UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Parliament

  • Angela Rayner – 2022 Article on the Personal Conduct of Michelle Mone

    Angela Rayner – 2022 Article on the Personal Conduct of Michelle Mone

    Part of the article written by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, in the Guardian on 24 November 2022.

    We learn that PPE Medpro was given £203m to supply face masks and sterile surgical gowns at the height of the pandemic. Lady Mone, a Tory peer, referred PPE MedPro to the Cabinet Office in May 2020, five days before it was even registered as a company. She contacted the then ministers Michael Gove and fellow Conservative peer Lord Agnew, offering to supply PPE – for a price. Lord Agnew referred PPE Medpro to the “VIP lane”, fast-tracking the bid for public contracts.

    It now appears that tens of millions of pounds from those contracts ended up in offshore accounts connected to the individuals involved.

  • Ian Murray – 2022 Speech on the Supreme Court Decision on a Scottish Referendum

    Ian Murray – 2022 Speech on the Supreme Court Decision on a Scottish Referendum

    The speech made by Ian Murray, the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

    I begin by thanking the Supreme Court for examining this case in detail, for reaching a unanimous decision and for doing so in a speedy manner. I also thank the Scottish Lord Advocate for referring this case to the Supreme Court. She was right not to allow it to be launched in the Scottish Parliament before seeking legal clarity on this matter, and we are all in a better place now for that clarity having been put forward. The Supreme Court’s ruling is absolutely clear and concise.

    The Leader of the SNP has just accused those who are against independence of “triumphalism”. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are deeply disappointed and angry that the politics in Scotland is paralysed by this constitutional grievance. It is now time for all of us in Scottish politics to focus on the problems facing our country, from rocketing bills to the crisis in the NHS, and I wish the SNP had such passion for doing that. I fear that that will not happen after the First Minister announced that she will turn the next general election into a de facto referendum. As an example, the SNP has made such a mess of our NHS that, earlier this week, it was reported that NHS chiefs have been discussing plans to privatise our health service—Labour’s and perhaps our country’s greatest achievement.

    There is not a majority in Scotland for a referendum or for independence, but neither is the majority for the status quo. There is a majority in Scotland, and across the UK, for change. This failing and incapable Tory Government are unfit to govern this country. They have crashed the economy and they are as big a threat to the Union as any nationalist. People in Scotland and across the UK are sick of watching their incompetence, our national standing falling in the world, and working people paying for their decisions, but change is coming. It is coming with a UK Labour Government that will bring economic growth, raise living standards and restore our nation’s place in the world.

    Does the Secretary of State agree that change is indeed coming and that Scottish voters will lead the way by kicking his Government out of office and helping to elect a UK Labour Government?

    Mr Jack

    No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on his last point.

  • Ian Blackford – 2022 Speech on the Supreme Court Decision on a Scottish Referendum

    Ian Blackford – 2022 Speech on the Supreme Court Decision on a Scottish Referendum

    The speech made by Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

    Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.

    It is right that the UK Government answer questions today, and answer them quickly, because this morning the Supreme Court dealt with a question of law; there is now a massive question of democracy. Some of the Westminster parties are already wildly celebrating this morning’s decision, but I think it is safe to say that their thoughtless triumphalism will not last very long, because this judgment raises profound and deeply uncomfortable questions about the basis of the future of the United Kingdom.

    The biggest question of all is how the Prime Minister can ever again repeat the myth that the United Kingdom is a voluntary union of nations. In 2014, the Smith Commission made it clear that

    “nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”

    If that is true and if the Secretary of State’s Government are still committed to that promise, will he urgently amend the Scotland Act 1998 to ensure that the Scottish people have the right to choose our own future? If he fails to do that, is he deliberately choosing to deny democracy, because a so-called partnership in which one partner is denied the right to choose a different future, or even to ask itself the question, cannot be described in any way as a voluntary partnership, or even a partnership at all?

    Today’s decision casts focus on the democratic decisions of the Scottish people. Since 2014, the Scottish National party has won eight elections in a row. We have secured multiple mandates. The question is: how many times do people in Scotland have to vote for a referendum before they get it?

    The more contempt the Westminster establishment shows for Scottish democracy, the more certain it is that Scotland will vote yes when the choice comes to be made. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. We did not vote for a new age of Tory austerity. We did not vote for this Prime Minister, and we have not voted for the Tories in Scotland since 1955. What we did vote for was the choice of a different future. If Westminster keeps blocking our democratic decisions, lawfully and democratically Scotland will find a way out of this Union.

    Mr Jack

    This idea that a mandate was delivered in 2021 in the Holyrood elections is completely misleading. As the First Minister herself said very clearly in an interview in The Herald—this is when she thought that the former First Minister, the previous SNP leader Alex Salmond, was gaming the system with his party Alba—that parties should stand on both the list and first-past-the-post constituency systems. The Greens did not fulfil that and neither did Alba. Let us be clear: in the 2021 Holyrood elections—the so-called mandate—less than one third of the Scottish electorate voted for the SNP.

  • Alister Jack – 2022 Statement on the Supreme Court Decision on a Scottish Referendum

    Alister Jack – 2022 Statement on the Supreme Court Decision on a Scottish Referendum

    The statement made by Alister Jack, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

    I am grateful to the right hon. Member for providing me with the opportunity to address the House on this important ruling of the Supreme Court on the issue of the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum on independence.

    The UK Supreme Court has today determined that it is outside the powers of the Scottish Parliament to hold an independence referendum, and I respect the Court’s clear and definitive ruling on this matter. The Scottish Government’s Lord Advocate referred this question to the Supreme Court, which has today given its judgment, and the UK Government’s position has always been clear: that it would be outside the Scottish Parliament’s competence to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence because it is a matter wholly reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament.

    We welcome the Court’s unanimous and unequivocal ruling, which supports the United Kingdom Government’s long-standing position on this matter. People want to see the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government focus on issues that matter to them, not on constitutional division. People across Scotland rightly want and expect to see both their Governments—the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government—working together with a relentless focus on the issues that matter to them, their families and their communities.

    The Prime Minister has been very clear, and has demonstrated since day one, that it is our duty to work constructively with the Scottish Government. We fully respect the devolution settlement and we want to work together with the Scottish Government on vital areas such as tackling the cost of living, growing our economy and leading the international response to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine.

    At this time of unprecedented challenges, the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom have never been more apparent. The United Kingdom Government are providing the Scottish Government with a record block grant settlement of £41 billion per year over the next three years, and the people in Scotland are benefiting from unprecedented cost of living support announced by this Prime Minister and our Chancellor. It is important now that we move on from constitutional issues, to focus on tackling our shared challenges. I therefore welcome the Supreme Court’s judgment, and I call on the Scottish Government to set aside these divisive constitutional issues so that we can work together, focusing all of our attention and resources on the key issues that matter to the people of Scotland.

    The United Kingdom Government are proud of their role as the custodian of the devolution settlement. The United Kingdom is one of the most successful political and economic unions in the world. By promoting and protecting its combined strengths, we are building on hundreds of years of partnership and shared history. I will conclude by saying that when we work together as one United Kingdom, we are safer, stronger and more prosperous.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2022 Statement on the Personal Conduct of John Nicolson

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2022 Statement on the Personal Conduct of John Nicolson

    The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 23 November 2022.

    On 20 October, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee published a special report on answers given to it by the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) when she was Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) subsequently wrote to me asking for precedence for a complaint of a breach of privilege, as was his right. I declined to do so since the bar for such a complaint is high. The House should take action only when essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its Members or its officers from improper obstruction. I note that the Committee itself, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, has said:

    “Had Ms Dorries remained Secretary of State, driving a policy of selling the channel, we may have sought a referral to the Privileges Committee but, as her claims have not inhibited the work of the Committee and she no longer has a position of power over the future of Channel 4, we are, instead, publishing this Report to enable the House, and its Members, to draw their own conclusions.”

    So I considered it appropriate to respect the Committee’s assessment of the situation.

    Correspondence on matters of privilege is private. Indeed, I go to great lengths to ensure that Members can write to me in confidence on any matter, knowing that their communication will remain private. I expect the same courtesy with my replies. The hon. Member has seen fit to give a partial and biased account of my letter on Twitter, and I await his apology. I gave the hon. Member notice that I would be raising this matter at this time, but I do stress that it is not the way we should be doing business in this House.

    John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)

    As you have just explained, Mr Speaker, the DCMS Committee, on which I sit, published a unanimous cross-party report about the testimony given to us by the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), and there is now considerable public interest in what should happen next. I want to put on record that I deplore social media pile-ons against you, or indeed anyone else—I have been on the receiving end of them, and they are exceedingly unpleasant. But could I ask for guidance on what I and other Members should tell our constituents about integrity in politics in this context? If someone misleads a Committee, what should happen next?

    Mr Speaker

    First of all, printing the letter, and only half the letter, is not integrity; in fact, it is far from it. It misled the people of this country, and it certainly put me in a bad light with the people of this country, and I do not expect that to happen, as an impartial Speaker. If that was an apology, I do not think it was very good.

  • Supreme Court – 2022 Ruling on Whether Scottish Government Can Call Referendum on Independence

    Supreme Court – 2022 Ruling on Whether Scottish Government Can Call Referendum on Independence

    The ruling issued by the Supreme Court on 23 November 2022.

    Ruling (in .pdf format)

  • Steve Baker – 2022 Comments on IPSA Guidelines Allowing MPs to Claim for Christmas Parties

    Steve Baker – 2022 Comments on IPSA Guidelines Allowing MPs to Claim for Christmas Parties

    The comments made by Steve Baker, the Conservative MP for Wycombe, on Twitter on 22 November 2022.

    I wouldn’t think for a moment of claiming for a staff Christmas party. What new hell is this?

  • IPSA – Statement on Taxpayer Funded Christmas Parties

    IPSA – Statement on Taxpayer Funded Christmas Parties

    The statement made by IPSA on 22 November 2022.

    We are aware of concerns regarding the rules for MPs’ festive and celebratory claims. Our rules have not changed. MPs employ, on average, five members of staff in their local constituencies to deal with casework from members of the public. These cases are often distressing for the constituent and staff member alike and working in that environment day in and day out is very challenging.

    As employers, it is entirely appropriate that MPs should, if they see fit, reward their staff with a modest gathering at Christmas. We are clear that alcohol is not included, that any event must represent value for money, is subject to publication for transparency and must not be party political in nature. It must be funded within existing budgets.

    To suggest that there is anything inappropriate in this is simply incorrect. We are disappointed with the interpretation of this normal employment practice at a time when MPs are receiving large amounts of abuse, particularly on social media.

  • Jess Phillips – 2022 Comments on IPSA Guidelines Allowing MPs to Claim for Christmas Parties

    Jess Phillips – 2022 Comments on IPSA Guidelines Allowing MPs to Claim for Christmas Parties

    The comments made by Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, on Twitter on 22 November 2022.

    Just want to say no one asked for this, no one I know will use it. The guidance wasn’t made by MPs and yet we will be pilloried for it. I think it’s really irresponsible to issue this guidance as if MPs have been clamouring for it when I’ve literally never heard anyone do that.

  • Gillian Shephard – 2022 Comments on Announcement of Chloe Smith Standing Down

    Gillian Shephard – 2022 Comments on Announcement of Chloe Smith Standing Down

    The comments made by Gillian Shephard, the former Education Secretary, on 22 November 2022.

    Chloe Smith has been an outstanding Member of Parliament for Norwich North since her election in 2009, when at only 27 she became the youngest member of the House of Commons.  Since then she has served as a minister in the Treasury, the Cabinet Office, as Minister for Disabled People, and finally as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.  She has worked tirelessly on behalf of her constituents in Norwich North, and in Norwich and Norfolk as a whole, while at the same time bringing up a young family with her husband and successfully fighting breast cancer.  She will be enormously missed by the many, many people she has helped in her time as a local MP, by her constituency members and her local colleagues. Nationally, her quiet competent presence will also be greatly missed. We will all miss her support and loyal friendship.