Lord Mandelson Humble Address
Debate between Lord Harper and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(6 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, can I just probe the Minister a little more on that question? The messages that were published between Lord Mandelson and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister were clearly within the terms of the humble Address. They were not published. That raises two questions. First, why did the Minister not make them available? Secondly, what confidence does that give us that all the rest of the information that was in scope of the humble Address has actually been published? How can the Minister give us that confidence?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I shall start with the noble Lord’s second point. This was an official-led process. There were no politicians involved in the determination of what was and was not published. About 1,500 documents were published only a week ago. With regard to any correspondence relating to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister proactively disclosed to the other House twice last week that he had exchanged messages with Peter Mandelson, but they were no longer available to him to disclose as part of the humble Address. As he stated in the other place, if he continued to have access to those messages, he would have disclosed them as part of his return. He does not have access to the messages.
Cabinet Manual: Guidelines for Government Formation
Debate between Lord Harper and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point, and I welcome all our colleagues back to their place. With regard to the Cabinet Manual, the reality is that it has not been updated since 2011. It considers us still to be a member of the European Union, and it reflects not just the Fixed-term Parliaments Act but a different set of relationships we had with the devolved assemblies. It needs updating to make sure that government and civil servants have the guidance before them.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister responsible for the production of the Cabinet Manual in 2011, I have to confess that I expected that it would have been updated before now, so I welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday. I can confirm that one section that does not need updating is the bit about the formation of Governments. It is quite comprehensive, since it was done after the 2010 election. However, can the Minister confirm that there is a very helpful section at paragraph 2.18, which may be useful in about 15 days’ time, referring to the resignation of a Prime Minister of a majority Government and the fact that the governing party would be responsible for electing his successor?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The Prime Minister remains in place, and he has our full and utter confidence.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
Debate between Lord Harper and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, can I press the Minister a little on the timing point and the need for scrutiny? Presumably, the Government are planning on a Minister, in both the other place and this place, making a Statement when this information is published: I see that the noble Baroness is nodding. She was careful to say that this would be a big release of information. Can we have a gap between the publication of that information and the Statement that Ministers make, to give Members of the other House and this House sufficient time to scrutinise what she says is a significant volume of information and to be able to ask pertinent and relevant questions? Dumping a huge number of documents and having a Statement immediately afterwards will not enable proper scrutiny.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point, but he will also know that, in government, some of those decisions are outside my control. By convention in our House, Statements are not typically repeated on the same day, so I hope that noble Lords will have the opportunity to discuss. I will make myself available as well at any point to any Member of your Lordships’ House who, once they have seen it, has further questions—both in here and outside—to answer about the release of the documentation.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
Debate between Lord Harper and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
It may be helpful to inform your Lordships’ House that the previous ambassador to America had come to the end of her tenure. The question would have been whether the tenure would be extended or not, not whether she should have been removed. I do not believe that is within the scope of the paperwork; the paperwork being released directly pertains to the appointment and withdrawal of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord. On the scope of the humble Address and the EU processes, I believe other organisations are looking at other roles and some of the history. On the scope of what is currently in play, there is a live police investigation. The matter before us relating to the humble Address concerns the immediate period before and during his appointment.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, the humble Address referred on several occasions to electronic communications between officials in the Government and political appointees. Under the Freedom of Information Act, it has been long-standing practice that communications between Ministers and officials, on whatever device, and whether they are private or government emails, are within scope of freedom of information laws. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are working on the basis that all such communications, whether they are private or government emails, are within scope? Assuming they are, what steps are being taken to secure and recover such information from those officials who are no longer within the Government’s employ—specifically, the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
To confirm, all electronic communication is in scope and will be released in future tranches of materials. On the steps being taken to secure the materials, the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office has contacted all other Permanent Secretaries to make sure that materials are being secured and passed on. Those materials are currently being collated for further release. On the former chief of staff, as set out by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, there was correspondence between No. 10 and Lord Peter Mandelson, in which a number of follow-up questions were asked. I would assume that those materials are going to be released as well.
Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review
Debate between Lord Harper and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend and I worked together when I was the chief executive of Index on Censorship, and in fact I was a member of the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists under the previous Government, which, under the current Government, is co-chaired by Jess Phillips MP and Steph Peacock MP. My noble friend will be aware that we announced yesterday that the Media Freedom Coalition will be co-chaired by the UK for the next two years. I appreciate and share many of her concerns. The investigation that is currently under way is about the actions of Josh Simons as a Minister. My noble friend will be aware that there are other investigations ongoing, outside government, related to the actions of APCO, and Labour Together obviously has its own governance issues to deal with.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I point out that the Minister has just highlighted the flaw in this process. When the Prime Minister makes a decision about the continuation of Mr Simons as a Minister, will he have just the information provided by the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, or will he look at Mr Simon’s behaviour when he was at Labour Together? As the noble Baroness has just said, his actions in that organisation appear to have been an attempt to smear journalists. If it is found that he did that, that is what would make him not fit to be a Minister. Is the Prime Minister going to look at that when he makes his decision?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I would hope that the Prime Minister will use both the recommendations from Sir Laurie Magnus as well as every other form of information available to him.
Exercise Pegasus 2025
Debate between Lord Harper 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)
My noble friend is right. Many of us volunteered during that period, through our faith communities and the community groups with which we are associated. As we saw during the pandemic, voluntary and community groups are at the heart of our communities and faith groups. The reality is that during Exercise Pegasus we ensured that their voices were heard. Phase 4 of Pegasus is about how we recover from a pandemic. Those voices, and stakeholder engagement with that sector specifically, are key elements of these conversations.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, the next threat that faces the country is unlikely to be the same as the last one. What lessons have the Government learned about making sure that Ministers can assess the threat, whatever it is, make the appropriate trade-offs and respond quickly, but also engage both Houses of Parliament to ensure there is proper democratic oversight and scrutiny of the important trade-offs and choices that are made?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. However, it is about not just this House and the other place but the four devolved Assemblies, making sure that all nations and regions have proper democratic oversight and engagement in any process. That is why Pegasus included not only ministerial leads, which it did, and the relevant government departments and arm’s-length bodies, but regional and national Governments, and the LRFs, to make sure that we knew who was responsible for what and at what time, and, candidly, where there are holes that we need to fill. We need to learn from previous experiences, whether that is the pandemic or the recent storms, and we need to make sure that we are prepared for what may face us. That is why I urge all noble Lords to read the National Risk Register matrix to see where the threats may come from.
UK Constitution: Oversight and Responsibility (Report from the Constitution Committee)
Debate between Lord Harper and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am going to say yes, and we will see how much trouble I have just got myself in.
Lord Harper (Con)
On that point, it is quite important that the Minister commits to consulting Parliament, but it was very clear that the Cabinet Manual remains an executive document and it should not be approved by either House of Parliament; it should remain owned by Ministers. I think that distinction is worth getting on the record.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right and probably just saved me from myself—I would have got in trouble. This is very clearly an executive document, as he was party to, but this Government will want to consult as widely as possible, which is why I also want to meet the noble Baroness on other issues, because wider consultation is important. The noble Lord did nearly get me in trouble.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, touched on the UK internal market. We are going through the statutory review process. Although we are ahead of time, we have just finished the consultation, and we are currently reflecting on it. She made an important point.
There were many other points raised that I realise I am not going to get to, but that just shows quite how important and wide ranging the debate has been. I will come back to noble Lords on their point that I have not been able to touch on. I thank noble Lords for their participation in today’s debate, and for, as ever, ensuring that I learn something in your Lordships’ House.