UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Parliament

  • Thangam Debbonaire – 2022 Speech on the Restoration of the Palace of Westminster

    Thangam Debbonaire – 2022 Speech on the Restoration of the Palace of Westminster

    The speech made by Thangam Debbonaire, the Labour MP for Bristol West, in the House of Commons on 12 July 2022.

    I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this timely debate on how we will govern the essential programme of works needed to preserve the heart of our democracy for years and generations come.

    Only yesterday, the sitting of this House was suspended as water poured in. It is not the first time that business has been disrupted by a potentially unsafe working environment, and while yesterday’s sitting was suspended for only an hour, who knows how long we could be forced out next time? Electrical, plumbing or mechanical failure—there is urgent work to be done, so I am glad that we have the chance to get things moving again today.

    Whether it is the weight of history on one’s shoulders as one walks through the 11th-century Westminster Hall, or the beauty of the sunlight beaming across New Palace Yard through the colonnades, the honour of working on a UNESCO world heritage site comes with a duty to be a responsible custodian. It is an honour to work in the Palace of Westminster, with all its architectural, cultural and historical significance. We also have legal and moral obligations to preserve this listed building, which around the world is a symbol of Britain and our democracy. But those who work here need to be able to carry out the functions of a modern-day Parliament, and those who visit here ought to be able to experience the Palace in all its glory, and they must be able to do so safely.

    Whether they are working or visiting, everyone on the parliamentary estate must not only be but feel safe—safe from falling masonry, safe from asbestos, safe from a catastrophic failure of the building. I share the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that we are heading for that catastrophic failure if we do nothing. I recognise the concerns of right hon. and hon. Friends and Members in all parts of the House that that is where we are heading.

    When I say everyone, I truly mean it. The estate must also be made more accessible to people with disabilities. Not only does the lack of accessibility make visiting the estate difficult, but it disenfranchises a talented group of people from working in Parliament. Restoration and renewal could provide opportunities to improve access and step-free accessibility, as well as visitor facilities.

    I think no one is likely to disagree with anything I have said, which is similar to much of what the Leader of the House said, so Members could be forgiven for wondering why we are here—why we are where we are in the restoration and renewal of the Palace. In 2018, the Commons and the Lords agreed that work was pressing and rightly concluded that it should be undertaken by a statutory sponsor body and delivery authority. Subsequently, as my amendment highlights—it pains me to have to say this, but I do have to and I notified the right hon. Gentleman that I would—the former Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), worked to undermine progress and spent time wrangling with experts instead of working with them to secure the future of the building.

    We must follow the evidence and the advice of experts. I did think that the Government could have learnt by now that ignoring experts is just not advisable. I am afraid to say that in my view there is a political dimension. The Leader of the House asked me not to make it a party political matter. I am afraid to say that there is a huge aspect that is. It is on certain members of the Government that we are here. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset just kept changing the goal posts. I have seen that happen. That is typical of the whole Government.

    However, today’s motion, much as I might regret that we are here, is purely about the governance structure of the works. As shadow Leader and therefore member of the House of Commons Commission, I was part of the Joint Commission that took this decision, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I will support the motion. I do so not because I am happy with how we got here—I am very much not—but because it seems to me that we are running out of other options. I do not want to undermine the skill and undoubted dedication of the people involved in the Sponsor Body, but for whatever reason—there is a range of reasons—confidence had been lost over emerging costs and so on. The Independent Expert Panel reviewed the situation and has concluded that the current model is unlikely to be viable.

    Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)

    My hon. Friend talks about costs and we have heard about spiralling costs. The Sponsor Body has been honest about what the costs are. One of the biggest problems in this place is that we come up with figures—the Queen Elizabeth Tower being a classic example—that are totally unrealistic. We have to be honest that this project will cost a lot of money.

    Thangam Debbonaire

    My right hon. Friend is exactly right. We do not have to be expert builders to see that this is going to cost money and it is going to take time. I see no alternative to both Houses having to move out for a period of time, as yet undetermined.

    I also say in response to my right hon. Friend that this shows the critical role of the Commons Finance Committee, the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission, chaired so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), and the Public Accounts Committee, which has done such excellent work. Members of the PAC are here today and are very knowledgeable and skilled at exactly that sort of line by line scrutiny. We would need that whoever was commissioning the works—whether it was the Sponsor Body, and both Committees have paid close attention to the current structure, or any future structure.

    Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)

    In 2015, I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). On that basis, I went to see the works and the operations of this building. It is still remarkable to me that we keep the entire thing going. My hon. Friend, the shadow Leader of the House, mentioned people who work here and their expertise. Is she confident that account has been taken of their judgment about the way they can continue to operate the building while this procrastination goes on and that we can support them in the difficult work that they do?

    Thangam Debbonaire

    I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is right to raise it and to pay tribute to the work of the Public Accounts Committee. Am I confident? I am not currently confident or certain of where we are at the moment in terms of delivering anything in the way that we wanted to, but I am confident that we need to do it. Having spoken to the Delivery Authority, I am confident that it views this as doable, and it is the authority that will be carrying out the work. Having reviewed the situation, the Independent Expert Panel noted:

    “in principle the existing governance model could be made to work, but that lost confidence and momentum means that retaining the current model is unlikely to work.”

    What it has also said, which might speak to my hon. Friend’s question, is that the recommendation of bringing the Sponsor Body function in-house should be viewed as a pragmatic measure to cover what is needed for the next 12 to 24 months—the decision phase if you like. It has also recommended that that pragmatism should not preclude alternative future options. We need to see this as part of a process to get us to the decision. Regrettable though it may be, and I do regret it, that we are where we are, this appears to be a compromise way of moving forward, with best value for money, safety and time.

    Dame Meg Hillier

    I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about the Public Accounts Committee. To be clear, the role of that Committee is no substitute for the role of a proper sponsor or client function that keeps a close eye on the cost on a day-to-day basis. We look at things retrospectively, although we may make recommendations. Nor are we, as the Public Accounts Committee, expert enough to deliver this process. She talks about our report. Our report said that we regretted that decisions were made secretively and in private on a decision that was before the House and an Act of Parliament of this House. Does she have any comment about how we got from that Act of Parliament to where we are today?

    Thangam Debbonaire

    I completely support what my hon. Friend says. Why are we here? I have already mentioned my own view on why we are here, at least partly. We need to note here that the Sponsor Body was repeatedly asked, as if we had had a referendum—goodness me—and asked people to keep voting on it until they came up with the answer that was wanted. It is very difficult to avoid looking at some of what has happened over the past couple of years and coming to the conclusion that there were people who were just going to keep asking until they got a different answer and, eventually, when they got a different answer, they said, “I don’t like that answer.”

    That is problematic. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is not the duty of the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise the day-to-day spending of this body, whether it is in-house or external. It will need a very strong programme board, which will need expertise. There will also have to be extremely tight accounting measures.

    I do not yet know exactly who will be on the programme board. I urge all those right hon. and hon. Members who have not just an interest—interest alone is not enough—but actual skill in this area, and ideally some of those who have history, having sat on so many Committees, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) have, to consider whether they should be part of the programme board. I certainly urge them to think about it.

    Doing nothing is not an option. There is no doubt that large-scale work is needed. Asbestos, leaks, wires, plumbing nobody knows the function of, a building at risk of fire and flood—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) is quite right that the fire remediation works mean that we are protected, but the building is not—this work has to happen. It is testament to the hard-working House staff and to contractors that we thankfully have not yet witnessed a catastrophic failure of the building, as has been seen in others around the world, but at some stage that hard work will not be enough.

    I want that on record. We must make sure that we are not the Parliament that delayed, at the cost of this magnificent building with its magnificent history. The parliamentary estate is in desperate need, and it is important that the restoration and renewal process works well with Parliament’s maintenance teams, who do such a good job. We have therefore no choice but to find a way out.

    I note the amendment in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda and for Hackney South and Shoreditch and other right hon. and hon. Members, who are incredibly knowledgeable. I agree with their desire for urgency and that everything must be done to avoid unnecessary delay, cost and risk. I particularly pay further tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch for the work she has done on the Public Accounts Committee. I reiterate that in its recent report, the Committee encouraged further scrutiny. Value for taxpayers is important.

    Before I close, I also recognise my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East, who in his role as Chair of the Finance Committee and the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission has been invaluable, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside. Many hon. Members have sat on the Committees for many years, but I do believe he may be the only one to have sat on pretty much all of them for a significant amount of time. His incredible wealth of knowledge seems to me to be unmatched.

    However, having made my points, I will not test the House’s patience by pushing the amendment in my name to a vote. I will end by saying that we are the generation who have been given the honour, the privilege and, yes, we could say the burden of sorting this problem out. I think it is an honour and a privilege. Some of us will not see the end of it—either we will be no more, or we will be no more Members of Parliament. That is just where we are. We are the generation who decided to put it off no longer. We must go on record as having done everything we can to get the process moving, to preserve and enhance the Palace of Westminster so that it can go on as a safe, thriving and accessible workplace for many, many more centuries to come.

  • Mark Spencer – 2022 Statement on the Restoration of the Palace of Westminster

    Mark Spencer – 2022 Statement on the Restoration of the Palace of Westminster

    The statement made by Mark Spencer, the Leader of the House of Commons, in the House on 12 July 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House:

    reaffirms its commitment to preserving the Palace of Westminster for future generations and ensuring the safety of all those who work in and visit the Palace, now and in the future;

    notwithstanding the Resolution of 31 January 2018, welcomes the report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions proposing a new mandate for the Restoration and Renewal works and a new governance structure to support them;

    accordingly endorses the recommendations set out in the Commissions’ report; and

    in consequence, approves the establishment of a joint department of the two Houses, under the terms of the Parliament (Joint Departments) Act 2007.

    May I say at the outset what an honour it is to stand here, in this historic and iconic Chamber, which is recognised around the world. We are truly privileged to represent our constituents here. However, we also have a responsibility to ensure that it is here for future generations, and a responsibility for its upkeep and preservation. We take those responsibilities very seriously. So today, on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, I am asking the House to endorse the report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions—which was unanimously agreed on a cross-party basis—recommending a revised mandate for the Restoration and Renewal programme, and to approve the motion before the House.

    The building needs to be repaired; that is not in question. The Commissions are united in recognising that, and we reaffirm our commitment to protecting this historic palace for future generations. The Commissions have worked constructively and across party lines to address Parliament’s shared challenge, and I therefore welcome the signature of the spokesman for the House of Commons Commission, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), on the motion.

    In that context, the amendment proposed by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), is somewhat disappointing, and contrary to the spirit in which work has proceeded so far. I think that the hon. Lady and I have a constructive working relationship, and I hope that we can get back on an even keel and find a way through this. We certainly agree that the need for the work is urgent, that delay in starting it will increase the costs and risks, and that it should be started as soon as possible to—in the words of the Joint Commission—

    “ensure the maximum value for money”.

    There is definitely no blank cheque available from the taxpayer.

    The hon. Lady’s amendment does not really add anything to the report of the Joint Commission; rather, it is at odds with the consensual and productive cross-party approach taken by the Joint Commissions of both Houses. Rebuilding the Palace of Westminster is a huge task and it will require all parliamentarians to take difficult decisions and both Houses to be in agreement. If we are divided or deliberately partisan, our tasks will become near impossible. I hope the hon. Lady will reflect and withdraw her amendment, but I look forward to hearing her words when she gets to her feet. I hope we can work constructively together in the near future to deliver the project.

    Nevertheless, the question will no doubt arise: why are we here again? Surely the debates of 2019 finished the issue and we should not be back revisiting it. In fact, we are at a crossroads where decisions are required in a radically different context. In 2018, decisions on the structure of the programme were made at a time when estimates were in the region of £3.5 billion, with a programme to decant for approximately six years. This was the context in which the two Houses agreed the current approach. But in early 2022, the Sponsor Body published its essential schemes options. It estimated the cost to be between £7 billion and £13 billion and that the work would take between 19 and 28 years and require a full decant of the Palace of Westminster for between 12 and 20 years. Those are certainly very different from the figures with which we were presented in the past. The Sponsor Body also concluded that work would probably not begin until 2027 at the very earliest.

    This is a very different proposition. A gap has emerged between what is realistic, practical and can be justified to taxpayers, and what is being proposed by the Sponsor Body. These estimates make it difficult to proceed down this path only two years after the pandemic and facing a challenging fiscal context. In 2019 it was thought that an independent body was best placed to act on behalf of Parliament and guide this project, but we must now recognise the flaws in that model. As the independent panel says, the governance structure envisaged in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 was based on certainty: a project flows through a standard business case cycle with clear progress, “unimpeded by the Client”. But Parliament presents a particularly complex environment, and this is a programme spanning multiple Parliaments, so the governance structure must, in the words of the panel, be able to

    “anticipate and adapt to changing demands”.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am very critical of what the Commissions have done in this regard because I have a terrible fear that if we just keep on changing the governance structure time after time, we will never move forward until there is some catastrophe in the building. That is precisely what happened in the 19th century, and it looks as if we are going to do it all over again, with politicians meddling in something that should be done for generations. Can he confirm, however, that his motion today will not be contradictory to a full decant of both Houses across eight years, which I know is his personal preference?

    Mark Spencer

    I am happy to confirm that to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has taken a great interest in this project. It is important to be clear with the House today that taking the Sponsor Body back in-house and back under the control of the House does not rule out any option. It does not rule out the option of a decant of 20 years. What I am saying to the House is that I do not think that that is a deliverable option. We need to look at some more practical measures, and I will come to that later in my speech. It is difficult to comprehend how we can deliver a project of this magnitude without some form of decant, but I am not an expert and, as the hon. Gentleman says, lots of Members are not experts in this field, so we need the delivery authority, which will have that expertise, to guide us and to come to those decisions very quickly.

    Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)

    The Leader of the House has acknowledged that he is not an expert, and that most of us in this House are not experts on running major projects. The original intention of the Act of Parliament passed by this House, which has been unpicked in private in the Commissions, was that an expert body, the Sponsor Body, would be created to deliver that expertise. That body has now been abolished. He says that it has been brought in-house, but many people have left it. Can he be very precise with the House about exactly what will replace it, and where he thinks that expertise will come from in the Commissions, which in both Houses do not have the inbuilt expertise to deliver this project?

    Mark Spencer

    I will come to that, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right. What we need to do is get on with this project and stop dilly-dallying, which is why the direction of travel was not as rapid as the Commissions and I wanted. We were heading for a huge confrontation with this House, because I do not think the plans would have been palatable to Members when we finally got there. There is a shortcut we can take to expedite this process, and I will come to the structure later. I think we can get to a place where we can all agree to tap into the expertise she says we need, and that is what we are trying to establish.

    John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

    Do we not also need some common sense and realism? Surely the priority is to do those works that are essential to the safety of the building and its occupants. We have to understand the mood of the times and say to the experts that to allow this enormous escalation in the project’s cost, scope and timing is simply not acceptable.

    Mark Spencer

    I honestly think we can do both. I think we can get to an understanding and a place where, with expert advice, we can get value for taxpayers’ money, where we can progress this as rapidly as possible and where we can take a more common-sense approach.

    The Commissions have taken all these points on board, carefully assessed the options and sought independent advice on the best way forward. The Commissions, with cross-party representation and independent and external members, have taken a unanimous decision that it is necessary to revise the approach to the governance and mandate of the R&R programme.

    We need a governance structure that is responsive to the requirements of the parliamentary context, is accountable to Parliament and is better placed to build the necessary consensus. The Commissions have judged that this can be best achieved through an in-house structure. The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act will remain in place and will continue to provide the statutory underpinning.

    The current Sponsor Body will be abolished, and its functions under the Act will be transferred to two corporate officers who will become the statutory duty holders. The Act provides for this flexibility by allowing for the Sponsor Body to be abolished and for its functions to be transferred. The proposed in-house governance structure will consist of two tiers: a client board on which the two Commissions have strategic oversight; and a programme board with external expertise that will be central to resolving critical choices and priorities.

    Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)

    One of the reasons why those of us who sat on the Joint Committee seven years ago—it is sad that so much time has gone by—did not look to do this in-house was that we judged that the expertise did not exist in-house. Although there are some fantastic people working here, I am afraid the House does not have a great track record of delivering projects cost-effectively. Why does my right hon. Friend think this will now somehow change?

    Mark Spencer

    That is a little disingenuous. The cast-iron roof project, for example, was delivered in-house and was delivered on time and on budget, which demonstrates that the House authorities do have that ability, but I think they would also recognise that they do not have the expertise, which is why it will be brought in. The programme board will be the structure that has experts who are able to advise and come forward with proposals.

    Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)

    Following on from my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), it is certainly a fact that the people who will be in the joint department have signed off projects in this House such as the Elizabeth Tower, which has trebled in cost. Can the Leader of the House give the House an absolute guarantee that the expert panel will be in place throughout the project and that the joint department will actually take its advice?

    Mark Spencer

    That would require this House to change that model again if that were the case. That expertise will be brought in and accessed, which is what we require; we do require that expertise. My hon. Friend said that he did not think there was a huge track record, but the model on which we were operating was driving us towards a huge cliff edge where we were going to be faced with a bill of the top side of £20 billion and a decant of 20-plus years, which I do not think this House would tolerate or vote for. We would be completely hamstrung. In that circumstance, what I am suggesting, as are the two Commissions, is that in this model we can come forward with some more practical measures and reprioritisation, which I will come to in a moment.

    The relatively small staff team of the Sponsor Body will be brought in-house as a Joint Department, accountable to the Corporate Officers, delivering the strategic case and working in tandem with Strategic Estates. Let me emphasise that the Delivery Authority’s role will remain unchanged; that valuable expertise and experience will remain in place. The senior leadership of the Delivery Authority will continue and, following recent discussions, I am confident and positive about their ability to work within the new governance structure.

    Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)

    On the staff team and the Sponsor Body, will the Leader of the House give a commitment that all of the staff team will be brought in-house and that that will be done speedily so that they do not find themselves in the limbo they are currently in?

    Mark Spencer

    They are currently planned to TUPE across, and they will be taken across. Some of them have already left, but it is important to understand that the real expertise is within the Delivery Authority. We have secured the use of those individuals and they are busy on other projects within the House.

    There is a need, highlighted in the Public Accounts Committee’s report—one that the Commissions absolutely recognise and have sought to address in their report—for the programme to enable long-term decision making. The Commissions’ report recommends that an end-state vision should be developed. Having a clear end goal in sight allows granular decisions to follow, and Parliament will have to accept compromises and take some difficult decisions in setting that long-term direction. But we cannot anticipate all the needs or events of the future. Opportunities for periodic review allow the programme to adapt to changing fiscal, societal and political contexts. Neither can we override parliamentary sovereignty. It is just realistic to recognise that there must be opportunities for future Parliaments to review decisions.

    The House is further being asked to endorse a revised approach to the works, one that puts safety first. Parliament must be guided by rigorous value-for-money considerations. In these economic times, financial responsibility must be our watchword. As I said earlier, there is no blank cheque from the taxpayer.

    Chris Bryant

    May I try again?

    Mark Spencer

    Of course.

    Chris Bryant

    The Leader of the House keeps talking about how every Parliament has to be able to reform and change the system, but that is just like procurement in the Ministry of Defence; we just keep changing the specification of the tank and it gets more and more expensive, because we never move forward. That is the real danger that a lot of us are worrying about, which is why we wanted to have an arm’s-length organisation. The membership of the Commissions does not even stay the same. I am guessing it might change when he is no longer Leader of the House, perhaps on 6 September. All these changes just make it impossible for us to drive forward a project in a cost-effective and non-risky way.

    Mark Spencer

    The hon. Gentleman is wrong, in that we are changing the structures but he has to recognise that if this project is to take 25 years to deliver to its final conclusion, it is entirely possible that the circumstances in 25 years’ time will not be the same as they are today. It is clearly possible to imagine a circumstance, in fairly recent times, where the internet did not exist, and clearly that technology was not considered when we were adapting and changing the House—that has had to be built in. I do not know, as I do not have a crystal ball, what technology may be required in the future. We need to have the flexibility of foot to be able to accommodate any of those future changes.

    Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)

    Is it not the case that this project may never end, because as things go on breaking and evolving, we will be doing this forever. Therefore my right hon. Friend is right to take it in-house, and to keep the bills low, because my constituents want the potholes in their roads repaired and they want a hospital. They are very happy with this but they are not as bothered about this place as they are about their own? So is not this just going to be an endless process, which we need to manage on an ongoing basis?

    Mark Spencer

    Where my hon. Friend is right is that it is a little bit like the Forth Bridge, in that there will always be something that will need to be maintained, protected or made safe. In the short term, we need to prioritise those things. There are four areas that the Commissions want to prioritise; I hope the House will agree that they are all very important priorities. No. 1 is fire and safety; that is absolutely fundamental to what we should be driving towards. Building services are second, then asbestos, and then building fabric conservation. I hope Members will agree that those are indeed urgent priorities for us to focus on.

    Dame Meg Hillier

    On the point of fire safety, could the Leader of the House confirm that the tens of millions of pounds—£140 million or so—that has been spent on the fire safety system to date protects those of us who may be working or in the building at the time, so that we could escape; but it does not protect the building? Would he also confirm that he is aware of, and understands, the responsibilities that UNESCO places on the Government of the day to make sure that this world heritage site does survive?

    Mark Spencer

    Of course; it is absolutely vital. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that actually Notre Dame burned down—a terrible disaster—because workmen were in there. They had actually decanted, and it was the workmen who were working in there that finally burnt down Notre Dame. So we do have a responsibility to make sure not only that people are safe, but that the building is here for hundreds of years to come. I think we can achieve that by making those our four most important priorities.

    For the medium and long term, the Commissions’ report sets out the parameters of how to deliver the works, above all advocating better integration of all the various safety, repair and renewal works that are taking place across the palace. That approach could allow decisions to be brought to Parliament quicker, work to start faster, and priorities to be flexed where required.

    Turning to the next steps, the motion before the House is to endorse the recommendations of the Joint Commission and agree the change to the response function and the revised mandate to the works. Secondary legislation will be required to give effect to some of these decisions. So over the next year options will be reviewed, and a strategic case will be presented to the House in 2023. It is important for Members to understand that the House is not being asked for a decision on decant or costs today. Members will be consulted, and will have opportunities to engage with the decision making, and the House will need to take future decisions on these issues at a later date. In the meantime, the Commissions have endorsed a pragmatic approach that will allow work to be undertaken in the interim.

    Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    This is a critically important point. The Leader of the House has said that an outline business case will be presented, with options, in 2023. Following that, can he tell the House when a contract to start the work is likely to take place—that it is likely to take place in this Parliament? That would make it less likely that a following Parliament would alter the decision?

    Mark Spencer

    That clearly would be the ambition—to try and get on with that as soon as possible, but there is lots of other work that we can get on with in the meantime. For example, there is a plan to renovate the Victoria Tower at the other end of this building. That was going to be left until the restoration and renewal project was fully under way, but under this model we shall be able to get on with that much more quickly, and make sure that that masonry is secure and in place for future generations.

    Let me turn to amendment (b) tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and others. To be clear, the House is not being asked for a decision on decant today: the extent to which the House should move is ultimately for Members to consider. The report does not make a recommendation on length, the moves or location, nor does anything in the motion or Commissions’ report predetermine any outcome. So we may well end up in the place advocated in amendment (b). However, I am asking the House today not to bind the hands of those who are looking at this—to give them a free hand to go and consider these things in a timely way and to come back with a very firm and clear plan.

    The intrusive surveys, which are nearing completion, will offer us a clearer view of the condition of the House. The proposed amendment would further tie our hands and require us to make a decision on the basis of incomplete information and evidence. Let us allow the Delivery Authority to do its job and complete the intrusive survey, then take the decision on decant informed by the evidence in 2023, as originally planned. In my view, the state of the building is such that a period of decant will be required, but unlike some hon. Members, I do not wish to pre-emptively decide on a timeframe.

    Many Members will agree with the spirit of this amendment. The Commissioners present will hear what Members say during the debate, and I hope their views will be taken on board as we move forward. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to press the amendment. This is not the time to commit the House or to bind the Commissions’ hands. I hope that we can join together and move forward. The Commissions have unanimously agreed to propose a new way forward, one that allows us to balance our requirements of a working legislature and our responsibility to take decisions appropriate to the economic context in which we find ourselves today. I bring this motion to the House on behalf of the Commissions.

  • Heather Wheeler – 2022 Statement on Severance Pay for Ministers

    Heather Wheeler – 2022 Statement on Severance Pay for Ministers

    The statement made by Heather Wheeler, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, in the House of Commons on 11 July 2022.

    The severance pay for Ministers is established in legislation that was passed by Parliament in 1991 and that has been used by successive Administrations over several decades. The Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 states that where a Minister of eligible age ceases to hold office and is not reappointed to a ministerial office within three weeks, they will be entitled to a severance payment of a quarter of their ministerial annual salary. The context of this legislative provision is the reality that ministerial office can end at very short notice indeed, that reshuffles are a fundamental part of the operation of Government and, by their nature, routinely remove Ministers from office, and that, unlike in other employment contexts, there are no periods of notice, no consultations and no redundancy arrangements. Section 4 of the Act therefore makes provision for severance payments.

    This is a statutory entitlement, and it has existed and been implemented for several decades, by Governments of all stripes. Severance payments were made and accepted by outgoing Labour Ministers between the Blair and Brown years, as well as during the Administration in 2007, and by Liberal Democrat Ministers during the coalition. To ensure transparency, severance payments are published in the annual reports and accounts of Government Departments. As an example of the previous operation of this provision, the data published in 2010 indicated that severance payments made to Labour Ministers in that year amounted to £1 million. Finally, let me be clear that although this is a statutory entitlement, Ministers are able to waive such payments. This is not a matter for the Government; it is an entirely discretionary matter for the individuals concerned, and this is an approach that has been taken before.

    Fleur Anderson

    Thank you very much for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I welcome the fact that there is a Minister to respond. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, and with families struggling to make ends meet and get to the end of each month, the British public will be rightly watching this distracted Government with disgust. They are too busy infighting to provide real solutions, and to add insult to injury, thousands of pounds of people’s hard-earned taxes will be handed out to former Ministers. By my reckoning, £250,000 of severance pay will be given to Ministers who have not been reinstated. Five former Secretaries of State will receive more that £16,000 each, including the former Secretary of State for Education, who was in post for 36 hours and is due to receive close to the annual starting salary for a teaching assistant.

    This unprecedented wave of resignations and the avalanche of abdications make this a unique case. The vast majority were not sackings or forced resignations. The departures were caused entirely by a discredited Prime Minister clinging to office and a Conservative party unwilling to deal with it. Now our constituents are forced to foot the bill, paying for this Government’s chaos yet again. So I ask the Minister: what is the exact cost of these resignations to the taxpayer? Have any payments already been made to former Ministers? If so, how much and to whom? Will Ministers receive the severance in a one-off payment to their bank account? How do these payments represent good value for money to the public, and what arrangements are there to ensure that they can be waived, as she identified, and returned to the Treasury? Former Ministers need to look themselves in the mirror and decide if their constituents would wish them to accept this payment, and this whole Government must tell us if they can really defend this use of our money.

    Mrs Wheeler

    As I said earlier, and to answer the hon. Lady’s question, at this point no Ministers who resigned are entitled to receive a severance payment. We have a three-week window.

    Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disingenuous of the Opposition to reference my alleged severance pay, as I made it clear almost immediately after resigning that I would not be taking such money?

    Mrs Wheeler

    Indeed, and I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming that she has already talked to the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office and that she will not be receiving the payment.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Answers at Liaison Committee (Visa System For Ukrainian Refugees)

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Answers at Liaison Committee (Visa System For Ukrainian Refugees)

    The answers given by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, at the Liaison Committee held in the House of Commons on 6 July 2022.

    Dame Diana Johnson: Thank you. Good afternoon, Prime Minister. A few weeks ago, I met a group of Ukrainian MPs who had travelled to the UK via the Republic of Ireland. Like every other country, the Republic of Ireland, for Europe, doesn’t require a visa. They then travelled up through the common travel area. They didn’t have anything checked. They were raising with me whether it was a sensible decision to allow such a bureaucratic visa system for Ukrainians fleeing Ukraine—if it was a sensible use of resources. As we know, it has compromised the capacity of the Home Office. What do you say to that?

    The Prime Minister: I hear you loud and clear, Diana. I think that the argument that has been put me is—well, two things. First of all, we have got to be careful that we are able to screen people properly and—

    Dame Diana Johnson: Yes, but these people are coming up through the common travel area; there’s no screening.

    The Prime Minister: I accept that, and I accept the limitations of screening, but on the other hand, you’ve got to look at what we have done so far: 135,000 visas have been issued, and I think that the record is getting better and better. The UK is hosting a lot of Ukrainians, and I think we should be very proud of that.

    Q32 Dame Diana Johnson: Okay. Perhaps I will come on to the problems with the Home Office and, as I have just alluded to, the capacity issues of the Home Office when they designed a whole new visa system. Why is it that British people are waiting so long to get their passports when we all knew there was going to be a surge in passport applications after covid, with people wanting to travel, have family holidays, get married abroad, and all of those things? Why is it that we’ve ended up with people waiting so long and having to spend so much time and money to get a passport?

    The Prime Minister: It is very frustrating, and I share everybody’s frustration. I think the answer is that the demand has been very big because people are very keen to go on holiday—

    Q33 Dame Diana Johnson: But this isn’t rocket science; you knew this.

    The Prime Minister—and we’ve rushed people into the Passport Office—

    Q34 Dame Diana Johnson: But why are we having to do that? We knew this was happening.

    The Prime Minister—and the numbers are starting to improve. I think, from memory, 91% get their passport within four to six weeks.

    Q35 Dame Diana Johnson: Well, the standard that the Home Office is supposed to operate on is three weeks. It is now 10 weeks. When will it go back down to three weeks?

    The Prime Minister: Well, I don’t know when it goes back down to three weeks, but I think that what I have in my head is that 91% get their passport within four to six weeks. I would urge everybody who is thinking of going away four to six weeks from now and hasn’t got a passport to get a passport.

    Q36 Dame Diana Johnson: Okay, so the bread-and-butter issues just aren’t being looked at by the Home Office and dealt with in a very good way. Why is it that your Government now have a backlog of 89,000 asylum claims that they have not decided? Why has that happened?

    The Prime Minister: Well, the UK has historically had very large numbers of asylum claims—

    Dame Diana Johnson: They’re stable.

    The Prime Minister—and I seem to remember that there were many, many thousands of asylum claims left un—

    Dame Diana Johnson: It is incorrect, Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister—undecided when the last Labour Government left office.

    Q37 Dame Diana Johnson: No, Prime Minister. The asylum claims in this country have remained fairly steady in the last few years, so your Home Office has built up a backlog of nearly 90,000 claims they’ve not decided. Can I just ask you, then, why is your Government so bad at actually sending back failed asylum seekers? In 2010, we sent back 10,663; last year, we sent back 806 failed asylum seekers. Why?

    The Prime Minister: Diana, I don’t think that it’s the fault of the officials; I think they do their level best. I don’t think it’s that they’re so bad; I think it’s that our brilliant legal profession is so good at finding reasons why they should not be returned.

    Q38 Dame Diana Johnson: That’s your answer? It is not to do with the fact that you have not been able to enter into agreements with other countries and you have not got a replacement for the Dublin agreement?

    The Prime Minister: My—

    Dame Diana Johnson: No? Okay.

    The Prime Minister: If you look at what happened with the Dublin agreement, that broke down across the board. Returns agreements have been extremely hard to strike.

    Q39 Dame Diana Johnson: Well, let’s put it this way. You said about 20 people came across in small boats across the channel last year—20—and there were 28,000 who came. On the civil service cuts that you talk about—the 20%, 30% or 40% cuts—will that help the Home Office get to grips with some of these problems, or will it make the situation worse?

    The Prime Minister: I think that certainly what you need when you talk about the asylum seekers crossing the channel illegally and in very frail vessels—

    Dame Diana Johnson: No, your cuts.

    The Prime Minister: The way to fix that is not just by having more civil servants, but to have a proper deterrent for the people traffickers—

    Q40 Dame Diana Johnson: I don’t think we are talking about having more, Prime Minister. We are talking about cuts.

    The Prime Minister—and to reduce the numbers of people who are being made to risk their lives.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Answers at Liaison Committee (Ukraine)

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Answers at Liaison Committee (Ukraine)

    The answers given by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, at the Liaison Committee held in the House of Commons on 6 July 2022.

    Tom Tugendhat: Prime Minister, good afternoon. The alliance that has been brought together to dissuade Russia from further actions, and indeed to push Russia out of Donetsk and Luhansk, has clearly got a window of opportunity before the winter starts to bite and the coalition starts to fracture as energy prices in Europe rise and homes across our country start to suffer. Are you able to concentrate on building that alliance at the moment?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, and thanks, Tom. If you look at what the UK has done over the last couple of weeks, I think that the efforts of UK diplomacy, strategists, security and our armed forces have been very considerable. The G7 outcomes were at the upper end of expectations; NATO, again, probably exceeded expectations, both in the level of unity and in virtually every country around the table in NATO being determined to help President Zelensky in that window of opportunity you described.

    Q2 Tom Tugendhat: And you are seeing, of course, food prices rise around the world as the ports of Odesa are closed and Mariupol and so on are occupied. What are you doing to make sure the food is getting out from the Black sea—that such wheat as is available is able to get out? How are you supporting the United Nations, and what are you doing to prepare those states, including in the middle east and, of course, Africa, that are facing enormous food poverty, with the possibility of migration and the pressures that that will cause?

    The Prime Minister: First of all, on the grain that is being held hostage in Odesa, we are working with the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, who is leading the negotiations. The Turks are clearly crucial: they hold the waters. What the UK is offering is both demining capabilities, including remote demining capabilities—which we are good at—and the insurance of the vessels that might be used to ferry the grain out through the Bosphorus.

    We are looking at other routes in addition to convoys through the Bosphorus. We are also doing what we can to help smaller packets of grain go through land routes, or indeed up the River Danube and out that way, and we are spending some money on upgrading the railways to that end. We are starting to see some growing quantities of grain coming out, not via the Black sea but overland and on the rivers.

    Q3 Tom Tugendhat: As you know, we are seeing enormous pressure on the weaponry that goes into Ukraine. We are seeing a lot of promises but, sadly, fewer deliveries than promised from many countries. What are you doing to increase production and co‑operation between armaments companies around Europe, and in the United States and Canada, to increase the supply?

    The Prime Minister: The UK led the way in inaugurating the Ramstein conferences, which have brought countries together to supply weaponry to Ukraine, though the Americans and I are very much in the lead on that and are certainly providing the bulk of what is going in. We will be doing more in August at the Copenhagen conference, as I am sure you know—another military donor conference.

    The supplies continue to go in. The Ukrainians are steadily getting the kind of kit that they need if they are going to expel the Russians from where they are, but it is also very important that they are trained to use the multiple launch rocket systems effectively, so that very expensive weaponry is put to good use.

    Q4 Tom Tugendhat: Your Foreign Secretary has explained that victory in Ukraine means taking back every single square inch of Ukrainian soil, including Crimea. What is your view of victory?

    The Prime Minister: We cannot be more Ukrainian than the Ukrainians. That is for them to decide. President Zelensky has set out his ambitions; it will ultimately be for him to decide what are the terms that he wants, but he has been very clear that he would like to return at least to the status quo ante 24 February.

    Q5 Tom Tugendhat: What is your view of what victory for us should look like?

    The Prime Minister: I think that victory for the Ukrainians would be a result that the Ukrainian people feel is the right one, and at the moment I think I am right in saying that 90% or more of Ukrainians believe passionately that there should be no deal that involves land for peace. They want the Russians expelled from every part of the territory that Putin has invaded.

    Q6 Tom Tugendhat: Are you confident of holding the NATO agreement—or, rather, the European and American agreement—together in making sure that that coalition sustains the Ukrainians, even when the winter prices start to bite?

    The Prime Minister: I think what was notable at Madrid was how anxieties about the friability of the coalition were proved to be unfounded. That is because the logic of the situation simply demands international unity. There is no other solution; there is no deal on offer. Even if the Ukrainians wanted to do a deal of land for peace, Putin isn’t offering any such deal. He remains utterly maximalist in his objectives. That is why we have to continue to support Zelensky in the way that we are. That’s accepted around the table.

    Q7 Tom Tugendhat: Part of your commitment to sustaining Ukrainian operations, and indeed wider British military operations, was your increase to 2.5%. Given that the various international organisations, and indeed our own statistical agencies, do not foresee any growth in the UK economy in the coming years, who are you going to take the money off in order to increase the defence budget?

    The Prime Minister: Well, I’m not certain I agree with your premise about the growth of the UK economy in the coming years. I am sure we will come to this in later sections, but both the IMF and the OECD see us going back to being at or near the top of the growth league.

    Tom Tugendhat: It’s still a percentage, rather than an absolute.

    The Prime Minister: Sure. The 2.5 is just a prediction. It is based on the—I think—reasonable assumption that we are going to have to continue with the investments we are making in the future combat aircraft system and the AUKUS agreements with the Australians and the Americans. Those are very big projects. They will be expensive, but they are the right things for the country.

    Q8 Tom Tugendhat: The last question from me will be on Sweden and Finland. Clearly, their membership of NATO is an extremely important event—not just for them, but for all of us. What are the implications for the guarding of the High North and particularly the integrity of the United Kingdom and Scotland as part of that in the Alliance? What commitments is the UK willing to make to increase co-operation with Sweden and Finland—not just in military supplies, but in training?

    Chair: As briefly as you can, please.

    The Prime Minister: We already do a lot of co-operating with the joint expeditionary force—the JEF—as you know, which is up there in the High North. The addition of Finland and Sweden is a great moment for the Alliance. I think it will strengthen the Alliance. It tells you all you need to know about Putin and his aggression that countries as peaceable as Sweden and Finland have decided to join NATO.

    Chair: Tobias Ellwood.

    Q9 Mr Ellwood: Prime Minister, it is good to see you again. We are establishing that the world is getting more dangerous; the next decade is going to be very bumpy indeed. I want to focus on UK defence capabilities. Despite the injection of £24 billion, the integrated review has seen a tilt towards cyber and space, which is welcome, but it has come at the expense of cuts to all three conventional services.

    At your last appearance before the Committee, prior to the Russian invasion, you boldly stated that tanks are not the answer to the defence of Ukraine and that “the old concepts of…tank battles on the European landmass…are over”. Prime Minister, do you now recognise the value of tanks as part of our land warfare mix? Do plans to reduce our tank numbers now need to be reviewed?

    The Prime Minister: Thank you very much, Tobias. It is certainly important for the UK to have tanks. However, what were even more valuable, for the Ukrainian purposes, were anti-tank weapons. If you look at what really changed the course of the first few weeks of the war, it was the Javelins and the NLAWs in particular that were used to destroy the tanks and make Russia’s tank warfare extremely difficult. You will have seen exactly what happened.

  • Andrea Jenkyns – 2022 Statement on her Personal Conduct

    Andrea Jenkyns – 2022 Statement on her Personal Conduct

    The statement made by Andrea Jenkyns, the Conservative MP for Morley and Outwood, on 9 July 2022.

    On Thursday afternoon I went to Downing Street to watch the Prime Minister’s resignation speech. A baying mob outside the gates were insulting MPs on their way in as is sadly all too common.

    After receiving huge amounts of abuse from some of the people who were there over the years, and I have also had seven death threats in the last 4 years. Two of which have been in recent weeks and are currently being investigated by the police, I had reached the end of my tether.

    I responded and stood up for myself. Just why should anyone have to put up with this sort of treatment.

    I should have shown more composure but am only human.

  • Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech on the Functioning of Government

    Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech on the Functioning of Government

    The speech made by Michael Ellis, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, in the House of Commons on 7 July 2022.

    Mr Speaker, as the House will be aware, it is widely reported that the Prime Minister is about to make an important statement shortly. I can confirm that it is correct that the Prime Minister will speak shortly. I cannot pre-empt the Prime Minister’s statement, and the House and the nation will hear more imminently. In the meantime, the business of Government continues, supported in the usual way by our excellent civil service. There will continue to be Ministers of the Crown in place, including in all great offices of state. We must continue to serve our country, constituents and the general public first and foremost. It is our duty now to make sure the people of this country have a functioning Government. That is true now more than ever.

    The civil service is the foundation on which all Governments function. The civil service continues to support across all Government Departments, and the country can be assured that that will always remain the case—I have spoken this morning to the Cabinet Secretary to that effect. Any transitional arrangements have always been made to allow for the business of Government to continue. There are constitutional mechanisms in place to make sure that that can happen. We await the Prime Minister’s statement, but the House should be reassured that the Government continue to function in the meantime. Any necessary ministerial vacancies can and will be filled; other Secretaries of State can make decisions if necessary. There is a rich reserve of people who are both dedicated and talented, and who remain dedicated to serving our country and their constituents. Calmness and professionalism are now required. Our focus now is fully on the stability and continuity of Government. Now is the time to serve in the interests of our country, as it always is, and of our constituents during the period ahead.

    Angela Rayner

    I hate to break it to the Minister, but we do not have a functioning Government. It would be good news for the country that the Prime Minister is to announce his resignation; he was always unfit for office. He has overseen scandal, fraud and waste on an industrial scale, but the chaos of the last three days is more than just petty Tory infighting. These actions have serious consequences for the running of our country. In the middle of the deepest cost of living crisis for a generation, with families unable to make ends meet, a dangerous war in Europe threatening our borders and a possible trade crisis in Northern Ireland, Britain has no functioning Government: no Ministers in place to pass legislation; and Bill Committees cancelled with no one to run them.

    Can the Minister confirm whether the 11 Committees due to take place today will go ahead? Without Ministers, what are the arrangements to pass primary and secondary legislation, and who will answer oral questions? How will this Government continue to be democratically held to account? With the new Education Secretary resigning after 36 hours, which must be a record, there is not a single Member in the Department for Education. What does that mean for children taking their exams? What does that mean for the impending childcare cost crisis?

    Our British national security is at risk, too, not least because the Prime Minister thinks that he can stay on. With the departure of the Northern Ireland Secretary, only two Ministers are left able to sign security warrants to approve secret service use of sensitive powers. What contingency plans are in place to deal with emergencies in the short term?

    The Prime Minister has said that he will stay on as caretaker. How many more months of chaos does this country have to endure? With dozens of ministerial posts unfilled, who on earth will join the Prime Minister’s Government now and how will a half-empty Cabinet run the country until October? Mr Speaker, they will try desperately to change the person at the top, but it is the same old Tory party in government.

    Michael Ellis

    I cannot pre-empt the Prime Minister’s statement. The House and the nation will hear more very shortly, but Government and the civil service will continue to function in the meantime. The Business of the House statement will be made shortly, and Members can ask questions of the Leader of the House about the business of this place. The House will continue to function, and Government business will continue to function. Others Secretaries of State can deal with issues for other Departments, constitutionally and legally, in necessary circumstances.

    Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)

    Without wishing to pre-empt the Prime Minister’s statement, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he can be proud of a large number of achievements of his Government? May I invite my right hon. and learned Friend to pre-empt the Opposition by making it clear that Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, Tony Blair and Theresa May all left office and were succeeded by new leaders and new Prime Ministers without a general election and that the ship of state sails on?

    Michael Ellis

    My right hon. Friend is, of course, completely correct.

    Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)

    As I came into the Chamber, we were at 59 resignations and counting. A remarkable amount of leadership was shown by the junior ministerial ranks rather than by many of the Cabinet. I have been longing, since I was elected, for a Cabinet of remainers, but not necessarily of the kind that we have seen, clinging like limpets to a rock.

    Today’s announcement from the Prime Minister of his intention to resign comes after two years and 348 days in office, which, by supreme irony, is the same number of days as Neville Chamberlain spent in office as Prime Minister. It is a Prime Minister who achieved Brexit under false pretences, purely as part of his game to achieve entry to Downing Street. In that two years and 348 days, he has left behind a trail of political chaos and economic destruction, leaving any reputation that the UK might have retained as a reliable international partner that stands up for the international rules-based order trampled into the dust. We regularly in Scotland have to put up with patronising lectures about how well our Government are performing, yet in Westminster we have a Department for Education with no Education Ministers, six police forces in England under special measures and a Government who seem utterly paralysed and unable to deal with the major issues of the day. The idea that the Prime Minister can stay on and preside over this until the autumn is utterly risible. How long can this farce be allowed to continue, and how is it right that 300 Tory MPs will get to choose the next Prime Minister over that time while denying the right of 5.5 million Scots to choose their own future?

    Michael Ellis

    The Government and the civil service will continue to function in the meantime, as they always have done and as they have done historically.

    Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)

    I thank the Prime Minister for his great service to our nation and to the people of Ukraine. I think people will rue the day he was forced to resign. Is there not a lot to be said for having a smaller Cabinet, fewer Ministers and hardly any parliamentary private secretaries? Can we have a pilot to show how successful that will be?

    Michael Ellis

    My hon. Friend makes a perfectly interesting point, but it is somewhat outside the range of my responsibilities.

    Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)

    I have a list here of all the resignations from Government. I will not read them out, but there are plenty of tasty quotes in there that will be of use later on. The Minister cannot sensibly argue that we have a functioning Government when this number of people are missing. There are no Ministers to do statutory instrument Committees and legislation even as we speak. What is the way forward? He cannot just blather at the Dispatch Box when the Government are disintegrating around him.

    Michael Ellis

    The business of the House of Commons will continue. There are Ministers to continue in place. I cannot pre-empt the Prime Minister’s statement, but I have spoken to the Cabinet Secretary today and the Government and civil service will continue to function in their public duty.

    Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

    I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend and have great sympathy for the position he finds himself in. He and I have had to take some pretty rough cases in court in the past, and he has drawn a few short straws recently in that regard—and done so with dignity, if I may say so. May I ask him just to take this away? Whatever one’s views on the Prime Minister, and while I accept the importance of the continuity of the Government and the fact that there is no need for a general election at all—there is plenty of precedent for that—will my right hon. and learned Friend take away the serious question mark that many have about how long a caretaker Prime Minister can remain in place when there is real concern about whether the Government can be fully and effectively back? Might it not be in everybody’s interest to speed up the transition as much as possible?

    Michael Ellis

    I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He is right, of course, that a general election is not constitutionally necessary; the Prime Minister was before the Liaison Committee yesterday and said as much. We will await events, but I cannot pre-empt the Prime Minister’s statement.

    Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

    I am delighted to hear the Minister speaking positively about the role of the civil service. That contrasts rather well with the way the Government in recent years have done nothing but traduce and undermine its position. I must say that the Prime Minister cannot remain as a caretaker. That is just putting the bull in charge of the china shop. This is not all about Ministers and politicians; it is about our constituents and the public services on which they depend and which, for months now, this Government have been unable to deliver properly for them. That is why they all need to go.

    Michael Ellis

    The substantive matter that the right hon. Gentleman mentions is not a matter for me, but I will say that Ministers on this Bench and in this House will serve the Crown and this country, as they always have.

    Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

    I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement. Without wishing to pre-empt the Prime Minister, I am glad he has finally come to his senses and will be making his statement shortly. I am very sad that in the past 48 hours so many right hon. and hon. Friends have felt the need to resign from Government. If those people will not serve this Prime Minister, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to convey to the Prime Minister that it will not be tenable for him to continue as caretaker if he cannot fill the ministerial appointments he needs to?

    Michael Ellis

    I am sure that my hon. Friend’s comment has been noted.

    Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)

    It is a great relief that we will no longer have a Prime Minister who keeps on saying things that subsequently turn out to be untrue. Will the Minister reassure us that the change will take place in hours, not months, and does he recognise that effective democracy depends on Ministers telling the truth?

    Michael Ellis

    I can only say that the Prime Minister will make a statement shortly.

    Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)

    The hollow resignations by those who enthusiastically supported decisions such as voting for Owen Paterson show how they were unfit to serve as Ministers in the beginning. But the governance of this country cannot be allowed to fail, so when are these vacancies going to be filled? They must be filled immediately and we cannot allow decisions to be made by other Secretaries of State from other Departments. The country deserves better than that.

    Michael Ellis

    The Government will continue to function, and I have spoken to the head of the civil service to that effect.

    Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)

    The Independent reports that the PM and Tory Ministers resigning are entitled to £420,000 of severance pay. At the same time we have a Government gripped by paralysis and we have a cost of living crisis. Can the Minister confirm that they will be forfeiting their right to this, because we do not reward failure?

    Michael Ellis

    The matter that the hon. Lady refers to is set in statute, so it is a matter for the law, and that law would have been passed by this House.

    Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)

    It was an enormous honour to serve as a Minister in the Home Office until yesterday, tackling violence against women and girls. I know that is a cause that all Members of this House care deeply about. While we are discussing these matters, victims of rape, sexual assault, stalking and spiking continue to deserve justice and they will continue to be victims of crime. Will my right hon. Friend give his continued support to the vital work of Operation Soteria and the rape review. Will he join me in putting on record my thanks to Detective Chief Constable Maggie Blyth, Chief Constable Sarah Crew, Assistant Commissioner Louisa Rolfe and many other serving senior police officers who I know will capably continue to drive forward this work? Will he also thank the civil servants in the Home Office who I know will continue to do this essential work?

    Mr Speaker

    I understand it is good to get that on the record but there are a lot of other people I have got to try and get in.

    Michael Ellis

    I will do as my hon. Friend says. I commend her for her championing of this very important area. The rape review and the work thereof should of course continue.

    John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)

    There have been times occasionally when Prime Ministers have been temporarily incapacitated. There has never been a period in British history where a Government have been incapacitated across every Department of State. We have just heard how the secret services are being undermined by the current situation, putting national security at risk. At what point are the Government going to actually start functioning again?

    Michael Ellis

    The Government are functioning. I have already mentioned to the House that the great offices of state are still in place. The hon. Gentleman refers to our security and intelligence services. The Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary are in place.

    Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)

    What provisions are being put in place for the continuing operation of the EU-UK Partnership Council and the specialised committees over the coming months?

    Michael Ellis

    I think my hon. Friend knows that I attended a meeting of the EU-UK Partnership Council in Brussels recently. The functions of Government, including in the international sphere, will continue apace.

    Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)

    Before the House—before both Houses—there are two major Bills affecting Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is about the Prime Minister’s own decision, while the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill is very much the now-resigned Secretary of State’s province. Can we have absolute clarity, at this critical moment in the history of Northern Ireland and its relations with both the rest of the UK and Ireland, that we will get some sense from this Government about how we take these important matters forward?

    Michael Ellis

    I am particularly conscious of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, to which I think the hon. Gentleman is referring. The Leader of the House will be doing the usual business questions session soon in this House.

    Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)

    This latest Conservative party psychodrama only emphasises what many of us already know: the UK is a failed state. This Government have shown contempt for devolution. The Prime Minister’s successor will treat the electorate of Wales with the same disdain, and in this Palace the circus will roll on. Does the Paymaster General not recognise that surely now is the time for a new constitutional settlement for these islands?

    Michael Ellis

    The right hon. Lady frequently traduces this country. I disagree with her—I could not disagree with her more strongly. She has a separatist agenda, of course, and she wishes for the country to split, but in my view this country is the greatest country on earth.

    Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)

    On the anniversary of 7/7, security is of paramount importance to all in this House. With no Security Minister, a depleted Cabinet and a Home Office that was struggling prior to this chaos, what assurances can the Paymaster General give us that the intelligence agencies are receiving all the full ministerial and legal engagement and sign-off in a timely way to keep us all safe?

    Michael Ellis

    I cannot discuss the security arrangements of this country from the Dispatch Box, but the Secretary of State for the Home Department is in place and is responsible for the arrangements appertaining to the security services of this country.

    Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)

    I suggest that the Paymaster General look up the meaning of “functioning”, because his Government are not it. Will the Paymaster General confirm whether the now former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) will be getting the standard severance package for Secretaries of State of three months’ salary for a job that she did for just 36 hours?

    Michael Ellis

    Matters such as pay and remuneration are set in statute and are not a matter for me.

    Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)

    The Members of Parliament who have eventually forced out the Prime Minister and who blindly stood by him during the no confidence vote have not miraculously found their principles or their voices, but are doing so out of their own naked self-interest. Does the Paymaster General agree that a damaged and failing Prime Minister should go immediately and not hang around like a bad smell until the Tory conference in the autumn?

    Michael Ellis

    I cannot pre-empt the Prime Minister’s statement, but the business of Government will continue functioning as normal.

    Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)

    It is good to see the Paymaster General here—one of the last remaining living crew on the ghost ship HMG. In an effort to assist the burden of the skeleton crew who remain, we would like to arrange for the signing of a section 30 order to begin the process of moving some of the functions of government to a fully functioning set of Ministers in Holyrood.

    Michael Ellis

    No matter who forms the Government of this country, the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is of paramount importance, as the people of Scotland themselves decided in the referendum in 2014.

    Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)

    The current situation is clearly unsustainable. As we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), it is damaging crucial decision making and harming our reputation abroad. Could the Paymaster General please take this back to the Prime Minister, urge an urgent resolution and inform the House as soon as possible?

    Michael Ellis

    The Prime Minister will be speaking shortly.

    Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)

    Clearly the idea of the Prime Minister continuing as a caretaker will be worrying many people, but it is interesting to hear from the BBC that MPs are privately briefing that they are worried, perhaps half-jokingly, that the PM might take us to war to avoid leaving office. What will be done to ensure that the Opposition can hold to account a caretaker Prime Minister who has lost the faith of the country and his Government?

    Michael Ellis

    I recommend to the hon. Lady that she does not listen to gossip and rumour. The fact of the matter is that responsible government in this country will continue.

    Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)

    With the resignation this morning of the Secretary of State for Education, following that of her entire Commons ministerial team, the Education Committee did not even have the chance to ask about her plans. It has become abundantly clear to almost the entire population that for months, if not a few years, the only functioning cabinet in No. 10 Downing Street has been the drinks cabinet. When will the remnants of the Government Front Bench team accept that they have been in collective denial for far too long?

    Michael Ellis

    I think the hon. Gentleman asked a rhetorical question, but I will say that the Government will continue to function as the country would expect.

    Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)

    I am looking at many Tory MPs in the Lobby and everywhere using the word “sadness”, but each and every one of them upheld the Prime Minister and let him carry on. He should have resigned when partygate happened, when Durhamgate happened, when his ethics adviser resigned—he should have resigned a long time ago. Each and every one of them kept him here and now they are trying to take the moral high ground when he is finally on his way out. I will not feel sorry for them. Mr Speaker, how can the Opposition hold Ministers to account when there is not a governing Government?

    Mr Speaker

    It is not for me to answer.

    Michael Ellis

    The people who put the Prime Minister in place are the 14 million people who voted for the Conservative party at the general election.

    Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)

    This is one of the greatest crises that any of us can remember. In the national interest, surely we should work across the Benches to sort it out, even for the short period until recess. I do not want any laughter, but I have a great deal of experience in education. There is no Education Minister, so on a short-term basis, I would be happy to help. [Laughter.] Unpaid! Our constituents would want us to work together across the Benches, to forget these petty politics and to get the Government working again.

    Michael Ellis

    I thank the hon. Gentleman, but his services are not required, because there are a plethora of talented and dedicated individuals on the Government Benches who will serve in the Government.

    Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)

    For many people in Scotland, the outgoing Prime Minister is Westminster personified: backward, unfit for purpose, delusional and in disgrace. Just like the Union that he is the Minister for, the Prime Minister is isolated, broken and bereft of ideas. His time is up. The party is over. Can the Minister tell me whether there will be a leaving do in No. 10 tonight? We will be raising a glass in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill.

    Michael Ellis

    I do not think a serious answer is expected to that frivolous question.

    Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)

    Given that a majority of Government MPs now say that the Prime Minister lacks the integrity and honesty required for that post, can the Minister explain what the basis is for the Prime Minister to stay in post for a further three months?

    Michael Ellis

    I recommend that the hon. Gentleman awaits the statement that is due from the Prime Minister shortly.

    Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)

    The Minister will be aware that our constituents contact us about extremely important matters when they have explored every other avenue to get a resolution to their problems, and we then write to Ministers on their behalf. I am concerned on their behalf about what this situation means, not only for the casework that we have already sent to Ministers, some of which is of extreme importance for people’s health and survival, but for future casework. It is untenable that the Prime Minister should stay on until the autumn, so will the Minister please explain how we can have a situation where there is no functioning Government but the Prime Minister thinks that he can stay on?

    Michael Ellis

    There is a functioning Government and a functioning civil service, which will continue to do its duty in supporting the operation and functionality of the state as it always has.

    Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)

    The Government are telling us not to worry about whether a Government elected with a majority of 80 two years ago can carry on functioning because we have the civil service, but levelling up is a Government priority. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is before the House of Commons at the moment. If the Government are functioning, can the Minister tell us whether the Committee is going ahead in 26 minutes’ time?

    Michael Ellis

    There is a business of the House statement in the usual way, and the hon. Member will be able to ask that question of the Leader of the House of Commons.

    Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)

    The Minister speaks about responsible government, yet we have had nearly three years of totally irresponsible government. My constituents are suffering massively. Surely the moral thing to do is not to look to the constitution, but to go to the country, call a general election and let the people of this country decide—not just on the Prime Minister, but on the rotten lot of bankrupt Government we have had for the past two and a half years since the last election. This is not about the constitution; it is about what the people of this country need. That is responsible government, and they are not going to get it from his side, even with a change of Prime Minister.

    Michael Ellis

    The business of government will continue functioning as the public would expect it to do. I reject the characterisation that the hon. Member makes, and I suspect that the vast majority of the general public in this country would also reject that characterisation.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    The Prime Minister should be making the statement in this House, frankly, not anywhere else, so that we could question him about the functioning of government. I think, Mr Speaker, that you would prefer that as well. Let me just ask the Minister this. There are two major crises at the moment: one is the cost of living crisis, which is facing many millions of families; and the other is the situation in Ukraine and across NATO. There is a real possibility that a Government might have to deploy further troops in the next few months, for proper reasons. A caretaker Government cannot do that—it simply cannot: the rules forbid them from doing that. Yet I fear that this Prime Minister—the disgraced, deselected Prime Minister—will be more dangerous in these next three months, if he is allowed to have another three months, than he has been in the last three years. Can the Minister please make sure that we have a proper Government soon—in other words, before the summer recess?

    Michael Ellis

    We have a proper Government, and proper government continues. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he talks about the cost of living and Ukraine, but I have hardly heard him or his hon. Friends speak of those subjects over the past six months. They have mostly been talking about personalities. It is this Government who have been getting on with the business of representing the United Kingdom in international fora and have led the way on Ukraine and, when it comes to dealing with the global cost of living crisis, having been doing that too.

    Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)

    Wow! What was that response to this urgent question? Is the Minister tired of propping up this Prime Minister and defending the indefensible? Minister, where was your letter? Did it get lost with your backbone?

    Michael Ellis

    I am not answering any questions along those lines.

    Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)

    Today, it appears that a number of Bill Committees on issues of the utmost importance will be cancelled—from national security to levelling up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has raised, and tackling fraud—because there are no Ministers to attend them. The Minister says that the business of the House will continue, but it will not. It obviously is not doing so if Committees are being cancelled. In no other workplace would such crucial work go undone. Can the Minister explain why his Prime Minister and why his party think this is acceptable?

    Michael Ellis

    I say to the hon. Lady, as I have said before, that the legislative business of this House is a matter for the Leader of the House of Commons, who holds a Cabinet position and is in place. He is shortly to have his weekly question-and-answer session in this House, and she will be able to take advantage of that.

    Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)

    The Prime Minister has brought his office into disrepute. Our country should not have to put up with it any longer. Will the Prime Minister be leaving No. 10 this weekend?

    Michael Ellis

    The hon. Member will need to wait for the Prime Minister’s statement later today.

    Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)

    The Times reports this morning of Downing Street being like a bunker with gallows humour. This is no surprise really, given the Prime Minister’s track record. The Prime Minister is now set on staying in post until after the summer. If this happens, is the Minister concerned about what further damage the Prime Minister will do?

    Michael Ellis

    The hon. Member will need to wait for the Prime Minister’s statement later today; I cannot pre-empt what that statement will be.

    Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)

    Away from this place, our constituents are waiting for answers from this Government. My constituents Lisa and Mark Rutherford and Caroline Curry had their precious children taken from them in the Manchester Arena terror attack. Due to archaic legislation, they cannot register their deaths. The Ministry of Justice advised that an answer on a possible change to that legislation was imminent. Given that the Government have collapsed, who will give them an answer and when?

    Michael Ellis

    I am very sorry to hear of the appalling bereavement suffered by the hon. Lady’s constituents; it is an unimaginable loss. I would like her to convey my sympathies, and the sympathies of the entire Government, for that. In answer to her question, the functioning of government continues: the civil service supports Ministers in place, Ministers are in place to support the functioning of necessary government, and that will continue.

    Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)

    May I point out to the Minister that we do in fact have functioning government within the United Kingdom: we have a functioning Government in Edinburgh and we have a functioning Government in the Senedd in Cardiff? Where Government does not function across these islands, in Westminster and in Northern Ireland, they have one thing in common: the dead, malign hand of this Tory Government. What possible confidence can the people of these islands—the people who want to stay in this broken Union and the millions of us who do not—have in who is coming next, because they all stood by and watched what this Prime Minister did for six months or more?

    Michael Ellis

    It is the Westminster Government who represent this country, and the Union of the United Kingdom will continue apace despite the hon. Gentleman’s opposition to it.

    Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)

    The Minister praises the civil service while planning to cut 91,000 of them. I echo his praise, but they cannot be expected to cover for the lack of Ministers or, for that matter, for the British people’s lack of confidence in this dysfunctional Government. So will he say whether the missing Ministers will be replaced, and does he accept that they are all tainted by the prime Minister’s disgrace and that what is needed is a fresh start?

    Michael Ellis

    Ministerial appointments are not a matter for me, but the functioning of government will continue apace.

    Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)

    In 18 minutes I am due to sit on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, as set out on the Order Paper. The Leader of the House will not have been before the House at that point, there are no Ministers, there is no Secretary of State, and there is a Prime Minister in office but not in government, so can the Paymaster General let me know whether that Committee is going ahead—now in 17 minutes—and when it is due to recommence if it is not going ahead then?

    Michael Ellis

    I am unable to answer the hon. Member’s question. The Committees of this House will continue in the normal way of business.

    Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)

    The majority of those who left the Government have referred to the Prime Minister’s lack of integrity, honour, honesty and competence. They surely cannot return to work for such a man, even on a temporary basis. To get a functioning Government, we need a full set of Ministers and we need a swift transition. Will the Paymaster General at least convey that message to No. 10 and to his Cabinet colleagues?

    Michael Ellis

    It is up to each individual to decide how best to serve in Government or not, and the functioning of Government can and will continue. Having spoken this morning to the Cabinet Secretary, I can say that there are a multitude of Ministers and a plethora of items on agendas that will continue to be dealt with, with the support of the civil service, as I have said.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Resignation Statement

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Resignation Statement

    The statement made by Boris Johnson, the outgoing Prime Minister, in Downing Street, London, on 7 July 2022.

    Good afternoon everybody,

    It is now clearly the will of the parliamentary conservative party that there should be a new leader of that party

    and therefore a new Prime Minister

    and I have agreed with Sir Graham Brady

    the chairman of our backbench MPs

    that the process of choosing that new leader should begin now

    and the timetable will be announced next week

    and I have today appointed a cabinet to serve – as I will – until a new leader is in place

    so I want to say to the millions of people who voted for us in 2019 – many of them voting Conservative for the first time

    thank you for that incredible mandate

    the biggest Conservative majority since 1987

    the biggest share of the vote since 1979

    and the reason I have fought so hard for the last few days to continue to deliver that mandate in person

    was not just because I wanted to do so

    but because I felt it was my job, my duty, my obligation to you to continue to do what we promised in 2019

    and of course I am immensely proud of the achievements of this government

    from getting Brexit done and settling our relations with the continent after half a century

    reclaiming the power for this country to make its own laws in parliament

    getting us all through the pandemic

    delivering the fastest vaccine rollout in Europe

    the fastest exit from lockdown

    and in the last few months leading the west in standing up to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine

    and let me say now to the people of Ukraine that I know that we in the UK will continue to back your fight for freedom for as long as it takes

    and at the same time in this country we have at the same time been pushing forward a vast programme of investment in infrastructure, skills and technology

    the biggest for a century

    because if I have one insight into human beings

    it is that genius and talent and enthusiasm and imagination are evenly distributed throughout the population

    but opportunity is not

    and that is why we need to keep levelling up

    keep unleashing the potential of every part of the United Kingdom

    and if we can do that in this country, we will be the most prosperous in Europe

    and in the last few days I have tried to persuade my colleagues that it would be eccentric to change governments

    when we are delivering so much

    and when we have such a vast mandate and when we are actually only a handful of points behind in the polls

    even in mid term after quite a few months of pretty unrelenting sledging

    and when the economic scene is so difficult domestically and internationally

    and I regret not to have been successful in those arguments

    and of course it is painful not to be able to see through so many ideas and projects myself

    but as we’ve seen at Westminster, the herd is powerful and when the herd moves, it moves and

    and my friends in politics no one is remotely indispensable

    And our brilliant and Darwinian system will produce another leader equally committed to taking this country forward through tough times

    not just helping families to get through it but changing and improving our systems, cutting burdens on businesses and families

    and – yes – cutting taxes

    because that is the way to generate the growth and the income we need to pay for great public services

    and to that new leader I say, whoever he or she may be, I will give you as much support as I can

    and to you the British people I know that there will be many who are relieved

    but perhaps quite a few who will be disappointed and I want you to know how sad I am to give up the best job in the world but them’s the breaks.

    I want to thank Carrie and our children, to all the members of my family who have had to put up with so much for so long

    I want to thank the peerless British civil service for all the help and support that you have given

    our police, our emergency services and of course our NHS who at a critical moment helped to extend my own period in office

    as well as our armed services and our agencies that are so admired around the world and

    I want to thank the wonderful staff here at Number Ten and of course at chequers and our fantastic protection force detectives – the one group, by the way, who never leak

    and above all I want to thank you the British public for the immense privilege you have given me

    and I want you to know that from now until the new Prime Minister is in place, your interests will be served and the government of the country will be carried on

    Being Prime Minister is an education in itself

    I have travelled to every part of the United Kingdom and in addition to the beauty of our natural world

    I have found so many people possessed of such boundless British originality and so willing to tackle old problems in new ways that I know that even if things can sometimes seem dark now, our future together is golden.

    Thank you all very much.

  • Dominic Cummings – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson’s Departure

    Dominic Cummings – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson’s Departure

    The comments made by Dominic Cummings on Twitter on 7 July 2022.

    I know that guy & I’m telling you -he doesn’t think it’s over, he’s thinking ‘there’s a war, weird shit happens in a war, play for time play for time, I can still get out of this, I got a mandate, members love me, get to September…’

    If MPs leave him in situ there’ll be CARNAGE

  • James Cartlidge – 2022 Letter of Resignation as Courts Minister

    James Cartlidge – 2022 Letter of Resignation as Courts Minister

    The letter of resignation sent by James Cartlidge, the Courts Minister, on 7 July 2022.