Lord Mandelson Humble Address
Lord Pack Excerpts(2 days, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pack
To ask His Majesty’s Government what further steps they are taking to retrieve information in relation to the matters covered by the Humble Address dated 4 February relating to the appointment of Lord Mandelson as HM Ambassador to Washington; and what assessment they have made of the extent to which relevant records, communications, and other material remain available.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have published all available material, with the exception of a small number of documents that were withheld at the request of the Metropolitan Police, making this the largest ever government response to an humble Address. The Government now consider that they have duly discharged the duties set out in this humble Address.
Lord Pack (LD)
In recent days, we have seen various WhatsApp messages passed to the media that were not handed to the Government for publication as part of the humble Address. Obviously, we do not know who passed those messages to the media, but does it not highlight the importance of ensuring that current and former Ministers and ministerial appointees fully co-operate with such processes? So would the Minister commit to reviewing the terms of the taxpayer-funded settlement payments or pensions for such people to ensure that, if, in future, people do not fully comply with such processes, there will be financial consequences?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point about compliance with the will of both your Lordships’ House and the other place with regard to an humble Address. With regard to the specifics about any penalties, the Government currently have no plans to change the ministerial pension scheme, as I have put in writing several times to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. However, I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern and I am sure there will be ongoing reviews.
Cabinet Manual: Guidelines for Government Formation
Lord Pack Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The Prime Minister remains in place, and he has our full and utter confidence.
Lord Pack (LD)
The Rycroft review warned that our fragmented statute book—with redundant provisions left unrepealed, measures passed by Parliament never commenced and consolidation deferred again and again over many decades—poses a genuine practical risk to our democracy and our national security, yet the Cabinet Manual section on legislation omits those basic housekeeping tasks of commencement and consolidation. Will the Minister commit to consulting fully on ensuring that those key tasks are included in the next edition of the Cabinet Manual?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, given that the current manual is being redrafted as we speak, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the detail. However, to reassure Members of your Lordships’ House, we have asked both the Lords Constitution Committee and PACAC in the other place for their assistance on the consultation with parliamentarians across both Houses. How they choose to do so will be a matter for them.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response
Lord Pack Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this scandal began with the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington. Mandelson is a man whose relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was already known to be a profound reputational risk and whose later published record included cash payments and benefits from Epstein, including travel.
At the core of this story is not merely a failure of process; it is a failure of judgment. It is the Prime Minister’s failure, and it shows a callous disregard for the victims of one of the most notorious sex offenders of modern times.
In truth, we have learned little that is surprising from what is actually in these documents. It is no surprise that Lord Mandelson displayed contempt for the Prime Minister, for cabinet government and for officials and advisers alike, despite his public utterances. He described No. 10 as “beleaguered and bereft”, said it needed a “complete revamp” and claimed that senior people in Downing Street did not know what the Prime Minister wanted; indeed, that most of them did not think that the Prime Minister knew what he wanted.
Of equal concern is that, clearly, Ministers spent a lot of time discussing party politics with a supposedly politically impartial official. Can the Minister confirm that that failure to uphold the impartiality of the Civil Service is in contravention of the Ministerial Code?
What is most revealing is not what the documents contain; it is what they do not contain. Nowhere is there candid written submission, whether from officials or political advisers, saying, “Prime Minister, this appointment is unwise. This candidate carries unacceptable reputational risk. This office demands a higher standard”. We have not been shown a written decision from the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary authorising the appointment on the merits. Instead, we are given peripheral documents: process, risk, choreography, vetting, and announcement handling. One chain says simply that
“a political appointment has been agreed”.
The Cabinet Secretary later records that earlier advice explained the Prime Minister’s right to
“make such an appointment and the process for doing so but did not give specific advice on candidates”.
So, for all the Prime Minister’s talk of leadership, the record before us suggests that not one person serving him felt able or willing to advise him candidly in writing that this appointment was folly. That is a remarkable indictment of the culture at the centre of government.
It is also deeply ironic. This is a Prime Minister who has staked much of his moral authority on the Hillsborough law and a statutory duty of candour. He has said that such a duty is needed so that the truth is not optional and cover-ups are impossible and that the law would change the balance of power so that the state can never hide from the people it should serve. Those are admirable sentiments. They arise from hard and bitter experience: Hillsborough, infected blood, Covid—all where families were forced to fight the state, not only for justice but for records, evidence and truth.
Perhaps the one person in government who did, in private, take the duty of candour seriously was Pat McFadden, who told Lord Mandelson:
“Every meeting I have is: ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?’ They’re asking the wrong questions”.
What a shame that he felt that that duty did not extend to the electorate.
Does the Minister appreciate how surreal it is for a Government to preach candour in public office while, in relation to one of the gravest scandals in British diplomatic history, they appear assiduously to have avoided creating clear records of advice and decision? Candour is not merely what Ministers say at a Dispatch Box after the event. Candour is what advisers write down when the powerful are about to make a grave mistake.
There is a further problem. The Government acknowledge that material has been withheld so as not to prejudice an ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation, and say that further publication may follow. But where is the schedule? How many relevant documents have been withheld? What categories do they fall into? Who authored them? What dates do they cover? What broad subjects do they concern? I ask the noble Baroness to undertake that the Government will provide the House with a clear account of what has been withheld and why.
Finally, responsibility cannot be outsourced to officials, advisers or process. The responsibility lies with the Prime Minister. If further confirmation were needed of Lord Mandelson’s total unsuitability, it is found in the extraordinary discovery that after his appointment had been publicly announced, he still planned to participate in UBS’s Greater China Conference in Shanghai in his Global Counsel capacity, and that he would be paid for it. Officials further recorded that he asked to start on the FCDO payroll in order to facilitate that private engagement. This was a man with no proper regard for propriety, ethics or the dignity of public office, and he has been driven from office and from public life. The remaining question is how long the Prime Minister who appointed him can credibly remain.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, when discussing such matters we should always start with remembering and honouring the bravery of the women and girls who came forward to tell the truth, revealing the grim reality of the behaviour they and others had been subject to. Their commitment to truth stands in stark contrast, sadly, with Peter Mandelson’s decision to withhold key information from the papers we are discussing today.
However, turning to what we do have, and starting on a positive note, the Government’s new guidance on direct ministerial appointments published alongside the humble Address now says—and it is very welcome:
“Where security vetting procedures are necessary, these should be undertaken and completed before an appointment is confirmed and announced”.
I have raised before the rather bizarre, back-to-front nature of appointing somebody first and only then checking whether they are suitable, so that is a very welcome change and should be acknowledged as such.
On a possibly less positive note, I see that the terms of reference for the vetting review have also been published alongside this tranche of documents. I have previously expressed concerns about how the results of Peter Mandelson’s vetting were reported to others through a daisy chain of verbal briefings, such that in the end the Prime Minister was hearing the outcome of the vetting process third hand, without sight of the relevant outcome documents. Whatever we think about the judgments made in that process, that is clearly a very brittle process, prone to error and lack of accountability. Can the Minister therefore confirm that the vetting review will include not just how vetting is done, which is clearly within scope, but how its results are reported to others, including looking at the merits of replacing that culture of verbal briefings with a clear, documented paper trail?
Moving on to what is definitely not, I am afraid, a positive note, the messages that we now can see from inside government show a clear and widespread embedding of the culture of government by WhatsApp. I have previously asked about the promised review of the Cabinet Office’s guidance on the use of WhatsApp, which still, at the bottom of the page on GOV.UK, states:
“This guidance will be reviewed on or before 31 December 2025”.
Last month, when I queried when the review will be completed, the Minister told me:
“I expect it to be before your Lordships’ House imminently for us to discuss the detail”.—[Official Report, 19/5/26; cols. 280-81.]
However, yesterday, in the House of Commons, the Minister, Darren Jones, told the House simply that the terms of reference for the review will be published “very shortly”. So we have gone from a promised review before 31 December 2025, to an expectation last month that details were imminent, to a hope yesterday that the terms of the review will be published very shortly. It seems that each time, as time passes, we are getting further away from the completion of the review. What assurances can the Minister give us about the Government’s commitment to sorting this issue out and ensuring that this review is fully completed —and promptly?
Turning to the papers themselves, I have four questions. Running through much of the correspondence is the idea from officials that membership of the House of Lords exempts you from vetting requirements in many circumstances. It is a repeatedly expressed belief. Given the limited nature of the checks made on those of us who have the privilege of joining this House, and given that those checks have in many cases been carried out several decades previously, can the Minister confirm the Government’s position? On what occasions, and for which posts, would someone who otherwise has to be vetted be exempted from vetting by virtue of being a Member of this House?
Secondly, there is the email from a civil servant to Peter Mandelson on 21 January last year—volume 1, page 77—regarding the vetting team’s request for the names of his foreign contacts. The email said:
“I suggest you send over the handful of names you mentioned, even though you don’t consider them ‘close contacts’. That will reassure the vetting team that you’ve been comprehensive, even if it’s all quite artificial”.
That apparent coaching on how to mislead the vetting team with extraneous information is clearly concerning. Can the Minister tell us when the Government became aware of such exchanges, and what action has been taken to ensure that similar such coaching or advice is not proffered in future?
Thirdly, there is the curious email from Ailsa Terry to Peter Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney on 13 February last year—volume 1, page 386. It says:
“Olly has been clear about the need to delete all traffic on this”.
Why would a senior civil servant be telling those two people to delete all the records of something?
Finally, I turn to a matter of detail—it would be a useful one to clear up—regarding volume 3, page 128. It appears to show the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, arranging a meeting with a paid lobbyist, yet the Treasury’s list of declared such meetings does not have any matching entry. Did that meeting take place? If so, who attended it, and what is the reason for that meeting not appearing in the register?
I appreciate that, obviously, the Minister may not be able to give detailed answers to all those points now, but I hope she will be able to commit at least to writing to me, because clarity and transparency are crucial as part of not just the Government’s but the whole political system’s reaction to the scandal we have been facing.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for their contributions. As ever, I will endeavour to answer all their questions, but I will reflect on Hansard and write on any issues I have missed.
Before I do so, it is important for all of us to reflect on the impact this debate will yet again have on the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Noble Lords across your Lordships’ House will be aware of the truly horrific crimes he committed against countless women and girls. As we discuss these issues again today, it is the victims of a horrendous sexual predator whom we must remember.
Moving on to the substance and process of the Government’s compliance with the ISC, for clarity and accountability, as noble Lords will have seen, the publication includes a summary of the methodology explaining how government officials undertook the disclosure process. To clarify, because doing so will be helpful for Members of your Lordships’ House, on redactions, in line with the Motion, more than 300 individual documents were referred under a process agreed between the Government and the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Government are grateful to the committee for its engagement in this process, and I am of course especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Beamish for his stewardship of the ISC and his management of this significant additional workload.
Further limited redactions have been made outside the ISC process in respect of information that relates to junior officials’ names, contact details, the personal or commercially sensitive data of third parties not relevant to the Motion and, where relevant, legal professional privilege. The Cabinet Office humble Address team, which has taken the decisions on non-ISC redactions, has taken advice from an independent KC—including reviewing the methodological approach—and officials, acting on that to inform its work. These additional targeted redactions made outside the ISC process have been made in line with precedent, built on the conventions of the Freedom of Information Act, the Ministerial Code and resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both Houses in 1997, as my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister stated yesterday.
On the ISC’s recommendation—we thank it for such a constructive suggestion—the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Mr Simon Hoare MP, has reviewed our approach to third-party redactions and confirmed that we have applied the methodology set out in the document and that the redactions are sensible, reasonable and proportionate. As noble Lords will be aware, the Metropolitan Police Service has asked us to withhold some material in scope of the Motion which it considers could be prejudicial to its ongoing criminal investigation or any subsequent prosecution.
To ensure parliamentary oversight, the Government also shared this information with the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to provide additional accountability of the Government’s actions. The Government are very grateful to Mr Hoare for his participation in that exercise. Our goal is to ensure that we neither prejudice nor undermine any police investigations, as all Members of your Lordships’ House would expect. Such information will be published at the conclusion of the investigation, or at a point when it would no longer be prejudicial to the police investigation to do so. Therefore, I am limited in what I can and will say.
I will also touch briefly on the material relating to Peter Mandelson’s national security vetting process. The UK security vetting process summary and recommendation that was put to the Foreign Office has been shared with the ISC to agree reactions so that it can be published when we are able to do so. What has not been shared is the highly sensitive personal data that formed the basis of the vetting process. If those participating in the vetting process cannot trust that the information they feed into the process is confidential, it will harm the integrity of the whole system, undermining the very basis of our national security vetting system and, in turn, our national security. We cannot and will not do that. I note that the chair of the ISC, my noble friend Lord Beamish, confirmed last night that he agrees with the Government that the larger vetting detail should not be released to the committee even though it is covered by the humble Address. I am grateful to my noble friend for saying so.
Moving to the specific points that have been raised, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, touched on compliance with the Ministerial Code. Noble Lords will understand that I am not the judge of the Ministerial Code—that is the role of the Prime Minister, taking advice from his independent adviser as needed. As set out in the code, Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in light of the code, and for justifying their actions to Parliament and the public. The noble Baroness also touched on the future duty of candour law and raised the scandals that have led to us requiring a law. We have discussed in your Lordships’ House many times—be it the horrors of the infected blood scandal, of Horizon, of Windrush, of Hillsborough, or of the Manchester Arena—that there is a reason why we need to change the law. If we cannot convince people to be candid, then in order to change the culture we will need to change the law. I reassure the noble Baroness that, as I understand it, Peter Mandelson did not participate in the Shanghai speaking engagement she referenced.
On the direct ministerial guidance and change in vetting, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, raised a very important point, as he did last time, about how this is communicated. I will have to go back to officials to see if it can be included in the terms of reference, because the process is well under way. The noble Lord is aware that my colleague, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, was called up on the fact that it has been slightly delayed, although it is slightly ambitious timing, so it depends on your view. However, I will see what I can do about verbal briefings and write to the noble Lord.
On the issue of the NCCCs review, I expect very shortly—imminently—to be back in front of your Lordships’ House with both the terms of reference and who is undertaking that review. We are not not doing it; we absolutely are, as my honourable friend in the other place said. But I will have to come back to him.
With regard to the fit and proper person test, the noble Lord would have read with interest, as I did, about what we are allowed to know as Members of your Lordships’ House and what we are not allowed to know. Noble Lords will be aware that there are a small number of exemptions from standard vetting requirements in place. Sir Adrian Fulford is considering the relevant policies as part of his review into national security vetting. His high-level recommendations will be published shortly, and we will act swiftly on his recommendations.
There is a general exemption from national security vetting for parliamentarians. This has been a general rule for many years, and many Members of your Lordships’ House would have experienced briefings because of it. That includes in this instance and in others those briefings that can also be made on Privy Council terms, hence the discussion. I would suggest that noble Lords actually look at the time stamps for how that discussion was done, because that was a one-day discussion—several messages but a one-day discussion—and then a decision was made.
The noble Lord, Lord Pack, also asked me about my noble friend Lord Livermore and the transparency declaration. I understand this was a personal meeting that took place away from government property. The only participants were my noble friend Lord Livermore and Peter Mandelson; no one else from Global Counsel joined in the end. As this was a meeting in a personal capacity, it was not recorded as an official meeting.
The documents before your Lordships amount to one of the largest government publications ever laid before the House. Officials work tirelessly to ensure our compliance with the wishes of the other place and over £1 million has been spent. The scale is not dissimilar to the requirements of a public inquiry, and I want to thank my officials for their extraordinary effort since the beginning of February. However, the last word should not be about process or political intrigue, but to remember who has been failed. Our thoughts must remain with the victims of Epstein today and every day.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
Lord Pack Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness knows I have huge respect for her, but I find it extraordinary, given her previous roles working at No. 10 when previous humble Addresses were released that followed exactly the same precedent as we are doing now and redacted the personal information of junior officials. The noble Baroness was part of that process, so I find it extraordinary that she would challenge us for following the precedent that her Administration set. In terms of next steps, we are complying with both the letter and spirit, following the precedent of protecting the issues of the humble Address we need to protect. The full tranche of materials will be published after the Whitsun Recess.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, in his comments on the controversy over the release of the documents, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, also rightly raised concerns about the heavy reliance on WhatsApp for conversations between senior officials and Ministers, and the resultant risks to the audit trail as it is not always clear who decided what and when. The Cabinet Office’s guidance on the use of WhatsApp states at the bottom:
“This guidance will be reviewed on or before 31 December 2025”.
When I have raised this missed deadline before, the Government have neither given an explanation for missing it nor committed to a new date for the review. In light of the renewed controversy over the use of WhatsApp, I wonder whether the Minister could both give us an explanation of why that deadline was missed and give us a new deadline for when this review will finally be completed.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises genuinely important points about how we make decisions and how we talk to each other, and I share some of his concerns. The Government plan to review the way that non-corporate communication channels are used in government and to update the accompanying guidance to reflect the changes in how we use the technology. I expect it to be before your Lordships’ House imminently for us to discuss the detail.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update
Lord Pack Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for agreeing to take questions on yesterday’s Statement.
The Falklands War was won in less than 12 weeks. This Government, however, cannot piece together a paper audit in that time. We have today simply been given a holding statement that more documents will be forthcoming. We remain no more enlightened than we were a month ago. No information has been forthcoming on the quantity of documents within scope of the humble Address passed in the other place, how many documents have been reviewed and by whom, whether the Cabinet Office has sought redactions and whether the Intelligence and Security Committee has agreed to those redactions. Can the Minister give the House a hard deadline by which the second tranche of documents will be published?
In light of press coverage in the Guardian suggesting that the Cabinet Office considered withholding certain documents from the Intelligence and Security Committee, can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that no documents within scope of the humble Address will be withheld from that committee?
In the other place, my honourable friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister a number of specific questions that went unanswered. The Chief Secretary’s silence on questions relating to Peter Mandelson’s declaration of interests form was deafening. Can the Minister confirm that that document exists and that it will not be withheld or redacted without the consent of the Intelligence and Security Committee? Serious questions are being asked about Peter Mandelson’s links through business interests, and how his activities as ambassador may have been linked to those interests.
We are also told that the security mitigations that were put in place for Peter Mandelson were not in response to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Can the Minister give the House more clarity on that? Can she say whether the detail of those concerns will be made public if the ISC judges that they may be published? On a day when the Labour Party is whipping its MPs to prevent the Privileges Committee making an independent assessment of the Prime Minister’s conduct, can we be reassured that His Majesty’s Government will not stand in the way of other committees doing their work?
The Government’s excuses for delay are wearing a little thin. We have heard all about the urgency that the Government are bringing to the matter: I hesitate to use the famous words “working at pace”. Yesterday, we heard from the Minister in the other place that documents should be published “in a chronological order”. He went on to say:
“Otherwise, I suspect there would be questions about what documents were missing, subject to the conclusion of the Committee’s work”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/26; col. 589.]
If it is the Government’s intention to avoid questions about what documents are missing, why are they still refusing to publish a list or overview of all the documents and whether they have been published? That overall document would help us greatly, and surely the titles or descriptions of the documents cannot be seen to prejudice any matter that is currently sub judice. Can the Minister say what progress is being made towards the publication of such a document? We have asked about this many times before and we still await a clear response.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, at the heart of this issue is the bravery of the women and girls who spoke up to reveal the truth about Jeffrey Epstein. Following his evil and criminal behaviour, there have been multiple failures of our political systems—failures that are now rightly seeing the end of various political careers. The events also raise questions about how we fix our broken systems so that we can deal much better with whatever future crises or scandals occur.
So I very much welcome the positive noises now being made about new legislation—for example, to allow peerages to be revoked in the case of scandal. However, it is fair to say that the track record of reform in this place is somewhat slow, so I hope that the Minister can confirm both that such legislation is imminent and that it will be given priority in the legislative queue, so that there is an opportunity for Parliament to debate and, if it so decides, pass such legislation promptly in the new Session.
It is also very welcome to have heard of the plans for the review into the vetting processes by Adrian Fulford, particularly because the more we hear details of what happened with the vetting, the more questions are thrown up. I will give just two examples. One is the sequence: make an appointment, announce the appointment, then carry out vetting after the announcement. Leaving aside questions of how well established that process and sequencing is and who knew about it, it is clearly a sequence of events that invites disaster. Vetting should surely come before an announcement, not after, because that is the way to minimise any pressure to come up with a politically convenient answer and to be fair to everyone involved, including somebody who fails the vetting process.
Also inviting disaster is the daisy chain of oral briefings that we now know took place without key decision-makers seeing the relevant summary of the vetting verdict paperwork. As we now know, the official who saw the paperwork orally briefed the FCDO official, Ian Collard, who did not see the paperwork himself. He, in turn, orally briefed Olly Robbins, who also did not see the paperwork. He, in turn, had oral discussions with the Prime Minister, who again did not see the paperwork so was, in fact, having matters described to him third hand. In other words, the more senior the person and the more crucial their personal decision-making in the process, the more removed they were from seeing the core paperwork involved.
There is obviously a political question in this about why the Prime Minister proceeded with such a process, but there is also a crucial issue for the future. Such a daisy chain of decision-making—with one person speaking to another person, who then speaks to another person, who then speaks to another person, without the authoritative written verdict of the vetting system being in front of everyone—is a process that invites disaster.
I hope the Minister can, as well as addressing my question about legislation to remove peerages, also confirm that these issues relating to vetting processes are within the scope of the Fulford review, that the review will be published soon—maybe even at pace—and that this House will have an opportunity to discuss that review promptly.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their contributions. As I have said before, and will say again, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable individual and his victims must be our first priority. We should never forget that, every time we discuss Epstein’s horrendous behaviour, his victims relive awful experiences. Those survivors must be front and centre when we debate all issues relating to Jeffrey Epstein, his network and their impact. I am aware every day of what they must be experiencing as this is living and breathing in the media.
In updating the House, it would be helpful to clarify some of the points made in the other place yesterday. As noble Lords will be aware, we published the first tranche of material in response to the humble Address Motion on 11 March, just over a month following that Motion. That first tranche of material relates primarily to the aspects of the Motion regarding Peter Mandelson’s appointment and his subsequent dismissal as ambassador, in addition to details of the severance payment provided to him by the Foreign Office.
Following the publication of the first tranche of material, Cabinet Office officials have been working tirelessly—I removed “at pace” from my briefing note—to prepare a second publication. Noble Lords will recognise that, given the breadth of the Motion, a significant number of documents are in scope and are taking time to process accordingly. We prioritised the material relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment in the first tranche so that Parliament could see those key documents first.
Where the Government deem material to be prejudicial to our national security or international relations, it is being referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee for consideration. As noble Lords will appreciate, this process requires detailed consideration. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its constructive engagement in this process, which we recognise has constituted additional requests on top of its already important work. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Beamish for his work as chair of the committee.
I can confirm that, as of yesterday evening, the Cabinet Office has passed to the ISC all material that it has processed as part of the humble Address and judged to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. This amounts to over 300 documents. This includes a number that were relevant to the process of Peter Mandelson’s security vetting. As the Government have set out, no redactions will be made on the basis of national security or international relations without referral to the ISC. As we have made clear in the first publication, there are several other public interest principles—in respect, for example, of the names of junior officials, email addresses, personal data and legally privileged information—which the Government have applied following a clear precedent set by previous Administrations. To confirm, as set out in the first publication, no redactions were applied to the Prime Minister’s box note.
I can also confirm that the next publication will include electronic communications, including those sent on non-corporate communication channels, between Peter Mandelson and Ministers, senior officials and special advisers. As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has said on multiple occasions, the Government are fully committed to complying with the scope of this Motion. The material that has been commissioned has been provided and, subject to the processes that I have explained, will be published.
The Government have also been clear throughout that they will not prejudice the ongoing police investigation. Noble Lords will understand that this means that I cannot confirm what documents are being withheld in response to the Metropolitan Police’s request but, to reassure your Lordships’ House, as agreed in the other place, the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee kindly agreed to look at documents given to the Metropolitan Police in relation to the police investigation so that we had a way, albeit a closed way, of showing due process and transparency to the House in relation to the humble Address. Those processes have continued. Noble Lords who know Simon Hoare MP will I am sure agree that if he thought that we were not being compliant, we would have heard by now.
On some of the specific points raised, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked when these documents will be published. I reassure noble Lords that we will publish them as soon as possible following State Opening of Parliament. I will provide further updates to your Lordships in due course. We will be discussing, I am sure, the detail of those papers in your Lordships’ House at that point. The noble Baroness also touched on other committees’ investigations. Obviously, there is a live debate in the other Chamber as we discuss this issue. There is also, as we have seen this morning, a live investigation by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. We are fully co-operating and I think noble Lords would expect no less.
I welcome to his place the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and congratulate him on what I think is his first outing on the Front Bench during a Statement—I look forward to many such conversations. He asked very specific questions. In terms of the legislation on removal of peerages, obviously, it is not for me to pre-empt the King’s Speech, but noble Lords will be aware that we have discussed this many times from this Dispatch Box and I expect to see such legislation forthcoming. I look forward, as the policy Minister, to discussing it in great detail with the noble Lord when we get to that point.
The noble Lord raised a very important point about vetting before an appointment. That process has now been explicitly changed, both for political appointees and for political appointees in the diplomatic space: vetting would need to be done before an announcement.
On the security vetting process, I think there are many Members of your Lordships’ House who have actively participated in the deep vetting process, either as Ministers or as civil servants. Noble Lords will be aware that there is a line here: we need people to actively participate in this process to make sure that we are getting the full information; we need to make sure that the detail of that information is then protected; and who sees what, when has to be managed by UK Security Vetting, which I thank for its work. I know that it is very nervous about some of the conversations we are having, not because of the process it undertakes but because it does not want people to be less forthcoming than they need to be in the process. However, I appreciate what the noble Lord said about a daisy chain of conversations. He will be aware that Ministers were not aware of that daisy chain at various points, but we have asked Sir Adrian Fulford to undertake a review, and I am very grateful to him. We have confirmed that this should be part of those conversations, and I will come back if I need to issue any clarification.
The noble Lord also kindly highlighted the fact that the Government have undertaken several steps in this space—my appointment is one of them. We are seeking to strengthen the foundations in the standards space and I look forward to discussing those issues with noble Lords, both through the prism of the release of the Humble Address but also because it is in all our interests, regardless of our political party or our personal politics, to ensure that people can have faith in politicians and faith in the integrity of this Building, both this Chamber and next door.
Pension Schemes
Lord Pack Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former special adviser and future recipient— I hope in the long-distant future—of a civil service pension. At the heart of this issue are former public servants who are entitled to expect that the Civil Service Pension Scheme would be administered with competence, care and basic humanity. Instead, many have faced delay, uncertainty and financial anxiety. The Government have acknowledged that Capita’s performance was unacceptable, and we acknowledge that this contract was awarded under the previous Government. However, the appalling performance has been sustained under this Government. Warning signs were not acted on sooner and contingency arrangements were not in place before the handover on 1 December.
Last month, officials from the Minister’s department confirmed that the Cabinet Office had access to data showing that the backlog of CSPS cases was increasing exponentially during the final months of MyCSP’s tenure. This was known before the transfer, yet Ministers failed to put in place robust contingency plans. They did not require additional resources from Capita ahead of the handover and proceeded regardless, despite being aware that the incoming provider faced a far greater operational challenge than originally anticipated.
The National Audit Office had already found that Capita had failed to meet key transition milestones. The Public Accounts Committee had warned of a clear risk that Capita would not be ready to take over the administration of the scheme and specifically called on the Cabinet Office to fully develop contingency plans before making a final decision. Why, then, did the Government not anticipate this situation as they should have done?
The NAO report highlights a serious issue with the handling of TUPE, the process by which staff transfer to the new contractor. This is meant to ensure continuity by moving experienced staff across with the work, but the NAO notes that the formal TUPE process began only in May 2025, very late in the transition. The consequence is obvious: staff faced prolonged uncertainty about their future, increasing the risk that they would leave before the handover. In a service that depends heavily on experienced personnel, that loss of expertise directly undermines performance. Why was this process started so late and what assessment was made of the risk this posed to service delivery?
The NAO also found that financial penalties were rarely applied under the previous contract and could be waived on the basis of so-called extenuating circumstances. The new contract is supposed to strengthen those provisions, so can the Minister tell the House how many penalties have actually been applied to Capita since go-live, whether any penalties have been waived, on what grounds they were waived and who authorised the decisions?
The Minister in the other place was also asked about standardised mitigation letters for lenders. Members affected by pension delays need clear documentation that they can provide to banks, mortgage providers, landlords and creditors, explaining that their financial difficulty has been caused by administrative failure in the Civil Service Pension Scheme. Can the Minister now confirm whether those standardised letters have been issued? If they have not been, why not? When exactly will affected members receive them?
I ask the Minister about contingency planning. The Statement refers to commercial levers, withheld milestone payments and possible legal remedies. It also refers to explicit personal assurances from Capita’s chief executive, but those assurances were plainly not met. To whom were those assurances made and on what date? What due diligence underpinned them? Who accepted them? Were they set out in writing?
Finally, I am concerned that the department apparently plans to begin a review only in late summer. Why is that timetable considered acceptable? The failures are happening now. There needs to be a credible contingency plan and realistic consideration of future options.
Capita’s failings are unacceptable, but ministerial accountability does not end with condemning the contractor. The contracting authority needs to be relentlessly on the case. This is an issue that I have raised many times previously. Can the Minister tell the House what concrete steps the Civil Service has taken to improve the quality of its contract management? No well-run business would tolerate a contractor performing in such a way, so why should the Government tolerate it?
I appreciate that I have asked a number of detailed questions and that the Minister might want to reply in writing to some of them, but I hope she can shed some light on the concerns raised.
Lord Pack (LD)
The Minister may be glad to know that I have a slightly smaller number of questions to ask. Running basic services reliably is at the heart of the Government’s responsibility to us all. Grand promises, fancy manifestos, clever policies or visionary plans about AI mean very little if the basic plumbing of the state is falling apart all around us. Here we have, unfortunately, another failure of that basic plumbing, one with very serious direct consequences for people’s well-being. It is certainly welcome that, faced with another pension scheme going horribly wrong at the hands of Capita, the Government have bitten the bullet and terminated its contract, but that coming after the Civil Service pension contract problems raises two key questions about the Government’s decision-making.
There is certainly a lot of blame to allocate to Capita and MyCSP, but there are also two questions that are fully within the Government’s area of responsibility. One, as I pointed out when we discussed this issue in Questions on 5 February, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, has just touched on, is that the Cabinet Office told the Public Accounts Committee that it was aware of very significant problems with Capita’s preparations to take over the contract on 1 December and that it had a contingency plan ready to use if necessary. Why, therefore, did the Cabinet Office decide to go ahead with the 1 December transfer to Capita rather than invoke its contingency plan? I think it is fair to say that the fact that another Capita pension scheme, the Royal Mail one, has now gone so badly wrong as well redoubles the doubts about why that 1 December transfer was greenlit by the Government.
In addition, in the light of Capita’s failing on these two pension contracts, there is also the problem that the Government have just signed another contract with Capita—a £370 million contract that involves, to quote Capita’s press release from just a few weeks ago,
“tech-enabled back-office services for public servants across four major UK government departments: the Department for Work and Pensions, Ministry of Justice, Home Office, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Capita will deliver a suite of services including HR, payroll, recruitment, finance, procurement, and service desk support”.
That sounds remarkably similar to the very things that Capita has just got so badly wrong twice.
Warned last year that Capita was getting it wrong, the Cabinet Office pressed ahead with Capita on that 1 December deadline. With Royal Mail, Capita has been getting exactly the same sort of work badly wrong. I hope the Minister will explain why those two failures were not enough for the Government to say for this new contract, “Hang on. We’ve seen your track record, we’ve learned from our mistakes, and no, we’re not going to hand over more money and give you more responsibility for financial IT systems”. Will the Minister tell us what consideration was given to those two other failures by Capita when deciding to award it this new contract? Why were those two failures not considered serious enough for the Government to spend their £370 million—or, I should, say the public’s £370 million—elsewhere?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I listened with care to the points raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, and I will have to revert in writing on some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn.
First, I put on record my thanks to the fantastic public servants who have been failed and who we are seeking to support. The security and dignity of those who have dedicated their careers to our public services are not negotiable. They deserve a pension scheme that is reliable, efficient and secure. When the standards they deserve are not upheld, the Government will not hesitate to act decisively to protect their interests.
The termination of the new Royal Mail Statutory Pension Scheme contract with Capita followed a failure to meet critical transition milestones and a total lack of confidence in its ability to implement the new operating model in a timely fashion. Capita had an 18-month planning window yet failed to deliver numerous milestones, including required IT automation. Of the 10 transitional milestones due to date, only four have been delivered and all those were late, which is why we have terminated the contract.
Regarding the Civil Service Pension Scheme, the delivery of the service since the transfer on 1 December has fallen far short of the required standard. The transition from the previous provider, MyCSP, was not satisfactory, and investigations are ongoing into the respective liabilities for those failures to protect taxpayer interests.
The stories of members falling into hardship are distressing and entirely unacceptable, which is why a specialist pensions recovery taskforce was established to take strategic oversight of the scheme’s management. To ensure no one faces financial anxiety alone, over £8.2 million in interest-free transitional support loans has already been issued to over 1,500 members most affected by these delays.
There is confidence in the surge of about 140 officials into Capita and this intervention has made a significant difference. The government surge team was essential to bolster operational capacity, successfully clearing 15,000 inherited unread emails and initially bringing telephony wait times down to an average of under two minutes. While wait times have recently spiked to an average of 44 minutes, this was a direct result of a 120% surge in volumes driven by the end of the tax year and the annual benefits statement portal suspension following the data breach on 30 March. There is no intention to withdraw the team if that would result in a deterioration of service. That judgment will be made carefully against the June 2026 deadline for the restoration of proper service.
On the NAO and Public Accounts Committee reports, the noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight these reports regarding missed transition milestones, as was the noble Lord, Lord Pack. Significant milestone payments are currently being withheld where transition deliverables have not been met to drive performance, and every right is reserved to take further formal action. The Government have accepted the NAO’s recommendations, and after its report, we implemented a number of additional controls as part of this contract. Despite these challenges, transitioning to Capita to avoid a total collapse of the service was assessed as the lower-risk path, as MyCSP had become operationally and commercially unviable.
Capita has been placed now under a firm mandate to clear all inherited arrears by the end of April and restore service levels to standard, contractually required levels by the end of June. Standardised mitigation letters are available on request via the pensions helpline to ensure that members can communicate effectively with mortgage providers and other creditors regarding service delays. Regarding the wider commercial position, there has been an offer from Capita to cover the costs of the surge team from 10 April, which will be considered in the broad accounting of all commercial issues in respect of this contract.
There were several questions asked that relate to this. As I said previously, there was an independent assurance review undertaken last year. I am going to write to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, with the dates of all the meetings that were had, the promises that were made by Capita and to whom they were made and when—there was a range of promises made. We had the independent assurance review, and we were therefore as confident as we could be in moving forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, raised the issue of MyCSP’s historical performance and the liability. The transition process from the previous provider, MyCSP, was not satisfactory and we are investigating respective liabilities for those failures between both parties. We have withheld all money due to MyCSP until transition failures are rectified and will pursue a parent company guarantee with Equiniti if necessary. Transitioning was necessary as MyCSP had become commercially unviable with backlogs increasing from 47,000 cases to over 60,000 cases by October.
I have answered the question about mitigation measures. In terms of the commercial accountability and withheld payments, we have taken direct action on all commercial levers, including withholding significant milestone payments where deliverables have not been met. Capita is under a firm mandate to clear all inherited arrears by the end of April and restore full service standards by the end of June. We will consider Capita’s offer, as I have said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, raised an important point about why the review is in late summer. Our focus and priority have to be getting the system working, to make sure that people can access both their historic statements and their future statements, and that people can access the information they need as well as access finances that are theirs. I remind noble Lords that pensions are deferred salaries. These are entitlements: they have earned them, and we need to make sure that they can get the money. This is not about pushing review into the long grass—that is not where we are. We want to fix what is broken to make sure that the people who need access can get access, and then we will undertake a review, including a commercial review, with Capita to move forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Pack, raised a really important point about Capita receiving an additional contract. The Synergy award by DWP in February followed a rigorous and transparent public procurement process conducted under existing public contract regulations. Each contract is managed on its own merits, and the Secretary of State for DWP sought and received specific personal assurances from Capita regarding delivery.
However, I remind noble Lords that, while we are talking about two specific contracts in this Statement, both are the only Capita contracts with the Cabinet Office. Across the wider government and public sector portfolio, Capita has over 80 contracts, and performance remains high, with approximately 87% of KPIs currently rated as good. We have seen a clear failure of the Civil Service Pension Scheme and access to it. We desperately need to fix it and then look at what went wrong before moving forward with our commercial levers. But each contract needs to be assessed on its individual merits to make sure that it works and that the Government are compliant, as well as the people we work with.
UK Public Servants: International Secondments
Lord Pack Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and it suggests quite how unserious Reform UK is about governing. We have an independent Civil Service for a reason. It acts without fear or favour; it is subject to a stringent code of conduct, and it is there to make sure that our public services are delivered. Any suggestion otherwise is for the birds.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, the latest Civil Service staff survey, published last month, shows that, for example, more than one in 10 Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office staff and one in 10 Cabinet Office staff report having experienced bullying or harassment in the workplace in the last year. Can the Minister tell us what safeguards the Government have in place to ensure that such highly inappropriate behaviour is not exported inadvertently to international organisations?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. Every member of the Civil Service is subject to the Civil Service Code, regardless of seniority, and we expect them to be held accountable and to treat all staff with appropriate levels of respect. Obviously, Ministers are subject to the Ministerial Code. There is extensive HR support within government departments, both within the FCDO and my own department, and I would expect everyone to undertake the appropriate training—and to be dismissed, where appropriate, if such behaviour was found.