1-20 of 109 results for subject:Ministers
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.227 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.006 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Ministers
- We searched for
- subject_t:Ministers OR subject_t:"Government ministers" OR subject_ses:92040
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
Lords second reading. Committee negatived. Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with, Lords third reading. Bill passed.
Lords second reading. Committee negatived. Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with, Lords third reading. Bill passed.
Lords consideration of Commons reasons. Lords amendments 1, 2, 3 and 8 not insisted on.
Lords consideration of Commons reasons. Lords amendments 1, 2, 3 and 8 not insisted on.
Lords report stage second day. Amendment 13A (to amendment 13) agreed to on division (284 to 239). Amendment 13, as amended, agreed to. Amendment 17 agreed to on division (265 to 247). (Part 1 of 2).
Lords report stage second day. Amendment 13A (to amendment 13) agreed to on division (284 to 239). Amendment 13, as amended, agreed to. Amendment 17 agreed to on division (265 to 247). (Part 1 of 2).
Lords committee stage fourth day. (Part 1 of 2).
Lords committee stage fourth day. (Part 1 of 2).
Lords committee stage fourth day. (Part 2 of 2).
Lords committee stage fourth day. (Part 2 of 2).
Lords motion to take note of the current standing of parliamentary democracy and standards in public life. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to take note of the current standing of parliamentary democracy and standards in public life. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to take note of the sixth report of the Constitution Committee on Revision of the Cabinet Manual (HL 34 2021-22). Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to take note of the sixth report of the Constitution Committee on Revision of the Cabinet Manual (HL 34 2021-22). Agreed to on question.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what payments will be made to each of the ministers who recently resigned from the Government; and whether they have plans to introduce legislation to make employers liable for similar payments to those who voluntarily resign from the (1) public, and (2) private, sector.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what payments will be made to each of the ministers who recently resigned from the Government; and whether they have plans to introduce legislation to make employers liable for similar payments to those who voluntarily resign from the (1) public, and (2) private, sector.
Under the provisions of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991, a former minister only becomes entitled to a severance payment in the event that they are not appointed to another relevant office within three weeks of stepping down.
The provision of severance payments is set out in legislation, passed by Parliament, that has been applied by successive administrations over a significant period. Severance pay reflects the unpredictable nature of ministerial office.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made, if any, of the effects of jet-lag on ministerial decision-making at all levels.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made, if any, of the effects of jet-lag on ministerial decision-making at all levels.
Ministers, on occasion, are required to travel abroad for government business to enable the delivery of the government’s objectives. In cases where a Minister is required to travel long distances across time zones, flexibility in internal departmental travel guidance exists to enable ministers to travel more comfortably.
This exists to mitigate the side effects of jet-lag and tiredness and ensure that efficiency, judgement and concentration are not negatively impacted. Departments publish details of overseas flights on a quarterly basis on GOV.UK at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/ministers-transparency-publications.
To ask Her Majesty's Government to list the peers who have been appointed to the House since 2010 to serve as ministers; and, in each case, how long the peer remained in ministerial office.
To ask Her Majesty's Government to list the peers who have been appointed to the House since 2010 to serve as ministers; and, in each case, how long the peer remained in ministerial office.
Life peers are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen to serve in the House of Lords for life, or until they retire from the House. Such peers may continue to provide public service long after they have ceased to be a Minister of the Crown – as the Noble Lord will, I am sure, attest himself.
The Government does not hold this information centrally.
Notwithstanding, to assist the Noble Lord’s scrutiny, the attached list of ministers who were appointed to the House of Lords within a month of appointment to Government has been compiled from information in the public domain. For completeness, we have provided information from 1997 to now.
Lords motion to take note of the impact on the democratic process of any reduction in the standards of behaviour and honesty in political life. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to take note of the impact on the democratic process of any reduction in the standards of behaviour and honesty in political life. Agreed to on question.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the introduction to the latest edition of the Ministerial Code, they will amend the Prime Minister's reference to "my Ministers" to "Her Majesty's Ministers".
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the introduction to the latest edition of the Ministerial Code, they will amend the Prime Minister's reference to "my Ministers" to "Her Majesty's Ministers".
It is customary for the foreword of the Ministerial Code to be refreshed when the Code is re-issued from time to time. The current Ministerial Code was issued only recently on 27 May 2022. As such, there are no plans for a further update.
The code begins in section one with an appropriate reference to Ministers of the Crown and continues in that style.
My Lords, the Government have a responsibility to respond, to consider, and to bring to Parliament the considered results of their reflections on the advice that they are given. As I told the House earlier, the important report that we are discussing was presented last November; we have made some responses and more will follow shortly.
My Lords, the Government have a responsibility to respond, to consider, and to bring to Parliament the considered results of their reflections on the advice that they are given. As I told the House earlier, the important report that we are discussing was presented last November; we have made some responses and more will follow shortly.
My Lords, I think neither of the Prime Ministers mentioned would have behaved in the way that this Prime Minister has. The Prime Minister seems to regard the Ministerial Code as somehow his own personal property or plaything. I think many of us were disappointed by the new introduction, which has no reference to integrity, honour or truth. Given the lack of confidence in this Prime Minister, which permeates into the Government and is so damaging to government that even a majority of his own Back-Benchers have no confidence in him, does the Minister not think he should answer very positively the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Young: that the Government have to respond urgently to the recommendations of the committee and do their best to implement those, otherwise confidence is going to be lost?
My Lords, far be it from me to advise a former Cabinet Secretary on what processes take place within government. There are matters to consider, which are considered by appropriate departments that may be affected. It is not unusual for a period of six months to pass—even in relation to a report from this particular committee. I could cite other cases, but the important thing is that we come forward with a considered response, which is precisely what I have undertaken to do.
My Lords, far be it from me to advise a former Cabinet Secretary on what processes take place within government. There are matters to consider, which are considered by appropriate departments that may be affected. It is not unusual for a period of six months to pass—even in relation to a report from this particular committee. I could cite other cases, but the important thing is that we come forward with a considered response, which is precisely what I have undertaken to do.
My Lords, the Minister says that it is only six months since the committee’s report was published. Why is it taking so long for these recommendations to be considered and what processes are being undertaken to consider them?
My Lords, I am waiting in eager anticipation.
My Lords, I am waiting in eager anticipation.
My Lords, is the Minister surprised that, so far, no Conservative Peer has risen in support of the Prime Minister?
I strongly agree with what my noble friend has said. Of course, the issue of trust runs much wider, as he says, than individuals. We in your Lordships’ House were given a great trust by the British people in the referendum in 2016; can we all answer that we held to that trust promptly and fully?
I strongly agree with what my noble friend has said. Of course, the issue of trust runs much wider, as he says, than individuals. We in your Lordships’ House were given a great trust by the British people in the referendum in 2016; can we all answer that we held to that trust promptly and fully?
My Lords, the other day my doctor prescribed me drugs that she said might cause confusion, depression and panic attacks. I said, “But I am a Tory Back-Bench Peer—how will I know?” Will the Minister cast aside my depression and agree with me that this is not a matter of trust in one individual, one personality; it is not even a matter of trust in one political party, it is a matter of trust in our entire system? Those politicians who regularly use vicious terms of abuse, publicly calling their opponents “liars” or “political scum” simply pour acid over our entire system. We should all condemn the use of such language.
My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to the exchange of correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, and the Prime Minister. In his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, the Prime Minister set out his own sense of his actions—I refer noble Lords to that letter and the way that he has held himself accountable publicly for those actions.
My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to the exchange of correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, and the Prime Minister. In his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, the Prime Minister set out his own sense of his actions—I refer noble Lords to that letter and the way that he has held himself accountable publicly for those actions.
My Lords, I have never used the language that has just been adduced in the previous speaker’s question, but I have used the language that was used by the Prime Minister in the reading that he gave in St Paul’s Cathedral, and would hold all people to account by the standards implicit in the words that he read. Does the Minister agree?
My Lords, it is always dangerous to specify any date in your Lordships’ House. What I will say is that I personally—as do many people across the Government; in fact, the whole Government—view the recommendations and the advice that we receive from independent bodies as of great significance and importance. I hope before too long to come forward with responses on other recommendations. They will not all be in line with the recommendations; for example, the Labour Party has rejected the view that a single ethics commission should not be set up, and is calling for one.
My Lords, it is always dangerous to specify any date in your Lordships’ House. What I will say is that I personally—as do many people across the Government; in fact, the whole Government—view the recommendations and the advice that we receive from independent bodies as of great significance and importance. I hope before too long to come forward with responses on other recommendations. They will not all be in line with the recommendations; for example, the Labour Party has rejected the view that a single ethics commission should not be set up, and is calling for one.
My Lords, the Minister clearly thinks that six months is not enough time to consider the recommendations. He may well be right, but would he like to hazard a guess as to how much more time will be needed before they have been considered?
My Lords, the Government have responded to recommendations on the code. They have made important changes to strengthen the Ministerial Code and the role of the independent adviser on ministerial interests, including an enhanced process for the independent adviser to initiate investigations and new detail on proportionate sanctions for a breach of the code.
My Lords, the Government have responded to recommendations on the code. They have made important changes to strengthen the Ministerial Code and the role of the independent adviser on ministerial interests, including an enhanced process for the independent adviser to initiate investigations and new detail on proportionate sanctions for a breach of the code.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will respond to the recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its report Upholding Standards in Public Life, published on 1 November 2021; and in particular, the recommendations on the Ministerial Code and the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests.
My Lords, in making the changes I have referred to, the Government carefully considered the recommendations made by the committee on those matters in the Upholding Standards in Public Life report, which was published only six months ago, alongside consulting the noble Lord, Lord Geidt. The Government are considering the other matters and will issue a response to the committee’s other recommendations in due course.
My Lords, in making the changes I have referred to, the Government carefully considered the recommendations made by the committee on those matters in the Upholding Standards in Public Life report, which was published only six months ago, alongside consulting the noble Lord, Lord Geidt. The Government are considering the other matters and will issue a response to the committee’s other recommendations in due course.
I am grateful to my noble friend. Does he recall that in its report in November last year, the Committee on Standards in Public Life said that the
“government needs to take a more formal … approach to its own ethics obligations”?
Does he agree that recent events have underlined the importance of the Prime Minister securing the public trust expected of holders of that high office? Will he encourage the Prime Minister to respond constructively to the remaining 25 recommendations that have not been addressed? Will he ask the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision to have a veto on investigations launched by the independent adviser?