Department for Science, Information and Technology: Abolition
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Waldegrave of North Hill(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Cabinet Manual: Guidelines for Government Formation
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Waldegrave of North Hill(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Waldegrave of North Hill(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
I thank the noble Baroness for the questions. She is absolutely right: how we speed this up is vitally important. We cannot slow it down. It has to be about speeding it up so the—I hate the term “compensation payments” because it is appalling—the payments are out of the door as quickly as possible and people can use the money to enhance their lives or however they want to spend it. With regards to the specifics, the noble Baroness and I have discussed hepatitis D. As she will be aware, this is something that is still developing in terms of our knowledge base, and that will have a long-term impact. We do not know what that is yet, but I look forward to discussing this in more detail with her in the future. As regards “mono-infected”, it is my understanding, but I will have to clarify, that people who consider themselves to be mono-infected now would qualify under this, and if subsequent illnesses are then brought forward, that should not have an impact. But I will confirm in writing to the noble Baroness and place it in the Library for all Members of your Lordships’ House, because it is too important for me to speculate about.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest, I suppose, as a former Secretary of State for Health and a witness before Sir Brian’s inquiry. May I associate myself with what the noble Baroness on my Front Bench said, but also with what the Minister said? I also associate myself with the names of those whom she paid tribute to. I think those in this House will probably accept that she should add her own name to that list.
It is hard to imagine anything more important than this horror and this scandal. But can the noble Baroness make it clear to her colleagues in government, if ever there is talk of resource limitation or other priorities, that she and we in this Parliament hold in our hands a vital aspect of the restoration of the allegiance to the rule of law in this country? People in this country have been let down by institutions which they fundamentally trusted. Good and great men like Sir Brian have stepped up to repair some of that damage. There will be difficulties—there always are in carrying things through—but no matters are more important to this Government and this Parliament than that, in the responses to these great inquiries, justice is seen to be done and, therefore, some restoration of our institutional trust in this country is rebuilt. I know that the Minister understands this, but does she agree with my analysis?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
The noble Lord raises an incredibly important point. We live at a time when people do not want to trust our institutions and we have given people far too many reasons not to trust us. There is responsibility on every single one of us, both the Government and the Opposition, but also everyone who seeks to hold public office, to rebuild trust in every one of our institutions. I cannot imagine how it must be for the victims, especially for the families who had young children and who would immediately have trusted their doctors and their teachers, to have ended up in this place. Every touchstone of our society let them down, and it took us far too long as a country to accept what had happened to them. We have a duty to the people who were touched by this horrendous scandal to fix what was broken.
But the noble Lord is absolutely right that we also have a responsibility to wider society to demonstrate that the state is, can be and must be a force for good, that the state exists for a reason, that the establishment is not a bad word but a good word, and it can and should help communities up and down the country. So the noble Lord is absolutely right that the Government have committed to spend whatever it takes to fulfil our commitments in terms of compensation. We say many times in this building that we must learn from mistakes made, but we have to do more than learn; we have to act, and I hope that we will do so going forward.
Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. The money was allocated only last week, I think; I will correct the record if I am wrong. We are working with the charities now to see which of them will be allocated the funding. That is a matter for the DHSC, but I will update my noble friend when I have more details.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, in joining with the moving testimony of those on both sides of the House who have done so much, I will just end with one tribute. I gave evidence to Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry over a number of days. I have had the misfortune, or fortune, to appear before a number of inquiries in my relatively long parliamentary career. Sir Brian conducted an absolutely exemplary investigation, with all those who worked with him. Among all this horror, it is something to hold on to that we have people in our public life in this country who can do work of that quality.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord rightly highlights the work of Sir Brian Langstaff. If we consider the subject matter that he has been exploring and the trust that he has managed to instil within the community, we see that his work is both extraordinary and miraculous. On the day of the report, when, across the road, he came forward to the group in the room to present the final report, there was cheering and a standing ovation from a group of people who have been so badly treated by the state. The fact they had that reaction to him—someone who, based on his CV, could easily be said to be the establishment—shows what an extraordinary thing he has managed to do. We owe him hugely for the work he has done, which is why we will act on every one of his recommendations.