Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1464819

registered interest
date	23/05/2022
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Investigation Into Alleged Gatherings on Government Premises During Covid Restrictions
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government, what was the purpose of the meeting between the Prime Minister and Sue Gray in May.
tabling member printed	Lord Pendry
uin	HL445
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 06/06/2022 answer text <p>The Prime Minister discussed the process and procedure on timings and publication arrangements. The findings and contents of the Second Permanent Secretary’s independent report was a matter for her, as the Prime Minister made clear in his oral statement on 25 May 2022.</p> answering member printed Lord True question first answered 06/06/2022 15:27:37 answering member 4200 label Biography information for Lord True
tabling member	457 label Biography information for Lord Pendry

1464865

registered interest
date	23/05/2022
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Social Services: Reform
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Infrastructure and Projects Authority has produced any analysis on their social care reforms; and if so, whether this analysis will be published.
tabling member printed	Baroness Wheeler
uin	HL467
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/05/2022 answer text <p>IPA convened an independent assurance review of the Department for Health and Social Care’s (Adult) Social Care Charging Reform Programme in March 2022, as it does at key stages for all programmes in the Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP). It is not standard practice to publish these reviews. IPA has not produced any other analysis on the wider set of social care reforms.</p> answering member printed Lord True question first answered 30/05/2022 13:36:43 answering member 4200 label Biography information for Lord True
tabling member	4157 label Biography information for Baroness Wheeler

1464618

registered interest
date	19/05/2022
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Government Departments: Buildings
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to dispose of offices currently (1) owned by, (2) leased to, or (3) vacated by, civil service departments.
tabling member printed	Lord Jones of Cheltenham
uin	HL376
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 06/06/2022 answer text <p>The Government Estate Strategy 2018 set out our goals for better use of the estate. This included reducing the number of office buildings in which central government operates and a long-term ambition to reduce the number of offices within London (from over 65 in 2018) to no more than 20, enabled by our Places for Growth programme to relocate civil service roles from the Capital to across the UK. A new Government Property Strategy is being prepared, which continues to focus on consolidating the government estate. It is the aim of the government to critically review and seize opportunities to break a lease or dispose of a property, where possible and appropriate.</p><p> </p><p>Each civil service department is required to develop and maintain a strategic asset management plan which sets out their occupational needs. Summary plans are usually published on gov.uk; publication was paused during the COVID-19 pandemic but is planned to resume this financial reporting year.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord True question first answered 06/06/2022 15:27:22 answering member 4200 label Biography information for Lord True
tabling member	248 label Biography information for Lord Jones of Cheltenham

1464622

registered interest
date	19/05/2022
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Ministers: Codes of Practice
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Ministers who are convicted of criminal offences are in breach of the Ministerial Code.
tabling member printed	Lord Jones of Cheltenham
uin	HL380
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 25/05/2022 answer text <p>The Ministerial Code sets out the principles and standards of behaviour expected of all those who serve in Government.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><em><strong>Principles</strong></em></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>Ministers of the Crown are expected to maintain high standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety. Section 1.3 of the Ministerial Code notes the “overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law”; Section 1.6 sets out that Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code, and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>The Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards. In turn, the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament and the public as leader of Her Majesty’s Government, including, ultimately, at the ballot box.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>It should be noted that paying a fixed penalty notice is not a criminal conviction.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><em><strong>Past precedent</strong></em></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>The noble peer may be aware of previous occasions when reports show that Ministers were found to have breached the law but remained in Ministerial office. For example:</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>In September 2009, the Attorney General was given a £5,000 civil penalty, for employing an illegal immigrant under a law she had previously helped introduce as a Home Office Minister. The then Prime Minister concluded that no further action was necessary, was satisfied that the Minister did not &quot;knowingly&quot; break the law, and noted her full apology. [1]</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>In 2003, the then Solicitor General was banned by the courts from driving for seven days and fined £400 for speeding; the same Minister (then Leader of the Commons) was fined £60 and three points for speeding September 2007; and in January 2010, fined £350 and three points for driving without due care and attention. [2]</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>In 2007, a Home Office Minister was fined £100 and given three points for using his mobile phone whilst driving, admitting he was taking a phone call on government matters. [3]</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><em><strong>Proportionality of sanctions</strong></em></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>Action in response to proven breaches of the Ministerial Code should be proportionate. In April 2021, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended: “We recommend that the Prime Minister should retain the right to decide on any sanction following a breach of the Code. The current expectation that any breach of the Ministerial Code should lead to resignation is disproportionate. We recommend that there should be a proportionate range of sanctions where the Code has been breached, and will provide further detail on this matter in our final report. Resignation should be retained as an available sanction where a serious breach has occurred.” The Prime Minister accepted this recommendation in April 2021.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>The Committee again added in November 2021: &quot;No other area of public life has such a binary system of sanctions, and in both Parliament and the Civil Service there are a range of sanctions available according to the seriousness of the offence. There is no reason why this should not be the case for ministers… The Ministerial Code should detail a range of sanctions the Prime Minister may issue, including, but not limited to, apologies, fines and asking for a minister’s resignation.&quot; The Government concurs with this approach.</p><p> </p><p>1) The Guardian, 22 September 2009</p><p>2) The Guardian, 8 January 2010</p><p>3) BBC News, 2 November 2007</p> answering member printed Lord True grouped question UIN HL381 question first answered 25/05/2022 14:05:04 answering member 4200 label Biography information for Lord True
tabling member	248 label Biography information for Lord Jones of Cheltenham

1464623

registered interest
date	19/05/2022
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Ministers: Codes of Practice
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Ministers who are convicted of criminal offences may continue in office; and whether they have any plans to amend the Ministerial Code concerning rules for any Ministers convicted of criminal offences.
tabling member printed	Lord Jones of Cheltenham
uin	HL381
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 25/05/2022 answer text <p>The Ministerial Code sets out the principles and standards of behaviour expected of all those who serve in Government.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><em><strong>Principles</strong></em></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>Ministers of the Crown are expected to maintain high standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety. Section 1.3 of the Ministerial Code notes the “overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law”; Section 1.6 sets out that Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code, and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>The Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards. In turn, the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament and the public as leader of Her Majesty’s Government, including, ultimately, at the ballot box.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>It should be noted that paying a fixed penalty notice is not a criminal conviction.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><em><strong>Past precedent</strong></em></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>The noble peer may be aware of previous occasions when reports show that Ministers were found to have breached the law but remained in Ministerial office. For example:</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>In September 2009, the Attorney General was given a £5,000 civil penalty, for employing an illegal immigrant under a law she had previously helped introduce as a Home Office Minister. The then Prime Minister concluded that no further action was necessary, was satisfied that the Minister did not &quot;knowingly&quot; break the law, and noted her full apology. [1]</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>In 2003, the then Solicitor General was banned by the courts from driving for seven days and fined £400 for speeding; the same Minister (then Leader of the Commons) was fined £60 and three points for speeding September 2007; and in January 2010, fined £350 and three points for driving without due care and attention. [2]</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>In 2007, a Home Office Minister was fined £100 and given three points for using his mobile phone whilst driving, admitting he was taking a phone call on government matters. [3]</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><em><strong>Proportionality of sanctions</strong></em></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>Action in response to proven breaches of the Ministerial Code should be proportionate. In April 2021, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended: “We recommend that the Prime Minister should retain the right to decide on any sanction following a breach of the Code. The current expectation that any breach of the Ministerial Code should lead to resignation is disproportionate. We recommend that there should be a proportionate range of sanctions where the Code has been breached, and will provide further detail on this matter in our final report. Resignation should be retained as an available sanction where a serious breach has occurred.” The Prime Minister accepted this recommendation in April 2021.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>The Committee again added in November 2021: &quot;No other area of public life has such a binary system of sanctions, and in both Parliament and the Civil Service there are a range of sanctions available according to the seriousness of the offence. There is no reason why this should not be the case for ministers… The Ministerial Code should detail a range of sanctions the Prime Minister may issue, including, but not limited to, apologies, fines and asking for a minister’s resignation.&quot; The Government concurs with this approach.</p><p> </p><p>1) The Guardian, 22 September 2009</p><p>2) The Guardian, 8 January 2010</p><p>3) BBC News, 2 November 2007</p> answering member printed Lord True grouped question UIN HL380 question first answered 25/05/2022 14:05:04 answering member 4200 label Biography information for Lord True
tabling member	248 label Biography information for Lord Jones of Cheltenham

1463818

registered interest
date	17/05/2022
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Privy Council
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by the Lord President of the Council on 26 June 2018 (156454), why the whole of the Privy Council will no longer be invited to attend the next meeting of the Accession Council; and when was the last time that the attendance of Privy Councillors at the Accession Council was limited.
tabling member printed	Lord Blunkett
uin	HL293
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 25/05/2022 answer text <p>Revised arrangements for an Accession Council on the Demise of the Crown have been put in place following a routine review of operational delivery arrangements.</p><p> </p><p>The updated arrangements are an equitable and proportionate response to three key challenges identified during the review:</p><p> </p><p>First, the number of Privy Counsellors potentially eligible to attend an Accession Council has increased exponentially since 1952.</p><p> </p><p>Secondly, whilst it has long been agreed that St. James’s Palace is the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council, the historic nature of St. James’s Palace presents a number of significant challenges in terms of capacity, accessibility and crowd flow.</p><p> </p><p>Thirdly, the pace at which an Accession Council must take place means that very limited additional infrastructure and provision can be put in place to support dignified delivery of such an important occasion.</p><p><br>Attendance arrangements for previous Accession Councils has varied and - like current planning - took into account contemporary operational challenges. There is no constitutional understanding that all Privy Counsellors must be summonsed to an Accession Council.</p> answering member printed Lord True question first answered 25/05/2022 12:34:02 answering member 4200 label Biography information for Lord True
tabling member	395 label Biography information for Lord Blunkett

1463827

registered interest
date	17/05/2022
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Senior Civil Servants: Overseas Workers
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any civil servants in UK-based senior leadership roles have been working from abroad in each of the last three years.
tabling member printed	Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
uin	HL302
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 06/06/2022 answer text <p>The Cabinet Office does not hold departmental information about civil servants in UK-based senior leadership roles working from abroad.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>In terms of departmental records, these records are not collected by the Cabinet Office, with information captured at a line manager level.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>Working abroad has always been by exception in the Cabinet Office and is not permitted unless there is a specific business need or under the most exceptional of circumstances (an example of which might be where an employee’s partner is a civil servant and is permanently posted abroad).</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord True question first answered 06/06/2022 16:10:43 answering member 4200 label Biography information for Lord True
tabling member	1141 label Biography information for Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

1462918

registered interest
date	16/05/2022
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Civil Servants: Redundancy
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many of the 91,000 civil service jobs that they intend to cut are based in the Home Office.
tabling member printed	Lord Roberts of Llandudno
uin	HL269
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/05/2022 answer text <p>The Prime Minister has tasked the Chancellor, CDL, the Minister for Government Efficiency and the Cabinet Secretary to work together on producing a plan for returning the Civil Service workforce numbers to 2016 levels over the next three years. This work will be overseen by the Efficiency and Value for Money Cabinet Committee. Secretaries of State will lead the drive for reductions within their departments and the Civil Service organisations for which they have responsibility.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord True question first answered 30/05/2022 13:35:53 answering member 4200 label Biography information for Lord True
tabling member	3691 label Biography information for Lord Roberts of Llandudno

1462699

registered interest
date	12/05/2022
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Government Departments: CCTV
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government, following the decision by the Department of Health and Social Care to remove (1) Hikvision, and (2) Dahua, technology cameras from their premises, what plans other government departments have, if any, to also remove those cameras from their premises.
tabling member printed	Lord Alton of Liverpool
uin	HL184
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 25/05/2022 answer text <p>As has been the case under successive administrations, it is not government policy to comment on the security arrangements of government buildings. Specific details regarding the make and model of security systems are withheld on national security grounds.</p> answering member printed Lord True question first answered 25/05/2022 11:34:53 answering member 4200 label Biography information for Lord True
tabling member	738 label Biography information for Lord Alton of Liverpool

1462700

registered interest
date	12/05/2022
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Government Departments: CCTV and Procurement
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Cabinet Office will offer written guidance on the use of Chinese-made cameras in government departments; and whether they intend to include provisions in the Procurement Bill to prevent the purchase of (1) equipment, or (2) commodities, linked to states accused of (a) genocide, or (b) slave labour.
tabling member printed	Lord Alton of Liverpool
uin	HL185
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 25/05/2022 answer text <p>As has been the case under successive administrations, it is not government policy to comment on the security arrangements of government buildings. Specific details regarding the make and model of security systems are withheld on national security grounds</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>The Procurement Bill will strengthen the approach to excluding suppliers from bidding for public contracts where there is clear evidence of their involvement in forced labour or other Modern Slavery practices. We are also taking action in the Bill to clarify that any serious breach of ethical standards applicable to a supplier can be considered to be professional misconduct, which may lead to exclusion.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord True question first answered 25/05/2022 11:35:15 answering member 4200 label Biography information for Lord True
tabling member	738 label Biography information for Lord Alton of Liverpool