Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response
Debate between Lord Young of Acton and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend and would like to reassure him that I have read every page of the humble Address. I apparently do not need to sleep any more.
The point that he made about WhatsApp and disappearing messages is absolutely right. The guidance issued to every Minister is clear:
“‘Disappearing message’ functions have a role in limiting the build up of messages on devices. You must ensure that any such use does not impact on your recordkeeping or transparency responsibilities”.
Anyone who had deleted messages was not breaking the rules. The issue is in making sure that all record-keeping of decisions and how they were made is kept in government, which is why we are reminding every government department of its responsibilities in this space.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Finn said, the Prime Minister has staked his moral authority on the Hillsborough law and the duty of candour. That is admirable but, when candour is required of this Government, we get redacted documents, nil responses and stolen mobile phones, which we are told were not backed up in the cloud. We learned today that even the Prime Minister has disappearing messages on WhatsApp switched on—so much for the state never hiding from the people it serves.
My question for the Minister is: where is the candour from this Government? Spare us the usual list of the previous Government’s sins; after all the Prime Minister’s moral grandstanding on this issue, the argument that “We’re no worse than you lot” does not really cut it.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I wish the noble Lord had listened to the answer I gave to my noble friend because, if he had, he would not have needed to read his question. With regard to the issues that the noble Lord raised, I do not think he will find that I have attacked the previous Government from this Dispatch Box, although there is plenty to attack them for.
On candour, as I just stated to my noble friend, the use of WhatsApp messages and deleting messages is explicitly allowed for within the guidance that is issued within government. On the use of candour, I think everyone benefits from a little light.
Security Update
Debate between Lord Young of Acton and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord. I believe I have all my fingers, but he is right—this is about how we engage, what issues are in our national interests, where we can co-operate and where we need to challenge. We appreciate that we have a £100 billion trading relationship with China, which means that there are tens of thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom dependent on our relationship. But, at the same time, we seek to do everything we can to protect ourselves. How we do that is a matter for ongoing discussion, but the Government have made a clear decision that engagement is key and, in areas of global diplomacy, more words are definitely better than fewer.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of the Free Speech Union. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said that, because our universities are so financially dependent on China, there may be a risk of interference at the behest of the Chinese in academic freedom and free speech. The noble Lord recommended various measures to address that risk and the Minister also referred to various measures. But there is an additional measure, which would be to commence Section 9 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which requires universities to disclose to the Office for Students their foreign funding and then the Office for Students to monitor those universities to see if there is any interference in academic freedom or free speech as a consequence of that foreign funding.
We know that there are some examples of this. I can think of two off the top of my head, Michelle Shipworth and Laura Murphy, but there are numerous others. It was referred to in the recent report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which we discussed in this House last week. Will the Minister take this opportunity to set out a timetable for the commencement of Section 9 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord has campaigned actively on these issues through the Free Speech Union, as I did in my previous iteration at Index on Censorship—slightly different approaches and campaign tactics, but with the same aspiration to ensure academic freedom. Our universities —our cathedrals of challenge, engagement and thinking —are incredibly important. I know that the noble Lord has raised these issues directly with the Minister responsible and I will follow up on those conversations.
Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review
Debate between Lord Young of Acton and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness is even more aware than I am that it is well above my pay grade to comment on the contents of the next King’s Speech. But she will be aware that I actively campaigned on the issue of anti-SLAPP legislation alongside many other Members of your Lordships’ House, and I know that my colleagues in the department share similar commitments.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. To answer the point made earlier, when our website was subject to a cyber attack and the names of our, for the most part, small donors—who had donated to campaigns such as defending Hamit Coskun, on trial for burning the Koran—were illegally published by an extreme criminal protest group, we felt we had no choice but to take out an injunction to stop their names being published. It would have been a breach of their privacy.
Two current Labour Peers are directors of Labour Together and were directors when Josh Simons took the decision to fund APCO. Has the Minister taken the opportunity to discuss Josh Simons’ behaviour with those Labour Members?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for bringing that to my attention. I am not aware of the Members of your Lordships’ House to which he is referring, but if he would like to speak to me outside the Chamber, I look forward to that conversation.