Category: Parliament

  • Graham Brady – 2022 Statement Confirming Vote of No Confidence in Boris Johnson

    Graham Brady – 2022 Statement Confirming Vote of No Confidence in Boris Johnson

    The statement made by Graham Brady, the chair of the 1922 Committee, on 6 June 2022.

    The threshold of 15% of the parliamentary party seeking a vote of confidence in the leader of the Conservative Party has been exceeded.

    In accordance with the rules, a ballot will be held between 1800 and 2000 on Monday 6 June, details to be confirmed. The votes will be counted immediately afterwards. An announcement will be made at a time to be advised. Arrangements for the announcement will be released later today.

  • Tobias Ellwood – 2022 Speech on the Sue Gray Report

    Tobias Ellwood – 2022 Speech on the Sue Gray Report

    The speech made by Tobias Ellwood, the Conservative MP for Bournemouth East, in the House of Commons on 25 May 2022.

    This is a damning report about the absence of leadership, focus and discipline in No. 10, the one place where we expect to find those attributes in abundance. I have made my position very clear to the Prime Minister: he does not have my support. A question I humbly put to my colleagues is: are you willing, day in day out, to defend this behaviour publicly? Can we continue to govern without distraction, given the erosion of the trust of the British people? And can we win a general election on this trajectory?

    The question I place to the Prime Minister now—[Interruption.] I am being heckled by my own people. If we cannot work out what we are going to do, the broad church of the Conservative party will lose the next general election. My question to the Prime Minister is very clear: on the question of leadership, can he think of any other Prime Minister who would have allowed such a culture of indiscipline to take place on their watch? And if they did, would they not have resigned?

  • Ian Blackford – 2022 Speech on the Sue Gray Report

    Ian Blackford – 2022 Speech on the Sue Gray Report

    The speech made by Ian Blackford, the SNP MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, in the House of Commons on 25 May 2022.

    As I speak, the public are poring over the sordid detail of what went on—out of the public eye, behind the high gates and walls of the Prime Minister’s residence. The report is damning. It concludes that many gatherings and many individuals did not adhere to covid guidance; that

    “events…were attended by leaders in government”

    and

    “should not have been allowed to happen”;

    that

    “junior civil servants believed that their involvement…was permitted given the attendance of senior leaders”;

    that there was an “unacceptable”

    “lack of respect and poor treatment of security and cleaning staff”;

    and, crucially, that:

    “The senior leadership at the centre, both political and official, must bear responsibility for this culture.”

    That leadership came from the top, and the Prime Minister—in the words of the report—must bear responsibility for the culture. A fish rots from the head.

    The Prime Minister’s Dispatch Box denial of a party taking place on 13 November is now proven to be untrue. He was there on 13 November, photographed, raising a toast, surrounded by gin, wine, and other revellers. The charge of misleading Parliament is a resignation matter; will the Prime Minister now finally resign?

    This Prime Minister has adopted a systematic, concerted and sinister pattern of evasion. Truthfulness, honesty and transparency do not enter his vocabulary. That is just not part of his way of being, and it speaks for the type of man that he is. Credibility, truth and morality all matter, and the Prime Minister has been found lacking, time and again.

    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

    Ian Blackford

    The Prime Minister can shake his head, but that is the reality. Ethics have to be part of our public life, and ethical behaviour has to be at the core of the demeanour and the response of any Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister brings shame on the office, and has displayed contempt, not only to the Members of this House but to every single person who followed the rules—those who stayed away from family, those who missed funerals, those who lost someone they loved. So I hope that when Tory Members retire to the 1922 Committee this evening, they will bear in mind the now infamous Government advertisement featuring a desperately ill covid patient. It says:

    “Look her in the eyes and tell her you never bend the rules.”

    If those Tory Members do not submit a letter—if they do not remove this Prime Minister—how will they ever look their constituents in the eye again?

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on the Sue Gray Report

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on the Sue Gray Report

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 25 May 2022.

    The door of No. 10 Downing Street is one of the great symbols of our democracy. Those who live behind it exercise great power, but they do so knowing that their stay is temporary. Long after they have gone, that door and the democracy it represents will remain firm and unyielding. But Britain’s constitution is fragile. It relies on Members of this House and the custodians of No. 10 behaving responsibly, honestly and in the interests of the British people. When our leaders fall short of those standards, this House has to act.

    For months, Conservative Members have asked the country to wait—first for the police investigation, which concluded that this Prime Minister is the first in our country’s history to have broken the law in office, and then for the Sue Gray report. They need wait no longer. That report lays bare the rot that, under this Prime Minister, has spread in No. 10, and it provides definitive proof of how those within the building treated the sacrifices of the British people with utter contempt. When the dust settles and the anger subsides, this report will stand as a monument to the hubris and arrogance of a Government who believed it was one rule for them, and another rule for everyone else.

    The details are stark. Five months ago, the Prime Minister told this House that all guidance was completely followed in No. 10, yet we now know he attended events on 17 December. At least one of those attending has received a fine for it, deeming it illegal. We know that on 18 December, an event was held in which staff “drank excessively”, which others in the building described as a “party”, and that cleaners were left to mop up the red wine the next day. On 20 May, as a covid press conference was taking place, one of the Prime Minister’s senior officials was told, “Be mindful; cameras are leaving. Don’t walk about waving bottles.”

    It is now impossible to defend the Prime Minister’s words to this House. This is about trust. During that 20 May press conference, the British public were told that normal life as we know it was a long way off, but that was not the case in No. 10. Even now, after 126 fines, they think it is everyone else’s fault but theirs. They expect others to take the blame while they cling on. They pretend that the Prime Minister has somehow been exonerated, as if the fact that he only broke the law once is worthy of praise. The truth is that they set the bar for his conduct lower than a snake’s belly, and now they expect the rest of us to congratulate him as he stumbles over it.

    No. 10 symbolises the principles of public life in this country: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. But who could read this report and honestly believe that the Prime Minister has upheld those standards? The reason the British public have had to endure this farce was his refusal to admit the truth or do the decent thing when he was found to have broken the law. This report was necessary because of what Sue Gray describes as

    “failures of leadership and judgment”,

    for which senior political leadership “must bear responsibility”. It is that failure of leadership that has now left his Government paralysed in the middle of a cost of living crisis. The Prime Minister has turned the focus of his Government to saving his own skin. It is utterly shameful. It is precisely because he cannot lead that it falls to others to do so. I have been clear what leadership looks like. [Interruption.] I have not broken any rules, and any attempt—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. Can I just calm it down? Quite rightly, I wanted to hear the Prime Minister; the same goes for the Leader of the Opposition. Those who do not wish to hear, please go and have a cup of tea or something.

    Keir Starmer

    I have been clear what leadership looks like. I have not broken any rules, and any attempt to compare a perfectly legal takeaway while working to this catalogue of criminality looks even more ridiculous today, but if the police decide otherwise, I will do the decent thing and step down. The public need to know that not all politicians are the same—that not all politicians put themselves above their country—and that honesty, integrity and accountability matter.

    Conservative Members now also need to show leadership. This Prime Minister is steering the country in the wrong direction. Conservative Members can hide in the back seat, eyes covered, praying for a miracle, or they can act to stop this out-of-touch, out-of-control Prime Minister driving Britain towards disaster. We waited for the Sue Gray report. The country cannot wait any longer. The values symbolised by the door of No. 10 must be restored. Conservative Members must finally do their bit. They must tell the current inhabitant, their leader, that this has gone on too long. The game is up. You cannot be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker, and it is time to pack his bags. Only then can the Government function again. Only then can the rot be carved out. Only then can we restore the dignity of that great office and the democracy that it represents.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Statement on the Sue Gray Report

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Statement on the Sue Gray Report

    The statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons, on 25 May 2022.

    With permission, I will make a statement, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to Sue Gray for her report today, and I want to thank her for the work that she has done. I also thank the Metropolitan police for completing its investigation.

    I want to begin today by renewing my apology to the House and to the whole country for the short lunchtime gathering on 19 June 2020 in the Cabinet Room, during which I stood at my place at the Cabinet table and for which I received a fixed penalty notice. I also want to say, above all, that I take full responsibility for everything that took place on my watch. Sue Gray’s report has emphasised that it is up to the political leadership in No. 10 to take ultimate responsibility, and, of course, I do. But since these investigations have now come to an end, this is my first opportunity to set out some of the context, and to explain both my understanding of what happened and what I have previously said to the House.

    It is important to set out that over a period of about 600 days, gatherings on a total of eight dates have been found to be in breach of the regulations in a building that is 5,300 metres square across five floors, excluding the flats—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I do think this is important, because it is the first chance I have had to set out the context.

    Hundreds of staff are entitled to work there, and the Cabinet Office, which has thousands of officials, is now the biggest that it has been at any point in its 100-year history. That is, in itself, one of the reasons why the Government are now looking for change and reform.

    Those staff working in Downing Street were permitted to continue attending their office for the purpose of work, and the exemption under the regulations applied to their work because of the nature of their jobs, reporting directly to the Prime Minister. These people were working extremely long hours, doing their best to give this country the ability to fight the pandemic during—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I appreciate that this is no mitigation, but it is important to set out the context.

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I appeal to the House: I expect the statement to be heard, and I want everybody to hear it. I want the same respect to be shown to the Leader of the Opposition afterwards. Please: this is a very important statement. The country wants to hear it as well.

    The Prime Minister

    Mr Speaker, I am trying to set out the context, not to mitigate or to absolve myself in any way.

    The exemption under which those staff were present in Downing Street includes circumstances where officials and advisers were leaving the Government, and it was appropriate to recognise them and to thank them for the work that they have done. [Interruption.] Let me come to that, Mr Speaker. I briefly attended such gatherings to thank them for their service—which I believe is one of the essential duties of leadership, and is particularly important when people need to feel that their contributions have been appreciated—and to keep morale as high as possible. [Interruption.] I am trying to explain the reasons why I was there, Mr Speaker.

    It is clear from what Sue Gray has had to say that some of these gatherings then went on far longer than was necessary. They were clearly in breach of the rules, and they fell foul of the rules. I have to tell the House, because the House will need to know this—again, this is not to mitigate or to extenuate—that I had no knowledge of subsequent proceedings, because I simply was not there, and I have been as surprised and disappointed as anyone else in this House as the revelations have unfolded. Frankly, I have been appalled by some of the behaviour, particularly in the treatment of the security and the cleaning staff. I would like to apologise to those members of staff, and I expect anyone who behaved in that way to apologise to them as well.

    I am happy to set on the record now that when I came to this House and said in all sincerity that the rules and guidance had been followed at all times, it was what I believed to be true. It was certainly the case when I was present at gatherings to wish staff farewell—the House will note that my attendance at these moments, brief as it was, has not been found to be outside the rules—but clearly this was not the case for some of those gatherings after I had left, and at other gatherings when I was not even in the building. So I would like to correct the record—to take this opportunity, not in any sense to absolve myself of responsibility, which I take and have always taken, but simply to explain why I spoke as I did in this House.

    In response to her interim report, Sue Gray acknowledges that very significant changes have already been enacted. She writes:

    “I am pleased progress is being made in addressing the issues I raised.”

    She adds:

    “Since my update there have been changes to the organisation and management of Downing Street and the Cabinet Office with the aim of creating clearer lines of leadership and accountability and now these need the chance and time to bed in.”

    No. 10 now has its own permanent secretary, charged with applying the highest standards of governance. There are now easier ways for staff to voice any worries, and Sue Gray welcomes the fact that

    “steps have since been taken to introduce more easily accessible means by which to raise concerns electronically, in person or online, including directly with the Permanent Secretary”.

    The entire senior management has changed. There is a new chief of staff, an elected Member of this House who commands the status of a Cabinet Minister. There is a new director of communications, a new principal private secretary and a number of other key appointments in my office. I am confident, with the changes and new structures that are now in place, that we are humbled by the experience and we have learned our lesson.

    I want to conclude by saying that I am humbled, and I have learned a lesson. Whatever the failings—[Interruption.] We will come to that. Whatever the failings of No. 10 and the Cabinet Office throughout this very difficult period—[Interruption.] And my own, for which I take full responsibility. I continue to believe that the civil servants and advisers in question—hundreds of them, thousands of them, some of whom are the very people who have received fines—are good, hard-working people, motivated by the highest calling to do the very best for our country. I will always be proud of what they achieved, including procuring essential life-saving personal protective equipment, creating the biggest testing programme in Europe and helping to enable the development and distribution of the vaccine that got this country through the worst pandemic of a century.

    Now we must get our country through the aftershocks of covid with every ounce of ingenuity, compassion and hard work. I hope that today, as well as learning the lessons from Sue Gray’s report, which I am glad I commissioned—I am grateful to her—we will be able to move on and focus on the priorities of the British people: standing firm against Russian aggression; easing the hardship caused by the rising costs that people are facing; and fulfilling our pledges to generate a high-wage, high-skill, high-employment economy that will unite and level up across the whole of our United Kingdom. That is my mission, that is our mission, that is the mission of the whole Government, and we will work day and night to deliver it. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2022 Comments on Downing Street Parties

    Rishi Sunak – 2022 Comments on Downing Street Parties

    The comments made by Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 25 May 2022.

    I’m grateful to Sue Gray for her report and I sincerely repeat my apologies for the event I received a fine for.

    The Prime Minister has apologised and lessons have been learned. I hope we can now move forward and continue delivering for the British people.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments Calling for the Resignation of the Prime Minister

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments Calling for the Resignation of the Prime Minister

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 25 May 2022.

    The door of 10 Downing Street is one of the great symbols of British democracy. A democracy which relies on the principles of honesty and integrity. Its current inhabitant has failed to uphold these principles. Boris Johnson must go.

  • Mark Spencer – 2022 Statement on a Review of Legislative Drafting

    Mark Spencer – 2022 Statement on a Review of Legislative Drafting

    The statement made by Mark Spencer, the Leader of the House of Commons, on 23 May 2022.

    During the passage of the Ministerial and Other Maternity Allowances Bill, significant concern was expressed in both Houses about the Bill’s use of gender-neutral language in the context of pregnancy and childbirth. The Bill was amended so that gender-neutral nouns— for example “person”—were replaced with gendered ones—for example “mother” and “expectant mother”.

    Ministers committed to consider and review the Government’s approach to drafting legislation on subjects that prompt these questions around language. The most obvious area is legislation relating to pregnancy or childbirth, but there will be other areas where similar issues arise. Ministers emphasised that “we must not countenance the erasure of women from our public discourse or our legislation”—Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2021, Col. 961.

    Ministers also note that, academics writing in the journal, Frontiers in Global Women’s Health have warned of potential “adverse health consequences and deeper and more insidious discrimination against women” from de-gendered language such as “pregnant people”.

    Previous context on stereotyping

    In 2007, as recorded in the Official Report, 8 March 2007, col. 146WS, the then Labour Government stated their intention to draft legislation to avoid rigid stereotypes that only men could hold positions of authority. The approach adopted was to avoid the use of male pronouns on their own in contexts where a reference to women and men is intended. This Government agree with that approach. This statement addresses the separate issues of when it is appropriate to use gendered nouns such as “woman” and “mother”.

    Each Bill is brought forward on its own merits and is drafted in a way to ensure legal clarity and in order to fulfil the Bill’s policy intent. Ministers believe it can be appropriate to use sex-specific language in legislation where such language delivers the desired policy outcome. This may include, for example, legislation which relates to the needs of men and women respectively, or areas of policy where biological sex is a relevant or pertinent concept. For example, the School Premises (England) Regulations 2012 explicitly require separate toilet facilities in schools for boys and for girls. This is different from the desire to avoid stereotypes on positions of authority.

    Guidance moving forward

    When drafting a Bill it is necessary to take into account the fact that a person may change their legal sex by obtaining a gender recognition certificate. The effect of section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 is that a reference to a “woman” in legislation, without more, will include someone who is a woman by virtue of a certificate and will not include someone who is a man by virtue of a certificate. In some cases, this might be the desired result but in others it might not.

    Ministers are aware that there is, in some quarters, opposition to section 9 of the 2004 Act. However, that provision is the law and so drafting practice must take it into account. This, however, does not mean that sex-specific language cannot be used.

    A number of drafting approaches are available to deliver the desired policy outcome while still using sex-specific language. One approach is to use sex-specific language to refer to the main case—for example “women”, with the addition of further wording so that the provision also has the desired policy outcome for less common cases.

    Other drafting options include using sex-specific language and then disapplying section 9 of the 2004 Act, something that is envisaged in section 9(3) of the Act, or using sex-specific language for both cases—for example “woman or man”. Sometimes an ungendered noun will be appropriate, even in contexts in which sex is relevant. For example, someone undergoing a medical procedure might still be referred to as a “patient”.

    The drafting approach in any case also needs to take account of the pre-existing legislative context. An amendment of an existing Act that uses gender-neutral nouns might need to do the same; and an amendment of an older Act that uses gendered nouns in a way that would be interpreted as covering both sexes might adopt the approach of the older Act.

    The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel will update its drafting guidance in light of this ministerial statement and steer.

    Dignity, tolerance and respect

    This statement should be read alongside the comments of the Prime Minister of 23 March 2022, Official Report, column 334: “We must recognise that when people want to make a transition in their lives, they should be treated with the maximum possible generosity and respect. We have systems in this country that allow that and have done for a long time, we should be very proud of that, but I want to say in addition that I think, when it comes to distinguishing between a man and a woman, the basic facts of biology remain overwhelmingly important.”

    We believe that this statement sets out a common-sense and practical approach to ensure dignity, tolerance and respect for everyone. It will help champion the broader cause of equality by continuing to recognise the different needs and experiences of both men and women in our society.

  • Sir John Major – 2022 Speech at Newcastle Cathedral

    Sir John Major – 2022 Speech at Newcastle Cathedral

    The speech made by Sir John Major at the National Cathedrals Conference held at Newcastle Cathedral on Monday 16 May 2022.

    DIFFERENT COUNTRY, DIFFERENT CHURCH

    The theme of your Conference – “Different Country, Different Church” – is our national story through the ages. Both Church and Country have always evolved, but rarely as fast as now. I am now out of public life, away from partisan influences but, as an observer, would like to offer some thoughts about our future.

    THE CHURCH

    Firstly, the Church.

    Our Church faces many dilemmas, in a society that has grown to distrust authority, and is drifting to secularity.

    There are those in our nation who prize celebrity, wealth and fame more than values once believed to be inviolate.

    This cultural change presents an extraordinary challenge to a Church that does have eternal values: it is both a threat and an opportunity. But – if the opportunity is to be taken – the Church must be bold in its actions, and outspoken about its concerns.

    My father was elderly when I was born and, from the time I was nine years old, mostly bedridden. My mother cared for him, and rarely left our home.

    But the Church came to us in the form of our local Vicar, the kind and gentle J. Franklin Cheyne. My elderly and sick parents lived by the precept that God was in our house every day, and so we had no need to attend his once a week.

    This was a trite and self-serving excuse, but The Reverend Cheyne smiled and taught me, as a boy, that our Church is greater than the size of its congregations. People who are not regular church-goers can still – and do – live by Christian principles.

    Some people turn away from religion because, as someone put it to me, “Science is daily destroying the biblical bases of faith”.

    But science can’t replace faith. It can’t remove the hope and the comfort that a “Perfect Being” can exist. This is a belief shared with other faiths. Man will cling to that hope, until the last of our kind is extinct.

    The Reverend Cheyne told me that: “The best argument”, for Christ’s divinity, “is that without the support of secular power, he changed the whole world”. So he did – so far, for two thousand years. No military conqueror has ever made such a mark on our lives – nor ever will.

    And if biblical stories, often in parable form, seem unrealistic to our modern ears, the lessons they teach, and the ideals they preach, are not: they continue to appeal to the better selves within us. They are a protection against the worst our material world can throw at us.

    “The Kingdom of God”, we are told, “is within you.” We should be grateful for that: the alternative is selfishness, disorder and the advance of savagery.

    In our world of change, the Church offers stability. Many changes are beneficial – but not all of them. Sometimes change leaves values behind.

    And, in the bustle of change, where stands happiness? What value is put on peace of mind?

    Should we stand by silently when vile opinion is lauded; when truth is disposable: when authority is mocked; when tradition is trashed; when bad men hold sway in many countries?

    I think not. It may be unfashionable to speak of values, but it should not be. They should never be cast aside.

    Our churches today may be fewer in number, and less full than in years past, but their pulpits still have a distinctive voice.

    Millions of people wish to hear that voice used loudly, clearly, and often – either to uplift hearts and smooth away despair or, where necessary, to speak out on issues that depress or oppress our fellow citizens.

    A single voice can easily be shouted down – but the Church cannot.

    Some argue that the Church should “keep out of politics”, and stick to promoting faith and filling their pews. If by “politics” the critics mean partisan Party politics, I agree. But if they mean politics in its wider sense, then I do not agree.

    The Church mustn’t be pushed into the side lines of life. It must be alive in our communities. In our discourse. In our daily concerns. Politics is about how we live.

    That cannot – and should not – be ignored by the Church.

    Is not the state of our nation – politics? Are not our values – politics? How can it possibly be argued that the Church should be silent on these issues?

    Is not poverty about politics? Yes, it is – and surely the Church must speak about that too. Jesus most certainly did.

    And, if any part of our nation is lost or forgotten by authority, then surely the Church should be a voice for the weak and the voiceless.

    And, above all, the Church must remain the ultimate sanctuary for those in despair who – in our modern world – are many in number.

    What we are as a nation, and what we stand for, is a legitimate issue for the voice of the Church to be heard, and that voice must carry to the faithless as well as the faithful.

    But, if it is to deliver its message, the Church cannot ignore its own problems. I won’t trespass upon matters of conscience, only on practical issues.

    Many parishes face financial challenges, and there is doubt around whether a nationwide parochial system can be sustained.

    It is a herculean task. The Church of England – with its Cathedrals and Parish Churches – is responsible for a very large part of our architectural and cultural heritage, including no less than 45% of all Grade 1 listed buildings.

    The lion’s share of the cost of maintaining this huge community asset falls on the diminishing number of regular worshippers. This is unjust.

    Some argue that it may be necessary to close churches, reduce the number of stipendiary clergy, and sell assets. I do hope not.

    It would be a grim outlook, and I hope Christians will rally to prevent it. Churches are not only part of our lives – they are also an important part of our landscape. If lost, we would all be the poorer. And by “we” I don’t mean church-goers only – I mean everyone.

    I live in Eastern England, and John Betjeman’s famous lines come to mind:

    “What would you be, you wide East Anglian sky
    Without church towers to recognise you by?”

    Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, the Church is always there when needed. And it is more than a place of worship. It is where we may seek the comfort of community; of companionship; of solace – and of sanctuary.

    Often silently, perhaps subliminally, the Church is a guide to our lives and our conscience.

    We should be grateful that it is, and do everything we can to protect its place in our society.

    OUR COUNTRY

    Let me turn to the future of our country.

    First, I should set out some context. We are an island geographically, but in no other way. Our lives are inter-connected with, and affected by, the wider world. We have alliances for security, and trade deals for economic welfare.

    At the moment, our world is not in a state of grace: not every nation is led by men or women of good intent. Democracy has fallen back: freedom – or freedom of religion – has not grown and spread as we would wish.

    We live in uncertain times. Times in which – if good men are complacent – bad men will take advantage.

    In countries where democracy is absent, or weak – or merely under strain – nationalist and populist sentiment has taken root, and grown. Populism is self-interested and can be unscrupulous.

    It makes promises that can’t be kept; creates division; scapegoats minorities; and controls or threatens or undermines the judiciary.

    Populist leaders favour obedience over ability. Acolytes and sycophants are rewarded. Dissenters are abused and crushed. Where possible, the electoral system is perverted.

    All this is a corruption of a free society, and even the strongest democracy must guard against it.

    In our country, we view authoritarian governments with distaste and rejection. They are alien to our way of life and our instincts for freedom. But not everyone feels the same.

    People know that authoritarian rule can bring tyranny and a loss of freedom. But millions also see that economic growth in China – with her long history of autocratic rule – has improved living standards more rapidly than in any democracy.

    To those who are hungry or oppressed, or homeless, or jobless, that is attractive. If their bellies are full, and there are clothes upon their backs, their lives are improving – and millions prize that above the individual freedoms that characterise the Western democracies.

    Nor are democracies always their own best advocates. In America, the Statue of Liberty bears the inspiring inscription “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses”. For generations America accepted migrants. More recently, they built a wall to keep them out.

    In England, in 1763, Lord Chancellor Henley said: “If a man steps foot in England, he is a free man.” Today, under the pressure of numbers, if that man is a refugee in a rubber boat he receives a chilly welcome, and the threat of deportation to Rwanda.

    I cannot believe that is the right way forward: such a policy is not a moral advance, and I hope the Government will look again.

    We need a policy that is Europe-wide, to contain people smuggling, and help the miserable and unfortunate victims of this trade.

    I do understand the Government’s difficulties, which are real. But – however you look at this policy – it is wrong to forcibly transport people to a far-away land, when all that most are seeking is a better life.

    I hope – in their own interests – the whole Cabinet will reject this policy. If they do not, they will stain not only their own reputation, but that of the entire Government – and, most of all, our country – for a very long time.

    Our shortcomings may be far less than others, but pragmatic self-interest tells us that we cannot simply ignore autocracies: on arms control; on climate change; on counter terrorism; democracies and autocracies must work together or we will all lose.

    The more we divide into tribes, the more likely it is we will come to blows.

    Thirty years ago, we glimpsed a better world. The Soviet Union imploded. Germany re-united. Apartheid ended. Democracy spread across Eastern Europe. The Liberal Order was dominant.

    It looked as though our values of democracy – of freedom of thought and deed – had won the battle of ideas, and that our way of life would become accepted as the general ideal. It was a time of hope.

    We were naïve. Complacent. Wrong. We forgot the human capacity for folly. We see that now in Ukraine. Freedom needs eternal vigilance. Democracy has to be protected.

    If it is not, it can be overwhelmed – value by value, freedom by freedom, country by country.

    * * * * *

    In the UK, two blockbusting events will affect our future: Brexit and Covid.

    Brexit has not presented Britain’s best face to the world. It is our modern day break with Rome – in this instance, the Treaty of Rome – and it will take years for all the implications to become apparent. Some will be positive; far more will not.

    Some applaud Brexit for reasons of democracy and sovereignty. Others deplore it on economic and social grounds. The debate was rancorous, and factually dubious.

    Brexit divided our four nations and our politics, as well as family from family, and friend from friend. If Scotland and Northern Ireland secede from the UK, Brexit must bear a part of that blame.

    The severity of Covid was surpassed only by Spanish Flu a century ago. Like Brexit, Covid was enormously expensive.

    I have made no secret that I believe that leaving the European Union will – indeed, has – weakened our country and damaged our future. But I am a realist.

    It may not be conceivable to re-enter the Union for many years.

    An early attempt to do so would fail, and worsen the ruptures in our national politics system. Nor could we re-join upon the favourable terms we once enjoyed.

    But attitudes to Europe may change when today’s young, in due time, govern our nation. All the evidence suggests they are overwhelmingly pro-European.

    If the promised benefits of leaving continue to be elusive – if not all-but-invisible – their resolve to re-join may be strengthened.

    Until then, we must try to restore links with our neighbours where it is sensible to do so, and otherwise live with the consequences of our referendum decision.

    Brexit is emphatically not done. The effects of breaking away from the richest free trade market in history will seep out, year upon year, for a very long time.

    As for Covid, the Government acted boldly in setting up furlough payments; and swiftly to ensure the vaccine roll-out.

    But there remain valid questions to be answered about advice to the public; wasteful expenditure; a lack of control over fraud; the decision to transfer elderly patients from hospital to care homes; and the slipshod manner of awarding Covid-related contracts.

    A Public Inquiry has been promised, and should not be delayed. At the very least, the country deserves an interim Report within this Parliament.

    Between them, Brexit and Covid have driven our national debt to previously unknown heights.

    The cost of Covid is estimated as equivalent to one quarter of the total cost of the Second World War. Over time, estimates suggest that the cost of Brexit could be higher yet.

    It took decades to repay the debts of War, and it will take many years to repay the cost of Brexit and Covid.

    This raises an unwelcome question. How can we pay for future policy ambitions? Demography ensures that the mega-budgets – of health, education, and social care – will increase year on year. Our national security ensures that the cost of defence will rise too.

    So will the costs of climate change, and the plans to “level up” communities to end historic injustices.

    Some people deny the existence of climate change with the same fervour with which our predecessors once insisted the world was flat.

    But the evidence can’t be put aside.

    Sea levels are rising on over 70% of the earth’s surface. Storms, hurricanes and floods are increasing in number and severity. The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Across the globe, the weather is freakily unpredictable.

    We are losing whole species of plants, animals, insects. We all know the litany.

    Can we ignore this? No. Can any one nation overcome this alone? No, again. Dare we leave this for the next generation? No. It would be wrong in principle and – in any event – it may, by then, be too late, and the burden too great.

    *****

    Nor can “Levelling Up” be ignored. There are serious inequalities in our United Kingdom.

    For many years, Governments comforted themselves that – if our country was doing well – wealth would “trickle down” to lift up the poorest: it hasn’t done so. Of course, there has been improvement – but not enough.
    In times of austerity, we are told that we are “all in it together”. If so, then logically, we should “all be in it together” in times of prosperity.

    I hope the Government will devise a policy that encourages “trickle down” and shares national growth more fairly.

    Don’t misunderstand me. I certainly don’t favour some “bash the rich” policy. Wealth in our country is important to us all. We should welcome investors and innovators – as job creators, as philanthropists, as tax-payers.

    But, as a nation, we must be fairer in distributing the fruits of national growth.

    You will all remember the “key” workers, for whom we stood applauding on our doorsteps during the Covid crisis. They were mostly poorly paid. There was no “trickle down” to them – and yet it was they upon whom we relied in a crisis.

    Our values need “Levelling Up” as well as our communities.

    But we must be realistic. “Levelling Up” will take many Parliaments to complete, and will only succeed if future governments buy into the concept and the cost.

    How can all this be paid for? There are options.

    It could, over time, be met by above average growth in our economy. This is possible, but cannot be relied upon.

    If growth is insufficient, which experience suggests is probable, the cost can only be met by higher taxes, or more borrowing or cuts in other budgets.

    It is an unwelcome truth that lower taxes for everyone – and higher spending – do not go together. Hard choices must be made.

    And some hard choices must be made without delay, as inflation rises – especially on food and fuel – while growth falls, and stagflation threatens.

    Many people will be utterly unable to meet the bills that lie ahead. Help must come. And I hope it will come soon.

    As it does, it will help bring trust and respect back to our politics: electors must have trust in The State, The Government, and the independence and impartiality of The Law.

    But, if the nation is to be loyal to The State, The State must be loyal to the people – and that is why the provision of quality public services is so important.

    Everyone needs to believe that The State cares about them – and not just the interests of the powerful, the motivators, and the elite.

    If the streets are unsafe, do the people who live in them believe The State is invested in them?

    If the week lasts longer than the money, do the penniless believe The State cares about them?

    If children attend a poor school, with disillusioned teachers, do the children or the teachers feel protected and valued by The State? It is so important that they do.

    In our democracy we rely upon one another in nearly every aspect of our lives. We need to respect and protect those with whom we share a common dependence.

    * * * * *

    There is much that is good in our way of life that no previous generation has enjoyed. Personally, I know of nowhere else I would prefer to live.

    Every day, medical science is improving treatment of cancer and blood diseases. New knees and new hips can help those crippled with pain. The cure of cataracts can restore sight.

    Hope is on the horizon for sufferers of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s – not an outright cure, perhaps, but an ability to diagnose them early, and stop them in their tracks.

    We are not short of good Samaritans. The caring professions do not walk by on the other side. Nor do the millions who work for charities, or volunteer for them, or donate to them.

    There is hope in two irresistible social changes. The rise of women to prominence in nearly every field of endeavour is as staggering as it is overdue.

    We are, at last, utilising the skills of half our nation that were hidden away for far too long.

    It is odd, isn’t it? Throughout the ages men have trusted our most treasured possessions – our children – to women. But we have not trusted women to contribute more widely to society and, at times, have positively prevented them from doing so.

    Yet they bring a moderating and restraining force, to a world that is in need of these attributes.

    There is another human influence I wish to mention as an overall force for good: the young. They have grown up in a different world to their elders. They think differently. They are unburdened by old shibboleths.

    We may be wary of their music. Their dress-down style. Their habit of cutting holes in the knees of new jeans for the sake of fashion. I have no doubt that past generations have baffled their parents in similar ways.

    The legacy we leave our young includes many difficulties but – from all I have seen – this is a good generation. I have high hopes for them.

    I have enough confidence to believe that, however much longer I live, my country will be in very good hands with our young.

    And, beyond that – for me, as a Christian – the greatest consolation is that … one day … I shall be in better hands still.

    Both our Country and our Church are more precious to our very being than most either acknowledge or realise. Are they “Different” now than in the past? Yes. Will they be “Different” in the future? Of course. For – as the world around us changes – so, too, will they.

    But our Country and our Church are eternal. And my hope is they will always remain shining beacons of goodness and decency in a world that – at the moment – is badly in need of both.

  • Mark Spencer – 2022 Statement on the Government’s Legislative Programme

    Mark Spencer – 2022 Statement on the Government’s Legislative Programme

    The statement made by Mark Spencer, the Leader of the House of Commons, on 11 May 2022.

    Following the state opening of Parliament, and for the convenience of the House, I am listing the Bills that were announced:

    Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill

    Bill of Rights

    Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions Bill

    Brexit Freedoms Bill

    Conversion Therapy Bill

    Data Reform Bill

    Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

    Energy Security Bill

    Financial Services and Markets Bill

    Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

    Harbours (Seafarers’ Remuneration) Bill

    High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill

    Higher Education Bill

    Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

    Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill

    Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill

    Media Bill

    Modern Slavery Bill

    National Security Bill

    Non-Domestic Ratings Bill

    Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill Online Safety Bill Procurement Bill

    Products Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

    Public Order Bill

    Renters Reform Bill Schools Bill

    Social Housing Regulation Bill

    Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill

    Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

    Transport Bill

    UK Infrastructure Bank Bill

    The programme will also include Finance Bills to implement budget policy decisions. This list does not include draft Bills or Law Commission Bills.

    Detailed information about each of these Bills can be accessed from the gov.uk website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/queens-speech-2022-background-briefing-notes.