Public Inquiries: Costs
Debate between Lord Brennan of Canton and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness will be very aware of the pre-existing processes that are in place through the public interest immunity certificate and the fact that, in statute, chairs of committees can see intelligence reports that allow them to work to ensure that nothing is being hidden and that key findings are made. PII certificates are a mechanism for Ministers to withhold highly sensitive material from disclosure in court proceedings, and they can be used in relation to statutory inquiries. It is fundamental that we make sure we get the balance right between ensuring that everybody is duly held to account while at the same time protecting the people who strive every day to keep us safe.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, in relation to my noble friend the Minister’s earlier remarks about the implementation of the recommendations of public inquiries, many of us would have liked to have seen the Leveson 2 recommendations implemented. But I commend the Government for the work they have done on the Hillsborough law, which of course derives directly from the outcome of this sort of public inquiry. Can the Minister update the House on the latest position with regard to the security services and the Hillsborough law?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I think I thank my noble friend for that question. A Statement will be made in the other place this afternoon that will update us. I reassure your Lordships’ House that this Government are completely committed to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Obviously, there are ongoing discussions with key stakeholders, not least the families. My honourable friend in the other place will report this afternoon on next steps.
Arm’s-length Bodies
Debate between Lord Brennan of Canton and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises the most important of points. I assure her that the Cabinet Office is working closely with sponsoring departments to make sure that, while we recognise and want to eliminate duplication, we are not doing so by deleting both functions in one go. We will be very sensitive about how we approach this.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, listening to the other side on this is sometimes reminiscent of the infamous episode of the soap opera “Dallas” in which Bobby Ewing, supposedly dead in a previous series, emerges from the shower because the previous series had all been a dream. When the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was Prime Minister he created 184 new quangos, and between 2018 and 2023 the May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak Governments created 17 more. Is it not nonsense for the other side to criticise this Government, who are making a real effort to abolish these bodies?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question and obviously agree with him. I just want to touch on one of the new bodies criticised by noble Lords opposite. Your Lordships have discussed Great British Railways on many occasions. It is going to replace Network Rail and a DfT operator. It will save £150 million a year in fees paid to the private sector. There is a purpose to what we are doing: to make sure that we have the right arm’s-length bodies where necessary but that we also have appropriate responsibilities and accountability to your Lordships’ House.
Public Sector: Working From Home
Debate between Lord Brennan of Canton and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I think that many general secretaries of trade unions would wish that to be the case. As a former trade union officer, I am very proud that this Government are embedded in and wedded to Labour and trade union values. We are working with our trade unions to deliver a plan for change regarding flexible working and our new normal. Noble Lords will appreciate that we are now five years on from the pandemic, when we had 80% of the workforce working from home. We now have a new normal. We look to what people’s expectations are and how we can deliver on those and on the delivery of our core mission of economic growth, working with all partners, trade unions and employers, to deliver it.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, flexible working can give great benefits to both employees and employers, in the public sector in particular, but will my noble friend consider the importance of making sure that there are times when people do attend work in person where they can, not least to build teamwork and camaraderie, particularly for younger workers who at the beginning of their careers need to benefit from personal, up-close experience with their more senior colleagues?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point. I think most of us in your Lordships’ House benefited from being in workplaces so that we could be mentored and learn from people who are more experienced—I definitely do every day in your Lordships’ House. In terms of making sure that people are working in the office, the easiest example for me to give is the Civil Service. Civil servants are now required, as the previous Government established, to work 60% of their time in office environments to ensure that institutional knowledge is passed on from new starters to those more experienced but also for those more experienced to learn from new approaches to the world in which we live.