1-20 of 48 results for subject:Defamation
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.273 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.003 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Defamation
- We searched for
- subject_t:Defamation OR subject_t:Calumny OR subject_t:Libel OR subject_t:Slander OR subject_ses:90840
Type
House
Session
Month
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
The first act of the Prime Minister was to promise a Government of professionalism and integrity, yet here we have a Secretary of State who uses her position to accuse a British scientist of being a terrorist sympathiser. She goes on to use public money to settle her libel case and then she tries to cover up just how much taxpayers’ money she has wasted. Are those the actions of someone with integrity and professionalism—yes or no?
The first act of the Prime Minister was to promise a Government of professionalism and integrity, yet here we have a Secretary of State who uses her position to accuse a British scientist of being a terrorist sympathiser. She goes on to use public money to settle her libel case and then she tries to cover up just how much taxpayers’ money she has wasted. Are those the actions of someone with integrity and professionalism—yes or no?
As the Minister responsible for UK Research and Innovation, I was alerted to a tweet by officials in my Department, which stated, “This is disturbing”
and to the comment:
“Suella Braverman urges police to crack down on Hamas support in UK”,
with no further context or wording. That was posted by a representative of an equality, diversity and inclusion board that sits under UKRI. At the time, like many others, I was indeed concerned and used the forum that the person used to alert UKRI to my concerns. This was highlighted using that medium, but on receipt of the letter, UKRI itself said that it was deeply concerned and launched an investigation.
As the Minister responsible for UK Research and Innovation, I was alerted to a tweet by officials in my Department, which stated, “This is disturbing”
and to the comment:
“Suella Braverman urges police to crack down on Hamas support in UK”,
with no further context or wording. That was posted by a representative of an equality, diversity and inclusion board that sits under UKRI. At the time, like many others, I was indeed concerned and used the forum that the person used to alert UKRI to my concerns. This was highlighted using that medium, but on receipt of the letter, UKRI itself said that it was deeply concerned and launched an investigation.
As the Minister responsible for UK Research and Innovation, I was alerted to a tweet by officials in my Department, which stated, “This is disturbing”
and to the comment:
“Suella Braverman urges police to crack down on Hamas support in UK”,
with no further context or wording. That was posted by a representative of an equality, diversity and inclusion board that sits under UKRI. At the time, like many others, I was indeed concerned and used the forum that the person used to alert UKRI to my concerns. This was highlighted using that medium, but on receipt of the letter, UKRI itself said that it was deeply concerned and launched an investigation.
The first act of the Prime Minister was to promise a Government of professionalism and integrity, yet here we have a Secretary of State who uses her position to accuse a British scientist of being a terrorist sympathiser. She goes on to use public money to settle her libel case and then she tries to cover up just how much taxpayers’ money she has wasted. Are those the actions of someone with integrity and professionalism—yes or no?
At the Lords Science and Technology Committee, the Secretary of State said there had been no surveillance of academics in that case. What was the evidence, then, on which she based her decision to write to the UKRI chief executive?
At the Lords Science and Technology Committee, the Secretary of State said there had been no surveillance of academics in that case. What was the evidence, then, on which she based her decision to write to the UKRI chief executive?
I have answered that multiple times. An official alerted me to those concerns. I then saw the tweet myself and asked the Department for further advice.
I have answered that multiple times. An official alerted me to those concerns. I then saw the tweet myself and asked the Department for further advice.
I have answered that multiple times. An official alerted me to those concerns. I then saw the tweet myself and asked the Department for further advice.
At the Lords Science and Technology Committee, the Secretary of State said there had been no surveillance of academics in that case. What was the evidence, then, on which she based her decision to write to the UKRI chief executive?
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in her Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b) their official position...
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in her Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b) their official position...
I am unable to confirm the details asked for, as this would contravene paragraph 2.13 of the Ministerial Code, which prevents disclosure of the fact that the Law Officers have advised or have not advised and the content of their advice without their authority.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions have ministers in his department informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b) their official position...
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions have ministers in his department informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b) their official position...
As set out in paragraph 2.13 of the Ministerial Code: “The fact that the Law Officers have advised or have not advised and the content of their advice must not be disclosed outside Government without their authority”. As a result, the Government is unable to provide the details requested.
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 Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, whether it is the Department's policy to pay (a) legal costs and (b) damages in relation to allegedly defamatory comments made by Ministers.
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, whether it is the Department's policy to pay (a) legal costs and (b) damages in relation to allegedly defamatory comments made by Ministers.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer of 13 March 2024, Official Report, PQ 17407.
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions have Ministers in her department informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b)...
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions have Ministers in her department informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b)...
DCMS has no record of the information requested.
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in her Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b)...
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in her Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b)...
As has been the practice under successive Governments, it is not the convention to comment on where the Law Officers have, or have not been, informed or advised on such legal matters. This is reflected in paragraph 2.13 of the Ministerial Code.
To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in his Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity,...
To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in his Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity,...
I refer the Hon Member to paragraph 2.13 of the Ministerial Code which states: “The fact that the Law Officers have advised or have not advised and the content of their advice must not be disclosed outside Government without their authority”.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions have Ministers in her Department informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b)...
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions have Ministers in her Department informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b)...
The Department is unable to confirm this information as any advice provided by the Law Officers and the content thereof cannot be disclosed without their authority.
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in his Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b) their official position...
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in his Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b) their official position...
As per paragraph 2.13 of the Ministerial Code, it is not possible to disclose whether Law Officers have or have not provided advice on such matters. Paragraph 2.13 states: “The fact that the Law Officers have advised or have not advised and the content of their advice must not be disclosed outside Government without their authority”.
To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in her Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b) their official position...
To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in her Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b) their official position...
Paragraph 2.13 of the Ministerial Code states: “The fact that the Law Officers have advised or have not advised and the content of their advice must not be disclosed outside Government without their authority”, therefore we are unable to provide the details requested.
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 Secretary of State for Wales, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in his Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b) their official position...
To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in his Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b) their official position...
As per paragraph 2.13 of the Ministerial Code, it is not possible to disclose whether Law Officers have or have not provided advice on such matters. Paragraph 2.13 states: “The fact that the Law Officers have advised or have not advised, and the content of their advice must not be disclosed outside Government without their authority”.
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 Attorney General, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions the Law Officers have been informed that ministers in other Government departments are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b) their official position and (c)...
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions the Law Officers have been informed that ministers in other Government departments are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b) their official position and (c)...
I cannot answer your question as to do so would be in breach of the Law Officers’ Convention.
Paragraph 2.13 of the Ministerial Code clearly states that the fact that the Law Officers have advised or have not advised and the content of their advice must not be disclosed outside Government without their authority.
To ask the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in his Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b)...
To ask the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in his Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b)...
The FCDO are unable to confirm these details in line with paragraph 2.13 of the Ministerial Code which states: "The fact that the Law Officers have advised or have not advised and the content of their advice must not be disclosed outside Government without their authority."
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in his Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b) their official position...
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the Ministerial Code, on how many occasions Ministers in his Department have informed the Law Officers that they are the defendants in a libel action in (a) their personal capacity, (b) their official position...
The Ministerial Code also states, at paragraph 2.13: “The fact that the Law Officers have advised or have not advised and the content of their advice must not be disclosed outside Government without their authority.” Paragraph 2.13 covers whether a minister has notified the Law Officers of a personal role in litigation.