Category: Parliament

  • Michael Gove – 2021 Statement on Digital Delivery

    Michael Gove – 2021 Statement on Digital Delivery

    The statement made by Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the House of Commons on 22 July 2021.

    The covid-19 pandemic has strained our country’s resilience like nothing we have seen out of wartime, and the public have endured huge sacrifices. Our mission now is to respond by transforming the country for the better, levelling up, and making opportunity more equal. To achieve these changes, Government must be reformed.

    The recently published “Declaration on Government Reform”, set out a plan for the renewal and rewiring of Government, as a means to deliver the better Britain that the public demands and deserves. As part of its focus on improving performance, the declaration committed to improving the cross-Government functions and strengthening standards and spending controls, to ensure the Government are delivering both excellence and value for money.

    The Government are today publishing two independent and separate reports which each contain recommendations on how to improve the cross-Government functions and digital delivery. These two reports are:

    1. A review of the cross-cutting functions and the operation of spend controls, by the right hon. Lord Maude of Horsham; and

    2. Organising for digital delivery report presented to the Digital Economy Council.

    Lord Maude’s advice and the “Organising for Digital Delivery” report presented to the Digital Economy Council are critical to driving reform activity within the cross-Government functions, and the reports were invaluable input in finalising the commitments and actions in the declaration.

    Lord Maude’s recommendations are centred around a strong functional model with three essential elements of leadership, capability and mandate. Strong progress is being made on the functional reform activity, overseen by myself and Lord Agnew, and a board chaired by Alex Chisholm, the chief operating officer for the civil service. Some examples of progress so far include:

    New leadership put in place for the digital data and technology function, as announced in January this year. This included the establishment of the central digital and data office to work with the Government digital service and lead the digital, data and technology function for Government, also taking on responsibility for the Government automation taskforce.

    The Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s publication of its mandate in January, which sets out clearly its own responsibilities and those of departmental accounting officers for major Government projects and programmes. This is critical to making sure they are set up for success from the outset, supporting the Government to meet their ambitions.

    Steps have been taken to strengthen spending controls, and increase their reach and effectiveness. More organisations are now in scope and the controls are being applied more consistently within Departments.

    Lord Maude’s report advises on the need to set in train (or complete, where already underway) assessment and accreditation programmes; multiple functions are actively exploring how this should be achieved. Investment in professional expertise, recognising its importance, will be an integral part of Government functions. For example, the training and accreditation of contract managers across Government is being led by the Government commercial function, which is critical to driving excellent value for money for taxpayers.

    We are implementing a programme of modernisation to strengthen and unify the communications profession across Government, to provide more efficient, responsive and effective communication which delivers Government priorities with one voice. This will build fulfilling careers for people and allow us to attract and develop the best talent.

    The shared services strategy for Government was published in March 2021. Following Lord Maude’s advice, and working across Government, a core element of the strategy is the plan to consolidate all back office services into a maximum of five centres. This will achieve better quality services for staff, better people data and reduced cost, encouraging greater collaboration and improving interoperability across Government.

    Copies of both reports have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  • Chloe Smith – 2021 Statement on the Boardman Review

    Chloe Smith – 2021 Statement on the Boardman Review

    The statement made by Chloe Smith, the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, in the House of Commons on 22 July 2021.

    On 12 April, the Government announced that the Prime Minister had asked Nigel Boardman to investigate the development and use of supply chain finance in Government, especially the role of Lex Greensill and Greensill Capital (including associated companies or companies in its group) and any related issues that Mr Boardman considered were in scope.

    In accordance with the terms of reference, Mr Boardman has provided the Prime Minister with a report which sets out Mr Boardman’s findings of fact. This was provided to the Prime Minister yesterday and is being made available to the House today.

    In producing this report, Mr Boardman interviewed 45 individuals, for a total of over 100 hours. Mr Boardman had access to all the papers he requested, totalling several thousand pages of written evidence. This is a non-statutory review, but in line with long-standing convention, the Prime Minister made clear at the outset his expectation that all Ministers, special advisers and civil servants, whether current or former, should co-operate fully. Those individuals who participated, or their personal representative where applicable, were provided with relevant documents to assist their evidence. They were then offered the opportunity to discuss the relevant documents and provide any comment during an interview with Mr Boardman. These comments were considered, in good faith, as part of the review.

    The purpose of the review was to establish the facts and any lessons to be learnt. As set out in the terms of reference, the review does not form part of a disciplinary process, nor is it intended to apportion blame or criticism to individuals. In establishing and setting out the facts, however, Mr Boardman attributes actions to named individuals, some of which could be read as critical of individuals. Where this is the case, the individuals concerned, or their personal representative where applicable, were given the opportunity ahead of the report being finalised to make representations on those sections of the report that could be perceived as criticisms to correct factual inaccuracies.

    The Government thank Mr Boardman for all of his work in examining the evidence and setting out his judgement on the facts of what occurred. Mr Boardman will be providing the second part of his report, including any specific recommendations, shortly. The Government will respond to Mr Boardman’s findings, and any recommendations, in due course.

    I am depositing a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses, and publishing it on gov.uk.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2021 Statement on Government Not Announcing NHS Pay Rise in Commons

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2021 Statement on Government Not Announcing NHS Pay Rise in Commons

    The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 22 July 2021.

    Before I call the Minister to make his statement, I have to say that I am far from happy that yesterday the House heard from a Health Minister giving an update with no mention at all of the NHS pay deal, which is a point of great political interest. I find it hard to believe that any negotiations were still going on beyond that time. I urge the Government again to ensure that the House is the first, not the last, to know. It is not my fault that the Secretary of State got pinged, and if he wants to make announcements from his garden, he can do so, but somebody could have been here and Ministers could have shared that information with us. Glorying in the sunshine should not detract from this House hearing an announcement when it is made. It matters to all of us—we all have hospitals in our constituencies, and we all have constituents who work for the NHS, so the clear message once again is that this House should be told. Now then, let us come to a man who has come to the House to make a statement. I call Minister Nadhim Zahawi to make a statement.

  • Dawn Butler – 2021 Speech in the House of Commons [Calling Boris Johnson a Liar]

    Dawn Butler – 2021 Speech in the House of Commons [Calling Boris Johnson a Liar]

    The speech made by Dawn Butler, the Labour MP for Brent Central, in the House of Commons on 22 July 2021.

    The last 18 months have been a tale of the good, the bad and the ugly.

    The good is that the people of Brent and elsewhere have joined together to form mutual aid groups, religions have come together to find common ground, and strangers are now firm friends. The bad is this Government’s catastrophic handling of the pandemic, the mixed messages, the corruption in plain sight, the authoritarian laws and the erosion of our democracy. And the ugly is that racism in society has reared its ugly head, spurred on by Government reports and the hyping up of the culture war and the war on woke.

    While the NHS was coping with 130,000 people dying from the pandemic, the Prime Minister was making his mates rich. Cronyism is rife and old chums are given jobs regardless of their skillset—some a little bit on the side. This has been one big experiment for this corrupt, authoritarian, racism-laden Government, and I am not scared of saying it like it is.

    The Government said we need to talk about class, so let us do it. Let us call out this toxic elitism once and for all. Byline Times, the Good Law Project, Novara Media, openDemocracy, Amnesty and Liberty have all exposed the Government, and the Government’s response is to spend public money defending the indefensible.

    It is funny how there is no money for NHS staff, yet £1 billion of covid contracts have been awarded to Conservative donors. We were told that Ministers were not involved, but then the Good Law Project exposed emails from the Prime Minister’s advisers and the Home Secretary lobbying for money. The corrupt, authoritarian approach of this Government would be condemned and investigated if it were happening anywhere else in the world.

    The 1% believe they owe nothing to society. They do not believe in the NHS, and they do not support it. This week I spoke to Orwell Foundation youth writer Manal Nadeem. She wrote:

    “Let anti-racism be both common logic and law. May we have more accountability than apologies. May performative, placeholder posts be followed by policy… When the future arrives, let the minimum wage be a liveable wage… Let survival be a birthright… When the poor cannot pay with anything else, let us not ask them to pay with their lives.”

    Poor people in our country have paid with their lives because the Prime Minister spent the last 18 months misleading this House and the country.

    Peter Stefanovic from the Communication Workers Union has a video with more than 27 million views online. In it he highlights that the Prime Minister says: that the economy has grown by 73%—it is just not true; that he has reinstated nursing bursaries—just not true; that there is not a covid app working anywhere in the world—just not true; and that the Tories invested £34 billion in the NHS—not true. The Prime Minister said

    “we have severed the link between infection and serious disease and death.”

    Not only is that not true but it is dangerous.

    It is dangerous to lie during a pandemic, and I am disappointed that the Prime Minister has not come to the House to correct the record and correct the fact that he has lied to this House and the country over and over again.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)

    Order. I am sure the hon. Lady will reflect on her words and perhaps correct the record.

    Dawn Butler

    What would you rather, Madam Deputy Speaker, a weakened leg or a severed leg? At the end of the day, the Prime Minister has lied to this House time and time again. It is funny that we get in trouble in this place for calling out the lie rather than for lying.

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. Can you please reflect on your words and withdraw your remarks?

    Dawn Butler

    Madam Deputy Speaker, I have reflected on my words. Somebody needs to tell the truth in this House that the Prime Minister has lied.

    The Deputy Speaker ordered Dawn Butler, Member for Brent Central, to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of the day’s sitting (Standing Order No. 43), and the Member withdrew accordingly.

  • Adam Holloway – 2021 Personal Statement on Interference with Judicial Process

    Adam Holloway – 2021 Personal Statement on Interference with Judicial Process

    The statement made by Adam Holloway, the Conservative MP for Gravesham, in the House of Commons on 22 July 2021.

    I wish to apologise to the House. Yesterday, the Committee on Standards adjudged that I and four other MPs were wrong to write a joint letter to two senior judges, copied to the judge who was hearing a case, which was followed by further letters to the Lord Chief Justice and the case judge, to try to influence the way personal references in court cases were made public. I now know it was improper to do so. I regret that and repeat and emphasise my apology.

  • Michael Gove – 2021 Statement on English Votes for English Laws

    Michael Gove – 2021 Statement on English Votes for English Laws

    The statement made by Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the House of Commons on 12 July 2021.

    Today, I am informing the House that the Government intend to bring forward a motion for the House of Commons to consider whether to amend the Standing Orders to remove the English Votes for English Laws procedure from the legislative process in the House of Commons.

    The English Votes for English Laws procedure, which was introduced in 2015, amended the legislative process for the purpose of providing MPs representing English constituencies—or those representing English and Welsh constituencies—the opportunity to have an additional say on matters that applied to England—or England and Wales only.

    It also applies to legislation introducing a tax measure that affects only England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which must be approved by a majority of MPs representing constituencies in those areas.

    The English Votes procedure does not apply to the legislative process in the House of Lords, although it is the case that amendments made in the Lords which apply to England—or England and Wales—only are subject to a double majority vote in the House of Commons.

    The procedure was introduced as more powers were being devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Senedd but does not reflect the unique nature of the UK Parliament and the principle that all parts of the UK should be, and are, represented equally in the UK Parliament.

    The introduction of the procedure in 2015 added additional stages to the legislative process in Parliament and in doing so introduced complexity to our arrangements and has not served our Parliament well. This Standing Order reform is a sensible change that will ensure the effective operation of the legislative process.

    Removing English Votes for English Laws does not change the fact that MPs with constituencies in England—and indeed MPs who represent constituencies across the UK—have a strong voice and role in the UK Parliament.

    It is a fundamental principle that all constituent parts of the United Kingdom should be equally represented in Parliament, and Parliament should deliver for the whole UK. The operation of this procedure—and the constraints on the role of certain MPs—does not support this aim.

    Rather than maintain this procedure, the Government shall on 13 July bring forward a motion in the House of Commons so that MPs can debate whether the English Votes procedure should be removed from the legislative process.

  • Thangam Debbonaire – 2021 Comments on the Return of Rob Roberts

    Thangam Debbonaire – 2021 Comments on the Return of Rob Roberts

    The comments made by Thangam Debbonaire, the Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, on 13 July 2021.

    Most people found to have sexually harassed their staff would expect to lose their job.

    But because of a procedural anomaly and the Conservatives’ refusal to act, Rob Roberts’ constituents are being denied the chance to decide whether or not they want him as their MP.

    Labour has proposed a change to close this loophole but the Government is inexplicably blocking it. Yet again, they seem to think it is one rule for them and another for everyone else.

  • Angela Rayner – 2021 Comments on the Personal Conduct of Michael Gove

    Angela Rayner – 2021 Comments on the Personal Conduct of Michael Gove

    The comments made by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, on 29 June 2021.

    Michael Gove has contradicted himself so many times it’s no surprise he won’t answer questions about his role in his friends being unlawfully awarded more than half a million pounds of taxpayers’ money.

    Gove’s attitude smacks of a contempt for the truth and habitual dishonesty. If he is so sure he’s done nothing wrong he should publish all the correspondence and refer himself for an investigation so he can clear his name.

    After the Matt Hancock scandal the stench of sleaze hanging around this government is growing stronger every day. The public need answers about what has gone on here, and there is clear evidence that Michael Gove has broken the Ministerial Code.

  • Thangam Debbonaire – 2021 Comments on Rob Roberts

    Thangam Debbonaire – 2021 Comments on Rob Roberts

    The comments made by Thangam Debbonaire, the Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, on 24 June 2021.

    Rob Roberts is hiding behind a procedural loophole but his constituents deserve a say in whether he is still fit to represent them.

    To be suspended from the House for six weeks but not automatically be subject to the Recall Act shows the system is not fit for purpose, nor offering adequate protection and support for staff.

    This MP should do the decent thing and resign. But for as long as the Government leave the loophole in place, they are aiding and abetting his evasive strategy. Labour will use every device available to Parliament to close the loophole.

  • Chloe Smith – 2021 Statement on Electoral Policy

    Chloe Smith – 2021 Statement on Electoral Policy

    The statement made by Chloe Smith, the Minister for the Constitution, in the House of Commons on 17 June 2021.

    The public rightly expect effective and independent regulation of the electoral system. The Electoral Commission has a vital role to play in upholding the integrity of free and fair elections and public confidence in that integrity. As the independent regulatory body charged with such pivotal responsibilities, the Commission should be fully accountable to Parliament for the way it discharges its functions.

    In recent years, some across the House have lost confidence in the work of the Commission and have questioned the adequacy of the existing accountability structures. We must reflect on the current structures charged with this important responsibility, enhance good practice and, where there is a need for change, be prepared to make it.

    Parliamentary accountability on electoral policy

    The Government are therefore announcing today that we will bring forward measures in the forthcoming Elections Bill to improve the Electoral Commission’s accountability arrangements through the introduction of a strategy and policy statement that sets out guidance and principles to which the Commission must give regard in exercising its functions. It is commonplace for the Government and Parliament to set a policy framework by which independent regulators should work.

    The statement will be subject to parliamentary approval and will provide an opportunity for Parliament to articulate its expectations of the Commission and enable greater visibility and scrutiny of its work. The statement will be developed through a statutory consultation with key stakeholders, including the Electoral Commission. It is likely to include the following:

    A statement of priorities for the Electoral Commission, rooted in priorities already set out in law, such as: providing clear and high-quality guidance for campaigners, setting and monitoring robust performance standards for returning officers and electoral registration officers, and effectively enforcing the rules on political finance and election spending.

    Executive and legislative priorities during this Parliament in relation to elections, such as the content of the Elections Bill once passed.

    Principles for the Electoral Commission, such as: impartiality, accountability, value for money, proportionality and consistency.

    An illustrative example of a statement and policy statement for the Electoral Commission will be published during the passage of the Elections Bill to aid parliamentarians. We will also be engaging with the Parliamentary Parties Panel and other interested parties on how a draft statement might be framed.

    Enhancing the remit of the Speaker’s Committee

    The Speaker’s Committee, to which the Commission reports, is not currently able to hold the Electoral Commission to account for its performance and delivery of general objectives.

    Therefore in addition to the strategy and policy statement, measures in the Elections Bill will expand the function and powers of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. These will include assessing the Commission’s performance against objectives set in the strategy and policy statement, and allowing Parliament to better scrutinise the work of the Commission.

    Clarity on criminal prosecutions

    The Government are clear that the proper place for criminal investigations and prosecutions relating to electoral law is with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland) who are experts in this domain.

    In recent years, the Electoral Commission has sought to develop the capability to bring criminal offences before the courts. This has never been agreed by the Government or Parliament. Having the Electoral Commission step into this space would risk wasting public money as well as present potential conflicts of interest for a body responsible for providing advice and guidance on electoral law to initiate proceedings which might depend on the very advice that was given.

    We will therefore maintain the status quo by providing clarity in law that the Electoral Commission should not bring criminal prosecutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This measure will not apply in Scotland where there is already a single prosecutorial body. We are committed instead to supporting the existing independent and impartial police forces, prosecution services and courts as necessary to enforce electoral regulation fairly and effectively.

    Such reforms do not seek to interfere or inappropriately influence the investigative, operational or enforcement decisions of the Electoral Commission. These planned reforms predate any current inquiries, and stem from work initiated following (the then) Sir Eric Pickles’ independent review: “Securing the ballot: Report of Sir Eric Pickles’ review into electoral fraud”. The reforms would not in any way affect the ability of the Commission to undertake enforcement activity as it sees fit, but they will ensure greater accountability to Parliament on how the Electoral Commission discharges its wider functions.

    This Government are taking forward a greater emphasis on the need to tackle and prevent electoral fraud, especially in light of the corruption that took place in Tower Hamlets in 2014, in light of the points made in the Pickles review. These measures also address the concerns and recommendations raised in the Pickles review on the role of the Electoral Commission and the current system of its oversight.

    More broadly, the Committee on Standards in Public Life is undertaking a review into electoral regulation and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is doing an inquiry into the work of the commission. We will carefully consider any proposals from these Committees in due course.

    We are committed to protecting our democracy and maintaining public confidence in our electoral system. The measures in the Elections Bill will ensure that our democracy remains secure, modern, transparent and fair.