1-20 of 39 results for subject:Ministers
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.295 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.007 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
Motion that this House has considered the Government's response to the House’s humble Address of 4 February 2026. Agreed to on question.
Motion that this House has considered the Government's response to the House’s humble Address of 4 February 2026. Agreed to on question.
Speaker's statement on the conduct and procedure of the Privilege motion debate. Motion that this House: (1) notes the Rt hon Member for Holborn and St Pancras's assurances on the floor of the House about "full due process" being followed in the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America, in particular (but not limited to) answers given on 10 September 2025, 4 February and 22 April 2026, further notes his assertion on 20 April 2026 that he "had made it clear that my position was that the position was subject to developed vetting" and his assertions that "Sir Olly Robbins was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment" and that "No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case" on 22 April 2026; and (2) accordingly orders that these matters be referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether, in making these and other related statements, the Rt hon Member may have misled the House, and whether such conduct amounts to a contempt of the House, bearing in mind the standards expected of Ministers as set out in the House's own resolution on Ministerial Accountability and the Ministerial Code. Negatived on division (223 to 335).
Speaker's statement on the conduct and procedure of the Privilege motion debate. Motion that this House: (1) notes the Rt hon Member for Holborn and St Pancras's assurances on the floor of the House about "full due process" being followed in the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the...
Allocation of time motion. Second reading agreed to on question. Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Allocation of time motion. Second reading agreed to on question. Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to his Department's data entitled Cabinet Office ministerial overseas travel, July to September 2023, published on 21 March 2024, how much of the £28,700 costs incurred by the Deputy Prime Minister for his visit to New York from 19 to...
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to his Department's data entitled Cabinet Office ministerial overseas travel, July to September 2023, published on 21 March 2024, how much of the £28,700 costs incurred by the Deputy Prime Minister for his visit to New York from 19 to...
The total cost of the RAF flight used for the journey to New York on 19 September 2023 includes the costs arising from the movement of military personnel.
Costs for the full trip were outlined in the ministerial travel data entitled Cabinet Office ministerial overseas travel, July to September 2023, published on 21 March 2024.
Agreed to on question.
Agreed to on question.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on how many occasions Ministers have settled defamation or libel proceedings in their official capacity as a Minister of the Crown since 2001; and whether there has been a cost to the public purse of settlements in such cases.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on how many occasions Ministers have settled defamation or libel proceedings in their official capacity as a Minister of the Crown since 2001; and whether there has been a cost to the public purse of settlements in such cases.
I refer the Hon. Member to my answer on 12th March 2024 (UIN 17709).
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on how many individual occasions the provision of legal support has been (a) authorised and (b) declined on claims for (i) defamation and (ii) libel connected with the official duties of Ministers of the Crown since 19 December 2019.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on how many individual occasions the provision of legal support has been (a) authorised and (b) declined on claims for (i) defamation and (ii) libel connected with the official duties of Ministers of the Crown since 19 December 2019.
In line with the established practice under multiple administrations of all political colours, Ministers are provided with legal support and representation where matters relate to their conduct and responsibilities as a Minister.
Statistics relating to costs of settling claims, costs of legal support, and the number of times the provision of legal support has been authorised or declined are not maintained by the Cabinet Office. Funding for appropriate legal costs, including any out-of-court settlements, would be met by the relevant department's budget.
As set out in Chapter 6 of the Cabinet Manual, Ministers are indemnified by the Crown for any actions taken against them for things done or decisions made in the course of their ministerial duties. The indemnity covers the cost of defending the proceedings, as well as any costs or damages awarded against the minister. Decisions about whether to provide legal support are made by the relevant department’s Accounting Officer.
This reflects an important principle that Ministers should be able to carry out their official duties, supported by official advice, in a way which they see fit, without the risk of personal liability constraining their ability to take those official actions. Of course, Ministers remain accountable to Parliament and the wider public for their actions as a Minister.
It would have a chilling effect on public life if Ministers faced the prospect of personal financial harm from those seeking to pressure the Government through vexatious or hostile litigation (or the threat thereof).
More broadly, the principle of legal support from the public purse for official duties is not confined to government. I would observe that there is insurance available to MPs provided by the House at taxpayers’ expense, designed to protect hon. Members when carrying out parliamentary and constituency duties. This includes professional indemnity insurance that covers defamation. I also note that the House of Lords Commission is due this week to discuss the provision of professional indemnity insurance to peers.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether it is the Government's policy to pay (a) legal costs and (b) damages in relation to allegedly defamatory comments made by Ministers.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether it is the Government's policy to pay (a) legal costs and (b) damages in relation to allegedly defamatory comments made by Ministers.
In line with the established practice under multiple administrations of all political colours, Ministers are provided with legal support and representation where matters relate to their conduct and responsibilities as a Minister.
Statistics relating to costs of settling claims, costs of legal support, and the number of times the provision of legal support has been authorised or declined are not maintained by the Cabinet Office. Funding for appropriate legal costs, including any out-of-court settlements, would be met by the relevant department's budget.
As set out in Chapter 6 of the Cabinet Manual, Ministers are indemnified by the Crown for any actions taken against them for things done or decisions made in the course of their ministerial duties. The indemnity covers the cost of defending the proceedings, as well as any costs or damages awarded against the minister. Decisions about whether to provide legal support are made by the relevant department’s Accounting Officer.
This reflects an important principle that Ministers should be able to carry out their official duties, supported by official advice, in a way which they see fit, without the risk of personal liability constraining their ability to take those official actions. Of course, Ministers remain accountable to Parliament and the wider public for their actions as a Minister.
It would have a chilling effect on public life if Ministers faced the prospect of personal financial harm from those seeking to pressure the Government through vexatious or hostile litigation (or the threat thereof).
More broadly, the principle of legal support from the public purse for official duties is not confined to government. I would observe that there is insurance available to MPs provided by the House at taxpayers’ expense, designed to protect hon. Members when carrying out parliamentary and constituency duties. This includes professional indemnity insurance that covers defamation. I also note that the House of Lords Commission is due this week to discuss the provision of professional indemnity insurance to peers.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what the total cost to the public purse was of legal support provided to Ministers of the Crown in relation to claims for (a) defamation and (b) libel connected with their official duties since 19 December 2019.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what the total cost to the public purse was of legal support provided to Ministers of the Crown in relation to claims for (a) defamation and (b) libel connected with their official duties since 19 December 2019.
In line with the established practice under multiple administrations of all political colours, Ministers are provided with legal support and representation where matters relate to their conduct and responsibilities as a Minister.
Statistics relating to costs of settling claims, costs of legal support, and the number of times the provision of legal support has been authorised or declined are not maintained by the Cabinet Office. Funding for appropriate legal costs, including any out-of-court settlements, would be met by the relevant department's budget.
As set out in Chapter 6 of the Cabinet Manual, Ministers are indemnified by the Crown for any actions taken against them for things done or decisions made in the course of their ministerial duties. The indemnity covers the cost of defending the proceedings, as well as any costs or damages awarded against the minister. Decisions about whether to provide legal support are made by the relevant department’s Accounting Officer.
This reflects an important principle that Ministers should be able to carry out their official duties, supported by official advice, in a way which they see fit, without the risk of personal liability constraining their ability to take those official actions. Of course, Ministers remain accountable to Parliament and the wider public for their actions as a Minister.
It would have a chilling effect on public life if Ministers faced the prospect of personal financial harm from those seeking to pressure the Government through vexatious or hostile litigation (or the threat thereof).
More broadly, the principle of legal support from the public purse for official duties is not confined to government. I would observe that there is insurance available to MPs provided by the House at taxpayers’ expense, designed to protect hon. Members when carrying out parliamentary and constituency duties. This includes professional indemnity insurance that covers defamation. I also note that the House of Lords Commission is due this week to discuss the provision of professional indemnity insurance to peers.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what the cost to the public purse is for settling claims for (a) defamation and (b) libel by Ministers since 19 December 2019.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what the cost to the public purse is for settling claims for (a) defamation and (b) libel by Ministers since 19 December 2019.
In line with the established practice under multiple administrations of all political colours, Ministers are provided with legal support and representation where matters relate to their conduct and responsibilities as a Minister.
Statistics relating to costs of settling claims, costs of legal support, and the number of times the provision of legal support has been authorised or declined are not maintained by the Cabinet Office. Funding for appropriate legal costs, including any out-of-court settlements, would be met by the relevant department's budget.
As set out in Chapter 6 of the Cabinet Manual, Ministers are indemnified by the Crown for any actions taken against them for things done or decisions made in the course of their ministerial duties. The indemnity covers the cost of defending the proceedings, as well as any costs or damages awarded against the minister. Decisions about whether to provide legal support are made by the relevant department’s Accounting Officer.
This reflects an important principle that Ministers should be able to carry out their official duties, supported by official advice, in a way which they see fit, without the risk of personal liability constraining their ability to take those official actions. Of course, Ministers remain accountable to Parliament and the wider public for their actions as a Minister.
It would have a chilling effect on public life if Ministers faced the prospect of personal financial harm from those seeking to pressure the Government through vexatious or hostile litigation (or the threat thereof).
More broadly, the principle of legal support from the public purse for official duties is not confined to government. I would observe that there is insurance available to MPs provided by the House at taxpayers’ expense, designed to protect hon. Members when carrying out parliamentary and constituency duties. This includes professional indemnity insurance that covers defamation. I also note that the House of Lords Commission is due this week to discuss the provision of professional indemnity insurance to peers.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, from what budget (a) legal fees for defamation cases brought against ministers and (b) settlement in such cases will come.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, from what budget (a) legal fees for defamation cases brought against ministers and (b) settlement in such cases will come.
In line with the established practice under multiple administrations of all political colours, Ministers are provided with legal support and representation where matters relate to their conduct and responsibilities as a Minister.
Statistics relating to costs of settling claims, costs of legal support, and the number of times the provision of legal support has been authorised or declined are not maintained by the Cabinet Office. Funding for appropriate legal costs, including any out-of-court settlements, would be met by the relevant department's budget.
As set out in Chapter 6 of the Cabinet Manual, Ministers are indemnified by the Crown for any actions taken against them for things done or decisions made in the course of their ministerial duties. The indemnity covers the cost of defending the proceedings, as well as any costs or damages awarded against the minister. Decisions about whether to provide legal support are made by the relevant department’s Accounting Officer.
This reflects an important principle that Ministers should be able to carry out their official duties, supported by official advice, in a way which they see fit, without the risk of personal liability constraining their ability to take those official actions. Of course, Ministers remain accountable to Parliament and the wider public for their actions as a Minister.
It would have a chilling effect on public life if Ministers faced the prospect of personal financial harm from those seeking to pressure the Government through vexatious or hostile litigation (or the threat thereof).
More broadly, the principle of legal support from the public purse for official duties is not confined to government. I would observe that there is insurance available to MPs provided by the House at taxpayers’ expense, designed to protect hon. Members when carrying out parliamentary and constituency duties. This includes professional indemnity insurance that covers defamation. I also note that the House of Lords Commission is due this week to discuss the provision of professional indemnity insurance to peers.
What guidance his Department has issued to (a) Ministers and (b) staff on maintaining the confidentiality of official documents after they leave office.
What guidance his Department has issued to (a) Ministers and (b) staff on maintaining the confidentiality of official documents after they leave office.
In addition to the requirements set out in the Ministerial Code, Ministers are reminded on leaving office of their ongoing duty of confidentiality and the Official Secrets Act.
Departments and agencies are obliged to remind those who leave the civil service that they remain subject to the requirement in Civil Service Code not to disclose official information without authority, which continues to apply after leaving their role, as well as the Official Secrets Act.
The Civil Service Management Code sets out more detail on the requirements on civil servants with regards to maintaining confidentiality, including key principles (section 4.1.3.a.) and standards (4.2.4), and the obligations on departments and agencies (4.2.1).
Until this moment I had not thought of drawing up a list, but as the hon. Lady will have heard us say on a number of occasions, artificial intelligence provides a remarkable opportunity to create supplementary capacity and capability for the civil service and the Government. I have been very pleased to pilot a new programme called “red box”, devised by a fantastic young crack AI team, which summarises long documents and makes the work of my private office easier. However, it is enhancing capability, not replacing it.
Until this moment I had not thought of drawing up a list, but as the hon. Lady will have heard us say on a number of occasions, artificial intelligence provides a remarkable opportunity to create supplementary capacity and capability for the civil service and the Government. I have been very pleased to pilot a new programme called “red box”, devised by a fantastic young crack AI team, which summarises long documents and makes the work of my private office easier. However, it is enhancing capability, not replacing it.
T5
.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab):
Given that Ministers are piloting the use of artificial intelligence in Departments to answer parliamentary questions, which Ministers will the Secretary of State wish to replace first?
Fourth opposition day debate (part two). Motion that this House calls on the Government to immediately introduce legislation to amend the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 to ensure that — (i) departing Ministers who have not attained the age of sixty-five receive an amount equal to one-quarter of their earnings over the previous twelve months as a Minister, minus any period covered by a previous severance entitlement, where that is lower than an amount equal to one-quarter of the annual salary paid to that Minister before their departure; (ii) any person who returns to ministerial office after three weeks but within the period equivalent to the number of days of salary that they were paid in severance must return the corresponding amount of their severance payment; (iii) no person departing ministerial office while under investigation for allegations of gross misconduct or breaching the ministerial code will be entitled to a severance payment unless and until they are cleared of those allegations by the relevant authority; and makes provision as set out in this Order, to take effect unless such a Bill has been introduced by no later than Monday 26 February 2024. Timetable for the Bill on Tuesday 27 February 2024. Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Tuesday 27 February 2024. Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day. Reasons committee and Miscellaneous. Question negatived on division (192 to 275).
Fourth opposition day debate (part two). Motion that this House calls on the Government to immediately introduce legislation to amend the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 to ensure that — (i) departing Ministers who have not attained the age of sixty-five receive an amount equal to one-quarter...
Agreed to on question.
Agreed to on question.
The Cabinet Office does not hold data centrally regarding personal smartphone use. We are committed to ensuring that Government business is conducted securely and to supporting individuals in meeting their security responsibilities. In March last year, we published guidance concerning the use of non-corporate communication channels for Government business, which set out considerations around the use of private devices.
The Cabinet Office does not hold data centrally regarding personal smartphone use. We are committed to ensuring that Government business is conducted securely and to supporting individuals in meeting their security responsibilities. In March last year, we published guidance concerning the use of non-corporate communication channels for Government business, which set out considerations around the use of private devices.
What recent assessment he has made of the prevalence of the use of personal smartphones for conducting government business by Ministers and officials.
The right hon. Gentleman raised important points. I draw his attention to the document we published last year: “Using non-corporate communication channels (e.g. WhatsApp, private email, SMS) for government business”. I think he will be particularly interested in the summary table on page two.
The right hon. Gentleman raised important points. I draw his attention to the document we published last year: “Using non-corporate communication channels (e.g. WhatsApp, private email, SMS) for government business”. I think he will be particularly interested in the summary table on page two.
I may be part of a very small and shrinking group, but I think it is sensible that Ministers, officials and advisers should be able to share their thinking and thoughts in private on occasion. However, the truth of matter is that the constant drip of stories—whether about Boris Johnson, Nicola Sturgeon or anybody else—and WhatsApp messages not being available to hold people accountable, is harming public confidence in government and politics. Will the Minister look again at this to see how we can have good, accountable and transparent government?
What recent assessment he has made of the prevalence of the use of personal smartphones for conducting government business by Ministers and officials.
What recent assessment he has made of the prevalence of the use of personal smartphones for conducting government business by Ministers and officials.
The Cabinet Office does not hold data centrally regarding personal smartphone use. We are committed to ensuring that Government business is conducted securely and to supporting individuals in meeting their security responsibilities. In March last year, we published guidance concerning the use of non-corporate communication channels for Government business, which set out considerations around the use of private devices.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, when the Independent Adviser on Ministers' Interests plans to publish an update to Lord Cameron's entry in the List of Ministers’ Interests
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, when the Independent Adviser on Ministers' Interests plans to publish an update to Lord Cameron's entry in the List of Ministers’ Interests
The latest List of Ministers’ Interests was published on 14 December and can be viewed at the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/list-of-ministers-interests
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many (a) current and (b) former government ministers have been interviewed by the (i) National Crime Agency, (ii) Serious Fraud Office and (iii) National Investigation Service as part of investigations relating to covid-19 (A) procurement and (B) fraud as of 29...
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many (a) current and (b) former government ministers have been interviewed by the (i) National Crime Agency, (ii) Serious Fraud Office and (iii) National Investigation Service as part of investigations relating to covid-19 (A) procurement and (B) fraud as of 29...
This information is not held by the Cabinet Office. I can, however, reassure the Honourable Lady that the Government will always assist with any investigations these agencies may be undertaking.