Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Civil Servants and Ministerial Policy Advisers: Security

Cabinet Office written question – answered on 31st October 2019.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Nicholas Dakin Nicholas Dakin Opposition Whip (Commons)

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to the Answer of 30 September 2019 to Question 290323 on Civil Servants and Ministerial Policy Advisers, the Answer of 7 October 2019 to Question 291490 on Democracy: Subversion and pursuant to the Answer of 21 October 2019 to Question 529 on Ministerial Policy Advisers, what assessment he has made of compliance by (a) officials and (b) special advisers that (i) developed and (ii) recommended proposals on the unlawful prorogation of Parliament with National Security vetting requirements in relation to activities intended to undermine Parliamentary democracy by political means.

Photo of Oliver Dowden Oliver Dowden Paymaster General (HM Treasury), Minister of State (Cabinet Office)

Over and above routine security practices in place for vetted individuals, no further assessment has been made. In relation to the decision to prorogue Parliament, at all times the Government acted in the good faith and belief that its approach was both lawful and constitutional.

With regards to security practices, it would be inappropriate to comment on the compliance of any individual as to their National Security Vetting outside of the proper channels for doing so; these being internal to the security vetting regime. All such channels are confidential in order to ensure the integrity of the process, and the privacy and confidentiality of the subject(s).

Does this answer the above question?

Yes0 people think so

No0 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.