Asked by: Lord Wills (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the merits of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in (1) promoting the accountability of government and public authorities, and (2) encouraging public confidence in democratic politics.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Government is committed to Freedom of Information and continues to monitor the performance and implementation of the Act to ensure it is operating as intended by Parliament.
Asked by: Lord Wills (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to reduce the cost limit for freedom of information requests; and what assessment they have made of the impacts of doing so on civil liberties and press freedom.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The cost thresholds above which public authorities are not obliged to comply with a Freedom of Information request are set out in secondary legislation. Any changes to FOI legislation would be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
Asked by: Lord Wills (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 9 March (HL6179), how many of the whistleblowing cases formally raised and investigated in each of the last three years fell into each of the following categories (or similar categories): (1) financial wrong-doing, (2) sexual misconduct, (3) national security, (4) misleading Parliament or the public, and (5) other.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Shadow Minister (Treasury)
CSHR commissions departments annually to provide an overview of cases investigated formally through their whistleblowing procedures.
Data is provided based on a number of categories set out in the Civil Service annual data return and so does not align directly with the categories set out in the question; financial wrongdoing, sexual misconduct, national security, misleading Parliament and other.
Please note the caveat that national security whistleblowing data is a matter for the United Kingdom Security & Vetting team and is therefore not captured in these summaries.
2019/2020 - 383 cases were formally raised and investigated in government departments, with the concern upheld in 33 cases. They fell into the following categories:
Breach of Civil Service code - 23
Breach of security / information policy - 23
Bullying and harassment - 4
Danger to environment/health and safety - 13
Deceiving/misleading Ministers, Parliament and others - 2
Discrimination - 11
Failure to comply with legal obligations - 22
Fraud - 148
Frustrating implementation of policy - 7
Influence by improper pressure/personal gain - 14
Misuse of official position - 39
Other/Blank - 77
2020/2021 - 245 cases were formally raised and investigated in government departments, with the concern upheld in 13 cases. They fell into the following categories:
Breach of Civil Service code - 14
Breach of security / information policy - 8
Bullying and harassment - 1
Danger to environment/health and safety - 44
Deceiving/misleading Ministers, Parliament and others - 4
Discrimination - 7
Failure to comply with legal obligations - 12
Fraud - 96
Frustrating implementation of policy - 9
Influence by improper pressure/personal gain - 6
Misuse of official position - 19
Other - 25
2021/2022 - 311 cases were formally raised and investigated in government departments, with the concern upheld in 30 cases. They fell into the following categories:
Breach of Civil Service code - 0
Breach of Security / information policy - 14
Bullying and harassment - 4
Danger to environment/health and safety - 23
Deceiving/misleading Ministers, Parliament and others - 13
Discrimination - 5
Failure to comply with legal obligations - 19
Fraud - 131
Frustrating implementation of policy - 4
Influence by improper pressure/personal gain -10
Misuse of official position - 38
Other - 50
Asked by: Lord Wills (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 9 March (HL6179), how many of the whistleblowing cases formally raised, investigated and upheld in each of the last three years fell into each of the following categories (or similar categories): (1) financial wrongdoing, (2) sexual misconduct, (3) national security, (4) misleading Parliament or the public, and (5) other.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Shadow Minister (Treasury)
CSHR commissions departments annually to provide an overview of cases investigated formally through their whistleblowing procedures.
Data is provided based on a number of categories set out in the Civil Service annual data return and so does not align directly with the categories set out in the question; financial wrongdoing, sexual misconduct, national security, misleading Parliament and other.
Please note the caveat that national security whistleblowing data is a matter for the United Kingdom Security & Vetting team and is therefore not captured in these summaries.
2019/2020 - 33 cases were formally raised, investigated and upheld in government departments, falling into the following categories:
Breach of Civil Service code - 3
Breach of security / information policy - 4
Bullying and harassment - 1
Danger to environment/health and safety - 1
Deceiving/misleading Ministers, Parliament and others - 0
Discrimination - 1
Failure to comply with legal obligations - 3
Fraud - 12
Frustrating implementation of policy -0
Influence by improper pressure/personal gain - 1
Misuse of official position - 0
Other/Blank - 7
2020/2021 - 13 cases were formally raised, investigated and upheld in government departments, falling into the following categories:
Breach of Civil Service code - 1
Breach of security / Information Policy - 0
Bullying and harassment - 0
Danger to environment/health and safety - 6
Deceiving/misleading Ministers, Parliament and others - 0
Discrimination - 1
Failure to comply with legal obligations - 0
Fraud - 1
Frustrating implementation of policy - 1
Influence by improper pressure/personal gain - 0
Misuse of official position - 1
Other - 2
2021/2022 - 30 cases were formally raised, investigated and upheld in government departments, falling into the following categories:
Breach of Civil Service code - 0
Breach of Security / Information Policy- 2
Bullying and harassment - 0
Danger to environment/health and safety - 3
Deceiving/misleading Ministers, Parliament and others - 3
Discrimination - 1
Failure to comply with legal obligations - 5
Fraud - 6
Frustrating implementation of policy - 1
Influence by improper pressure/personal gain -0
Misuse of official position - 4
Other - 5
Asked by: Lord Wills (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many government departments operate whistleblowing policies.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Shadow Minister (Treasury)
Government departments have delegated authority for Whistleblowing policies. However, all have confirmed they have policies in place which meet the standards that are set out centrally by Civil Service HR.
Asked by: Lord Wills (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many government department employees or subcontractors have made disclosures and/or allegations of wrongdoing in the last three years; and of those, (1) how many did so using a formal whistleblowing procedure, and (2) how many claims were (a) formally investigated, and (b) upheld.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Shadow Minister (Treasury)
We are made aware by departments annually, who also report on behalf of their agencies, of cases raised formally through whistleblowing procedures.
In 2019/20, 383 cases were formally raised and investigated in government departments. The concern was upheld in 33 cases.
In 2020/21, 245 cases were formally raised and investigated in government departments. The concern was upheld in 13 cases.
In 2021/22, 311 cases were formally raised and investigated in government departments. The concern was upheld in 30 cases.
We do not ask departments for reports of informal cases.
Asked by: Lord Wills (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to produce a public response to the final report on electoral fraud submitted by the Electoral Commission in January 2014, including a response to the recommendation to introduce a system of voter identification.
Answered by Lord Bridges of Headley
The Electoral Commission's report is an important contribution to the debate on electoral integrity. The Government is currently conducting its own review of electoral fraud, led by Sir Eric Pickles MP, which is considering arguments for and against different measures to improve electoral integrity, including those suggested by the Electoral Commission. Recommendations emerging from the review will be put to the Prime Minister in the New Year.
Asked by: Lord Wills (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Stowell of Beeston on 29 July (HL1727), why they have not conducted an assessment of the number of bills in each of the previous five Parliaments that affected England alone and had no implications for any of the other nations in the United Kingdom.
Answered by Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The Government has not performed, and does not intend to perform, a retrospective assessment of bills introduced over the last Parliament because under the Government’s proposals on English Votes for English Laws, the application of the proposed new rules to future legislation will be a matter for the Speaker of the House of Commons. Decisions on certification will be a matter for Parliament and will apply to future legislation. Moreover, the Government's proposals would apply to England and England and Wales-only provisions within bills, as well as bills that are England-only in their entirety.
Asked by: Lord Wills (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Stowell of Beeston on 29 July (HL1727), whether they plan to conduct an assessment of the number of bills in each of the three most recent parliamentary Sessions that affected England alone and had no implications for any of the other nations in the United Kingdom; and if not, why not.
Answered by Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The Government has not performed, and does not intend to perform, a retrospective assessment of bills introduced over the last Parliament because under the Government’s proposals on English Votes for English Laws, the application of the proposed new rules to future legislation will be a matter for the Speaker of the House of Commons. Decisions on certification will be a matter for Parliament and will apply to future legislation. Moreover, the Government's proposals would apply to England and England and Wales-only provisions within bills, as well as bills that are England-only in their entirety.
Asked by: Lord Wills (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Stowell of Beeston on 29 July (HL1727), whether they plan to produce an impact assessment of their proposals for English Votes for English Laws; and if not, why not.
Answered by Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The Government does not plan to produce an impact assessment for its proposals, which relate to House of Commons procedure. However, given the importance of the Government’s proposed changes, the Leader of the House of Commons has invited the Procedure Committee to review the proposals in operation in order that there is proper scrutiny.