Became Member: 16th July 1999
Left House: 10th July 2018 (Death)
Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.
These initiatives were driven by Lord Laird, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.
Lord Laird has not introduced any legislation before Parliament
Lord Laird has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting
The Senior Deputy Speaker has asked me, as Chairman of the Services Committee, to respond on his behalf.
Every logged call with the Support Desk results in a “closure” email, inviting the customer to leave feedback about the service received from the Digital Service. During the period 13th March 2016 to 13th March 2017, Lords Members raised 4,217 tickets via the Support Desk. Questionnaires were issued to the originator of each closed ticket. Of the 402 questionnaires completed by Lords Members, 85.8% of respondents rated the service a 7 on a scale from 1 to 7, with 7 being the highest score. The total average score from all respondents was 6.79.
Performance statistics are reviewed and discussed on a fortnightly basis at the Digital Service’s Senior Management Team meetings, and annual performance statistics are published in the Digital Service Business Plan available on the intranet.
The Senior Deputy Speaker has asked me, as Chairman of the Services Committee, to respond on his behalf.
All Digital Service supplied desktop computers for House of Lords Members are covered by a 3 year manufacturer’s warranty for hardware faults and are repaired or replaced accordingly. Beyond the 3 year warranty the Digital Service will repair or replace the equipment if it fails. The Digital Service provides 24 hour support. Digital Service support staff resolve 92% of calls logged within 24 hours. The Digital Service has established a new Live Services team with a new structure for front-line support. This has a focus on continual learning and upskilling and includes more specialist support, which will deliver a number of operational improvements and efficiencies to the support customers receive.
All Digital Service issued IT equipment comes with a lifecycle of 4 years, after which equipment is available for replacement. The replacement and repair policy will be reviewed by the Services Committee during 2017.
The Senior Deputy Speaker has asked me, as Chairman of the Services Committee, to respond on his behalf.
Previously Parliamentary ICT, and now the Digital Service, has provided IT training and coaching for Members. Training is provided on request and can be accessed via the Support Desk, Drop-in Centre, Digital Support Online and Head of Member Services. More specifically, to enhance the service for Members, since October 2015 the Digital Service has employed an IT coach with a primary focus on House of Lords Members.
Over the course of the last year, the Digital Service received and acted upon 92 requests for training from House of Lords Members.
Since the Digital Service was created, it has recruited 13 User Engagement Officers and Leads, and appointed a third party training contract, to ensure sufficient end-user training and coaching is offered and available for the rollout of new and updated member services, including Microsoft Office 365 and Skype for Business. The Digital Service is also planning on recruiting additional staff to strengthen the facilitation and delivery of IT coaching to customers.
The Acceptable Use Policy for Lords Members and staff is available on the intranet (https://intranet.parliament.uk/Documents/computers-equipment/Working-securely/Good-digital-citizen/Acceptable%20Use%20Policy%20v1.2.pdf) and at the Digital Service Drop-in. A very similar policy is in place for MPs; the Digital Service is currently working on a single Acceptable Use Policy.
All users, including Members, agree to abide by Parliament’s Acceptable Use Policy every time they log on to the Parliamentary Network. This policy makes clear that the Parliamentary Digital Service provides systems to protect Parliamentary users (and the network) from malicious attack.
The Messagelabs service is an important part of the infrastructure protecting Members and the wider Parliamentary Network against malicious attack. It is a fully automated scanning service which scans for and blocks emails that are potential vectors for cyber-attack. It also scans for and quarantines emails that are suspected spam, again using fully automated systems. It does not involve any other form of monitoring of the content of parliamentary email.
The position has not changed since I answered the Noble Lord’s question HL6043 on 17 February. That answer is included below for your ease of reference and I have nothing further to add to this.
As Leader of the House, I regularly stress to departments the importance of giving full and timely answers to Questions for Written Answer. The content of each answer is a matter for the Minister concerned, and each Minister is responsible to the House for the answers they provide. That direct accountability is important: that is why Ministers in this House must provide personally signed answers to members.
The Ministerial Code says that “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament”. It also makes clear that “Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest”. In addition, there is a longstanding rule of this House that all answers should be complete and comprehensible. I shall continue to make this guidance clear to all Ministers.
As Leader of the House, I regularly stress to departments the importance of giving full and timely answers to Questions for Written Answer. The content of each answer is a matter for the Minister concerned, and each Minister is responsible to the House for the answers they provide. That direct accountability is important: that is why Ministers in this House must provide personally signed answers to members.
The Ministerial Code says that “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament”. It also makes clear that “Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest”. In addition, there is a longstanding rule of this House that all answers should be complete and comprehensible. I shall continue to make this guidance clear to all Ministers.
As Leader of the House, I regularly stress to departments the importance of giving full and timely answers to Questions for Written Answer. The content of each answer is a matter for the Minister concerned, and each Minister is responsible to the House for the answers they provide. That direct accountability is important: that is why Ministers in this House must provide personally signed answers to members.
The Ministerial Code says that “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament”. It also makes clear that “Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest”. In addition, there is a longstanding rule of this House that all answers should be complete and comprehensible. I shall continue to make this guidance clear to all Ministers.
Responsibility for higher education is devolved.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has responsibility for oversight of the higher education sector in England.
For Higher Education Institute’s that receive HEFCE funding, the individual HEI’s external auditor is required to provide a statement in their audit report that public funding has been used for the purposes for which it was provided. HEFCE also seeks a range of other accountability returns from each HEI and carries out periodic ‘HEFCE Assurance Reviews’ of all HEIs.
Similar arrangements are in place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. BIS is responsible for “alternative HE providers”, which includes some private universities, who are not in receipt of funding from HEFCE.
Individual public bodies (such as Government Departments and Research Councils) are separately accountable for any public funding that they distribute.
Higher Education policy is devolved. The Department for Employment and Learning of the Northern Ireland Executive is the department responsible for Higher Education Institutions in Northern Ireland. This includes responsibility for providing funding to their HEIs for teaching and for recurrent research (also known as Quality Related research funding). In addition, the UK Government provides funding through the Department for Business Innovation and Skills’ Science & Research Budget for Research Councils, which are reserved bodies, and to the National Academies. The Research Councils provide funding for specific projects and programmes of research on a competitive basis open to universities across the United Kingdom, including those in Northern Ireland. Similarly, academics from universities across the UK can bid for funding from the National Academies.
This is a matter of interpretation for the courts to pronounce upon in the context of a relevant case, and it would not be appropriate for the department to provide a general legal opinion.
In general, universities that receive public grant funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England are private institutions.
However there are instances where the law does consider them to be public authorities. For example, they are listed in Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as public authorities for the purposes of that Act. However, for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, they are considered to be ‘hybrid’ public authorities, which means that that Act only applies to their public functions, and not their private ones.
The Union Learning Fund (ULF) was established in 1998 and funding has been provided by a number of different Departments. Between 1998-9 and 2006-7, around £70m of funding was allocated to support the ULF.
Since 2006, the ULF has been administered by Unionlearn (the TUC's learning organisation) and by the end of this financial year around £116m in total will have been distributed to ULF projects in respect of the financial years 2007-8 to 2015-16 of which £36.4m is in the last three of those years.
An independently chaired ULF Assessment Panel recently reviewed a number of bids from unions for ULF grants for 2016-17. The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills is currently finalising internal budgets following the spending review and will confirm the amount that is available for the 2016-17 financial year in early 2016.
The total amount of funding received by all trade unions from the ULF for the financial year 2014-15 is set out in the table below.
Name of trade union | Funding received in 2014-15 |
Aegis | 230,981 |
Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen | 299,116 |
Association of Teachers and Lecturers | 192,269 |
Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union | 123,354 |
Bakers and Allied Food Workers Union | 378,382 |
Britannia Staff Union | 130,480 |
Community | 235,434 |
Communication Workers Union | 380,421 |
119,500 | |
Fire Brigades Union | 512,462 |
GMB (Yorkshire and Humberside) | 429,749 |
GMB (North West) | 298,990 |
GMB (South) | 620,522 |
76,200 | |
912,996 | |
Professional Footballers' Association | 236,072 |
Prison Officers' Association | 704,768 |
Royal College of Midwives | 219,380 |
Royal College of Nurses | 205,738 |
National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers | 509,844 |
Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists | 251,675 |
Transport Salaried Staffs' Association | 350,800 |
Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians | 217,743 |
University and College Union | 79,289 |
UFS | 134,353 |
UNISON (North) | 421,324 |
UNISON (National) | 660,011 |
UNITE | 1,880,000 |
Unity | 52,078 |
United Road Transport Union | 161,773 |
Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers | 716,985 |
Staff Union West Bromwich Building Society | 65,809 |
As Leader of the House, I have a particular responsibility to encourage departments to be punctual in answering written questions, but the content of each answer is a matter for the minister concerned. All Ministers are accountable to the House for those answers. That direct accountability is important: that is why Ministers in this House must provide personally signed answers to members.
To inform Ministers in answering questions put to them, the Ministerial Code says that “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament”. It also makes clear that “Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest”. In addition, the longstanding rules of this House on Questions for Written Answer (rules that the House reaffirmed in agreeing to the Procedure Committee’s 5th Report of the 2014-15 Session) set out that all answers should be complete and comprehensible.
If any member has particular concerns about a response that they have received that they consider does not adhere to these rules, I would encourage them to raise it with me directly.
All of the major suppliers have reduced their standard variable gas tariffs in recent weeks in response to reductions in the wholesale gas price in 2014, but wholesale electricity prices have not fallen as much over the same period. The price of fixed term deals has continued to fall with the cheapest deal on the market £100 cheaper than the cheapest deal a year ago.
The Competition and Markets Authority has made clear that it will be looking at the relationship between wholesale costs and retail prices as part of its investigation.
The move to Office 365, which necessitated the storage of parliamentary data on Microsoft servers, was a core part of Parliament’s ICT Strategy to deliver improved services, connecting Members to the information that they need from anywhere, at any time and from any device.
Parliamentary ICT worked in collaboration with the Parliamentary Security Director, the Senior Information Risk Owners of both Houses, counsel, other parties and the supplier to assess the risks of the proposed new arrangements. Any risks in relation to conventional cyber-attacks were assessed to be sufficiently mitigated and the risk of potential cross jurisdictional action was considered to be negligible (for example, under the USA PATRIOT Act) given the reassurances that were received.
It would not be for me to comment on possible or actual activities of another country’s authorities.
The Northern Ireland Department for Employment and Learning has responsibility for higher education in Northern Ireland, including providing institutional funding for research.
In addition, as the UK operates a dual support system for funding research in universities, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, through Research Councils UK, competitively provides grants for individual research projects and programmes across the UK.
It is the responsibility of individual ministers to decide what answers they give to Questions for Written Answer (QWAs), and they are of course accountable to the House for those answers. That direct accountability is important: that is why Ministers in this House must provide personally signed answers to members. The Ministerial Code states that “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament”.
As Leader of the House I have a particular responsibility to encourage Ministers and their departments to be punctual in answering written questions. My office immediately approach departments who have not responded to questions after 10 working days, and remain in contact with them until the questions are answered. At the end of this Session I will publish data on the annual performance of departments on their promptness in dealing with QWAs.
The House of Lords has no such plans. A series of events was held in 2012 to mark the 200th anniversary of the assassination of Prime Minister Spencer Perceval. The House of Commons authorities plan to erect a plaque in St Stephen's Hall near the spot where Spencer Perceval was assassinated.
The government does not have any such agreements or understandings in place with Sinn Fein.
The Civil Service is committed to building the capability of all its employees and supporting their development. Our core learning offer provided via Civil Service Learning (CSL) incorporates 130 topics including leadership and management, customer service, finance and policy development. Learning is provided via free online modules, workshops and practical exercises. Job specific/technical learning is developed in partnership with professions and functions. To support easier access, a new Learning Platform for Government will begin rollout in 2018.
Civil servants discuss their development with their manager and can access an online self-assessment tool to help identify their learning needs. A key manager role is building capability in others and a ‘Management Fundamentals’ package linked to the Chartered Management Institute’s Level 3 (Team Leader) has been available since December 2017.
Our 4000 Senior Civil Servants now have access to the Civil Service Leadership Academy (CSLA), launched in October 2017. The CSLA offers a wide range of learning approaches tailored to SCS needs, including case study events, master-classes, newsletters, coaching, peer mentoring and 360 degree feedback.
All departments take Performance management (PM) seriously; it is a key element of development and building. The Civil Service PM policy, introduced in 2012, has helped identify different levels of performance and ensure people are able to continuously develop. Where performance and/or capability is below the required standard, departments have policies and measures in place to ensure individuals are given the support and learning they need to improve. Further action is taken where performance does not improve within acceptable timescales.
The new Performance Management Framework introduced in 2017 continues to identify different levels of performance and also places a greater focus on coaching and supporting civil servants to help them perform effectively.
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply, and will place a copy of their letter in the House library.
The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre produces regular detailed assessments of the international terrorist threat to both the UK and its interests abroad, which inform the UK’s threat levels. Information on the UK’s threat levels is available online.
More generally, the Government assesses the most significant risks facing the UK over the next five years, including terrorism, through the National Risk Assessment (NRA). The National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies, the public version of the NRA (copy attached), is available online and has been placed in the House of Lords Library. This in turn helps Government and emergency responders to prepare for and respond to potential incidents.
In order to assess the risk of a terrorist attack, Government works with the intelligence community to gather information about the intent and capability of potential adversaries. Together with information about potential targets, this enables the Government to assess how plausible an attack might be and what effects it may have.
As a matter of principle, members of the public should be able to routinely access information that is in the public interest and is safe to disclose. Access to information helps ensure accountability for public authorities and facilitates better informed and more productive public debate.
All public bodies have a publication scheme, which outlines what they will publish. The Information Commissioner’s Office provides guidance on the publication scheme for each body. This covers evidence of decision making, board meeting minutes, agendas, consultations and datasets, including those pertaining to public spending and to public service function, in an accessible format. Datasets are published on the data.gov.uk website, while other evidence is available on individual body websites.
All central government departments are required to publish information about key aspects of their management and operations, including details of senior staff salaries and departmental expenditure.
The Cabinet Office also publishes guidance for departments on transparency for their arm’s length bodies. This guidance states that they should:
Statements by Accounting Officers are published in arm’s length body annual reports. The publication of these statements demonstrates how Accounting Officers have fulfilled his or her personal responsibility to manage and control the resources in the organisation.
In its annual Public Bodies Reports the Cabinet Office sets out high-level information on arm’s length body transparency in areas including publication of annual reports and open board meetings.
The transparency data published by government does not disclose personal data. Where necessary, minutes and papers which detail decision-making are edited to remove data which could be used to identify individuals.
Transparency information published by the local government is governed by the transparency code. The principles that underpin the code are the same, and similarly, data pertaining to function and spend data must be disclosed. The code has just undergone consultation. Proposed changes include altering the way transparency data is published and presented to increase accessibility.
The Government established the Freedom of Information Commission to review the Freedom of Information Act and we will give careful consideration to its recommendations. Section 8(1)(b) of the FOI Act already requires applicants to provide their real name.
The information in relation to this time period is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the total cost on completion of those inquiries which span this time period is available as part of the evidence provided by the Government to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Inquiries Act 2005:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldinquiries/143/14318.htm
Electoral legislation sets out the process for publicising the details and amounts of candidates’ election expenses; election expenses are made available for two years after they are submitted.
Current electoral law does not expressly require candidates’ election expenses to be published online, but nor is this expressly excluded.
The Law Commission has raised the matter of online publication of this information in their review of electoral law. This review is on-going and we are awaiting the recommendations of the Law Commission before consideration is given to further legislation in respect of this matter.
The Government is therefore not persuaded of the need to change legislation at this time.
There are a wide variety of quasi-judicial decisions and each are subject to different statutory requirements. In many cases the reasons behind the decisions are published with the decisions, for instance where a Secretary of State decides to make, or not make, a Development Consent Order under the Planning Act 2008, the decision letter and associated order, if applicable, must be published.There are several reasons why decisions might not be published and those include national security, sensitive personal data or commercial sensitivity.
The Government offers no specific separate definition for the purposes of the development of policies and legislation, or for public statements.
The Government receives a large number of media queries each day, which are received and managed by the relevant department.
The amount of time each media query takes depends on many factors and variables, so it is not possible to estimate an average cost or time. No restriction is placed on the number of queries a journalist can make.
Statistics on average days lost across the Civil Service are collected and published by the Cabinet Office on a quarterly basis.
Year ending | Northern Ireland Office AWDL per staff year | Civil Service AWDL per staff year |
31 March 2010 | 8.8 | 8.8 |
31 March 2011 | 12.1 | 8.2 |
31 March 2012 | 10.3 | 7.7 |
31 March 2013 | 3.2 | 7.6 |
31 March 2014 | 6.4 | 7.3 |
31 March 2015 | 5.9 | 7.4 |
The Civil Service actively manages sickness absence and we continually review our progress. We strive to improve health and wellbeing at work for our staff and this remains a priority
The Average Working Days Lost (AWDL) per staff year in the Northern Ireland Office has reduced from 8.8, for the year ending 31 March in 2010, to 5.9, for the same period in 2015.
The Average Working Days Lost (AWDL) per staff year in the Civil Service has reduced from 8.8, for the year ending 31 March in 2010 to 7.4 for the year ending 31 March 2015.
These statistics demonstrate that we have made significant progress in reducing sickness absence in the Northern Ireland Office and the Civil Service as a whole. We are continuing to work with both line managers and staff to address absence issues.
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.
The Government is committed to developing inclusive policies and delivering services which are accessible to all citizens as well. Departments are responsible for developing policies and guidance on disability, including dyslexia. This guidance is available to staff on departmental intranet pages.
As an example, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) employs 120 “neuro-diverse” intelligence officers for code breaking and counter-espionage.
In addition, Civil Service Learning provides equality and diversity e-learning for all civil servants. Managers have access to disability awareness learning.
The franchise for any referendum is set out in primary legislation which establishes that referendum. It will therefore be for Parliament to agree the franchise to be used in any future referendum on UK membership of the European Union.
Guidance on responding to written parliamentary questions is provided by the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons. This guidance is published on the Gov.uk website at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drafting-answers-to-parliamentary-questions-guidance. A copy of the guidance is attached to this answer.
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.
Data on payments from the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) schemes are given in the table below.
Year | Domestic RHI | Non-domestic RHI | Total |
13/14 | 0 | £54m | £54m |
14/15 | £23m | £148m | £171m |
15/16 | £77m | £296m | £373m |
16/17 | £92m | £454m | £546m |
Based on data to end Aug 2017 | |||
In November 2015, the Government confirming a continued budget for the RHI to 2020/21, as set out in the table below. A budget cap allowing the scheme to be closed to new applications was introduced to reinforce existing cost control mechanisms within the RHI, to ensure that scheme expenditure does not exceed the allocated annual budgets.
| 16/17 | 17/18 | 18/19 | 19/20 | 20/21 |
Budget | £640m | £780m | £900m | £1010m | £1150m |
The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme provides financial incentives to households and non-domestic consumers, including public bodies and charities, to help bridge the gap between the cost of renewable heating systems and conventional alternatives.
The non-domestic RHI scheme launched in November 2011 and the domestic RHI launched in April 2014. Both schemes are administered by Ofgem and are open to England, Wales and Scotland; however scheme costs are calculated collectively for Great Britain.
Table one: Scheme administration costs (amount paid to Ofgem to administer the scheme. The domestic set-up costs are included in the non-domestic figure)
Year | Non-domestic | Domestic | Notes |
2010-11 | £1.5m | 0 | |
2011-12 | £4.8m | 0 | |
2012-13 | £5m | 0 | Includes domestic RHI preparation costs |
2013-14 | £7m | £4.7m | |
2014-15 | £7.7m | £6.6m | |
2015-16 | £6.8m | £5.3m |
Table two: Total subsidies paid (amount paid to scheme participants)
Year | Non-domestic | Domestic |
2010-11 | 0 | 0 |
2011-12 | £2m | 0 |
2012-13 | £27m | 0 |
2013-14 | £52m | 0 |
2014-15 | £136m | £23m |
2015-16 | £295m | £77m |
Table three: Budget to fund subsidy payments to existing and future participants in both schemes to 2021
Year | Budget |
2015-16 | £430m |
2016-17 | £640m |
2017-18 | £780m |
2018-19 | £900m |
2019-20 | £1010m |
2020-21 | £1150m |
The Data Protection Bill was introduced on 13 September. The Bill is intended to create a new data protection framework fit for the digital age, which incorporates the provisions of the EU’s GDPR into domestic law. It builds on existing standards for protecting personal data, in accordance with the GDPR, giving people more control over use of their data, and providing new rights to move or delete personal data.
The EU (Withdrawal) Bill will ensure that the remainder of the GDPR is incorporated into domestic law.
In leaving the European Union, we will bring about an end to the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU in the UK.
The Data Protection Bill, which includes the implementation of GDPR into UK law, will apply to Northern Ireland post Brexit. We have engaged with Northern Ireland Executive in the creation of the Bill.
Clause 6 of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill provides that UK courts must continue to interpret unmodified retained EU law in accordance with retained EU case law and retained EU general principles, so far as they are relevant to that retained EU law. EU case law is retained to the extent it relates to anything falling within clauses 2-4 of the Bill, and is not excluded by clause 5 and Schedule 1.
Clause 6 also provides that the UK Supreme Court and High Court of Justiciary will be able to depart from pre-exit CJEU case law, using the the same tests they do when departing from their own case law.
This is without prejudice to the detail of the implementation period, which will be for negotiations.
The EU-US Privacy Shield contains protections only available to those within the EU. We will therefore discuss with the US how best to ensure that the current protections afforded to UK citizens can be maintained post exit. We want a smooth and orderly transition to our new arrangements.
The Privacy Shield is a statement of principles issued by the US Department for Commerce, following on from an agreement between the US and the European Union. The EU-US Privacy Shield is accompanied by a decision of the European Commission under articles 25(6) of Directive 95/46 EC. The Commission Decision addresses the CJEU's invalidation of the previous Commission Decision - the Safe Harbor framework in the Schrems judgment of 2015. In this respect, any subsequent examination of the legal status of matters concerning the EU-US Privacy Shield would be a matter for the CJEU in the face of a legal challenge being brought against it.