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Swire(9 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and his continued interest in these matters. Although the Government share the disappointment that the prosecution could not continue, the DPP’s decision is independent of the Government. Any decision to draw on the Shivpuri case as part of legal proceedings in this espionage case, if relevant, rested solely with the Crown Prosecution Service. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are dedicated to ensuring that the UK has the most robust legal framework possible to tackle foreign interference in espionage, which is why we supported, on a cross-party basis, the introduction of the National Security Act 2023. The Government will continue to keep such legislation under review to ensure that the UK’s law enforcement agencies are equipped to respond to the evolving threat landscape. Indeed, Jonathan Hall KC was appointed in February last year to act as the Independent Reviewer of State Threat Legislation under the National Security Act. I reiterate that there is now parliamentary oversight, with a parliamentary investigation. I hope all noble Lords with the relevant expertise actively seek to participate in the review, as the noble Lord has already.
Lord Swire (Con)
Can the Minister clarify for the record that anyone invited to appear before any of these committees, including the DPP, the National Security Adviser and, if necessary, the Prime Minister himself, will attend?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is aware that I cannot speak on behalf of the DPP, and while I wish I was in charge of the Prime Minister’s diary, no one has given me that responsibility. However, to be very clear, we expect full co-operation and that everybody invited to attend will give appropriate evidence as requested by the committee.