Category: Parliament

Norman Fowler – 2020 Comments on the Future of the House of Lords

Sections of an article by Norman Fowler, the Lord Chancellor, published in the Guardian on 23 December 2020.

Boris Johnson has now created 52 new peers this year – taking the total size of the Lords to more than 830 – despite a cross-party agreement three years ago that numbers should over time be reduced to 600.

I would suggest four immediate issues for review:

First there remains the whole question of the size of the Lords, which is almost 200 larger than the Commons and far in excess of what is needed to transact its business. Surely the torrent of new appointments has neither public nor political support.

Second, we should recognise that, as long as freedom to appoint lies in the hands of prime ministers – any prime minister – we need at the very least an effective checking system. I am not going to comment on individuals, but what I would say is that the present powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission are fundamentally deficient. The commission has a strong and independent membership. It is absurd that its powers are only advisory.

As we have just seen, its recommendations can be overridden by No 10. The result is that a prime minister has the power on his or her own to add peers to a house of parliament that can make and, within limits, unmake laws. Is this what the public expect in the third decade of the 21st century?

Third, we should recognise also that there is no limit on the maximum number of peers in the House. This sets us apart from all the senates in democratic countries that I have visited over the last four years as lord speaker. It takes away a fundamental check on power.

Fourth, when making appointments it has become obvious that governments wish to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. Both of the initial announcements of new peerages in the last 12 months have been made when parliament has not been sitting. It simply adds to the impression that the choice of peers is the exclusive preserve of No 10 – and the less publicity the better. This may be fine for the government’s public relations team: whether it is fine for parliament is another matter.

23/12/2020
Boris Johnson – 2020 Letter to Lord Bew Overriding Decision on Peter Cruddas

The letter sent by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, to Lord Bew on 22 December 2020.

Text of letter (in .pdf format)

22/12/2020
Angela Rayner – 2020 Comments on Peter Cruddas Peerage

The comments made by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, on 22 December 2020.

After months of revelations about the cronyism at the heart of this government, it’s somehow appropriate the Prime Minister has chosen to end the year with a peerage to Peter Cruddas, the man who once corruptly offered access to government in exchange for cash.

Whether it’s the Dominic Cummings saga, wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer cash on contracts that don’t deliver or giving peerages to disgraced donors, it’s never been more clear: there is one rule for the Conservatives and their chums, another for the rest of the country.

22/12/2020
Chloe Smith – 2020 Statement on Election Spending Limits Uprating

The statement made by Chloe Smith, the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, in the House of Commons on 3 November 2020.

Elections rely upon political parties and candidates’ ability to communicate their views and commitments so that voters can make an informed decision. To this end, it is right that registered parties and nominated candidates can incur campaign expenditure, but it is also right that there are limits on this expenditure to ensure a level playing field. Many of the current statutory spending limits have not been changed since they were set out 20 years ago, with a small number raised more recently in 2014. This is a significant length of time, and has the effect of reducing the ability to campaign given inflationary costs of printing and communication.

With elections scheduled for 6 May 2021, I am making this statement to outline the Government’s intention to raise the spending limits by inflation for candidates at local council elections in England in time for those May elections. This uplift would take into account the change in the value of money since these amounts were last changed and ensure that limits remain consistent with the initial intent of spending limits when considered by previous Parliaments. It makes no other substantive or real-terms change. I am keen to ensure that, where possible, parties are given notice of potential updates to electoral law well in advance of those elections. The Government are also mindful that the backdrop of the covid-19 pandemic may result in a greater emphasis on postal and digital campaigning ahead of May’s elections; this adds to the case for limits to be updated and uprated.

It is the Government’s intention to review party and candidate spending limits for all other polls (within the legislative competence of the UK Government) next year, with a view to uprating them in line with inflation since they were originally set. This will create a baseline for regular and consistent reviews of all limits in future. We will work with stakeholders, including the Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary Parties Panel, on this process.

04/12/2020
Chloe Smith – 2020 Comments on Abolishing Fixed Terms Parliament Act

The comments made by Chloe Smith, the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, on 1 December 2020.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act caused constitutional chaos last year which, when combined with total gridlock in Parliament, meant the previous Government couldn’t deliver what it was asked to do.

Ultimately, at critical moments for our country, we trust the public to decide. So we are going back to the system that lets elections happen when they are needed. We want to return to constitutional arrangements that give people more confidence in what to expect, and more security.

01/12/2020
David Morris – 2020 Personal Statement in the House of Commons

The statement made by David Morris, the Conservative MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale, in the House of Commons on 24 September 2020.

Last week, the Committee on Standards published its report concluding that I inadvertently breached the paid advocacy rule when I asked a topical question in the Chamber and subsequently emailed the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in October 2019. The Committee also concluded that I inadvertently breached the rule on declaration of interest when emailing the Secretary of State. I would like to take this opportunity to formally apologise for these breaches to the whole House. I do so sincerely, and I am very sorry for these breaches. I did not intend to do so, and now I understand the rules and how they should be adhered to.

I had received a £10,000 linked donation to my campaign fund from Aquind Ltd in September 2019. Mistakenly, I thought that by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when asking a topical question about EU regulation that could affect Aquind, I was complying with the rules. I was mortified to realise that my topical question and follow-up email were not allowed under the paid advocacy rule. I realise that any breach of the paid advocacy rule is a very serious matter indeed. I am very sorry for this, and I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House that I never intended any breach of any of the rules. I was always endeavouring to actively protect my constituents’ interests and adhere to the rules of the House.

I would like to thank the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for her time in deliberating over this matter and concluding that this was an inadvertent breach of the rules. The Standards Committee stated it was confident that I did not intend to breach the rules on either paid advocacy or declaration of interest. I would also like to put on record to the whole House my sincere apologies for my conduct to the commissioner in the early stages of this investigation. My conduct was unacceptable. I do realise that, and I have also personally apologised to the commissioner and the registrar for my conduct. I have since acted promptly, and arranged by myself and attended a virtual briefing from the registrar on the codes and rules in order to improve my awareness of the rules. I endorse the Standards Committee’s wish to hold regular refresher seminars for all Members of Parliament, as I found this a very positive experience.

Once again, I apologise to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for any misunderstandings I may have inadvertently caused. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

27/09/2020
Lindsay Hoyle – 2020 Statement on Procedure

The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, on 17 September 2020.

I would like to make a short statement about the failure of the pass readers in the Division Lobbies last night. As colleagues will know, all four pass readers in the Division Lobbies stopped working and we had to switch to roll-call voting. I have now received a report on what went wrong, and I can inform colleagues that the failure was due to human error. The contractors involved have offered their apologies, and I am assured that urgent steps are being taken to prevent such a mistake from occurring again. I thank all colleagues for coping so well with the switch, and I especially thank the Doorkeepers for their help. I know that there are alternatives to using this system of Divisions that we are currently using, and I will continue to discuss the use of alternatives with the Leader of the House and other Members concerned.

I also wish to make a short statement about the transfer of oral questions and the timeliness of written answers. This is, of course, the responsibility of the answering Department concerned. However, I note that some hon. Members tabling questions for the Ministry of Defence for Monday on matters relating to the welfare of veterans have had their questions transferred, while others have not. What makes it worse is that this does look like political interference or at least political bias; I take this very seriously. This makes it hard for hon. Members, and the Table Office in assisting them. In the current case, the hon. Members whose questions have been transferred will be called to ask supplementaries to the questions not transferred, so they will not be disadvantaged. However, I hope Departments will give careful consideration to the principles of consistency and fairness in reaching decisions on transfers. I also wish to restate my plea for Departments to ensure that all hon. Members receive timely and substantive answers to their written questions; I do not expect lip service to be paid to Members who were elected to serve their constituencies.

I am sure that both the Procedure Committee and the Leader of the House will keep an eye on these two matters, and I know that the Leader and the shadow Leader take this very seriously as well, so I do hope Ministers are listening.

17/09/2020
Lindsay Hoyle – 2020 Statement on MP Rape Allegation

The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, on 1 September 2020.

The House will know that a Member has been arrested in connection with an investigation into an allegation of a very serious criminal offence. I have received assurances from the Member and from the Government Chief Whip that the Member has voluntarily agreed not to attend the House of Commons for the period of bail.

I, the House of Commons Commission and the House Service take the safety of our staff and of the parliamentary community as a whole very seriously and are ensuring that any necessary measures are taken in respect of MPs, employees and staff. All Members and staff have access to the Independent Sexual Misconduct Advisory Service by contacting the new single, independent ICGS helpline and should not hesitate to use it.

While the investigation is ongoing, I believe that it would be wholly inappropriate for any further reference to be made to this matter in the House, including any attempt to name the Member concerned. I would appreciate your co-operation on this matter.

04/09/2020
Cat Smith – 2020 Comments on Voter ID

Comments made by Cat Smith, the Shadow Minister for Voter Engagement, on 28 July 2020.

We saw with the Windrush scandal how some communities struggle to provide official documentation, with the severe consequences. Yet the Government continue to plough on with Voter ID plans, turning a blind eye how this could disenfranchise Black Asian and minority ethnic people.

The Government have stated repeatedly on record that evidence concludes Voter ID has no impact on any particular demographic group. This is simply not true, the evidence does not exist.

Ministers must clarify these inconsistencies and commit to instructing government departments to gather data broken down by ethnicity. Whilst Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities remain invisible to public bodies, investigating the impact of Voter ID on Black Asian and minority ethnic people is impossible.

If these US-style voter suppression plans go ahead, we could see Black, Asian and minority ethnic people locked out of democracy. The Government must correct the record and recognise the damaging impact that mandatory Voter ID will have upon Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.

29/07/2020
Lilian Greenwood – 2020 Speech on the Restoration and Renewal of the Houses of Parliament

The text of the speech made by Lilian Greenwood, the Labour MP for Nottingham South, in the House of Commons on 16 July 2020.

I do wonder if our constituents will be shaking their heads in disbelief that we are devoting an afternoon to this debate when parliamentary time is so limited to discuss the severe threat to their lives and livelihoods. However, I am happy to be able to speak in this afternoon’s debate and to follow some of the hon. and right hon. Members who have already invested huge amounts of time, thought and energy into devising the plans for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. I hope we will listen hard to their valuable contributions.

It feels particularly appropriate to be following the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). As the Chair of the Select Committee on Transport, I spent a great deal of time scrutinising his work as Transport Secretary and the decision making and delivery of projects to upgrade the UK’s transport infrastructure, much of which, like this building, was built in Victorian times and requires urgent work if it is to meet our needs in the 21st century. There are some useful parallels to be drawn and lessons to be learnt from the experience.

The first is that our short electoral cycles can make it difficult to take decisions about long-term projects that necessarily span several Parliaments. Incoming Governments have a tendency to re-examine, and sometimes reverse, the decisions of previous ones. Even when they end up reaching the same conclusions, additional time and uncertainty have inevitably added cost. I am afraid to say that reviews are sometimes undertaken to deliberately avoid or delay difficult decisions. We cannot afford to duck or delay restoration and renewal.

However, I welcome the Sponsor Body’s strategic review. It is right to re-examine how the restoration and renewal programme is carried out, especially in the light of covid-19, which has forced all of us to work in ways that some might never have thought possible and ushered in frightening economic impacts. We must ensure that the plans are the right ones, and that they are affordable and represent good value for taxpayers’ money, but we cannot afford to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It has already taken many years to devise the restoration and renewal programme and to set up the organisations to deliver it. We cannot afford to go back to square one because, as has been said, this place is falling apart faster than it can be fixed. As the House of Commons Commission said in October 2012:

“doing nothing is not an option.”

Eight years on, doing something has only become more pressing.

As the Prime Minister recognised in his letter to the review yesterday, there is a need to

“move as quickly as possible, both because of the risks associated with the current state of the building and the need to provide certainty on the way forward“.

As we have heard, there is a very serious risk of not only a major fire, which we know could spread rapidly through the building because of the thousands of empty ventilation voids, but flooding and falling masonry. We know that we must tackle the risks associated with the presence of asbestos; address environmental efficiency and sustainability; and transform access for disabled people, be they MPs, peers, staff or visitors. We also have a duty to preserve one of the UK’s most treasured historical buildings. It is a huge responsibility and we must not shirk it.

I wish to make two final points, returning to my reflections on fixing our transport infrastructure. The first is that doing the minimum does not work—our patched and potholed roads are testament to that. Reacting to each problem as it arises is inefficient, costly and disruptive. Long-term planned refurbishment provides better value for money and a better result. Secondly, trying to carry out substantial works without moving out of the building risks making the work much more difficult and costly, and risks serious disruption to parliamentary activities. I remember when Network Rail was upgrading Nottingham railway station in 2013 and it took the brave decision to undertake a five-week blockade to get the job done efficiently, closing the station completely, in preference to months of weekend and overnight closures. Thanks to careful planning and preparation, it was a huge success and changed the approach to upgrading the railway.

I look forward to listening to the remainder of the debate, particularly the contributions of my fellow Finance Committee members and that of my predecessor as Chair of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has championed the work to preserve this place. I also look forward to the outcome of the strategic review in the autumn. This is vital work that will allow the House to make the right decisions for the future of the Palace of Westminster and the UK Parliament.

20/07/2020