The comments made by Daisy Cooper, the Liberal Democrat MP for St Albans, on 9 March 2023.
Yet another Conservative scandal…
Steve Brine should immediately step down from the Health Select Committee, and the PM should launch an independent investigation into this damning evidence.
Brine cannot be in post whilst these allegations hang over his head.
The comments made by Anneliese Dodds, the Chair of the Labour Party, on 9 March 2023.
If Steve Brine has broken lobbying rules he must face the consequences. Rishi Sunak has been too weak to stand up to his party or his cabinet. Will he take the appropriate action in this case?
The speech made by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, in the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.
I would like to thank Conservative Members for asking why a senior civil servant famed for their integrity and dedication to public service decided to join the party with a real plan for Britain rather than a tired-out, washed-up, sleaze-addicted Tory Government. This is the exceptional circumstance that the Minister spoke about. We are talking about a party so self-obsessed that it is using parliamentary time to indulge in the conspiracy theories of the former Prime Minister and his gang. What will Conservative Members ask for next? Will it be a Westminster Hall debate on the moon landings, a Bill on dredging Loch Ness or a public inquiry into whether the Earth is flat?
The biggest threat to the impartiality of the civil service is the Conservative party and its decade of debasing and demeaning standards in public life. Conservative Members talk about trust. This debate says more about the delusions of the modern Conservative party than it does about anything else. After this question, I will go back to my office to help people who are struggling with the cost of living crisis, getting an NHS dentist or—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think it was a wise idea to carry on while I am standing up.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I am sorry.
Mr Speaker
Thank you. May I just say that I expect everybody to be heard quietly, because I want to hear what is being said? This is too important for me not to be able to hear. When Members keep chuntering on, I cannot hear. I want the same respect to be shown to everybody who wishes to speak.
Angela Rayner
Thank you. Mr Speaker. As I was saying, after this question I will go back to my office to help people who are struggling with the cost of living, with getting an NHS dentist and with paying their energy bills. All of those things are the result of 13 years of this failed Conservative Administration. While they play games, we are getting on with tackling the real issues facing the country. When will they do the same?
Jeremy Quin
Having heard from the right hon. Lady, I see that she has clearly been advised that attack is the best form of defence. I quite understand why the Opposition feel in need of some more advisers and some new advisers, given her tone today.
I understand the dilemma faced by the Leader of the Opposition. Having looked inside his tent, I understand why he is reaching so far outside of it. After so many rebrands, I appreciate why the right hon. Lady and the Leader of the Opposition require someone who can do joined up. However, the Labour party talks about rules, transparency and standards in public life, and given all that constant talk it is time that it walked the walk. I ask the right hon. Lady to go away and think: why are the Opposition refusing to publish when they met with Sue Gray; why are they being evasive; and why can they not tell us what they discussed, where they met, and how often they met? Their refusal to do so prompts the question: exactly what is Labour trying to hide?
Many across the House have noticed that the Leader of the Opposition has a tendency to claim a self-righteous monopoly on morals, but there are now serious questions as to whether Labour, by acting fast and loose, undermined the rules and the impartiality of the civil service. Labour Members must ask themselves why the Leader of the Opposition covertly met a senior civil servant and why those meetings were not declared. They believe that ACOBA rules should be tightened, but why were the current ones not followed? It is incumbent on everyone across the House to uphold and preserve the integrity and the perceived impartiality of the civil service.
This is about trust, Mr Speaker, and it is the Labour party that risks damaging that trust with an offer of appointment. However, the Opposition can help restore that trust. They can do the right thing: they can publish the list of meetings between themselves and Sue Gray; they can publish who attended those meetings; and they can publish when they started speaking to Sue Gray. There is nothing in the ACOBA rules that stops them doing so today.
The statement made by Jeremy Quin, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.
I can confirm that, following a media report the previous day, Sue Gray, formerly second permanent secretary to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and to the Cabinet Office, resigned from the civil service on Thursday 2 March. This resignation was accepted with immediate effect. On Friday 3 March, a statement from the Opposition announced that the Labour party had offered Sue Gray the role of chief of staff to the Leader of the Opposition.
The House will recognise that this is an exceptional situation. It is unprecedented for a serving permanent secretary to resign to seek to take up a senior position working for the Leader of the Opposition. As hon. Members will expect, the Cabinet Office is looking into the circumstances leading up to Sue Gray’s resignation in order to update the relevant civil service leadership and Ministers of the facts. Subsequent to that, I will update the House appropriately.
By way of background, to inform hon. Members, there are four pertinent sets of rules and guidance for civil servants relating to this issue. First, under the civil service code, every civil servant is expected to uphold the civil service’s core values, which include impartiality. The code states that civil servants must
“act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of ministers”.
Secondly, rules apply when very senior civil servants wish to leave the service. Permanent secretaries are subject to the business appointments process that, for most senior leavers, is administered by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. ACOBA provides advice to the Prime Minister, who is the ultimate decision maker in cases involving the most senior civil servants. Once the Prime Minister agrees the conditions and the appointment is taken up, ACOBA publishes its letter to the applicant on its website.
The business appointment rules form part of a civil servant’s contract of employment. The rules state that approval must be obtained prior to a job offer being announced. The Cabinet Office has not, as yet, been informed that the relevant notification to ACOBA has been made.
Thirdly, civil servants must follow guidance on the declaration and management of outside interests. They are required, on an ongoing basis, to declare and manage any outside interests that may give rise to an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Finally, the directory of civil service guidance states:
“Contacts between senior civil servants and leading members of the Opposition parties…should…be cleared with…Ministers.”
Having set out the relevant rules, I finish by saying that, regardless of the details of this specific situation, I understand why Members of this House and eminent outside commentators have raised concerns. The impartiality and perceived impartiality of the civil service is constitutionally vital to the conduct of government. I am certain that all senior civil servants are acutely aware of the importance of maintaining impartiality. Ministers must be able to speak to their officials from a position of absolute trust, so it is the responsibility of everyone in this House to preserve and support the impartiality of the civil service.
Sir Robert Buckland
To echo my right hon. Friend’s comments, many of us are surprised and, frankly, deeply disappointed about the particular circumstances that have emerged. This is not about the character or quality of Sue Gray. Having had the pleasure of working with her over a number of years, I can testify, along with many others, to those qualities.
This is, as my right hon. Friend said, about the fundamental trust that has to exist between impartial civil servants up to the highest level—and here we are dealing with a permanent secretary—and the Ministers they serve. That has been the position since at least the Northcote-Trevelyan report of the mid-19th century, and it must be the position in future, particularly if the Labour party is serious about wishing to achieve power. This Government are prepared to defend that impartiality, but the activities of the Leader of the Opposition might suggest that he is not prepared to defend that impartiality.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying the position on the application to ACOBA. Will he confirm that this appointment, if it is to be taken up, cannot be taken up before it is formally approved, following advice from that committee? Secondly, is it correct that the prevailing ACOBA advice for civil servants has a potential waiting period of between three months and two years? Thirdly, will a lobbying prohibition be imposed in this case? Finally, will a restriction on the passage of official information to the Labour party be imposed in this instance?
I say again that trust and impartiality are vital if this system of government is to work. I would hope that in this case those issues will be defended.
Jeremy Quin
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that. I share his disappointment; whatever the merits of the individual, I stress that it is critical that we all, on both sides of the House, do all we can to support the impartiality of the civil service. He asks about three points in particular. He asks whether there is a three-month to two-year period, and he is right. ACOBA also has the ability to recommend that no such appointment would be appropriate—it can go further—but there is a standard three-month waiting period in the contracts of employment for permanent secretaries. ACOBA generally goes up to two years but it can go further.
There is a lifetime requirement on all civil servants, which I know they take hugely seriously, to respect the confidentiality of the work they do. It is right that that is in place. Lastly, ACOBA is in an advisory position. I have not been impressed by the Labour party over this saga. I trust that the Labour party would indeed follow recommendations from ACOBA—unless Labour is going to cast even more doubt on its credibility.
The comments made on Twitter by Sir Jake Berry, the Conservative MP for Rossendale and Darwen, on 7 March 2023.
This is an absolute disgrace.
Hancock should be dragged to the bar of the House of Commons first thing tomorrow morning to be questioned on this.
The statement made by Neil Coyle, the Independent MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2023.
The report of the Independent Expert Panel into my conduct has been published today. I want to say how sorry I am for the upset and offence my behaviour caused last year. I wish to specifically apologise to the two complainants who were subject to my drunk and offensive behaviour and attitude. I cannot apologise enough for the harm and upset caused, and I am, frankly, ashamed of my conduct. It should not have happened. No one should leave any MP’s company so shocked or appalled at their inappropriate behaviour or failure to meet the standards rightly expected of this office.
I also apologise to my constituents in Southwark. They faithfully put their trust in me to stand up for their values here in Westminster in three consecutive general elections, and I failed to represent them in the way they deserve or a way they would recognise. I owe a debt of gratitude too large to ever repay to my constituents for the privilege of serving our wonderful, diverse community. I am ashamed that this apology is both necessary and overdue. I apologise to the members of my local Labour party, who also expect me to represent the best of our values in this place, and who last year I also let down so badly.
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I also wish to thank the two complainants for their bravery. I do not doubt that it was not easy to submit the complaints. Their courage has ensured that standards have been upheld through an independent process that I was proud to support the establishment of, and that exists to tackle the problematic behaviour I sadly exhibited last year. It is right and proper that I have been held to account and sanctioned accordingly, and I take my punishment on the chin. I fully accept my failings and, again, express my sincere apologies. I will use the time for which I am suspended to reflect on self-improvement, and I have already undergone some training, including on tackling unconscious bias, which I recommend to all Members and their teams.
I owe the complainants my further gratitude for calling out my upsetting words and actions. It forced me to recognise that my drinking had become a dependency and to seek help. On 1 March this week, I celebrated a year since I stopped drinking, and I would not have been able to stop without their effective intervention. In the healthcare I have received since last February, it has also been made abundantly clear to me that, had I not stopped, my drinking would likely have caused a significant stroke or worse. Their intervention has quite possibly saved my life.
Going forward, I will remain abstinent to offer the greatest chance for my own health to continue to improve, for the best relationship with my daughter and family to continue to grow, and for the best service to my constituents to continue. I hope that in speaking out publicly about ending my alcohol dependency, I am also able to support others struggling to maintain or regain control.
In closing, I thank the Speaker’s Office and the wider parliamentary team, including the Whips, the Serjeant at Arms team and those in the health and wellbeing service, for all the support provided over the last 12 months, especially to enable me to stop drinking. I could not have done it without the tremendous help along the way, especially from my own small team who work wonders for Southwark, and who I will cherish even more for their hard work throughout the difficult, overstretched period I created for them in the last year.
Going forward, I will endeavour to be a stronger ally to the east and south-east Asian community in order to prove my apology to the journalist who had the courage to complain, as well as to my constituents, who too often see the downplaying of the discrimination and hate crime they experience, and to my own family, who I have let down. Two of my brothers have Chinese wives and I have two Chinese nieces and a nephew. I also need to show them that this was an aberration and ensure that they can, once again, be proud of me.
I wholly and unreservedly apologise again for my offensive language and behaviour last year. I know that I let a huge number of people down, and I am sorry to everyone who saw drink get the better of me. I am resolute that it will never happen again.
The speech made by Penny Mordaunt, the Leader of the House of Commons, on 1 March 2023.
Good morning, everyone and thank you all for turning up today to listen to me – although it is a mystery why.
They could’ve asked a doctor, an engineer, a headteacher or a judge, to speak to you today.
But no, the folks at Edelman have asked a politician to talk about trust.
I’m not here as an endorser of my host’s research,
nor its commercial organisation.
I am not being paid to attend
I’m here because they were kind enough to invite me and I believe trust matter, and trust-decay has real harm for our society and how it functions.
Lose trust in democracy and democracy dies.
Lose trust in capitalism and it fails too.
The progress of humanity depends upon trust.
Edelman have shown you the what, I want to talk about what we can do about it – not just in my profession, but all of us.
Everywhere, national governments, parliaments and other authorities with their bureaucratised and traditional structures, are struggling to be effective and relevant in the modern world. And they have been steeped in scandal.
Politicians share this timeline of trust decay with a cast of leaders from every walk of life. I will give you a quick recap.
Since the turn of the century, we’ve learned that our leaders, rigged interests rates, laundered drug money, presided over an offshore banking system bigger than anyone thought possible,
forced good companies into closure and destroyed pension funds as they themselves grew wealthier.
Collectively, they oversaw an unprecedented destruction of wealth and the collapse of the financial system.
They watched as life savings placed into investment funds set up by leaders of previously unimpeachable integrity turned out to be Ponzi schemes.
They sold off reserves of gold to compensate for these exercises in corporate greed, while never once convicting a banker.
Our spiritual leaders covered up sex abuse in the Church.
Our charity leaders sexually abused the vulnerable.
Our child welfare leaders have permitted child abuse.
Our Police leaders have allowed predators to wear a uniform.
Leaders of the automotive industry lied about emissions, were imprisoned, fled the country while out on bail and remain fugitives.
The leaders of our water utilities polluted rivers then tried to cover it up.
Global entertainment leaders have faced multiple allegations of sexual harassment and abuse.
Britain’s leading broadcaster falsely accused political figures of being child abusers, while allowing actual abusers to commit crimes on their premises.
Meanwhile, sporting leaders have been caught cheating and doping.
Human rights lawyers have been struck off for misconduct and dishonesty.
And the offshore tax operation thought to be a fraction of the UK economy, turned out to be a multiple of it.
These failings – personal and organisational – are nothing new.
But today it seems it’s not just that things don’t work or that some people are wrong’uns.
There are new layers to trust decay.
The system feels rigged against you.
Some are feeling economic shocks for the first time as has been pointed out.
Consumers feel they have less power.
Some pay a premium for being poor.
Life has gotten more complex.
It is harder to help,
Harder to communicate – to share platforms, to cut through the noise. To understand the world around us, to feel invested and invested in.
Harder not to feel overwhelmed in the face of existential and greyer threats.
Or the dizzying pace of technological change.
We have generational voids – young people are fixated on rewriting or tearing down the past because they don’t believe they have a future.
Older generations want to stop the noise. Stop the constant change. The bull***t (as they see it). Stop their world being turned upside down. Stop their values and institutions being belittled and patronised. These changes, in their eyes, are a type of catastrophe. They have lost the stars to steer by as slowly, the constants and comforts of their youth have disappeared. The high street has been hollowed out. Their childhood heroes have been debunked and their past rewritten. Local has been replaced with national and international. They feel overwhelmed; their world has been Amazonked.
So why this complexity and division?
The spread of a consumer society partially explains this–providing ever more efficiently to our own personal preference. We now have very specific requirements about our food, our work, holiday destinations, cars, clothes, just about everything.
In fact we express our economic franchise far more frequently than we do our political franchise. In politics, we get a chance to vote every five years but in economics we do so every hour of every day.
The rise of the internet means we can join groups that appeal directly to our own beliefs. Extremism can find extremists all over the world. We’re far more connected internationally than ever before. We can find anything to believe in there and people frequently do.
Then there is the growth in media, especially social media that commercially is dependent on conflict – we may have many shared values, but when did consensus ever sell popcorn? Now we have a media which is deliberately controversial and confrontational. We have commercialised conflict. We have specific commentators whose job is to stir things up and the simple truth is that harmony and contentment is not valued by the media.
And nor is it universally popular amongst politicians too.
These forces are all conspiring to make us feel more atomised.
Previously, we were split by gender, sexual preference, profession, location, marital status, education, football club, religion or politics. We are now split further by whether we are vegan, FBPE, BLM, Brexiteer or Remainer, nationalist or unionist, woke or non-woke. Zoomer or boomer.
This complete atomisation means that people do not feel that their values are shared. At best, those with different opinions are abused. At worst, they are cancelled and demonised.
‘We’ have become a million types of ‘they’.
When this happens, trust between groups breaks down.
Some are genuinely afraid.
Afraid of saying the wrong thing or of worse.
Mental health suffered, for some this exhibits itself in a new vice of choice: the paranoia of conspiracy.
Here a few recent gems that have appears on mainstream broadcast this past weekend:
The air-raids in Ukraine are fake, and the sirens are sound effects applied by the Ukrainian government.
Controversial traffic calming measures are not the product of an overbearing lib dem council but a global conspiracy to get us to eat insects.
I am all in favour of livening up local authority transport committees, but there are limits!
The Government is shortly going to start rationing food, and a food rationing app is in development. This is a conspiracy between the government and large food corporations.
Presumably there will be unlimited access to turnips.
And this exploitative monologue:
“Are we simply to be fed on a diet of propaganda right down to the lies about health and food and the climate and war and biology and race until we are so unwell, confused, exhausted and anxious that we don’t notice when they pick the last penny out of our pockets and lock us down in a digital ghetto watched round the clock by cameras and listening devices we pay through the nose to carry in our own pockets. And the rationing of tomatoes.”
And now it’s time for the weather.
Such alarmist nonsense gains credibility from being sandwiched between credible broadcast anchors. People whose loyalties have historically been to their profession and craft.
Falsehood and deep fakes sit alongside information and legitimate debate in your social media timelines.
We can tell the difference though, right?
Being a government Minister, having attended Davos, I am clearly part of this group – and I am braced for a post speech social media pile on as to why I am an apologist for a global illuminati hell bent on ending humanity as we know it.
As a former defence secretary and the UK Government’s former defensive cyber lead – I can testify there are enough organisations in the world trying to do us genuine harm, thank you very much, without us having to invent some.
So how can we build trust?
We need to recognise what is driving this.
Conflict and division sells. It is a vice.
Nothing new about that. It is why we all say we hate PMQs but thousands will be tuning in later today.
But so much of the content I take issue with is not about debate. It is about profit. Attracting an audience which is addicted to such theories.
Raise concerns about the harm being done and you are “one of them”, or a ‘free speech denier’.
You’ll be told? ‘What is your problem? I was just asking the question, I just want to know what is your connection to the Rothchilds?
Work in broadcasting and care about compliance and ethics? and you are and I quote, “Ofcom’s b**ch”.
Division and disagreement is not bad.
In fact I’d argue it is good. Its present does not make societies and communities weak. It makes them strong.
We’ve just seen China does well on the lack of a trust gap. Nope not much division there.
I don’t want to live in China.
The UK is quite good at taking on and adopting new ideas partly because it listens to minority voices. The future always arrives as a minority. That’s sometimes where you can hear tomorrow.
Because alongside different views and ideas there is a recognition of shared values.
An understanding of what Freedom really means
It is about rights but also responsibilities.
Free societies need responsible adults.
The value of free speech is not just in your freedom to say something, but also in our ability to listen and learn something. It is also the freedom to change your mind and the freedom to be uncertain.
The absence of that freedom damages our ability to be effective, our wellbeing and we should never take that freedom for granted and we should recognise when it is under attack.
We need new ways of helping people be digitally literate, and think critically.
Government is acting on this:
We are improving the effectiveness of the House of Commons.
We have the Online Safety Bill and workstreams and the defending democracy task force.
The Prime Minister is on a mission to restore trust, starting with clear priorities and accountability.
He understands that trust is earned.
But we recognise something else is required too.
It is about the relationship between trust and values.
You see, politicians spend a lot of their careers seeking the parenthesis.
Searching for values that we share, that we care about.
These might be the love of our families.
The desire for health and prosperity.
It might be the concern for our environment or our children’s future.
A shared venture, a common project.
What we all have in common.
The future of Britain isn’t decided by politicians, it’s decided by the character of the British people. Their character is the national destiny.
This fills me full of hope because I believe in the character of the British people. They’re sceptical. They don’t like bullies. They’re fair-minded. They’re thrifty. They don’t like greed. They like to help. They have a sense of humour. They are tolerant. They love freedom.
My late friend Jo Cox said: “We have more in common than that which divides us.” Her words are freighted by the manner of her death. If the Commons had a motto it should be that.
Politicians have an important role to play. We have convening power and we can, when we choose to, bring people together and we should.
Before we find answers, we must find shared challenges.
Common ground.
Truths we know to be self-evident.
Where you find common ground, you will find trust.
Establishing shared values starts with being prepared to defend them.
That is what we can do as politicians.
It is what we must do as citizens.
You see you need not trust the former but we all have to trust the latter.
Thank you.
The text of the report issued by the Committee of Privileges on 3 March 2023.
Text of Report (in .pdf format)
The comments made by Sir Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 27 February 2023.
Betty Boothroyd was a dedicated and devoted public servant who will be dearly missed by all who knew her.
My thoughts – and the thoughts of the Labour Party – are with her friends and family.
The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, on 27 February 2023.
Not only was Betty Boothroyd an inspiring woman, but she was also an inspirational politician, and someone I was proud to call my friend.
To be the first woman speaker was truly groundbreaking and Betty certainly broke that glass ceiling with panache.
She was from Yorkshire, and I am from Lancashire – so there was always that friendly rivalry between us. But from my point of view, it was heartening to hear a Northern voice speaking from the Chair.
She stuck by the rules, had a no-nonsense style, but any reprimands she did issue were done with good humour and charm.
Betty was one of a kind. A sharp, witty and formidable woman – and I will miss her.