Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they plan to publish quarterly lists of the identified benefits arising from the UK’s departure from the EU.
Answered by Lord True - Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
We will not be publishing quarterly lists of the identified benefits. Outside the European Union, Parliament is now able to take advantage of a whole host of regulatory opportunities, spanning from agriculture to financial services, and immigration reform to improved medical regulations. The government has legislated to deliver many of these benefits already.
On 22 June 2022, we published an interactive dashboard cataloguing over 2,400 pieces of retained EU law (REUL), spanning across 300 unique policy areas. The Brexit Freedoms Bill, announced in the Queen’s Speech, will strengthen the Government’s ability to amend, repeal and replace REUL and will support the Government’s ambition to ensure that, now that we have left the EU, the UK can be the “best regulated economy in the world” and move away from the EU’s obsolete “one size fits all” regulatory model.
To ensure that the public knows how much EU-derived law there is on the UK statute book and how much progress the Government is making to reform it, we will be updating the catalogue of REUL on a quarterly basis.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what payments will be made to each of the ministers who recently resigned from the Government; and whether they have plans to introduce legislation to make employers liable for similar payments to those who voluntarily resign from the (1) public, and (2) private, sector.
Answered by Lord True - Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
Under the provisions of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991, a former minister only becomes entitled to a severance payment in the event that they are not appointed to another relevant office within three weeks of stepping down.
The provision of severance payments is set out in legislation, passed by Parliament, that has been applied by successive administrations over a significant period. Severance pay reflects the unpredictable nature of ministerial office.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to dispose of offices currently (1) owned by, (2) leased to, or (3) vacated by, civil service departments.
Answered by Lord True - Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
The Government Estate Strategy 2018 set out our goals for better use of the estate. This included reducing the number of office buildings in which central government operates and a long-term ambition to reduce the number of offices within London (from over 65 in 2018) to no more than 20, enabled by our Places for Growth programme to relocate civil service roles from the Capital to across the UK. A new Government Property Strategy is being prepared, which continues to focus on consolidating the government estate. It is the aim of the government to critically review and seize opportunities to break a lease or dispose of a property, where possible and appropriate.
Each civil service department is required to develop and maintain a strategic asset management plan which sets out their occupational needs. Summary plans are usually published on gov.uk; publication was paused during the COVID-19 pandemic but is planned to resume this financial reporting year.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Ministers who are convicted of criminal offences may continue in office; and whether they have any plans to amend the Ministerial Code concerning rules for any Ministers convicted of criminal offences.
Answered by Lord True - Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
The Ministerial Code sets out the principles and standards of behaviour expected of all those who serve in Government.
Principles
Ministers of the Crown are expected to maintain high standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety. Section 1.3 of the Ministerial Code notes the “overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law”; Section 1.6 sets out that Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code, and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.
Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards. In turn, the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament and the public as leader of Her Majesty’s Government, including, ultimately, at the ballot box.
It should be noted that paying a fixed penalty notice is not a criminal conviction.
Past precedent
The noble peer may be aware of previous occasions when reports show that Ministers were found to have breached the law but remained in Ministerial office. For example:
In September 2009, the Attorney General was given a £5,000 civil penalty, for employing an illegal immigrant under a law she had previously helped introduce as a Home Office Minister. The then Prime Minister concluded that no further action was necessary, was satisfied that the Minister did not "knowingly" break the law, and noted her full apology. [1]
In 2003, the then Solicitor General was banned by the courts from driving for seven days and fined £400 for speeding; the same Minister (then Leader of the Commons) was fined £60 and three points for speeding September 2007; and in January 2010, fined £350 and three points for driving without due care and attention. [2]
In 2007, a Home Office Minister was fined £100 and given three points for using his mobile phone whilst driving, admitting he was taking a phone call on government matters. [3]
Proportionality of sanctions
Action in response to proven breaches of the Ministerial Code should be proportionate. In April 2021, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended: “We recommend that the Prime Minister should retain the right to decide on any sanction following a breach of the Code. The current expectation that any breach of the Ministerial Code should lead to resignation is disproportionate. We recommend that there should be a proportionate range of sanctions where the Code has been breached, and will provide further detail on this matter in our final report. Resignation should be retained as an available sanction where a serious breach has occurred.” The Prime Minister accepted this recommendation in April 2021.
The Committee again added in November 2021: "No other area of public life has such a binary system of sanctions, and in both Parliament and the Civil Service there are a range of sanctions available according to the seriousness of the offence. There is no reason why this should not be the case for ministers… The Ministerial Code should detail a range of sanctions the Prime Minister may issue, including, but not limited to, apologies, fines and asking for a minister’s resignation." The Government concurs with this approach.
1) The Guardian, 22 September 2009
2) The Guardian, 8 January 2010
3) BBC News, 2 November 2007
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Ministers who are convicted of criminal offences are in breach of the Ministerial Code.
Answered by Lord True - Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
The Ministerial Code sets out the principles and standards of behaviour expected of all those who serve in Government.
Principles
Ministers of the Crown are expected to maintain high standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety. Section 1.3 of the Ministerial Code notes the “overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law”; Section 1.6 sets out that Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code, and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.
Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards. In turn, the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament and the public as leader of Her Majesty’s Government, including, ultimately, at the ballot box.
It should be noted that paying a fixed penalty notice is not a criminal conviction.
Past precedent
The noble peer may be aware of previous occasions when reports show that Ministers were found to have breached the law but remained in Ministerial office. For example:
In September 2009, the Attorney General was given a £5,000 civil penalty, for employing an illegal immigrant under a law she had previously helped introduce as a Home Office Minister. The then Prime Minister concluded that no further action was necessary, was satisfied that the Minister did not "knowingly" break the law, and noted her full apology. [1]
In 2003, the then Solicitor General was banned by the courts from driving for seven days and fined £400 for speeding; the same Minister (then Leader of the Commons) was fined £60 and three points for speeding September 2007; and in January 2010, fined £350 and three points for driving without due care and attention. [2]
In 2007, a Home Office Minister was fined £100 and given three points for using his mobile phone whilst driving, admitting he was taking a phone call on government matters. [3]
Proportionality of sanctions
Action in response to proven breaches of the Ministerial Code should be proportionate. In April 2021, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended: “We recommend that the Prime Minister should retain the right to decide on any sanction following a breach of the Code. The current expectation that any breach of the Ministerial Code should lead to resignation is disproportionate. We recommend that there should be a proportionate range of sanctions where the Code has been breached, and will provide further detail on this matter in our final report. Resignation should be retained as an available sanction where a serious breach has occurred.” The Prime Minister accepted this recommendation in April 2021.
The Committee again added in November 2021: "No other area of public life has such a binary system of sanctions, and in both Parliament and the Civil Service there are a range of sanctions available according to the seriousness of the offence. There is no reason why this should not be the case for ministers… The Ministerial Code should detail a range of sanctions the Prime Minister may issue, including, but not limited to, apologies, fines and asking for a minister’s resignation." The Government concurs with this approach.
1) The Guardian, 22 September 2009
2) The Guardian, 8 January 2010
3) BBC News, 2 November 2007
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord True on 4 April (HL7149), what assessment they have made of the consistency of that answer with the award of the contract for recent refurbishments to 10 Downing Street to Megahertz, a company owned by Okno-TV which is based in Moscow.
Answered by Lord True - Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
The Cabinet Office has no contract with that company.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have swept the Downing Street premises for listening devices since the refurbishment work carried out in the last two years.
Answered by Lord True - Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
As has been the case under successive administrations, it is not Government policy to comment on security procedures in Government buildings. However, Cabinet Office plays a supporting role through the Government Security Group, which sets the standards to which Departments are expected to adhere.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have, if any, to allow Russian-owned companies to (1) tender for, or (2) be awarded, contracts for public sector work in the UK.
Answered by Lord True - Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
It is of the utmost importance that we explore every possible avenue to ensure British taxpayers’ money isn’t funding Putin’s war machine.
Cabinet Office has issued Procurement Policy Note 01/22 which sets out how contracting authorities can further cut ties with companies backed by the states of Russia and Belarus. The guidance applies to all central government departments, their executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies. Other public sector contracting authorities should consider applying the approach set out in this guidance.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have, if any, to increase resources for the UK's intelligence services.
Answered by Lord True - Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
As part of the Autumn Budget and Spending Review 2021, it was announced that the Single Intelligence Account (SIA) would have a £0.7 billion cash increase over the Parliament to £3.7 billion in 2024-25, net of transfers. This provides a real-terms growth rate of 4.0% per year on average over the same period. This supports the delivery of the priorities set out in the Integrated Review and will ensure that the UK Intelligence Community (UKIC) can continue to retain their world-leading capabilities to counter national security threats to the UK.
Asked by: Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the security implications of outsourcing UK national security infrastructure to non-UK companies.
Answered by Lord True - Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
Government departments are responsible for managing their own security risk when procuring goods and services, including risks associated with foreign ownership, control or influence. National security risks are specific to the goods or services being procured, and the parties involved in the transaction. Risks are considered on a case-by-case basis.
We are unable to comment on specific assessments owing to national security sensitivities.