The letter sent by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, to Lord Bew on 22 December 2020.
Category: Parliament
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Chris Grayling – 2020 Speech on the Restoration and Renewal of the Houses of Parliament
The text of the speech made by Chris Grayling, the Conservative MP for Epsom and Ewell, in the House of Commons on 16 July 2020.
It is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). It is a bit like a reunion of the Joint Committee today—many of us served on it—
Mark Tami
Bring the band back together!
Chris Grayling
Absolutely. Many of us served on the Joint Committee back in 2015-16, when we looked at all the issues exhaustively. We considered all the ideas that were submitted to us, some partially credible that did not understand the nuances of this place and some frankly less credible, but I want to make the point to everybody, particularly new Members, that this is not something we have an option about. We have got to do this. When I became Leader of the House in 2015, two things happened in quick succession that brought that home to me, one here and one elsewhere.
First, we nearly had to close the Chamber indefinitely within a few days of my becoming Leader of the House because asbestos was discovered up in the ventilation shafts. If it had become dislodged, or if it were to be dislodged in future, we would have no choice but to immediately close the Chamber indefinitely. What would happen then? The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is right: the building has huge amounts of asbestos. It is a genuine health hazard, which can bite us at any time. That alone is a reason to do the work.
The second thing that happened had nothing to do with Notre-Dame. A few days after I became Leader of the House, Kingsway caught fire. Kingsway is a road and the wiring under it caught fire and burned for days. I advise all those who have not been down into the basement here to do so. Apart from the sewerage system that was mentioned and the asbestos, the basement contains a jumble of wiring, some very old, that could do just the same—catch fire and burn for days.
The House authorities have always said that they can get us all out and save our lives, but they cannot save the building. If we have a serious fire, this building will burn down, in the way that Clandon Park burned down and in the way that Notre-Dame burned down. That would not only be a gross dereliction of our duty as stewards of this building but a national tragedy. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people come to visit what is a world heritage site. It brings people from around the world; it is one of the world’s iconic landmarks. We cannot possibly put ourselves in a position where year after year the risks increase because the wiring gets older and all the systems get older, so we are making it more likely that there will be a devastating fire and this building will be destroyed. We simply cannot do that.
As my successor as Leader of the House rightly said, we all come to this project slightly sceptical. It is a lot of money to spend and it is not something that is going to be universally popular with constituents around the country. However, the more one delves into the subject, the clearer it becomes that we have absolutely no choice but to do this. We looked at all the alternatives. We considered whether we could put a temporary Parliament somewhere else. But even if we just went up to Horse Guards or somewhere like that, could we really, at seven o’clock on an Opposition day, have queues of MPs walking across Whitehall to come and vote? What a security risk that would be—what a target for terrorists. We have to keep Members of Parliament and, in particular, people who work for us, who are often as at risk as we are if something terrible happens, within the secure estate.
That is why and how we came to the conclusion that Richmond House was the best option. It is within the secure estate. It is a building that has flexibilities. The one bit I have a problem with is that I do not buy the argument that it is not possible to put a temporary Chamber into Richmond House without the scale of work that is being considered at the moment. We might need a compromise so that we do not need that period of time to replicate this Chamber exactly. Yes, of course we need to have a debating chamber, and yes, of course it should be consistent with the way that this Chamber works, but it does not have to be like for like—inch for inch, foot for foot identical to here. The Division Lobbies do not have to have exactly the same relationship to the Chamber. We have learned in the past few weeks that we can do things differently, and I buy that argument. We cannot just spend money willy-nilly because it keeps the environment in which we are going to be working close to what we have here now. If it changes a bit, it does not matter.
We cannot keep delaying this decision. I am frustrated that it is now 2020 and I co-chaired the Committee back in 2015—five years ago. This building is five years older. The systems are five years older. We have looked at all these options before. We looked at whether we could move the Commons to the Lords end. Actually, I am not convinced that the lords would vote for that if they had to leave and we got to stay. But then there are fundamental issues about the services. There is one sewer that services the whole building. So fine, we move to the Lords end, the work is happening down here, and then something goes wrong—the electricity fails or the sewer fails. If the electricity fails, it is going to take the devil’s own job of a time to try to work out what is wrong and how to fix it, and we stop working in the interim. If the sewer breaks, that makes the whole building unusable. It is really very difficult operationally, in a building that was designed as one with the services flowing from one end to the other, to simply say, “We’ll put something down the middle; that end’s fine and this end isn’t.”
We looked at using Westminster Hall, but there are historical reasons why that is difficult. Perhaps more than any other part of this building, we have a duty to protect Westminster Hall. It is the heart of the building which, back in 1834, the fire brigade chose to protect. In the Second World War, when the bomb was dropped, the fire brigade chose to protect Westminster Hall. We cannot abuse Westminster Hall because it gives us a chance to stay a bit closer to this building while the works are happening. We looked at that exhaustively and came to the conclusion that it was not possible.
I think that anyone who looks through these issues carefully and in detail will reach the same conclusion that we all did five years ago. I commend the work of the Sponsor Body and the work that is to come from the Delivery Body. We chose to recommend that those were set up because we felt that that was the right way forward —to learn the lessons of the London Olympics, to follow a single approach to doing it, and to learn from how similar bodies made that project work effectively. My request to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and all those who are on the Sponsor Body is: please let us get on with this. With every month and every year that goes by, the risk gets greater. I do not want us, as a generation of politicians, to wake up one morning to find that we were the people who did not act in time, the building is no more, and the taxpayer now faces a much, much bigger bill to restore a landmark, as the French do with Notre-Dame. Please, I say to the Leader of the House and to all colleagues, let us get on with this as quickly as we can.